中外翻译理论.doc

. Brief Introduction of Eugene NidaDr. Eugene A. Nida (1914-) is one of the most distinguished contemporary translation theorists in the west. During his past fifty years of study in translation theory and practice, he has achieved great success in this field. His translation theory has exerted a tremendous influence on the translation studies not only in western countries but also in Asian countries, especially in China. He is generally recognized as the most influential one among all the contemporary translation theorists.He develops the communicative translation theory put forward by Newmark, who is a famous translation theorist of England. The communicative translation theory not only emphasizes language meaning transform, but also functional equivalence. Spreading and becoming popular in China in early 1980s, Nidas translation theory is the debut for most of Chinese translators to contact the western systematic translation theories and has deeply influenced the translation theory research in China. In spite of the doubts on his theory appearing in late 1980s and early 1990s, it is certain that Nidas translation theory gives significant inspiration to translation researchers.With the research fruits of modern linguistics, Nida has carries out a descriptive research on translation and contemplated deeply on the major problems of the practice and research of the translation theory. With an active mind, he frequently renews the translation theory and keeps rectifying and developing his thoughts and ideas about translation theory. His translation theory is mainly on the basis of the developments of contemporary linguistics, communication theory, information theory and semiotics.2. Nidas Functional Equivalence Theory2.1 Conception of Functional EquivalenceFunctional equivalence theory was first put forward in 1964. This principle emphasizes the functional equivalence of information instead of the direct formal equivalence in translation so as to keep the meaning and style of the source language functionally equivalent to that of the target language as much as possible. The functional feature of the translation depends on the balance of two relationships, that is, the relationship between the target language receptor and the target text should generally be equivalent to the relationship between the source language receptor and the source text, and it is the two relationships that provide the basis for functional equivalence.2.2 Literal Translation, Free Translation and Functional EquivalenceNida is the first person to handle the disputable problem between literal translation and free translation. He holds that effect is the most important element in translation. Regardless of the method of literal translation or free translation is followed, as long as the response of both source language reader and target language reader is somewhat equivalent, the best translation can be achieved.In traditional translation theory, literal translation focusing on form is called faithful, while translation emphasizing meaning is free. Nida insists translator focusing on form, especially in verses, sentences and concepts equivalence, is formal equivalence. It is dangerous in reproducing intention and meaning of original author, even worse, to result in readers misunderstanding. In his opinion, the translator following functional equivalence will be more faithful to the original text than following literal translation, for that the former strategy requires more fully and comprehensively understanding of the meaning of original text. Moreover.2.3 Four Levels of Functional Equivalence.Translation involves message transmission between two languages and cultures, and there still exists lots of similarity among different language cultures, which is the objective basis. Because of the different location, history, cultural ground and education level, it is hard to be objective. The definition of translation Nida proposed shows that translation is not only related to equivalence of