尤金·奈達(dá)Eugene-Nida翻譯理論

EugeneNidaDynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalenceEugeneA.Nida(1914--)isadistinguishedAmericantranslationtheoristaswellasalinguist.HistranslationtheoryhasexertedagreatinfluenceontranslationstudiesinWesterncountries.Hisworkontranslatoinsetoffthestudyofmoderntranslationasanacademicfield,andheisregarededas“thepatriarchoftranslationstudyandafounderofthediscipline”（Snell-Hornby1988:1;Baker1998:277）Nida’stheoryofdynamicequivalenceishismajorcontributiontotranslationstudies.Theconceptisfirstmentionedinhisarticle“PrinciplesofTranslationasExemplifiedbyBibleTranslating”(1959)（《從圣經(jīng)翻譯看翻譯原則》）asheattemptstodefinetranslating.InhisinfluentialworkTowardaScienceofTranslating(1964)（《翻譯原則科學(xué)探索》）,hepostulatesdynamicequivalenttranslationasfollows:Insuchatranslation(dynamicequivalenttranslation)oneisnotsoconcernedwithmatchingthereceptor-languagemessagewiththesource-languagemessage,butwiththedynamicrelationship,thattherelationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage(1964:159)However,hedoesnotgiveacleardefinitionofdynamicequivalenceuntill1969.Inhis1969textbookTheThoeryandPracticeofTranslation（《翻譯理論與實(shí)踐》）,dynamicequivalenceisdefined“intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessagesinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptoresinthesourcelanguage”(1969:24)Theexpression“dynamicequivalence”issupersededby“functionalequivalencev”inhisworkFromOneLanguagetoAnother(1986,withDeWaard)（《從一種語言到另一種語言》）.However,thereisessentiallynotmuchdifferencebetweenthetwoconcepts.Thesubstitutionof“functionalequivalence”isjusttostresstheconceptoffunctionandtoavoidmisunderstandingsoftheterm“dynamic”,whichismistakenbysomepersonsforsomethinginthesenseofimpact(Nida1993:124).InLanguage,CultureandTranslating(1993)（《語言與文化：翻譯中的語境》,“functionalequivalence”isfurtherdividedintocategoriesontwolevels:theminimallevelandthemaximallevel.Theminimallevelof“functionalequivalence”isdefinedas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit”.Themaximallevelisstatedas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstandandaprreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid”(Nida1993:118;1995:224).Thetwodefinitionsofequivalencerevealthattheminimallevelisrealistic,whereasthemaximallevelisieal.ForNida,goodtranslationsalwaysliesomewherebetweenthetwolevels(Nida19954:224).Itcanbenotedthat“functionalequivalence”isaflexibleconceptwithdifferentdegreesofadequacy.DynamicEquivalenceAtermintroducedbyNida(1964)inthecontextofBibletranslationtodescribeoneoftwobasicorientationsfoundintheprocessoftranslation(seealsoFormalEquivalence).Dynamicequivalenceisthequalitywhichcharacterizesatranslationinwhich“themessageoftheoriginaltexthasbeensotransportedintothereceptorlanguagethattheresponseofthereceptorisessentiallylikethatoftheoriginalreceptors”(Nida&Taber1969/1982:200,emphasisremoved).Inotherwords,adynamicallyequivalenttranslationisonewhichhasbeenproducedinaccordancewiththethreefoldprocessofAnalysis,TransferandRestructuring(Nida&Taber1969/1982:200);formulatingsuchatranslationwillentailsuchproceduresassubstitutingTLitemswhicharemoreculturallyappropriateforobscureSTitems