A New Understanding Of TE Based On Pragmatic Adaptation Theory

For a very long time, translation equivalence is the focus of discussion in circle of the science of translation at home and abroad. Different scholars have produced different, even contradictory statements about an adequate, comprehensive definition as the concept of TE between SLT and TLT. In the west, from J. C. Catford's textual equivalence to E. A. Nida's functional equivalence, to P. Newmark's declaring TE's too theoretical, too random to operate in the process of translating. In China, from Jin Di's successful application of TE to his translation of Ulesses to Tu Guoyuan's dialectic analysis on TE study, to Cao Qing's semiotics explanation, to Wu Yicheng's criticism of TE's failure to give any satisfying explanation to and deformation of basic question in translation. Debates on TE are still on the move and the only agreement achieved among different linguists seems that they have agreed to disagree.Adaptation, a new pragmatic theory given by J. Verschueren in 1999, has greatly impressed translation researchers in China. Three properties of language and four angles of pragmatic investigation advanced by J. Verschueren have been employed to explain many translation phenomena, in which Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Jinan University and Northeast Normal University havebeen playing a leading role. In this thesis, inspired by J. Verschueren, the author has applied the adaptation theory into a tentative analysis on translation equivalence from three aspects: its adaptation to social world, mental world and physical world in successful translation, so as to understand and support TE from a new pragmatic viewpoint, besides the existing supporting based on semiotics.We, in the present thesis, hold that translation equivalence remains one of the basic concepts in the study of translating, and it is the ultimate goal that every translator strives to accomplish. TE should not be dismissed as useless and outdated in translation studies. It is true that the new development in the field of the science of translation contributes a lot to broadening the scope of translation studies, providing insightful ideas for translation scholars. But this development should not be founded on the rejection of linguistic approaches like TE. Many scholars and researchers often devalue and even deform the study on translation equivalence. The reasons for this kind of devaluation and deformation lie in three aspects. Firstly, TE is often misunderstood by its surface meaning of the word "equivalence", which sounds like "absolute sameness" or "identity". As a matter of fact, "equivalence" has always been a relative notion, just like absolute zero degree centigrade below zero (-273C) in strict natural science. It has never been actually obtained. It is just acalculation in logic sense. But -273 C helps a lot in solving many puzzling questions in mathematics, physics, chemistry and other science fields. Secondly, some people have inclined to exaggerate the special characteristics of certain a language. As Nida has said, some people have thought that each language is so distinct that there is no valid way in which the discourses of one language can be translated into another. But at least ninety percent of the fundamental structures of all languages are quite similar, and language universals far outweigh the divergencies. Thirdly, the term "equivalence" itself in western linguistic-oriented translation theory is too vague to escape from being misunderstood. It is advisable to understand TE from two aspects: its theoretical aspect, which aims at an ideal relationship between the source language text (SLT) and the target language text (TLT); and its practical aspect in terms of approximation. If translation equivalence is understood from these two aspects, TE was, is and will be an important concept in the science of translation. It is still safe to say that the notion of equivalence is of positive significance in the study of the science of translation.