尤金奈达EugeneNida翻译理论
奈达翻译理论概述尤金·奈达

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。
尤金奈达翻译理论

以“Tension is building up.”为例
在没有上下文的情况下, “tension” 和“build up”都有不同的解释。因此, 这句话至少可以翻译成以下不同的汉语: 1.形势紧张起来; 2.张力在增大; 3.电压在增加。
无庸质疑,句法对等比词汇对等更复杂。在英汉互译时,一个最明显的问 题涉及到了单数和复数的范畴。汉语经常用到复数时无明显语言标示,而在 英语里,复数则体现得淋漓尽致。此外,性和数等语法标示在翻译时还会涉 及时态的一致性。因此,译者不仅要清楚在目的语言里有没有这种结构,而 且还要明白这种结构的使用频率。 有时,词汇的差异也会给句法对等带来翻译上的障碍。例如,汉语没有关 系代词,这就意味着在英汉翻译时,需要考虑定语从句的次序和组合。在翻 译过程中让句法结构重组变得更复杂的是汉语的定语在句子前面,而不是后 面。这个就是语言学家所说的“左分歧” 而不是“右分歧”。这就是为什么 汉语句子要明显比英语短。
篇章对等又叫语篇对等。语篇是一种语言使用单位。因此, 我们在进行语篇分析时不能只分析语言本身,而要看语言是怎 样在特定的语境中体现意义和功能。 语篇对等包含三个层面: 上下文语境 情景语境 文化语境
不同文体的翻译作品有着各自独特的语言特征。只有在同时掌握源 语和目的语两种语言的特征,且能熟练运用两种语言的情况下,译者 才能创造出真实体现源语风格的翻译作品。作品语言风格的不同就意 味着所蕴涵的文化因素也各不相同。 例如:科技体裁所承载的文化因素较少,因此,准确如实地将源语 信息内容转化成目的语远远比对两种语言文化的转换要重要得多。相 反,在文学体裁的作品中,文化就成为翻译中应考虑的重要因素之一。 如果忽略了文化因素.译作就成了没血没肉的、只是由词汇和句子堆 积起来的躯壳。因此,优秀的译者在文学翻译实践中应充分考虑如何 处理不同体裁作品中的文化差异。
尤金奈达功能对等理论

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。
(完整版)尤金·奈达EugeneNida翻译理论

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])。
奈达及其翻译理论PPT课件

第二步:说明内隐成分之间的关系
Bar 的受事者是 travelers’ way, 而 winter and summer vacations 的受事者是 travelers,且是 this land的现存目的。
第三步:确定核心句
1.this land barred the way 2.travelers were weary 3.travelers was on the way 4.this land becomes a land 5.this land is for winter and summer vacation 6.travelers spend winter and summer vacation 7.this land is magic and wonderful
3、把现代语言学的最新研究成果应用到翻译理论中来并创立逆 转换翻译方法
4、对中国翻译的影响(奈达现象)
又体现了饮用时的快乐心情“可乐”,同时巧妙地运用了汉语叠 声词,易给消费者留下深刻印象,产生良好的广告效应。
例如:
You can't be too careful. 如果将该句译为“你不能太小心”, 形式上与原文完全吻合, 但意
义上却与原文刚好相反(原文真正含义为“你应该特别小心”),因 而这样的形式对等是没有任何意义的。
Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.
奈达翻译理论

