奈达翻译理论动态功能对等的新认识

To Equivalence and Beyond: Reflections on the Significance of Eugene A. Nida for Bible

Translating1

Kenneth A. Cherney, Jr.

It’s been said, and it may be true, that there are two kinds of people—those who divide people into two kinds and those who don’t. Similarly, there are two approaches to Bible translation—approaches that divide translations into two kinds and those that refuse. The parade example of the former is Jerome’s claim that a translator’s options are finally only two: “word-for-word” or “sense-for-sense.”2 Regardless of whether he intended to, Jerome set the entire conversation about Bible translating on a course from which it would not deviate for more than fifteen hundred years; and some observers in the field of translation studies have come to view Jerome’s “either/or” as an unhelpful rut from which the field has begun to extricate itself only recently and with difficulty.

Another familiar dichotomy is the distinction between “formal correspondence” translating on one hand and “dynamic equivalence” (more properly “functional equivalence,” on which see below) on the other. The distinction arose via the work of the most influential figure in the modern history of Bible translating: Eugene Albert Nida (1914-2011). It is impossible to imagine the current state of the field of translation studies, and especially Bible translating, without Nida. Not only is he the unquestioned pioneer of modern, so-called “meaning-based” translating;3 he may be more responsible than any other individual for putting Bibles in the hands of people around the world that they can read and understand.

1 This article includes material from the author’s doctoral thesis (still in progress), “Allusion as Translation Problem: Portuguese Versions of Second Isaiah as Test Case” (Stellenbosch University, Drs. Christo Van der Merwe and Hendrik Bosman, promoters).

2 Jerome, “Letter to Pammachius,” in Lawrence Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. (NY and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 23.

3 Nigel Statham, "Nida and 'Functional Equivalence': The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward," Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p. 39.

Since his theory of Bible translating was a response to a historical situation, the first objective of this study will be to place Nida in context. Next, I will outline what is meant by “functional equivalence” (FE) and its opposite “formal correspondence” as Nida explained them in his Hauptschriften, noting how his concept of FE shifted over his long career. Only then will some criticisms of FE—fair and otherwise—be examined, and some observations will be made regarding directions that the field has subsequently taken.

At that point the matter of the value of “either/or” approaches to the analysis of Bible translations will resurface, and this study will call their value seriously into question. The main problem is not that one can seldom find a pure representative on either side of whatever dichotomy one selects; nor is it the fact that a dichotomy permits an advocate of any method at all to position it as the happy medium between two obviously undesirable extremes. The problem is that an “either/or” approach collapses into two dimensions a problem that is really multi-dimensional. To work along multiple axes, rather than just one, complicates the discussion considerably, but it results in appraisals of Bible translations that are more realistic and useful. Eugene A. Nida in context

Eugene Albert Nida was born in 1914 in Oklahoma City. He took his B.A. in classics from UCLA, his master’s in New Testament Greek from USC, and in 1943 his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Michigan. That same year he was ordained a Baptist minister and joined the American Bible Society (ABS). Three years later, he was head of the ABS’s program for Bible translating; and by the time he retired in the early 1990’s he had been directly involved in Bible translations into 200 different languages. Nida was fluent in at least eight languages himself and traveled to 85 countries, and the originality of his scholarship is as amazing as its breadth; for instance, he did ground-breaking work in socio-linguistics before it

was entirely clear that there was such a thing.4 Colleagues and students often remark on the mental agility and openness to criticism that enabled him to hold conclusions lightly and revise them readily. For instance, he was known to tell his students to disregard what he had said in the previous day’s lecture, because last night’s reading had led him to realize that what he had told them was untenable.5

To appreciate Nida’s work, however, what is most important is an awareness of the situation faced by Bible societies at his time. In the latter 20th Century, American Protestant missionaries needed Bibles for use in evangelism and church-planting in non-Western settings. Often they were working in oral cultures with weak literary traditions and little or no prior experience with the Bible.6 Where Bible translations existed, they were usually the work of expatriate missionaries who, as non-native speakers, produced painfully unidiomatic renderings that nationals could not understand.7 What was needed was a theoretical foundation for a method of translating that could be readily taught and that produced Bibles that communicated. At the same time, the method had to be justifiable to constituencies back home,8 who could be skeptical (to say the least) of any approach that sounded like it was advocating intentional departures from the ipsissima verba of the Holy Scriptures.

4 Strictly speaking, the claim [Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004)] that the Oxford English Dictionary credits Nida with the first-ever use of the term “socio-linguistics” does not appear to be accurate. R. W. Burchfield, ed., A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 322.

5 Stine, p. 40.

6 Lourens De Vries, "Introduction: Methodology of Bible Translating," in Philip A. Noss, ed., A History of Bible Translating (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007), p 276.

7 Ernst R. Wendland, "Bible Translating and Christian Mission in Africa: ‘How Firm a Foundation?’” Bible Translator 57, no. 4 (2006), p. 207f.

8 De Vries.

Today, after 40 years of growth in the field of translation studies,9 it may be hard to appreciate the theoretical void into which Nida’s work was launched—but a void it was. The world was introduced to “closest natural equivalence” in Nida’s 1947 book Bible Translating.10 When a more sustained and theoretical treatment entitled Toward a Science of Translating (TASOT) followed 17 years later, it was still virtually the only such work in existence.11 In 1974 Nida followed with Theory and Practice of Translating (TAPOT), written with Charles R. Taber, which is mostly a pedagogically-oriented presentation of the same principles articulated earlier. From One Language to Another (FOLTA), written with Jan de Waard and published in 1986, is a notable advance in certain respects (which will be discussed below).12

TASOT, TAPOT, and FOLTA represent Nida’s Hauptschriften. There was a great deal of movement in Nida’s thought, over a career that spanned half a century and produced 40 books and 250 articles; but the foundation laid in TASOT and applied in TAPOT remains fairly consistent throughout.

Nida and “Functional Equivalence”

In TAPOT, Nida and Taber declare that their approach to translating represents a major shift away from a focus on the original form of the message and toward a focus on the response of the receptor.13 This requires “new attitudes” toward the target languages (or TL’s; the language into which the Scriptures are translated), including these:

9 The birth of the field as a “scientific” discipline is usually said to be the delivery of James Holmes’ paper “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” to the International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Copenhagen, 1972. Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995), p. 7.

10 Eugene A. Nida, Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages (NY: American Bible Society, 1947), p. 13.

11 Wendy Porter,"A Brief Look at the Life and Works of Eugene Albert Nida," Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p.

4.

12 For instance, it frankly acknowledged that to pit preserving form against preserving meaning is too simplistic. Eugene A. Nida & Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1986), p. 36. 13 Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, Theory and Practice of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1974), p. 1f.

1)“Each language has its own genius” (p. 3). The TL’s unique features must be respected if

communication in translation is to be effective (p. 4).

2)“Anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an

essential element of the message” (p. 4f).

3)Structural differences between the source languages (SL’s—Hebrew, Aramaic, and

Greek) and the TL’s mean that preserving the content of a message frequently requires a translator to change its form (p. 5f).14

“New attitudes” toward the source languages of Scripture were also necessary. These included the recognition that Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are “subject to the same limitations as any other natural language” (p. 7). The authors of Scripture did not set out to create a religious icon to be unreflectively adored; instead, they—like all authors— wrote in hopes of being read and understood (p. 7f). A Bible translator’s task, therefore, is to re-present the message as its original authors intended it (p. 8), communicating the message as naturally in the target culture as the source text (ST) communicated in its own time and place. The goal is a target text (or TT—the translation) that, in terms of its linguistic form, could pass for an original artifact of the target culture (TC)—in other words, a translation that “does not sound like a translation” (p. 12).

Much of this was not entirely “new,” of course; similar interests appear as early as 1530 in Martin Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.15Principle #2 above, however—the view that “anything that can be said in one language can be said in another”— is a direct application of Nida’s training in general linguistics. Earlier Nida had begun to question the assumption that human thought is so inextricably language- and culture-bound that it is virtually impossible for

14 Nida never said that the form of a message is inconsequential, and he frequently said the opposite. Cf. e.g. FOLTA, p. 11.

15 Wendland, “Martin Luther: The Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translating,” Notes on Translation vol. 9, no. 1 (1995), pp. 16-36, and vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 47-60.

expressions in different languages to have the same meaning—and therefore, it would seem, for persons from different cultures really to communicate.16 Known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (after proponents Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf), this view in its strong form holds that “The background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing system for voicing ideas but is itself the shaper of ideas….We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language.”17 It follows that persons from different language communities experience reality in profoundly different ways; practically, they may even be said to inhabit different realities altogether.

While he was deeply sensitive to the cultural factor in communication, Nida rejected the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,18 and the method in TAPOT is rooted in what might be called its antithesis: the transformational generative grammar of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky emphasized language as a finite set of rules by which an infinite number of utterances can be generated; the emphasis was on identifying these rules and formulating them in equations and diagrams that look like formulas in physics or chemistry.19 A Chomskyan would argue that there is “no scientific evidence that languages dramatically affect their speakers’ way of thinking.”20 This is because human beings do not think in language, but in a universal “mentalese” that is translatable into any language at all. Therefore, any utterance in any language can theoretically be reduced to its pre-linguistic “deep structure”—its essential meaning—and then reconfigured into a “surface structure” whose form may be entirely different. From this two conclusions follow that any translator would find heartening. First, the external form of an utterance is

16 Jonathan M. Watt, "The Contributions of Eugene A. Nida to Sociolinguistics,” Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p. 21; Robert Bascom, "The Role of Culture in Translation, in Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, Timothy Wilt, ed. (Manchester, UK and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Press, 2003), p.82.

