Non-Equivalence in Korean-English Translations of Heart Sutra
5
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The concept of equivalence has been considered as an essential point in translation even though this concept has potential controversies such as its definition, relevance, and applicability in practice. The aim of this paper is to argue the issue about correlation between equivalence and non-equivalence in translation of Buddhist scripture, especially, Heart Sutra (Prajna-Paramita-Sutra). In short, in the case of the translation in Buddhist scripture, we cannot expect the whole or full equivalence effect because each culture or religion has its own Platonic ideas and they are forced to shift or transformed into another language. Therefore, it is difficult to achieve full equivalence in structure or part of speech when rendered. In conclusion, the structural and semantic features between Chinese letter or Korean and English, in particular in the case of religion translation, have acute differences. That is, we can be aware that Korean words that are semantically complex exist in the words of Buddhist sutra and Korean and English make different distinctions in meaning. In addition to this, it seems that English lacks specific terms in ideal concept with compared to internal meaning Chinese and Korean have their linguistic fertileness at least in the religious aspects.
Abstract
The concept of equivalence has been considered as an essential point in translation even though this concept has potential controversies such as its definition, relevance, and applicability in practice. The aim of this paper is to argue the issue about correlation between equivalence and non-equivalence in translation of Buddhist scripture, especially, Heart Sutra (Prajna-Paramita-Sutra). In short, in the case of the translation in Buddhist scripture, we cannot expect the whole or full equivalence effect because each culture or religion has its own Platonic ideas and they are forced to shift or transformed into another language. Therefore, it is difficult to achieve full equivalence in structure or part of speech when rendered. In conclusion, the structural and semantic features between Chinese letter or Korean and English, in particular in the case of religion translation, have acute differences. That is, we can be aware that Korean words that are semantically complex exist in the words of Buddhist sutra and Korean and English make different distinctions in meaning. In addition to this, it seems that English lacks specific terms in ideal concept with compared to internal meaning Chinese and Korean have their linguistic fertileness at least in the religious aspects.
참고문헌 (12)
- Baker, Mona, "Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation" (1992), Routledge
- Do Won, Kim, "Banyasimkoung" (2010), Sunmoon Publication
- Jakobson, Roman, "On Translation" (1959), Harvard University Press
- Munday, Jeremy, "Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications" (2016), Routledge
- Nida, Eugene A, "Towards a Science of Translating" (1964), E. J. Brill
- Nida, Eugene A, "The Theory and Practice of Translation" (1982), E. J. Brill
- Park, Koung Im, "(Non)Equivalence Issues in Korean-English Translations of Buddhist Scriptures: Between Different Linguistic Systems Belonging Different Cultural Backgrounds", Doctor
- Pyeon, Ki-Yeong, "Non-Equivalence Translation of Proper Nouns Between Two Languages in Different Cultures: Korean to English", Master, pp.2017
- Shuttleworth, Mark, "Dictionary of Translation Studies" (1999), ST. Jerome Publishing
- Snell-Hornby, Mary, "Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach" (1988), John Benjamin Publishing Company
- "Soongsan, translation & Hyungak, supervision: The Maha Prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra" (2003)[URL]
- Xiabin, He, "Can We Throw ‘Equivalence’ Out of the Window?", Translating Today Magazine, (4), pp.18~19 (2005)