尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论

1、精选优质文档-倾情为你奉上精选优质文档-倾情为你奉上专心-专注-专业专心-专注-专业精选优质文档-倾情为你奉上专心-专注-专业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 c

2、ountries. His work on translatoin set off the 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 translatio

3、n studies. The concept is first mentioned in his article “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating”(1959) （从圣经翻译看翻译原则） as he attempts to define translating. In his influential work Toward a Science of Translating (1964) （翻译原则科学探索）, he postulates dynamic equivalent translation as

4、 follows:In such a translation (dynamic equivalent 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

5、 between the original receptors and the message (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 mess

6、ages in the receptor language respond to it 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substantially the same manner as the receptores in the source language”(1969:24)The expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（从一种语言到另一种语言）.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 i

7、s essentially not much difference between the 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 Languag

8、e, Culture and Translating(1993)（语言与文化：翻译中的语境, “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 poin

9、t that they can conceive of how the original 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:

10、224). The two definitions of equivalence reveal 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

11、 of adequacy.Dynamic EquivalenceA term introduced 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

12、of the original text has been so transported 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 accordan

13、ce with the threefold process of Analysis, 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,

14、 and building in a certain amount of REDUNDANCY(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 conte

15、xt of his own culture” (Nida 1964:159). Possibly 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

16、here led to the substitution of a culturally 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

17、they point out that this response can never 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 ca

18、tegory of Linguistic Translaton reveals that 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

19、 Bible translation, given the particular need 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 transla

20、tion) it has arguably come to hold sway over other approaches (Nida 1964:160). See also Fuctional Equivalence. Further reading: Gut 1991; Nida 1964,1995: Nida & Taber 1969/1982.奈达（Nida）（1964）在圣经翻译中所采用的术语，用来描述翻译过程的两个基本趋向之一（另见Formal Equivalence形式对等）。动态对等指翻译性质而言，在这种翻译过程中，“原文信息转移到接受语言，译文接受者的反应与原文接受者的反应基

21、本相同” (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200,原文的着重号已取消)。 换言之，在动态对等的翻译中，译文的产生要经过三个步骤：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：用在文化上更恰当的目标语成分替换隐晦难懂的源文本成分，使语言上内隐的源文本信息明晰化；以及使用一定的冗余Redundant 信息来帮助理解（1964：131）。因此，进行这类翻译，译者不必十分在意“接受语信息与源语信息的匹配“；译者的目的反而主要是“考虑接受者在自身文化情境中的行为模式

22、”（Nida，1964：159）。用动态对等方法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”：在地球极地羔羊不为人知，因而在此将它替换成一个具有译语文化意义的事物，替换物至少拥有部分源语表达的重要特征（见Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15）。奈达和泰伯（Taber）认为，要达到翻译目的，就需要获得在读者反应上的“高度”对等，但他们也指出，这种反应与原文引出的反应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过程使受到限制的，例如，把它与大致相同类别的语言翻译Linguistic Translat

23、ion加以比较，发现源文本中只有语言上的内隐成分可以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则不可在目标文本中增加。毫无疑问，动态对等的概念对于圣经翻译特别有用，因为圣经翻译所需要的不仅是为读者提供信息，而且是要提供有用的信息，并希望引发某种反应（1969/1982:24）。但很显然，这一概念同时也能应用于其他文体。实际上，可以认为它已在很多领域（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

24、different types of equivalence” (see also 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

25、receptor language”( Nida & Taber 1969/1982:201). 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 str

26、iving for formal equivalence is to allow 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 pres

27、erving 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 between SL and TL, a translation of this type “distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor lanug

28、age, and hence distorts the message” ( Nida & 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 absolut

29、e technique, so that between the two opposite 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 (1

30、964:1598) 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

31、for Back-translation and for when the translator 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

32、 to refer to it. Further reading: Nida 1964;Nida & Taber 1969/1982; Tymoczko 1985.Formal Equivalence 形式对等（又名 Formal Correspondence形式对应）奈达（Nida）将形式对等定义为“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）。 这样，形式对等指“源文本的形式特征在接受语中被机械复制的翻译特性”（Nida & Taber，1962/1982: 201），奈达是在

