Abstract: Based on Nida’s Functional Equivalence theory, the thesis first shows the general views of urban public signs and then analyses the present situation of the C-E translation of urban public signs. In the end, the thesis gives some translation principles and strategies from the perspective of Nida’s Functional Equivalence with a lot of examples, aiming to provide some references to the C-E translation of urban public signs.
Key Words: Urban Public Signs；Functional Equivalence；Chinese-English Translation
奈达功能对等视角下城市公示语的汉英翻译
摘 要：基于奈达功能对等理论，本文首先介绍城市公示语的基本概念，然后分析城市公示语汉英翻译的现状，最后从奈达功能对等理论视角下，提出了城市公示语汉英翻译的原则以及策略并给出实例分析，旨在为城市公示语的汉英翻译提供一些借鉴。
关键词：城市公示语；功能对等；汉英翻译
Introduction
With the implementation of reform and opening-up policy, China has become more and more active in world exchanges and communication. Foreigners from all vocations, such as government officers, entrepreneurs, professors, students and tourists come to China, especially big cities for various purposes. Accompanying the inflow, however, some communication problems occur. How could foreigners get effective guide in a non-English speaking country without bothering to ask others each time when they need such trivial helps such as finding their way to some places, taking a bus, making reservations, etc. Of course, the most direct, and effective way for them to get such helps is to be aided by the translated urban public signs around them. In this case, it is necessary to translate Chinese urban public signs into English for the convenience of these foreign visitors. If the translation of urban public signs is correct and appropriate, it not only can give the target readers great help, but also can improve our international image. However, at present, the quality of the translation of urban public signs in China is far from satisfactory. There are so many problems in the translated urban public signs that they not only have obstructed the communication between the foreigners and the Chinese, but also have done harm to our international image. So, it is very urgent to have a systematic research into this subject.
The translation of urban public signs has always been a focus of people engaged in the translation progress. Experts from home and abroad in translation field have made great contributions to the translation of urban public signs, the coauthors Wang Yin and Lü Hefa have commented on both the right and false translation of urban public signs from the aspect of indication, public behavior, notice and touring. In A Dictionary of Public Signs, the coauthors Lü Hefa and Shan Liping have illustrated various examples of urban public signs. Lü Hefa analyzes the language features of urban public signs and the specific sentence patterns of urban public signs in Chinese Science and Technology Translators Journal. Moreover, he expresses that in Chinese-English urban public signs translation, the primary method is to translate them word for word. If there is no target language, which is in correspondence with the source language, the translator should translate them in accordance with the language features of the source language.
Although there have been many articles published on the Chinese-English translation of urban public signs, they are mainly about the functional features and stylistic characteristics of urban public signs in English or practical translation techniques, which cannot guide the practice in this field. In fact, a principle for translation is very necessary, but unfortunately, up till now, translation principles of urban public signs have not been studied systematically. So this thesis intends to make some studies in this area, aiming to put forward some principles and strategies for the Chinese-English translation of urban public signs from the perspective of Functional Equivalence Theory. And the thesis tries to prove the necessity and feasibility of these strategies by applying them to representative cases of wrong translation. Finally, by pointing out the translation errors and problems of the original English and comparing the original with the version offered by the author under the guidance of the strategies, the thesis gets a conclusion that the translation strategies under the Functional Equivalence Theory are quite applicable and bear certain theoretical significance as well as guiding values for the Chinese-English translation of urban public signs.
1 Urban Public Signs
Before the translation study on urban public signs, it is important to have a clear understanding about what urban public signs are. The definition, characteristics, classification, and functions of urban public signs are discussed as follows.