17 Benjamin Lee Whorf, “Science and Linguistics,” MIT Technology Review , vol. 42, no. 6 (1940), p. 229f.

18 Watt.

19 Mary Snell-Hornby, The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints?

(Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006), p. 36.

20 Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (NY: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 48.

generally separable from its intended function.21 Second, it should be possible to take any utterance in any language, reduce it to its essential meaning, and reproduce it in another.

If this is correct, then a sensible method of translating would entail the following steps:

1)Analysis. ST is reduced to its “kernels,” i.e., its basic elements of meaning expressed in

the form of simple sentences.22

2)Transfer. The kernels are transferred from SL to TL, in a way that preserves not only

their semantic content but the relationships between them.23

3)Restructuring. The result of steps 1 and 2 is reformulated in a way that is natural to the

TL, taking into account such features as genre, language register,24 and style.

The steps are followed logically rather than strictly chronologically; for example, an experienced translator can move back and forth between “analysis” and “restructuring” quite freely. Here, as elsewhere, Nida consistently advocated a nuanced and sensitive rather than a mechanical application of his method—a point that his critics have not always recognized.

The goal, above all, is a translation that communicates. According to the model in FOLTA, communication involves eight elements: the source (in this case, both God the Holy Spirit and the human authors of Scripture), the receptors, the message (in the sense of an utterance’s “deep structure”), the codes (both the linguistic and para-linguistic signs in which the message is embodied), the setting, the sensory channel (eyes and ears, in the case of a written text), the instrumental channel (e.g., the air through which sound passes) and “noise” (anything

21Nida granted that sometimes the form of an utterance is an essential element of its meaning; see above.

22TAPOT, p. 39ff.

23TAPOT, p. 104.

24Not to be confused with language difficulty, “register” is a function of the relative status of the participants in the communication and its setting and purpose. These factors determine which linguistic forms will be perceived as appropriate or inappropriate.

that can distort a message between the moment of sending by the source and the moment of reception by the receiver).25

Nida’s meta-language about communication also suggests what Michael J. Reddy terms the “conduit metaphor”26—a conceptual metaphor so basic27 that it can be hard to talk about talking in any other way. In the conduit metaphor, “language” is a set of packages in which a sender wraps a message for delivery to a receiver via a conduit or communication channel. Breakdowns in communication can result from bad packaging (or “encoding”), bad unwrapping (or “decoding”), packages too big or numerous for the conduit to accommodate, noise clogging the conduit, or any combination of these.28 The translator’s challenge is that s/he is both a receiver and a sender at the same time; s/he stands at midpoint of the conduit, and a mistake in either direction can thwart the communication. The complexity of the task and the numerous possibilities for error mean that successful communication in translation is never more than a matter of probability. The critical factors are the translator’s decoding and encoding skills; but because “anything that can be said in one language can be said in another,” if these skills are up to the task, a message will arrive through the conduit at the target reader (TR) that, if not identical to what the source author encoded, will be at least “equivalent.”

As we will see, the concept of “equivalence” became one of the more controversial aspects of Nida’s thought. “Equivalence” could essentially be considered a more nuanced and realistic concept of “accuracy.” The trouble with “accuracy” is that it suggests that a translator sets out to provide TR with a reproduction of the original message in every aspect, a sort of

25 FOLTA, p. 11.

26 Perry Blackburn, The Code Model of Communication: A Powerful Metaphor in Linguistic Metatheory (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2007), p. 31.

27 On “basic conceptual metaphors” see George Lakoff & Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: U of Chi Press, 1989).

28 Compare, e.g., the entry on “channel capacity” in TAPOT, p. 198.

photocopy which will be more or less sharp or blurry according to the translator’s skill. In the model of communication outlined above, however, identity of message between source and target texts is neither possible nor necessary. “Equivalence” is sufficient, and “equivalence” is defined in TAPOT as “a very close similarity in meaning, as opposed to similarity in form.” While according to TAPOT “equivalence” is present if ST and TT produce the same cognitive and affective responses in their readers,29 in FOLTA this becomes the expectation—certainly a more realistic one—that readers of a translation “should comprehend the translated text to such an extent that they can understand how the original reader must have understood the original text.”30 By 1986, Nida’s thought had evolved toward a more socio-semiotic concept of “meaning” that takes the differences between source and target cultures more fully into account.31 This underlies FOLTA’s terminological shift from “dynamic” to “functional” equivalence.

According to Stine, Nida had originally chosen “dynamic” because he wanted a term with a certain shock value;32 in that event, the shift to “functional” would not have been significant. But there is more to the change than mere terminology, and today “dynamic equivalence” is outdated and should no longer be used; “functional equivalence” (FE) is the correct expression.33 The opponent, however, remains “formal correspondence” throughout,34 and this is defined in TAPOT as:

29TAPOT, p. 200.

30FOLTA, p. 36. Cp. TASOT, p. 159, and cf. Stephen Pattemore, “Framing Nida: the Relevance of Translation Theory in the United Bible Societies,” in Philip A. Noss, ed., A History of Bible Translation (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007), p. 224.

31FOLTA, p. 73ff.

32 Stine, p. 41.

33Nigel Statham, "Nida and 'Functional Equivalence': The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward,” Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p. 37.

34 See e.g. FOLTA, p. 37.

[a] quality of a translation in which the features of the source text have been

mechanically reproduced in the receptor language. Typically, formal

correspondence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand

or to labor unduly hard.35

There are many representatives of FE translating in English, but the classic—which became a model for Bibles in many other languages—is the Good News Bible.36 The project began in 1961 with a letter to the ABS asking it to recommend a translation for non-native speakers of English. Nida’s opinion was that no existing version was suitable, and he asked collaborator Robert Bratcher to produce a translation of the New Testament. Eventually the project came to be known as Today’s English Version (TEV), which Nida himself called “a model for what we were trying to do.”37 The New Testament was published in book form in 1966 as Good News for Modern Man, and the whole became known as the Good News Bible (GNB).

But FE dominated Bible translating in the latter 20th century, and explicit homage is paid to it in the prefaces of too many Bibles to list here. In 1985, in fact, D. A. Carson declared, “Dynamic equivalence has won the day.”38 Today that might be considered an overstatement in view of some criticisms of FE, to which we now turn.

Functional Equivalence--Criticisms

Recall that Nida’s goal in formulating his approach was a practical, teachable method, with a solid theoretical foundation, which would produce Bibles that communicated on the mission field and which could be defended to constituencies back home. In terms of these

35TAPOT, p. 201.

36 Stine, p. 80.

37 Stine, p. 83.

38 D. A. Carson, “The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation,” Evangelical Review of Theology vol.9, no.3 (July 1985), p. 200.

objectives, FE was a dramatic success; but it had its opponents from the beginning. For instance, although the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) contributed Harold K. Moulton (of the Moulton family of Greek scholars) to the TEV project, when the New Testament first appeared the BFBS refused to distribute it because of disagreements with its method of translating.39 In fact, the BFBS did not accept FE until well into the 1970’s, since in its view the approach encouraged unconscionable departures from the sacred text.

A response to this argument—that FE is incompatible with a belief in verbal inspiration or a high view of Scripture—is outside the purpose of this study. This is because, as Peter Kirk observes, critics who take this tack “have produced few coherent arguments against the principles, although specific translations have been pilloried with lists of alleged exegetical and theological errors.”40 That is not to suggest that “exegetical and theological errors” are not a serious matter or that they are not to be found in FE Bibles. It is simply to note that most of these critics concede Nida’s point, if only implicitly: a TT whose message is inscrutable—when ST was not—is something less than a faithful representation of its original.41 Most disagreements have not really been about the principles of FE translating, but about what the message of ST actually was in the case of a particular text.

Instead, the following will focus on objections to functional equivalence (FE) on translation-theoretic grounds. These include: the Chomskyan linguistics and communication model on which FE is based, the thorny matter of “equivalence,” the consequences of FE for ST’s poetic effects, FE’s prescriptivism, and finally, FE’s stated objective of a translation that “doesn’t sound like a translation.”

39 Stine, p. 81.

40 Peter Kirk, “Holy Communicative: Current Approaches to Bible Translation Worldwide,” in Lynne Long, ed., Translation and Religion: Holy Untranslatable? (Clevedon, UK and Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2005), online (unpaginated) edition.

41 To say nothing of the question:If linguistic form is inviolable, why translate at all?

The linguistic foundation

It would be unrealistic to expect anything to remain stable for fifty years in a discipline as fast-moving as linguistics. But recently, Chomskyan transformational grammar—in particular, the effort to uncover universal, pre-linguistic “deep structures”—has fallen on especially hard times.42 Nida has at times been criticized as having derived from Chomskyan linguistics a theory of “meaning” as an impersonal, stable, and universally accessible entity floating somewhere in space prior to its incarnation in words. At times the criticism betrays a postmodernist commitment on the part of the critic, whose real opponent is the notion of a knowable and articulable biblical message;43 other times, it betrays a failure to notice that a “kernels-and-restructuring” technique is noticeably absent from FOLTA (though with nothing as concrete put in its place).44

Today the universalist (Chomskyan) vs. relativist (Sapi-Whorf) debate rages unabated,45 and one’s stance crucially determines one’s approach to key issues in translating. More precisely, the connection between thought and language that Chomsky worked so hard to sever is in the process of being rehabilitated, though on grounds quite different from Sapir-Whorf46 and on the basis of much more empirical research.47 Most notably, a connection between thought and language is assumed by the very name of the promising discipline of cognitive linguistics.

