奈达翻译研究 笔记
从奈达“功能对等”理论浅析信息功能文本的翻译
从奈达“功能对等”理论浅析信息功能文本的翻译从奈达“功能对等”理论浅析信息文本的翻译第一章翻译任务介绍第一节文本内容及背景非文学翻译也可以笼统地称为应用型翻译。
文学翻译通常将原文放在首位，而非文学翻译则要求译者将主要信息剥离出原文，以传达信息或进行交流。
《卫报》、《大西洋月刊》、ＢＢＣ新闻、ＥＳＰＮ体育新闻，英译汉５０００字翻译材料全部为英语报刊类文章，涉及科学、文化、体育、经济等多个领域。
这些报刊在全世界范围内都有重大影响，读者主要是知识分子、专业人员。
在全球化的大背景下，随着我国经济、文化事业的发展和对外开放程度的不断加大，越来越多的单位有树立对外形象ｊ与境外相关领域建立起交往关系的需要。
外宣材料的翻译应运而生，并得到空前发展。
（杜争鸣，２００８）青岛国际海洋节宣传材料。
第二节文本类型及特点卡塔琳娜．赖斯（ＫａｔｈａｒｉｎａＲｅｉｓｓ）是功能派的奠基人。
基于对等论，她提出了功能主义翻译批评理论——文本类型理论（Ｔｅｘｔ－ｔｙｐｏｌｏｇｙ）。
赖斯依此将文本划分为三类：信息功能文本（ｉｎｆｏｒｍａｔｉｖｅ），表情功能文本（ｅｘｐｒｅｓｓｉｖｅ）币Ｆｌ操作功能（ｏｐｅｒａｔｉｖｅ）文本。
此研究报告是研究生阶段翻译实践的分析总结，凶此包含了英译汉及汉译英两部分。
英译汉选取的是新闻报刊类文章，汉译英选取的是公文性应用文一公司制度文件。
两种文本都是赖斯笔下的“信息功能文本”，虽各有提点，但是同属非文学翻译，与文学翻译大有不同。
根据赖斯的理论，信息性文本具有如下特点：认知的（ｃｏｇｎｉｔｉｖｅ）、外延的（ｄｅｎｏｔａｔｉｖｅ）、表述的（ｒｅｐｒｅｓｅｎｔａｔｉｏｎａｌ）、理智的（ｉｎｔｅｌｌｅｃｔｕａｌ）、指涉（ｒｅｆｅｒｅｎｔｉａｌ）、描写的（ｄｅｓｃｒｉｐｔｉｖｅ）、和客观的（ｏｂｊｅｃｔｉｖｅ）。
此类文本的目的在于如实的传递信息。
（陈宏薇，２００９）２．１英译汉文本新闻报刊按体裁可分为消息（ｎｅｗｓｓｔｏｒｙ）、特写（ｆｅａｔｕｒｅｓ）、新闻评论ｆｅｄｉｔｏｒｉａｌｓ）等。
Chapter 1奈达的翻译理论
Chapter 1奈达的翻译理论一、奈达翻译理论的发展可以分为以下三个阶段：（1）描写语言学阶段（1940～1950），主要对句法，词汇学及语义翻译进行描述性研究，来说明语言的结构本质，帮助人们了解外语与翻译间的基本问题；（2）交际理论阶段（1959～1969），认为翻译既是一门艺术，又是一门科学和技能，因此译者应该以科学的态度去处理语言结构，利用语言学及描写的方法去解释翻译中的问题；在交际理论和信息理论的基础上，提出了动态对等原则；（3）社会语言学与符号学阶段（1970～），为避免引起过多的误解，将动态对等改为功能对等；更为注重语言交际和语义成分分析中的文化因素。
二、奈达的主要翻译理论从两个方面来简要回顾奈达的翻译理论：（1）翻译的科学性；（2）动态对等原则。
这两个方面的理论对现代翻译研究有突出贡献。
形式对应和功能对等〔即动态等值(dynamic equivalence)〕他认为形式对应是指代表源语词或句在目的语中最切近的具有对等功能的词或句，在语言对之间并不总存在着形式对应，要根据原文语体来决定使用形式对应还是动态等值。
他根据乔姆斯基的转换生成语法而提出翻译的“功能对等”说，将翻译的过程归纳为三步:分析-转换一重构，以达到理解原文语义与基本结构，在此基础上转达语义，最终获得与原文语义和语体上的对等。
三、对等理论的适用范围许多翻译家都认为其理论是不适合文学翻译的。
以诗歌翻译为例，林语堂曾经说过:“诗乃最不可译的东西。
无论古今中外，最好的诗(而尤其是抒情诗)都是不可译的。
”辜正坤在《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》一书中所言，“凡属语言本身的固有属性(区别于他种语言)的东西往往都不可译”。
针对这一问题，郭建中表示奈达的功能对等并不一定适用所有的文体和一切的翻译目的，他指出:“哲学、历史、科技等著作，要求如实地传达原文的内容，不能迁就目的语的读者水平或目的语的文化规范。
”四、对等理论的形式与内容之争所谓形式与内容之争，是由奈达的一句话引来的。
浅析奈达的翻译理论
浅析奈达的翻译理论摘要：本篇文章首先阐述奈达不同阶段的翻译理论，再分析奈达在翻译理论方面的贡献和成就，探究奈达翻译理论中的缺陷，希望可以为相关的研究工作者提供一定的参考建议，进一步了解奈达的翻译理论。
关键词：奈达；翻译理论引言：尤金奈达博士是当代西方最著名的翻译理论家和语言学家之一。
奈达博士通过50多年的实践和翻译理论研究，在翻译研究领域取得了巨大成就。
其发展大致可分为三个阶段：描写语言学阶段、交际阶段和符号学阶段。
20世纪80年代初，美国翻译理论传入中国，人们主要关注中国传统的翻译理论，尤其是严复的三字翻译标准，即信、达、雅。
自从奈达的美国翻译理论被传入中国后，一些中国的翻译研究学者便对此研究产生了极大浓厚的兴趣。
究其原因，是在于他创建的新翻译理论系建立于当代应用语言学、传播学、信息论、符号学、人类学研究的整体发展水平基础上，摆脱掉了许多以往传统翻译理论系研究方法中缺乏的研究经验，第一次系统地使现代翻译理论的研究工作达到了其某种特定意义基础上特有的科学性。
尤其是他首创的翻译理论动态分析对等于翻译理论标准读者的等效反应理论突破了中国静态翻译分析理论的固有研究理论范式，并提出了开放式的静态翻译分析理论实证研究，为引导我们逐步建立一套新时期的动态翻译研究理论模式体系提供了许多很有益处的新启示。
1.奈达不同阶段的翻译理论分析奈达在20世纪40、50年代阶段的著作文章和会议论文写作，主要系统地结合现代翻译理论并从语言中的译词法理论和译句法方面深入阐述揭示了翻译语言的本质意义和语际翻译转化关系，试图由此找出一些更基本科学有效的现代语言翻译及其转换规律。
他提出的语言等级理论在这个历史阶段可能要远远比乔姆斯基理论早出现得。
第二阶段历时为10年多(1959-1969)。
标志着翻译第二阶段真正开始的理论文章之一是由他自己在1959年翻译出版过的专著《从圣经的翻译看翻译原则》，标志着翻译第二阶段正式结束的一书即是由他本人和泰伯合著翻译的专著《翻译理论与实践》。
奈达翻译理论研究第五章笔记
奈达翻译理论研究第五章笔记Chapter Five Attempts to further amend Nid a’stranslation theory5.1 The application of Nida’s theory to literary translationThe significance or the validity of Nida?s theory: 1) the application of “dynamic equivalence”, 2) the significance of the concept of the decoder?s channel capacity, and 3) the important role of receptors play in evaluating literary translation.5.1.1 The application of Dynamic equivalenceThe prin ciple of “dynamic equivalence”, which is defined as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message”, points out two ways to achieve the goal of “equivalent effect”: 1) the closest equivalent, 2) the natural equivalent.By “the closest equivalent”, Nida means a rendering that has the highest degree of approximation to the original text.“Natural equivalent”refers to a “stylistically acceptable rendering”, about which a bilingual and bicultural person might say “That is just the way we would say it”.A natural translation has no trace of awkwardness or strangeness in its grammatical and stylistic forms. The principle of “natural equivalent”helps the translator consciously avoid “translationese”in their work, and improves the quality of literary translation.A natural expression “tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture”, and it “does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend th e message”.Following the principle of “naturalness”, the translator isentitled to make certain cultural adaptations to make the monolingual reader understand the translated message with ease.5.1.2 The significance of the concept of the decoder’s channel capacityNida borrows the concept of the decoder’s channel capacity from information theory to explain why good translations tend to be longer than the original text.In his view, any well-constructed text is designed to fit the channel capacity of the intended reader. However, the channel capacity of the average reader in the receptor language is much narrower than that of the reader in the source language. In order that the translated message fits the channel capacity of the receptor language reader, the translator is obliged to make implicit information in the original text explicit in the translated text. Only by doing so can the translators ensure the realization of the objective of equivalent effect.5.1.3 The important role receptors play in evaluating literary translationBy examining the response of the reader, for whom a translation is intended, we can make a more objective judgment of literary translation.5.2 The limitation of Nida’s theory in literary translationHis definition of translating seems to have put equal emphasis upon transferenceof meaning and that style. But his discussions of style are not adequate for literary translation,It is generally agreed that literary translation should not only convey accurately the sense of the original text, but also reproduce appropriately the style if the translator wants to attain“equivalent effect”. But in Nida?s theory, the focus is on transference of meaning instead of transference of style.When discussing the first stage of translating process, Nida adopts various techniques of modern semantics to deal with meanings but makes no mention of style.In the second stage of “transferring”, Nida shows a complete disregard for style.In the third stage of “restructuring”, style is treated in a broad sense, referring to varieties of language.According to Nida, features of style are classified into “formal features”and “lexical features”, and functions of style into “efficiency” and “special effect”.