奈达翻译理论研究英文笔记.docx

奈达翻译理论研究英文笔记.docx

《奈达翻译理论研究英文笔记.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《奈达翻译理论研究英文笔记.docx（26页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

翻译硕士初试-认准@姚洋MTI复试-还是认准@姚洋

奈达翻译理论研究

AStudyonNida’sTranslationTheory

EnglishAbstract

ThisbookmakesasystematicresearchonNida’stranslationtheory,clarifysomemisunderstandingsconcerninghistheory,discloseitstruenatureandexploreitsvalidityandlimitationsinliterarytranslations.ExamplesfromToday’sEnglishVersionandToday’sChineseVersionoftheBible,whichweretranslated,followingNida’stranslationtheory,demonstratethatNida’stheory,contrarytosomepopularwrongassumptions,isapplicabletotranslationpracticebetweenforeignlanguagesandChinese.AcomparativestudyofNida’stheoryandJinDi’stheoryismadetorevealthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwotheories,andthereasonsfortheirdiscrepanciesarealsoexplored.ExamplesfromJin’sChinesetranslationofUlyssesareexaminedagainsttheprincipleof“equivalenteffect”.ThisbookalsoexploresthelimitationsofNida’stheoryinliterarytranslation,pointingoutthathistheoryfailstoaddresstheissueoftransferenceofaestheticvaluesofliteraryworkintoanotherlanguage.AttemptshavebeenmadetoamendNida’stheoryinrespectoftransferringaestheticvaluesofliteraryworkbymeansof“formalaestheticmarkers”and“non-formalaestheticmarkers”,withaimofmarkingitmoresuitableforliterarytranslationbetweenChineseandEnglish.

CHAPTERONE Introduction

1.1ReasonsforfurtherresearchonNida’stranslationtheory

Hisworksontranslationsetoffthestudyofmoderntranslationasanacademicfield（Snell—Hornby,Heylen,Baker）

BeforehistheorywasintroducedintoChinainthe1980s,peoplemainlyfocusedattentionontraditionalChinesetheories,especiallyYanFu’sthree—characterprincipleoftranslation:

faithfulness,smoothnessandelegance.

SinceNida’stheorywasgroundedsolidlyoncontemporarydevelopmentsoflinguistics,communicationtheory,informationtheory,semioticsandanthropology,Chinesetranslationscholarstookgreatinterestinhistheory.

ChangNamfungsummarizes4kindsofmisunderstandingsregardingNida’stheoryinChina:

1）“Dynamicequivalence”isonlyanidealtranslationctiterion

2）Nida’stheoryisunfittoguidetranslationpracticebetweenChineseandEnglishbecauseitgrowsoutoftranslationexperienceamongIndo—Europeanlanguage

3）Nida’stakes“reader’sresponse”asatranslationcriterioninevaluatingtranslation

4）Nidadoesn’trespecttheculturalfactorsinthesourcelanguageandhismaintenanceofcompletenaturalizationintranslatingisakindofculturalhegemonism.

Theterm“equivalence”inNida’stheorynevermeans“identical”,butonly“substantiallythesame”.

“dynamicequivalence”isfoundedoninformationtheory,andishasondirectrelationshipwith“receptionaesthetics”or“reader-responsetheory”atall.

Nida’sdiscussionaboutkernelsanddeepstructuresisbasedonsemanticlevelwhileChomskyfocusesonsyntacticallevel.

Nida’s“scienceoftranslation”istotallydifferentfromthedebatesofthedebateofwhether“translationisascienceoranart”occurringamongsomeChinesescholars.WhenNidatalksabout“scienceoftranslation”,whathemeansisthathetendsto“dealwiththeprocessoftranslationinascientificmanner”,drawingonthetheoriesoflinguistics,informationandcommunication,etc.

1.2AprofileofNida

1.2.3Hisacademiccontributionstomodernlinguisticsandtranslation

EricM.North,theformerGeneralSecretaryoftheAmericanBibleSocietyoftheAmericanBiblesociety,dividesNida’sacademicactivityinto4phasesonhiswritingsinchronologicalorder:

1）thephaseofdescriptivelinguistics,1943—1951

2）thephaseofcross—culturalcommunication.1952—1960

3）thetranslationphase,1961—1973

4）thesemanticphase,1974—

MessageandMissionwasthemostsignificantbookofthesecondphase.GentzlersuggestedthatitwasinthisbookthatNidafirstoutlinedhistranslationtheory.Thisbookmarkedthebeginningofthethirdphase.

Inthethirdphase,inthebook,TowardaScienceofTranslating,Nidafirstadvancedthepropositionof“dynamicequivalence”,andthethree-stagemodelofthetranslationprocess：

“analysis,transferandrestructuring”.ItiscommonlyagreedthatTowardaScienceofTranslatingbestsummarizesthevariousaspectsofhistranslationtheory.

ForNida,translatingmeanstranslatingmeaning.

ThemostrepresentativebookofthisphasewasFromOneLanguagetoAnother.Inthisbook,Nidanotonlyfurtherexploredtheissuesofmeaningofadoptingasociosemioticsapproach,butsubstituted“functionalequivalence”for“dynamicequivalence”justtoavoidunnecessarymisunderstandings.

