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The expression “dynamic equivalence”is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（《从一种语言到另一种语言》）.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 & T aber 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 & T aber 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（T aber）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 & T aber 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 & T aber 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 & T aber，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 & T aber （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
许渊冲翻译理论及作品分析 令狐采学 外国语学院 115班 3号 冯奕璇 许渊冲翻译理论及作品分析 在上了名家名篇赏析这门课之后，我们都知道了在中国古诗词翻译中，许渊冲有“诗译英法唯一人”的称号，同时他还总结了自己的诗词翻译理论。下面就让我们分析一下许渊冲先生的翻译理论以及他的作品。 首先是许先生所提出的“三美”理论，“三美”即意美、音美、形美。所谓意美，就是在翻译时要体现出原作的内容美；音美即要求译文押韵、顺口、好听；形美则是对诗的行数长短整齐，句子对仗工整的要求。以他翻译的《关雎》为例，“关关雎鸠，在河之洲。窈窕淑女，君子好逑”译文为“By riverside are cooing. A pair of turtledoves. A good young man is wooing. A fair maiden he loves”，先说意美，关关雎鸠的意思是“关关鸣叫的水鸟”，许先生的译文中用了“cooing”这个单词来表示水鸟，运用了“拟声”的修辞手法，将水鸟鸣叫这一景象描写的惟妙惟肖，“拟声”的手法同时也表现出了原文《关雎》的活泼的感觉，而
“turtledoves”既有斑鸠的意思，也有情人的意思，暗示了这首诗为一首情诗，符合原文的意境。许先生用“a good young man”而不是“gentleman”表现出了原文“民俗歌谣”的特点，洒脱，不拘泥于形式。再说音美，译文中第一句的词尾“cooing”和第三句的词尾“wooing”读音相似，第二句的词尾“turtledoves”和第四句词尾“loves”读音相似。在音节上，第一句为七个音节，第二句五个，第三句又是七个，第四句五个。一三句押韵，二四句押韵，读起来朗朗上口，符合“音美”这一特点。第三个特点是“形美”原诗中四字一句，对仗极其工整，译文中也维持在四到六词一句，共四行，和原诗相符。 以上就是我所认为的许渊冲先生的“三美”理论，除了“三美”理论之外，许先生还提出了另外一个著名的翻译理论“三化”理论。“三化”即“深化，等化，浅化”。“深化”就是原文为抽象、一般性的语言，译文则用形象、具体的语言对译，包括加词、分译等。“浅化”是原文为形象、具体的语言，译文则用抽象、一般性的语言对译，包括减词、“合译”等。“等化”基本上是采用直译的方法，原文为形象、具体的语言，译文也用相同形象、具体的语言。原文为抽象、一般性的语言，译文也保持相同抽象、一般性的语言，包括换词、“反译”等方法。以我们课上所学的许先生翻译的李商隐的《无题》为例。“相见时难别亦难，东风无力百花残”许先生译为“It’s difficult for us to meet and hard to part.
许渊冲翻译理论及作品分析 外国语学院 115班 3号 冯奕璇 许渊冲翻译理论及作品分析
在上了名家名篇赏析这门课之后，我们都知道了在中国古诗词翻译中，许渊冲有“诗译英法唯一人”的称号，同时他还总结了自己的诗词翻译理论。下面就让我们分析一下许渊冲先生的翻译理论以及他的作品。 首先是许先生所提出的“三美”理论，“三美”即意美、音美、形美。所谓意美，就是在翻译时要体现出原作的内容美；音美即要求译文押韵、顺口、好听；形美则是对诗的行数长短整齐，句子对仗工整的要求。以他翻译的《关雎》为例，“关关雎鸠，在河之洲。窈窕淑女，君子好逑”译文为“By riverside are cooing. A pair of turtledoves. A good young man is wooing. A fair maiden he loves”，先说意美，关关雎鸠的意思是“关关鸣叫的水鸟”，许先生的译文中用了“cooing”这个单词来表示水鸟，运用了“拟声”的修辞手法，将水鸟鸣叫这一景象描写的惟妙惟肖，“拟声”的手法同时也表现出了原文《关雎》的活泼的感觉，而“turtledoves”既有斑鸠的意思，也有情人的意思，暗示了这首诗为一首情诗，符合原文的意境。