“Formal features” are arrangement of words, and “lex ical features” are words or lexical units.Formal LexicalEfficiency A CSpecial effects B DThe style in Nida?s theory is mainly related to “efficiency” of a text in terms of both lexical features and formal features.Since Nida mainly provides guidelines for the popular translation of the Bible (also called the common-language version”), it is understandable that his discussion of style is predetermined by the purpose of making the Word of God acceptable to the average reader. His immediate concern with Bible translation for evangelism prompts him to place his focus on the functional approach to style on the part of receptors.According to Nida., the Bible translator for a popular version is justified to “sacrifice many features of B and D in order to concentrate on A and C. That is to say, the translator can make his translation simpler in terms of lexical features and formalfeatures.By and large, although Nida?s functional approach to style has its validity for general translation practice, it fails to explore the transference of aesthetic values in literary translation.5.3 The importance of transferring aesthetic values in literary translationWhy is the transference of aesthetic values so important in literary translation? Well, we could say that it is determined by the nature of literature.Lu Xun says that literature is an art of beauty with three beautiful features: 1)beautiful thought that appeals to the heart, 2)beautiful sound that pleases the ear, 3)beautiful form that attracts the eye.Geoffrey N. Leech and Michael H. Short present an equation to illustrate thecrucial role of stylistic values in literary work:SENSE +STYLISTIC VALUE=(total) SIGNIFICANCESense here refers to “the basic logical, conceptual, paraphrasable meaning.Significance ref ers to “the total of what is communicated to the world by a given sentence or text”.Stylistic value is “a writer?choice to express his sense in this rather than that way”. It is stylistic value that distinguishes the uniqueness of a literary work.The quality of literary translation depends on the successful representation of aesthetic values. Only when aesthetic values of the original text are satisfactorily conveyed in the receptor language can the reader of the translated text have similar response as the original reader.In a word, to neglect the artistic nature of literary translationis to neglect its social function and, if that is the case, it is bound to end up in formalism of translation, thus reproducing works that are linguistically correct but artistically pale and weak”.Dryden stated that the translator should make his translation graceful “by the spirit which animates the whole”.By comparison, in the field of traditional Chinese translation theory there have been abundant discussions about transference of aesthetic values or spirit. From Y an Fu?s “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance”through Lin Yutang?s “fidelity, smoothness and beauty” to Zhu Shenghao and Fu Lei?s “spirit resemblance” and Qian Zhongshu?s “sublimation”, all emphasized the importance of transference of spirit in translating.Regrettably, most discussin about spirit transference have not gone beyond the sphere of the translator?s subjective perception and appreciation. Such terms as “雅”“意境”“神韵”“神似”“化境”, borrowed from Chi nese classic literary criticism and painting criticism, are characterized by fuzziness and do not provide any practical approach as to how to reach for the objective of “spirit resemblance”.5.4 Transference aesthetic values in literary translationThe beauty of literary translation is determined by the artistic nature of the original work. Therefore, how to represent its aesthetic values should be considered the ultimate objective of literary translation.Liu Miqing has classified aesthetic values into formal aesthetic constituents and non-formal aesthetic constituents. Formal constituents are visible and audible, while non-formal constituents are"of a non-material nature that cannot be felt by intuitive association ( 直觉想象）---the upgraded intuitiveassociation".Based on his classification, the transference of aesthetic values can be dealt with from two aspects, (1)formal aesthetic markers (2) non-formal aesthetic markers.Formal markers are perceptible aesthetic features, which can be identified by salient formal features such as choice of words, syntactical structures and textual construction.Non-formal markers are intangible aesthetic features that the reader can feel, but find it difficult to pinpoint out where the beauty resides in a text.5.4.1 Transferring formal aesthetic markersLiu Xie states that the spirit of a text can never go without language: Sentences are made up of words, paragraphs of sentences and a whole article of paragraphs. That an article is excellent is due to its flawless paragraphs, that a paragraph is fine is due to its blemishless sentences and that a sentence is good is due to proper words.The translator can convey aesthetic values by means of formal markers at five levels: phonological, lexical, syntactical, rhetorical and textual level.(1) phonological levelThe British writer W. Somerset Maugham states, "words have weight, sound and appearance; it is only by considering these that you can write a sentence that is good to look at and good to listen to"Zhu Guangqian also says that the spirit of language depends largely on sound and rhythm, which are the most direct means to convey the feeling of the writer and the flavor of the text.(2)lexical levelWords play a significant role in transferring the spirit of aliterary text. In order to convey the spirit, the writer usually selects the most appropriate words to express his meaning.(3) syntactical level(4) rhetorical level(5) textual levelAt textual level, we are mainly concerned with cohesiveness and coherence.Nida rightly points out: For Chinese and English, perhaps one of the most important linguistic distinctions is the contrast between the hypotaxis and parataxis. In English and in most Indo-European languages, a great deal of subordination is clearly marked conjunctions. One may, however, communicate essentially the same concepts by means of parataxis; that is to say, placing propositions together without marking the relationship but indicating by content what is the evident relationship.5.4.2 Transferring non-formal aesthetic markers意境, which in traditional Chinese aesthetic and literary criticism refers to a harmonious relationship between the writer's personal feeling and the outside world.Liu Xie says, "Languages are like leaves of a tree, but the soul of a literary text is the writer's feeling and thought". (辞为肤叶，志实骨髓）liu Shicong also points out: The weightiness of a writing, however, is determined first and foremost by the profundity of the thought and the loftiness of the moral character on the part of the author, and its elegance and strength by the brevity, clarity and the appropriateness of syntactic structure.In a sense, non-formal aesthetic markers rely in large measure on the writer's personality. Hence before translating, thetranslator should try to familiarize himself with the writer, and feel the way the writer feels about what he writes.Imagery is an aesthetic object created by the writer. It is not simply an image (either an object or a person), but is an artistic one that combines an objective image with the subjective feeling of the writer. [意象是经过艺术构思后形成的审美对象，寄托着作者的感情。
奈达翻译理论研究 第二章 笔记
