尤金奈达Eugene Nida翻译理论.doc

《尤金奈达Eugene Nida翻译理论.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《尤金奈达Eugene Nida翻译理论.doc（16页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、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 study of modern t

2、ranslation 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 1998:277Nidas theory of dynamic equivalence is his major contribution to translation studies. The concept is first mentioned in his article “Principl

3、es 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) ?翻译原那么科学探索?, he postulates dynamic equivalent translation as follows:In such a translation (dynamic equivalent translation) o

4、ne 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 message (1964:159) Howeve

5、r, 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 in substantially the

6、same manner as the receptores in the source language(1969:24)The expression “dynamic equivalence is superseded by “functional equivalencev in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)?从一种语言到另一种语言?.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

7、titution 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：翻译中的语境?, “functional equivalenc

8、e 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 original readers of the text must h

9、ave 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 reveal that the minimal level is

10、 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 introduced by Nida(1964) in the con

11、text 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 transported into the receptor language th

12、at 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, Transfer and Restructuring (Nida

13、 & 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 REDUNDANCY(1964:131) to aid comprehens

14、ion. 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). Possibly the best known example of a

15、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 culturally meaningful item which shares at le

16、ast 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 be identical with that elicited by t

17、he 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 that only elements which are linguistica

18、lly 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 need of Biblical translations not only

19、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 over other approaches (Nida 1964:160). S

20、ee also Fuctional Equivalence. Further reading: Gut 1991; Nida 1964,1995: Nida & Taber 1969/1982.奈达Nida1964在?圣经?翻译中所采用的术语，用来描述翻译过程的两个根本趋向之一另见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，“原文信息转移到承受语言，译文承受者的反响与原文承受者的反响根本一样 (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

21、Transfer与重组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，进展这类翻译，译者不必十分在意“承受语信息与源语信息的匹配“；译者的目的反而主要是“考虑承受者在自身文化情境中的行为模式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

22、它替换成一个具有译语文化意义的事物，替换物至少拥有局部源语表达的重要特征见Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15。奈达与泰伯Taber认为，要到达翻译目的，就需要获得在读者反响上的“高度对等，但他们也指出，这种反响与原文引出的反响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，把它与大致一样类别的语言翻译Linguistic Translation加以比拟，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那么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

23、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，并希望引发某种反响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 different types of equivalence (see also Dynamic Equivalence), which “focuses attention on the m

24、essage 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 1969/1982:201). Nida proposed his categorization in the context of

25、 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 ST to speak “in its own terms rather than attempting to ad

26、just 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 punctuation marks and paragraphs breaks (Nida 1964:165). The freque

27、nt 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 ( Nida & Taber 1969/1982: 201). For this reason it is frequently

28、 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 opposite extremes there are any number of intervening grades, al

29、l 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 the original wording wherever possible. In spite of its appa

30、rent 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 translator or interpreter may for some reason being unwilling t

31、o 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 1964;Nida & Taber 1969/1982; Tymoczko 1985.Formal Equivalence

32、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承受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

33、本“用自己的话语说话，而不想对它进展调整以适应目标文化；比方，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，保存原文的标点符号、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构造差异，采用这类策略得到的译文往往“扭转了承受语的语法与文体模式进展曲解了原文信息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

34、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承受的翻译方法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存原来的措辞。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适宜的策略；除了常常用来翻译?圣经?与其他宗教经文外，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当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，奈达与泰伯1969/1982在讨论这一概念时，他们使用“形式对

35、应这一术语来指称它。另见Gloss Translation释词翻译。详阅：Nida1964， Nida & Taber 1969/1982; Tymoczko(1985).Functional EquivalenceA term used to refer to the tpye of Equivalence reflected 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

36、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, 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 metho

37、dology for assessing translation quality, and so her concept of funcitonal equivalence is basically evaluative. She presents (1977:42) a detailed “multi-dimensional analysis text function in which she distinguishes the three dimensions of linguistic usage relation to the language uers (geographical

38、origin, social class and time), and five reflecting language use (medium, participation, social role relationship, social attitude and province, or general area 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 te

39、xt “should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function( 1977:49). This means that 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

40、 to be considered functionally equivalent to ST(1977:49). Within Houses wider model, functional equivalence is only attainable in cases of Covert Translation(1977:205). However, according to Gutt, problems remain in the case of texts which possess more than one function(1991:10); indeed, it would be

41、 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 & Nida(1986) to replace what Nida elsewhere refers to as Dynamic Equivalence; according to de Waard & Nida, the new term is less open to misin

42、terpretation, and its use serves to “highlight the communicative functions of translating(1986: 1986：). Further reading: Gutt 1991; House 1977; de Waard & Nida 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承受的参考框架1991：10。然而，尽管这一

43、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House1977。豪斯的目的是为评估翻译质量提供方法，因此，她的功能对等概念根本上评价性的。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到达对等，那么，在相关文本

44、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标准的差异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de Waard与奈达Nida1986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

45、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 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 kno

46、wn as the polysystem theory and the theory of cultural repertoires, which gave rise to a line of research areas.He 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 wo

47、rk, he contributed to developing a polysystemic theory of translation, designed to account for translation as a complex 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 int

48、erference, eventually analyzed in terms of intercultural relations.The literay traditions generally perceive the 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 periph

49、eral position and imported items have to be presented as compatible with the indigenous tradition for acceptability. 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 i