尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论.docx
《尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论.docx(7页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
![尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-2/1/3f9774c1-df93-4d65-8969-7968d3ad3e38/3f9774c1-df93-4d65-8969-7968d3ad3e381.gif)
尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论
EugeneNida
DynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalence
EugeneA.Nida(1914--)isadistinguishedAmericantranslationtheoristaswellasalinguist.HistranslationtheoryhasexertedagreatinfluenceontranslationstudiesinWesterncountries.Hisworkontranslatoinsetoffthestudyofmoderntranslationasanacademicfield,andheisregarededas“thepatriarchoftranslationstudyandafounderofthediscipline”(Snell-Hornby1988:
1;Baker1998:
277)
Nida’stheoryofdynamicequivalenceishismajorcontributiontotranslationstudies.Theconceptisfirstmentionedinhisarticle“PrinciplesofTranslationasExemplifiedbyBibleTranslating”(1959)(《从圣经翻译看翻译原那么》)asheattemptstodefinetranslating.InhisinfluentialworkTowardaScienceofTranslating(1964)(《翻译原那么科学探讨》),hepostulatesdynamicequivalenttranslationasfollows:
Insuchatranslation(dynamicequivalenttranslation)oneisnotsoconcernedwithmatchingthereceptor-languagemessagewiththesource-languagemessage,butwiththedynamicrelationship,thattherelationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage(1964:
159)However,hedoesnotgiveacleardefinitionofdynamicequivalenceuntill1969.Inhis1969textbookTheThoeryandPracticeofTranslation(《翻译理论与实践》),dynamicequivalenceisdefined“intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessagesinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptoresinthesourcelanguage”(1969:
24)
Theexpression“dynamicequivalence”issupersededby“functionalequivalencev”inhisworkFromOneLanguagetoAnother(1986,withDeWaard)(《从一种语言到另一种语言》).However,
thereisessentiallynotmuchdifferencebetweenthetwoconcepts.Thesubstitutionof“functionalequivalence”isjusttostresstheconceptoffunctionandtoavoidmisunderstandingsoftheterm“dynamic”,whichismistakenbysomepersonsforsomethinginthesenseofimpact(Nida1993:
124).InLanguage,CultureandTranslating(1993)(《语言与文化:
翻译中的语境》,“functionalequivalence”isfurtherdividedintocategoriesontwolevels:
theminimallevelandthemaximallevel.Theminimallevelof“functionalequivalence”isdefinedas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit”.Themaximallevelisstatedas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstandandaprreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid”(Nida1993:
118;1995:
224).Thetwodefinitionsofequivalencerevealthattheminimallevelisrealistic,whereasthemaximallevelisieal.ForNida,goodtranslationsalwaysliesomewherebetweenthetwolevels(Nida19954:
224).Itcanbenotedthat“functionalequivalence”isaflexibleconceptwithdifferentdegreesofadequacy.