许先生用“a good young man”而不是“gentleman”表现出了原文“民俗歌谣”的特点，洒脱，不拘泥于形式。再说音美，译文中第一句的词尾“cooing”和第三句的词尾“wooing”读音相似，第二句的词尾“turtledoves”和第四句词尾“loves”读音相似。在音节上，第一句为七个音节，第二句五个，第三句又是七个，第四句五个。一三句押韵，二四句押韵，读起来朗朗上口，符合“音美”这一特点。第三个特点是“形美”原诗中四字一句，对仗极其工整，译文中也维持在四到六词一句，共四行，和原诗相符。 以上就是我所认为的许渊冲先生的“三美”理论，除了“三美”理论之外，许先生还提出了另外一个著名的翻译理论“三化”理论。“三化”即“深化，等化，浅化”。“深化”就是原文为抽象、一般性的语言，译文则用形象、具体的语言对译，包括加词、分译等。“浅化”是原文为形象、具体的语言，译文则用抽象、一般性的语言对译，包括减词、“合译”等。“等化”基本上是采用直译的方法，原文为形象、具体的语言，译文也用相同形象、具体的语言。原文为抽象、一般性的语言，译文也保持相同抽象、一般性的语言，包括换词、“反译”等方法。以我们课上所学的许先生翻译的李商隐的《无题》为例。“相见时难别亦难，
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
第27卷第3期唐山师范学院学报2005年5月Vol. 27 No.3 Journal of Tangshan Teachers College May 2005 奈达翻译理论初探 尹训凤1，王丽君2 （1.泰山学院外语系，山东泰安 271000；2.唐山师范学院教务处，河北唐山 063000） 摘要：奈达的翻译理论对于翻译实践有很强的指导作用：从语法分析角度来讲，相同的语法结构可能具有完全不同的含义；词与词之间的关系可以通过逆转换将表层形式转化为相应的核心句结构；翻译含义是翻译成败的关键所在。 关键词：奈达；分析；转换；重组；核心句 中图分类号：H315.9 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-9115（2005）03-0034-03 尤金?奈达是美国当代著名翻译理论家，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”。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。笔者拟结合具体实例，从以下角度来分析其理论独到之处。 一 一般来说，结构相同的词组、句子，其语法意义是相同或相近的。然而奈达提出，同样的语法结构在许多情况下可以有不同的含义。“名词+of+名词”这一语法结构可以对此作最好的阐释。如下例： （1）the plays of Shakespeare/ the city of New York/ the members of the team/ the man of ability/ the lover of music/ the order of obedience/ the arrival of the delegation 在以上各个词组中，假设字母A和B分别代表一个名词或代词，它们之间存在着不同的关系。在the plays of Shakespeare 中，Shakespeare是施事，plays是受事，用公式表示就是“B writes A”；在the city of New York中，city和New York是同位关系，用公式表示就是“A is B”；the members of the team中，members和team是所属关系，即“A is in the B”；在the man of ability中，“B is A’s characteristic”；在the lover of music中，lover表示的是活动，即动作，music是它的受事，因此可以理解为（he/she）loves the music, 用公式表示就是“X does A to B”（X施A于B）或“B is the goal of A”（B为A的受事）；在the order of obedience中，obedience表示的是活动，order是它的受事，因此用公式表示就是“X does B to A”（X施B于A）或“A is the goal of B”（A为B的受事）；在the arrival of the delegation中，arrival表示动作，而delegation是动作的发出者，所以是“B does A”。 因此它们的结构关系如下所示： the plays of Shakespeare——Shakespeare wrote the plays. the city of New York——The city is New York. the members of the team——The members are in the team. the man of ability——The man is able. the lover of music——(He/She) loves the music. the order of obedience——(People) obey the order. the arrival of the delegation——The delegation arrives. ────────── 收稿日期：2004-06-10 作者简介：尹训凤（1976-），女，山东泰安人，泰山学院外语系教师，现为天津外国语学院研究生部2003级研究生，研究方向为翻译理论与实践。 - 34 -
