奈达翻译理论下英文短篇小说翻译策略研究
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。
奈达翻译理论奈达翻译标准Dynamic Equivalence译成“动态对等”曲解了奈达翻译理论
对等 ’的翻译标 准；２ ．把 现代语 言学的最新研 译文对译文的接受者 。同一信息 ，用两套不同的 究成果应用到翻译理论 中来 ；３ ．在翻译 史上第 语 言 ，接 受 者 不 同 ，却 要 产 生 出基 本 相 同 的效 这就是等效翻译的主要原则 。 ２ ”［ １ 个把 社会 效 益 （ 读者 反 应 ）原 则纳入 翻 译标 准 果 ， 令 人 十分 遗憾 的是 ，奈 达提 出 的翻译 标 准是 之 中。 ”尤其是他的动态对等理论 ，一举打破 中
一
收稿 日期 ：２ １—１－ １ ０ ０ ０ ２
作者简介 ：李 田心 （９ ６ ） １４ 一 ，男，湖 南衡 阳人 ，广 东外语 外贸大学南国商 学院教授 ，韩 山师范学院教授 。
・
７ ・ ４
Ｄ ｎｍｉＥ ｕｖｌ ｃ ，不是 “ 态 对 等 ” ｙａ ｃ ｑｉ ｅ ｅ ａｎ 动 。将 Ｄ — ｙ
ｉ ｅ ｍｓ ｏ ｈ ｅ ｒ ｅ ｔ ｎ ｔｒ ｆｔ ｅ ｄ ｇ ｅ ｏ ｗｈｉｈ ｔ ｅ ｅ ｔｒ ｆｔ ｅ ｃ ｈｅ ｒ ｃ ｐ ｏ ｓ ｏ ｈ ｍｅ ｓ ｇ ｎ ｔ ｅｒ ｃ ｐ ｏ ｎ ｕａ ｅｒ ｓ ｎ ｏｉ ｉ ｕ ｓ ａ ｅｉ ｈ ｅ ｅ ｔ ｒｌ ｇ ｇ ｅ ｐｏ ｄ ｔ ｔ ｎ ｓ ｂ－ ａ ｓａ ｔａｌ ｔ ｅ ａ ｍａ ｎ ｒ ａ ｔ ｅ ｅ ｅ ｔ ｒ ｉ ｔ ｅ ｔ ｎ ｉｌｙ ｈ ｓ ｍｅ ｎ ｅ ｓ ｈ ｒ ｃ ｐ ｏ ｓ ｎ ｈ ｓ ｕ ｃ ａ ｇ ａ ｅ ｏ ｒ ｅ ｌｎ ｕ ｇ ．Ｔｈｉ ｅ ｐ ｎ ｅ ｃ ｎ ｎ ｖ ｒｂｅ ｉ ｅ ｔ－ ｓ ｒ ｓ ｏ ｓ ａ ｅ ｅ ｄ ｎ ｉ ｃ ｌ ｆｒｔ ｅｃ ｌｕ ａ ｎ ｉｔｒｃ ｌｓ ｔｉ ｇ ｒ ｏ ｆ ａ ， ｏ ｈ ｕ ｔ ｒ ｌａ ｄ ｈ ｓｏ ｉａ ｅｔｎ ｓａ ｅｔ ｏｄｉ－
尤金奈达翻译理论概述
Brief introduction of Eugene Nida
an American linguist, translation theorist Oklahoma, 1914 Ph.D. degree in linguistics at University of Michigan American Bible Society (ABS)
分析 转换 重组
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)
The beauty of her singing. Her beautiful singing.