lexical meaning, but also the equivalence of text connotation and style, message translated in translation includes surface lexical message and deep cultural message. Functional equivalence includes four levels: lexical equivalence, sentence equivalence, passage equivalence and style equivalence.2.3.1 Lexical equivalenceThe meaning of a word lies in its usage in language. In translation practice, what confuse us is how to find the corresponding meaning in target language. Take Tension is building up as an example, tension and build up both have different explanations without consideration of context. Thus this sentence can be translated as several different editions:In EnglishChinese translation, completely lexical equivalence lies in special terms and terminology, besides which there are five correspondences, word equivalence, synonymy, polysemy, lexical meaning overlap and zero equivalence.2.3.2 Sentence EquivalenceSentence equivalence is more complicated than lexical equivalence. In English- Chinese translation, singular and plural form is an important and evident problem. Plural meaning in Chinese is not expressed with any evident plural form, which is different in English. Moreover, for different target language, tender, number and tense should be taken into consideration in translation. Thus, translator should be clear about whether such a sentence grammar exists in the target language or not, and be clear about the frequency of such sentence grammar.2.3.3 Passage EquivalenceIn order to achieve passage equivalence, language is not the unique element we should consider, what we should also take into consideration is how the language represents meaning and performs its function in a specific context. Passage equivalence consists of three parts, passage context, scene context and cultural context. Passage context lies in analysis of language, which aims to judge the meaning of words and semantic units in original text, and is based on analysis of meaning and connotation of the passage. Scene context includes the concrete person and things involved in communication, the channel of communication, the relationship among participants and mental emotions.3. ConclusionNidas translation theory has been popular in the world for nearly sixty years and it has become an indispensable part of translation studies. Holding a panoramic view of all the important points in Nidas theory, we can conclude that the essence of his theory is that he insists the translator should pay prior attention to the meaning of the source text and should not be curbed by the expression form of the source text. Moreover, Nidas translation theory is a genuine breakthrough and its influence and contribution to the translation field cannot be underestimated, and it dose render us a profound enlightenment that the excellent translation comes from practice.Nida has been a pioneer in the fields oftranslation theoryandlinguistics.His Ph.D. dissertation,A Synopsis of English Syntax, was the first full-scale analysis of a major language according to the immediate-constituent theory. His most notable contribution to translation theory is Dynamic Equivalence, also known as Functional Equivalence. For more information, see Dynamic and formal equivalence. Nida also developed the componential-analysis technique, which split words into their components to help determine equivalence in translation (e.g. bachelor = male + unmarried). This is, perhaps, not the best example of the technique, though it is the most well-known.Nidas dynamic-equivalence theory is often held in opposition to the views ofphilologistswho maintain that an understanding of thesource text(ST) can be achieved by assessing the inter-animation of words on the page, and that meaning is self-contained within the text (i.e. much more focused on achieving semantic equivalence).This theory, along with other theories of correspondence in translating, are elaborated in his essayPrinciples of Correspondence,6where Nida begins by asserting that given that “no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence, there can be no fully exact translations.”7While the impact of a translation may be close to the original, there can be no identity in detail.Nida then sets forth the differences in translation, as he would account for it, within three basic factors: (1) The nature of the message: in some messages the content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority. (2) The purpose of the author and of the translator: to give information on both form and content; to aim at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message; for imperative purposes that aim at not just understanding the translation but also at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation. (3) The type of audience: prospective audiences differ both indecodingability and in potential interest.Nida brings in the reminder that while there are no such things as “identicalequivalents” in translating, what one must in translating seek to do is find the “closest natural equivalent”. Here he identifies two basic orientations in translating based on two different types of equivalence: Formal Equivalence (F-E) and Dynamic Equivalence (D-E).F-E focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. Such translations then would be concerned with suchcorrespondencesaspoetryto poetry,sentenceto sentence, andconceptto concept. Such a formal orientation that typifies this type of structural equivalence is called a “gloss translation” in which the translator aims at reproducing as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.The principles governing an F-E translation would then be: reproduction of grammatical units; consistency in word usage; and meanings in terms of the sourcecontext.D-E on the other hand aims at complete “naturalness” of expression. A D-E translation is directed primarily towards equivalence of response rather than equivalence of form. The relationship between the target languagereceptorand message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original (source language) receptors and the message.The principles governing a D-E translation then would be:conformanceof a translation to the receptorlanguageandcultureas a whole; and the translation must be in accordance with the context of the message which involves thestylisticselection and arrangement of message constituents.Nida andLawrence Venutihave proved thattranslation studiesis a much more complex discipline than may first appear, with the translator having to look beyond the text itself to deconstruct on an intra-textual level and decode on a referential levelassessing culture-specific items,idiomand figurative language to achieve an understanding of thesource textand embark upon creating a translation which not only transfers what words mean in a given context, but also recreates the impact of the original text within the limits of the translators own language system (linked to this topic:George Steiner, the Hermeneutic Motion, pragmatics, field, tenor, mode and thelocutionary,illocutionaryandperlocutionary). For example, a statement that Jesus met someone must be carefully translated into a language which distinguishes between met for the first time, met habitually and simple met.Nida was once criticised for a controversial change in theRevised Standard VersionBible translation regarding the removal of the word virgin from Isaiah 7:14.8However, as Peter Thuesens bookIn Discordance with the Scripturespoints out, Nida was not actually a committee member for that project.9语言学派翻译理论奥古斯丁发展了亚里士多德的“符号”理论，提出了语言符号的“能指”、“所指”和译者“判断”的三角关系，开创了西方翻译理论的语言学传统。20世纪初，索绪尔提出普通语言学理论，标志这现代语言学的诞生，也为当代翻译研究的各种语言学方法奠定了基础。虽然出现了各种不同流派的代表人物和理论方法，却存在一个共同的特征，就是以语言为核心，从语言的结构特征出发研究翻译的对等问题。一般认为，西方语言学派开始对翻译进行”科学“研究的标志是美国著名学者尤金.奈达Eugene Nida于1947年发表的论翻译的原则和程序(Bible Translation: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages)。语言学派代表人物主要集中于英美，代表人物有奈达、卡特福德(J.C.Catford)、纽马克(Peter Newmark)、哈蒂姆(Hatim)等。罗曼.雅科布逊Roman Jakobson原籍俄国，后移居捷克；二战时迁至美国，加入美籍。作为学派的创始人之一，他对翻译理论的贡献主要体现在论翻译的语言学问题(On Linguistic Aspects of Translation)之中。