Chapter Two Reviews of Nida’s Translation Theory2.1 A survey of Chinese traditional translation theory before the 1980sChinese translation studies can be roughly divided into 2 phases, 1) traditional translation studies before the 1980s 2) modern translation studies from the 1980s to the present time.2.1.1 Debate over Literal and Free translation in Buddhist translationIt is generally agreed that the first recorded statements on translation were made by Zhi Qian(支谦), a translator of Buddhist scriptures in the period of The Three Kingdoms.Master Lao Zi says that beautiful words are not faithful, and faithful words are not beautiful.Confucius says that words cannot fully express one’s thoughts, and thoughts cannot express what one really means.Evidently, early discussions on translation not only touched upon the question of “difficulty”and “fidelity”of translation, but also revealed the conflict between “substance”(质) and “ornament”(文).Dao An(道安AD313—385) in the Eastern Jin Dynasty further emphasized the principle of “fidelity”, insisting that the translators of Buddhist sutras should adhere to the original text without any alteration at the expense of the original words and sentences.Since early Buddhist translators took “fidelity” as their translation principle and adhered too closely to the original, many translations were unintelligible word-for-word renderings. This situation in Buddhist translation did not change until AD 401 when Kumarajiva arrived in Chang’an to take charge of Buddhist translation. He was opposed to literal translation. He advocated free translation. He insisted that the text be translated with the target language usage, and the draft be polished for literary quality.Xuan Zang(602—664), the great Buddhist translator in the Tang Dynasty, who succeeded in regulating free translation and literal translation. He emphasized the importance of the transference of the style in translation.2.1.2 Translation principles in the late Qing DynastyMa Jianzhong, the eminent Chinese linguist, says the translated text should be similar to the original without any difference between them. The reader of the translation benefits from it almost the same as the reader does from the original. Ma could be considered the first person to have explored translation theory in modern China.The most influential translation principle in the history of Chinese translation theory was formulated by Y an Fu in 1898. And Y an’s postulation of the three—character translation principle does not point the way forward for the solution of literal translation versus free translation.During this period, Lin Shu, Y an’s contemporary, was the most renowned figure for literary translation. Lin knew no foreign language at all, but “translated”, or rewrote.2.1.3 The debates on “faithfulness” versus “smoothness” in the 1930sThe discussion of Y an’s principle began in the 1920s, and, in the 1930s, gradually evolved in heated debates over the dichotomy between “faithfulness”and “smoothness”.The two representatives of one of the two opposing schools were the eminent writers Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai, and the other school was represented by Zhao Jingshen. The former upheld that “faithfulness”as the fundamental principle, and preferred to literal translation with the purpose of enriching the target language; while the latter maintained that “smoothness” had priority over “faithfulness”, for the reader of the target language preferred a translation easy to read.金隄：he has taken the combination of “faithfulness” and “smoothness” as his translation criterion before he knew of Nida’s theory in the late 1970s.林语堂：he further developed the concept of Y an’s “elegance”from the perspective of literal translation.In his essay “On Translation”, he advanced “f aithfulness, fluency and beautifulness”（忠实，通顺，美）as translation criterion. He broadened the concept of “elegance”by replacing it with the aesthetic criterion “beautifulness”[Lin’s “beautifulness”criterion refers to the aesthetic nature of literary translation; while Y an’s “elegance”in his term means the usage of the classic Chinese language before the Han Dynasty].Lin’s “beautifulness” criterion reflected the emphasis on the aesthetic aspect of literary translation.2.1.4 Translation criterion acknowledged from the 1940 to the 1960s朱生豪: the dedicated translator of Shakespeare’s plays, he put forward his translation principle of “transference of spirit”.傅雷: the noted translator of Balzac’s novels, like Zhu Shenghao, he stressed the importance of “spirit” in translation.“Translation, in terms of effectiveness, is like copying paintings. What the translator seeks after is resemblance in spirit rather than in form.The term “spirit resemblance”, borrowed from the theory of Chinese classic painting, is his translation principle.钱钟书: in his treatise “Lin Shu’s Translation”proposed “sublimation”as an ideal translation criterion, and further emphasized the importance of reproduction of artistic effect in literary translation.Qian said, in a “sublimated”translation, on the one hand, there should be no trace of unnaturalness and stiffness of language resulting from the differences between the two languages. On the other hand, the flavor of the original is retained.Nida and Taber said the best translation does not sound like a translation.2.1.5 Translation studies during the “Cultural Revolution”Except for a few translation theories, such as Tytler’s translation principles and Fedorov’s theory of equivalent translation, almost no other western translation theories were ever introduced into China.2.1.6 The features of Chinese traditional translation theoriesFirstly, the dispute over literal versus free translation, content versus form hasnever been satisfactorily settled.In general, Chinese traditional translation theories prefer “naturalizing translation”, which requires a natural and idiomatic target language in the translation. This tendency to naturalization method provides grounds for the ready reception of Nida’s translation theory in China in the 1980s, for Nida advocates naturalizing translation in his theory.Secondly, Chinese traditional translation theories have roots in Chinese classical aesthetic and literary criticism. Chinese traditional translation theory has its own special characteristics with a set of unique and idiomatic expressions such as “雅”“气韵”“风骨”“意境”“神韵”“神似”“化境”.Thirdly, since most Chinese traditional translation theories are stated in the form of brief remarks by practioners, they merely focus on translation principles, criterion and methods. Issues like what concrete steps to be taken in the translation process, how to have an adequate understanding of the meaning of the original text, and how to analyze the style, are not dealt with in a systematic and scientific manner.In brief, the emphasis on the transference of aesthetic values of literary works contributes greatly to the high quality of translated literature into Chinese. Nida’s theory won the greatest popularity, for it possessed some features which were similar to Chinese translation studies, such as source—text oriented, preference for naturalization method.2.2 Nida’s translation in China2.2.1 Popularity of Nida’s theory from 1981 to the late 1980sThe first introductory article on Nida’s theory was Lin Shuwu’s “Introduction of Nida’s Translation Theory”published in 1981. Lin criticized Nida for his inappropriate incorporation of Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar into translation study.The year of 1982 saw two introductory articles on Nida’s translation theory. One was Tan Zaixi’Translating byNew Concept of Translation”a) Tan’s article, based on Nida’s Toward a Science of Translation ,reviewedcomparatively the main aspects Nida’s theory, including his view oflanguage, the function of translation, semantic analysis, translationprinciples and methoda.b) Zhuang’s article introduced Nida’s work The Theory and Practice ofTranslation. He made a comparative study between some passage of NewEnglish Bible, Good News Bible (also referred to as Today’s English Version)and the King James Version, and concluded that Good News Bible was betterin terms of intelligibility. Then he introduced Nida’s “new concept oftranslation”, which put emphasis on “the response of the receptor”instead of“the form of the message”.Also, during this period, three books were written on Nida’s theory 1) Nida on Translation by Tan Zaixi, 2) On Translation: with special reference to Chinese andEnglish by Nida and Jin Di, 3) In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect by Jin Di.