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 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 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The expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（《从一种语言到另一种语言》）.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（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，译文的产生要经过三个步骤：分析[Analysis]、转移[Transfer]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）。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（见Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15）。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[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; Nida & Taber 1969/1982; Tymoczko 1985.
Formal Equivalence 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 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[Formal Equivalent]而不是功能对等语[Functional 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（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Gloss Translation[释词翻译]。详阅：Nida（1964），Nida & Taber （1969/1982）; Tymoczko(1985).
Functional Equivalence
A 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 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). House’s aim is to develop a methodology 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 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 text “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 to be considered functionally equivalent to ST(1977:49). Within House’s 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 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 misinterpretation, and its use serves to “highlight the communicative functions of translating”(1986: 1986：ⅷ). 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[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规范的差异”（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（Nida）（1986）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）。Polysystem Theory
Itamar 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-Zohar’s integral contribution is internationally known 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 work, 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 interference, 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 peripheral 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 in crisis, translated literature may assume a central position, as a cultural tool, taking part “in the process of creating new, primary models”（Even-Zohar 1990a：50）Thus translated literature holds a more central position when a system is weak and in need of forces from other cultures in order to fill in cultural gaps or to legimate the existing structures of power, and when the foreign text contributes to reinforce esthetic or ideological valuse already present within the system and becomes instrumental to the establishment or reinforcement of cultural values. Due to the conception of translation as a supplementary activity or a secondary product, translation appears to have a secondary function in the polysystem of the target culture. Translation can be viewed as a means by which a culture influences another culture, introducing new and foreign impulses in the target culture.
The term “polysystem”refers to the entire network of correlated systems, liteary and extra-literary within a society. For exploring intra-systemic literay relations, Even-Zohar posited in 1978 the notion of polysystem for the aggregate of literary systems including all canonized and non-canonized forms in a given culture, based on his recognition of the importance of translated literature in liteary history. He developed an approach as polysystem theory to attempt to explain the functions of the all kinds of writing within a give culture and his analysis demonstrated that translated literature functions differently depending upon the age, strenth, and atability of the particular polysystem (Gentzler 1993:114-115)
Within a literary polysystem, there exists a hierarchical structure of differing subsystems, which are different types of literature---canonized, non-canonized, and translated literature. They constantly struggle for a more central position than others to maintain a primary position in the culture rather than the secondary position. This competition leads to a dynmic, ongoing process of literary mutation and evolution. The role translated literature plays in the culture is either central or peripheral, primary or secondary. If it occupies a primary positon, it participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem ( Even-Zohar 1987,as cited in Munday 2001:110). It may serve for innovations in the liteary history and may set up new models in the target culture. If it assumes a secondary position, it represents a peripheral system within the polysystem and conforms to the established literary norms and conventional forms of the target culture.
Even-Zohar suggests that the position occupied by translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy (ibid.). If it is primary, the translator is more concerned with the linguistic and cultural feutures of the source text to produce an adequate translation, whereas if it is secondary, the translator is prepared to emphasize the literary conventions and cultural features of the target system. He also suggests that the relationship between translated literature and the literary polysystem is dependent upon the specific socio-cultural, historical circumstances operating within the literary system ( Gentzler 1993:117) He observes the position of translation within varying cultural systems to determine how texts to be translated are selected by the receiving culture and how translated texts adopt certain norms and functions as a result of their relation to other target language systems ( Even-Zohar 1978, as cited in Gentzler 1993:118) .Polysystem theory is therefore revised to include extraliterary factors, socio-cultural forces such as patronage, social conditions, economics, and institutional manipulation correlated to the way tranaslations are chosen and function for the cultural turn in translation studies that further enhanced the development of Western translation theories.
