-
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 T
ranslation
（
《翻译理论与实践》
< br>）
,
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superseded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
1 / 8
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
2 / 8
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
）
（<
/p>
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 Equivalenc
e[
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
：
13
1
）
。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
S
nell-Hornby 1988/1955:15
）
。
奈达和泰伯
（
Taber
< br>）
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
3 / 8
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;
Tymoczko 1985.
Nida
&
Taber
1969/1982;
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
]
）
。
< br>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”
（<
/p>
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 Translatio
n]
、直译
/
字面翻译
[Literal Translation]
概念更有用（
Hatim & Mason
，
1990
：
7
< br>）
。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，<
/p>
这意味着尽可能地采用形式对等语
[Formal Equiva
lent]
而不
是功能对等语
[Fun
ctional
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（
Ni
da
，
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
，
4 / 8