-
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
Trans
lation
（
《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is superseded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（<
/p>
Nida
）
（
1
964
）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,
< br>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
[A
nalysis]
、
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
[Ling
uistic 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
< br>）
。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;
1985.
Nida
&
Taber
1969/1982;
Tymoczko
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<
/p>
Dynamic Equivalence[
动
< br>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
< br>）
，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
Translatio
n]
、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
）
。<
/p>
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