Translation is non merely approximately linguistic communication, but besides it is associated with many non-language factors. Logic is the most active and of import factor. A transcriber in Hungary said that interlingual rendition is a logic activity ; Translation work is the merchandise of logical events. Qian Gechuan said that logic is the basic factor of the transcriber, all the interlingual rendition should conform to logic and ground, and otherwise, the interlingual rendition would be incorrect. As we all know, linguistic communication is the material signifier of believing being. The interlingual rendition procedure is non a simple, consecutive line from one linguistic communication to another linguistic communication, but believing as an intermediary between two linguistic communications which is the terminal of interlingual rendition. The Soviet linguist, Barl HuDaLuoFu one time gave an illustration, “ John is in the pen ” . Cipher will interpret “ pen ” into ” c¬” ” , but merely interpret it into “ c‰?a??a?? ” , because ” a??a??e’?c¬”e‡? ” is non sensible. This shows that in interlingual rendition there ever some unlogical linguistic communication jobs which need to utilize logical thought to justice and solve. It is obvious that there is a close relation between the interlingual rendition and logic. Therefore, the original transcriber should to the full understand the logic of the beginning text and do the mark text smooth and consistent. To analyze logic in interlingual rendition can assist us right understand the nature of interlingual rendition. The article from the differences of manner of logical thought between Chinese and English, the explicitation of logical relation in Chinese-English interlingual rendition and logic transition three subdivisions to analyze the logic of Chinese-English interlingual rendition with a intent of uncovering some interlingual rendition Torahs.
aˆ?Key wordsaˆ‘ Logic ; Translation ; Logic transition ; Logical thought ; The explicitation of logical relation
aˆ??‘?e¦?aˆ‘ c?»e?‘a??a»…a»…???a??e?e?ˆe-®e??i??e???±‡aˆ?e???•aˆ?a?®e?zc‰i?‰a®????c‰µ?¶‰a?°e®?a¤se?ze?e?ˆ?-?e??a› c? i??eˆ»e?‘a?????a…¶a???ˆ??»e·?aˆ???ˆe‡?e¦?cs„a› c? aˆ‚a??c‰™a?©cs„a?ˆa??c?»e?‘a®¶e??e?‡c?»e?‘???a?ˆc§?eˆ»e?‘??»aS?i?›c?»e?‘a??a“????eˆ»e?‘??»aS?cs„a?§c‰©aˆ‚e’±??a·?e??i?seˆ»e?‘???c?»e?‘eˆ…a?…e?»a…·??‰cs„aY???¬e¦?c? i??a‡????c?»e?‘a‡????cs„a?ˆa-a?ˆa??e??a?…e?»a??a?Zeˆ»e?‘aˆ?a??a?Z??…c?†i??a?¦a?™a?…c„¶??‰e??aˆ‚a?-?‰ˆa‘?cY?i??e?e?ˆ????ˆ?c»?a?a??cs„c‰©e??a??a??aˆ‚eˆ?c?»e?‘cs„e?‡c?‹a?¶e?zc®ˆa?•cs„aˆ?c›?c??a??cs„c”±a?ˆc§?e?e?ˆe?‡???a?°a?¦a?ˆc§?e?e?ˆi??a??a?¤c§?e?e?ˆa?e-?e????‰a?ˆa???ˆ?c»?a??a??a?a»‹i??a?¶a?”a?????c?»e?‘cs„e??e„sc‚?aˆ‚e‹?e?”e?e?ˆa¦a®¶a·?a°”e??e??c?-a¤«?›?a??e?‡e?™? ·a?ˆa??a?‹a?i?s “ John is in the pen ” . a»»a?•a??a?Ya??a?s?SSa??a?cs„ “ pen ” e?‘??? ” c¬” ” i??eˆ?a??e??e?‘??? ” c‰?a??a?? ” i??a› a?? ” a??a??e’?c¬”e‡? ” a??a??a?‹c?†aˆ‚e?™e????Za??c?»e?‘a?a??a?sc?°a?°e?ˆe¦?c”?eˆ»e?‘?ˆ?c»????a?¤?-a’?e§?a†?a?ˆa?›a??a?Za??a??eˆ»e?‘e?e?ˆcZ°e±?cs„e-®e??aˆ‚c”±?¤a??e§?i??c?»e?‘a?Zeˆ»e?‘a?‘??sa?Za…±cs„a…?c?»aˆ‚a› ?¤c?»e?‘eˆ…a?”e??a…?e??a?°c?†e§?aZY?-‡cs„eˆ»e?‘a»Zeˆ?a??e?‘?-‡eˆse??aˆ?e?ze??aˆ‚c ”c©¶c?»e?‘a?cs„eˆ»e?‘a??a»?a?®aS©??‘a»¬??c?®a?°c?†e§?c?»e?‘cs„?ˆ§e??aˆ‚??¬?-‡a»Z?±‰e‹±c?»e?‘eˆ»e?‘?ˆ?c»??-?a??cs„a??a??i???±‰e‹±c?»e?‘eˆ»e?‘a…?c?»cs„???a?-a’?eˆ»e?‘e?¬???e?™a?‰a???-?e??a???±‰e‹±c?»e?‘eˆ»e?‘a?sa?†c ”c©¶?-?a????c¤??±‰c?»e?‘cs„a?ˆa?›e§„a?‹aˆ‚
A Study of Logic in Chinese-English Translation
Logic is a sort of abstract thought, and it is besides a procedure of thought which through construct, judgement, illation and presentation to understand and separate the nonsubjective universe. One of the basic differences between Chinese and western manner of thought is that the former focal points on intuition, while the latter focal points on logic. Therefore, in the class of Chinese-English interlingual rendition, what matters much for the transcriber is to analyse the implicit and logical dealingss between the sentences in the beginning text by using Chinese grammatical cognition and logical thought. And so, the transcriber should transform the dealingss and rearrange the sentences harmonizing to the manner of thought of English and syntactic constructions. In making so, the mark text could be more idiomatic.