1.1 The Definition of Urban Public Signs
When we look up the term “urban public signs” in dictionaries, we may find that there is no clear definition for it. However, the definition of “pubic sign” can be found in many different dictionaries and books. Actually, there exists a slight difference in “public signs” and “urban public signs”. The following section will make a detailed explanation on this point by introducing the definition of “public signs” and then giving the definition of “urban public signs”.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a sign means “a standard mark; something which is seen and represents a generally-known meaning”[1]. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary (Extended Fourth Edition), a sign refers to “a board, notice, etc that directs somebody towards something, gives a warning, advertises a business, etc.”[2]
Referring to the fashionable expression “public signs”, Chinese and English experts have their own definitions from their different perspective. Linguist Elana Shohamy, defines “public signs” in the paper Language in the Public Space as:
“In terms of language displayed in the public space, it refers to actual offices, hospitals and any other space (and often private ones, such as homes), for example, names of streets, names of shops, advertisements, documents, newspapers, billboards, verbal as well as non-verbal items such as pictures and images. It also referred to as language ecology”.[3]
In Chinese, public signs do not have a unified name. Public signs can be called as “公示语”, “标示语”, “标识语”, “标志”, “标语”, “告示语” and “标牌语”, but the most usually used one is “公示语” and almost all the academic articles in recent years use “公示语” as the standard counterpart of public signs.
Chinese experts have their own definitions of public signs, for example, Professor Dai Zongxian and Professor Lü Hefa define public signs as that public signs are characters, words and graphic information that are closely related to people’s life, environment and business, and intend to have the functions of notifying, directing, displaying, warning and labeling to the public[4].
For Professor Yang Quanhong, the definition of public sign is that public sign is a special language style frequently used in public places. It employs concise language or simple and clear pictures or the combination of the two to express certain request to the readers or draw people’s attention[5].
Urban public signs can be seen in many different places, such as on business advertising board, in famous tourist spots, in urban areas, etc. In this thesis, the author concerns public sings used in urban areas that means urban pubic signs.
Based on the above mentioned definitions, the author would like to put forward a definition of urban public signs in this thesis: urban public signs are clear and concise languages, shown to the public in urban areas to convey information of warning, restricting, directing and prompting, etc.
1.2 The Characteristics of Urban Public Signs
As we all know, each language style has its own distinct characteristics. This also applies to urban public signs, which characteristics are also distinct from others with its unique quality. The most outstanding characteristics of urban public signs are conciseness, directness, standardization, combination with pictures.
Conciseness means that urban public signs are simple and concise because urban public signs usually allowed limited space to write and the public would be in a hurry to see it.
Directness means urban public signs should go directly to the point and their information should be expressed to such a degree that it is comprehensible to average people.
Standardization means urban public signs should have standard expressions because of the historical reasons or linguistic and cultural conventions.
Combination with pictures makes urban public signs drawing more attention form the public. The following are some examples:
1.3 The Classification of Urban Public Signs in Usage
Based on the definition and characteristics discussed above, and according to their usage, the thesis concentrates on some types that usually appear in our daily life which can classify urban public signs into traffic and road signs, signs in public places, tourist signs, business signs and signs for environmental protection, etc.
Traffic and road signs are used everywhere in cities providing us with place names directions, traffic rules and road conditions. Here are some examples:
颐和园 Summer Palace
高速公路 Express Way
公交车优先 Bus Priority
Signs in public places can inform, notify or forbid the public of or to do something. With the help of the signs in these places, people are easily directed to do things they want or are expected to do. Signs in public places not only offer convenience to people, but also play an important role in building a harmonious society. Here are some examples of signs in public places:
厕所 Toilet
安全出口 Exit
小心地滑 Caution: Wet Floor
Urban tourist signs are used everywhere at urban tourist attractions. As a matter of fact, bilingual urban tourist signs can include name signs, directing and warning information signs. Here are some examples:
严禁攀登 No Climbing
游客须知 Notice to Visitors
请爱护文物 Please Protect Cultural Relics
Business signs are usually seen in stores, markets, trade and exhibition centers and business organizations. Business signs can be names or services of stores and institutions, which often demonstrate the business services offered there. Business signs can also inform or remind existing customers and persuade potential customers about the products or services that are offered. For instance:
长沙个人贷款中心 Changsha Personal Loan Center
半价 50% Off
新书推荐/新品上市 New Arrivals
With the popularization of people’s consciousness of environmental protection, more and more signs for environmental protection appear. Among this kind or signs, they are:
谢谢您保持这里的卫生 Thank You for Keeping Here Clean
节约用水 Save Water
只有一个地球 Only One Earth
1.4 The Functions of Urban Public Signs
Urban public signs are widely used in our daily life and have brought a lot of convenience and great help to us. Through providing informational service, urban public signs meet various needs of the public, such as social, behavioral, and psychological. But what functions do they perform? According to Prof. Lü Hefa, public signs usually perform the following four functions: directing, promoting, restricting and compelling[6].
