尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论.docx

1、尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论Eugene NidaDynamic Equivalence and Formal EquivalenceEugene A. Nida (1914- ) is a distinguished American translation theorist as well as a linguist. His translation theory has exerted a great influence on translation studies in Western countries. His work on translatoin set off the

2、 study of modern translation as an academic field, and he is regareded as “the patriarch of translation study and a founder of the discipline” （Snell-Hornby 1988:1; Baker 1998:277）Nidas theory of dynamic equivalence is his major contribution to translation studies. The concept is first mentioned in

3、his article “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating”(1959) （从圣经翻译看翻译原那么） as he attempts to define translating. In his influential work Toward a Science of Translating (1964) （翻译原那么科学探讨）, he postulates dynamic equivalent translation as follows:In such a translation (dynamic equ

4、ivalent translation) one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that existed between the original receptors and the mes

5、sage (1964:159) However, he does not give a clear definition of dynamic equivalence untill 1969. In his 1969 textbook The Thoery and Practice of Translation（翻译理论与实践）, dynamic equivalence is defined “ in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the messages in the receptor language respond to it

6、 in substantially the same manner as the receptores in the source language”(1969:24)The expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（从一种语言到另一种语言）. However, there is essentially not much difference between t

7、he two concepts. The substitution of “functional equivalence” is just to stress the concept of function and to avoid misunderstandings of the term “dynamic”, which is mistaken by some persons for something in the sense of impact ( Nida 1993:124). In Language, Culture and Translating(1993)（语言与文化：翻译中的

8、语境, “functional equivalence” is further divided into categories on two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level. The minimal level of “functional equivalence” is defined as “The readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the origina

9、l readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it”. The maximal level is stated as “The readers of a translated text should be able to understand and aprreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did” (Nida 1993:118; 1995:224). The two definitions of equivalence re

10、veal that the minimal level is realistic, whereas the maximal level is ieal. For Nida, good translations always lie somewhere between the two levels (Nida 19954:224). It can be noted that “functional equivalence” is a flexible concept with different degrees of adequacy.Dynamic EquivalenceA term intr

11、oduced by Nida(1964) in the context of Bible translation to describe one of two basic orientations found in the process of translation (see also Formal Equivalence). Dynamic equivalence is the quality which characterizes a translation in which “the message of the original text has been so transporte

12、d into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors”(Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200, emphasis removed). In other words, a dynamically equivalent translation is one which has been produced in accordance with the threefold process of Analysis,

13、Transfer and Restructuring (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200); formulating such a translation will entail such procedures as substituting TL items which are more culturally appropriate for obscure ST items, making lingguistically implicit ST information explicit, and building in a certain amount of REDUND

14、ANCY(1964:131) to aid comprehension. In a translation of this kind one is therefor not so concerned with “matching the receptor-language message with the source-laguage”; the aim is more to “relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture” (Nida 1964:159). Pos

15、sibly the best known example of a dynamically equivalent solution to a translation problem is seen in the decision to translate the Biblical phrase “Lamb of God” into and Eskimo language as “Seal of God”: the fact that lambs are unkown in polar regions has here led to the substitution of a culturall

16、y meaningful item which shares at least some of the important features of the SL expression (see Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15). Nida and 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

17、 be identical with that elicited by the original(1969/1982:24). However, they also issue a warning about the limits within which the processes associated with producing dynamic equivalence remain valid: fore example, a comparison with the broadly simialr category of Linguistic Translaton reveals tha

18、t only elements which are linguistically implict in TT-rather than any additional contextual information which might be necessary to a new audiencemay legitimately be made explicit in TT. The notion of dynamic equivalence is of course especially relevant to Bible translation, given the particular ne

19、ed of Biblical translations not only to inform readers but also to present a relevant message to them and hopefully elicit a response(1969/1982:24). However, it can clearly also be applied to other genres, and indeed in many areas ( such as literary translation) it has arguably come to hold sway ove

20、r other approaches (Nida 1964:160). See also Fuctional Equivalence. Further reading: Gut 1991; Nida 1964,1995: Nida & Taber 1969/1982.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Formal Equivalence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 & Taber 1969/1982:200,原文的着重号已取消)

21、。 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 & Taber 1969/1982:200); 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

22、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Linguistic Translation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

23、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。Formal EquivalenceFormal Equivalence ( or Formal Correspondence) Defined by Nida as one of “two different types of equivalence” (see also

24、 Dynamic Equivalence), which “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content”(1964:159). Formal equivalence is thus the “quality of a translaiton in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language”( Nida & Taber 1969/198

25、2:201). Nida proposed his categorization in the context of Bible translation, and in many respects it offers a more useful distiction than the more traditional notions of free and literal translation ( Hatim & Mason 1990:7). The aim of a translator who is striving for formal equivalence is to allow

26、ST to speak “in its own terms” rather than attempting to adjust it to the circumstances of the target culture; in practice this means, for example, using Formal rather than Functional Equivalents wherever possible, not joinning or spliting sentences, and preserving formal indicators such as punctuat

27、ion marks and paragraphs breaks (Nida 1964:165). The frequent result of such strategies is of course that, because of differences in structure between SL and TL, a translation of this type “distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor lanugage, and hence distorts the message” ( Ni

28、da & Taber 1969/1982: 201). For this reason it is frequently nesessary to include explanatory notes to help the target reader ( Nida 1964:166). Like its converse, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence represents a general orientation rather than and absolute technique, so that between the two oppo

29、site extremes there are any number of intervening grades, all of which reprent acceptable methods of translation (1964:160). However, a general tendency towards formal rather than dynamic euqivalence is characterized by, for example, a concern for accuracy (1964:1598) and a preference for retaining

30、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 tra

31、nslator or interpreter may for some reason being unwilling to accept responsibility for changing the wording of TT ( see Hatim & Mason 1990: 7). It should be noted that when Nida & Taber (1969/1982) discuss this concept they use the term formal correspondence to refer to it. Further reading: Nida 19

32、64; Nida & Taber 1969/1982; Tymoczko 1985.Formal Equivalence 形式对等（又名 Formal Correspondence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Dynamic Equivalence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Free Transl

33、ation、直译/字面翻译Literal Translation 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Formal Equivalent而不是功能对等语Functional Equivalent, 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，