Logical thought is besides known as theoretical thought and it arises as thought and the apprehension of the construction and operation of jurisprudence. It is recognized that things can be achieved merely through logical thought, so grasp the jurisprudence of its nature. There is no exclusion as a bilingual interlingual rendition transmutation, and its whole procedure of logical thought are all topic to the logical thought. In interlingual rendition, if the transcriber is non familiar with the believing differences of the English and Chinese, there will be “ hard-translation ” , and “ mistranslation ” .
Differences manner of logical thought between Chinese and English
2.1 The beginning of “ logic ”
From the etymological point of position, the “ logic ” comes from the Ancient Greek “ Logos ” ( Transliteration: Son. ) Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus introduces the “ logos ” to philosophy, and so it becomes one of the cardinal topics of Western doctrine. The significance of the word is broad, and it covers the talk, write, think, ground, expression and rules. It is through the “ Logos ” that we can acquire a glance of “ the individuality of linguistic communication and idea, integrity of linguistic communication and doctrine ” . [ 1 ]
Differences of manner of believing between English and Chinese
As we all know, linguistic communication is the bearer of civilization and thought, logical thought is reflected in linguistic communication. “ Way of thought is the integrating and fusion of the signifier, manner and procedure of believing which the chief object is reflected in the procedure of thought ” . [ 4 ] Due to the geographical construction, and natural climatic and environmental factors such as long exposure to the faith and cultural which
bit by bit forms an alone cultural tradition and manner of thought. The manner of believing reflects in the linguistic communication, it makes each linguistic communication has its ain alone internal logic. In kernel, differences in the manner of thought are the public presentation of cultural differences.
East and West belong to two different cultural systems ; ways of thought will be different. Fu Leii??a transcriber one time said: “ The ways of thought of Asians and Westerners have basic differences. Our people focus on synthesis, initiation, suggestion and implicitation ; Westerners focus on analysis, elusive turns and bends ” . [ 3 ]
In other words, the basic features of different ways of believing between English and Chinese are intuition and logic. By and large talking, the traditional Chinese thought through contemplation realisation, inspiration, penetration, but without rigorous logical processs and entree to the overall feeling and general understanding.Western traditional thought focal points on scientific discipline and ground, through logic it additions the nature and Torahs of things in presentation. [ 2 ] This different ways of believing reflect in the linguistic communication, that is, different linguistic communication signifiers. Interlingua interlingual rendition is non merely an activity between Interlingua passages, but besides an activity of thought ; the logic must play an of import function. Newmark, the British bookman in interlingual rendition theory and interlingual rendition accomplishments, wrote, “ If we have studied logic, the transcriber would be able to measure which parts are clear, which parts have the implied significance ; in pick of words, the logic is besides a way of specified compass acerate leaf. ” In the procedure of interlingual rendition, the transcriber should endeavor to hold on the logic of the original sentence ( which has explicit relation and inexplicit relation, the transcriber should pay more attending to implicit relation ) , and find the degree and construction agreement of the interlingual rendition. From different point of position, the writer superficially discusses the logic of the interlingual rendition. Chinese and English belong to different linguistic communications ; there are many differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar.
