尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论

EugeneNidaDynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalenceEugeneA.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则》）asheattemptstodefinetranslating.InhisinfluentialworkTowardaScienceofTranslating(1964)（《翻译原则科学探索》）,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.DynamicEquivalenceAtermintroducedbyNida(1964)inthecontextofBibletranslationtodescribeoneoftwobasicorientationsfoundintheprocessoftranslation(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,althoughtheypointoutthatthisresponsecanneverbeidenticalwiththatelicitedbytheoriginal(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.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[CovertTranslation]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”（1977：205），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（deWaard）与奈达（Nida）（1986）用来取代奈达在别处成为动态对等[DynamicEquivalence]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：ⅷ）。PolysystemTheoryItamarEven-Zohar(佐哈尔)，bornin1939inTelAviv,Israel,isaresearcherofcultureandprofessorofPoeticsandComparativeLiteratureoftheUnitofCultureResearch,TelAvivUniversity.Even-Zohar’sintegralcontributionisinternationallyknownasthepolysystemtheoryandthetheoryofculturalrepertoires,whichgaverisetoalineofresearchareas.Hehasbeendevelopingthepolysystemtheorydesignedtodealwithdynamicsandheterogeneityincultureconcentratingoninteractionsbetweenvariouscultures.Inearlierstagesofhiswork,hecontributedtodevelopingapolysystemictheoryoftranslation,designedtoaccountfortranslationasacomplexanddynamicactivitygovernedbysystemrelationsratherthanbyapriorifixedparametersofcompatativelanguagecapabilities.Thishassubsequentlyledtostudiesonliterayinterference,eventuallyanalyzedintermsofinterculturalrelations.Theliteraytraditionsgenerallyperceivethetranslatedtextsasaculturalintruder,acarrierofforeignvaluestothatparticularculturalsystem.Whenacultureisstableandself-sufficient,translatedliteratureholdsaperipheralpositionandimporteditemshavetobepresentedascompatiblewiththeindigenoustraditionforacceptability.Thentargetacceptability-orientedtranslationstrategiesaremostlikelyused.Ontheotherhand,translationisusuallyundertakenforthepurposeofbringingaboutnewideasorchanges.Inthesituationwhenaliteraypolysystemisyoung,weakorincrisis,translatedliteraturemayassumeacentralposition,asaculturaltool,takingpart“intheprocessofcreatingnew,primarymodels”（Even-Zohar1990a：50）Thustranslatedliteratureholdsamorecentralpositionwhenasystemisweakandinneedofforcesfromotherculturesinordertofillinculturalgapsortolegimatetheexistingstructuresofpower,andwhentheforeigntextcontributestoreinforceestheticorideologicalvalusealreadypresentwithinthesystemandbecomesinstrumentaltotheestablishmentorreinforcementofculturalvalues.Duetotheconceptionoftranslationasasupplementaryactivityorasecondaryproduct,translationappearstohaveasecondaryfunctioninthepolysystemofthetargetculture.Translationcanbeviewedasameansbywhichacultureinfluencesanotherculture,introducingnewandforeignimpulsesinthetargetculture.Theterm“polysystem”referstotheentirenetworkofcorrelatedsystems,litearyandextra-literarywithinasociety.Forexploringintra-systemicliterayrelations,Even-Zoharpositedin1978thenotionofpolysystemfortheaggregateofliterarysystemsincludingallcanonizedandnon-canonizedformsinagivenculture,basedonhisrecognitionoftheimportanceoftranslatedliteratureinlitearyhistory.Hedevelopedanapproachaspolysystemtheorytoattempttoexplainthefunctionsoftheallkindsofwritingwithinagivecultureandhisanalysisdemonstratedthattranslatedliteraturefunctionsdifferentlydependingupontheage,strenth,andatabilityoftheparticularpolysystem(Gentzler1993:114-115)Withinaliterarypolysystem,thereexistsahierarchicalstructureofdifferingsubsystems,whicharedifferenttypesofliterature---canonized,non-canonized,andtranslatedliterature.Theyconstantlystruggleforamorecentralpositionthanotherstomaintainaprimarypositioninthecultureratherthanthesecondaryposition.Thiscompetitionleadstoadynmic,ongoingprocessofliterarymutationandevolution.Theroletranslatedliteratureplaysinthecultureiseithercentralorperipheral,primaryorsecondary.Ifitoccupiesaprimarypositon,itparticipatesactivelyinshapingthecentreofthepolysystem(Even-Zohar1987,ascitedinMunday2001:110).Itmayserveforinnovationsinthelitearyhistoryandmaysetupnewmodelsinthetargetculture.Ifitassumesasecondaryposition,itrepresentsaperipheralsystemwithinthepolysystemandconformstotheestablishedliterarynormsandconventionalformsofthetargetculture.Even-Zoharsuggeststhatthepositionoccupiedbytranslatedliteratureinthepolysystemconditionsthetranslationstrategy(