The directing function of urban public signs aims at providing comprehensive informational service for the public rather than forbidding or requesting people to perform any action. Here are some examples:
长沙站 Changsha Station
老幼病残孕专座 Priority Seat
紧急疏散出口 Emergency Exit
The prompting function of urban public signs is widely used in public signs, which doesn’t bear any special meaning but reminds readers to pay considerable attention to signs. The only difference between the directing function and the prompting function lies in the fact that the latter carries a warning tone. Let’s take some examples:
路面湿滑 Slippery Surface
小心夹手 Watch Your Hand
请勿践踏草坪 Please Keep Off the Grass
The restricting function of urban public signs adopts direct language to confine or set limits on people’s actions. As for this kind’s urban public signs, the languages adopted are simple and direct but not in rude, tough or impolite way although without “please”. And there following are some other examples, such as:
站队等候 Stand in Line
公共汽车专用 City Buses Only
请随手关门 Please Keep The Door Closed
Urban public signs of compelling function force the public to take or not to take some actions by using direct, tough and forceful language and leaving no room for compromise. The language features of this kind urban public signs are direct; there is no room for negotiation. The function mood of this group signs is quite strong commonly following such words as “No”, “Forbidden”. Usually, the imperative sentences are adopted. Under this word context environment, people often have no other alternative but to follow it. Examples are as follow:
严禁吸烟 No Smoking
严禁钓鱼 No Fishing
严禁携带易燃易爆等危险品 Dangerous Articles Prohibited
2 Nida’s Functional Equivalence Theory
The term “functional equivalence” is proposed by the famous translator Eugene Nida, an American theorist, and it was originally associated with the way described to translate the Bible, but it is obviously applicable to the translation of any other things, specifically, urban public signs in this study. Translation learners should know that dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two famous approaches of translation which are associated with Nida. Dynamic equivalence (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text’s grammatical voice, etc.).[7] The approach also emphasizes on readability and literal fidelity to the source text. However, it happens that no absolute fidelity to the original text in reality, and broadly speaking, we achieve the perfect translation by functional equivalence theory.
As we all know, urban public signs are different form other practical genres, they don’t need eye-to-eye correspondence in the form. The author thinks that total correspondence between original text and the translated version is more than a disaster. If keeping loyalty to the original text, meanings will be lost, however, meanings expressed are the most important thing in urban public signs. Hence, as for translators, Nida’s functional equivalence theory should be the most suitable principle for the translation of urban public signs.
2.1 Nida’s Concept of Equivalence
From 1980 to the late 1980s, there was great popularity of Nida’s functional equivalence theory in China, even a tendency to overstate the significance of his theory. From the late 1980s afterwards, however, more and more translation experts began to doubt Nida’s translation theory mainly for the word “equivalence”.
Many of them thought it was impossible to be “equivalence” in translation. In the western society, situation concerning scholars’ attitude toward the theory is very same. From the early 1960s to the 1980s, the theory enjoyed great popularity while from the 1980s afterward, the term “equivalence” has become the target of criticism for its impossibility to achieve absolute “equivalence”. The fact is that “equivalence” in Nida’s theory never has a meaning of absolute sameness, the intention of which can be made out by his delineation and elucidation of “equivalence” as follows:
“The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense this is just another way of emphasizing the reproducing of the message rather than the conservation of the form of the utterance”.[8]
In his opinion, translating is “to reproduce the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message in the receptor language rather than to get something absolute identical”[9]. In 1993, he stressed once again, “Equivalence cannot be understood in its mathematical meaning of identity, but only in terms of proximity, i.e. on the basis of degrees of closeness to functional identity”[10].
Judging from what above discussed, we can see that the term “equivalence” is just a relative word which means “closeness” or “approximation”. Some of the criticism seems to misunderstand what “equivalence” exactly means of Nida’s means.
