尤金·奈達(dá)eugenenida翻譯理論

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 st

2、udies 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

3、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”(

4、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 follows:In such a translation (dyn

5、amic 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 sho

6、uld 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

7、 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 messages in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptor

8、es in the source language”(1969:24)The expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（《從一種語言到另一種語言》 ）. However, there is essenti

9、ally 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 pe

10、rsons for something in the sense of impact ( Nida 1993:124). In Language, Culture and Translating(1993)（《語言與文化：翻譯中的語境》, “functional equivalence” is further divided into categories on two levels: the minimal level and the

11、 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 mu

12、st have understood and appreciated it”. The maximal level is 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 applie

13、d 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 1964,19

14、95: Nida 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)語成分替換隱晦難懂的源文本成分，使語言上內(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“接受語信息與源語信息的匹配“；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” （Nida，1964：159） 。用動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等方法解決翻譯問題的一個(gè)最為人知的例子，是把《

15、圣經(jīng)》用語“上帝的羔羊”譯成某一愛斯基摩語中的“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)具有譯語文化意義的事物，替換物至少擁有部分源語表達(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)過程使受

16、到限制的，例如，把它與大致相同類別的語言翻譯[Linguistic Translation]加以比較，發(fā)現(xiàn)源文本中只有語言上的內(nèi)隱成分可以在目標(biāo)文本中明說出來，而目標(biāo)讀者可能需要的任何附加語境信息則不可在目標(biāo)文本中增加。毫無疑問，動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等的概念對(duì)于《圣經(jīng)》翻譯特別有用，因?yàn)椤妒ソ?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，

17、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 different types of equivalence” (see also Dynamic Equivalence), which “focuses attention on

18、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 lan