Briefly, cognitive linguistics blends the notion of meaning as a relationship among abstract symbols with the notion of meaning as reference into a single concept, one that is both

42 Pattemore, p. 245.

43 Statham, “E. Gentlzer’s Critique of Nida: A Response,” Current Trends in Scripture Translation, UBS Bulletin no. 182/3 (1997), p. 33.

44 Statham 2005, p. 41.

45 Cp. e.g. Pinker, p. 44ff; George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: U. of Chi. Press, 1987), p. 304ff.

46 Enio R. Mueller, “The Semantics of Biblical Hebrew: Some Notes from a Cognitive Perspective,”

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/6c6144876.html,_documentation_EnioRMueller_SemanticsBiblicalHebrew,. Accessed 5/27/2013.

47 L. Ronald Ross, "Advances in Linguistic Theory and Their Relevance to Translation,” in Wilt, ed., p. 115.

more complex and more realistic than the disembodied universals that preoccupied the Chomskyans. Meaning still entails reference, but it is reference mediated by linguistic categories for both senders and receivers; and this categorizing takes place via loose systems of paradigms and prototypes that are highly culture-specific.48 For instance, most languages have a category something like the English word “friend.” But the prototypical “friend” varies so much among cultures that it would be misleading to consider, e.g., “friend,” amigo, Freund, φ?λο?, and ??as all pointing to the same reality and thus having the same “meaning.”49 There are still cross-linguistic universals, but far fewer of them than Chomsky thought;50 and to assume difference is usually more productive for cross-language comparisons than to assume similarity.51 As we saw, happily for FE translators, a Chomskyan belief in non-linguistic “deep structures” that many possible “surface structures” are capable of representing implies that function and form can be separated. With the demise of Chomskyan transformative grammar, however, TAPOT’s “exception”—i.e., “unless the form is an essential element of meaning”—seems to widen considerably. Unless one operates with a definition of “meaning” that seems unacceptably narrow, situations in which form and meaning cannot be easily distinguished are not the exception; they are the rule. Consequences for the optimistic view that “anything that can be said in one language can be said in another” would seem to be rather dire.

The communication model52

48Richard A. Rhodes, “What Linguists Wish Biblical Scholars Knew about Language,” presented orally at the Society for Biblical Literature national meeting, San Francisco, CA, November 19, 2011.

49 Ross, p. 133.

50 Ross, p. 130.

51 Ross, p. 115.

52 This section concerns “communication” as the process by which human beings use and process language in general, and not such theological questions as how it is that the biblical message comes to be believed (1 Corinthians 2:14). Put another way, the question is not from where a message receives its power; the question is whether it is a λ?γο?—an intelligible message—at all.

A closely connected problem is the model of communication—the “code model,” often expressed via the “conduit metaphor”—on which FE is based. As generally happens, the code model has not been shown to be false, but inadequate.53 It is still useful to think of communication as involving encoding and decoding. The problem is that most utterances are “linguistically underdetermined”—in other words, the linguistic codes cannot really account for the fact that an utterance has been understood. To say the least, this greatly complicates the notion that a message will be transmitted if only the sender—which includes a translator, as Sender #2—chooses the right linguistic expression.

Consider this exchange:

Bob: Phil broke up with Eileen in a text message.

Sue: Ouch!54

Several things are apparent. One is that (almost) no Bobs would have any trouble understanding what Sue meant—though some Bobs will go further in interpreting Sue’s utterance than others (see below). A second is that Bob’s understanding of Sue is not primarily a matter of his knowing what “ouch” means. A third—apparent upon a little reflection—is that this exchange is not atypical. Implicit information of the kind that Bob has to bring to the event in order to understand Sue (and vice versa) is not incidental to communication or confined to informal exchanges like this one. It is pervasive and fundamental, and a model of communication that cannot smoothly account for implicit information will be much less useful than one that can.

53 Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson, “A Deflationary Account of Metaphor,” In R. Gibbs (ed.) Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: University Press, 2008), p. 84f.

54 Rhodes. As a biblical example, Rhodes suggests “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70), the meaning of which is derived from the situation, not from the linguistic codes.

An inferential model of communication, such as that proposed by Relevance Theory, handles implicit information more elegantly than a code model.55 According to an inferential model, what is necessary for communication to succeed is that the receiver be able to reconstruct the sender’s intentions in a way that advances the purpose for which the communication is taking place. A sender does not so much package a message for unwrapping as s/he furnishes the receiver with a set of clues. On the basis of these clues, the receiver, drawing on his/her repertoire of information, will design, test, and modify a set of assumptions about what the sender had in mind. To use a crude analogy, when two computers communicate, naturally it is important that the sender type his or her message correctly. But the really decisive factor is that the receiver is also a computer (not a hairdryer or microwave oven), and that it and the sender’s computer are running compatible programs; otherwise, no sharing of meaning will take place.

It is on this notion that Relevance Theory depends. Relevance Theory’s premise is that every utterance by a sender, as a bid for a receiver’s attention, carries with it the presumption of its own relevance—that is, of its potential to change something in the receiver’s mental repertoire, strengthening it, adding to it, challenging it, or deleting it altogether. “Context” is Relevance Theory’s term for that repertoire—more precisely, for the subset of the repertoire which is active during communication. The receiver’s context (perhaps the “desktop,” in the crude analogy above) includes all potentially relevant knowledge that, at the moment of communication, is manifest to him/her—in other words, everything that s/he regards as true (or probably true) and potentially in play.56

55 Pattemore, "Relevance Theory, Intertextuality, and the Book of Revelation." UBS Bulletin no. 194/195 (2002).

56 Sperber & Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), p. 39.

Human cognition is designed to interpret another person’s utterance as efficiently as possible, and as s/he tries to construct what a sender means, a receiver will naturally seek the first interpretation of the sender’s utterance that maximally rewards the mental effort required to process it—i.e., the interpretation that alters the receiver’s context as much as possible in exchange for as little mental effort as possible. This is how, when Sue says, “Ouch!” Bob knows that she (probably) has not felt a sudden physical pain. Instead, he construes “Ouch!” as Sue’s bid to affect something that has his attention at the moment. Since what is most mentally accessible for Bob is his notion of what Phil did, Bob will take “Ouch!” as Sue’s comment on Phil’s action (and perhaps also on Phil).

Notice three things. First, and most crucially, Sue’s utterance is highly efficient. Relying on Bob’s context to supply what was necessary enabled her to say a great deal with a single syllable. Second, Sue did not actually say that Phil is an insensitive clod, or even that he should not have hurt Eileen that way. If she should be approached later by Phil demanding to know why she had been badmouthing him to Bob, Sue might deny that she did any such thing. This makes her utterance an example of “weak communication”—communication in which a sender, for any number of possible reasons, commits him/herself less than wholeheartedly to having said something.57

Third, in his attempt to reconstruct what Sue had in mind, Bob might go even further. He might understand “Ouch,” not only as a comment on what Phil did, but as a comment on the kind of guy Phil is, or even as a comment on what Bob has just done in telling Sue about the breakup. Whether Bob does so is not determined by anything about “Ouch,” but by the knowledge that populates Bob’s context—and perhaps his level of mental energy, which may be affected by the

57 Compare the popular use of “be like” to mean “said” (“She was like, ‘What were you thinking?’”), which is a weak commitment to the speaker’s having reproduced exactly what “she” actually said.

nature of his interest in Sue. If he cares deeply about Sue’s opinion of him, Bob might formulate “She thinks I shouldn’t have told her that just now” as a working hypothesis. He can then test it, modify it, and refine his concept of what Sue meant—and he will do all this on the basis of his belief about why it is that he and Sue are having the conversation in the first place.

If “context” in the relevance-theoretic sense is the key factor in whether and how an utterance will be understood, the implications for translating (including Bible translating) are significant. There is reason here to call into serious question the notion that, if only a translator selects the right words, communication will follow; or that “anything that can be said in one language can be said in another.” Fundamentally, this demonstrates why there is much more to producing a usable Bible translation than correctly decoding ST and encoding TT. Practically, it suggests an important role for study Bibles with good para-textual helps—but at the same time, a limitation. Use of the notes in a study Bible involves work, and a reader will only use the notes to the extent that s/he finds the work rewarded according to the principle of relevance. This would mean that study Bible notes are not the place for all kinds of extra-textual information (e.g., historical or archaeological) that the translators find interesting,58 nor are they the place for correcting a mistranslation in the body of the text.

Perhaps even more sobering is the thought that it may not be possible to transmit a certain “message” to a certain audience at all, unless and until their context has been populated with the information necessary to understand it.59 Ernst-August Gutt, the one most responsible for applying the principles of Relevance Theory to Bible translating, has applied Hirsch’s concept of

58 Harriett Hill, “Yes, Context, But How?” presented orally at the Society for Biblical Literature National Meeting, Atlanta, GA, November 23, 2010.