33、圣经翻译的背景下提出这个分类的，它在许多方面比传统的自由译Free Translation、直译/字面翻译Literal Translation 概念更有用（Hatim & Mason，1990：7）。力求形式对等的译者允许源文本“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用形式对等语Formal Equivalent而不是功能对等语Functional Equivalent, 既不合并也不拆分句子，保留原文的标点符号、段落划分之类的形式标志（Nida，1964：165）。当然，由于源语与目标语的结构差异，采用这类策略得到的译文往往“扭转了接受语的

34、语法与文体模式进行曲解了（原文）信息”（Nida & Taber， 1969/1982: 201）。为此，必须经常增加解释性的注释以帮助目标语读者（理解）（Nida，1964：166）。 同与其相对应的动态对等一样，形式对等反映的是一个总体倾向而不是一种绝对的技巧，因此，在这对应的两极之间村子无数的中间等级，而所有这些中间等级都代表这可以接受的翻译方法（1964：160）。然而，追求对等而非动态对等的总体趋势具有如下特征，如强调译文准确（1964:159）,并倾向于尽可能地保留原来的措辞。尽管形式对等存在一些明显的局限，然而，有时候它仍是应该遵守的最合适的策略；除了常常用来翻译圣经和其他宗教经

35、文外，它同时也有利于回译Back-translation， 而且在口笔译者可能出于某种原因不愿意承担改变目标文本措词的责任时，也是大有裨益的（见Hatin & Mason，1990：7）。应该指出，奈达和泰伯（1969/1982）在讨论这一概念时，他们使用“形式对应”这一术语来指称它。另见Gloss Translation释词翻译。详阅：Nida（1964）， Nida & Taber （1969/1982）; Tymoczko(1985).Functional EquivalenceA term used to refer to the tpye of Equivalence reflect

36、ed in a TT which seeks to adapt the function of the original to suit the specific context in and for which it was produced. According to Gutt, the function that a texxt is intended to fulfil is now probably the “most widely accepted frame of reference for translation equivalence”(1991:10). However,

37、while the term is used by a number of writers, it is perhaps defined most systematically by House (1977). Houses aim is to develop a methodology for assessing translation quality, and so her concept of funcitonal equivalence is basically evaluative. She presents (1977:42) a detailed “multi-dimension

38、al” analysis text function in which she distinguishes the three dimensions of linguistic usage relation to the language uers (geographical origin, social class and time), and five reflecting language use (medium, participation, social role relationship, social attitude and province, or general area

39、of discourse). Using this framwork it is possible to build up a “text profile” for both ST and TT, and the House argues that a translated text “should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function”( 1977:49). This means that

40、there should be a high level of matching between ST and TT in the dimensions which are particularly relevant to the text in question if TT is to be considered functionally equivalent to ST(1977:49). Within Houses wider model, functional equivalence is only attainable in cases of Covert Translation(1

41、977:205). However, according to Gutt, problems remain in the case of texts which possess more than one function(1991:10); indeed, it would be extremely difficult to construct a model which could accommodate such text. It should be noted that the term functional equivalence is also used by de Waard &

42、 Nida(1986) to replace what Nida elsewhere refers to as Dynamic Equivalence; according to de Waard & Nida, the new term is less open to misinterpretation, and its use serves to “highlight the communicative functions of translating”(1986: 1986：). Further reading: Gutt 1991; House 1977; de Waard & Nid

43、a 1986.Functional Equivalence 功能对等用来指在目标语文本中反映出的对等类型的术语，该目标文本旨在使原文功能适应它得以生成以及为其而生成的特定语境。按照格特（Gut）的观点，现在，文本的功能或许是“翻译对等的最为普遍接受的参考框架”（1991：10）。然而，尽管这一术语为许多学者所采用，或许给它提供最系统的定义的使豪斯（House）（1977）。豪斯的目的是为评估翻译质量提供方法，因此，她的功能对等概念基本上评价性的。她（1944：42）提出了一种详细的。“多维度”文本功能分析，区分三种涉及语言使用者的语言用法维度（“地理来源”、“社会等级”与“时间”），还区分了五

