尤金·奈达Eugene-Nida翻译理论

Forpersonaluseonlyinstudyandresearch;notforcommercialuse莇EugeneNida莃DynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalence蒁EugeneA.Nida(1914--)isadistinguishedAmericantranslationtheoristaswellasalinguist.HistranslationtheoryhasexertedagreatinfluenceontranslationstudiesinWesterncountries.Hisworkontranslatoinsetoffthestudyofmoderntranslationasanacademicfield,andheisregarededas“thepatriarchoftranslationstudyandafounderofthediscipline”（Snell-Hornby1988:1;Baker1998:277）莁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:袅Insuchatranslation(dynamicequivalenttranslation)oneisnotsoconcernedwithmatchingthereceptor-languagemessagewiththesource-languagemessage,butwiththedynamicrelationship,thattherelationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage(1964:159)However,hedoesnotgiveacleardefinitionofdynamicequivalenceuntill1969.Inhis1969textbookTheThoeryandPracticeofTranslation（《翻译理论与实践》）,dynamicequivalenceisdefined“intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessagesinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptoresinthesourcelanguage”(1969:24)莆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.薀DynamicEquivalence蒈AtermintroducedbyNida(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