59 Consider how much prior information is necessary to understand, “Jesus died on the cross to take our sins away”—an utterance that most readers of this article would consider exceedingly “simple.” It is not.

“cultural literacy” to the same subject.60 He shows why Bible translating must involve contrastive study in which the cultural world of ST is compared with the culture of TR, in order to identify and address the mismatches between the two. At times, Bible translators seem well aware of the need for close study of the linguistic structures of ST, somewhat aware of the cultural world of which these structures are a part, and somewhat conscious of the need for certain target-language skills—but oblivious to the need to identify and address the information gaps between the target culture and the biblical world. An inferential model of communication should lead to a realistic view of what can and cannot be accomplished by a Bible translation alone and to an appreciation of the critical role of the teaching ministry of the church—not just for spiritual formation, but if religious communicators are to speak with any hope of being understood.

Equivalence

The point at which FE has probably been most often criticized is its notion of “equivalence.” The utility of “equivalence” as a working concept was debated vigorously for roughly twenty years,61 and in Christiane Nord’s opinion the entire discussion “has got us absolutely nowhere.”62 While there have been those who regard the concept of “equivalence” as frustratingly ambiguous (e.g. Nord) or even useless (e.g. Hans Vermeer),63 this study agrees with Anthony Pym that its demise has been celebrated prematurely.64

60 Ernst-August Gutt, “Aspects of ‘Cultural Literacy’ Relevant to Bible Translation,” Journal of Translation, vol. 2, no.

1 (2006).

61 Snell-Hornby, p. 153.

62 Christiane Nord, Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2005), p. 27.

63 Snell-Hornby, p. 75.

64 Pym, Exploring Translation Theories (London and NY: Routledge, 2010), p. 40ff.

Recall that “equivalence” was essentially a nuanced concept of “faithfulness,” so that the descriptions of the prime desideratum in a translation have followed a sort of trajectory from “accuracy” to “faithfulness” to “equivalence” to, in Nord’s work, “loyalty” (on which see below). As said above, to speak of “accuracy” in translation could create the unrealistic impression that TT’s relationship to ST is something like that of a photocopy to its original, with the copy more or less blurry or sharp according to the translators’ skill. “Faithfulness” limited this somewhat (helpfully, in my opinion) by introducing the matter of intentionality, and with the hint of a suggestion in “faithfulness” that the rights of authors, and not simply their texts, should be taken into account.

Christiane Nord took this a step further—also helpfully—with her concept of “loyalty.” For Nord, the problems with “equivalence” cannot be solved by yet another attempt at redefinition; what is needed is a fuller appreciation of the ways that TTs function in their target cultures (TC).65 Translations happen because somebody (the client) wants to do certain things that they need a translation in order to do. This intended TC function for TT might be the same as the function of ST in ancient Israel or the first-century Mediterranean world, but usually it is not. It would be disingenuous, for example, to pretend that a translation of a Psalm which is spoken by a solo voice from a pulpit, then expounded in a sermon during a Lutheran liturgical worship service, is fulfilling exactly the same function in TC as ST did in SC. In this case ST’s and TT’s functions are not identical, but they are compatible; and compatibility in function is an important feature of “loyalty.”

Nord defines “loyalty” as a bilateral commitment on a translator’s part both to the author of ST and to the target reader (TR), with ethical obligations extending in both directions. Obviously, translators have been disloyal if they claim that an author said what s/he didn’t.

65 Nord, p. 26.

Beyond this, however, a translator can be disloyal by creating a TT for a purpose that is not compatible with the purpose for ST,66 hiding the fact that some features of ST have been represented in the translation and others have not,67 or being less than frank with a client about what is and is not possible in translation—any time, in other words, that TRs are being misled about exactly what they are getting.68 Nord’s term “loyalty” is an attempt to recognize source author, client, translator, and TR all as participants in the “systems” in which translating happens; thus, “loyalty” is characteristic of relationships between persons rather than merely between texts.69

For the present study, the use of “equivalence” to mean some kind of purposeful similarity between TT and its ST70 is not necessarily objectionable; it is even helpful. The real problem lies in the “some kind.” In other words, “equivalence” leaves the question unanswered: “Similarity with respect to what?” Early critics pointed out the need to specify the level on which TT attempts to resemble ST—whether individual words (lexical concordance), sentence length or structure, or larger units of texts. Later it was pointed out that two texts can be said to be referentially or denotatively “equivalent” if they say the same things about the same things. They are formally “equivalent” if they employ corresponding linguistic structures. They are connotatively “equivalent” if they evoke the same mental associations in their readers. They have textual “equivalence” if they regulate information-flow, and if they “hang together,” in

66 Discussions about the appropriateness of translating New Testament books for use as evangelism tracts—when that was not their SC function—would benefit greatly from Nord’s work. The question should be whether these purposes are compatible, not whether they are the same.

67 Partial representation of the features of ST in TT is inevitable.

68

The extravagant claims for “literalness,” “accuracy,” or “faithfulness” in many publishers’ blurbs

are a

prime example.

69 Nord, "Function and Loyalty in Bible Translation,” in Maria Calzada Pérez, ed., Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology-Ideologies in Translation Studies (Manchester, UK and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing, 2003), p. 94.

70 Cp. Margret Ammann’s term “intertextual coherence.” Margret Ammann, "Anmerkungen Zu Einer Theorie Der übersetzungskritik Und Ihrer Praktischen Anwendung." TEXTconTEXT 5, (1990), pp. 209-50.

奈达功能对等理论

奈达之“功能对等”翻译理论 翻译作为语际交流的桥梁有着悠久的历史。尽管翻译早就与人类文明的发展共同进步,但构建系统的翻译理论却显得举步维艰。自20世纪80年代之后,在国内产生影响最大、影响范围最广的西方翻译理论当是奈达的“功能对等论”、“等效论”和“读者反应论”，以至翻译界形成“言必称奈达”的局面。在奈达40余本著作和250多篇论文中，功能对等理论是其最重要的翻译理论。但自20世纪90年代中期之后,翻译界观念逆转，形成“言必批奈达”之势。因此，应该对“功能对等论”进行全面理解和分析，进而对其做出公允的评价。 一、奈达的“功能对等翻译理论” 奈达分析了翻译中译语文化和源语文化关系的三种类型，认为这三种关系是由语言和文化之间的距离决定的。在此基础上，他总结出翻译的两种基本导向：等值有两种不同的基本类型—形式对等和动态对等。形式对等关注信息本身的形式和内容两个方面，与此相对应的是以“等效原则”为基础的动态对等。 奈达的《论对等原则》一文集中阐发了动态对等思想。他认为语言之间不存在绝对的对等，必须辨别翻译的不同类型，以确定不同的对等原则，根据信息的本质、作者的目的以及译者的目的、受众的类型等因素，对翻译进行分类。即根据信息的本质，确定内容和形式何为翻译的主要考虑因素；根据作者及译者目的，确定翻译的预期目的是提供知识、引起情感反应，还是建议某种特有的行为举止。他希望读者达到完全的理解，并使翻译完成某种祈使功能。 为防止误会，奈达用“功能对等”取代了“动态对等”，他希望以此来强调翻译的交际功能，这个替换并不是要否定先前的“动态对等”。实际上“功能对等”与“动态对等”并无实质上的区别。奈达认为，功能对等强调的是语言之间、文化之间能通过寻找翻译对等语，以恰当的方式重新组织信息的形式和语义结构而进行交际。例如翻译white as snow时，如果一种语言里没有“雪”这个字，却有“霜”（frost)字，就可以用“白如霜”来替换。也可用同义比喻如“白如蘑菇”white as fungus 来表达，如果都不行，可以用一个非比喻形式very，very white“白极了”来表达。原作者期望读者看懂作品，通常他会表达的只会是一层意思，而不是几层意思。

从功能对等理论角度分析翻译对等

从功能对等理论角度分析翻译对等 作者：热娜·买买提 来源：《成功·教育》2012年第09期 【摘要】本文通过以尤金·A·奈达的功能对等理论为理论基础，分析了在汉译英时怎样运用功能对等理论的几种翻译策略达到翻译对等的效果。 【关键词】功能对等理论；翻译策略；翻译对等 一、引言 美国翻译理论家尤金·A·奈达在其《翻译理论与实践》一书中，提出了“动态对等”后称“功能对等”的翻译原则，指出翻译就是“用最贴切、最自然的对等的语言从语义到文体再现原语信息”的过程。对等的标准就是译文的读者和原文的读者在感受上基本相同。 奈达提出了三类对等，即形式对等、动态对等与功能对等。形式对等关注的是信息本身，包括信息的形式和内容。动态对等翻译中，译者关注的并非源语信息和译语信息之间的一一对应，而是一种动态的关系。功能对等简单讲就是要让译文和原文在语言的功能上对等，而不是在语言形式上的对应。功能对等理论有九种翻译策略，即音译、直译、增译、减译、改译、加注、意译等。 二、翻译策略在汉译英时的应用 1.音译。有些专有名词如地名、人名以及术语名称等在译语中无对应词时通常用音译，以避免直译或意译带来的误解。例：天津——Tianjin；王晓宏——Wang Xiaohong；秧歌——yangko；饺子——jiaozi。 2.直译。“词语指称意义的直译，关键要做到准确无误。要注意防止两种现象：一是专有名词或专门术语的误译，二是找到‘假朋友’——即两种语言中形式相同，但意义却截然不同的词。”。例如：“新闻照片”不是news photo，而是press photo。“白酒”不是“white wine”，而是spirits。 汉语作品的题目或电视剧名的翻译一般用直译。例：《红楼梦》译为A Dream of Red Mansions；《北京人在纽约》译为：A Native of Beijing in New York；一些商标名也可用直译法：“小天鹅”洗衣机“Little Swan”Washer。 3.增译。如从功能对等论的角度分析，翻译中的增词必须在译文和原文之间达成风格上的“功能对等”，更要注重内容上的对等传递，尽可能做到译文的读者和原文读者在感受上基本相