解释：Jin held that the term “response”in Nida’s theory was not appropriate term for a general translation theory. According to Jin, since Nida’s theory was used to guide Bible translating, the emphasis on receptor’s response was to make the Christian believers react correspondingly when they read the Word of God. But in general translation practice, such response was not one of the fundamental steps of translation process. Therefore, he suggested that the term “effect”as in “equivalent effect” “only referred to the impact upon the receptor, but not the receptor’s response”.The three books mentioned above have played a decisive role in spreading Nida’s theory in China. Nida on Translation makes his theory easily accessible to most Chinese translation scholars. On Translation attempts to apply his theory to Chinese translation practice. In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect indicates that Chinese scholars begin to realize the limitations of his theory and try to modify it to make it more applicable to translation practice between Chinese and English.In On Translation, the authors argue that the conflict between literal and free translation is primarily a matter of focus. A literal approach attempts to preserve the formal elements of the source text while a free approach attempts to make the target text elegant and intelligible. The two approaches share something in common. Both of them focus on the comparison between the source text and the target text. A dynamic equivalent translation, however, shifts the focus from verbal comparison to reader’s response. So long as a translation produces an equivalent response, whichever method the translator adopts is acceptable. In this way the dispute over literal and free translation can be solved.Lao Long highly praised Nida’s theory, pointing out the significance of “dynamic equivalence”for Chinese translation. He asserted that “dynamic equivalence”, which took “reader’s response”as a translation criterion, was more specific, objective and specific than Chinese traditional criterion such as “faithfulness”, “spirit resemblance”etc in evaluating a translation.Nida’s theory was best represented in his Toward a Science of Translation and The Theory and Practice of Translation.2.2.2 Rethinking Nida’s theory freom the late 1980s through the Mid-1990sBy adopting Chomsky’s linguistic model, Nida formed his concept of “back-transformation”in his Toward a Science of Translation and advanced his three-step translation procedure:1) To back-transform the surface structure of the source text to its kernel,2) To transfer the meaning of the text from source language to receptor language at the kernel level,3) To transform the kernel to its surface structure in the receptor language.In 1990, Luo Xinzhang in his article “Some Views on Resemblance and Equivalence in Translation” questioned the concept of “equivalence”. Interestingly, he didn’t deny these “equivalence theories”. He asserted that western “equivalence”theories (西方的“等值”论) and Chinese “resemblance” theories (中国的“神似”论) were not contradictory, but supplementary.“equal value”(等值论)“equal effect”(等效论) and “spirit resemblance”(神似论)/ T he theory of “equal value” was faithful to the original text;The theory of “equal effect” was faithful to the reader,The theory of “spirit resemblance”was faithful to the aesthetic value of a literary work.It was not until Wu Yicheng published his article “On Problems of Translationuseless for Chinese translation.2.2.4 Problems in the studies of Nida’s theory in ChinaAdmittedly, Nida’s theory has its own weaknesses because it is based on Bible translation only. But problems do exsit in the way his theory is approached by Chinese scholars, such as:1)the significance of Nida’s theory is exaggerated2)There are mistaken renderings and reviews of Nida’a theory in someintroductory articles.Nida’a definition of translation: translation consists in reproducing in thereceptor language the closet natural equivalent of the source languagemessage, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. 所谓翻译，是指从语义到文体在译语中用最贴近而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息。
奈达翻译理论研究 第四章 笔记
Chapter four A comparative study of Nida’s theory andJin Di’s theoryJin Di, on the basis of Nida‟s theory, he formulated his own theory of “equivalent effect”.4.1 Jin Di’s Translation TheoryJin Di is renowned for his translation theory of “equivalent effect”and his Chinese version of Ulysses.4.1.1 A survey of Jin’s translation activity and translation studyIn his work In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect (1989), he put forward his own theory of “equivalent effect”.4.1.2 Jin’s view on translation before his reception of Nida’s theoryThe gist of his argument was that “translating must meet the requirements of accuracy and smoothness.”“Accuracy” meant the content of the translated text should be consistent with that of the original text.“Smoothness”meant the language of the translated text should conform to the convention of the target language.Accuracy and smoothness in translation were two sides of a coin, and one could not be separated from another.What distinguished Jin from others was that he strongly objected to then the popular idea that “faithfulness should be given priority over smoothness when one of them has to be sacrificed”.Jin mentioned more than once the close relationship between translation accuracy and target readers. He wrote:A translation should be smooth and natural so that target readers do not feel big gaps between the two languages concerned. Accuracy and smoothness as a translation standard are like two sides of a coin, one cannot be separated from the other. If the reader cannot understand the so-called “accurate” translation and do not know what it means, there is of little significance for such “accuracy”. If the translator only pays attention to smoothness in his work, but ignores the consistency between the original text and the translated text, his translation is not legitimate.4.1.3 Jin’s theory of equivalent effect and its relationship with Nida’s theoryIn On Translation: with special reference to Chinese and English, Jin basically adopted Nida‟s “dynamic equivalence”, which was defined in terms of a dynamic relationship, namely, “the relationship of target language receptors to the target language text should be roughly equivalent to the relationship between the original receptors and the original text”.The book mentioned above was acclaimed as “a masterpiece of combination of Nida‟s translation theory with Chinese translation with Chinese translation practice”.Jin argued that Nida‟s theory was intended to guide Bible translation for evangelism, and the ultimate purpose of Bible translating was to make receptors “response to the translated message in action”. Thus, according to Jin, the concept of “response”in Nida‟s theory was not suitable for a theory of general translation. Jinexplained:Although receptors’ response could be used as an important feedback to evaluate how the receptors understand and appreciate the translation to some extent, and the translator could test the quality of his translation according to receptor’s response, such activity occurs only after the translation is completed. Since each receptor’s response and reaction involve a number of subjective and objective personal factors, it is necessary for us to explore these factors in our study of translation process. Hence, in our discussion the term “effect” refers to the impact of the translated message upon the receptors instead of the receptors’ response. (This was the reason why Jin modified Nida’s “dynamic equivalence”, and put forward his o wn theory of “equivalent effect”.