尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论

。

Eugene Nida

Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence

Eugene 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

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

）

Nida

’

s theory of dynamic equivalence is his major contribution to translation

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)

（

< br>《翻译原则科学探索》

）

, he postulates dynamic equivalent translation as 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

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 messages in the receptor language respond to

it

in

substantially

the

same

manner

as

the

receptores

in

the

source

langua ge

”

(1969:24)

-

可编辑修改

-

。

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superseded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 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

Language, 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 point 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; 1995:224).

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 of adequacy.

Dynamic Equivalence

A 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 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

-

可编辑修改

-

。

receptors

”

(Nida

&

T

aber

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

&

T

aber

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 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 context 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 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 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

category

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

audience

—

may

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

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).

See

also

Fuctional

Equivalence.

Further

reading:

Gut

1991;

Nida

1964,1995: Nida & Taber 1969/1982.

奈达（

Nida

）

（< /p>

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 Equivalenc e[

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”

< br>

(Nida

-

可编辑修改

-

。

&

Taber

1969/1982:200,

< br>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< /p>

[Analysis]

、转移

[Tran sfer]

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

）