文化含义词的翻译

ON TRANSLATION OF CULTURALLY-LOADED
WORDS
By
Ding Zhen
June, 2010
Xiaogan University
Abstract
Translation is the communication between two different cultures as well as between English and Chinese language. Culturally-loaded words reflect the history, political system, geographical location, religious belief, social customs and value system of certain culture. It is hard to achieve complete equivalence in terms of culturally-loaded words, which thus become the main obstacle in intercultural communication. It is significant to translate culturally-loaded words. The paper aims to explore translating strategies of culture-loaded words on the basis of the classification of such words by Zhou Zhipei and the Functional Equivalence raised by Eugeue A. Nida. By shifting the focus of translation theory from the traditional dispute about the form versus content and literal versus free to the issue of receptors‟response, Functional Equivalence make contributions to the theory and practice of translating, which essentially applies to culturally-loaded words translation. It puts emphasis on the spirit and meaning of the original in the receptor language as well as preservation of the form as possible as the translator can, thus reproducing in the receptor language in the closest natural equivalence of the source-language message. The rendering is not merely understandable and acceptable and it retains the cultural characteristics as much as possible but also achieves the substantially the same readers‟response in target-language text as original receptors. So the translation of culturally-loaded words will convey the cultural elements and varied expressions and in turn enrich the target language, realizing the true culture communication. With no exception, functional equivalence has its limitations and deficiency. For the length of the paper, here it will be not discussed further.
Key words: Culturally-loaded words;Translation; Functional Equivalence
文化含义词的翻译
摘要
翻译不仅是语言的转换，更是文化之间的交流。

文化含义词集中反映或表达着某个民族独特的发展历史、社会制度、地理环境、宗教信仰、民情风俗，价值体系等。

这一特殊性使文化含义词很难找到完全对等的表达法，成为信息传递的障碍。

因此，文化含义词的翻译具有重要意义。

本文旨在依据周培志对文化含义词的分类和尤金·奈达提出的功能对等翻译原则，探讨文化含义词的翻译策略。

功能对等（即动态对等）把传统的形式与内容之争，直译与意译之争转化为以读者为中心，对于指导翻译文化含义词具有重要意义。

它着眼与原文的精神和意义，同时尽可能的兼顾其形式，用最贴切而自然的对等语再现原语信息，便于读者接受和理解，还保留了文化含义词的文化特色，达到译文读者对译文的反应与原文读者对原文的反应基本一致。