DynamicEquivalence
AtermintroducedbyNida(1964)inthecontextofBibletranslationtodescribeoneoftwobasic
orientationsfoundintheprocessoftranslation(seealsoFormalEquivalence).Dynamicequivalenceisthequalitywhichcharacterizesatranslationinwhich“themessageoftheoriginaltexthasbeensotransportedintothereceptorlanguagethattheresponseofthereceptorisessentiallylikethatoftheoriginalreceptors”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:
200,emphasisremoved).Inotherwords,adynamicallyequivalenttranslationisonewhichhasbeenproducedinaccordancewiththethreefoldprocessofAnalysis,TransferandRestructuring(Nida&Taber1969/1982:
200);formulatingsuchatranslationwillentailsuchproceduresassubstitutingTLitemswhicharemoreculturallyappropriateforobscureSTitems,makinglingguisticallyimplicitSTinformationexplicit,andbuildinginacertainamountofREDUNDANCY(1964:
131)toaidcomprehension.Inatranslationofthiskindoneistherefornotsoconcernedwith“matchingthereceptor-languagemessagewiththesource-laguage”;theaimismoreto“relatethereceptortomodesofbehaviorrelevantwithinthecontextofhisownculture”(Nida1964:
159).PossiblythebestknownexampleofadynamicallyequivalentsolutiontoatranslationproblemisseeninthedecisiontotranslatetheBiblicalphrase“LambofGod”intoandEskimolanguageas“SealofGod”:
thefactthatlambsareunkowninpolarregionshashereledtothesubstitutionofaculturallymeaningfulitemwhichsharesatleastsomeoftheimportantfeaturesoftheSLexpression(seeSnell-Hornby1988/1955:
15).NidaandTaberarguethata“highdegree”ofequivalenceofresponseisneededforthetranslationtoachieveitspurpose,althoughtheypointoutthatthisresponsecanneverbeidenticalwith
thatelicitedbytheoriginal(1969/1982:
24).However,theyalsoissueawarningaboutthelimitswithinwhichtheprocessesassociatedwithproducingdynamicequivalenceremainvalid:
foreexample,acomparisonwiththebroadlysimialrcategoryofLinguisticTranslatonrevealsthatonlyelementswhicharelinguisticallyimplictinTT-ratherthananyadditionalcontextualinformationwhichmightbenecessarytoanewaudience—maylegitimatelybemadeexplicitinTT.ThenotionofdynamicequivalenceisofcourseespeciallyrelevanttoBibletranslation,giventheparticularneedofBiblicaltranslationsnotonlytoinformreadersbutalsotopresentarelevantmessagetothemandhopefullyelicitaresponse(1969/1982:
24).However,itcanclearlyalsobeappliedtoothergenres,andindeedinmanyareas(suchasliterarytranslation)ithasarguablycometoholdswayoverotherapproaches(Nida1964:
160).SeealsoFuctionalEquivalence.Furtherreading:
Gut1991;Nida1964,1995:
Nida&Taber1969/1982.
奈达(Nida)(1964)在《圣经》翻译中所采纳的术语,用来描述翻译进程的两个大体趋向之一(另见FormalEquivalence[形式对等])。
动态对等指翻译性质而言,在这种翻译进程中,“原文信息转移到同意语言,译文同意者的反映与原文同意者的反映大体相同”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:
200,原文的着重号已取消)。
换言之,在动态对等的翻译中,译文的产生要通过三个步骤:
分析[Analysis]、转移[Transfer]和重组[Restructuring](Nida&Taber1969/1982:
200);生成这么一篇译文需要采取如下程序:
用在文化上更适当的目口号成份替换隐晦难懂的源文本成份,使语言上内隐的源文本信息明晰化;和利用必然的冗余[Redundant]
信息来帮忙明白得(1964:
131)。
因此,进行这种翻译,译者没必要十分在意“同意语信息与源语信息的匹配“;译者的目的反而主若是“考虑同意者在自身文化情境中的行为模式”(Nida,1964:
159)。
用动态对等方式解决翻译问题的一个最为人知的例子,是把《圣经》用语“上帝的羔羊”译成某一爱斯基摩语中的“上帝的海豹”:
在地球极地羔羊鲜为人知,因此在此将它替换成一个具有译语文化意义的事物,替换物至少拥有部份源语表达的重要特点(见Snell-Hornby
1988/1955:
15)。
奈达和泰伯(Taber)以为,要达到翻译目的,就需要取得在读者反映上的“高度”对等,但他们也指出,这种反映与原文引出的反映绝对不可能完全等同(1969/1982:
24)。
他们还指出,产生动态对等的相关进程使受到限制的,例如,把它与大致相同类别的语言翻译[LinguisticTranslation]加以比较,发觉源文本中只有语言上的内隐成份能够在目标文本中明说出来,而目标读者可能需要的任何附加语境信息那么不可在目标文本中增加。
毫无疑问,动态对等的概念关于《圣经》翻译专门有效,因为《圣经》翻译所需要的不仅是为读者提供信息,而且是要提供有效的信息,并希望引发某种反映(1969/1982:
24)。
但很显然,这一概念同时也能应用于其他文体。
事实上,能够以为它已在很多领域(例如文学领域)表现得比其他途径更为优胜。
FormalEquivalence
FormalEquivalence(orFormalCorrespondence)DefinedbyNidaasoneof“twodifferenttypesofequivalence”(seealsoDynamicEquivalence),which“focusesattentiononthemessageitself,inbothformandcontent”(1964:
159).Formalequivalenceisthusthe“qualityofatranslaitoninwhichthefeaturesoftheformofthesourcetexthavebeenmechanicallyreproducedinthereceptorlanguage”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:
201).NidaproposedhiscategorizationinthecontextofBibletranslation,andinmanyrespectsitoffersamoreusefuldistictionthanthemoretraditionalnotionsoffreeandliteraltranslation(Hatim&Mason1990:
7).TheaimofatranslatorwhoisstrivingforformalequivalenceistoallowSTtospeak“initsownterms”ratherthanattemptingtoadjustittothecircumstancesofthetargetculture;inpracticethismeans,forexample,using
FormalratherthanFunctionalEquivalentswhereverpossible,notjoinningorsplitingsentences,andpreservingformalindicatorssuchaspunctuationmarksandparagraphsbreaks(Nida1964:
165).Thefrequentresultofsuchstrategiesisofcoursethat,becauseofdifferencesinstructurebetweenSLandTL,atranslationofthistype“distortsthegrammaticalandstylisticpatternsofthereceptorlanugage,andhencedistortsthemessage”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:
201).Forthisreasonitisfrequentlynesessarytoincludeexplanatorynotestohelpthetargetreader(Nida1964:
166).Likeitsconverse,dynamicequivalence,formalequivalencerepresentsageneralorientationratherthanandabsolutetechnique,sothatbetweenthetwooppositeextremesthereareanynumberofinterveninggrades,allofwhichreprentacceptablemethodsoftranslation(1964:
160).However,ageneraltendencytowardsformalratherthandynamiceuqivalenceischaracterizedby,forexample,aconcernforaccuracy(1964:
1598)andapreferenceforretainingtheoriginalwordingwhereverpossible.Inspiteofitsapparentlimitations,however,formalequivalenceissometimesthemostappropriatestrategytofollow:
besidesfrequentlybeingchosenfortranslatingBiblicalandothersacredtexts,itisalsousefulforBack-translationandforwhenthetranslatororinterpretermayforsomereasonbeingunwillingtoacceptresponsibilityforchangingthewordingofTT(seeHatim&Mason1990:
7).ItshouldbenotedthatwhenNida&Taber(1969/1982)discussthisconcepttheyusethetermformalcorrespondencetorefertoit.Furtherreading:
Nida1964;Nida&Taber1969/1982;Tymoczko1985.
FormalEquivalence形式对等(又名FormalCorrespondence[形式对应])
奈达(Nida)将形式对等概念为“两种不同的对等类型”之一(另见DynamicEquivalence[动态对等])。
这种对等“强调信息本身,既强调信息的形式也强调信息的内容”(1964:
159)。
如此,形式对等指“源文本的形式特点在同意语中被机械复制的翻译特性”(Nida&Taber,1962/1982:
201),奈达是在《圣经》翻译的背景下提出那个分类的,它在许多方面比传统的自由译[FreeTranslation]、直译/字面翻译[LiteralTranslation]概念更有效(Hatim&Mason,1990:
7)。
力求形式对等的译者许诺源文本“用自己的话语”说话,而不想对它进行调整以适应目标文化;比如,在实践中,这意味着尽可能地采纳形式对等语[FormalEquivalent]而不是功能对等语[FunctionalEquivalent],既不归并也不拆分句子,保留原文的标点符号、段落划分之类的形式标志(Nida,1964:
165)。
固然,由于源语与目口号的结构不同,采纳这种策略取得的译文往往“扭转了同意语的语法与文体模式进行歪曲了(原文)信息”(Nida&Taber,1969/1982:
201)。
为此,