社会符号学阶段(1970年起) 奈达对他的翻译理论进行一系列的修改和补充,把 其有用成分纳人了新的社会符号学的模式。
强调译文有关的一切都有意义,其中包括言语形式。 语言的修辞特征在语言交际中起着举足轻重的作用。 以“功能对等”取代“动态对等”,使其含义更清楚。 逐步采用社会语言学和社会符号学的方法来处理翻译 问题。
— Eugene A. Nida
奈达在其核心理论——“功能对等”方面做了精辟的论述。 其核心就是,找出目的语的各种有效表达手段以最接近、最 自然的方式表达出原文的对等信息。首先是在思想内容方 面,其次是在形式风格方面。力求译文与原文在效果上达到 对等,即译文读者的理解与感受与原文读者的理解与感受基 本一致。
描写语言学阶段(1943年到1959年)
在这一阶段, 在这一阶段,他的研究重点是语言的句法 现象和词法现象。他不是把语言差异当作 现象和词法现象。 语言之间不可逾越的障碍, 语言之间不可逾越的障碍,而是当作相同 本质的不同现象来加以描写。 本质的不同现象来加以描写。
奈达翻译思想的三个阶段
交际理论阶段(1959年到1968年) 翻译不仅是一种艺术,一种技巧,还是一门科学。 把通讯论和信息论用于翻译研究,认为翻译就是 交际。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。 动态对等翻译观的提出。 就翻译过程而言,奈达提倡四步式,即: 分析、 转换、重组和检验。
奈达翻译理论简述
尤金·A·奈达( Eugene A.Nida )
尤金·奈达(1914--2011), 语言学家,翻译家,翻译理论 家。曾长期在美国圣经学会主 持翻译部的工作,并提出了自 己独特的翻译理论。
奈达特色翻译理论 (1)语言共性论(language universality) (2)翻译信息论(message of translation)。 (3)读者反映论(theory of readers' response) (4)动态对等论(dynamic equivalence)
英文简介尤金奈达及其翻译理论

从圣经实例感受“功能对等”
形式对等译本:《修订版圣经》简称 RV以及 《和合本》简称“和”
功能对等对等译本:《现代英文译本修订版》 简称GNT以及《现代中文译本修订版》简称 “现”
《哥林多前书》第11章第11节
RV:Howbeit neither is the women without the man, not the man without the women, in the Lord.
action. Keep alert and 现:所以你们的心要准备好,时时警惕……
《诗篇》第65篇12至13节
应用及影响
奈达本人并未主笔翻译过大型作品, 他 对语言学界和翻译理论界的影响,主要 来自于他的著述。 他所倡导的翻译原则左右了圣经的几 个大型翻译和译本修订项目。
商务英语翻译领域 影视剧字幕翻译领域 都常常用到他的理论。
尤金奈达Eugene A . Nida
1. 人物简介 2. 翻译理论及实例 3. 奈达理论在各领域的应用及影响
组员:徐诗韵,王翔,赵皓月
他是谁?
尤金·A·奈达(Eugene A. Nida),语言学家,翻 译家,翻译理论家。 1914年11月11日,出生于美国俄克拉何马市。 2011年,8月25日,在比利时布鲁塞尔与世长辞, 享年96岁。 1943年获密歇根大学语言学博士学位,接着长期 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。
由于奈达在学术界有很高的知名度和影响力,他逝世时,美 英主流媒体,如《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》、《华盛顿 邮报》、《每日电讯报》等都作了报道,并对他的学术贡献 给予高度评价。
尤金奈达翻译理论

-------
Brief Introduction His Major Works Translation Theory
Influence of His Translation Theory
Brief Introduction
◆November 11, 1914,born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma(美 国俄克拉何马市) ◆1936 , graduated from the University of California ◆1943 received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan ◆Nida retired 1980, he continued to give lectures in universities all around the world. ◆He died in Madrid(马德里) on August 25, 2011, aged 96
◆ Eg: 一直在旁边观看的小学生开始鼓起掌来。 The pupils that had been watching started to applaud. ◆Eg: 她非常喜欢教书。 She loves teaching very much.
3. Passage Equivalence篇章对等
To acheive passage equivalence,language is not the unique elemen to be considered, how the language represents meaning and performs its funtion in a specific context matter most. ◆ Three parts: 1. Passage Context 上下文语境 2. Scene Context 情景语境 3. Culture Context 文化语境
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
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])。