Environmentally damaging waste 在环境上有害的废物 object event object waste damage environment
• (If all language differ in form • great scientist as well as a great educator. this is the essence of their • (and 人名（见黑体）为何不译？这都是些中国人熟悉的大师级 人物，但西方人不了解，在他们的语言环境中从未有过类 似的信息，若逐一译出定会大费周折（非加注释不可）， being different languages), then 且得不偿失（译文佶屈聱牙），不利于读者领会原作意义。 分析原文语境，作者无非是说“老师”在山民心目中是一 quite naturally the forms must 位了不起的智者和大师，抓住这一实际意义，不妨用“工 具翻译”中的“等功能”翻译法，结合译文读者的社会文 化背景知识，用读者能接受的方式突出原文的实际内容， be altered if one is to preserve 实现原文与译文功能上的基本对等，就可避免文化差异所 带来的诸多麻烦，有效实现译 the content—Nida &Taber： 1969)，
奈达及其翻译理论
动态对等翻译的局限
1.读者反应不能作为评价译文的标准。 2. 文学翻译中功能对等很难实现。 3. 违背了翻译的文化交流目的。
05 奈达的贡献与不足
奈达对翻译科学的贡献
1、在翻译史上第一个把社会效益(读者反应)原则纳人翻译标准 中，提出翻译重心转移的思想
2、把信息论与符号学引进了翻译理论，提出“功能对等”的翻 译原则
再现原文形式和内容。形式对等要求严格地再现原语的形式，其实也就是 “逐字翻译”或“死译”。奈达本人也不主张形式对等的翻译，他认为严 格遵守形式无疑会破坏内容。 动态对等：（dynamic equivalence）注重读者反映，以最贴近、最自然的 对等语再现原文信息，使译文读者能够达到和原文读者一样的理解和欣赏 原文的程度。
翻译信息论（Message of Translation）
译文读者理解原文的信息＜原文读者理解的信息 译者就必须“拉长”信息的表达形式 译文读者理解原文的信息≈原文读者理解的信息
Son, lover, thinker, fighter, leader, Hamlet is the incarnation of all human potential defeated by some warp of human nature and destiny.
04 奈达动态对等翻译理论
“动态对等”理论(Dynamic Equivalence)
一）“动态对等”理论的提出背景 二）“动态对等”理论的内涵 三）“动态对等”理论局限性
一）“动态对等”理论(Dynamic Equivalence)的提出背景
1 9 6 4 年 ， 尤 金 · 奈 达 在 《 翻 译 科 学 探 索 》 （ Toward a Science of Translating）一书中首次提出了“动态对等”的概念。后来，奈达用“功
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.。
奈达“形式对等”理论视角下it的翻译
奈达“形式对等”理论视角下it的翻译作者：侯茂霞来源：《读书文摘（下半月）》2017年第08期摘要：本文将在奈达形式对等理论下对有关it的翻译进行探讨，总结出了it的四种不同的翻译策略，直译法，还原译法，转换译法和省略译法。
关键词：奈达；“形式对等”；it；翻译策略一、引言奈达对翻译中译语文化和源语文化的关系，得出译语文化和源语文化之间的关系是由语言和文化之间的距离决定的。
在此基础上，他还总结出翻译的两种基本导向，等值的不同类型有两种：形式对等和动态对等。
形式对等要求：译者根据译语读者对源语语言风格和文化特点的研究需要，注意原文的形式和内容，在译文中保留源语语言和文化的异域性。
（Nida，1964）形式对等对翻译的准确性和正确性提出要求：译文在结构上要贴近原文。