这不仅将文化含义词的文化因素和丰富的表达法传递给读者，一定程度上还丰富了译语文化，实现真正的文化交流。

当然，功能对等理论也有一定的局限性，在此由于篇幅的关系就不加以讨论。

关键词：文化含义词；翻译；功能对等
Contents
1. Introduction (1)
2. Culturally-Loaded Words (2)
2.1The Definition of Culturally-Loaded Words (2)
2.2The Classification of Culturally-Loaded Words (3)
2.2.1Due to Different Hierarchies of V ocabularies (3)
2.2.2Due to Different Association (3)
2.2.3Due to Different Cultural Norms (4)
3. Functional Equivalence (4)
3.1The Origin of Functional Equivalence (4)
3.2The Nature of Functional Equivalence (5)
3.3The Content of Functional Equivalence (5)
4. Functional Equivalence in Translating Culturally-Loaded Words (6)
4.1Feasibility of Achieving Functional Equivalence in Translating Culturally-Loaded Words (6)
4.2The Translation Strategies in Achieving Functional Equivalence in Translating Culturally-Loaded Words (8)
4.2.1Borrowing (8)
4.2.2Transliteration (8)
4.2.3 Loan translation (8)
4.2.4 Substitution (8)
4.2.5 Paraphrasing (9)
5. Conclusion (9)
On Translation of Culturally-Loaded Words
1. Introduction
With the intensification of culture exchange between china and English-speaking countries, cultural differences have increasingly influence on translating, which draws more and more attention. Culturally-loaded words reflect the history, political system, geographical location, religious beliefs, social customs and values of certain nation. It is a mixture of conceptual meaning and cultural connotation, which determines that translation, is the communication between two different cultures as well as between English and Chinese language. However, it is hard to achieve complete equivalence in terms of culturally loaded words, thus becoming the main obstacle in intercultural communication. Therefore, whether translation of culturally-loaded words is proper or not has a great effect on readers. In recent years, many books on culturally-loaded words appear, such as C-E Contrastive Studies and the Transformation in Translation and Culture Context and Translation. Also essays on Chinese Translation Journal and Chinese Science & Technology Translators Journal analyze the relationship between culture and translation in macroscope or discuss the translation techniques in microscope, which play a positive role in translating practicing. However there are a lot of problems in translation of culturally-loaded words. As a special type of vocabulary in every language, culturally-loaded words are always mistranslated, over-translated and under-translated. As for translating of culturally-loaded words, the objects are receptors. It is important to understand the rendering for readers. For this reason, in translating culturally-loaded words, we must focus on the spirit and meaning as well as attain the cultural characteristics as much as possible.
Functional Equivalence puts emphasis on readers‟ response, which provides us with an advisable translation theory for translation of culturally-loaded words. The paper will briefly discuss the translation of culturally-loaded words using the Functional Equivalence as the guiding principle. In Nida‟s view, translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language in the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message. The paper aims to analyze the classification of culturally-loaded words from the point of constitution and meaning, takes some examples to discuss the theory‟s feasible application and explores some translation strategies and methods in order to realize the substantially equivalent response and true communication.
2. Culturally-Loaded Words
2.1 The Definition of Culturally-Loaded Words
From the cultural point of view, the meaning of words includes linguistic meaning and cultural meaning, which respectively, referred to "designative meaning" and "cultural connotation" by some scholars. The cultural connotation of words in cross-cultural communication always reflects its own cultural features in comparison
with other nations‟culture. The cultural connotation of word meaning without correspondence result in gap between the English and Chinese; thus there has been a large number of cultural gapped words, including culture words and culturally loaded words. Here it is necessary to distinguish the two concepts. The former, also namely empty words, is called word of cultural unique which carries the meaning of a cultural trait particular to a certain socio-cultural community, that is, whose referent is a unique thing or conception, and therefore that has no corresponding equivalent in other communities, when it is used in cross-cultural communication. For example: jiaozi, huntun, kowtow, fengshui, yingyang, taiji, kungfu, suimai, hutong, etc. are unique in Chinese culture. But there are ice cream and hot dog, House of Lords and House of Commons, God and church in English. The above examples show some things or concepts are not shared with other cultural communities. However the referent or concept of a culturally loaded word is shared in both communities, in which the meaning is overlapped. In other words, there is some degree of equivalent in meaning instead of completely coinciding. For example, “龙”in Chinese symbolizes auspiciousness, but the word “dragon”in