文章从语言学的角度，对语言和翻译的关系、翻译的重要性、以及翻译中存在的问题做出了详尽的分析和论述。自年发表后，此文一直被西方理论界奉为翻译研究的经典之一。 雅科布逊的论述主要有五点：（）翻译分为三类：语内翻译（intralingual translation）、语际翻译（interlingual translation）和符际翻译（intersemiotic translation）。所谓语内翻译，是指在同一语言内用一些语言符号去解释另一些语言符号，即通常的“改变说法”(rewording)。所谓语际翻译，是指在两种语言之间即用一种语言的符号去解释另一种语言的符号，即严格意义上的翻译。所谓符际翻译，是指用非语言符号系统解释语言符号，或用语言符号解释非语言符号，比如把旗语或手势变成言语表达。（）对于词义的理解取决于翻译。他认为，在语言学习和语言理解过程中，翻译起着决定性作用。（）准确的翻译取决于信息对称。翻译所涉及的是两种不同语符中的对等信息。（）所有语言都具有同等表达能力。如果语言中出现词汇不足，可通过借词、造词或释义等方法对语言进行处理。（）语法范畴是翻译中最复杂的问题。这对于存在时态、性、数等语法形式变化的语言，尤其复杂。 尤金.奈达Eugene Nida 语言学派最重要的代表人物之一，著述极丰富，其理论对西方当代翻译研究作出了很大的贡献.提出了“翻译的科学”这一概念。在语言学研究的基础上，把信息论应用于翻译研究，认为翻译即交际，创立了翻译研究的交际学派。提出了“动态对等”的翻译原则，并进而从社会语言学和语言交际功能的观点出发提出“功能对等”的翻译原则。就翻译过程提出“分析”、“转换”、“重组”和“检验”的四步模式。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。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。 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。因此,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。于是,译者将源语的深层结构转换成目的语的表层结构,即用目的语中相应的词汇直接说明、解释原文的内涵,以使译文读者更易接受译作。根据奈达的翻译理论,文化差异的处理是与从语义到文体将源语再现于目的语紧密相联的。只有当译文从语言形式到文化内涵都再现了源语的风格和精神时,译作才能被称作是优秀的作品。 纽马克Peter Newmark主要从事德英互译理论和实践的教学。提出“交际翻译”和“语义翻译”的概念；两者的区别在于:前者产生的效果力求接近原文文本，后者则在目标语结构许可的情况下尽可能再现原文意义和语境。提出将“直译”和“逐行翻译”这两类翻译方法互为参照。同逐行翻译相比，语义翻译更重视目的语的语法结构；和直译相比，语义翻译更尊重语言的使用场合。交际翻译并非处处适用，在有些问题和场合当中，语义翻译仍然是非常必要的阐释学派翻译理论阐释学Hermeneutics是关于理解、解释及其方法论的学科，它的历史悠久，可以追溯到古希腊。在希腊神话中，赫尔墨斯(Hermes)是负责解释、翻译神旨、传达神谕的使者。古希腊时期的阐释学主要用于逻辑学和辩论术以及一些宗教、文学经典著作的解释，其目的不外乎消除文本的歧义和误解。到了中世纪，阐释学成为圣经研究的一个分支，通过对宗教典籍的注释、说明向人们澄清上帝的意图。文艺复兴和宗教改革时期，阐释学的研究领域不再拘泥于宗教经典，而是扩大到对整个古代文化经典的阐释。这一时期可以被看作古典阐释学时期。翻译和阐释学的密切关系：语言室理解本身得以进行的普遍媒介，理解的进行方法就是解释，翻译在两种不同的语言之间周旋，因此可以看作阐释学最有代表型的范例。1813年，施莱尔马赫宣读了论文论翻译的方法。文化以阐释学的角度论述了翻译与理解的密切关系，从理论上探讨了翻译的原则和途径，指出翻译可以采取两种途径：译者不打扰原作者，带读者靠近作者，或者尽量不打扰读者，使作者靠近读者。论文对笔译与口译活动、文学翻译与机械翻译都加以区分并进行阐述。乔治.斯坦纳George Steiner1975年的通天塔之后：语言与翻译面面观(After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation)被视为当代西方翻译研究领域里的里程碑式的著作。该书以海德格尔的阐释思想为基础，提出“理解也是翻译”的观点，赋予翻译以更宽泛的含义，将翻译的过程看作阐释的运作(the hermeneutic motion)，并把翻译分为四个步骤，即信赖(trust)、侵入(aggression)、吸收(incorporation)和补偿(restitution)。功能学派翻译理论20世纪60、70年代，德国译学界受结构主义语言学的影响，形成了以纽伯特(A. Neubert)、卡德(O. Kade)维代表的莱比锡派(the Leipzig School)和以威尔斯(W. Wilss)为代表的萨尔派(Saarbrcken School)。前者立足于转换生成语法，在翻译中严格区分不变的认知因素与可变的语用因素；后者是奈达学说的追随者，主张建立翻译科学。功能派翻译理论在这时兴起，针对翻译语言学派中的薄弱环节，广泛借鉴交际理论、行动理论、信息论、语篇语言学和接受美学的思想，将研究的视线从源语文本转向目标文本。目的论影响深远，功能学派因此有时也被称为目的学派。凯瑟琳娜.莱斯Katharina Reiss最早可以追溯到凯瑟琳娜.莱斯于1971年出版的翻译批评的可能性与限制一书。在这本书中，莱斯把功能范畴引入翻译批评，将语言功能、语篇类型和翻译策略相联系，发展了以源文与译文功能关系为基础的翻译批评模式，从而提出了功能派理论思想的雏形。她认为理想的翻译应该在概念性内容、语言形式和交际功能方面都与原文对等，并把这样的翻译称为综合性交际翻译(integral communicative performance)。然而在实践中，她又意识到等值不仅不可能实现，而且有时并非是人们所期望的，因此应该优先考虑译本的功能特征而不是对等原则。汉斯.佛米尔Hans Vermeer试图弥合翻译理论与实践的断裂，提出目的论(skopos theory)将翻译研究从原文中心论的束缚中摆脱出来。在于来世莱斯合著的普通翻译理论原则（1984）中对该理论的框架进行阐述。“Skopos”一词来自希腊语，指行为的目标、功能或意图。该理论认为翻译是以原文为基础的、有目的和有结果的行为，这一行为必须经过协商来完成；翻译必须遵循以系列法则，其中目的法则居于首位，即使说译文取决于翻译的目的。此外，翻译还应遵行“语内连贯法则”(the intratextual coherence rule)和“语际连贯法则”(the intertextual coherence rule)，前者指译文必须内部连贯，在译入语接受者看来是可以理解的，后者指译文与原文之间也应该有连贯性，有时称作“忠实法则”(the fidelity rule)。这些法则呈等级排列，这样，原文的中心地位就备瓦解，“对等”不再是评判翻译的标准，取而代之的是译本实现预期目标的充分性(adequacy)。在实践中，翻译目标和要求的下达通过翻译委任(commission)来实现。佛米尔指出翻译委任应该包括翻译目标和目标得以实现的条件，而且客户和译者之间应该对此进行明确协商，译者作为拥有发言权的专家，应该由他来决定是否、何时、怎样完成翻译任务。只认为译者应该根据不同的翻译目的决定采用相应的翻译策略，单并不排除“语码转换式”的对等翻译也是合理目的的可能性。克里斯汀娜.诺德Christiane Nord首次用英语全面系统地介绍功能学派的各种学术思想，并针对其不足提出自己的观点。在翻译中的文本分析(Text Analysis in Translation)（1991）一书中，她阐述了翻译中的文本分析所须考虑的内外因素，以及如何在原文功能的基础上制定切合翻译目的的翻译策略，并将翻译分为工具性翻译(instrumental translation)和文献型翻译(documentary translation)，前者指翻译作为译入语文化新的交际行为中的独立信息传递工具，后者指翻译作为原文作者和原文接受者在源语文化交际中的文献。文化学派翻译理论“文化学派”在中国翻译界普遍使用，西方译学界使用另外一些名称，譬如“描述翻译研究”(descriptive translation studies)学派，或简称“描述学派”；”目标语中心研究”，“操纵学派”。核心研究范式是“描写/系统/操纵范式”。从文化层面进行翻译研究，将翻译文学作为译语文学系统的一部分，并采用描述性的研究范式。詹姆斯.霍尔姆斯James Homles原籍美国，长期任教于荷兰阿姆斯特丹大学文学系，从事比较文学和翻译理论研究。1972年发表论文翻译学的名与实(The Name and Nature of Translation Studies)。讨论了”translatology”（翻译学）、”the theory of translating” 或“the theory of translation”（翻译理论）、“science of translation”或 “translation science”（翻译科学）等属于，并指出其各自局限，最后认为translati