第二讲翻译理论的辉煌

第二讲翻译理论的辉煌西方翻译理论的主要流派及成就1.美国翻译理论Eugene.A.Nida：FunctionalEquivalenceOklahoma,piousChristian,LosAngelUniversity,SouthCaliforniaUniversity(MasterinHollyBibleNewTestamentinGreece)MichiganUniversity(DoctorofLinguisticsguidedbyCharlesFries&LeonardBloomfieldin1943)美国圣经公会供职从事组织和指导圣经翻译工作。著作40多部，论文250余篇最早、最多，影响最大。谭载喜《奈达论翻译》《中国翻译》和外国语。1984年，中国对外翻译出版公司与金隄合著OnTranslation:WithSpecialReferencetoChineseandEnglish《论翻译》Language,Culture,andTranslating(1993)《语言、文化与翻译》ShanghaiForeignLanguaeEducationPress世界性的深远影响，为翻译注入了新思想和活力，引进了新的概念和方法。“奈达的著作，开创了翻译理论的新时代。”（ChristianBalliu）奈达的翻译思想分成三阶段：1）描写语言学句法、词法和语义翻译问题的描写研究2）交际理论运用语言学理论最重要，成熟、发展、系统3）社会符号学运用社会语言学和社会符号学翻译从科学到艺术的转化翻译是艺术(art)，翻译家是天生的；翻译研究是科学(science)，是比较语言学的重要分支。翻译基本上是一种技艺（technology），需要多种学科才能产生令人满意的译作，包括语言学、文化人类学、心理学和交际理论（1996）。奈达的基本翻译思想：1）翻译是交际活动2）翻译主要是译意3）为了译意，必须改变语言表达形式。翻译过程四阶段：分析(analysis)、转换(transfer)、重组(restructure)和检验(test)。Eugene.A.Nida’stranslatingthoughtandtheoryhavemadeworldwideinfluence.Notonlyhashepublishedagreatnumberofbooksandessaysontranslation,butalsoheisactiveintakingpartininternationalacademicexchangesandalwaysgiveslecturesallovertheworldeveninhiseighties.Hehasbroughtnewthoughtandvigortothecareeroftranslationbyintroducingnewconceptsandmethods.Isitatranslator’stasktofocusprimarilyonthesourcecultureorthetargetculture?Althoughtheanswerisnotclear-cut,thedominantcriterionisthecommunicativefunctionofthetargettext.Translatingmeanscommunicating,andthisprocessdependsonwhatisreceivedbypersonshearingorreadingatranslation.Judgingthevalidityofatranslationcannotstopwithacomparisonofcorrespondinglexicalmeanings,grammaticalclasses,andrhetoricaldevices.Whatisimportantistheextenttowhichreceptorscorrectlyunderstandandappreciatethetranslatedtext.Accordingly,itisessentialthat“functionalequivalencebestatedprimarilyintermsofacomparisonofthewayinwhichtheoriginalreceptorsunderstoodandappreciatedthetextandthewayinwhichreceptorsofthetranslatedtextunderstandandappreciatethetranslatedtext.”LanguageAndCulture–ContextsinTranslating(Nida,2001)《语言与文化一翻译中的语境》Nida,oneofthegreatestscholarsinthetranslatingfield,describeshisfamoustheoryofFunctionalEquivalenceinhisseveralbooksandarticles.InTowardaScienceofTranslating(Nida,1964),《翻译科学初探》heusedtheconceptof“dynamicequivalence”torefertothe“closestnaturalequivalent”.InTheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation(Nida&Taber,1969),《翻译理论与实践》heimprovedthisconceptanddefineditlikethis:Translationistoreappearinformationofthesourcelanguageinthetargetlanguagebyselectingtheclosestnaturalequivalentoftheoriginaltextaccordingtofirstmeaning,thenstyle.Inthedefinition,“close”refersto“closeinformationtothesourcelanguage”;“natural”to“naturalformofexpressioninthetargetlanguage”;“equivalent”to“thewayinwhichtheyarecombined”.Therefore,inasense,Nidaherefocusedonsemanticequivalence（语义对等）insteadofformalcorrespondence.Buttheterm“dynamicequivalence”isalwaysmisunderstoodbysometranslators,accordinglymanyindividualshavebeenledtothinkthatifatranslationhasconsiderableimpactthenitmustbeacorrectexampleof“dynamicequivalence”.Andeveneverykindoffreetranslationscanstyleitself“dynamicequivalent”.Becauseofthismisunderstandingandinordertoemphasizetheconceptoffunction,itseemsmuchmoresatisfactorytousetheexpression“functionalequivalence”indescribingthedegreesofadequacyofatranslation.SoinFromOneLanguagetoAnother:FunctionalEquivalenceinBibleTranslation(Nida&Warrd,1986),《从一种语言到另一种语言：论圣经翻译中的功能对等》Nidachangedthetermof“dynamicequivalence”intothatof“functionalequivalence”.Theterms“function”and“functional”seemtoprovideamuchsounderbasisfortalkingabouttranslationasaformofcommunication,sincethefocusisonwhatatranslationdoesorperforms.Inthisbook,Nidaalsodevelopedhisdefinitionof“information”,declaringthatinformationinvolvestheformoflanguageaswellasthecontentofthought.Hebelievesthatformcanalsoconveymeaning.Iftheformisaltered,themeaningmaybesimultaneouslychanged.Subsequently,herequiresthattranslatorsmusttrytheirbesttoachieveboth“semanticequivalence”and“formalcorrespondence”.Theadequacyofatranslationdependsonagreatmanydifferentfactors:thereliabilityofthetextitself,thediscoursetype,theintendedreader,themannerinwhichthetranslatedtextistobeused,andthepurposeforwhichthetranslationhasbeenmade.Somanyfactorsmakeitcomplicatetoevaluateatranslation.InTheSociolinguisticsofInterlingualCommunication(Nida,1996),《跨语交际的社会语言学》Nidapointedoutthatacknowledgingthevariousdegreeof“equivalence”ismorerealistic.Ingeneral,itisbesttospeakof“functionalequivalence”intermsofarangeofadequacy,sincenotranslationisevercompletelyequivalent.Anumberofdifferenttranslationscan,infact,representvaryingdegreesofequivalence.Thismeansthat“functionalequivalence”cannotbeunderstoodinitsmathematicalmeaningofidentitybutintermsofproximity,i.e.,onthebasisofdegreesofclosenesstofunctionalidentity.Hisviewof“functionalequivalence”impliesdifferentdegreesofadequacyfrom“minimaltomaximalequivalence”onthebasisofbothcognitiveandcommunicativefactors.Asamatteroffact,translationcanonlyachieve“functionalequivalence”,i.e.,“communicativeequivalence”.LawrenceVenuti：TranslatingStrategyofDecons