尤金·奈達(dá)Eugene-Nida翻譯理論

1、精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上專心-專注-專業(yè)專心-專注-專業(yè)精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上專心-專注-專業(yè)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) （從圣經(jīng)翻譯看翻譯原則） as he attempts to define translating. In his influential work Toward a Science of Translating (1964) （翻譯原則科學(xué)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（翻譯理論與實(shí)踐）, 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substantially the same manner as the receptores in the source language”(1969:24)The expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（從一種語(yǔ)言到另一種語(yǔ)言）.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)（語(yǔ)言與文化：翻譯中的語(yǔ)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.奈達(dá)（Nida）（1964）在圣經(jīng)翻譯中所采用的術(shù)語(yǔ)，用來(lái)描述翻譯過(guò)程的兩個(gè)基本趨向之一（另見Formal Equivalence形式對(duì)等）。動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等指翻譯性質(zhì)而言，在這種翻譯過(guò)程中，“原文信息轉(zhuǎn)移到接受語(yǔ)言，譯文接受者的反應(yīng)與原文接受者的反應(yīng)基

21、本相同” (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200,原文的著重號(hào)已取消)。 換言之，在動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等的翻譯中，譯文的產(chǎn)生要經(jīng)過(guò)三個(gè)步驟：分析Analysis、轉(zhuǎn)移Transfer和重組Restructuring (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200); 生成這么一篇譯文需要采取如下程序：用在文化上更恰當(dāng)?shù)哪繕?biāo)語(yǔ)成分替換隱晦難懂的源文本成分，使語(yǔ)言上內(nèi)隱的源文本信息明晰化；以及使用一定的冗余Redundant 信息來(lái)幫助理解（1964：131）。因此，進(jìn)行這類翻譯，譯者不必十分在意“接受語(yǔ)信息與源語(yǔ)信息的匹配“；譯者的目的反而主要是“考慮接受者在自身文化情境中的行為模式

22、”（Nida，1964：159）。用動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等方法解決翻譯問(wèn)題的一個(gè)最為人知的例子，是把圣經(jīng)用語(yǔ)“上帝的羔羊”譯成某一愛斯基摩語(yǔ)中的“上帝的海豹”：在地球極地羔羊不為人知，因而在此將它替換成一個(gè)具有譯語(yǔ)文化意義的事物，替換物至少擁有部分源語(yǔ)表達(dá)的重要特征（見Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15）。奈達(dá)和泰伯（Taber）認(rèn)為，要達(dá)到翻譯目的，就需要獲得在讀者反應(yīng)上的“高度”對(duì)等，但他們也指出，這種反應(yīng)與原文引出的反應(yīng)絕對(duì)不可能完全等同（1969/1982:24）。他們還指出，產(chǎn)生動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等的相關(guān)過(guò)程使受到限制的，例如，把它與大致相同類別的語(yǔ)言翻譯Linguistic Translat

23、ion加以比較，發(fā)現(xiàn)源文本中只有語(yǔ)言上的內(nèi)隱成分可以在目標(biāo)文本中明說(shuō)出來(lái)，而目標(biāo)讀者可能需要的任何附加語(yǔ)境信息則不可在目標(biāo)文本中增加。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等的概念對(duì)于圣經(jīng)翻譯特別有用，因?yàn)槭ソ?jīng)翻譯所需要的不僅是為讀者提供信息，而且是要提供有用的信息，并希望引發(fā)某種反應(yīng)（1969/1982:24）。但很顯然，這一概念同時(shí)也能應(yīng)用于其他文體。實(shí)際上，可以認(rèn)為它已在很多領(lǐng)域（例如文學(xué)領(lǐng)域）表現(xiàn)得比其他途徑更為優(yōu)勝。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 形式對(duì)等（又名 Formal Correspondence形式對(duì)應(yīng)）奈達(dá)（Nida）將形式對(duì)等定義為“兩種不同的對(duì)等類型”之一（另見Dynamic Equivalence動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等）。這種對(duì)等“強(qiáng)調(diào)信息本身，既強(qiáng)調(diào)信息的形式也強(qiáng)調(diào)信息的內(nèi)容”（1964：159）。 這樣，形式對(duì)等指“源文本的形式特征在接受語(yǔ)中被機(jī)械復(fù)制的翻譯特性”（Nida & Taber，1962/1982: 201），奈達(dá)是在

33、圣經(jīng)翻譯的背景下提出這個(gè)分類的，它在許多方面比傳統(tǒng)的自由譯Free Translation、直譯/字面翻譯Literal Translation 概念更有用（Hatim & Mason，1990：7）。力求形式對(duì)等的譯者允許源文本“用自己的話語(yǔ)”說(shuō)話，而不想對(duì)它進(jìn)行調(diào)整以適應(yīng)目標(biāo)文化；比如，在實(shí)踐中，這意味著盡可能地采用形式對(duì)等語(yǔ)Formal Equivalent而不是功能對(duì)等語(yǔ)Functional Equivalent, 既不合并也不拆分句子，保留原文的標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號(hào)、段落劃分之類的形式標(biāo)志（Nida，1964：165）。當(dāng)然，由于源語(yǔ)與目標(biāo)語(yǔ)的結(jié)構(gòu)差異，采用這類策略得到的譯文往往“扭轉(zhuǎn)了接受語(yǔ)的

