奈達(dá)翻譯理論的研究

摘要：作為一個學(xué)者，教師，創(chuàng)新，和有影響力的理論家，奈達(dá)在 “圣經(jīng)社會運動”的歷史上有著無與倫比的全球影響。感謝他和他的功能對等論，豐富和挑戰(zhàn)了圣經(jīng)翻譯和翻譯研究領(lǐng)域，令其成為一個令人激動的研究領(lǐng)域和話題。但本文認(rèn)為，雖然奈達(dá)理論有其自身的弱點和局限性，但對這一理論有些誤會和誤解。

Abstract：A scholar， teacher， innovator， and influential theoretician. Nida is very possibly unsurpassed in the history of the Bible Society movement in terms of global impact. Thanks to him and his explication of functional equivalence translation， the world of Bible translation and translation studies has been enriched and challenged into an exciting field of study and discourse. But this paper argues that although Nida’s theory has its own weakness and limitations， there are some misunderstandings and misconceptions concerning Nida’s theory.

關(guān)鍵詞：奈達(dá)理論；誤解；對等；讀者反應(yīng)

Key words：Nida’s theory， misunderstandings， equivalence， readers’ response.

[中圖分類號]：H085.3[文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼]：A

[文章編號]：1002-2139(2011)-19-0152-02

Ⅰ.Introduction

Eugene Nada’s theory of translation developed from his own practical work from the 1940s onwards when he was translating and organizing the translation of the Bible. His theory took concrete form in two major works in the 1960s: Towards a Science of Translating (1964a) and the co-authored The Theory and Practice of Translation. The title of the first book is significant; Nida’s more systematic approach borrows theoretical concepts and terminology both from semantics and pragmatics and from Noam Chomsky’s work on syntactic structure which formed theory of generative-transformational grammar (Chomsky 1957，1965).

Nida’s translation theory has been prevalent in China and undergone a dramatic and eventful period of twenty years or so. From the mid-1990s to the present， Nida’s theory was criticized severely and even denied by some Chinese translation scholars.

Ⅱ.Criticism and Denial of Nida’s Theory

From the mid-1990s to the present time， Nida’s theory has met severe criticisms and even denials. In the late 1990s， Nida’s theory was repudiated for its concept of readers’ response. Liu Yingkai， in his “E.Nida’s Theory of Reader’s Response: Its Negative Impact”(1997)，claimed that Nida advocated an extreme domesticating translation method in his theory.In Liu’s view，Nida’s theory paid little attention to the author and the original text. While Nida gave too much consideration to the reader of the target language， the form of the original message did not matter much. Liu argued that according to Nida’s theory the message could be added or omitted at will and consequently the message was distorted so that translation could not fulfill the purpose of cultural exchange(1997:1).

Of all the criticism about Nida’s theory， Wang Dongfeng’s criticism is the severest. In his “Cultural Differences and Reader’s Response: On the Notion of the Reader’s Equal Response Proposed by Nida”(2000)，Wang denied Nida’s theory in the following respects: Nida’s theory was only applicable to Bible translation， and could not be used as a theory for general translation， particularly for literary translation. Wang asserted that Nida’s theory， based on Bible translating， gave priority to content over form. But in literary translation form played a significant role. In addition， the Bible readers might have the same response in respect of people’s belief in God， but the readers of literary works could not.

Ⅲ.Misunderstandings concerning Nida’s theory Admittedly

Nida’s theory has its own weakness and Bible translation only. But misunderstandings and misconceptions do exist in the way his theory is approached by Chinese scholars.

Nida takes“readers’response”as a translation criterion in evaluating translation.

Nida in his theory attaches great importance to the role of readers of the receptor language， but he does not merely take “readers’ response” to evaluate translation. In reviewing Nida on Translation(1984)，Lao Long distorts Nida’s new concept of translation by saying that Nida“take readers’ response to the translated text as a translation criterion”(1987).Thus，it gives rise to misunderstanding that“dynamic equivalence” is equivalent to “reader-response theory” in literary criticism.

In brief， reader-response criticism has two features:(1) the effect of the literary work on the reader， and (2)the relegation of the text to secondary importance. Clearly， in reader-response criticism， the authority of the text is diminished. Nida’s “dynamic equivalence”， however， is essentially text-oriented. According to Nida， when a critic evaluates a translation， he should not merely compare the two texts in question， but compare the response of the target language readers with that of the source language readers. If their responses are substantially the same， the translated text can be considered to have achieved the goal of “dynamic equivalence”. Apparently“， dynamic equivalence” seems to be reader-oriented， but actually it is still text-oriented.

Ⅳ.Conclusion

In fact， misunderstandings in connection with Nida’s theory are not merely restricted to the aspects discussed above. There are also misconceptions concerning“naturalization in translating” “，science of translation”， and the relationship between Nida’s“ kernel sentence”“/deep structure” and Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar， etc. All the misunderstandings listed above indicate that the study of Nida’s theory in China is not adequate， and Chinese translation scholar’s understandings of Nida’s theory are still partial and short of being systematic. And some objections to his theory cannot be justified too.

References:

[1]Eugene A.Nida.Contexts in Translating.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，2001.

[2]Gao，Jian“.On the Relative Nature of Certain Elements in Translation.” Journal of Foreign Language 2(1994).

[3]Liu，Yingkai.“E.Nida’s Theory of the Reader’s Response: Its Negative Impact.” Shanghai Journal of Translators for Science and Technology 1(1997).