2008 年6 月 第10 卷/ 第6 期/ 河北师范大学学报/ 教育科学版/ JOURNAL OF HEBEI NORMAL UNIVERSITY/ Educational Science Edition/ J un. 2008 Vol. 10 No. 6 收稿日期:2008 - 02 - 16 作者简介:陈凯(1978 - ) , 女, 河北保定人, 助教, 研究方向为翻译理论与实践; 张建辉(1980 - ) , 男, 河北保定人,助教, 研究方向为翻译理论与实践。 彼得·纽马克翻译理论浅析 陈凯, 张建辉 (保定学院, 河北保定071000) 摘要:彼得·纽马克撰写了多部翻译理论著作,将翻译文本类型进行分类,提出了语义翻译、交际翻译 的概念,同时他对自己的理论进行了进一步扩充———提出了关联翻译法,为国内外译界提供了很好的指导, 为繁荣译论做出了重大贡献。 关键词:彼得·纽马克;翻译理论 中图分类号: H 059 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1009 - 413X(2008) 06 - 0142 - 03 彼得·纽马克,英国当代翻译家、翻译理论家, 其翻译理论简明扼要,短小精悍,与奈达的卷帙浩繁 相得益彰。和奈达一样,纽马克运用现代语言学来 分析和解决具体的翻译问题。他认为译论“源于比 较语言学,在语言学的范畴内,主要涉及语义学;所 有语义学的问题都与翻译理论有关”,同时,他承认 语言的平等性和可译性,认为翻译既是科学,也是艺 术和技巧,针对不同种类的文本,译者要采用不同的 翻译方法,力图使译作对译文读者产生的效果应尽 量等同于原作对原文读者产生的效果[1 ] 。下面本文 将就其主要的译论观点进行简析,以求对纽马克的 翻译理论有个更深层次的了解。 一、文本类型分类 在纽马克看来,翻译就是文本的翻译,研究翻译 不能离开文本。因此,纽马克根据Buhler 的语言功 能理论将所有的文本划分为三大范畴:表达型文本、 信息型文本和号召型文本。 (一) 表达型文本 在表达型文本中,如文学作品、私人信件、自传 和散文等,其核心思想是表情达意,作者独特的语言 形式和内容应同等重要。因此,这样的文本强调原 作者的权威,不会去考虑读者的反应。典型的表达 型文本包括:1. 严肃的文学作品,包括抒情诗、长篇
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
西方现代翻译研究的一大特点,是把翻译问题纳入语言学的研究领域,试图对翻译研究这个古老的课题赋予新的含义,增添新的内容,从而提出新的研究方法、理论模式和翻译技巧。奈达(EuguneA.Nida)的理论就是西方现代翻译理论研究领域中的突出代表。打破了中国传统译论中静态分析翻译的标准。 他是迄今美国翻译理论最著名的代表，也是当代整个西方翻译理论界最具影响的人物之一，正因为有了他，美国翻译研究领域才有了自己的“明星”，美国翻译理论也得以在二战后不断呈现后来居上的状态。 1914年11月11日，出生于美国俄克勒荷马州。2011年8月25日，在比利时布鲁塞尔与世长辞，享年96岁。这位在学术界赫赫有名的人物，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。早在上个世纪八十年代初,他的理论就介绍到中国,并成为西方理论中被介绍的最早、最多、影响最大的理论. 奈达著作等身，他单独或合作出版著作40多部，发表论文250余篇，另外，还有13本专供《圣经》译者使用的参考书。 奈达的翻译理论主要经过三个阶段的发展：谭载喜1999，xv-xxi 第一阶段：早期带有明显美国结构主义色彩的语言学阶段或描写语言阶段（1943-1959）他的研究重点是语言的句法现象和词法现象，特
别是关于《圣经》的翻译研究，这一阶段是奈达翻译思想及学术活动的初期。深受美国结构主义语言学者Edward Sapir, L. Bloomfield 等的影响。通过借鉴乔姆斯基转化生成语法的语言学理论，使自己的翻译理论更加科学化和系统化。 第二阶段：翻译科学说和翻译交际说阶段（1959-1969）这个阶段的研究成就,对于确立奈达在整个西方翻译理论界的权威地位,起了非 常关键的作用。1964年他出版了重要专著《翻译科学探索》此书的问世,可以说是奈达翻译思想发展过程中的一个最重要的里程碑。对这一时期奈达的基本翻译思想加以综述,可归纳为四个方面。 1.翻译科学说：奈达认为,翻译不仅是一种艺术、一种技巧,还是一门科学。这里所谓的科学是指可以“采用处理语言结构的科学途径、语义分析途径和信息论来处理翻译问题”（Nida et al,1969:vii)即采用一种语言学的、描写的方法来解释翻译过程。 2.翻译交际说：把通讯论和信息论用于翻译研究,认为翻译就是交际。Transalting means communicating.这是奈达翻译思想第二阶段的主要标志,也是他整个思想体系中一个最大的特点之一。 3.动态对等翻译说：这是奈达最为人熟知的一个理论。所谓动态对等具体说来是指“从语义到语体，在接受语中用切近（原文）的自然对等语再现原语信息”（Nida et al,1969）。 4.翻译功能说：奈达从社会语言学和语言交际功能观点出发，认为翻译必须以读者为服务对象。