形式对等包括三方面，1、语法的一致性，即译语语法成分应与源语语法成分尽可能保持一致；2、表达方式的一致性，即译语的单词和短语尽可能地保留单词和源语内在的含义；3、源语语境中意思的一致性，即译语应保留源语营造的语境。
二、形式对等理论下it的翻译策略基于奈达的形式对等翻译理论以及对it的语法语用的深入探讨，对it在不同语法语用情境下可以运用不同的翻译策略进行不同的翻译。
1.直译法it的原本意思为“它”，所以在翻译时，可以根据其所在具体句子的具体情况，将其直译为“它”。
例如：（1）Look at that cat.It’s running too fast.译文：看那只猫，它跑得太快了。
it指前面提到的cat，因此采用直译较为妥当。
（2）The students went up to the dog and patted it.译文：学生们走到狗跟前，拍了拍它。
在2句中，it指前面提到的dog，因此也采用直译的方法。
2.还原译法it当用作指示代词指代前面所提到的事物时，有时可以根据翻译句子需要，明确其指代对象，将其指代的具体事物翻译出来。
例如：（1）She could，if she wanted，compel him through a court law to support the child after it was born.译文：如果她愿意，她可以通过法庭强制在孩子出生以后抚养孩子。
从奈达翻译理论看《十日谈》中译本的文化信息处理
从奈达翻译理论看《十日谈》中译本的文化信息处理作者：刘芳妤来源：《现代交际》2019年第08期摘要：本文从奈达翻译理论出发，将《十日谈》不同版本的中译本与原文进行对比，试图探明运用奈达功能对等理论有效传递文化信息、对文化缺省进行翻译补偿的方法。
关键词：奈达翻译理论功能对等十日谈中图分类号：H059 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-5349（2019）08-0084-02一、翻译中的文化问题与奈达翻译理论语言是社会文化的产物，是文化的载体。
翻译自然也不仅仅是两种语言的转换，更是两种文化间信息的传递。
王佐良先生有言：“翻译最大的难处在于对两种不同文化之间的传递。
因为在一种文化中不言而喻的东西，一旦放到另一种文化背景下往往会变得难以理解。
”毋庸置疑，文化信息在翻译过程中是一个不易处理的问题，对于文化负载丰富的文学作品来说，更是如此。
原作中蕴含的文化，如何在译入语中体现出来，如何为译本读者所理解，这是对于译者的考验。
作为译者来说，他总会在翻译过程中遇到一些“异”文化，也就是说，相较于他国文化而言，本国文化总会有所空缺、有所差异。
如果不深入了解这些“异”文化现象，并且想办法予以填补这些空缺，译本读者必然会产生理解上的偏差。
要通过文学翻译实现文化的交流，更是天方夜谭。
美国语言学家、翻译家尤金·奈达认为，翻译即是交际。
按照这种观点，如果译文起不到交际作用，如果译文不能为读者所看懂，这种译文就是不合格的。
对于翻译的评价标准，奈达认为，在于译文读者与原文读者对所接受的信息能否作出基本一致的反应。
他提出“功能对等”这一术语，也就是说，语言所发挥的实际效果要对等。
而在他看来，首先要追求内容，形式是其次。
他在《翻译理论与实践》一书中写道：“如果说一切语言在形式上都有所不同的话（而语言之所以不同，主要在于形式），那么，为了保持内容，自然就必须改变其形式。
”译者可以使用改写、释义、文化脚注等策略达到功能对等目的。
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)
奈达动态对等翻译理论课件
04 奈达动态对等翻 译理论的挑战与 批评
对理论的挑战
文化差异
奈达的动态对等理论强调目标语读者与源语读者有相似的感受，但不同文化背景下的读者 对同一文本的理解可能存在较大差异，这使得翻译过程中的文化因素难以完全对等。
语义对等的准确性
奈达的理论强调语义对等，但在实际翻译过程中，完全准确地传达原文的语义是相当困难 的，因为语言本身的复杂性和动态性。
详细描述
在跨文化交流中，奈达的动态对等理论强调对文化差异的处理和归化。译者应充分了解源语言和目标 语言的文化背景，关注文化元素的翻译，尽可能保留原文的文化特色，同时使目标读者能够理解和接 受。通过动态对等理论的应用，促进不同文化之间的交流和理解。