The hypotaxis and parataxis between English and Chinese
Nida had thought that the most of import difference of English and Chinese in linguistics may be the difference between hypotaxis and parataxis. In English and most Indo-germanic, a big figure of associations are stated by the connected words if, although, because, when, in order to, so and so that. [ 5 ] The alleged parataxis refers to the arrangement of clauses one after the other without conjunctions demoing the relation between them. The hypotaxis refers to the dependant or low-level building or relationship of clauses with conjunctions. In short, Chinese chiefly based on word order alterations, the lingual context and logical deduction to accomplish the intent of clear thoughts. Such as, “ the route is slippery, he can non walk fast ” ( the clauses are cause relation ) ; If you add the inexplicit logical words, it will look some of cunctation. And English pays attending to tenses, inflexions, and utilize more logical conjunctions to explicate the sentence structure within a sentence, between sentences, and paragraphs. Such as: While I admit that here are jobs, I do n’t hold that they
can non be solved. If the “ while ” were deleted, it would be a incorrect sentence. Language differences in this regard are the differences of manner of thought. In interlingual rendition, to derive flexible transition the transcribers non merely needs solid bilingual accomplishments, but besides they should attach great importance to the deep-seated alone manner of logical thought which caused by cultural accretion. This means that interlingual rendition is the transmutation, distortion and re-creation of a civilization, doctrine, and political orientation in another civilization, thought and political orientation. [ 6 ]
The explicitation of logical relation in Chinese-English interlingual rendition
Based on the above apprehension, Chinese-English interlingual rendition procedure can be summarized as follows: logic analysis – English thinking- comprehensive look.
In Chinese to English interlingual rendition, it is critical for the transcriber to utilize the Chinese grammar and logical thought to dialysis the inexplicit relation, flat relation and modified relation between sentences, and so utilize English logical thought and sentence construction, complemented by appropriate interlingual rendition accomplishments to right show the original “ spirit ” . As Joan aˆ? Ms. Pinkham said in “ Identify Chinglish ” , “ Most frequently, when logical dealingss between thoughts have merely to be suggested in Chinese, they must be obviously stated in English ” . [ 7 ]
3.1 The definition of explicitation
The explicitation in interlingual rendition refers to the transcriber ‘s attempts to do explicit the inexplicit relationship between sentences in the beginning linguistic communication.
Qian Zhongshu said I foremost find myself prefer to read Linshu ‘s interlingual rendition, but instead than read Hague ‘s original text. Linshu ‘s authorship is bright, but Hague ‘s duologue is deadening and unsmooth.
Germany functionalism, Justa Helz Mantari divided interlingual rendition to implicit interlingual rendition and expressed interlingual rendition, he pointed out that the inexplicit interlingual rendition attempts to wholly keep the original text ‘s map and makes the mark text seems to be the same as the original work ; the expressed interlingual rendition is to do the reader recognize the article is target text.
In Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation, Blum Kulka pointed out a successful interlingual rendition demands to cover with the text and discourse. The procedure of the transcriber explains the original text may take to the mark text boringly longer than the beginning text. This excess phenomenon may be caused by the improved expressed grade of the coherence. She believes that the expressed cohesive relation in every portion of the text and one linguistic communication ‘s grammatical system are connected with each other. The two linguistic communications ‘ grammatical systems are different, so their ways of coherence are different. When one linguistic communication is translated into another linguistic communication and needs to do
cohesive transition, this sort of cohesive transition frequently consequences in explicitation or implicitation of the text ‘s cohesive relation.