等效定义(方式一): the objective of an equivalent effect translation is that although the form of a translated text may be different from that of the original text, the receptor-language reader can obtain a message as substantially the same as the source-language reader does from the original, including main spirit, concrete facts and artistic imagery.分析: in Jin‟s view, only when the three essential factors (“main spirit, “concrete facts”and “artistic imagery”) of the original were successfully reproduced in the receptor language could a translation be termed as a translation of equivalent effect.In short, the delimitation of the concept of “effect”as “impact”instead of “response”, and the emphasis on the reproduction of the three factors constitute Jin‟s theory of “equivalent effect”.In his article, “Translating Spirit”, he borrowed two characters from Y an Fu‟s three-character translation principle and advanced his theory of “faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit” (信，达，神韵). The term “spirit” in Jin‟s theory was used in a broad sense, indicating various artistic styles of literary works.等效定义（方式二）：the three-character principle of “faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit”indicated that faithful representation of the fundamental facts, transference of effect and reproduction of artistic style respectively.In recent years Jin began to put more emphasis on the “reproduction of artistic style”, and tried to develop his theory of “equivalent effect” by making use of Chinese traditional translation theory and classic literary criticism.Jin‟s theory deviated away from Nida‟s theory because Nida‟s theory fails to adequately address the problem of transference of aesthetic values in literary translation; while Jin, having attempted to solve it, has to absorb Chinese traditional translation theory and classic literary criticism, where discussion about stylistic or aesthetic effects and their transference are abundant.4.2 Rethinking Nida’s dynamic equivalence4.2.1 The relationship between dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effectAs early as 1790, Tytler stated that a good translation was once in “which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be distinctly apprehended, and strongly felt, by a native of the country to which thatlanguage belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work”. Tytler was considered the first person who had discussed the issue of equivalent effect in the history of translation theory. But it was E.V. Rieu who first used the expression “the principle of equivalent effect” to discuss translation.Arnold stated that “A translation should affect us in the same way as the original may be supposed to have affected its first hearers”.Jowett expressed that “The translator seeks to produce on his reader an impression similar or nearly similar to that produced by the original”.The reason why Nida‟s theory is also called the principle of “equivalent effect” in the west is that: a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalent is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect”. In such a 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 which existed between the original receptors and the message.4.2.2 The scientific basis of dynamic equivalence/functional equivalenceNida borrows the concept of the decoder‟s channel capacity from information theory to explain the acceptability of message by readers in both original communication and translation. And he proves that a dynamic equivalent translation fits the receptor‟s channel capacity so as to decode the translated text with ease and efficiency in his own cultural text.The term “dynamic”implies a scientific basis. The dynamic aspect is about a comparison of two relations, namely, “The relation of target language receptors to the target language text should be roughly equivalent to the relationship between the original receptors and the original text”. Such relationship indicates that translating is not completed unless the translated message is received by the reader in the receptor language in substantially the same manner as the original message is received by the original reader.When “dynamic equivalence”is replaced with “functional equivalence”in order to avoid misunderstandings about the term “dynamic”, Nida, having drawn upon the concept of isomorphs, further justifies “functional equivalence”. Isomorphs are an extension of the semiotic concept of “iconicity” or “matters of likeness”. Functional isomorphs are defined on the basis of the means for accomplishing essentially the same results within different systems.To sum up, “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”is based on the principle of “equivalent effect”. What distinguished Nida‟s theory from other principle of equivalent effect was that it had a solid scientific basis, and Nida proved the legitimacy of his theory from insights coming from communication theory and sociosemiotics.4.2.3 The immediate concern of dynamic equivalenceNida further explained “dynamic equivalence”in a way that was directly relevant to Bible translating: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, forcommunication is not merely informative. It must also be expressive and imperative if it is to serve the principal purposes of communications such as those found in the Bible. That is to say, a translation of the Bible must not only provide information which people can understand but must present the message in such a way that people can feel its relevance and can then respond to it in action.4.3 Jin’s role in popularizing Nida’s theory4.3.1 Jin’s contribution to a better understanding of Nida’s theoryJin rightly commented on Nida‟s contribution to the principle of “equivalent effect”:The great contribution Eugene Nida made was to shift the focus the comparison texts, the source-language and the target-language texts, to a comparison of the two communication processes involved. As the message in a communication is carried by means of the text, the new method of comparison does not disregard the importance of the text, but the shift of focus implies the consideration of various linguistic and cultural complication that can affect the receptor s’perception of the message carried by the text.In Jin‟s view, Nida justified the principle of “equivalent effect”from the scientific perspective of information theory, and his “dynamic equivalence” solved the debate over literal translation and free translation among western translation