中国菜名的翻译策略
STRATEGIES FOR THE TRANSLATION OF CHINESE DISH NAME 
摘要
在中国，烹饪是一门古老的艺术。早在3000多年前，中国人就已经知道如何美味调配酸、甜、苦、辣、咸这五味。在清朝年间，一些海外华人在英国和其他国家开设了中国餐馆，从那时起中国菜开始名扬世界，中国餐馆也遍布世界许多国家和地区。中国菜做工精细，品种多样，被世界不同民族的人们所喜爱。随着世界全球化的不断发展，中国菜会成为越来越多的国际友人了解中国的一个重要窗口。
    中国菜名本是汉语自身的问题，其文化含义也非常清楚，但是当我们将中国菜名译成英文，介绍给外国人时，就出现了语际问题。相应地，中国菜名的文化含义也就变成了一个跨文化问题，因为翻译是一个跨文化和跨语言的问题，我们必须考虑到两种语言和两种文化的差异。
本篇论文从理论和实践两个角度分析了翻译策略，指出如何正确的翻译中国菜名，并详细讨论了一些特殊菜名。归纳总结翻译中餐菜名的通用方法:直译法,直译加注法，意译法，同时强调了文化在翻译和交流中的重要作用。
 
关键词：奈达的翻译理论;中国菜名的翻译;翻译策略;跨文化交际
 
1 Introduction
 
Chinese dishes are known for their variety and abundance. The dishes can be classified into four major cuisines, namely, Northern Cuisine, Sichuan Cuisine, Jiangzhe Cuisine and Southern Cuisine.
With more and more contact with the world, Chinese food has become one of cultures symbolizing our country. As one part of our country’s culture, it has a long history and rich culture essences. When foreigners taste our delicious food, they also want to know the name essence of the dish, the raw material, and the cooking ways. Therefore, the translatio
n of Chinese dish names plays a very important role in introducing dishes and spreading our diet culture. A well-translated dish name will help attract customers and inspire their desire for taste; while a dish name translated improperly sometimes will bring negative effect or ever lead to spoilage of the image of the dish.
In following paper, we will discuss specific strategies for the translation of Chinese dish names from theoretical and practical perspectives. There are mainly three approaches in translating Chinese dish names: literal translation, literal translation with notes, and liberal translation.
2 The Theory Applied to Translation of Chinese Dish Names
2.1 Eugene Nida
Eugene A .Nida, a famous American translator of the Bible, is well known for his works in semantic structure and translation theory. Nida’s theory of translation developed from his own practical work in the 1940s onwards when he was translating and organizing the transl
ation of the Bible. His theory generally contains two concepts: Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence.
2.2 Eugene Nida’s theory of translation
2.2.1 Formal equivalence translation
Formal Equivalence is defined by Nida as one of “two different types of equivalence”, which “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content”. Formal equivalence is thus the “quality of a translation in which the features of the form of source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language” (Nida&Taber, 1969\1982: 201). The aim of a translator who is striving for formal equivalence is to allow ST to speak “in its own terms” rather than to attempt to adjust it to the circumstances of the target culture; in practice this means, for example, using “Formal Equivalents” rather than “Functional Equivalents” wherever possible, not joining or splitting sentences, and preserving formal indicators such as punctuation marks and paragraphs breaks (Nida, 1964: 165). The frequent result of such strategies is of course that, because of differences in structure betw
een SL and TL, a translation of this type “distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message” (Nida&Taber, 1969\1982:201). For this reason, it is frequently necessary to include explanatory notes to help the target reader (Nida, 1964:166). So a general tendency towards formal than dynamic equivalence is characterized by, for example, a concern for accuracy and a preference for retaining the original wording wherever possible. In spite of its apparent limitations, however, formal equivalence is sometimes the most appropriate strategy to follow: besides frequently being chosen for translating biblical and other sacred texts, it is also useful for Back-Translation and for when the translator may for some reason be unwilling to accept responsibility for changing the wording of TT (Hatim&Hason, 1990:7).
 
2.2.2 Dynamic Equivalence Translation
   Dynamic Equivalencediscourse is based on what Nida called “the principle of equivalent effect” where “the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same a
s that which existed between the original receptors and the message” (1964:159). The message has to be modified to the receptor’s linguistic needs and cultural expectation and “aims at complete naturalness of expression”. He defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as seeking “the closest natural equivalent to the SL message” (1969:12).
In other words, a dynamically equivalent translation is one which has been produced in accordance with the three fold process of Analysis, Transfer 2, and Restructuring (Nida&Taber, 1969\1982:200); formulating such a translation sill entail such procedures as substituting TL items which are more culturally appropriate for obscure ST items, making linguistically implicit ST information explicit, and building in a certain amount of Redundancy to aid compression. In a translation of this kind one is therefore not so concerned with “matching the receptor language message with the source language message”; the aim is more to “relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture” (Nida,1964:159). Nida&Taber argue that a “high degree” of equivalence of response is needed for the translation to achieve its purpose, although they point out that this response can never been identical with elicited by the original (Nida&Tab
er,1969\1982:24).
 
2.3 Comments on the Theory
Nida played an important role in pointing the road away from strict word-for-word equivalence. His introduction to the concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence is crucial in introducing a receptor-based (or reader-based) orientation to translation theory. However, both the principle of equivalent effect and the concept of equivalence have come to be heavily criticized for a number of reasons. Lefevere (1993:78) consider equivalent or response to be impossible. One of Nida’s fiercest critics is Edwin Gentzler, who denigrates Nida’s work for its theological and proselytizing stand point with the concept that dynamic equivalence serves the purpose of converting the receptors, no matter what their culture, to the dominant discourse and ideas of Protestant Christianity. However, Nida has “achieved what few of his predecessors attempted” and his influence in translation studies spans five decades and has left an indelible mark in the field of translation (Munday, 2001:43).