3.3 Adding connective words to do the sentence explicit
Some Chinese sentences do n’t utilize logical relation ‘s connective words, but the internal logical relation can be inferred from the context. The transcriber uses some connective words to province the logical relation within sentence, so the beginning text ‘s inexplicit coherence transformed to explicit coherence. For illustration:
( 1 ) . ??‘a»¬a?”e??a?’c›?a°Se‡?i??a?’c›?a¦a? i??a?-e•?e??cYi??a…±a??e?›??aˆ‚We should esteem and larn from each other and draw upon other ‘s strong points to countervail one ‘s lacks for accomplishing common advancement.
( 2 ) . e?“e·?????›??S?cs„ , a‰?eˆ”???a…‰??Zcs„ . The hereafter is bright while the route in front is Byzantine. [ Analysis ] We are familiar with this statement, the inexplicit grant dealingss are clear, and the corresponding interlingual rendition manifested “ while ” , otherwise it would non follow with the looks in English.
( 3 ) . a»-???a??a??a?? , ??‘a»¬e??a»Za»-cs„a??eY?a?a?¬a‡???? . [ Analysis ] The two clauses are causal relation, a conjunctive word should be added in English interlingual rendition, and we try to interpret it as follows: He is a Cantonese, as we can comprehend from his speech pattern. The interlingual rendition ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) non merely manifests the internal logical relation, but besides is really loyal.
However, our practical interlingual rendition is by no agencies confined to this simple correspondence. For illustration:
( 4 ) . ??ˆe?‘a??a?‰a??a????? , a?-c•?c§‘a¦?Sˆ???cs„a?‘a±•?-??-°???a?‚ , a?“a?sa?-a?†a·??›?c»† , a??a??e§„????›?a¤§aˆ‚ [ Analysis ] “ ??ˆe?‘a??a?‰a??a????? ” is a clip adverbial, and is easy to manage. Carefully read the undermentioned clauses, we can see that the latter parallel clauses are the “ consequences ” of the old clause. Try to interpret it as follows: Over the last two or three decennaries, the universe scientific discipline and engineering have advanced twenty-four hours by twenty-four hours, ensuing in a more infinitesimal division of labour on the footing of specification and in more extended cooperation. Though the interlingual rendition non straight uses obvious conjunctive word, it smartly uses present participle phrase “ ensuing in ” shows the causal relation between the sentences.
( 5 ) . a??20 a?-c??cs„c™?a??aZ†c?‹a? , a?s???a???°‘a??a?‰a?-a›?a®¶c‹¬c«‹a’??°‘?-?e§??”? , a???‘†e„±e?«c©·e??a?Z , a®zcZ°a?‘a±•c??e?? , e?›e??a?†a??a±?a???? cs„? — a?‰ , a?-a?-a?†a??a?-cz©c›®cs„???a°± , a??a?s???a’?a?-c•?cs„a’?a??a?sa‡?a?†e‡?a¤§e??c?®aˆ‚ [ Analysis ] “ a??a?‰a?- ” a‹? , “ a???‘†e„±a‹? ” is the intent of “ e?›e??a?†a??a±?a???? cs„? — a?‰ ” and as a purpose adverbial. “ e?›e??a?†a‹?a‹? ” , “ a?-a?-a?†a‹?a‹? ” are two parallel verb phrases. “ a??a?s???a‹?a‹? ” is the consequences adverbial, which means “ a??a?s???a’?a?-c•?cs„a’?a??a?sa‡?a?†e‡?a¤§e??c?® ” aˆ‚ In the class
of the twentieth century, the Asiatic people waged an dogged battle to win national independency and release, acquire rid of poorness and retardation, and convey approximately development and prosperity, and scored singular accomplishments. All this has contributed significantly to peace and development in Asia and the universe at big.
In add-on to the above analysis, when the long sentence is translated into English, it uses “ All this ” as the topic, and translates ” a??a?s???a‹?a‹? ” into a individual sentence, the intent of this interlingual rendition is to avoid the old sentence being excessively long, more significantly, it stresses the ” e??c?® ” .
In drumhead, in English interlingual rendition we should pay attending to the explicit of the inexplicit logic relation and harmonizing to the logic analysis – English believing – comprehensive look to flexibly set the original construction to run into the English look and reproduce the original signifier. Of class, English scholars non merely should pay attending to the macro differences between parataxis and hypotaxis, but besides should pattern, reappraisal and roll up a batch in interlingual rendition to do their ain interlingual rendition degree improved.
