-
。
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)
(
< br>《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
langua
ge
”
(1969:24)
-
可编辑修改
-
。
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superseded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
-
可编辑修改
-
。
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
)
(<
/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”
< br>
(Nida
-
可编辑修改
-
。
&
Taber
1969/1982:200,
< br>原文的着重号已取消
)
。
p>
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<
/p>
[Analysis]
、转移
[Tran
sfer]
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<
/p>
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
< br>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
-
可编辑修改
-
。
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.
-
可编辑修改
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇:2013美赛ABC试题及翻译
下一篇:出国材料——信息采集表