翻译理论奈达的功能对等翻译理论课件

翻的言学派代表人物：卡特福德(John

Cunnison

Catford)彼得•(Peter

Newmark)奈达(Eugene

Albert

Nida)Suggested

Readings

自20世60年代以来有代表性、有影响的当代西方翻理流派的文或理著作。1.言学派（Liguistic）：奈达（Nida）的等翻理克（

Newmark）的与交翻伯特（Neubert）的篇翻•2.功能学派(Functionalist）：弗米（Vermeer）的翻目的德（Nord）的功能加忠翻••3.描写学派(Dscriptive)：佐哈（Even-Zohar）的多元系里（Toury）的描写翻研究勒菲弗（Lefevere）的翻改写理4.文化学派(Cutural

Studies)：努蒂（Venuti）异化翻策略弗托（Flotow）的女性主翻研究（

Robinson）的后殖民翻研究5.翻的哲学取向派(Philosophical)：斯坦（Steiner）的翻德里达（Dedrria）解构主翻6.知学派(Cognitive)：格特（Gutt）的关翻理7.翻研究(Empirical

Research

in Translation

Studies)：克（Baker）的料翻研究舍（Loescher）有声思翻程研究奈达(1914-2011)的翻理Toward

a

Science

of

Translating

(1964)The

Theory

and

Practice

of

Translation

(1969)From

one

Language

to

Another

(1986)Language

and

Culture---

Contexts

in

Translating

(2001)奈达是一位言共性者，他，能用一

种言表达的西一定能用另一种言来表达，一个民族使用的“落后”的言构并不会“限制”它世界的能力，而不同言和文化之能通找翻，以恰当方式重新信息的形式和构而行交。奈达的翻思想：翻是交活；翻主要是意；了意必改言形式。两种言之没有没有完全准确的翻。

翻种多，其决定因是：the

nature

of

the

message,the

purpose

or

purposes

of

the

author

and,

byproxy,

of

the

translator,and

(3)

the

type

of

audience.功能等《从一种言到另一种言：圣翻中的功能等》（From

One

Language

to

Another,1986）《言、文化和翻》（Language,Culture

andTranslating,

1993）和《言和文化——翻中

的境》（Language

and

Culture---Contexts

inTranslating,

2001）“信息”不包括思想内容，也包括言形式。形式也表达意，改形式也就改了意。改形式的5个条件：1.直会致意上的2.引入外来形成空白，者有可能自己填入的意；3.形式会引起重的意

不明；4.形式引起作者原意所没有的5.形式会引起文法。功能等的基本点就是“将原文本者的理解和欣的方式与文本接受者的理解和欣的方式加以比”。如果扣原文形式的翻可能引起所指意的解，就必然在文本中作某些改，或者

字面翻可以保留，但必增加脚注，明可能引起的解；如果扣原文形式不通，即所指意完全模糊不清，就可以在文本中作些改，除非原文本的目的就在于模糊不清，在种情况下，所指意的模糊不清可以保留，但用脚注明种模糊不清的性是有用的，而且在大多数例中也明是恰当的；如果扣原文形式的文在上和法上非

常困，有关的一般水平的者有可能弃

种困法加以理解，那就必文作某些改并在言或者脚注中表明那些改的性；如果扣原文形式的翻有可能引起原文本想意的重解或者在原文本格的恰当欣上造成重大的失，那么，就当作些反映原文本想意所必需的整；文被用的方式（如供和在

演出的于将要行的整程有大的影响；一种必同伴随信（

accompanying

code）一道翻的文本（比如歌曲和歌），通常需要在所有面上行多整：音韵学、法和Functional

equivalenceImplies

different

degree

of

adequacy

from

minimal

tmaximal

effectiveness

on

the

basis

of

both

cognitivand

experiential

factors.A

minimal

level

of

(realistic)

functional

equivalethe

readers

of

a

translated

text

should

be

able

tocomprehend

it

to

the

point

that

they

can

conceive

ofhow

the

original

readers

of

the

text

must

haveunderstood

and

appreciated

it.A

maximal,

ideal

functional

equivalence:

threaders

of

a

translated

text

should

be

able

tunderstand

and

appreciate

it

in

essentiallysame

manner

as

the

original

readers

did.

Themaximal

level

of

equivalence

is

rarely,

if

eachieved,

except

for

texts

having

little

oraesthetic

value

and

involving

only

routineinformation.Principles

for

producing

functional

equival1.

If

a

close,

formal

translation

is

likely

tin

a

misunderstanding

of

the

designativemeaning,

the

literal

translation

may

beretained

and

a

footnote

explaining

the

likelmisunderstanding

must

be

added.If

a

close,

formal

translation

makes

no

sense,

cechanges

may

be

introduced

into

the

text

unless

thesource

text

is

purposely

obscure,

in

which

case

theobscurity

may

be

retained,

and

a

footnote

explaininthe

nature

of

the

obscurity

may

be

very

useful

and

inmost

instances

fully

justified.If

a

close,

formal

translation

is

so

semanticallysyntactically

difficult

that

the

average

person

forwhom

the

translation

being

made

is

very

likely

to

giup

trying

to

understand

it,

certain

changes

arewarranted.If

a

close,

formal

translation

is

likely

tin

serious

misunderstanding

or

the

associatmeanings

of

the

source

text

or

in

a

significaloss

in

a

proper

appreciation

for

the

stylisvalues

of

the

source

text,

adjustments

arenecessary.The

manner

in

which

a

translation

is

to

beused

has

a

significant

influence

upon

the

exto

which

adjustments

are

to

be

made.6.

The

fact

that

a

source

text

must

betranslated

in

such

a

way

as

to

occur

withaccompanying

codes

usually

requires

anumber

of

adjustments

on

all

levels:phonology,

lexicon,

syntax,

anddiscourse.(Language

and

Culture:

ContextsTranslating)An

elegant

handwriting,

like

the

elegant

hanthat

wrote

it.

I

pushed

it

to

one

side

and

hadanother

drink,

I

began

to

feel

a

little

lesssavage.

I

pushed

things

around

the

desk.

Myhands

felt

thick

and

hot

and

awkward.

I

ran

afinger

across

the

corner