- 上一篇：英汉饮食习语的文化内涵比较研究
- 下一篇：从《人性的枷锁》看毛姆的人生观
names.
Chinese cuisine is regarded as a great wonder of collection of cooking skills in foreign people’s eyes. Westerners are often attracted to the looks of Chinese dishes besides their delicious flavor and taste. While the sight of Chinese dishes brings pleasure, the names of dishes also catch much attention of westerners. When people from different countries enjoy Chinese dishes, they are often curious and eager to know the exact meaning of the dish name and its origin. Since the dish name is the first impression given to a diner when he or she decides to order a dish. So it is important to convey accurate information to the patron. Since Chinese cuisine culture has continued to be exported overseas, translation of dish names plays an important role and is faced with a high demand determined by the complex nature of Chinese cuisine culture.
Based on the theories concerning untranslatability, this thesis at first illustrates the linguistic and cultural untranslatability between Chinese and English respectively. And it then emphasizes particularly on the cultural untranslatability on English translation of Chinese dish names. Finally, according to the classification of dish names, translation techniques are suggested and some of them are just the compensative measures to those
untranslatable dish names.
II. Paradox of Translatability and Untranslatability
Translation, as a means of communication, plays an important role in human civilization. In Western countries, literary translation can be traced back to 300 B.C., while in China, translation activities were even earlier, dating from the Zhou Dynasty. However, not until recent centuries, especially by the end of the nineteenth century did systematic study of translation get under way. In the past decades translation theories and activities have developed fast both at home and abroad.
Translation is a field full of paradoxes in which translatability and untranslatability is one pair of them. Because of many discrepancies on meanings and structures between different languages, some persons have even insisted that translating is impossible. Both Wilhelm Von Humbolt and Benjamin Lee Whorf all thought that the language of a nation is its spirit, and the spirit of a nation is its language, and suggests that the language of a nation could hardly be translated into another language (Whorf143; Humbolt324). In Wilhelm Von Humbolt’s opinion, every translator would either do harm to the style of the target language by transferring the original too much accurately, or do harm to the original by making the translated version have the feature of the target language. It is no doubt that he regards translation as an impossible task. In the words of Eugene A. Nida, “Translating is a complex and fascinating task. The paradoxes of translating are basically the paradoxes of language and of the culture.” The paradox of untranslatability roots in the inevitable contradictions and difficulties arising in the process of translating and caused by the differences between national languages and cultures. In the 20th century, English translation theoretician Peter Newmark raised the viewpoint that the translated version should be “close” to the original (436). And this “close” is a relative matter. That is to say, to some extent, everything is translatable.
In China, there are also many discussions on the problem of untranslatability. In the early 20th century, a famous Chinese translator held the opinion that it was impossible for the translator to translate the original absolutely faithfully. Otherwise, another translator claimed that although most literature works were translatable, the translated versions could be but “close” to the original. In his opinion, “faithfulness” is just an ideal of the translators, which is hard, if not impossible, to achieve. However, “faithfulness” should still be the translators’ final destination.