4. The logic transition in interlingual rendition
Logic differences between the English and Chinese cause great troubles in interlingual rendition, so transcribers convert the logic. This logic transition is chiefly reflected in the words, sentences, and chapter degrees. Levels of words, in the pick of significance and analysis of the inexplicit relation of the words, logic transition is needed. Sentence degree, it is necessary to discourse logic in the analysis of English capable skip or predicate construction, trade with avowal and negation, the relationship between explicit and implicit, active and inactive voice and the overall logic of sentence construction. Chapter degree, the interlingual rendition should be based on a assortment ofcohesive devices in English to accomplish the transition between explicit and implicit
relation, “ bamboo-based ” and “ water-based ” text.
Logic transition should be based on right understand the logic of the beginning texts. If the logic of the beginning text is unnatural, we should utilize the original linguistic communication ‘s logical thought to analyse, make non “ forced logical thinking ” . Logical thought can concentrate on the words, sentences, and chapter three degrees.
4.1 The logic transition in words degree
Wordss are an indispensable portion of the linguistic communication ; they are composed by surface significance and deeper significance. The transcriber must take the correct significance in the interlingual rendition. In add-on to trusting on the books, the pick and extending of the words intending depends on the context logic to a big extent, particularly interlingual rendition is influenced by the thought wont and cultural tradition, and the words with an widening significance and strong cultural colour, the transcriber should depend on the original logical believing wonts to analyse and find, through the logical dealingss
of the context, delving deeper significance with context, taking the right significance, so based on the mark linguistic communication to do logical pick. Finally, reconstitute the words looks to do the interlingual rendition consistent.
In add-on to the pick of word significance demands to see the logical relationship, the interlingual rendition procedure should besides detect the implied logical relation of the words. This relationship is easy to get away the transcriber ‘s attending, therefore impacting the quality of the interlingual rendition.
4.1.1 Subtle negative words
For illustration, the English and Chinese have a batch of elusive negative words, but there is a large difference in logic look between them. There are many English words, their signifiers are affirmatory, and logic is negative. If the transcriber is non based on the original linguistic communication ‘s logical thought, but use the mark linguistic communication to analyse jobs, the interlingual rendition logic frequently contrary to the original ‘s existent deep logic. Such as the “ following ” :
The following best thing for her is to get married George Green, a handsome yet hapless adult male. In fact, she ever dreams of get marrieding Peter Brown who is fine-looking and rich, but does n’t love her.
This illustration translates “ the following best thing ” into “ c¬¬a??a??cs„a?‹ ” is non proper. It seems the words excessively literally, but shows that the English transcriber does non take the different logical look ways between Chinese and English into history non screen out the logic of the original relationship between the constituents, but besides reflects the
believing intervention in English and Chinese. Chinese accent on parataxis and its logical significance frequently hides in semantics. Therefore, “ c¬¬a??a??cs„ ” a’? ” a?‹a?ˆa????ˆa??
cs„ ” express the same significance in Chinese, and have the positive affirmatory significance.
English accent on hypotaxis, the linguistic communication ‘s logic signifier is really rigorous ; the signifier ‘s mini difference frequently reflects logical difference. In English ” c¬¬a??a??cs„a?‹ ” expressed with “ the 2nd best thing ” and “ the following best thing ” has implied negative significance. Therefore, “ c¬¬a??a??cs„a?‹ ” and “ the following best thing ” their deeper significance and tone of look is different. The transcriber is influenced by Chinese believing to understand this sentence, non taking rigorous signifier logic of English into history, and doing the
implied negative tone of the original into a positive affirmatory tone.
4.1.2 Recognize genus and species
For illustration: Cars and trucks would be powered by rapidly replaceable electric batteries.
e?‘?-‡ ?±?e?¦a’?a??e?¦a?™c”?a??a»?e?…eˆY?›????cs„c”µ?± c»„a??a??aS?aS›aˆ‚i??a?S?µ·a?¤a¤§aˆSe‹±e?aˆ‹a?Ya?‰a†?aˆS?•™a?‚aˆ‹p.86i?‰
Equally far as the logical construct concerned, “ cars ” is genus, and “ trucks ” is species. Based on the logic rule, these two constructs can non in analogue. In Webster ‘s New World Dictionary ( p.93 ) , car: a rider auto, normally four wheeledaˆ¦meant for going on streets on roads. The first word is ( e??a?? ) e??e?¦ , the latter is ( e??e?§ ) a??e?¦ , so they are translated into “ e??e?¦i??a??e?¦ ” .
