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 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in substantially the same manner as the receptores in the source language 1969 24 The expression dynamic equivalence is superseded by functional equivalencev in his work From One Language to Another 1986 with De Waard 从一种语言到另一种语言 However there is essentially not much difference between the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 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 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 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 Nida 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 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 according to de Waard 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 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