THANKS
感谢观看
20世纪中叶，随着全球化的加速和跨 文化交流的增多，传统翻译观念受到 挑战，需要新的理论指导实践。
文化背景
奈达认为翻译不仅是语言层面的转换， 更是文化层面的交流，强调文化因素 在翻译中的重要性。
理论定义
动态对等
奈达认为翻译的理想状态是达到 动态对等，即译文读者对译文的 反应与原文读者对原文的反应尽
在跨文化交流中的应用
跨文化交流中，奈达的动态对等理论强 调文化的传递和交流，要求译者关注不
同文化之间的差异和特点。
动态对等理论要求译者深入了解目标文 化的背景和价值观，尽可能地再现原文 的文化内涵，促进不同文化之间的理解
和交流。
在跨文化交流中，奈达的动态对等理论 还强调译文的语境和文化背景的考虑， 使译文读者能够更好地理解和接受不同
06 奈达动态对等翻 译理论案例分析
案例一：文学翻译中的动态对等
总结词
重视原作情感和意境的传达
奈达翻译理论评述
读者在读译文的时候能够像读原作时一样得到启发、感动和美
的享受”
---矛盾
一、如何获知原文读者的感受和反应 二、谁是评判者 三、不同读者反应不同，以谁为标准
奈达翻译理论评述
--动态对等的建立基础
阿诺德认为只有精通源语和译入语的读者才有资格做出评判。
纽曼认为做出评判的人应该是一般读者。
“但要获得译文的成功与否，不仅要分析译文 为之服务而又不懂原文的听众或读者在理解和欣赏译文时对译 文质量的看法，而且还要了解专家的评价…… 这些专业人员懂 原文,也有搞创造性翻译的经验,而且,他们非常了解形式和内容 这两方面的交际目的。”
动态对等原则下的形式调整
内容对等，非形式对等
特殊文学形式（诗歌）
韵文形式 希腊语的六音步诗 五音步诗
语义上为离心结构的表达方式
束紧你思想的带子
做好思想准备
结构之间的意义(特殊文化词汇)
பைடு நூலகம்
奈达翻译理论评述
--动态对等的建立基础
建立基础:等效论
“能使阅者所得之益，与观之原文无异。” ---马建中
“文学翻译应该用另一种语言把原作的艺术意境传达出来，使
要获得自然的 翻译效果，语 言要做出调整
语法 符合接受语言的必要语法结构
｛平行词汇 river, tree
词汇 具有相同功能的不同客体 book
特殊文化对象词汇 Jubilee福年
自然的翻译还 要适合不同的 文化层面
词类 语法类别 语义类别 篇章类型 文化语境
自然的翻译 （ 特定信息的语境 ）
｛ 避免严重异常现象
奈达翻译理论及评述
奈达“对等原则”翻译理论
注重形式对等的主导原则 注重动态对等的主导原则
- 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)。
龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn 奈达翻译理论下英文短篇小说翻译策略研究 作者：师坛 来源：《文学教育下半月》2018年第04期
内容摘要：短篇小说翻译是英文文学作品翻译的重要组成部分。在翻译英文短篇小说的过程当中，译者应准确表达原文内容，并再现原文风格、人物特征等，这样才能更好地展现原文作品。而奈达翻译理论则为满足英文短篇小说翻译的这一要求提供了理论指导。本文简单阐述了英文短篇小说翻译特征及奈达翻译理论，并从人物语言、修辞及长句等三方面的翻译探讨了英文短篇小说的翻译策略，以为同行业工作者提供若干建议。
关键词：奈达翻译理论 短篇小说 翻译策略 小说翻译要求译者可深刻理解原文，并能利用恰当的目的语来再现原文的艺术风格，使读者可获得类似于原文的阅读感受，这恰好与奈达翻译理论的核心思想相符。奈达翻译理论认为，翻译不只是将文本自一种语言转换为另一种语言，而是要求译文可让译文读者通过阅读译文产生与原文读者相似的反应。将奈达翻译理论应用于英文短篇小说的翻译当中，必然有利于提高小说的翻译质量和水平。
一.英文短篇小说翻译与奈达翻译理论概述 1.英文短篇小说翻译特征 好的译文不仅要求忠实于原文内容，而且还要求将原文作品风格再现。对于英文短篇小说的翻译，其效果的评价重在是否将原文风格再现，这也是多数译者不断努力追寻的目标。泰特勒翻译三原则中的第二原则即为“译文风格与笔调需同于原文”，奈达在定义翻译时也明确指出，翻译，即利用最贴近、自然的译入语来再现原文的内容及风格[1]。由此可以看出，对于英文短篇小说的翻译，原文作品风格的再现极为关键。不同民族的文化语言虽存在较大差异，但却也存在类似的表达，英文短篇小说的翻译即是找到不同语言之间可实现类似表达的过程，翻译的过程当中虽可能不完美，但重在再现作品的整体风格。