龙源期刊网 https://www.doczj.com/doc/c811590953.html, 翻译理论在翻译教学中的作用分析 作者：索郎达机 来源：《都市家教·下半月》2014年第10期 【摘要】根据目前的社会经济发展水平和教育的发展形势可知，传统的翻译理论已经无 法适应现代翻译教学的发展，不仅不能起到积极作用，反而会阻碍翻译教学的发展和进步。在高校的英语教育中，翻译部分是英语学习中十分关键的部分，其对于学生在英语各方面能力的要求十分高，要求学生在综合能力方面都能够达到标准才能真正得到好的翻译效果。本文主要分析翻译理论在翻译教学中的作用，为促进高校英语翻译教学提供建议。 【关键词】翻译理论；翻译教学；高校英语教学 一、前言 我国在经济高速发展的同时，人们的生活水平不断提升，一些出外旅游的情况不断频繁，人们外出离开本国主要需要准备的是语言工具。随着我国与一些国际上发达国家的交流不断加强，不管是经济方面还是旅游方面的涉外活动都无法和英语翻译脱离开来。因此，英语翻译成为十分受欢迎的职业，而对于学生在英语翻译能力等方面的学习则有了更高的要求。因此，翻译理论在翻译教学中的作用需要进一步研究，以帮助学生更快地掌握英语翻译技巧。 二、翻译理论 我国的翻译理论以严复提出的信、达、雅为代表，这个翻译理论在我国的翻译界得到了十分广泛的认同，国内基本上大部分的翻译教材都会涉及信、达、雅这部分的内容。因此，严复的这一翻译理论在我国的翻译界是具有十分积极的指导意义的，其对于翻译教学的影响也十分深刻。翻译理论指的是一些在翻译的过程中总结出的较为有用的理论知识，其能够对实际的翻译工作产生影响。科学的翻译理论能够大大方便翻译人员的翻译工作，还能减轻工作强度，获得很好的翻译效果。但是也同样存在着不科学的翻译理论，那么这种不科学的翻译理论对于翻译教学来说不会取得积极的效果。在高校的英语翻译课程中，一般都是教师按照学校选定的教材来对课本上的翻译材料进行讲解，却无法取得有效的效果，这对于学生在英语翻译能力方面的培养并没有十分明显的效果。因此，为了有效发挥翻译理论在高校英语翻译教学中的积极作用，需要对于如何发挥翻译理论在翻译教学中的作用进行分析。 三、翻译理论在翻译教学中的作用分析 1.认知作用 翻译理论在翻译教学中具有一定的认知作用，所谓的认知作用是能够让学生对翻译理论产生一定的启蒙作用。翻译理论能够为学生对翻译的一些客观性的理论和规律性进行总体性的介绍和描述，还能对于一些翻译之间的内在牵扯和运作机制进行深入性的分析。学生能够通过理
奈达翻译理论在中国的接受-汉语言文学 奈达翻译理论在中国的接受 □梁林歆许明武 摘要：以国内1979至2013年共35年来发表的关于奈达及其翻译理论的期刊论文、会议论文、硕博学位论文等共2688篇为研究对象，通过定量统计与定性分析相结合的方法，从研究数量、年度统计、文献分布及所依理论等方面对国内关于奈达研究的历史概况和发展轨迹进行系统回顾与梳理，并结合统计数据探讨其在中国的接受与融合，力图揭示奈达及其翻译理论在中国得到广泛接受的主要原因。 关键词：奈达翻译接受 一、引言 尤金·奈达（Eugene Nida，1914～2011）是西方翻译理论界最具影响的代表人物之一，著名的语言学家和翻译理论家，长期供职于美国圣经公会翻译部，任执行秘书。奈达著述极丰，据上海外语教育出版社2001年在奈达所著Language and Culture（《语言与文化》）一书的封底介绍，他单独或合作出版书40多部，发表论文250余篇（张经浩，2005：59）。奈达及其翻译理论在国内产生影响最大，受重视程度最高，国内译界对其可谓“家喻户晓”，以至出现“言必称奈达”的“奈达现象”。南开大学刘士聪教授曾这样评价奈达：奈达的观点，你可以同意，也可以不同意，但是奈达的名字你不可能不知道（林克难，2012：81）。然而，奈达及其翻译理论在中国学术界和社会的接受与影响，随着时代变迁与社会发展也在发生微妙变化。如何更加准确把握“奈达现象”传承流变的过程，厘清奈达翻译理论在我国发展的历史轨迹，有必要对奈达及其翻译理论在中国的接
受进行一番探究，以揭示奈达及其翻译理论在中国得到广泛接受的主要原因，从而为中国大量接受西方翻译理论的现象提供分析方法。 二、奈达翻译理论在中国的传播与发展 据知网检索，国内期刊上发表的第一篇关于奈达及其翻译理论的文章是郑南渡刊载于《语言学动态》1979年第2期上的《奈达》（郑南渡，1979：44）。距其代表性著作《翻译的科学探索》（Toward a Science of Translation）问世已有15年之久。但随后直至1986年以前，国内发表的关于奈达及其翻译理论的文章每年也只有两三篇，至2005年突破百篇，2012年达至374篇，创下历史之最。 笔者于2014年3月20日以“奈达”为主题并含“翻译”在中国知网进行检索，以下为各个时期奈达及其翻译理论在国内的研究数量、年度统计、文献分布及所依理论。 （一）研究数量分布 改革开放以来，我国译界对国外翻译理论的引介与吸收有了较大的发展与变化，融合了更多的西方翻译理论与思维元素。为便于文献梳理及分析，奈达及其翻译理论在国内的传播与发展可分为前后两个阶段：从1979到1999年头21年的平缓期（共发表论文148篇）和从2000到2013年后14年的上升期（共发表论文2540篇）。如图1所示，从论文年度发表数来看，在平缓期内，1980年出现空缺，1979至1986年每年发表的论文也只有两三篇，共计14篇，表