scholars in the past two thousand years.In his writings on the principle of “equivalent effect”, Jin further elaborated on the three important concepts, namely, “receptor”, “effect”and “equivalence”in Nida‟s theory.The translator should take into consideration target readers in translating, for only keeping his readers in mind could he render the original text more satisfactorily into the receptor language.According to Jin, translation equivalence between two texts concerned was not a mechanical equivalence, but a comprehensive one, which required the translator to consider all the factors involved in translating. Translation equivalence was not word-for-word equivalence, but equivalence impacts upon the reader produced by a whole sentence or paragraph in any two languages concerned.He suggested that attempts should be made to narrow the differences so as to achieve the closest effect to the original text as much as possible.Jin‟s another contribution to Nida‟s theory is his attempt to put the theory of “equivalent effect” into his translation of Ylysses, and its success confirms that Nida‟s theory is applicable to literary translation between English and Chinese.4.3.2 Problems with some Jin’s views about Nida’s theoryFirst, Jin misinterprets Nida‟s “readers‟ response”.Second, he has a partial understanding of some aspects of “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”.(1)Jin’s misinterpretation of the term “response” in Nida’s theoryThere are four translating procedures in Nida‟s theory, including (1) analysisof the source text, (2) transferring from source to target language, (3) restructuring in the target language, (4) testing the translated text with persons who represented the intended audience.According Nida, if “dynamic equivalence” was used as a translation criterion, the critic must take “readers‟ response” seriously. He explained:In the past most testing of a translation has been undertaken by assigning a bilingual person to compare the source and target texts and to determine the degree of correspondence. The problem with this approach is that the bilingual judge is probably already so familiar with the text and the type of contents that he can understand the text without too much trouble. An adequate evaluation of a translation can only be accomplished by testing the reaction of monolingual persons who are representative of the consistency for whom the translation has been made.It deserves to be mentioned that, in evaluating reader s‟ response to a translation, the critic was not to examine readers‟ response to the content of the original, but the “stylistically awkward, structurally burdensome, linguistically unnatural, and semantically misleading or incomprehensible” formal features.“Reader‟s response”in Nida‟s theory is really treated in a broad sense. Later on, when Nida replaced “dynamic equivalence”with “functional equivalence”, and redefined it at two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level, he avoided using the term “response”.(2) His misinterpretations concerning some aspects of dynamic equivalence/functional equivalenceIn Nida‟theory, a formal equivalent translation “permits the reader to identify himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-language context, and to understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and means of expression”.A dynamic equivalent translation “aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural pattern of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message”.In accordance with the principle of “dynamic equivalence”, in order to produce a dynamic equivalent translation, the most important thing for the translator was not to keep the original words, but to communicate effectively the original meaning, so that readers in the receptor language could understand the translation without any difficulty.As a matter of fact, “dynamic equivalence”was not solely built upon Bible translating. The basic translation principles in Nida‟s theory were developed considerably before his work with the Bible translators. In his early years of graduate work and doctoral study at university, he had objected to strict literal translation, and preferred an intelligible and stylistically appropriate translation. Later on, he elaborated his views on translation with examples from Biblical translations. It is a fact that Nida‟s theory is intended to guide Bible translations, but this does not mean that it is determined by Bible translating and only confined to Bible translation.4.4 Difference between Jin’s theory and Nida’s theory4.4.1 Reader-oriented vs. Text-oriented“Dynamic equivalence” pays more attention to the target reader s, while Jin‟s theory of “equivalent effect” attaches more importance to the original text.“Dynamic equivalence”is defined in terms of readers’response. For Nida, to measure “dynamic equivalence”, one should “only rightly compare the equivalence of response”.Jin‟s equivalent effect translation, however, requires reproduction of the “main spirit”, “concrete facts”, “artistic imagery”of the original text. Nida‟s focus on reader s‟ response allows necessary linguistic adjustments.To Yuen Ren Chao, the noted Chinese linguist, whether or not naturalizing translation was adopted should depend on the context. If a figure of speech was the main topic of a discourse (such as “the Lamb of God”in the biblical text), the translator should faithfully reproduce it into the receptor language. If it was used in a casual way, it should be replaced with an idiomatic equivalent in the receptor language.4.4.2 Flexible vs. InflexibleNida‟s “dynamic equivalence”is more flexible than Jin‟theory of “equivalent effect”.A dynamic equivalent translation tends to be a type of free translation, while Jin‟s equivalent effect translation tends to be a literal translation.In an interview Jin himself admitted that his translation was not so flexible as Nida‟s dynamic equivalent translation. He said:The translator is not required to adhere closely to the original text. This is because his theory is to guide Bible translation, and his translation purpose is to make people believe in Christianity. So Nida holds that the most important thing in translating is not word or content, but “receptors’response”, namely, their belief in Christianity. In my opinion, such a view is not suitable for literary translation. What I strive for is “effect”---the impact of the translation upon its readers is similar to the impact of the original text upon its readers.In Jin‟s view, a literary translation must adhere closely to the original text. As long as the three factors of the original text are faithfully reproduced, an equivalent effect can be achieved.4.4.3 Ideal objective vs. realistic goalJin‟s translation objective is ideal while Nida‟s dynamic equivalence is far more than an ideal goal.Jin stated that an equivalent effect translation was “an ideal objective”. Though there was no perfect translation, it was desirable for a serious translator to work at it.He even summarized that “the theory of …equivalent effect‟was an attempt to define the ideal of the non-existent perfect translation and to explore the approach to approximating it in practice.Nida‟s attitudes toward “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”were different from phase to phase.