第9页共26页

1.3AsurveyofNida’stranslationtheory

WewillreviewNida’stranslationtheoryfromtwoimportantaspects:

1）thescientificstudyoftranslating

2）theprincipleof“dynamicequivalence”

1.3.1Nida’sscientificstudyoftranslating

“Scienceoftranslating”means“forjustaslinguisticsmaybeclassifiedasadescriptivescience,sothetransferenceofamessagefromonelanguagetoanotherislikewiseavalidsubjectforscientificdescription.Hesuggeststhatitismoreeffectivetotransferthemeaningfromthesourcelanguagetothereceptorlanguageonthekernellever,becauseonthisleverthelinguisticmeaningoftheoriginaltestisstructurallythesimplestandsemanticallymostevident.

Nidaadvancesathree-steptranslationprocess:

1toanalyzesource-languageexpressionsintermsofbasickernelsentences2totransformthekernelformsofthesourcelanguageintotheequivalentkernelformsofthereceptorlanguage3totransformthekernelutterancesofthereceptorlanguageintothestylisticallyappropriateexpression

Thisprocessoftranslatinghelpsthetranslatorconsciouslyavoidliteraltranslation.

Theprincipleof“dynamicequivalence”（whichwaslatermodifiedinto“functionalequivalence”）hasascientificbasisaswell.Itissolidly foundedoninformationtheoryorcommunicationtheory.

Nidaseestranslationasacommunicationevent.

Nidaholdsthatintranslating,thefirstthingoneshoulddoistounderstandthoroughlythemeaningofthesourcetext.Inadequateunderstandingoftheoriginaltextisthemajorcauseforfailuresintranslation.Indescribingreferentialmeaningofwordsorphrases,heusesvarioustechniquesofsemantictheoriessuchaschainanalysis,hierarchicalanalysisandcomponentialanalysis.

ItisevidentthatNida’stheoryoftranslationisnotmerelylinguistic—oriented,butsociolinguistic—oriented.

1.3.2Theprincipleofdynamicequivalence

Translatingconsistsinproducinginthereceptorlanguagetheclosetnaturalequivalenttothemessageofthesourcelanguage,firstinmeaningandsecondlyinstyle.

Inhis1969textbookTheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,“dynamicequivalence”isdefined“intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessageinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptorsinthesourcelanguage”.

InFromOneLanguagetoAnother,theexpression“dynamicequivalence”issupersededby“functionalequivalence”.Thesubstitutionof“functionalequivalence”isjusttostresstheconceptoffunctionandtoavoidmisunderstandingsoftheterm“dynamic”.

InLanguage,CultureandTranslation,“functionalequivalence”isfurtherdividedintocategoriesontwolevels:

theminimallevelandthemaximallevel.Theminimallevelisdefinedas“thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendintothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit”. Themaximallevelisstatedas“theessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid”.

InNida’stheory,“dynamicequivalence”isdefinedwith“receptors’response”asitsnature.Nida’sconceptoftranslatingshiftsfrom“theformofmessage”to“theresponseofthereceptor”.

InNida’sview,whendeterminingwhetheratranslationisfaithfultotheoriginaltextornot,thecriticshouldnotcomparetheformalstructuresbetweenthesourcetextanditstranslation,butcomparethe“receptors’response”. Ifhefindsthatthethereaderinthereceptorlanguageunderstandsandappreciatesthetranslatedtextinessentiallythesamemannerandtothesamedegreeasthereaderinthesourcelanguagedid,suchatranslationcanbeevaluatedasadynamicequivalenttranslation.

Nida’stheoryof“readers’response”emphasizestheimportanceoftheacceptanceofatranslatedtextbytheintendedreaderinthereceptorlanguage,andavoidsthesubjectiveevaluationofthecritic.

Nida’stheoryhaspracticalsignificanceforliterarytranslationinsomeaspects,butitisafactthatitfailstoaddresstheissueoftransferringaestheticvaluesofliteraryworkinliterarytranslation.

TheinadequacyofNida’stheoryforliterarytranslationismademanifestin3aspects:

1Nidapayslittleattentiontothetransferenceofstyleinhistranslationprocess:

2Nida’sdiscussionofstyleisverygeneralandsuperficial:

3Nida’sfunctionalapproachtostyledoesnotprovideeffectivemeanstotransferaestheticvaluesofliterarywork.

1.4Theguidingprinciplesoftheresearch

Thetaskoftranslationtheoryistostudytranslationproblems,notranslationproblems,notranslationtheory（Newmark1998）.

1.5Themethodologicalapproach

Differentviewsoftranslationaredeterminedbydifferentviewsoflanguageandculture.

InNida’sview,eachlanguagehasitsowngenius,andtherearenosuchthingsassuperiororinferiorlanguages.Anythingthatcanbesaidinonelanguagecanbesaidinanother,andhumanlanguageshavemoreincommonthanindifference.Itisthisviewoflanguagethatprovidesthetheoreticalba