“功能对等”翻译理论--------奈达翻译理论体系的核心

［摘要］传统的翻译方法相关论文只围绕直译与意译之争，而奈达从《圣经》翻译提出功能对等即读者同等反应。“功能对等”翻译理论是奈达翻译理论体系的核心,是从新的视角提出的新的翻译方法，它既有深厚的理论基础,也有丰富的实践基础，对翻译理论的进一步完善是一大贡献。 ［关键词］功能对等；奈达翻译；英语论文范文 尤金·A·奈达博士是西方语言学翻译理论学派的代表人物之一。在他的学术生涯中，从事过语言学、语义学、人类学、通讯工程学等方面的研究，还从事过《圣经》的翻译工作，精通多国文字，调查过100多种语言。经过五十多年的翻译实践与理论研究，取得了丰硕的成果。至今他已发表了40多部专著、250余篇论文。“自八十年代初奈达的理论介绍入中国以来，到现在已经成为当代西方理论中被介绍的最早、最多、影响最大的理论。他把信息论与符号学引进了翻译理论，提出了‘动态对等’的翻译标准；把现代语言学的最新研究成果应用到翻译理论中来；在翻译史上第一个把社会效益（读者反应）原则纳入翻译标准之中。尤其是他的动态对等理论，一举打破中国传统译论中静态分析翻译标准的局面，提出了开放式的翻译理论原则，为我们建立新的理论模式找到了正确的方向。奈达在中国译界占据非常重要的地位。”“奈达的理论贡献，主要在于他帮助创造了一种新姿态对待不同语言和文化的气氛，以增进人类相互之间的语言交流和了解。”[1] 翻译作为一项独立的学科，首先应回答的问题就是：什么是翻译？传统翻译理论侧重语言的表现形式，人们往往醉心于处理语言的特殊现象，如诗的格律、诗韵、咬文嚼字、句子排比和特殊语法结构等等。现代翻译理论侧重读者对译文的反应以及两种反应（原文与原作读者、译文与译作读者）之间的对比。奈达指出：“所谓翻译，就是指从语义到文体在译语中用最贴切而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息”，奈达在《翻译理论于实践》一书中解释道，所谓最切近的自然对等，是指意义和语体而言。但在《从一种语言到另一种语言》中，奈达又把对等解释为是指功能而言。语言的“功能”是指语言在使用中所能发挥的言语作用；不同语言的表达形式必然不同，不是语音语法不同就是表达习惯不同，然而他们却可以具有彼此相同或相似的功能。 奈达所强调的是“对等”“、信息”“、意义”和“风格”，奈达从语义学和信息论出发，强调翻译的交际功能，正如他自己所说“：翻译就是交际”，目的是要寻求原语和接受语的“对等”。他所说的“信息”包括“意义”和“风格”，着重于交际层面。他实质上要打破的是传统的翻译标准。他把翻译看成是“语际交际”，也就是在用交际学的观点来看问题。交际至少应当是三方的事情：信息源点———信息内容———信息受者，也就是说话者———语言———听话者。奈达注重译文的接受者，即读者，而且都对读者进行了分类。奈达根据读者的阅读能力和兴趣把读者分为四类：儿童读者、初等文化水平读者、普通成人读者和专家。他曾说过，一些优秀的译者，常常设想有一位典型的译文读者代表就坐在写字台的对面听他们口述译文，或者正在阅读闪现在电脑显示屏上的译文。这样，就好像有人正在听着或读着译文，翻译也就不仅仅是寻求词汇和句法的对应过程。运用这种方法，译者就可能更自觉地意识到“翻译就是翻译意思”的道理。 可译性与不可译性是翻译界长期争论的一个问题。奈达对不同的语言和文化之间的交流提出了新的观点。他认为每种语言都有自己的特点，一种语言所表达的任何东西都可以用另一种语言来表达。尽管不同民族之间难以达到“绝对的”交流，但是可以进行“有效的”交流，因为人类的思维过程、生产经历、社会反应等有许多共性。他这种思想主要基于他对上帝的信仰和对《圣经》的翻译。在他看来，上帝的福音即是真理，可以译成不同的语言，也可以为不同国家的人所理解。因此，他提出“最贴近、最自然的对等”。 奈达把翻译分为两种类型：形式对等翻译和动态功能对等。翻译形式对等是以原语为中心，尽量再现原文形式和内容。功能对等注重读者反映，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。奈达的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。

奈达的功能对等理论在应用文体翻译中的应用

第10卷第1期长沙航空职业技术学院学报 Vo1.10No .1 2010年3月 JOURNAL OF CHANGS HA AERONAUTI C AL VOC ATI O NAL AND TECHN I C AL C OLLEGE Mar .2010 收稿日期:2010-01-18 作者简介:朱蓝辉(1982-),女,湖北随州人,助教,研究方向为应用语言学。 奈达的功能对等理论在应用文体翻译中的应用 朱蓝辉 (河源职业技术学院,广东河源517000) 摘要:介绍奈达的功能对等理论和应用文的文体特点,论述应用文体翻译应遵循功能对等理论,即译者应准确推测原文意思,充分了解读者的认知语境,用译入语准确写出相应的应用文,达到最佳的功能对等。 关键词:奈达;功能对等;应用英语翻译 中图分类号:H315.9 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1671-9654(2010)01-079-04 Appli ca ti on of N i da ’s Theory of Functi ona l Equ i va lence to Prag ma ti c Tran sl a ti on ZHU Lanhui (Heyuan Polytechnic,Heyuan Guangdong 517000) Abstract:This article intr oduces N ida’s Theory of Functi onal Equivalence and the characteristics of Prag matic English .It als o argues that the Theory of Functi onal Equivalence can be app lied t o Prag matic Translati on . Key words:N ida;Functi onal Equivalence;Prag matic Translati on 应用文体翻译是一种功能性和目的性很强的 翻译品种。它涉及人们日常接触和实际应用的各类文字,包括政府文件、新闻报道、法律文书、商贸信函、产品说明书、讲座通知、租房广告、住户须知、景点介绍、借阅规则、商店指南等文本。广告翻译是想把产品卖到国外去;景点介绍翻译,是为了吸引外国游客参观游览;超市的英语翻译,则是为了方便在中国工作的外国人的饮食起居。一般说来,翻译读者感兴趣的,是产品的性质、功能,景点有哪些个“卖点”。[1] 读者不会在乎译文是否忠实于原文,译文文采如何。只要产品卖得好,大批外国游客来了,功能就达到了,翻译也就成功了。这与文学翻译在功能、目的上有很大的不同。 那么如何实现应用文体的准确性交际功能以及用什么样的理论来指导应用文体翻译呢?随着我国应用文体翻译市场急剧扩大,翻译数量与日俱增,这个问题成为当前人们关注的焦点。本文根据 功能对等理论,结合应用文的文体特征,通过具体实例分析,提出了应用文体翻译中应遵循功能对等原则。一、功能对等理论翻译是一项复杂的交流行为。翻译界前辈已创立了许多翻译理论,随着人类认知能力的发展,新的翻译理论仍在不断地涌现。1969年,在《翻译的理论与实践》一书中,奈达提出“功能对等(func 2ti onal equivalence )”概念。翻译意味着交流,它取决于听译文或看译文的人能了解到些什么,所以,谈功能对等最根本的是必须比较:接触原文的人怎样理解原文以及接触译文的人怎样理解译文。奈达认为在翻译中存在着两种类型的对等:形式对应和动态等值。形式对应在形式和内容上注重信息本身,与建立在“等值效应原则”上的动态等值不同。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,在语言对等

功能对等理论

功能对等理论由美国人尤金·奈达（Eugene Nida）提出，奈达理论的核心概念是“功能对等”。所谓“功能对等”，就是说翻译时不求文字表面的死板对应，而要在两种语言间达成功能上的对等。 为使源语和目的语的之间的转换有一个标准,减少差异,奈达从语言学的角度出发,根据翻译的本质,提出了著名的“动态对等”翻译理论,即“功能对等”。在这一理论中,他指出“翻译是用最恰当、自然和对等的语言从语义到文体再现源语的信息”(郭建中,2000 , P65) 。奈达有关翻译的定义指明翻译不仅是词汇意义上的对等还包括语义、风格和文体的对等,翻译传达的信息既有表层词汇信息也有深层的文化信息。“动态对等”中的对等包括四个方面:1. 词汇对等,2. 句法对等,3. 篇章对等,4. 文体对等。在这四个方面中,奈达认为“意义是最重要的,形式其次”(郭建中,2000 , P67) 。形式很可能掩藏源语的文化意义并阻碍文化交流。因此,在文学翻译中,根据奈达的理论,译者应以动态对等的四个方面作为翻译的原则准确地在目的语中再现源语的文化内涵。 为了准确地再现源语文化和消除文化差异,译者可以遵循以下的三个步骤。 第一，努力创造出既符合原文语义又体现原文文化特色的译作。然而,两种语言代表着两种完全不同的文化,文化可能有类似的因素,但不可能完全相同。因此,完全展现原文文化内涵的完美的翻译作品是不可能存在的,译者只能最大限度地再现源语文化。 第二，如果意义和文化不能同时兼顾,译者只有舍弃形式对等,通过在译文中改变原文的形式达到再现原文语义和文化的目的。 第三，如果形式的改变仍然不足以表达原文的语义和文化,可以采用“重创”这一翻译技巧来解决文化差异,使源语和目的语达到意义上的对等。“重创”是指将源语的深层结构转换成目的语的表层结构(郭建中,2000 , P67) ,也就是将源语文章的文化内涵用译语的词汇来阐述和说明。例如:“He thinks by infection , catching an opinion likea cold. ”“人家怎么想他就怎么想,就像人家得了伤风,他就染上感冒。”(刘宓庆,1998 ,P122)在此句的英文原文中,原文的内涵并不是靠词汇的表面意义表达出来的,而是隐藏在字里行间里。

