The-theory-and-practice-of-translation-奈达的翻译理论与实践

ThetheoryandpracticeoftranslationEugeneA.NidaandCharlesR.Taber1974Contents1.Anewconceptoftranslation2.Thenatureoftranslating3.Grammaticalanalysis4.Referentialmeaning5.Connotativemeaning6.Transfer7.Restructuring8.TestingthetranslationChapterOneTheoldfocusandthenewfocusTheolderfocusintranslatingwastheformofthemessage,andthetranslatortooparticulardelightinbeingabletoreproducestylisticspecialties,e.g.,rhythms,rhymes,playsonwords,chiasmus,parallelism,andusualgrammaticalstructures.Thenewfocus,however,hasshiftedfromtehformofthemessagetotheresponseofthereceptor.Therefore,whatonemustdetermineistheresponseofthereceptortotetranslatedmessage,thisresponsemustbecomparedwiththewayinwhichtheoriginalreceptorspresumablyreactedtothemessagewhenitwasgiveninitsoriginalsetting.ChapterTwoTranslatingconsistsinreproducinginthereceptorlanguagetheclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage,firstintermsofmeaningandsecondlyintermsofstyle.Butthisrelativelysimplestatementrequirescarefulevaluationofseveralseeminglycontradictoryelements.ReproducingthemessageTranslatingmustaimprimarilyat“reproducingthemessage.”Todoanythingelseisessentiallyfalsetoone’staskasatranslator.Buttoreproducethemessageonemustmakeagoodmanygrammaticalandlexicaladjustments.EquivalenceratherthanidentityThetranslatormuststrivefortheequivalenceratherthanidentity.Inasense,thisisjustanotherwayofemphasizingthereproductionofthemessageratherthantheconversationoftheformoftheutterance,butitreinforcestheneedforradicalalterationofaphrase,whichmaybequietmeaningless.AnaturalequivalentThebesttranslationdoesnotsoundlikeatranslation.Inotherwords,agoodtranslationoftheBiblemustnotbe“culturaltranslation”.Rather,itisa“linguistictranslation”.Thatistosay,itshouldstudiouslyavoid“translationese”--formalfidelity,withresultingunfaithfulnesstothecontentandtheimpactofthemessage.ThepriorityofmeaningAshasalreadybeenindictedinthedefinitionoftranslating,meaningmustbegivenpriority,foritosthecontentofthemessagewhichisofprimeimportanceforBibletranslating.ThesignificanceofstyleThoughstyleissecondarytocontent,itisneverthelessimportant,oneshouldnottranslatepoetryasthoughitwereprose,norexpositorymaterialasthoughitwerestraightnarrative.Intryingtoreproducethestyleoftheoriginalonemustbeware,however,ofproducingsomethingwhichisnotfunctionallyequivalent.AsystemofprioritiesAsaabasisforjudgingwhatshouldbedoneinspecificinstancesoftranslating,itisessentialtoestablishcertainfundamentalsetsofpriorities:(1)contextualconsistencyhaspriorityoververbalconsistency(orword-for-wordconcordance),(2)dynamicequivalencehaspriorityoverformalcorrespondence,(3)theauralformoflanguagehaspriorityoverthewrittenform,(4)formsthatareusedbyandacceptabletotheaudienceforwhichatranslationisintendedhavepriorityoverformsthatmaybetraditionallymoreperspectives.ThepriorityofdynamicequivalenceoverformalcorrespondenceIfwelookatthetranslationsintermsofthereceptors,ratherthanintermsoftheirrespectiveforms,thenweintroduceanotherpointofview;theintelligibilityofthetranslation.Suchintelligibilityisnot,however,tobemeasuredmerelyintermsofwhetherthewordsareunderstandable,andthesentencesgrammaticallyconstructed,butintermsofthetotalimpact,themessagehasontheonewhoreceivesit.Dynamicequivalenceisthereforetobedefinedintermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessageinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptorinthesourcelanguage.Thisresponsecanneverbeidentical,frothecultureandhistoricalsettingsaretoodifferent,butthereshouldbeahighdegreeofequivalenceofresponse,orthetranslationwillhavefailedtoaccomplishitspurpose.Itwouldbewrongtothink,however,thattheresponseofthereceptorsinthesecondlanguageismerelyintermsofcomprehensionoftheinformation,forcommunicationisnotmerelyinformative.Itmustalsobeexpressiveandimperativeifitistoservetheprincipalpurposesofcommunications.Ofcourse,personsmayinsistthatbyitsverynatureadynamicequivalenttranslationisaless“accurate”translation,foritdepartsfurtherfromtheformsoftheoriginal.Toargueinthismanner,however,istouse“accurate”inaformalsense,whereasaccuracycanonlyberightlydeterminedbyjudgingtheextenttowhichtheresponseofthereceptorissubstantiallyequivalenttotherespondoftheoriginalreceptors.Inotherwords,doesthedynamicequivalenttranslationsucceedmorecompletelyinevokinginthereceptorsresponseswhicharesubstantiallyequivalenttothoseexperiencedbytheoriginalreceptors?If“accuracy”istobejudgedinthislight,thencertainlythedynamicequivalenttranslationisnotonlymoemeaningfultothereceptorsbutalsomoreaccurate.Thisassumes,ofcourse,thatboththeformalcorrespondencetranslationandthedynamicequivalenttranslationdonotcontainanyoverterrorsofexegesis.GrammaticalanalysisTherearethreemajorstepsinanalysis:(1)determiningtheminingthemeaningfulrelationshipsbetweenthewordsandcombinationsofwords,(2)thereferentialmeaningofthewordsandspecialcombinationsofwords,idioms,(3)theconnotativemeaning.KernelsentencesWesoondiscoverthatwehavesimplyrecasttheexpressionssothateventsareexpressedasverbs,objectsasnouns,abstracts(quantitiesandqualities)asadjectivesoradverbs.T