Tom Mann said he must talk to him, and advanced as Lenin came towards us. How glad he was to recognize Ton Mann. His face lit up with pleasance as he told Tom how closely he had followed his activities all over the universe.
The sentence includes seven personal pronouns. In “ His face lit up with pleasureaˆ¦ ” “ His face ” refers to whose face, Lenin ‘s or Tom ‘s? Some transcribers believe that it is the latter.
In fact, “ his face ” a?cs„ ” his ” is consistent with the clause ‘s capable “ he ” , it refers to Lenin. In the sentence “ His face lit up with pleasance as he told Tom how closely he had followed his activities all over the universe ” . Its four pronouns represent the same
4.1.4 Eliminate the equivocal word
Lint is so blown into the imperativeness and compressed into bales-Aimer.aˆSe‹±?±‰e?z
In the sentence lint ‘s significance is equivocal: a ) scraped and softened linen once used as a dressing for lesions ; B ) cotton fibre used to do narration. If we analyze the sentence ‘s logic, the equivocal significance can be eliminated.
4.2 The logic transition in sentences degree
Comprehensive thought of Chinese accent on parataxis, relaxed syntactic construction, and it uses more significance connected and accumulated clause or independent clauses. It adopts “ topic-comment ” . So Chinese sentence does non necessitate the presence of the topic, every bit long as the semantics and the subject is clear, it can be no topic or no chief clause. The Chinese sentence can hold several predicates in one sentence and the sentence is short, it ever narrative one by one short phrase, so it is frequently referred to as “ pole-type ” construction. English state ‘s analyzed thought focal points on ground. Its sentence structure manifested as a hypotaxis, accent the rigorous signifier logic, and
uses more “ subject-predicate ” construction to represent the whole sentence centre, and concentrate on the verb, the verb by and large has capable or logical topic. No subject-sentence is few, and it merely has one predicate in a sentence, other verbs can merely be used as participials or clauses, and English sentences focus on the “ subject-predicate ” construction, giving the feeling of well-structured, hierarchal clear. Therefore, some linguists call English sentence as the “ grape type ” construction. The grape bole is really short, and attached rich fruit, the connexion of the grape bole and fruit is the indispensable English concurrences.
The sentence degree, the logic differences between the linguistic communications cause the transcriber to confound logic in analysing the English capable skip or non-predicate construction, and can non easy to accomplish transition between the “ grape-type ” and “ bamboo-type ” constructions.
4.2.1 Analysis of the topic in the sentence
“ After all, all life animals live by feeding on something else whether it be works or carnal dead or alive ” .
In the interlingual rendition, the transcriber mistaken analyzes the topic “ it ” , so the sentence becomes really baffled. There is besides a serious job about the logic of
the interlingual rendition. “ Dead animals ” how could “ eat it ” . If test the logic of the beginning text,
we can happen what “ it ” truly refers to. “ Populating animals ” or “ something else ” may be
the clause ‘s capable, with “ it ” and the rigorous English logic signifier ; we can find the
“ Something else ” is the existent topic, as “ life animals ” is plural.
4.2.2 Analysis of logical topic in the sentene
“ Logic ” is frequently straight used in the linguistic communication survey. Gerund normally has its ain “ logical topic ” . If the “ logical topic ” were incorrect, the tranlation would non be right. For illustration,
Some of these causes are wholly sensible consequences of societal demands. Others are sensible effects of peculiar progresss in scientific discipline being to some extent ego -accelerating.
“ in scientific discipline ” is a portion of the gerund composite construction, as we know, if the logical topic of the gerund is an abiotic noun, we should utilize common instance but non utilize genitive instance. The logical topic of “ in scientific discipline being to some extent self speed uping ” is “ scientific discipline ” or “ peculiar progresss ” ? Someone believes that it is “ scientific discipline ” .
e?‘?-‡ a??e?™a?›aZYa› a?i????‰a?›a®?a…????e‡?c„¶eˆ?c„¶a?°???e‡?c¤?a?se?ˆ?±‚aˆ‚a?¦a?ˆa?›a?™???c”±a?Zc§‘a¦a??a?ˆa®sc?‹a?¦a?Se‡???‘aS eˆYeˆ?a?§c”Ycs„a?…c„¶c»“?z?aˆ‚
In fact, this interlingual rendition deficiency of logic when to analyse the logical topic of the
sentence. If the preposition before “ scientific discipline ” is “ of ” non “ in ” , the interlingual rendition ” eˆ?a?§c”Y ” may be sensible. However, “ in ” and “ scientific discipline ” is an inseparable phrase and modifies “ peculiar progresss ” . So the logical topic of “ being to some extent self -accelerating ” is non “ scientific discipline ” but is “ peculiar progresss ” .