从功能对等理论角度分析翻译对等

从功能对等理论角度分析翻译对等 【摘要】本文通过以尤金·A·奈达的功能对等理论为理论基础，分析了在汉译英时怎样运用功能对等理论的几种翻译策略达到翻译对等的效果。 【关键词】功能对等理论；翻译策略；翻译对等 一、引言 美国翻译理论家尤金·A·奈达在其《翻译理论与实践》一书中，提出了“动态对等”后称“功能对等”的翻译原则，指出翻译就是“用最贴切、最自然的对等的语言从语义到文体再现原语信息”的过程。对等的标准就是译文的读者和原文的读者在感受上基本相同。 奈达提出了三类对等，即形式对等、动态对等与功能对等。形式对等关注的是信息本身，包括信息的形式和内容。动态对等翻译中，译者关注的并非源语信息和译语信息之间的一一对应，而是一种动态的关系。功能对等简单讲就是要让译文和原文在语言的功能上对等，而不是在语言形式上的对应。功能对等理论有九种翻译策略，即音译、直译、增译、减译、改译、加注、意译等。 二、翻译策略在汉译英时的应用 1.音译。有些专有名词如地名、人名以及术语名称等在译语中无对应词时通常用音译，以避免直译或意译带来的误解。例：天津——Tianjin；王晓宏——Wang Xiaohong；秧歌——yangko；饺子——jiaozi。 2.直译。“词语指称意义的直译，关键要做到准确无误。要注意防止两种现象：一是专有名词或专门术语的误译，二是找到‘假朋友’——即两种语言中形式相同，但意义却截然不同的词。”。例如：“新闻照片”不是news photo，而是press photo。“白酒”不是“white wine”，而是spirits。 汉语作品的题目或电视剧名的翻译一般用直译。例：《红楼梦》译为A Dream of Red Mansions；《北京人在纽约》译为：A Native of Beijing in New York；一些商标名也可用直译法：“小天鹅”洗衣机“Little Swan”Washer。 3.增译。如从功能对等论的角度分析，翻译中的增词必须在译文和原文之间达成风格上的“功能对等”，更要注重内容上的对等传递，尽可能做到译文的读者和原文读者在感受上基本相同。增词一般用于以下三种情况：一是为了语法上的需要；二是为了意义上的需要；三是为了修辞上的需要。 “汉语多无主句，而英语无主句只能表示祈使语气，使用范围窄得多，增加泛指意义的代词或符合上下文逻辑意义的代词不失为一种解决办法。”例：如果走近了，会发现他们那可爱的神情——If you approach them，you will see their cute looks.该句为汉语常见的无主句，翻译时应增译出主语“you”。 4.减译。在汉译英的过程中，可以发现汉语中词语的重复现象比较多，如果把这些重复的词全都翻译出来，译文则会显得冗长啰嗦。所以在汉译英时，减译是经常使用的方法。这样做的目的是为了使译文简明扼要。例如：我们要忠于党、忠于人民、忠于祖国。We should be loyal to our party，to our people and to our motherland.本译文省略了后面的两个“忠于”，使译文简洁通顺。 5.加注。汉语的成语的特点是言简意赅，能把丰富的意义用简短的几个字表达出来，因此成语不能从字面上来理解。把汉语的成语翻译成英语时，应保留成语的形象、比喻和民族色彩，此时可以用加注。例如：对牛弹琴：play the lute to a cow—address the wrong audience；鸡毛蒜皮：chicken feathers and garlic

完整版功能对等理论

功能对等理论 功能对等理论由美国人尤金A奈达(Eugene Nida )提出，奈达师 从几位著名的结构主义语言大师，本身也是有重要地位的语言学家, 曾任美国语言学会主席。但这位在学术界赫赫有名的人物，偏偏远离学术重镇，默默地在美国圣经协会供职半个多世纪。他一生的主要学术活动都围绕《圣经》翻译展开。在《圣经》翻译的过程中，奈达从实际出发，发展出了一套自己的翻译理论，最终成为翻译研究的经典 之一。奈达理论的核心概念是功能对等”。所谓功能对等”，就是说翻译时不求文字表面的死板对应，而要在两种语言间达成功能上的对等。 简介编辑 为使源语和目的语的之间的转换有一个标准，减少差异,尤金A ?奈达从语言学的角度出发，根据翻译的本质，提出了著名的动态对等'翻译理论，即功能对等”。在这一理论中，他指出翻译是用最恰当、自然 和对等的语言从语义到文体再现源语的信息”郭建中,2000 , P65)。 奈达有关翻译的定义指明翻译不仅是词汇意义上的对等还包括语义、风格和文体的对等，翻译传达的信息既有表层词汇信息也有深层的文化信息。 动态对等”中的对等包括四个方面：1.词汇对等,2.句法对等3篇章对 等,4.文体对等。在这四个方面中，奈达认为意义是最重要的，形式其次”郭建中,2000 , P67)。形式很可能掩藏源语的文化意义并阻碍文化交流。因此,在文学翻译中,根据奈达的理论，译者应以动态对等的四个方面作为翻译的原则准确地在目的语中再现源语的文化内涵 步骤编辑 为了准确地再现源语文化和消除文化差异，译者可以遵循以下的三个步骤。

第一，努力创造出既符合原文语义又体现原文文化特色的译作。 然而，两种语言代表着两种完全不同的文化，文化可能有类似的因素，但不可能完全相同。因此，完全展现原文文化内涵的完美的翻译作品是不可能存在的，译者只能最大限度地再现源语文化。 第二，如果意义和文化不能同时兼顾，译者只有舍弃形式对等，通过在译文中改变原文的形式达到再现原文语义和文化的目的。例如 英语谚语“white as snow翻译成汉语可以是字面意义上的白如雪”。 但是，中国南方几乎全年无雪，在他们的文化背景知识中，没有雪”的概念，如何理解雪的内涵？在译文中,译者可以通过改变词汇的形式来消除文化上的差异。因此，这个谚语在汉语中可以译作白如蘑菇”白如白鹭毛” 郭建中,2000 ,P63）。再如，英语成语“spring uplike mushroom”中 “ mushroom原意为蘑菇”但译为汉语多为雨后春笋”，而不是雨后蘑菇”因为在中国文化中，人们更为熟悉的成语和理解的意象是雨后春 笋”。 第三，如果形式的改变仍然不足以表达原文的语义和文化，可以采 用重创”这一翻译技巧来解决文化差异，使源语和目的语达到意义上的对等。重创”是指将源语的深层结构转换成目的语的表层结构(郭建 中,2000 , P67),也就是将源语文章的文化内涵用译语的词汇来阐述 禾n说明。例女口：“ He thinks by in fecti on , catchi ng an opinion likea cold.人家怎么想他就怎么想，就像人家得了伤风，他就染上感 冒。”刘宓庆,1998 ,P 122)在此句的英文原文中，原文的内涵并不是靠 词汇的表面意义表达出来的，而是隐藏在字里行间里。 特点编辑 如按照英汉两种语言字面上的对等来翻译，原句译为他靠传染来思维,象感冒一样获得思想”这样，原文的真正意义就无法清楚地表达。事实上，在汉语中很难找到一个完全与英文对等的句型来表达同样的内涵。于

奈达“动态对等理论”述评

奈达“动态对等理论”述评 摘要:奈达的翻译理论对我国翻译界影响颇大,他提出的动态对等理论,在译界被广泛接受。这一理论从交际效果出发,强调以读者为中心,重视读者的反应。但这一理论忽视了语言的个性和特殊性、语际转换的复杂性、文化的差异性、以及原文形式及语篇的多样性。本文尝试对功能对等理论进行了全面解读和分析。 关键词:功能对等读者的反应 Abstract:The translation theories of Nida have exerted great influence on Chinese tran slation scholars, and his “Dynamic Equivalence”has been accepted widely. Starting from the effects of communication, this theory emphasizes reader-centered perspective,and attaches importance to readers’response, which neglects the specialties and individualities of the language, the complexity of conversion from one language to another,the form of original text and the diversity of discourse. This paper tries to give an overall interpretation and analysis of “Dynamic Equivalence”. Key words:Dynamic Equivalence; readers’response 1 引言 尤金·奈达是美国著名的翻译理论家,因提出动态对等理论而享有