(1) In phase one (1959-1964), Nida simply described the features of two basictranslation equivalences and did not point out which was better.Between strict formal equivalence and complete dynamic equivalence, there were “a number of intervening grades, representing various acceptable standards of literary translating”. There were also “varying degrees” of dynamic equivalent translations.A D-E translation did not mean that the more a translation approached the original text, the better it was.If a D-E translation went to extremes, the very freedom of form tended to distort the original message as well.(2) In phase two (1969-1984), Nida discussed “dynamic equivalence”in opposition to “formal correspondence”. During this period, he suggested that “dynamic equivalence”was a good translation, in which the form was restructured to preserve the same meaning, whereas “formal correspondence” and “paraphrase” were bad translation.One can justify two different types of dynamic equivalent translation designed primarily for two rather different purposes. It is safe for us to say that dynamic equivalent translations are not those that are closest to the original text in lexicon and grammar. Rather, depending on the readers for whom the translation is made, there is more than one dynamic equivalent translation.(3)At phase three (1984- ), “functional equivalence” was divided into two levelsof equivalence: the maximal level and the minimal level.The maximal level was an ideal. He claimed that this maximal level of equivalence was “rarely if ever, achieved, except for text having little or no aesthetic value and involving only routine information”. So it was impossible to attain such an objective in literary translation.In brief, a functional equivalent translation was not an ideal goal that the translator must pursue in their work. Rather, it had “different degrees of adequacy”from minimal to maximal level and a good translation always lay somewhere in between the two levels.4.4.4 Reasons for the differences between Jin’s theory and Nida’s theroyThere are mainly two reasons for the differences between Jin‟s theory and Nida‟s theory: (1) Jin‟s theory is, to some extent, very much influenced by traditional Chinese translation theories. (2) Nida‟s theory fails to address the issue of transference of aesthetic elements.(1) Before Jin accepted Nida‟s theory in the late 1970s, he had formed his own views about translation, and taken the combination of “accuracy and smoothness” as the standard of a good translation.The translator‟s objective is to accurately reproduce the content and feeling of the original text in an idiomatic language, but in actual translating it is hard to accomplish it.After he had contact with Nida‟s theory, he tried to find the way out of it from the standpoint of readers and communication theory. He wrote:Accuracy and smoothness in translating are inseparable from target readers. Translating is communicating across two languages. An accurate translation indicates that the message the target reader obtains from the translated text should besubstantially the same as the message the original reader has acquired from the original text. A smooth translation indicates that the target reader can understand the translation and receive the translated message without any difficulty.After Jin advanced his own theory of “equivalent effect” in the 1980s, he was not totally free from the bondage of his former translation standard of “accuracy and smoothness”. He held that an equivalent effect translation was to preserve “accuracy and smoothness” at the same time. This explained why he emphasized the importance of transference of “concrete facts” in his definition of equivalent effect translation.In 1990s, Jin‟s dependence upon Chinese traditional translation theory was more conspicuous. In his article "Translating Spirit", Jin put forward his translation principle of "faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit". He held that to accomplish an equivalent effect translation, the translator should "make the translated text similar to the original text in terms of "faithfulness,expressiveness and spirit".(2) Another reason for the discrepancy between the two theories is the limitations of Nida's theory. "Dynamic equivalence" is not restricted to Bible translation, but it has some limitations in guiding literary translation. This is simply because Nida's immediate concern is to about literary translation, hence it fails to address the transference of formal structures possessing stylistic values and aesthetic effects.Jin Yuelin also states:" Translating sense, which only requires expressiveness and faithfulness, is not an easy thing, and in some cases it is very difficult. Nevertheless,the difficulty is only a technical problem. Translating flavor, however, is quite another matter, for it requires recreation in translating".In Nida's theory ranslating means translating meaning, and his exploration of style or spirit in very inadequate for literary translation. When Jin translated Joyce's Ulysses, he had to face the problem of spirit transference. This is the reason why Jin eventually turns to Chinese traditional theory and classic literary criticism to seek for support for his theory of "equivalent effect".4.5 Comment on Jin's Chinese version of UlyssesIn spite of differences between Jin's theory and Nida's theory, the two theories are essentially the same. In fact, their discrepancies are only a matter of degree rather than a matter of nature.As Jin stated in the translator's note to his Chinese version of Ulysses, his translation objective was "to reproduce the original text as faithfully as possible so that the effect of this Chinese version upon its readers was similar to that of the English text upon its readers".4.5.1 Successful representation of Stream of ConsciousnessUlysses challenges the translator, because Joyce has used extensively "stream of consciousness" throughout his novel, recording the multifarious thoughts and feeling of characters without regard to logical argument or narrative sequence.4.5.2 Successful representation of normal narrativesAlthough Ulysses is distinguished for its unique technique of stream of consciousness, Joyce never hesitates to adopt normal narratives to describe what his characters hear, see and feel.4.5.3 Problems in Jin's Chinese version of Ulysses(1)Some expressions in Jin's rendering are not idiomatic Chinese(2)In handling stream of consciousness, Jin sometimes tends to adhere too closely to the original, with the result that some of his renderings fail to achieve his objective of "equivalent effect".