?”?e?‘ … … a?¦a?ˆa?›a?™???c§‘a¦cs„?Y?a?›c‰?a®sa?‘a±•a??a?ˆa®sc?‹a?¦a?Se‡???‘aS eˆYcs„a?…c„¶c»“?z?aˆ‚
4.2.3 Logic confusion in the setence
She could acquire away with anything, because she looked such a babe.
e?‘?-‡ a??e?????e?‡a»»a?•e?Ze™©i??a› a??a??c?‹a?SaZ»c®ˆc›?e??a?????a??a??a?????? ·aˆ‚i??A Course Book on English-Chinese Translationi?‰
The words of this sentence are simple, but it is mistranslated. If we analyze the logical relation, it will be easy corrected. It is impossible for the “ she looked such a
babe ” to go the ground of “ acquire off with anything ” .
?”?e?‘ a› a??c?‹a?SaZ»c®ˆc›????a??a??a??i???‰ˆa»?a»ˆa??e?»c?¦a?Ye??a??a?°a??e?«a?Saˆ‚
4.3 The logic transition in texts degree
The internal logic of the text is ever logical and consistent execution of the discourse, this logical relation fundamentally exists in two next sentences. In add-on, it may be exist in the context of a sentence and between sentences, even whole sentences, text, subject, and the writer ‘s purposes. There are many methods to accomplish coherency of the text, although these agencies are used for each linguistic communication, and each linguistic communication has different accents on these agencies. English emphasiss form logic, so it frequently uses logic convergence, and grammar agencies to show the logical relationship between sentences, it is a typical “ bamboo-type ” , while Chinese accent on “ axiomatic ” and the internal logic of the sentence. It embodies in the relationship between the Chinese text was “ substitution. ” To do the interlingual rendition consistent with the mark linguistic communication ‘s logical look, the transcriber should change over logic in the “ bamboo-type ” and “ H2O type ” texts. For illustration:
By comparing with the narrow, ironclad yearss of male parents, there was expansivity, I thought, in the yearss of female parents. They went to see neighbours, to shop in town, to run errands at school, at the library, at church. ( S.R.Sanders: “ Womans and Men ” )
e?‘?-‡ e·Yc?¶a??cs„e‚?c§?c‹c?„cs„aˆ?a?ˆ???a??a??cs„?-?a?c›???”i????‘e§‰a?-???a??cs„?-?a?e?‡a?-??”e??e?”c»°aˆ‚a??a»¬aZ»c?‹??›e‚»a±…i??a?SaYZe‡?a?°a??e??i??a?°a¦? ?aˆ?a›?a?¦e¦†aˆ??•™a ‚aSza?‹??…aˆ‚
In the text, “ expansivity ” is hard to understand. “ Expansive ” has the
significance of “ rich ” and “ broad ” , so person translated it into “ ???a??cs„?-?a?e?‡a?-??”e??e?” ” . Obviously, it does n’t conform to the context ; the life of the labour adult female is impossible rich. In the sentence the adult male ‘s life is narrow and ironclad, adult female ‘s life is
contrasted to it. So “ expansive ” should be the opposite word of “ narrow ” and “ ironclad ” . “ Narrow ” refers to the adult male makes money to raise a household twenty-four hours and dark, and the
activity infinite is narrow. “ Ironclad ” is translated into “ a?ˆ???a??a?? ” which makes a
error. Its significance is “ demanding ” ( c?§a? ) in the lexicon. Based on the analyses, we
can reason that the significance of “ expansivity ” is “ a®????e‡?a?? ” .