功能对等理论分析

翻译理论之功能对等理论浅述 作者：钱余 中央财经大学 文献综述： 功能对等理论是一个著名的翻译理论，由美国人尤金·A·奈达（Eugene Nida）提出，对后来的翻译工作都有很大的指导意义。很多人都对功能对等理论进行过研究和应用。 吕朦，贵州师范大学外语学院，就曾写过《对奈达“功能对等”理论的再认识》，里面主要介绍了功能对等理论，在20世纪80年代初被介绍到中国后，对中国译界曾产生了深远的影响，但是近来这个翻译理论开始被质疑甚至被全盘否定。作者认为对“功能对等”理论持反对意见的人起因于对“对等”的绝对化理解，是对奈达的误解，于是在文中简要分析了“功能对等”理论的实质及其原则，以及怎样应用功能对等理论比较可取。他指出奈达的“功能对等”是相对的灵活的动态对等，而对“功能对等”持反对意见的人，大部分是因为对“对等”的理解过于绝对化了，并没有真正知晓奈达要表达的意思。奈达曾指出，“对语言的理解从来就没有出现两人完全相同的情况，因此更谈不上两种语言中会存在完全一致的对等关系。”吕朦也在文中说到“为了从语义到文体在译语中用最切近最自然的对等语再现原语的信息，必须保持原作的内容和内涵意义，使译文能为读者所理解且保证不会对译文产生误解，在此基础上尽可能顾及信息表达的形式。” 另外赵丹丹，郑州大学外语学院，发表过《浅论奈达的功能对等理论》，对奈达的"功能对等"理论的内容、标准以及适用范围都做了简要的介绍，并且指出翻译者在翻译过程中应当正确的看待，并且合理的使用奈达的功能对等理论，而在使用该理论的过程中，翻译者也应注意一些问题——在该理论的指导下译者应怎样恰当的采取翻译策略的问题，为我国的翻译工作者在日后的翻译工作中提供借鉴意义，并为以后的翻译工作锦上添花，添砖加瓦。 以及石锡书，杜平的《辩证地看待奈达的“功能对等”理论》，则是从两个方面来看功能对等理论，功能对等理论从盛而衰，体现了它既有优点，也有缺点，否则怎么会产生这种衰弱的倾向，因此我们要辩证地对待它。他在文中指出“功能对等”理论强调“读者反应”，把它作为译文的判断标准，但是读者的水平层次不一样，有高知识分子，也有目不识丁的人，即使在一个群体，他们经历的不一样，看待一个事物的观点也不同，很难把译文判断标准定下来。总体来说，研究“功能对等”理论，对现在的翻译工作有着重大的意义。 还有很多人研究过功能对等理论，一般来说较多是应用这个理论来研究个案。例如一个文学翻译作品，或者影视作品，还有政府工作报告的翻译，如陈苗苗的《功能对等理论下<红楼梦>中文化意象的翻译》；栾晓莉的《从奈达功能对等理论看2010-2012年政府工作报告中中国特色词汇的英译研究》；很多学者都对字幕翻译应用功能对等理论有所研究和探讨，如陈玉的《从功能对等理论看电影<功夫熊猫2>的字幕翻译》；史春颖的《功能对等理论视角下的<绝望主妇>字幕翻译研究》，等等。可见功能对等理论的应用领域范围之广我对功能对等理论比较感兴趣，也有一点自己的看法，结合文学名著的译文来浅要分析功能对等理论，理性看待它的优点，以及不足之处，从他的理论中学习翻译的技巧，实现翻译水平的提升。

奈达动态对等翻译观概述

论对等原则 张铭1尤金·奈达 尤金?奈达，美国语言学家、翻译家、翻译理论家，是西方翻译理论语言学派最重要的代表人物之一。1914年11月11日出生于美国俄克拉何马市，从小笃信基督，并对语言有浓厚的兴趣。1943年获密歇根大学语言学博士学位，接着长期在美国圣经学会主持翻译部的工作，曾任美国语言学会主席，他把语言学应用于指导圣经的翻译，创造了自己特色的翻译理论，至今发表40多部著作，250余篇论文，可谓著作等身。他还到过96个国家，在一百多所大学做过讲座，并曾来过中国13次。 奈达的翻译思想可以分成三个阶段。 （1）描写语言学阶段：这一阶段，奈达结合自己在圣经翻译中的实验，主要集中研究了句法、词法和语义翻译中的问题。这一期间的代表作是《论词法：词的描写性剖析》（1946）、《圣经翻译》（1947）等。 （2）交际理论阶段：这一时期是奈达最高产，成果最丰富的的时期，他明确提出了“翻译的科学”这一概念，创立了翻译的交际学理论，并阐释了“动态对等”的翻译观，提出了“分析、重组、翻译、检验”的四步式翻译过程。代表作是《翻译科学探索》（1964）《翻译理论与实践》（1969）1等。 1与塔伯合著。

（3）社会符号学阶段：这一阶段，奈达一方面保留了交际理论的观点，另一方面，对自己的很多观点进行了修正和发展，同时开始采用社会语言学和社会符号学的观点和方）法来研究翻译问题。代表作有《论翻译的社会语言学理论》（1979）《意译》（1982）等。2奈达的基本翻译思想可以概括为以下三句话 （1）、翻译是交际活动。 （2）、翻译主要是译意。 （3）、为了译意，必须改变语言的表达形式。3 2《论对等原则》 不存在绝对的对等 没有哪两种语言是完全一致的，无论是对应符号被赋予的意义还是这些符号排列为词组的方式，因此，就有理由认为翻译之间不存在绝对的对等。这样，也就不存在完全精确的翻译，翻译的整体影响可能接近原文，但细节不可能完全相同。 翻译的不同类型 翻译的不同大致可以归结为三个基本因素： （1）信息的本质 （2）作者的目的或译者的目的. （3）受众的类型。4 2郭建中.当代美国翻译理论.湖北教育出版社, 2001. P61 3谭载喜.西方翻译简史.商务印书馆,2004 .98. 4谢天振. 当代国外翻译理论导读. 南开大学出版社,2009.P38

奈达翻译理论动态功能对等的新认识

To Equivalence and Beyond: Reflections on the Significance of Eugene A. Nida for Bible Translating1 Kenneth A. Cherney, Jr. It’s been said, and it may be true, that there are two kinds of people—those who divide people into two kinds and those who don’t. Similarly, there are two approaches to Bible translation—approaches that divide translations into two kinds and those that refuse. The parade example of the former is Jerome’s claim that a translator’s options are finally only two: “word-for-word” or “sense-for-sense.”2 Regardless of whether he intended to, Jerome set the entire conversation about Bible translating on a course from which it would not deviate for more than fifteen hundred years; and some observers in the field of translation studies have come to view Jerome’s “either/or” as an unhelpful rut from which the field has begun to extricate itself only recently and with difficulty. Another familiar dichotomy is the distinction between “formal correspondence” translating on one hand and “dynamic equivalence” (more properly “functional equivalence,” on which see below) on the other. The distinction arose via the work of the most influential figure in the modern history of Bible translating: Eugene Albert Nida (1914-2011). It is impossible to imagine the current state of the field of translation studies, and especially Bible translating, without Nida. Not only is he the unquestioned pioneer of modern, so-called “meaning-based” translating;3 he may be more responsible than any other individual for putting Bibles in the hands of people around the world that they can read and understand. 1 This article includes material from the author’s doctoral thesis (still in progress), “Allusion as Translation Problem: Portuguese Versions of Second Isaiah as Test Case” (Stellenbosch University, Drs. Christo Van der Merwe and Hendrik Bosman, promoters). 2 Jerome, “Letter to Pammachius,” in Lawrence Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. (NY and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 23. 3 Nigel Statham, "Nida and 'Functional Equivalence': The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward," Bible Translator 56, no. 1 (2005), p. 39.

奈达功能对等理论讲义

奈达功能对等理论讲义 埃米尔里厄（E.V.Rieu 1887）于1953 年提出了对等原则，尤金奈达（Eugene A.Nida 1914）以此原则为基础，将其不断发展。奈达于上世纪60 年代初首先提出了“形式对等”理论 尤金1943年获语言学博士学位，后长期担任美国圣经协会翻译部的执行秘书，主持翻译部工作，并曾任美国语言学会会长。 尤金先后访问过90个国家和地区，并着书立说，单独或合作出版了40多部书，比较着名的有《翻译科学探索》、《语言与文化——翻译中的语境》等，他还发表论文250余篇，是世界译坛的一位长青学者。 奈达从语言学的角度出发，根据翻译的本质，提出了着名的“动态对等”翻译理论，即“功能对等”。在这一理论中，他指出，“翻译是用最恰当、自然和对等的语言从语义到文体再现源语的信息” 翻译不仅是词汇意义上的对等，还包括语义、风格和文体的对等，翻译传达的信息既有表层词汇信息，也有深层的文化信息。“动态对等”中的对等包括四个方面： 1.词汇对等； 2. 句法对等； 3. 篇章对等； 4.文体对等。 在这四个方面中，奈达认为，“意义是最重要的，形式其次”。形式很可能掩藏源语的文化意义，并阻碍文化交流。因此，在文学翻译中，根据奈达的理论，译者应以动态对等的四个方面，作为翻译的原则，准确地在目的语中再现源语的文化内涵。