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”(SnellHornby 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) (《从圣经翻译瞧翻译原则》) 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 receptorlanguage message with the sourcelanguage 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 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:翻译中得语境》, “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 prehend 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
E u g e n e N i d a 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 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 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
奈达翻译理论简介 （一）奈达其人尤金?奈达（EugeneA.Nida）1914年出生于美国俄克勒荷马州，当代著名语言学家、翻译家和翻译理论家。也是西方语言学派翻译理论的主要代表，被誉为西方“现代翻译理论之父”。尤金是当代翻译理论的主要奠基人，其理论核心是功能对等。 尤金先后访问过90个国家和地区，并著书立说，单独或合作出版了40多部书，比较著名的有《翻译科学探索》、《语言与文化———翻译中的语境》等，他还发表论文250余篇，是世界译坛的一位长青学者。他还参与过《圣经》的翻译工作。他与塔伯合著的《翻译理论与实践》对翻译界影响颇深。此书说明了中国与西方译界人士思维方式的巨大差别：前者是静的，崇尚“信、达、雅”，讲究“神似”，追求“化境”；后者是动的，将语言学、符号学、交际理论运用到翻译研究当中，提倡“动态对等”，注重读者反应。中国译论多概括，可操作性不强；西方译论较具体，往往从点出发。他在该书中提到了动态对等，详细地描述了翻译过程的三个阶段：分析、转换和重组，对于翻译实践的作用是不言而喻的。 （二）奈达对翻译的定义 按照奈达的定义：“所谓翻译，是指从语义到文体（风格）在译语中用最切近而又最自然的对等语再现 源语的信息。”其中，“对等”是核心，“最切近”和“最自然”都是为寻找对等语服务的。奈达从社会语言学和语言交际功能的观点出发，认为必须以读者的反应作为衡量译作是否正确的重要标准。翻译要想达到预期的交际目的，必须使译文从信息内容、说话方式、文章风格、语言文化到社会因素等方面尽可能多地反映出原文的面貌。他试图运用乔姆斯基的语言学理论建立起一套新的研究方法。他根据转换生成语法，特别是其中有关核心句的原理，提出在语言的深层结构里进行传译的设想。 奈达提出了词的4种语义单位的概念，即词具有表述事物、事件、抽象概念和关系等功能。这4种语义单位是“核心”，语言的表层结构就是以“核心”为基础构建的，如果能将语法结构归纳到核心层次，翻译过程就可最大限度地避免对源语的曲解。按照4种语义单位的关系，奈达将英语句子归结为7个核心句：（1）Johnranquickly.（2）JohnhitBill.（3）JohngaveBillaball.（4）Johnisinthehouse.（5）Johnissick.（6）Johnisaboy.（7）Johnismyfather. （三）奈达翻译理论的经历阶段 奈达翻译理论的发展经历过三个阶段，分别是描写语言阶段、交际理论阶段和和社会符号学阶段。 第一个阶段始于1943年发表《英语句法概要》，止于1959年发表《从圣经翻译看翻译原则》。这一阶段是奈达翻译思想及学术活动的初期。 第二阶段始于1959年发表的《从圣经翻译看翻译原则》，止于1969年出版的《翻译理论与实践》。主要著作有《翻译科学探索》、《信息与使命》。在这10年中，奈达确立了自己在整个西方翻译理论界的权威地位。1964年出版的《翻译科学探索》标志着其翻译思想发展过程中一个最重要的里程碑。第三阶段始于70年代，奈达通过不断修正和发展自己翻译理论创建了新的理论模式———社会符号学模式。奈达在继承原有理论有用成分的基础上，将语言看成一种符号现象，并结合所在社会环境进行解释。在《从一种语言到另一种语言》一书中，奈达强调了形式的重要性，认为形式也具有意义，指出语言的修辞特征在语言交际及翻译中的重要作用，并且用“功能对等”取代了“动态对等”的提法，是含义更加明确。 