(3)Another major problem with Jin's version lies in his handling of allusions. Allusions are references to well-know persons, things, or events. A writer usually employs allusions on the assumption that his readers share with him a common historical, cultural and literary heritage. When translating allusions, the translator has to face the fact that common readers in the target language may not be familiar with the allusions in another language and culture.Most allusions are not satisfactorily rendered in his version.In short, there are three major problems with Jin's version: (1) less idiomatic language expressions and comparatively awkward styly in some passages, (2) failure to make implicit information explicit in handling some passages of stream of consciousness, (3) literal rendering of most allusion.I think if Jin takes into full consideration average Chinese readers, or follows Nida's "dynamic equivalence" throughout his translating, these problem could have been easily solved.4.5.4 Implications of Jin's translation practice for the applicability of Nida's theory to literary translationJin says that there are three kinds of loyalty in translating:(1)The first is the loyalty to the original text, where the translator adheres closely to the word and sentence structure of the original text and is willing to sacrifice the artistic qualities of the target language for this objective.(2) The second is the loyalty to the target language, where the translator seeks to produce an artistically satisfying text in the target language in accordance with his own artistic standard regardless of the content in the original text.(3) The third is the loyalty to both the writer and the reader, which he upholds.However, sometimes Jin tends to be loyal to the writer and the text, and forgets his intended readers. The unsteadiness in Jin's translation is due to the following factors: 1) Jin does not take into full consideration the average Chinese reader throughout his translation of Ulysses, 2) He has wrongly estimated the intended reader of his version.If Jin follows Nida's theory throughout his translating, he will pay more attention to the acceptability of his readers.If Jin takes a more liberal attitude towards the reproduction of cultural-specific elements in handling allusions and avoids some "translationese" expression, I believe he will more satisfactorily attain his translation objective of "equivalent effect" in his work.Jin's translation of Ulysses convinces us that Nida's theory is applicable to literary translation between Chinese and English though it has some limitations about how to represent the aesthetic values of the original text into another language.。
读奈达《翻译理论与实践》有感
读奈达《翻译理论与实践》有感中图分类号：h059 文献标识码：a 文章编号：1007-0745（2008）10-00摘要：奈达的翻译理论对翻译界的巨大影响是有目共睹的。
他运用现代语言学的理论对翻译中涉及的各个方面的问题进行了全面、系统地研究，为翻译实践提供了科学的理论指导。
但在有些方面也存在着一些不足，对语言表达形式的轻视就有一定的片面性。
语言形式尽管不如意义重要，也不一定非要把源语的表达形式转换成译语习惯的形式，保留一定的读者可以接受的源语形式也是可以的。
关键词：奈达；翻译理论；语言形式在中国翻译界具有巨大影响力的翻译理论除了严复的“信、达、雅”外，想必就是奈达的理论了。
自从它传入中国以来，沉寂多年的中国译坛开始活跃起来，中国的翻译工作者感受到了一股异域的翻译理论的春风，精神为之一振，眼界也开阔了，此后的翻译理论与实践便出现了言必称奈达的现象，可见奈达理论的影响之大。
奈达的理论属于科学的翻译理论体系，它之所以会在世界范围内有如此大的影响就在于它的科学性。
奈达的翻译思想体现在他不同时期的著作中，而最能充分体现他主要，也是较成熟的翻译思想的是《翻译理论与实践》一书。
该书从语言学的角度对翻译的过程进行了全面、系统的分析，为翻译实践提供了理论指导。
全书共分为八章，前两章主要从大体上概述了翻译中常见的问题，剩下的章节具体论述了翻译的过程，即分析、转换、重组、检测。
第一章简要介绍了一些关于翻译的新观点，如翻译的重点从语言形式转向读者反应，这是奈达翻译思想的核心内容。
此外，他还认为语言是有共性的，尽管各种语言都有各自的特点，一种语言能表达的事情也能用另一种语言表达。
他在第二章提出了动态对等的观点，认为翻译是在译语中用最切近而又最自然的对等语再现源语的信息，首先是意义，其次是形式，使译文读者对译文的反应与原文读者对原文的反应一致，强调了读者在翻译过程中的重要地位。
第三章开始论述翻译过程中的第一步——分析，介绍了语法分析的过程，把词从语义角度分成了物体词、活动词、抽象词和关系词来替代传统的语法分类，并提出了七个核心句和五个步骤来分析句子成分，为译者正确理解原文含义提供了科学的理论指导。
叶子南《高级英汉翻译理论与实践》(第3版)-复习笔记(下)【圣才出品】
第11章尤金·奈达和他的翻译理论一、奈达翻译理论概述尤金·奈达(Eugene A. Nida)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。
1. “功能对等”(functional equivalence)(1) 定义：前身是“灵活对等”(dynamic equivalence)。
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。
奈达把功能分成九类，译文应在这些功能上与原作对等。
但他把判断对等与否的大权交给了读者的心理反应。
①表现功能(expressive)②认识功能(cognitive)③人际功能(interpersonal)④信息功能(informative)⑤祈使功能(imperative)⑥行为功能(performative)⑦情感功能(emotive)⑧审美功能(aesthetic)⑨自我解释功能(metalingual)(2) 理论来源①语言学领域对语言外的因素产生了兴趣，各种语言学分支渐次诞生，如心理语言学、社会语言学、语用学、符号学等。
奈达理论中读者心理反应这一基石基本上得益于上述语言学方面的发展。
②乔姆斯基(Noam Chomsky)的转换生成语法。
乔姆斯基的早期理论中有关语言表层结构和深层结构转换的模式在很大程度上为奈达描写功能对等提供了工具。
2. 奈达的研究重心的变化(1) 早期的奈达从语言内营造他功能对等的理论，用了诸如转换生成语法、语义成分分析等具体方法来描写他的理论。
发表于1964年的Toward a Science of Translating，主要在语言学的框架下讨论翻译(也涉及了语言外的因素)。
他在该书中将语义细分成语法意义(linguistic meaning)、所指意义(referential meaning)和情感意义(emotive meaning)。
(2) 越往后，奈达就越重视社会文化因素。
- 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)。
Notes
Chapter one
In the 1960s, Nida only dealt with "grammatical meaning", "referential meaning" and "associative meaning". In the 1980s "rhetorical meaning" was added to his book From One Language to Another.
Chapter two
1. 中国传统绘画理论重“神似”。
《淮南子》中说，“画西施之画，美而不可说；规孟贲之目，大而不可畏，君形者亡焉”。
东晋画家顾恺之也明确提出“以形写神”的说法。
2. Nida's definition of translating may be put into Chinese as "翻译是在译入语中用最贴近、最自然的对等语再现原语的信息，首先是语义上的对等，其次是风格上的对等。
3. Nida's "dynamic equivalence" is 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 source language"; while Newmark's "communicative translation" attempts to produce on its original". Comparing the two definitions, we can see that both of them emphasize readers' acceptability of the translated message and the dynamic relationship between readers and texts.
Chapter three
1. Nida employs the expression "receptor language" to refer to the language into which one translates. In his opinion, the traditional expression "target language" is not proper, for in translating "one does not merely shoot the communication at a target. Rather, the communication must be received". Clearly, the use of "receptor language" emphasizes that "the message must be decoded by those who receive ti".
2. In Toward a Science of Translation (1969), Nida put forward his "science of translation" in a systematic manner. In the 1970s, however, he gave up his idea and claimed that translation was an art rather than a science. In the preface to The Theory and Practice of Translation (1974), Nida stated that "translating is far more than a science. It is also a skill, and in the ultimate analysis fully satisfactory translation is always an art". Since then Nida no longer took translation as a science.
3. As early as 1964, Nida tried to define a dynamic equivalent translation. He stated that one way of defining a D-E translation was to describe it as "the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message". This definition contains three essential terms: (1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message, (2) natural, which points toward the receptor language, (3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation.
Chapter four
1. In the 1930s, Qu Qiubai wrote: A translation should introduce completely and correctly the content of the original text to the Chinese reader so that he can obtain an idea as same as that of the English, Russion, Japanese, German or French reader could
get from the corresponding original text. One should not tolerate "awkwardness to a certain degree" for the sake of retaining the spirit of the original text. On the expense of the loss of the original spirit.
2. As Jin's says, his translation is neither a literal nor a free translation, because he only takes account of how to achieve the objective of "equivalent effect" in translating. Similarly, Nida's "dynamic equivalence" is not opposed to literal translation on condition that they can achieve the goal of equivalent effect.
3. In "An Interview with Professor Jin Di" (2000), he states: the three translation criteria "faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit resemblance" I put forward, which is based on Y an's principle, are completely the same as my theory of "equivalent effect". For me, to strive for these criteria is actually for the objective of "equivalent effect.
Chapter five
夫人之立言，因字而生句，积句而成章，积章而成篇。
篇之彪炳，章无疵也；章之明靡，句无玷也；句之清英，字不妄也；振本而末存，知一而万毕矣。
（刘勰《文心雕龙•章句》）。