关键词不能为空

当前您在: 主页 > 英语 >

(完整版)尤金·奈达EugeneNida翻译理论

作者:高考题库网
来源:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao
2021-01-29 18:19
tags:

-

2021年1月29日发(作者:等待的时间)


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)


《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 T ranslation



《翻译理论与实践》

< br>)


,


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 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superseded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 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 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


&


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


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(


Nid a




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 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


&


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



< br>三








[Analysis]





[Trans fer]





[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


[Red undant]


信息来帮助理解(


1964

< br>:


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达


的重要特征

< br>(见


Snell


-


Hornby 1988/1955:15




奈达和 泰伯



Taber


< br>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(


1969/1982:2 4



。他们还指出,产生动态对等的相关过程使受到限制的,< /p>


例如,把它与大致相同类别的语言翻译


[Linguistic


Translation]


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。



Formal Equivalence



Formal Equivalence ( or Formal Correspondence) Defined by Nida as one of “two 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


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 striving 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 preserving 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 lanugage, 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


absolute


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


(1964:1598) 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 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 to refer to it. Further reading: Nida 1964;



Tymoczko 1985.



Nida


&


Taber


1969/1982;



Formal Equivalence


形式对等(又名



Formal Co rrespondence[


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 Eq uivalence[



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


)< /p>




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


[Free Translatio n]


、直译


/


字面翻译


[Literal Translation]


概念更有用(


Hatim & Mason


1990



7

< br>)


。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,< /p>


这意味着尽可能地采用形式对等语


[Formal Equiva lent]


而不


是功能对等语


[Fun ctional


Equivalent],


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(


Ni da



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



。< /p>


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



196 4



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

< p>
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》

-


-


-


-


-


-


-


-



本文更新与2021-01-29 18:19,由作者提供,不代表本网站立场,转载请注明出处:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/586617.html

(完整版)尤金·奈达EugeneNida翻译理论的相关文章