三、对奈达翻译理论的评价 （一）贡献 奈达是一位硕果累累的翻译理论家。可以说，在两千年的西方翻译思想发展史上，奈达的研究成果之丰是名列前茅的。他的研究范围从翻译史、翻译原则、翻译过程和翻译方法到翻译教学和翻译的组织工作，从口译到笔译，从人工翻译到机器翻译，从语义学到人类文化学，几乎无所不包，从而丰富并拓展了西方的翻译研究领地。 奈达的理论贡献，主要在于他帮助创造了一种用新姿态对待不同语言和文化的气氛，以增进人类相互之间的语言交流和了解。他坚持认为：任何能用一种语言表达的东西都能够用另一种语言来表达；在语言之间、文化之间能通过寻找翻译对等语，以适当方式重组原文形式和语义结构来进行交际。因此也说明，某
［摘要］传统的只围绕直译与意译之争，而奈达从《圣经》翻译提出功能对等即读者同等反应。“功能对等”翻译理论是奈达翻译理论体系的核心,是从新的视角提出的新的翻译方法，它既有深厚的理论基础,也有丰富的实践基础，对翻译理论的进一步完善是一大贡献。 ［关键词］功能对等；奈达翻译；英语论文范文 尤金·A·奈达博士是西方语言学翻译理论学派的代表人物之一。在他的学术生涯中，从事过语言学、语义学、人类学、通讯工程学等方面的研究，还从事过《圣经》的翻译工作，精通多国文字，调查过100多种语言。经过五十多年的翻译实践与理论研究，取得了丰硕的成果。至今他已发表了40多部专着、250余篇论文。“自八十年代初奈达的理论介绍入中国以来，到现在已经成为当代西方理论中被介绍的最早、最多、影响最大的理论。他把信息论与符号学引进了翻译理论，提出了‘动态对等’的翻译标准；把现代语言学的最新研究成果应用到翻译理论中来；在翻译史上第一个把社会效益（读者反应）原则纳入翻译标准之中。尤其是他的动态对等理论，一举打破中国传统译论中静态分析翻译标准的局面，提出了开放式的翻译理论原则，为我们建立新的理论模式找到了正确的方向。奈达在中国译界占据非常重要的地位。”“奈达的理论贡献，主要在于他帮助创造了一种新姿态对待不同语言和文化的气氛，以增进人类相互之间的语言交流和了解。”[1] 翻译作为一项独立的学科，首先应回答的问题就是：什么是翻译？传统翻译理论侧重语言的表现形式，人们往往醉心于处理语言的特殊现象，如诗的格律、诗韵、咬文嚼字、句子排比和特殊语法结构等等。现代翻译理论侧重读者对译文的反应以及两种反应（原文与原作读者、译文与译作读者）之间的对比。奈达指出：“所谓翻译，就是指从语义到文体在译语中用最贴切而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息”，奈达在《翻译理论于实践》一书中解释道，所谓最切近的自然对等，是指意义和语体而言。但在《从一种语言到另一种语言》中，奈达又把对等解释为是指功能而言。语言的“功能”是指语言在使用中所能发挥的言语作用；不同语言的表达形式必然不同，不是语音语法不同就是表达习惯不同，然而他们却可以具有彼此相同或相似的功能。奈达所强调的是“对等”“、信息”“、意义”和“风格”，奈达从语义学和信息论出发，强调翻译的交际功能，正如他自己所说“：翻译就是交际”，目的是要寻求原语和接受语的“对等”。他所说的“信息”包括“意义”和“风格”，着重于交际层面。他实质上要打破的是传统的翻译标准。他把翻译看成是“语际交际”，也就是在用交际学的观点来看问题。交际至少应当是三方的事情：信息源点———信息内容———信息受者，也就是说话者———语言———听话者。奈达注重译文的接受者，即读者，而且都对读者进行了分类。奈达根据读者的阅读能力和兴趣把读者分为四类：儿童读者、初等文化水平读者、普通成人读者和专家。他曾说过，一些优秀的译者，常常设想有一位典型的译文读者代表就坐在写字台的对面听他们口述译文，或者正在阅读闪现在电脑显示屏上的译文。这样，就好像有人正在听着或读着译文，翻译也就不仅仅是寻求词汇和句法的对应过程。运用这种方法，译者就可能更自觉地意识到“翻译就是翻译意思”的道理。 可译性与不可译性是翻译界长期争论的一个问题。奈达对不同的之间的交流提出了新的观点。他认为每种语言都有自己的特点，一种语言所表达的任何东西都可以用另一种语言来表达。尽管不同民族之间难以达到“绝对的”交流，但是可以进行“有效的”交流，因为人类的思维过程、生产经历、社会反应等有许多共性。他这种思想主要基于他对上帝的信仰和对《圣经》的翻译。在他看来，上帝的福音即是真理，可以译成不同的语言，也可以为不同国家的人所理解。因此，他提出“最贴近、最自然的对等”。 奈达把翻译分为两种类型：形式对等翻译和动态功能对等。翻译形式对等是以原语为中心，尽量再现原文形式和内容。功能对等注重读者反映，以最贴近、最自然的对等语再现原文信息，使译文读者能够达到和原文读者一样的理解和欣赏原文的程度。奈达的形式对等要求严格地再现原语的形式，其实也就是“逐字翻译”或“死译”。奈达本人也不主张形式对等的翻译，他认为严格遵守形式无疑会破坏内容。 奈达的“功能对等”理论的提出是对译学研究的一个重大贡献。首先，他提出了一个新的翻译评价标准。他指出：翻译准确与否取决于普通读者正确理解原文的程度，也就是把译文读者反应与原文读者反应进行对照，看两者是否达到最大限度的对等。其次，他提出的“最贴切、最自然的对等”标准也不同于传统的“忠实”