34、語(yǔ)法與文體模式進(jìn)行曲解了（原文）信息”（Nida & Taber， 1969/1982: 201）。為此，必須經(jīng)常增加解釋性的注釋以幫助目標(biāo)語(yǔ)讀者（理解）（Nida，1964：166）。 同與其相對(duì)應(yīng)的動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等一樣，形式對(duì)等反映的是一個(gè)總體傾向而不是一種絕對(duì)的技巧，因此，在這對(duì)應(yīng)的兩極之間村子無(wú)數(shù)的中間等級(jí)，而所有這些中間等級(jí)都代表這可以接受的翻譯方法（1964：160）。然而，追求對(duì)等而非動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等的總體趨勢(shì)具有如下特征，如強(qiáng)調(diào)譯文準(zhǔn)確（1964:159）,并傾向于盡可能地保留原來(lái)的措辭。盡管形式對(duì)等存在一些明顯的局限，然而，有時(shí)候它仍是應(yīng)該遵守的最合適的策略；除了常常用來(lái)翻譯圣經(jīng)和其他宗教經(jīng)

35、文外，它同時(shí)也有利于回譯Back-translation， 而且在口筆譯者可能出于某種原因不愿意承擔(dān)改變目標(biāo)文本措詞的責(zé)任時(shí)，也是大有裨益的（見Hatin & Mason，1990：7）。應(yīng)該指出，奈達(dá)和泰伯（1969/1982）在討論這一概念時(shí)，他們使用“形式對(duì)應(yīng)”這一術(shù)語(yǔ)來(lái)指稱它。另見Gloss Translation釋詞翻譯。詳閱：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 功能對(duì)等用來(lái)指在目標(biāo)語(yǔ)文本中反映出的對(duì)等類型的術(shù)語(yǔ)，該目標(biāo)文本旨在使原文功能適應(yīng)它得以生成以及為其而生成的特定語(yǔ)境。按照格特（Gut）的觀點(diǎn)，現(xiàn)在，文本的功能或許是“翻譯對(duì)等的最為普遍接受的參考框架”（1991：10）。然而，盡管這一術(shù)語(yǔ)為許多學(xué)者所采用，或許給它提供最系統(tǒng)的定義的使豪斯（House）（1977）。豪斯的目的是為評(píng)估翻譯質(zhì)量提供方法，因此，她的功能對(duì)等概念基本上評(píng)價(jià)性的。她（1944：42）提出了一種詳細(xì)的?！岸嗑S度”文本功能分析，區(qū)分三種涉及語(yǔ)言使用者的語(yǔ)言用法維度（“地理來(lái)源”、“社會(huì)等級(jí)”與“時(shí)間”），還區(qū)分了五

44、個(gè)反映語(yǔ)言使用的維度（“中介”、“參與”、“社會(huì)角色關(guān)系”、“社會(huì)態(tài)度”與“領(lǐng)域“，或一般話語(yǔ)范圍）。運(yùn)用這一框架，就有可能為源文本與目標(biāo)文本建立一個(gè)“文本數(shù)據(jù)圖”。豪斯指出，譯本“不僅在功能上要切合源文本，而且應(yīng)該采用對(duì)等的情景維度以取得這一功能”（1977：49）。這意味著，如果要想目標(biāo)文本在功能上與源文本達(dá)到對(duì)等，那么，在相關(guān)文本關(guān)系特別密切的多個(gè)維度上，源文本與目標(biāo)文本應(yīng)當(dāng)彼此高度對(duì)應(yīng)（1977：49）。在豪斯所提范圍更廣的模式內(nèi)，功能對(duì)等只有在隱型翻譯Covert Translation的情況下才能實(shí)現(xiàn)（1977：204），但是，“因?yàn)楸仨氁紤]到社會(huì)文化規(guī)范的差異”（1977：20

45、5），因此，即使在這里功能對(duì)等仍難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。然而，按照格特的觀點(diǎn)，在文本具有多個(gè)功能的情況下，問(wèn)題仍然存在（1991：10）；實(shí)際上，建立一個(gè)能夠適應(yīng)這類文本的模式是及其困難的。應(yīng)該指出，功能對(duì)等這一術(shù)語(yǔ)也被得瓦得（de Waard）與奈達(dá)（Nida）（1986）用來(lái)取代奈達(dá)在別處成為動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等Dynamic Equivalence的概念；按照得瓦得與奈達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)，這一術(shù)語(yǔ)不那么容易被人誤解，而且使用它可以“強(qiáng)調(diào)翻譯的交際功能”（1986：）。Polysystem TheoryItamar Even-Zohar ( 佐哈爾)， 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