The-theory-and-practice-of-translation-奈达的翻译理论与实践

The theory and practice of translationEugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber 1974Contents1.A new concept of translation2.The nature of translating3.Grammatical analysis4.Referential meaning5.Connotative meaning6.Transfer7.Restructuring8.\9.Testing the translationChapter One The old focus and the new focusThe older focus in translating was the form of the message, and the translator too particular delight in being able to reproduce stylistic specialties, ., rhythms, rhymes, plays on words, chiasmus, parallelism, and usual grammatical structures. The new focus, however, has shifted from teh form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what one must determine is the response of the receptor to te translated message, this response must be compared with the way in which the original receptors presumably reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting.Chapter Two 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. But this relatively simple statement requires careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory elements.Reproducing the messageTranslating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message.” To do anything else is essentially false to one’s task as a translator. But to reproduce the message one must make a good many grammatical and lexical adjustments.Equivalence rather than identity。

The translator must strive for the equivalence rather than identity. In a sense, this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conversation of the form of the utterance, but it reinforces the need for radical alteration of a phrase, which may be quiet meaningless.A natural equivalentThe best translation does not sound like a translation. In other words, a good translation of the Bible must not be “cultural translation”. Rather, it is a “linguistic translation”. That is to say, it should studiously avoid “translationese”--formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and the impact of the message.The priority of meaningAs has already been indicted in the definition of translating, meaning must be given priority, for it os the content of the message which is of prime importance for Bible translating.The significance of styleThough style is secondary to content, it is nevertheless important, one should not translate poetry as though it were prose, nor expository material as though it were straight narrative.）In trying to reproduce the style of the original one must beware, however, of producing something which is not functionally equivalent.A system of prioritiesAs a a basis for judging what should be done in specific instances of translating, it is essential to establish certain fundamental sets of priorities: (1) contextual consistency has priority over verbal consistency ( or word-for-word concordance), (2) dynamic equivalence has priority over formal correspondence, (3) the aural form of language has priority over the written form, (4) forms that are used by and acceptable to the audience for which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more perspectives.The priority of dynamic equivalence over formal correspondenceIf we look at the translations in terms of the receptors, rather than in terms of their respective forms, then we introduce another point of view; the intelligibility of the translation. Such intelligibility is not, however, to be measured merely in terms of whether the words are understandable, and the sentences grammatically constructed, but in terms of the total impact, the message has on the one who receives it.Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptor in the sourcelanguage. This response can never be identical, fro the culture and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose.；It would be wrong to think, however, that the response of the receptors in the second language is merely in terms of comprehension of the information, for communication is not merely informative. It must also be expressive and imperative if it is to serve the principal purposes of communications.Of course, persons may insist that by its very nature a dynamic equivalent translation is a less “accurate” translation, for it departs further from the forms of the original. To argue in this manner, however, is to use “accurate”in a formal sense, whereas accuracy can only be rightly determined by judging the extent to which the response of the receptor is substantially equivalent to the respond of the original receptors. In other words, does the dynamic equivalent translation succeed more completely in evoking in the receptors responses which are substantially equivalent to those experienced by the original receptors If “accuracy”is to be judged in this light, then certainly the dynamic equivalent translation is not only moe meaningful to the receptors but also more accurate. This assumes, of course, that both the formal correspondence translation and the dynamic equivalent translation do not contain any overt errors of exegesis.Grammatical analysisThere are three major steps in analysis: (1) determining the mining the meaningful relationships between the words and combinations of words, (2) the referential meaning of the words and special combinations of words, idioms, (3) the connotative meaning.Kernel sentencesWe soon discover that we have simply recast the expressions so that events are expressed as verbs, objects as nouns, abstracts (quantities and qualities) as adjectives or adverbs. The only other terms are relationals, ., the prepositions and conjunctions.—These restructures expressions are basically what many linguistics call “kernels”; that is to say, they are the basic structural elements out of which the language builds its elaborate surface structures. In fact,one of the most important insights coming from “transformational grammar” is the fact that in all languages there are half a dozen to a dozen basic structures out of which all the more elaborate formations are constructed by means of so called “transformations”. In contrast, back transformation, then, is the analytic process of reducing the surface structure to its underlying kernels.Semantic adjustments made in transferIn transferring the message from one language to another, it is the content which must be preserved at any cost; the form, except in special cases, such as poetry, is largely secondary, since within each language, the rules for relating content to form are highly complex, arbitrary, and variable.Of course, if by coincidence it is possible to convey the same content in the receptor language in a form which closely resembles that of the source, so much the better; we preserve the form when we can, but more than the form has to be transformed precisely in order to preserve the content. An expressive effort to preserve the form inevitably results in a serious loss or distortion of the message.Obviously in any translation there will be a type of “loss”of semantic content, but the process should be so designed as to keep this to a minimum. The commonest problems of the content transfer arise in the following areas: (1) idioms, (2) figurative meanings, (3) shifts in central components of meaning, (4) generic and specific meanings, (5) pleonastic expressions, (6) special formulas, (7) redistribution of semantic components, (8) provision for contextual conditioning.(8)In other instances one may find it important to employ a descriptive phrase so as to provide some basis for comprehending the significance of the original.It must be further emphasized that one is not free to make in the text any and all kinds of explanatory additions and/or expansions.，Testing the translationOnce the process of restructuring has been completed, the next essential step is th e testing of the translation. This should cover the entire range of possible problems: accuracy of rendering, intelligibility, stylistic equivalence, etc. But to do this, one must focus attention not upon the extent of verbal correspondence but upon the amount of dynamicequivalence. This does not mean, of course, that the translation is judged merely on the extent to which people like the contents. Some people may object strongly to the themes and the concepts which are communicated, but there should not be anything in the translation itself which is stylistically awkward, structurally burdensome, linguistically unnatural, and semantically misleading or incomprehensible, unless, of course, the message in the source language has these characteristics ( the task of the translator is to produce the closest natural equivalent, not to edit or to rewrite). But to judge these qualities one must look to the potential users.The problem of overall lengthIt only means that in the process of transfer from one linguistic and cultural structure to another, it is almost inevitable that the resulting translation will turn out to be longer.This tendency to greater length is due essentially to the fact that one wishes to state everything that is in the original communication but is also obliged to amke explicit in the receptor language what could very well remain implicit in the source language text, since te original receivers of this communication presumably had all the necessary background to understand the contents of the message.(He analyzes its components builds in proper redundancy by making explicit what is implicit in the original, and then produces something the readers in the receptor language will be able to understand.Types of expansionsThe expansions may perhaps be most conveniently divided between syntactic (or formal) expansions and lexical (or semantic) ones.Lexical expansions in marginal helpsIn making explicit what is fully implicit in the original translation, one can ofter insert material in the text itself without imposing undue strains upon the process of translation.Such information may only be part of the general cultural background shared by the participants in the source language. This type of information cannot be legitimately introduced into the text of a translation, but should be placed in marginal helps, either in the form of glossaries, where information about recurring terms is gathered together in summary fashion, or in marginal notes on the page where the difficulty in understanding occurs.Practical texts.Therefore, if a translator really wants to obtain satisfactory replies to direct questions on specific problems, the only way to do so is by supplying people with alternatives. This means that one must read a sentence in two or more ways, ofter repeating such alternatives slowly (and , of course, in context). And then ask such questions as: “which way sounds the sweetest”“which is planner”...Explaining the contentsA secondary very important way of testing a translation is to have someone read a passage to someone else and then to get this individual to explain the contents to other persons, who did not hear the reading.Reading the text aloudPublication of sample materialThe ultimate basis for judging a translation。