［摘要］传统的翻译方法相关论文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
To Equivalence and Beyond: Reflections on the Significance of Eugene A. Nida for Bible Translating1 Kenneth A. Cherney, Jr. It’s been said, and it may be true, that there are two kinds of people—those who divide people into two kinds and those who don’t. Similarly, there are two approaches to Bible translation—approaches that divide translations into two kinds and those that refuse. The parade example of the former is Jerome’s claim that a translator’s options are finally only two: “word-for-word” or “sense-for-sense.”2 Regardless of whether he intended to, Jerome set the entire conversation about Bible translating on a course from which it would not deviate for more than fifteen hundred years; and some observers in the field of translation studies have come to view Jerome’s “either/or” as an unhelpful rut from which the field has begun to extricate itself only recently and with difficulty. Another familiar dichotomy is the distinction between “formal correspondence” translating on one hand and “dynamic equivalence” (more properly “functional equivalence,” on which see below) on the other. The distinction arose via the work of the most influential figure in the modern history of Bible translating: Eugene Albert Nida (1914-2011). It is impossible to imagine the current state of the field of translation studies, and especially Bible translating, without Nida. Not only is he the unquestioned pioneer of modern, so-called “meaning-based” translating;3 he may be more responsible than any other individual for putting Bibles in the hands of people around the world that they can read and understand. 1 This article includes material from the author’s doctoral thesis (still in progress), “Allusion as Translation Problem: Portuguese Versions of Second Isaiah as Test Case” (Stellenbosch University, Drs. Christo Van der Merwe and Hendrik Bosman, promoters). 2 Jerome, “Letter to Pammachius,” in Lawrence Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. (NY and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 23. 3 Nigel Statham, "Nida and 'Functional Equivalence': The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward," Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p. 39.