The theory and practice of translation
                              Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber 1974
Contents
1. A new concept of translation
2. The nature of translating
3. Grammatical analysis
4. Referential meaning
5. Connotative meaning
6. Transfer
7. Restructuring
8. \
9. Testing the translation
Chapter One  The old focus and the new focus
The older focus in translating was the form of the message, and the translator too particular delight in being able to reproduce stylistic specialties, ., rhythms, rhymes, plays on words, chiasmus, parallelism, and usual grammatical structures. The new focus, however, has shifted from teh form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what one must determine is the response of the receptor to te translated message, this response must be compared with the way in which the original receptors presumably reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting.
Chapter Two  Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. But this relatively simple statement requires careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory elements.
Reproducing the message
Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message.” To do anything else is essentially false to one’s task as a translator. But to reproduce the message one must make a good many grammatical and lexical adjustments.
Equivalence rather than identity
。
The translator must strive for the equivalence rather than identity. In a sense, this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conversation of the form of the utterance, but it reinforces the need for radical alteration of a phrase, which may be quiet meaningless.
A natural equivalent
The best translation does not sound like a translation. In other words, a good translation of the Bible must not be “cultural translation”. Rather, it is a “linguistic translation”. That is to say, it should studiously avoid “translationese”--formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfuln
ess to the content and the impact of the message.
The priority of meaning
As has already been indicted in the definition of translating, meaning must be given priority, for it os the content of the message which is of prime importance for Bible translating.
The significance of style
Though style is secondary to content, it is nevertheless important, one should not translate poetry as though it were prose, nor expository material as though it were straight narrative.
）understandable
In trying to reproduce the style of the original one must beware, however, of producing something which is not functionally equivalent.
A system of priorities
As a a basis for judging what should be done in specific instances of translating, it is essential to establish certain fundamental sets of priorities: (1) contextual consistency has priority over verbal consistency ( or word-for-word concordance), (2) dynamic equivalence has priority over formal correspondence, (3) the aural form of language has priority over the written form, (4) forms that are used by and acceptable to the audience for which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more perspectives.
The priority of dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence
If we look at the translations in terms of the receptors, rather than in terms of their respective forms, then we introduce another point of view; the intelligibility of the translation. Such intelligibility is not, however, to be measured merely in terms of whether the words are understandable, and the sentences grammatically constructed, but in terms of the total impact, the message has on the one who receives it.
Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptor in the source language. This response can never be identical, fro the culture and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose.
；
It would be wrong to think, however, that the response of the receptors in the second language is merely in terms of comprehension of the information, for communication is not merely informative. It must also be expressive and imperative if it is to serve the principal purposes of communications.
Of course, persons may insist that by its very nature a dynamic equivalent translation is a less “accurate” translation, for it departs further from the forms of the original. To argue in this manner, however, is to use “accurate” in a formal sense, whereas accuracy can only be rightly determined by judging the extent to which the response of the receptor is subst
antially equivalent to the respond of the original receptors. In other words, does the dynamic equivalent translation succeed more completely in evoking in the receptors responses which are substantially equivalent to those experienced by the original receptors If “accuracy” is to be judged in this light, then certainly the dynamic equivalent translation is not only moe meaningful to the receptors but also more accurate. This assumes, of course, that both the formal correspondence translation and the dynamic equivalent translation do not contain any overt errors of exegesis.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。