翻译理论家尤金·奈达（Eugene A. Nida）辞世发布时间：2011-08-29 发布人：https://www.doczj.com/doc/4e3268934.html, Eugene Nida dies on August 26th, 2011 by Hannah. Dr Eugene Nida, a giant and pioneer of Bible translation in the last century, died yesterday, aged 96. Of Dr Nida, our Executive Director Eddie Arthur, shared these thoughts: “Though the average Christian may not have heard the name Eugene Nida, he is undoubtedly one of the most influential Christians of the last century. His legacy is found in hundreds, if not thousands, of Bible translations in minority languages around the world.”
This biography of his life and work below comes from the United Bible Societies, of whom Dr Nida was a respected leader. Eugene Nida, the giant of Bible translation in the twentieth century, died in hospital in Brussels on August 25. He was 96. Conveying the news, his widow Elena said, “My adored husband has passed away 10 minutes ago. Thank you for your prayers. He was a saint. The Lord is with him.” For more than 50 years Eugene Nida was the leader of the translation program of the American Bible Society, and subsequently the intellectual leader of the global program of the United Bible Societies, as well as consultant to that organisation. Dr Nida will be best remembered for the revolution he brought about in the field of Bible translation in the mid-twentieth century. The resulting impact on the growth and development of the Church continues to be felt as millions of people in hundreds of languages around the world have access to the Bible because of the approach he developed and promoted. Using concepts from linguistics, cultural studies, communication sciences and psychology, Nida developed a practical approach to translation he called dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence, the goal of which was to make the translation clear and understandable as well as accurate. He also influenced the emerging field of modern translation studies and is
