尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论
- 格式:doc
- 大小:50.00 KB
- 文档页数:8
尤金·奈达和他的翻译理论1.奈达翻译理论概述尤金·奈达(Eugene A.Nida)1914年生于美国的俄克勒荷马州。
早年师从当代结构主义语言学大师布龙非尔德(Leonard Bloomfield)等语言学家。
毕业后供职于美国圣经协会,终生从事圣经翻译和翻译理论的研究,著作等身,是公认的当代翻译理论的主要奠基人。
他理论的核心思想是“功能对等”(functional equivalence)。
这个名称的前身是“灵活对等”(dynamic equivalence)。
后来为避免被人误解,改成功能对等。
简单讲,功能对等就是要让译文和原文在语言的功能上对等,而不是在语言的形式上对应。
要取得功能对等(奈达指的对等是大致的对等),就必须弄清何为功能对等。
他把功能分成九类①[在From One Language to Another中,奈达将语言的功能分成9类,即表现功能(expressive)、认识功能(cognitive)、人际功能(interpersonal)、信息功能(informative)、祈使功能(imperative)、行为功能(performative)、情感功能(emotive)、审美功能(aesthetic)和自我解释功能(metalingual)。
见该书第25页。
]译文应在这些功能上与原作对等。
那么,怎样才算对等呢?奈达认为回答这个问题不能只局限在文字本身,他把判断对等与否的大权交给了读者的心理反应。
这就与在奈达之前大多数翻译研究者的观点相左。
传统上,人们总是将客观的语篇作为判断译文对错优劣的依据。
但奈达一下子把大权从语篇手中抢过来,交给了读者。
这一转手马上创出了一个崭新的局面,为当时几乎陷入绝境的翻译研究者打开了眼界,西方翻译理论研究一下子柳暗花明。
奈达这一发展当然是和他本人对翻译的研究有关。
但奈达并非闭门造车,功能对等自有其源头活水。
这活水就是当时语言学领域突飞猛进的发展。
尤金奈达功能对等理论
尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)功能对等理论是20世纪最重要的翻译理论之一,也是国际翻译学会(International Association for Translation and Interpreting)推荐的翻译理论。
该理论指出,翻译并不是从一种文化传输到另一种文化,而是将一种文化的概念以一种文化的形式来表达。
这种概念的表达是以语言的形式,而且是以语言功能为基础的。
根据尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)的功能对等理论,翻译的目的是帮助读者理解原文的概念,而不是简单地将原文的文字翻译成另一种语言。
在这种理论的框架下,翻译者必须考虑文化和语言功能,而不是仅仅考虑语法和词义。
为了实现这一目标,翻译者需要考虑语境,以及原文和目标语言之间的差异。
尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)的功能对等理论认为,翻译是一种更新技术,它以一种“译者中心”的方式来解决文化传输问题。
翻译者要考虑原文所表达的概念,并将其翻译成一种具有相同功能的语言。
因此,翻译者必须以灵活的方式思考并表达文本的信息,以便使读者理解文本的意义。
尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)功能对等理论提出了一种新颖、有效的翻译方法,改变了传统的翻译理论,并为翻译者提供了一种更加灵活的框架,以便他们能够以有效的方式传达原文的概念。
因此,尤
金·奈达(Eugene Nida)功能对等理论一直是翻译研究的一个重要组成部分,在翻译实践中也得到了广泛的应用。
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 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 EquivalenceA 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])。
尤金奈达功能对等理论
尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)功能对等理论是一种文学翻译理论,它可以用于翻译文本中有意义的内容。
该理论建立在以下基础上:原文的语言、文化和文本结构在翻译中应得到保留。
根据这一理论,翻译者应该尽量使翻译产品与原文的意义和表达形式保持一致,同时考虑译文语言的特性。
尤金·奈达功能对等理论,提出了一种新的翻译理论,称为“功能对等”理论。
该理论认为,翻译应该是一种“功能对等”,也就是说,原文中的意义应该在译文中得到充分考虑,而不是简单地进行字面翻译。
其目的是尽可能保留原文中的信息和表达,而不是改变原文的意义。
尤金·奈达功能对等理论强调了文化的重要性。
翻译时,翻译者必须考虑原文所属的文化背景,并尊重译文所属的文化背景。
翻译者必须了解原文的文化,并以当地的文化语境来理解原文的意义,以此来确保译文的准确性和可读性。
尤金·奈达功能对等理论给翻译者提供了一种新的思路,促使翻译者更加重视原文的意义而不是字面意义,考虑原文的文化背景并尊
重译文所属的文化背景,从而使翻译更加准确、自然、流畅。
尤金·奈达功能对等理论可以用于翻译文本中有意义的内容,为翻译者提供了一个全新的视角,提高翻译质量,实现精准的翻译。
浅析的“功能对等”理论一、概述“功能对等”理论,又称为“动态对等”或“功能等效”,是由美国翻译理论家尤金奈达提出的一种翻译理论。
这一理论主张在翻译过程中,应追求源语言和目标语言在功能上的对等,而非字面上的直译。
换句话说,翻译的目的在于传达原文的含义、风格、文体等信息,使译文读者能够获得与原文读者相似的阅读体验。
功能对等理论强调翻译应以读者为中心,注重译文的自然性和流畅性,追求在语义和风格上的对等,而非形式上的对等。
奈达认为,翻译过程中难免会出现一些损失,翻译者应该尽可能地减少这些损失,使译文尽可能地接近原文。