English represent evilness. Another case in point is “西风”. Chinese people associate “西风”with a desolate, bleak, melancholy and chilly scene, blowing in the late autumn or severely cold winter. Yet in English “west wind”has a positive association such as warmness, rebirth and hope. There are some lines to praise the west wind in Shelly‟s Ode to the West Wind. John Masfield also has similar lines “it‟s a warm wind, the west wind, full of birds‟cries”. As a mirror, culturally-loaded words intensively reflect a nation‟s customs and habits, attributes and emotion, historical allusions, the way of thinking, values, and religious beliefs of certain nation. So they both contain conceptual meanings and cultural connotations. To some degree, this may pose some difficulties for translator. According to characteristics of constitution and meaning of culturally-loaded words, they can be classified into three categories.
2.2 The Classification of Culturally-Loaded Words
2.2.1 Due to Different Hierarchies of Vocabularies
The hierarchies of vocabulary, that is, the ways in which terms representing classes of entities, activities, and characteristics are built up into taxonomies, reflect in large measure the manner in which people understand and classify the world in which the live. The past and the present linguistic-cultural interference causes bifurcation and specialization of terms. People understand and classify the word in different way because of different type of socio-cultures in which they live. This vocabulary includes different terms of kinship, color, weights and measures, and some common nouns. In English, family members are father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, and cousin. There are three distinctive features: sex (masculine and femine), generation, degree of lineality (direct or lateral). In china, apart from above features, there is distinction between the inner and the outer i.e. relatives on the maternal side are the outer and relatives on the paternal side are the inner. Thus father‟s father and mother‟s father are called as grandfather while in china the former is called as “祖父”, the latter as “外祖父”. For
example, “cousin” in English is equal to “堂兄” “堂弟”“堂姐”“堂妹”“表兄”“表弟”“表姐”“表妹”in Chinese. The word “uncle” can be translated into Chinese “伯父” “叔父”“舅父”“姑父”“姨父”.when translating such Chinese “嫂子”“弟媳”“公公”“婆婆”“岳父”“岳母”“女婿”“媳妇”, the translator should add words “in law”in front of them. In china “挑、抬、提、扛、背” can be expressed by a word “carry”. Similarly , “山”in Chinese can be translated by three English words “mountain”, “mount”, “hill”. Obviously, in English there are distinctive features among them because of different geography environment.
2.2.2 Due to different association
People associate objective articles with subjective feeling. Associative meaning expresses the speaker‟s attitude towards certain things. Culturally-loaded words due to different association are different from these due to different hierarchies of vocabularies in designative referent. The latter‟s referents are objective. However the former‟s referents have different affective meanings in different societies. Different culture has different association to the same objective article or activities. For example, “dog” in English is associated with royalty, faithfulness , a close friend of human beings and all positive qualities; whereas to Chinese dog at its best is a useful animal for hunting and gate keeping. As a matter of fact, it generally takes on negative associations. If a person is compared to a dog, the speaker‟s attitude towards the person is no more than contemptuous. So there are appreciative idioms about dog: lucky dog, dress like a dog‟s dinner, every dog has his day, love me, love my dog, work like a dog, ect. However, in china, dog is usually used for hunting and gate keeping. Therefore ,there are some derogatory expressions such as “狼心狗肺，狗血喷头，狗仗人势，狗急跳墙，狐群狗党，丧家之犬”, etc. In Chinese “red” implies happiness, jubilation, prosperity and revolution, such as “红喜字，红蜡烛，红盖头，大红袄，红包，红利，红运，红领巾，红色根据地，红军”etc. In English “red”sometimes means something worth celebrating, such as red-letter day, roll out the red carpet for somebody. But it mainly suggests anger, danger and violence, such as red with anger, red light district, red flag, to be in the red, red hands, ect.
2.2.3 Due to different cultural norms
Words or phrases not only have profound pragmatic meaning, but also imply obvious social and cultural features. Every nation has its own style and contents which are different from other nations, especially in customs such as greetings, farewell, wedding, funeral, courtesy, clothing, food, travel, etc. The scholar Kachru Yamuna once said, “Cultural meanings are expressed in the cognitive structures as well as norms of behavior people utilize when using language”. For example, “see you around the campus”is used for farewell in campus, but some people misunderstand and translate it to be “在校园里见面”. The same is true in the Chinese greeting like “你吃饭了吗？”which is in fact equivalent to “How are you?” or “Nice to meet you!”in English. There are some similar expressions which are liable to be misunderstood. “Oh, you shouldn‟t have.”太妙了。