2.奈达翻译理论 奈达翻译理论是由世界翻译理论家尤金·A·奈达所提出的。奈达于1964年首次提出“形式对等”和“动态对等”两个概念；1969年，奈达正式定义了“动态对等”的概念，指出动态对等即译文读者可通过阅读译文获取基本同与原文读者阅读原文的反应，即译文与原文可实现自然对等；2004年，为消除人们对于“动态”一词的误解，奈达提出了“功能”一词，并改动态对等理论为功能对等理论，其在书中指明，翻译可不受原语语言形式的制约，在综合考虑读者感受的前提下，保证译文与原文在形式及内容上的对等，从而翻译出最贴切于原文的译文。由此可以看龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn 出，奈达翻译理论的重点在于译文是否可让读者获取与原文读者阅读原文基本相同的感受方面，而并不强调完全移植于原文。
20世纪90年代，奈达进一步完善功能对等理论，在充分考虑到不同文化语言之间所存在的差异性较大的基础上，于《语言、文化、翻译》当中将翻译的功能对等分为两个层次，最高及最低层次，其中最高层次是指通过阅读和分析译文，读者可获取基本同于原文读者的感受。此层次是译文最想达到的对文境界，但此层次至今为止仍停留在理论层面而无法真正付诸于实践当中，尤其是译文与原文之间语言存在较大差异时，最高层次的对等极难实现。功能对等的最低层次是指读者在阅读译文后可对原文读者感受进行理解。这是翻译必须达到的最低标准，若未达到，说明此译文的翻译并未合格。就翻译的实质而言，其就是一个寻找译文与原文能尽量贴近的过程，从而使译文读者能够得到与原文读者基本相同的反应。
二.奈达翻译理论下英文短篇小说的翻译策略 1.人物语言的翻译 语言，即指小说人物之间的对话及独白，可体现人物性格，是刻画人物个性的重要手段。语言即心声，通过语言，可了解人物的身份、性格、心理状态等[2]。英文短篇小说中的人物具其自身性格特征，在进行翻译时，为避免出现千人一面的现象，更好地再现作品的风格，同时遵循奈达翻译理论中的功能对等，就必须全面考虑原文人物的语言色彩、主体等级、语言表达方式等，尽量展现原文人物中的语言特征。在此，可采取以下策略：
第一，模仿人物的口吻。如凯瑟琳·曼斯菲尔德所著《在海湾》中当洛蒂问她的表哥皮普为什么要往里倒水的时候，皮普是这样回答的：“Oh，that’s moisten it，”，“to make the work a bit easier.Keep it up，Rags.”原文句中的“moisten”和“work”，本意为“弄湿”、“工作”，在进行翻译时，考虑到皮普和拉格斯的年龄大于洛蒂，俩人较洛蒂也更加成熟，因此，选择了较高语级的“润滑”和“工程”，这样非常符合人物的说话口吻。因此，译文翻译为：“哦，这是要润滑，”，“这样可以让工程更容易点。继续干，拉格斯。” 这样翻译是对人物说话口吻的模仿，很好地再现了原文中人物的性格与身份。
第二，利用谐音模拟原文。《在海湾》的字数虽不多，但对于人物的刻画利用细节描写展现得非常形象。如“A ninseck must be an animal，”she said stoutly.此句中的“ninseck”其实是利用讹音来模仿小女孩的声音，展现了小女孩的活泼可爱，在翻译时，也可利用汉语中部分地区可能很难区分“n”、“l”、“s”、“sh”等音的特征，利用谐音直接将“ninseck”翻译为“昆丛”，整句翻译成“‘昆丛也是动物，’她坚决地说道。” 以展现原文的效果。
第三，加注说明。《在海湾》中有一句： she didn’t care twopence about her house and called the servant Gladys”Glad-eyes”.句中的“Gladys”和“Glad-eyes”为谐音，但汉语当中难以找到相应龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn 的谐音，若依原文形式进行翻译，就极易引起读者的误解，此时，就可改变某些文本或是保留字面翻译，但同时应加注相应说明，以免引起误解。
