2 ． Translatable or untranslatable

    The famous American linguist ， the representative of Prague School Jakobson said there exist three means of interpreting a 1anguage symbol ： (1) Intralingual translation is interpreting some symbols by way of other symbols of the same 1anguage ： (2) Interlinqual translation is interpreting one language by way of another ： (3) Intersemiotic translation is interpreting language semiotics by non — language semiotics ． Generally speaking ， what we mean by ‘ translation ' is interlingual translation ．

    As we mentioned above ， 1anguage is part of culture and there are cultural differences between nations ． Then we may wonder whether translation is feasible ． There ' re two views ： some people insist interlingual is possible ： while some take a negative position ．

    Modern linguists have found that any language has its own complicated phonetics grammar ， vocabulary and a high potential of generating new discourse ： in other words ， any language has an infinite capacity of describing all things and their features etc. Based on the different potentialities, languages are categorized into developed group and underdeveloped group ． As a matter of fact ， the difference lies merely in vocabulary ． The communities 0f primeval languages will in no time have the equivalent words for the equipment ， political system ， technology as long as they know the equivalent concepts ． In this sense ， if a translator has a perfect mastery of target language ， he is able to express all the information of source language into that 0f target language since all languages have common capacity in describing the world ． Carld said all translation is possible ． He also 1isted that in Europe the earliest translation has had a two — thousand year hi story ． Over the thousands of years ' translation ， human beings have translated Bible Budhist sutra, the Kuran ， from Iliad to Shakespeare's plays ， from Karl Marks Capitalism to Einstein's On relativity . In a word ， translation has extended to every aspect of human life ． Without it ， there'll be no international communication and in turn ， no nowadays civilization ．

    Some linguists and translators insist that 1anguage is not translatable under cultural differences ． From modern linguistic point of view ， they advocate that different languages reflect the real world from different angles. Language embodies a language community's view on the reality ． Now in the world there are nations with totally different cultures ． When asked about whether we can transfer one culture world into another, Nida listed five factors ： ecological condition ， material life ， social religious and linguistic culture ． Social culture ， to some degree restricts the 1anguage

    User's thinking and expressing ability ． For instance ， snow is of utmost importance for Eskimos who live in the Arctic region ． They have a 1arge vocabulary for snow from the snow on the soil ， on the rock ， to the drift of snow or the falling snow ． But in English there's only one word: snow. It doesn't mean that English language itself cannot differentiate various types of snow ． Because for English-speaking nations they don't have the need of such social culture ． However ， America is a highly industrialized country which has 26 words for automobiles and a wide variety of expressions for intoxication 1ike “ pickled ， high ， bombed ， stoned ， drunk ， intoxicated ， under the influence ”． Therefore ， different social cultures have become a handicap in translation ． Even though some linguists insist that language is not translatable, they have to admit the fact that with the expansion or international communication ， the handicaps are becoming 1ess and less ． So macroscopically, languages can be translated ．

3 ． Translation Principles

    In 1780 ． Tytler wrote the first significant book on translation in the world(Essay on the Principles of Translation) and presented three main principles ： (1)Translation text should fully express the idea of the original text ． (2)The writing tones and styles should be the same ． (3)The translation text ． should be with ease and grace ． He held the view that the excellent translation works can make the readers have the same understanding as the native readers ． In 1965 ， the English linguist Catford published a book called A linguistic Theory of Translation. He classified translation into three ways ： word for word translation ， literal translation ， free translation ． Linguistic surface structure is divided into a scale of sentences--sense groups--words--morphemes ． In free translation ， the equivalence may cover each element in the scale ， even extends to sentences ． Word for word translation ， obviously ， limits between words ． While literal translation is between word for word translation and free translation ． Peter Newmark presented two translation methods ： communicative translation and semantic translation ． The former aims at making the readers have the same idea no matter they read the original work or the translation work ． The latter aims at reproducing the information of the source language on the basis of complying with the grammatical and semantic rules ． These two methods are used alternatively ． Eugune Nida focuses on ‘ equivalence '． He puts forward ．“ In dynamic translation one is not so concerned with marching the receptor-language message with the source 1anguage 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 ． (1964 ： 159)Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be 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(1969 ： 25) ． Up to 1990s ， Nida took cultural differences into consideration and categorized it into maximal level and minimal level ． As a matter of fact ， the former is not easy to achieve in translation but every translation should be up to the latter criteria ． As Nida illustrated ，“ The minimal level of equivalence would be one in which receptors of the translated text would be able to understand and appreciate it to the point of being able to comprehend how the original receptors must have understood and appreciated the message ．” At last ， Nida emphasized that ‘ equivalence ' is a relative conception ．