尤金·奈达Eugene Nida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。
奈达翻译理论简介

奈达翻译理论简介(一)奈达其人尤金?奈达(EugeneA.Nida)1914年出生于美国俄克勒荷马州,当代著名语言学家、翻译家和翻译理论家。
也是西方语言学派翻译理论的主要代表,被誉为西方“现代翻译理论之父”。
尤金是当代翻译理论的主要奠基人,其理论核心是功能对等。
尤金先后访问过90个国家和地区,并著书立说,单独或合作出版了40多部书,比较著名的有《翻译科学探索》、《语言与文化———翻译中的语境》等,他还发表论文250余篇,是世界译坛的一位长青学者。
他还参与过《圣经》的翻译工作。
他与塔伯合著的《翻译理论与实践》对翻译界影响颇深。
此书说明了中国与西方译界人士思维方式的巨大差别:前者是静的,崇尚“信、达、雅”,讲究“神似”,追求“化境”;后者是动的,将语言学、符号学、交际理论运用到翻译研究当中,提倡“动态对等”,注重读者反应。
中国译论多概括,可操作性不强;西方译论较具体,往往从点出发。
他在该书中提到了动态对等,详细地描述了翻译过程的三个阶段:分析、转换和重组,对于翻译实践的作用是不言而喻的。
(二)奈达对翻译的定义按照奈达的定义:“所谓翻译,是指从语义到文体(风格)在译语中用最切近而又最自然的对等语再现源语的信息。
”其中,“对等”是核心,“最切近”和“最自然”都是为寻找对等语服务的。
奈达从社会语言学和语言交际功能的观点出发,认为必须以读者的反应作为衡量译作是否正确的重要标准。
翻译要想达到预期的交际目的,必须使译文从信息内容、说话方式、文章风格、语言文化到社会因素等方面尽可能多地反映出原文的面貌。
他试图运用乔姆斯基的语言学理论建立起一套新的研究方法。
他根据转换生成语法,特别是其中有关核心句的原理,提出在语言的深层结构里进行传译的设想。
奈达提出了词的4种语义单位的概念,即词具有表述事物、事件、抽象概念和关系等功能。
这4种语义单位是“核心”,语言的表层结构就是以“核心”为基础构建的,如果能将语法结构归纳到核心层次,翻译过程就可最大限度地避免对源语的曲解。
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)
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
functional equivalence theory 词汇 句子 修辞

functional equivalence theory 词汇
句子修辞
Functional Equivalence Theory是由美国语言学家尤金·A·奈达(Eugene Nida)提出的翻译理论,所谓“功能对等”,是指翻译时不追求文字表面的死板对应,而要在两种语言间达成功能上的对等。
该理论认为“动态对等”中的对等包括四个方面:词汇对等、句法对等、篇章对等和文体对等。
在Functional Equivalence Theory的视角下,修辞的翻译需要关注词汇、句子和篇章层面的对等。
在词汇层面,需要将英文和汉语完全对应起来,细化到某个单词的含义,然后使用最恰当的汉语词汇,将英语语句按照原意翻译出来。
在句子层面,需要关注句法结构的对等,例如主谓宾的结构、句子的时态和语态等。
在篇章层面,需要关注文章的整体结构、逻辑关系和语境等,以确保翻译的准确性和流畅性。
总之,Functional Equivalence Theory强调翻译的目的是在不同语言之间达成功能上的对等,这需要对源语言和目标语言的文化背景、表达方式和修辞手法等方面进行深入的理解和分析。
- 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: theminimal 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])。