尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论

尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论PAGE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.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FormalEquivalence[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本相同”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:200,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&Taber1969/1982:200);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”（Nida，1964：159）。用动态对等 方法 快递客服问题件处理详细方法山木方法pdf计算方法pdf华与华方法下载八字理论方法下载 解决翻译问 题 快递公司问题件快递公司问题件货款处理关于圆的周长面积重点题型关于解方程组的题及答案关于南海问题 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 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 达的重要特征（见Snell-Hornby1988/1955:15）。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[LinguisticTranslation]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。FormalEquivalenceFormalEquivalence(orFormalCorrespondence)DefinedbyNidaasoneof“twodifferenttypesofequivalence”(seealsoDynamicEquivalence),which“focusesattentiononthemessageitself,inbothformandcontent”(1964:159).Formalequivalenceisthusthe“qualityofatranslaitoninwhichthefeaturesoftheformofthesourcetexthavebeenmechanicallyreproducedinthereceptorlanguage”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:201).NidaproposedhiscategorizationinthecontextofBibletranslation,andinmanyrespectsitoffersamoreusefuldistictionthanthemoretraditionalnotionsoffreeandliteraltranslation(Hatim&Mason1990:7).TheaimofatranslatorwhoisstrivingforformalequivalenceistoallowSTtospeak“initsownterms”ratherthanattemptingtoadjustittothecircumstancesofthetargetculture;inpracticethismeans,forexample,usingFormalratherthanFunctionalEquivalentswhereverpossible,notjoinningorsplitingsentences,andpreservingformalindicatorssuchaspunctuationmarksandparagraphsbreaks(Nida1964:165).Thefrequentresultofsuchstrategiesisofcoursethat,becauseofdifferencesinstructurebetweenSLandTL,atranslationofthistype“distortsthegrammaticalandstylisticpatternsofthereceptorlanugage,andhencedistortsthemessage”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:201).Forthisreasonitisfrequentlynesessarytoincludeexplanatorynotestohelpthetargetreader(Nida1964:166).Likeitsconverse,dynamicequivalence,formalequivalencerepresentsageneralorientationratherthanandabsolutetechnique,sothatbetweenthetwooppositeextremesthereareanynumberofinterveninggrades,allofwhichreprentacceptablemethodsoftranslation(1964:160).However,ageneraltendencytowardsformalratherthandynamiceuqivalenceischaracterizedby,forexample,aconcernforaccuracy(1964:1598)andapreferenceforretainingtheoriginalwordingwhereverpossible.Inspiteofitsapparentlimitations,however,formalequivalenceissometimesthemostappropriatestrategytofollow:besidesfrequentlybeingchosenfortranslatingBiblicalandothersacredtexts,itisalsousefulforBack-translationandforwhenthetranslatororinterpretermayforsomereasonbeingunwillingtoacceptresponsibilityforchangingthewordingofTT(seeHatim&Mason1990:7).ItshouldbenotedthatwhenNida&Taber(1969/1982)discussthisconcepttheyusethetermformalcorrespondencetorefertoit.Furtherreading:Nida1964;Nida&Taber1969/1982;Tymoczko1985.FormalEquivalence形式对等（又名FormalCorrespondence[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DynamicEquivalence[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《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[FreeTranslation]、直译/字面翻译[LiteralTranslation]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[FormalEquivalent]而不是功能对等语[FunctionalEquivalent],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GlossTranslation[释词翻译]。详阅：Nida（1964），Nida&Taber（1969/1982）;Tymoczko(1985).FunctionalEquivalenceAtermusedtorefertothetpyeofEquivalencereflectedinaTTwhichseekstoadaptthefunctionoftheoriginaltosuitthespecificcontextinandforwhichitwasproduced.AccordingtoGutt,thefunctionthatatexxtisintendedtofulfilisnowprobablythe“mostwidelyacceptedframeofreferencefortranslationequivalence”(1991:10).However,whilethetermisusedbyanumberofwriters,itisperhapsdefinedmostsystematicallybyHouse(1977).House’saimistodevelopamethodologyforassessingtranslationquality,andsoherconceptoffuncitonalequivalenceisbasicallyevaluative.Shepresents(1977:42)adetailed“multi-dimensional”analysistextfunctioninwhichshedistinguishesthethreedimensionsoflinguisticusagerelationtothelanguageuers(geographicalorigin,socialclassandtime),andfivereflectinglanguageuse(medium,participation,socialrolerelationship,socialattitudeandprovince,orgeneralareaofdiscourse).Usingthisframworkitispossibletobuildupa“textprofile”forbothSTandTT,andtheHousearguesthatatranslatedtext“shouldnotonlymatchitssourcetextinfunction,butemployequivalentsituational-dimensionalmeanstoachievethatfunction”(1977:49).ThismeansthatthereshouldbeahighlevelofmatchingbetweenSTandTTinthedimensionswhichareparticularlyrelevanttothetextinquestionifTTistobeconsideredfunctionallyequivalenttoST(1977:49).WithinHouse’swidermodel,functionalequivalenceisonlyattainableincasesofCovertTranslation(1977:205).However,accordingtoGutt,problemsremaininthecaseoftextswhichpossessmorethanonefunction(1991:10);indeed,itwouldbeextremelydifficulttoconstructamodelwhichcouldaccommodatesuchtext.ItshouldbenotedthatthetermfunctionalequivalenceisalsousedbydeWaard&Nida(1986)toreplacewhatNidaelsewherereferstoasDynamicEquivalence;accordingtodeWaard&Nida,thenewtermislessopentomisinterpretation,anditsuseservesto“highlightthecommunicativefunctionsoftranslating”(1986:1986：ⅷ).Furtherreading:Gutt1991;House1977;deWaard&Nida1986.FunctionalEquivalence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 编程规范下载gsp规范下载钢格栅规范下载警徽规范下载建设厅规范下载 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(ibid.).Ifitisprimary,thetranslatorismoreconcernedwiththelinguisticandculturalfeuturesofthesourcetexttoproduceanadequatetranslation,whereasifitissecondary,thetranslatorispreparedtoemphasizetheliteraryconventionsandculturalfeaturesofthetargetsystem.Healsosuggeststhattherelationshipbetweentranslatedliteratureandtheliterarypolysystemisdependentuponthespecificsocio-cultural,historicalcircumstancesoperatingwithintheliterarysystem(Gentzler1993:117)Heobservesthepositionoftranslationwithinvaryingculturalsystemstodeterminehowtextstobetranslatedareselectedbythereceivingcultureandhowtranslatedtextsadoptcertainnormsandfunctionsasaresultoftheirrelationtoothertargetlanguagesystems(Even-Zohar1978,ascitedinGentzler1993:118).Polysystemtheoryisthereforerevisedtoincludeextraliteraryfactors,socio-culturalforcessuchaspatronage,socialconditions,economics,andinstitutionalmanipulationcorrelatedtothewaytranaslationsarechosenandfunctionfortheculturalturnintranslationstudiesthatfurtherenhancedthedevelopmentofWesterntranslationtheories.