2.2 Development of Nida’s Equivalent Theory
In fact, in Nida’s articles Principles of Translation an Exemplified by Bible Translating and Toward a science of translating which are mainly for the aim of translating The Bible, the concept of “dynamic equivalence” is first mentioned, after then, the concept of “functional equivalence” would be developed and formulated from “dynamic equivalence”. Then, According to Nida, “basically, functional equivalence has been described in terms of dynamic equivalence”[11].
2.2.1 Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence
The concept of “dynamic equivalence” first proposed in Nida’s book of Toward a Science of Translation enlightened by communicative linguistic theory which believes that language is used for communication. In Nida’s book, he proposes two types of equivalence: “dynamic equivalence” and “formal equivalence” on the basis of “communicative theory”.
In a “dynamic equivalence” translation, the translator’s aim is more to “a complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture” rather than “matching the receptor-language message with the source language”[12]. Its meaning can be paraphrased into the following two aspects: (a) the target text should be the closest natural equivalent to the source-language text; (b) the translation should produce the same effect on the target audience as the original does on the source text reader.
To sum up, for “formal equivalence” translation, the translator’s aim is more to “reproduce as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original”, and the reader is permitted to “identify himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-language context, and to understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and means of expression”. “Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content.”[13] It requires more from the reader, for there is much knowledge in the translation alien to them including “grammatical units, consistency in usage, and meanings in terms of the source text”[14], so, footnotes become very essential.
In conclusion, “dynamic equivalence” is reader-oriented and pays more attention to target receptor’s response while “formal equivalence” is form-oriented and attaches much importance to both the form and content.
2.2.2 Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Correspondence
This stage witnesses how Nida explores the concept of “dynamic equivalence” at length and the term “formal equivalence changes to formal correspondence”. In his book Toward a Science of Translation, Nida puts forward the concept “dynamic equivalence”. And, an exact definition of “dynamic equivalence” didn’t emerge until 1969 in the textbook The Theory and Practice of Translation. Nida defines “dynamic equivalence” as “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”[15]. He remarks that when evaluating a version of translation, firstly, the critic should determine “the response of the receptor to the translated message,” then compare this response “with way in which the original receptors presumably reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting”[16]. And among this book, Nida also defines translating as “reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning, and secondly in terms of style”[17]. From the above definitions and illustrations, We can find out that judging from Nida’s definition of translating or from his statements concerning “dynamic equivalence”, since “dynamic equivalence” was first presented in 1964, the nature of “dynamic equivalence” has not converted, and he still emphasizes essentially the same responses of the receptors in the source language and the target language.
In conclusion, “formal correspondence” is much narrower than “formal equivalence” in term of connotation while the definition of “dynamic equivalence” is more apparent and clearer.
2.2.3 Functional Equivalence and Formal Correspondence
In his 1986 works From One Language to Another, Eugene. A. Nida adopted “functional” to supersede “dynamic” aim to prevent some uncertain misunderstandings by some translators referring to “anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors”
As for this change, Nida states at detail that “the substitution of functional equivalence is not designed to suggest anything essentially different from what was earlier designated by the phrase dynamic equivalence”[18]. The notion of “dynamic” reflects the “dynamic relationship” between two receptors and two texts. While “functional” adopts the certain functional approach to “dynamic equivalence” and emphasizes translation behavior as a kind form of communication. There is no “clear essential difference” between the two terms.
In the 1990s, in his another book Language Culture and Translation, Nida explores the “functional equivalence” by taking language and culture differences into account further. And so he divides it into two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level. He writes:
“In the term of both experiential and cognitive sides, the exact view of functional equivalence refers to different degrees of adequacy from minimal and maximal effectiveness”[19].
A minimal, realistic functional equivalence could be explained as “the readers of 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.”[20].
Anything lower this extent of equivalences should be unacceptable.
A maximal, ideal definition could be stated as “the readers of a translated text should be able to understand and appreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did.” “The maximal definition suggests a high degree of language-culture correspondence between the source and target languages and an unusually effective response very close translation so as to produce in receptors to what the original readers experienced”[21].
Eugene. A. Nida also says “whether a formal translation is acceptable or not, depends on the