（≠你不该有。

）“You don‟t say.”真的吗？太好了。

（≠你别说了）“Now you are talking.”正合我意。

（≠你正说着，说下去。

）
Tea culture has changed in western countries though tea originated from china.
So has the habit of having a tea. Culturally-loaded words related tea culture have formed and developed. “Would you like to have high tea?”imply that the speaker invites you to have lunch instead of a cup of tea. Because “high tea” and “low tea ”have evolved into certain special ways of diet. “High tea” means a formal supper with meat; whereas low tea refers to a simple dinner with cakes.
3. Functional Equivalence
3.1 The origin of Functional Equivalence
Functional Equivalence, also called Dynamic Equivalence, is a core concept of Nida‟s translation theory. The concept Dynamic Equivalence did not from nowhere, but was founded on the studies of previous translation scholars on the principle of “equivalent effect”. As early as 1790 the English translation theorist Alexander Fraser Tytler was the first one who discussed the issue of equivalent effect in the history of translation theory. In his Eassy on Principle of Translation he stated that a good translation was one, in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be distinctly apprehended, and strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work. That‟s to say, a good translation in different language could achieve equivalent effect. Then German translation theorist Paul Cauer referred it as “comparable effect” in 1896. But it was E. V. Rieu who first used the expression “the principle of equivalent effect”to discuss translation. Nida clearly stated: a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic equivalence rather than a formal equivalence is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect” postulated by Rieu and Phillips. The essential idea is first mentioned by Nida as early as the year of 1959 in his article Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating. In 1964, Nida distinguishes two types of equivalence: Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence, and first postulates his concept of Dynamic Equivalent translation as follows: in dynamic translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message witch the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message. However he does not give a clear definition of “dynamic equivalence” until 1969. In his book The Theory and Practice of Translation, “dynamic equivalence” is defined “in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language”. Since the expression “Dynamic Equivalence”has often been misunderstood by some translators as referring to “anything which might have”. In From One Language to Another, the expression “Dynamic equivalence” is replaced with “functional equivalence”, which also emphasizes the communicative function of translating. But the substitution of Functional Equivalence is not designed to suggest anything essentially different from what was earlier designated by the phrase “Dynamic Equivalence.”In 1933, Functional Equivalence was further divided into two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level.
The minimal level of “functional equivalence”is defined as The two definitions of equivalence reveal that the minimal level is realistic, whereas the maximal level is ideal. For Nida, good translation always lie somewhere between the two levels. Clearly, functional equivalence is a flexible concept with different degrees of adequacy.
3.2 The nature of Functional Equivalence
In Nida‟s theory, “functional equivalence” is defined with “receptors‟ response”as its nature. Functional equivalence can be stated primarily in terms of a comparison of the way in which the original receptors understood and appreciated the text and the way in which receptors of the translated text understood and appreciated the translated text. Unlike traditional translation theories, which focus on verbal comparison between the original and its translation, Functional Equivalence shifts the focus from the form of message to the response of the receptor. Thus the importance of receptors‟role in translating is emphasized. When determining whether a translation is faithful to the original text or not, the critic should not compare the formal structures between the source text and its translation, but compare receptors‟response. If he finds the reader in the receptor language understands and appreciates the translated text in essentially the same manner and to the same degree as the reader in the source language did, such a translation can be evaluated as a Dynamic Equivalent translation. That‟s to say the critic should judge a translation not by verbal correspondence between the two texts in question, but by seeing how the receptor, for whom the translated text is intended, reacts to it.
Apparently, Dynamic Equivalence seems to be reader-oriented, but actually it is still text-oriented. This point can be testified by Nida‟s definition of translating (“reproducing in the receptor language in the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style”1969). A detailed analysis of this definition reveals clearly the text-oriented position of Dynamic Equivalence. “Reproducing the message” of the source language is the translator‟s first and foremost task and to do anything else is essentially false to one‟s task as a translator. The term “equivalent” emphasizes the importance of reproduction of the source-language message. The word “closest” requires the translated text to be the closest equivalent to the source text. In fact, the expression “the closest natural equivalent” is in essence another way of defining Dynamic Equivalence. Here we can see that though Nida attaches great importance to the role of receptors in translating, receptors‟response in his translation theory is really text-oriented.Wang Hongzhi has rightly remarked: whatever equivalence a theory strives for, if it requires the translated text to be equivalent to the source text, it is source-text oriented. Obviously, Nida‟s Dynamic Equivalence or Functional Equivalence is source-text oriented.
As a matter of fact, one simply cannot translate in a completely concordant manner and at the same time accurately represent the meaning of the source-language text. This response can never be identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different but there should be a degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose. Traditional translation theories focus on. However If the message of the original text has been transformed in the
receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors, such translation can be That‟s to say, a good translation can call forth the response of its readers equivalent to that of the readers of the original work. According to Nida, r eader‟s response is like “the market research”. When judging a product, one should test how consumer react to the product, for regardless of how theoretically good a product might be or how seemingly well it is displayed, if people do not respond favorably to it, then it is not going to be accepted. Similarly, in evaluating a translation, when a percentage of people misunderstand a rendering, or find it difficult to understand, the critic cannot regard it as a legitimate translation. Nida‟s theory of “readers‟respnse” emphasizes the importance of the acceptance of a translated text by the intended reader in the receptor language, and avoids the subjective evaluation of the critic.
3.3 The content of Functional Equivalence
According to functional equivalent, translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language in the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style. That is to say, the translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense, this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conversation of the form of the utterance. Translating was not to get something completely identical, but to reproduce “the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message”in the receptor language. Besides, emphatically “equivalence”cannot be understood in its mathematical meaning identity, but only in terms of proximity, i.e. on the basis of degree of closeness to functional identity. Obviously, the term “equivalence ”in Nida‟s theory is used in a relative sense, i. e. the closest possible approximation to the source-language message. and it is impossible to achieve absolute equivalence in translating. It is advisable to understand the term “”equivalence”at two levels: the realistic level and the theoretic level. The former is defined as “the readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it”. The latter is described as “the readers of a translated text should be able to understood and appreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did”. The maximal level of Functional Equivalence is an ideal and is rarely achieved except for those texts of routine information, which have little or no aesthetic values; whereas the minimal level is realistic and a translation below this level is unacceptable. A good translation always lies in between the two levels. Functional Equivalence is quite flexible, and there is a considerable range of diversity between the two levels. In comparison with some translation theories which attempt to pinpoint a single standard, Functional Equivalence allows a wide range of diversity in translating. Thus, the translator can have more freedom to deal with problems of diversities in types of discourse(literary genres), striking differences in audiences, and distinctions in the ways in which translations are to be used, e.g. for study, propaganda, or enjoyment.
As above mentioned that Functional Equivalence is text-oriented, which is the objective basis of Nida‟s theory. Besides, when evaluating readers‟response to a translation, the critic is not merely to examine readers‟ response to the content of the
original, but these stylistically awkward, structurally burdensome, linguistically unnatural, and semantically misleading or incomprehensible formal features. Generally speaking, the intended readers of a translation could have a similar response to these features, despite the fact that such response is, to a degree, influenced by their attitudes towards the content of the translation. What‟more, in Nida‟s view, the ultimate test of a translation not only depends on the intended receptor of a translation, but also a very competent critic. In order to evaluate the measure of success of a translation, it is important to analyze not only the ways in which monolingual people in the intended audience understand and appreciate the quality of a translation but also to have the judging and with sensitivity to the purpose of communication in both form and content. Hence, we can safely say that Dynamic Equivalence is not so subjective that it cannot be used as a translation criterion. Rather, by using Dynamic Equivalence, which combines the objective text with the subjective readers‟ response, the qualified critic can evaluate a translation more objectively and efficiently.
4. Functional Equivalence in translating culturally loaded words
4.1 Feasibility of achieving Functional Equivalence in translating culturally loaded words
The principle of “functional equivalence”, which is defined as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message”, points out two ways to achieve a good translation: “the closest equivalent”and “the natural equivalent”. By the “closest equivalent”, Nida means a rendering that has the high degree of approximation to the original text. A natural equivalent refers to a “stylistically acceptable rendering”, about which a bilingual or bicultural person might say “that is just the way we would say it.”
Besides, biculturalism is more important than bilingualism in a successful translation. Since words or idioms only have meanings in terms of the cultures in which they function, the translator cannot understand them adequately without careful consideration of their cultural backgrounds. Cultural adjustments can be made in order to produce a functional equivalent translation. Since the render in the receptor culture usually does not share the cultural backgrounds of the source language, the translator can make cultural modifications in handling some cultural words and idioms in order to achieve “similar response”. As for the example “dragon”above, when translating “dragon”into Chinese, the translator is advised to provide a modified word such as “恶” before the character “龙”or add a footnote to explain its cultural implication. Similarly, when “龙”is rendered into English , a dynamic equivalent translation is “Chinese dragon”.
The principle of “the closest equivalent”is of great importance for culturally loaded words translation. Since languages have various ways of communicating essentially the same propositional information, and the same essential data can be communicated in more than one way, the rendering of culturally loaded words may have more than one “correct”translation. But the competent translator chooses the
closest equivalent to the original text, as the following examples illustrate:
(1)贾母说……：“并不是我忍心不来送你，只为有了个亲疏你是我的外孙女儿，
是亲的了；若于宝玉比起来，可是宝玉比你更亲一些。