功能对等理论对翻译实践具有指导意义,它提醒翻译者在翻译过程中要注重语言的实际功能,而非仅仅追求形式上的对等。
同时,该理论也鼓励翻译者根据目标语言的文化背景和语言习惯进行适当调整,以确保译文的准确性和可读性。
功能对等理论是一种注重实际效果和读者体验的翻译理论,它为翻译实践提供了重要的指导原则,有助于提高翻译的准确性和可读性。
1. 介绍“功能对等”理论的基本概念“功能对等”理论,又称为“动态对等”或“功能等效”,是由美国翻译理论家尤金奈达(Eugene Nida)提出的翻译理论核心。
该理论主张在翻译过程中,译文应以实现源语信息的同等功能为目标,而非追求形式上的逐字逐句对应。
功能对等强调译文的读者应能像阅读原文读者一样理解和欣赏译文,即译文应产生与原文相似的反应。
在奈达看来,翻译的首要任务是传达原文的意义,而不仅仅是复制原文的词汇和结构。
他认为,翻译的目的在于实现交际功能,译文必须能够在译语环境中产生与原文在源语环境中相同的效果。
这种对等不是形式上的,而是功能上的,它要求译者在翻译时充分考虑两种语言的文化差异和表达习惯,使译文在语义、风格、文体等方面与原文达到最大程度的对等。
功能对等理论打破了传统翻译理论中“直译”与“意译”的对立,提出了一种全新的翻译观念。
它强调翻译应以实现交际功能为最高准则,而非简单地追求文字上的对应。
功能对等理论由美国人尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)提出,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,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。
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。
翻译理论尤金·奈达の“动态对等”(Dynamic Equivalence)/“功能对等”(Functional Equivalence)尤金·A·奈达(Eugene A.Nida)(1914-2011),美国著名の语言学家,翻译家,翻译理论家。
1943年获密歇根大学语言学博士学位,长期在美国圣经学会主持翻译部の工作,曾任美国语言学会主席,1980年退休后任顾问。
奈达是一位杰出の语言学家,他到过96个国家,在一百多所大学做过讲座,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。
尤金最有影响の著作是1964出版の《翻译の科学探索》(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)。
奈达理论の核心概念是“功能对等”。
所谓“功能对等”,就是说翻译时不求文字表面の死板对应,而要在两种语言间达成功能上の对等。
为使源语与目の语の之间の转换有一个标准,减少差异,尤金·A·奈达从语言学の角度出发,根据翻译の本质,提出了著名の“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、自然与对等の语言从语义到文体再现源语の信息”(郭建中,2000 , P65)。
奈达有关翻译の定义指明,翻译不仅是词汇意义上の对等,还包括语义、风格与文体の对等,翻译传达の信息既有表层词汇信息,也有深层の文化信息。
“动态对等”中の对等包括四个方面: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,“意义是最重要の,形式其次”(郭建中,2000 , P67)。
形式很可能掩藏源语の文化意义,并阻碍文化交流。
因此,在文学翻译中,根据奈达の理论,译者应以动态对等の四个方面,作为翻译の原则,准确地在目の语中再现源语の文化内涵。
奈达功能对等翻译理论(Nida's Functional Equivalence Theory)是基于语言功能和交际目的的翻译理论,由美国翻译学家尤金·奈达(Eugene Nida)提出。
该理论认为,翻译的目的在于传达源语言(原文)的信息,使得译文的接受者能够理解并接受这些信息。
因此,译者应该根据翻译的目的和受众的需求,选择合适的翻译方法,实现翻译的功能对等。
奈达认为,翻译的功能对等可以分为两种类型:动态对等和形式对等。
动态对等(dynamic equivalence)强调翻译的功能目的,即将源语言的信息转化为译语(目标语言)的信息,以达到与原文相同的功能目的。
而形式对等(formal equivalence)则强调词汇和语法结构的相似性,使译文与原文的表面形式尽量相似。
奈达功能对等翻译理论强调了翻译的交际功能,即翻译的主要目的是传达信息,而不是简单地将原文单词和句子的翻译转换为另一种语言。
因此,译者需要考虑到受众的语言和文化背景,选择恰当的语言和表达方式,以实现源语言和目标语言之间的功能对等。
翻译理论尤金·奈达的“动态对等”(Dynamic Equivalence)/“功能对等”(Functional Equivalence)尤金·A·奈达(Eugene A.Nida)(1914-2011),美国著名的语言学家,翻译家,翻译理论家。
1943年获密歇根大学语言学博士学位,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,在一百多所大学做过讲座,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。
尤金最有影响的著作是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。
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 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 thesame 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 EquivalenceA 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])。