,makinglingguisticallyimplicitSTinformationexplicit,andbuildinginacertainamountofREDUNDANCY(1964:131)toaidcomprehension.Inatranslationofthiskindoneistherefornotsoconcernedwith“matchingthereceptor-languagemessagewiththesource-laguage”;theaimismoreto“relatethereceptortomodesofbehaviorrelevantwithinthecontextofhisownculture”(Nida1964:159).PossiblythebestknownexampleofadynamicallyequivalentsolutiontoatranslationproblemisseeninthedecisiontotranslatetheBiblicalphrase“LambofGod”intoandEskimolanguageas“SealofGod”:thefactthatlambsareunkowninpolarregionshashereledtothesubstitutionofaculturallymeaningfulitemwhichsharesatleastsomeoftheimportantfeaturesoftheSLexpression(seeSnell-Hornby1988/1955:15).NidaandTaberarguethata“highdegree”ofequivalenceofresponseisneededforthetranslationtoachieveitspurpose,althoughtheypointoutthatthisresponsecanneverbeidenticalwiththatelicitedbytheoriginal(1969/1982:24).However,theyalsoissueawarningaboutthelimitswithinwhichtheprocessesassociatedwithproducingdynamicequivalenceremainvalid:foreexample,acomparisonwiththebroadlysimialrcategoryofLinguisticTranslatonrevealsthatonlyelementswhicharelinguisticallyimplictinTT-ratherthananyadditionalcontextualinformationwhichmightbenecessarytoanewaudience—maylegitimatelybemadeexplicitinTT.ThenotionofdynamicequivalenceisofcourseespeciallyrelevanttoBibletranslation,giventheparticularneedofBiblicaltranslationsnotonlytoinformreadersbutalsotopresentarelevantmessagetothemandhopefullyelicitaresponse(1969/1982:24).However,itcanclearlyalsobeappliedtoothergenres,andindeedinmanyareas(suchasliterarytranslation)ithasarguablycometoholdswayoverotherapproaches(Nida1964:160).SeealsoFuctionalEquivalence.Furtherreading:Gut1991;Nida1964,1995:Nida&Taber1969/1982.或許給它提供最系統(tǒng)的定義的使豪斯（House）（1977）。豪斯的目的是為評估翻譯質(zhì)量提供方法，因此，她的功能對等概念基本上評價性的。她（1944：42）提出了一種詳細(xì)的。“多維度”文本功能分析，區(qū)分三種涉及語言使用者的語言用法維度（“地理來源”、“社會等級”與“時間”），還區(qū)分了五個反映語言使用的維度（“中介”、“參與”、“社會角色關(guān)系”、“社會態(tài)度”與“領(lǐng)域“，或一般話語范圍）。運(yùn)用這一框架，就有可能為源文本與目標(biāo)文本建立一個“文本數(shù)據(jù)圖”。豪斯指出，譯本“不僅在功能上要切合源文本，而且應(yīng)該采用對等的情景維度以取得這一功能”（1977：49）。這意味著，如果要想目標(biāo)文本在功能上與源文本達(dá)到對等，那么，在相關(guān)文本關(guān)系特別密切的多個維度上，源文本與目標(biāo)文本應(yīng)當(dāng)彼此高度對應(yīng)（1977：49）。在豪斯所提范圍更廣的模式內(nèi)，功能對等只有在隱型翻譯[CovertTranslation]的情況下才能實(shí)現(xiàn)（1977：204），但是，“因?yàn)楸仨氁紤]到社會文化規(guī)范的差異”（1977：205），因此，即使在這里功能對等仍難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。然而，按照格特的觀點(diǎn)，在文本具有多個功能的情況下，問題仍然存在（1991：10）；實(shí)際上，建立一個能夠適應(yīng)這類文本的模式是及其困難的。應(yīng)該指出，功能對等這一術(shù)語也被得·瓦得（deWaard）與奈達(dá)（Nida）（1986）用來取代奈達(dá)在別處成為動態(tài)對等[DynamicEquivalence]的概念；按照得·瓦得與奈達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)，這一術(shù)語不那么容易被人誤解，而且使用它可以“強(qiáng)調(diào)翻譯的交際功能”（1986：ⅷ）。