”《红楼梦》
Version A: The O ld lady instructed, “It‟s not because I‟m heartless that I‟m not coming to see you off, but there is someone closer here whom I have to see to. As my daughter’s daughter you are dear to me but Pao-yu is closer to me even than you.”Version B: Grandmother Jia…“It‟s not because I‟m hard-hearted that I have not come to bid you farewell, but because my grandson needs me here. You are my daughter’s child, I know. But Bao-yu is a Jia, and I cannot leave him now.”
According to Chinese tradition, there are distinctions among the kinship with no exception of sons‟children and daughters‟children. But English regard all grandchildren as equal, making no distinction of relationships between close and distant. i.e. no difference between grandchildren on the paternal side and grandchildren on the maternal side. Here ,although in Version A “外孙女” refers to daughter‟s daughter, it can not imply the true relationship to English readers. Besides, Grandmother Jia has intention to emphasize the distinction between Cousin Lin and Bao-yu. So when translating, it is indispensable to make the difference clear and directly. The Version B has conveyed the literal meaning as well as implied meaning by adding “Bao-yu is a Jia” which indicate directly Bao-yu is closer than Cousin Lin. The second rendering takes the spirit and meaning of the original into consideration, and can be easily comprehend by the English readers.
A natural translation has no trace of awkwardness or strangeness in its grammatical and stylistically forms. To culturally-loaded words, natural translation not only requires linguistic adaptation in terms of grammar and lexicon, but also involves certain cultural adaption. That is to sat, a natural expression “tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture”, and it “does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message”. Following the principle of “naturalness”, the translator is entitled to make certain cultural adaption to make the monolingual reader understand the translated message with ease.
(2) 王利发：栓子的妈，他岁数大了点，你可得……（老舍《茶馆》第2幕）
Version A: Well, old girl, he‟s getting on. You‟d bette r…(Translated by Ying Ruocheng)
Version B:Wife, he‟s getting a bit old, you‟re going to have to… (Translated by John Howard Gibbon)
(3) 王利发：怎样啊？六爷！又打得紧吗？（老舍《茶馆》第2幕）
Version A: How are things,my friend? Is the fighting fierce? (Translated by Ying Ruocheng)
Version B: What‟s happening,Six Elder? Is the fighting serious? (Translated by John Howard Gibbon)
In 2, Wang Lifa is adding his wife Wang Shufen. In translating this cultural specific appellation “栓子的妈”, neither translator makes a word-for-word translation. Rather,。