44、个反映语言使用的维度（“中介”、“参与”、“社会角色关系”、“社会态度”与“领域“，或一般话语范围）。运用这一框架，就有可能为源文本与目标文本建立一个“文本数据图”。豪斯指出，译本“不仅在功能上要切合源文本，而且应该采用对等的情景维度以取得这一功能”（1977：49）。这意味着，如果要想目标文本在功能上与源文本达到对等，那么，在相关文本关系特别密切的多个维度上，源文本与目标文本应当彼此高度对应（1977：49）。在豪斯所提范围更广的模式内，功能对等只有在隐型翻译Covert Translation的情况下才能实现（1977：204），但是，“因为必须要考虑到社会文化规范的差异”（1977：20

45、5），因此，即使在这里功能对等仍难以实现。然而，按照格特的观点，在文本具有多个功能的情况下，问题仍然存在（1991：10）；实际上，建立一个能够适应这类文本的模式是及其困难的。应该指出，功能对等这一术语也被得瓦得（de Waard）与奈达（Nida）（1986）用来取代奈达在别处成为动态对等Dynamic Equivalence的概念；按照得瓦得与奈达的观点，这一术语不那么容易被人误解，而且使用它可以“强调翻译的交际功能”（1986：）。Polysystem TheoryItamar Even-Zohar ( 佐哈尔)， born in 1939 in Tel Aviv, Israel, is

46、 a researcher of culture and professor of Poetics and Comparative Literature of the Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University. Even-Zohars integral contribution is internationally known as the polysystem theory and the theory of cultural repertoires, which gave rise to a line of research areas.H

47、e has been developing the polysystem theory designed to deal with dynamics and heterogeneity in culture concentrating on interactions between various cultures. In earlier stages of his work, he contributed to developing a polysystemic theory of translation, designed to account for translation as a c

48、omplex and dynamic activity governed by system relations rather than by a priori fixed parameters of compatative language capabilities. This has subsequently led to studies on literay interference, eventually analyzed in terms of intercultural relations.The literay traditions generally perceive the

49、translated texts as a cultural intruder, a carrier of foreign values to that particular cultural system. When a culture is stable and self-sufficient, translated literature holds a peripheral position and imported items have to be presented as compatible with the indigenous tradition for acceptabili

50、ty. Then target acceptability-oriented translation strategies are most likely used. On the other hand, translation is usually undertaken for the purpose of bringing about new ideas or changes. In the situation when a literay polysystem is young, weak or in crisis, translated literature may assume a

51、central position, as a cultural tool, taking part “in the process of creating new, primary models” （Even-Zohar 1990a：50）Thus translated literature holds a more central position when a system is weak and in need of forces from other cultures in order to fill in cultural gaps or to legimate the existi

52、ng structures of power, and when the foreign text contributes to reinforce esthetic or ideological valuse already present within the system and becomes instrumental to the establishment or reinforcement of cultural values. Due to the conception of translation as a supplementary activity or a seconda

53、ry product, translation appears to have a secondary function in the polysystem of the target culture. Translation can be viewed as a means by which a culture influences another culture, introducing new and foreign impulses in the target culture.The term “polysystem” refers to the entire network of c

54、orrelated systems, liteary and extra-literary within a society. For exploring intra-systemic literay relations, Even-Zohar posited in 1978 the notion of polysystem for the aggregate of literary systems including all canonized and non-canonized forms in a given culture, based on his recognition of th

55、e importance of translated literature in liteary history. He developed an approach as polysystem theory to attempt to explain the functions of the all kinds of writing within a give culture and his analysis demonstrated that translated literature functions differently depending upon the age, strenth

56、, and atability of the particular polysystem (Gentzler 1993:114-115)Within a literary polysystem, there exists a hierarchical structure of differing subsystems, which are different types of literature-canonized, non-canonized, and translated literature. They constantly struggle for a more central position than others to maintain a primary position in the culture rather than the secondary position. This competition leads to a dynmic, ongoing process of literary