2.修辞的翻译 同汉语文学作品一样，英文短篇小说当中也会有很多修辞手法的应用，以使作品更加形象、具体，体现作品风格。中英语言虽有很多相对应的修辞手法，但在实际翻译当中，若遇特殊情况，译者还需进行灵活处理。具体地，可采取以下策略：
第一，保留修辞手法，保证内容、形式对等。如《在海湾》中，为表现小女孩们的欢乐与活泼，在小女孩们冲进牧场的时候，原文中用了“like chickens let out of a coop”来形容冲进牧场的动态画面，在进行翻译时，可保留这种比喻的修辞手法，但在形式及内容方面，可保持与原文对等，翻译成“小女孩们冲进牧场，就像一群出了笼的小鸡一样。”很好地体现了原文的修辞风格。
第二，舍弃修辞，采取意译法。如“The others glanced at one another like conspirators.”句中的“conspirators”原意为“同谋”，但若直接翻译成“同谋”，整个句子就会显得非常别扭。此时，就可结合上下文，前文说到洛蒂因为受到其他小孩的嘲笑而说不想玩了，也知道洛蒂马上就要哭了，于是就有“The others glanced at one another like conspirators.”意在说明，大家相互看了一眼，都知道洛蒂快要哭了，在进行翻译时，就可依原文的意思将其翻译成“心照不宣”，这样既表达了原文意思，又符合汉语的表达方式，使文章显得自然。
3.长句的翻译 句子可表达一节完整的思想，但长句的结构相对复杂，且含各类分句套，翻译难度明显加大。为能尽量贴近原文风格及原作者的写作习惯，在进行翻译时，应尽量保留原有的语言结构。但中英语言习惯存在较大差异，为能使译文显得自然、贴切，就需掌握一定翻译技巧[3]。具体地，在实际翻译当中，可采取以下措施：
第一，拆分翻译。如“The few streets rising one above the other were irregular in their tortuous effort to cuddle up to the houses that were built haphazard and wide apart.”原文仅一个句子，但句子结构非常复杂，若依原文直译，就会显得译文啰嗦、冗长，为此，可将原文进行拆分，将其变为两个短句，使其与中文表达习惯相符，翻译为“仅有的几条小路迂回地盘旋于山腰，几处距离较远的居所零星、毫无拎地分布着。”这样整个句子显得非常自然，也与原文所要表达的意思贴近。
第二，增译或减译。为提高译文吸引力，在进行翻译时，可适当增加一些词汇，使译文更加地道、通顺，也与中文表达习惯相符。如“The spring was nothing new to him，nor was its sounds，its perfumes，its colors； nor was its tender and caressing breath.”原文中连用四个“its…”龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn 来表达“he”所感受到的春天的各种气息，在进行翻译时，可依整句含义适当增加一些词语，将其翻译为“春天对他来说并不新奇，那里有熟悉的声音，熟悉的香气，熟悉的色彩；连那温柔与爱抚的气息也是他所熟悉的。”这样使译文也能体现出如原文一般的结构形式，实现功能对等。
三.结语 不可否认的是，奈达翻译理论也曾受人质疑，其发展至今仍存在一定缺陷，但同样不可忽视的是，奈达翻译理论确实为英文短篇小说的翻译提供了新的思路和方向，使得译文显得自然、贴切，让译文读者能够获得基本同于原文读者的感受，有效提高了翻译的质量及水平。小说具较高的美学价值，译者需具备很高的文字功底，熟练掌握翻译技巧，才能更好地再现原文内容和风格。
参考文献 [1]刘倩.“功能对等”翻译理论观照下芥川作品汉译比较研究[D].中国海洋大学，2014. [2]郑莲花.基于功能对等理论的《欧·亨利短篇小说》常用修辞手法的翻译研究[D].福建师范大学，2014.
[3]王宇昕.功能对等理论下的复合句翻译[D].南京大学，2017. （作者单位：郑州大学西亚斯国际学院）