二十世纪下半叶，随着世界大战的结束和工业与科技的高度发展，不同文明，不同国家，不同民族之间产生的文化碰撞愈加激烈，翻译理论在文化碰撞的火花中蓬勃发展，逐渐形成了一门独立的学科，而现代语言学的引入使翻译成为了基于符号学的编码与解码的过程。 白之与《牡丹亭》 白之（Cyril Birch 1925）是美籍英裔着名的汉学家，1960年至1991 年间于加州大学伯克利分校东方语言系从事教学研究工作，在此期间他翻译的《牡丹亭》是这部戏曲最早的完整英译本。 该译本一经出版立即得到西方汉学界的广泛认可，1981 年被评为美国杰出学术着作，并成为多所高校东亚古典文学的必修课程。白之曾说，翻译不是刺激和折磨，翻译是一种目标严肃、有意为之的冒险，是在创造性和准确性之间达到微妙平衡的过程。白之的该译本以忠实原文为目的，尽可能的保留源语中隐喻中的意象，不去破坏源语的美感和异国独特的风味。功能对等理论在《牡丹亭》英译本中应用的赏析 依照奈达的理论，翻译应注重功能对等而不求形式对等。在《从一种语言到另一种语言》一书中他提出了改变语言形式的5 个条件： 直译传递错误的意义；外来词造成的词义空缺；形式对应所引起的意义晦涩；形式对应所引起的歧义；形式对应所引起的文体错误。 直译传递错误的意义 例1：原文：“没揣菱花，偷人半面，迤逗的彩云偏。”（第十 出惊梦P.43） 译文：“perplexed to find that my mirror

功能对等理论

功能对等理论 功能对等理论由美国人尤金·A·奈达（Eugene Nida）提出，奈达师从几位著名的结构主义语言大师，本身也是有重要地位的语言学家，曾任美国语言学会主席。但这位在学术界赫赫有名的人物，偏偏远离学术重镇，默默地在美国圣经协会供职半个多世纪。他一生的主要学术活动都围绕《圣经》翻译展开。在《圣经》翻译的过程中，奈达从实际出发，发展出了一套自己的翻译理论，最终成为翻译研究的经典之一。奈达理论的核心概念是“功能对等”。所谓“功能对等”，就是说翻译时不求文字表面的死板对应，而要在两种语言间达成功能上的对等。 简介编辑 为使源语和目的语的之间的转换有一个标准,减少差异,尤金·A·奈达从语言学的角度出发,根据翻译的本质,提出了著名的“动态对等”翻译理论,即“功能对等”。在这一理论中,他指出“翻译是用最恰当、自然和对等的语言从语义到文体再现源语的信息”(郭建中,2000 , P65) 。 奈达有关翻译的定义指明翻译不仅是词汇意义上的对等还包括语义、风格和文体的对等,翻译传达的信息既有表层词汇信息也有深层的文化信息。“动态对等”中的对等包括四个方面:1. 词汇对等,2. 句法对等,3. 篇章对等,4. 文体对等。在这四个方面中,奈达认为“意义是最重要的,形式其次”(郭建中,2000 , P67) 。形式很可能掩藏源语的文化意

义并阻碍文化交流。因此,在文学翻译中,根据奈达的理论,译者应以动态对等的四个方面作为翻译的原则准确地在目的语中再现源语的文化内涵 步骤编辑 为了准确地再现源语文化和消除文化差异,译者可以遵循以下的三个步骤。 第一，努力创造出既符合原文语义又体现原文文化特色的译作。 然而,两种语言代表着两种完全不同的文化,文化可能有类似的因素,但不可能完全相同。因此,完全展现原文文化内涵的完美的翻译作品是不可能存在的,译者只能最大限度地再现源语文化。 第二，如果意义和文化不能同时兼顾,译者只有舍弃形式对等,通过在译文中改变原文的形式达到再现原文语义和文化的目的。例如,英语谚语“white as snow”翻译成汉语可以是字面意义上的“白如雪”。 但是,中国南方几乎全年无雪,在他们的文化背景知识中,没有“雪”的概念,如何理解雪的内涵? 在译文中,译者可以通过改变词汇的形式来消除文化上的差异。因此,这个谚语在汉语中可以译作“白如蘑菇”,“白如白鹭毛”(郭建中,2000 ,P63) 。再如,英语成语“spring uplike mushroom”中“mushroom”原意为“蘑菇”, 但译为汉语多为“雨后春笋”,而不是“雨后蘑菇”,因为在中国文化中,人们更为熟悉的成语和理解的意象是“雨后春笋”。

奈达功能对等理论对翻译实践的指导

奈达“功能对等”对翻译实践的指导 奈达的翻译理论于20世纪80年代引入中国，随即在中国翻译界引起了巨大的反响。尤其是其“功能对等”理论更是为人们所极力追捧。 总结奈达的“功能对等”或“动态对等”理论，其主要将传统意义上翻译，即原文与译文的比较，转移到二者的过程比较。翻译的目的是不再是追求形式的对等而是转向“功能对等”，即译文接受者与译文的关系应该与原文接受者与原文的关系大体一致。换言之，功能对等强调译文读者对译文的反应应等同于原文读者对原文的反应。其次功能对等要达到的翻译目标是在译语中用最贴切而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息，首先是意义，其次是文体（Nida & Taber, 1969），把原语文化背景下的行为模式转换成译入语文化背景下的行为模式。由此看出奈达主张意译,主张“归化”。 掌握了功能对等的基本定义及要求，那么在指导翻译实践的具体操作上，奈达提出了改变语言形式的6个条件（原书38-38页），当然若直译或形式对等可以达到指称意义与关联意义在功能上的对等，则无须在形式上进行调整。在此指称意义（designative meaning）指“语言符号所代表的事物的基本特征的抽象概括。”而联想意义（associative meaning）是“指附加在指称意义上的意义，是语言符号唤起收讯人对其他事物的联想”。简而言之，指称意义指词的确切和字面意义，而联想意义往往指词的情感与隐含意义。 第一条：当形式对应可能导致指称意义传递错误时，则译文需做出一定调整，或可保留直译，但需加脚注解释可能造成的误解。 例如： SL：Nevertheless we are at a critical time for this species.(选自China’s Panda Reserves)。 TL1：但是，我们正处在熊猫生死存亡的关键时刻。 TL2：然而大熊猫正处于生死存亡的关键时刻。 在这一例中，原文的意义指熊猫这一濒危物种处境不佳的现状，而译文按照形式对应的方式译，表达的意义却是“人类正处于生死存亡的时刻”，完全误解了原文的指称意义，因此应在译文中做出调整，应译为“大大熊猫正处于生死存亡的关键时刻”。 第二条：当形式对应造成内容无法理解，如指称意义模糊难辨，译文需做出一定调整，除非原文故意造成模糊难辨，则可以保留直译，但需加脚注说明保留模糊难辨的原因。 例如： SL：I’m the youngest son, and youngest son but two. TL: 我是家里最小的儿子，我下面还有两个妹妹。（董秉山译）

奈达功能对等理论

奈达之“功能对等”翻译理论翻译作为语际交流的桥梁有着悠久的历史。尽管翻译早就与人类文明的发展共同进步,但构建系统的翻译理论却显得举步维艰。自20世纪80年代之后,在国 内产生影响最大、影响范围最广的西方翻译理论当是奈达的“功能对等论” 、“等效论”和“读者反应论”，以至翻译界形成“言必称奈达”的局面。在奈达40 余本著作和250 多篇论文中，功能对等理论是其最重要的翻译理论。但自20世纪90 年代中期之后, 翻译界观念逆转，形成“言必批奈达”之势。因此，应该对“功能对等论”进行全面理解和分析，进而对其做出公允的评价。 一、奈达的“功能对等翻译理论” 奈达分析了翻译中译语文化和源语文化关系的三种类型，认为这三种关系是由语言和文化之间的距离决定的。在此基础上，他总结出翻译的两种基本导向：等值有两种不同的基本类型—形式对等和动态对等。形式对等关注信息本身的形式和内容两个方面，与此相对应的是以“等效原则”为基础的动态对等。 奈达的《论对等原则》一文集中阐发了动态对等思想。他认为语言之间不存在绝对的对等，必须辨别翻译的不同类型，以确定不同的对等原则，根据信息的本质、作者的目的以及译者的目的、受众的类型等因素，对翻译进行分类。即根据信息的本质，确定内容和形式何为翻译的主要考虑因素；根据作者及译者目的，确定翻译的预期目的是提供知识、引起情感反应，还是建议某种特有的行为举止。他希望读者达到完全的理解，并使翻译完成某种祈使功能。 为防止误会，奈达用“功能对等”取代了“动态对等” ，他希望以此来强调翻译的交际功能，这个替换并不是要否定先前的“动态对等” 。实际上“功能对等”与“动态对等” 并无实质上的区别。奈达认为，功能对等强调的是语言之间、文化之间能通过寻找翻译对等语，以恰当的方式重新组织信息的形式和语义结构而进行交际。例如翻译white as snow时，如果一种语言里没有雪”这个字，却有霜”（frost）字，就可以用白如霜”来替换。也可用同义比喻如白如蘑菇” white as fungus 来表达，如果都不行，可以用一个非比喻形式very，very white 白极了” 来表达。原作者期望读者看懂作品，通常他会表达的只会是一层意思，而不是几 二、功能对等理论的发展阶段 功能对等理论的发展分为三个阶段