PolysystemTheoryItamarEven-Zohar(佐哈爾)，bornin1939inTelAviv,Israel,isaresearcherofcultureandprofessorofPoeticsandComparativeLiteratureoftheUnitofCultureResearch,TelAvivUniversity.Even-Zohar’sintegralcontributionisinternationallyknownasthepolysystemtheoryandthetheoryofculturalrepertoires,whichgaverisetoalineofresearchareas.Hehasbeendevelopingthepolysystemtheorydesignedtodealwithdynamicsandheterogeneityincultureconcentratingoninteractionsbetweenvariouscultures.Inearlierstagesofhiswork,hecontributedtodevelopingapolysystemictheoryoftranslation,designedtoaccountfortranslationasacomplexanddynamicactivitygovernedbysystemrelationsratherthanbyapriorifixedparametersofcompatativelanguagecapabilities.Thishassubsequentlyledtostudiesonliterayinterference,eventuallyanalyzedintermsofinterculturalrelations.Theliteraytraditionsgenerallyperceivethetranslatedtextsasaculturalintruder,acarrierofforeignvaluestothatparticularculturalsystem.Whenacultureisstableandself-sufficient,translatedliteratureholdsaperipheralpositionandimporteditemshavetobepresentedascompatiblewiththeindigenoustraditionforacceptability.Thentargetacceptability-orientedtranslationstrategiesaremostlikelyused.Ontheotherhand,translationisusuallyundertakenforthepurposeofbringingaboutnewideasorchanges.Inthesituationwhenaliteraypolysystemisyoung,weakorincrisis,translatedliteraturemayassumeacentralposition,asaculturaltool,takingpart“intheprocessofcreatingnew,primarymodels”（Even-Zohar1990a：50）Thustranslatedliteratureholdsamorecentralpositionwhenasystemisweakandinneedofforcesfromotherculturesinordertofillinculturalgapsortolegimatetheexistingstructuresofpower,andwhentheforeigntextcontributestoreinforceestheticorideologicalvalusealreadypresentwithinthesystemandbecomesinstrumentaltotheestablishmentorreinforcementofculturalvalues.Duetotheconceptionoftranslationasasupplementaryactivityorasecondaryproduct,translationappearstohaveasecondaryfunctioninthepolysystemofthetargetculture.Translationcanbeviewedasameansbywhichacultureinfluencesanotherculture,introducingnewandforeignimpulsesinthetargetculture.Theterm“polysystem”referstotheentirenetworkofcorrelatedsystems,litearyandextra-literarywithinasociety.Forexploringintra-systemicliterayrelations,Even-Zoharpositedin1978thenotionofpolysystemfortheaggregateofliterarysystemsincludingallcanonizedandnon-canonizedformsinagivenculture,basedonhisrecognitionoftheimportanceoftranslatedliteratureinlitearyhistory.Hedevelopedanapproachaspolysystemtheorytoattempttoexplainthefunctionsoftheallkindsofwritingwithinagivecultureandhisanalysisdemonstratedthattranslatedliteraturefunctionsdifferentlydependingupontheage,strenth,andatabilityoftheparticularpolysystem(Gentzler1993:114-115)Withinaliterarypolysystem,thereexistsahierarchicalstructureofdifferingsubsystems,whicharedifferenttypesofliterature---canonized,non-canonized,andtranslatedliterature.Theyconstantlystruggleforamorecentralpositionthanotherstomaintainaprimarypositioninthecultureratherthanthesecondaryposition.Thiscompetitionleadstoadynmic,ongoingprocessofliterarymutationandevolution.Theroletranslatedliteratureplaysinthecultureiseithercentralorperipheral,primaryorsecondary.Ifitoccupiesaprimarypositon,itparticipatesactivelyinshapingthecentreofthepolysystem(Even-Zohar1987,ascitedinMunday2001:110).Itmayserveforinnovationsinthelitearyhistoryandmaysetupnewmodelsinthetargetculture.Ifitassumesasecondaryposition,itrepresentsaperipheralsystemwithinthepolysystemandconformstotheestablishedliterarynormsandconventionalformsofthetargetculture.Even-Zoharsuggeststhatthepositionoccupiedbytranslatedliteratureinthepolysystemconditionsthetranslationstrategy(