?”?e?‘ e·Ya?sc?¶a??cs„e‚?c§?c‹c?„aˆ?c?§a? cs„c”Y??»c›???”i????‘e§‰a?-a?s???a??cs„?-?a?e?‡a?-??”e??a®????e‡?a??aˆ‚a??a»¬a?Se‚»a±…a®¶a??e-?i??aZ»aYZe‡?a?°a??e??i??a?°a¦? ?aˆ?a›?a?¦e¦†aˆ??•™a ‚e·‘e·‘e…?
Logical thought is the advanced signifier of human consciousness and is the nonsubjective things and phenomena indirectly reflected which summarized in people ‘s heads. The logic of linguistic communication is one of three major factors to find the linguistic communication to utilize good or bad, so logic is frequently used as a criterion to prove linguistic communication application quality, place and work out jobs in linguistic communication applications. Translation embodies the transcriber ‘s ability to utilize two linguistic communications. To do interlingual rendition accurate, fluent and image reproduction, logic is inseparable. Translation should decently utilize logical thought signifier and ways to do the interlingual rendition accurate, clear and concluding appropriate.
Due to the geographical environment and cultural traditions, there are many differences in the look of logical thought between cultural Chinese and British peoples. English state advocators against Heaven, suppressing nature, concentrating on seeking out, emphases one to more, portion precedence, focal point on the relationship between individuals and things, organize the analytical thought. This sort of thought makes Chinese
go a “ fuzzy, intuitive, beautiful ” linguistic communication. It embodied as: English wages attending to hypotaxis, and uses more “ non-personal topic ” ; Chinese focal points on parataxis and uses more “ personal topic ” . Chinese usage more active voice, English use more inactive voice. Chinese sentences and text, through the uttered significance ‘s internal logic to associate, which belongs to implicit relation ; English sentences and texts ‘ logic is clear, it is expressed relation. English logical relationship between look signifiers caused certain troubles to the transcriber ; the transcriber must shuttle in two logical thought, and invariably to discourse.
[ 1 ] cZ‹aˆˆa?… . e?e?ˆa¦?-°a?ze•?c‚??ˆ?eˆ?a?‹a?? : e?e?ˆa?Za“?a¦cs„a?¤c»‡a????‘
a»¬cs„a??a?‘ — a?¤a??e…Sa“?a¦a®¶e®?e?e?ˆ [ J ] . a?a›?a¤-e? , 2008 i??1i?‰
[ 2 ] e?z?·‘e?? . e®?a?e???ˆ?c»??-?a?? [ J ] . a¤-e?a?Za¤-e??•™a¦ , 2002 ( 2 ) .
[ 3 ] a‚…aˆˆe›· . a‚…e›·e°?c?»e?‘ [ M ] . a?-a?¬ : a?“a»?a?-c•?a‡?c‰?c¤? , 2006.
[ 4 ] e??a?ˆ??Z , c‰ . cZ°a»??ˆ?c»??-?a???Z?c•? [ M ] . ?¦??? : a?Za?c?†a·?a¤§a¦a‡?
c‰?c¤? , 1989.
[ 5 ] Nida E A. Translating significance [ M ] . San Dimas, California:
English Language Institute,1982.
[ 6 ] a?•a?S , a??a?‘c?¤ . e‹±?±‰c?»e?‘?•™c?‹ [ M ] . a?S?µ· : a?S?µ·a¤-e??•™e‚?a‡?
c‰?c¤? , 2001.
[ 7 ] Pinkham J. The transcriber ‘s usher to CHINGLISH [ M ] .
[ 8 ] a™e‡?c¤? . ?-°c?-e‹±?±‰c?»e?‘?•™c?‹ [ M ] a?S?µ· : a?S?µ·a¤-e??•™e‚?a‡?c‰?c¤? , 2003.4i?s58-59
[ 9 ] ??›e??e?µ . ?-°a?-c??a¤§a¦e‹±?±‰c?»e?‘?•™c?‹ [ M ] a?S?µ· : a?S?µ·a?¤eˆsa¤§a¦a‡?c‰?c¤? , 2002.8:49-54
[ 10 ] e‡‘??‹e?? . a¤§a¦e‹±e?c?»e?‘c?†e®?a?Za®ze·µ [ M ] ?¦???i?sa?Za?c§‘?Sˆa¤§a¦a‡?c‰?c¤? , 2009.7
[ 11 ] Blum Kulka. Craps of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation [ C ] .