尤金·A·奈达（Eugene A.N ida），语言学家，翻译家，翻译理论家。1914年11月11日，出生于美国俄克拉何马市。2011年，8月25日，在西班牙马德里与世长辞，享年96岁。 1943年获密歇根大学语言学博士学位，接着长期在美国圣经学会主持翻译部的工作，曾任美国语言学会主席，1980年退休后任顾问。 奈达是一位杰出的语言学家，他到过96个国家，在一百多所大学过讲座，来中国有13次之多，直至2003年，奈达89岁高龄时，仍到非洲讲学。 编辑本段相关理论与著作 这位在学术界赫赫有名的人物，偏偏远离学术重镇，默默地在美国圣经协会供职半个多世纪。他一生的主要学术活动都围绕《圣经》翻译展开。在《圣经》翻译的过程中，奈达从实际出发，发展出了一套自己的翻译理论，最终成为翻译研究的经典之一。 奈达著作等身，他单独或合作出版著作40多部，发表论文250馀篇，另外，还有13本专供《圣经》译者使用的参考书。奈达的第一本专著是1946年出版的《<圣经>翻译》（Bible Translating），最有影响的是1964出版的《翻译的科学探索》（Toward a Science of Translating），其次要数《翻译理论与实践》（The Theory and Practice of Translation），系与查尔斯·泰伯合著（1969）。 奈达理论的核心概念是“功能对等”。所谓“功能对等”，就是说翻译时不求文字表面的死板对应，而要在两种语言间达成功能上的对等。为使源语和目的语的之间的转换有一个标准，减少差异，尤金·A·奈达从语言学的角度出发，根据翻译的本质，提出了著名的“动态对等”翻译理论，即“功能对等”。在这一理论中，他指出，“翻译是用最恰当、自然和对等的语言从语义到文体再现源语的信息”(郭建中,2000 , P65)。奈达有关翻译的定义指明，翻译不仅是词汇意义上的对等，还包括语义、风格和文体的对等，翻译传达的信息既有表层词汇信息，也有深层的文化信息。“动态对等”中的对等包括四个方面： 1. 词汇对等； 2. 句法对等； 3. 篇章对等； 4.文体对等。 在这四个方面中，奈达认为，“意义是最重要的，形式其次”(郭建中,2000 , P67)。形式很可能掩藏源语的文化意义，并阻碍文化交流。因此，在文学翻译中，根据奈达的理论，译者应以动态对等的四个方面，作为翻译的原则，准确地在目的语中再现源语的文化内涵。 为了准确地再现源语文化和消除文化差异,译者可以遵循以下的三个步骤。第一,努力创造出既符合原文语义又体现原文文化特色的译作。然而,两种语言代表着两种完全不同的文化,文化可能有类似的因素,但不可能完全相同。因此,完全展现原文文化内涵的完美的翻译作品是不可能存在的,译者只能最大限度地再现源语文化。第二,如果意义和文化不能同时兼顾,译者只有舍弃形式对等,通过在译文中改变原文的形式达到再现原文语义和文化的目的。例如,英语谚语“white as snow”翻译成汉语可以是字面意义上的“白如雪”。但是,中国南方几乎全年无雪,在他们的文化背景知识中,没有“雪”的概念,如何理解雪的内涵? 在译文中,译者可以通过改变词汇的形式来消除文化上的差异。因此,这个谚语在汉语中可以译作“白如蘑菇”,“白如白鹭毛”(郭建中,2000 ,P63) 。再如,英语成语“spring uplike mushroom”中“mushroom”原意为“蘑菇”, 但译为汉语多为“雨后春笋”,而不是“雨后蘑菇”,因为在中国文化中,人们更为熟悉的成语和理解的意象是“雨后春笋”。第三,如果形式的改变仍然不足以表达原文的语义和文化,可以采用“重创”这一翻译技巧来解决文化差异,使源语和目的语达到意义上的对等。“重创”是指将源语的深层结构转换成目的语的表层结构(郭建中,2000 , P67) ,也就是将源语文章的文化内涵用译语的词汇来阐述和说明。例如:“He thinks by infection , catching an opinion likea cold. ” “人家怎么想他就怎么想,就像人家得了伤风,他就染上感冒。”(刘宓庆,1998 ,P122) 在此句的英文原文中,原文的内涵并不是靠词汇的表面意义表达出来的,而是隐藏在字里行间里。 因此,如按照英汉两种语言字面上的对等来翻译,原句译为“他靠传染来思维,象感冒一样获得思想”,这样,原文的真正意义就无法清楚地表达。事实上,在汉语中很难找到一个完全与英文对等的句型来表达同样的内涵。于是,译者将源语的深层结构转换成目的语的表层结构,即用目的语中相应的词汇直接说明、解释原文的内涵,以使译文读者更易接受译作。 根据奈达的翻译理论,文化差异的处理是与从语义到文体将源语再现于目的语紧密相联的。只有当译文从语言形式到文化内涵都再现了源语的风格和精神时,译作才能被称作是优秀的作品。 扩展阅读： 1