尤金奈达:尤金奈达翻译作品有哪些

1.尤金奈达翻译作品有哪些

翻译中的语境、

2.尤金奈达的生平简介

尤金·奈达（EugeneA.Nida）1914年出生于美国俄克勒荷马州，当代著名语言学家、翻译家和翻译理论家。尤金是当代翻译理论的主要奠基人，其理论核心是功能对等。尤金1943年获语言学博士学位，后长期担任美国圣经协会翻译部的执行秘书，尤金先后访问过90个国家和地区，单独或合作出版了40多部书。

3.尤金·奈达的功能对等理论中的对等： 1.词汇对等, 2.句法对等, 3.篇章对等, 4.文体对等。

【一】词汇对等一个词的意义在于它在语言中的用法。在实际翻译中，让我们困惑的是怎样在目的语里找到对应的意义。在没有上下文的情况下，都有不同的解释”这句话至少可以翻译成以下不同的汉语，英汉词汇对等包含了字词对等、多词同义、一词多义、词义交织和无对等词语等五种对应情况。其中字词的完全对等主要是专用名和技术词汇，尽管在两种语言之间。没有哪两个词的意义是完全相同的，但语言可以使用不同的形式来表达相同的意义，之间的音位和拼写差异是很明显的“但却指向同一事物”语言之间有时有些历史的和偶然的相似性又会导致误会。如英语里demand和法语里的demander尽管词源相同．但所表达的意思却有较大的差异，国际联盟在一则新闻发布上犯了个错误。法语的demander意思是，ask。但翻译却把它当作英语的demand来理解“因此许多美国人错误的回绝了法国人所要求的最基本的承诺”即使日文大量借用了汉字．但并不意味着它们所代表的意义也相同，的汉语意义是卫生纸，日语里则代表。要在两种语言里找到完全对等的词汇是不可能的。【二】句法对等无庸质疑“句法对等比词汇对等更复杂”在英汉互译时。一个最明显的问题涉及到了单数和复数的范畴，汉语经常用到复数时无明显语言标示。而在英语里，复数则体现得淋漓尽致。性和数等语法标示在翻译时还会涉及时态的一致性。译者不仅要清楚在目的语言里有没有这种结构，而且还要明白这种结构的使用频率。词汇的差异也会给句法对等带来翻译上的障碍。汉语没有关系代词，这就意味着在英汉翻译时。需要考虑定语从句的次序和组合，在翻译过程中让句法结构重组变得更复杂的是汉语的定语在句子前面。这就是为什么汉语句子要明显比英语短，【三】篇章对等篇章对等又叫语篇对等，语篇是一种语言使用单位。我们在进行语篇分析时不能只分析语言本身。而要看语言是怎样在特定的语境中体现意义和功能。语篇对等包含三个层面。情景语境和文化语境，上下文语境，语言的上下文分析主要是在确认语义成分的基础上。在翻译过程中运用语用前提推理：在对语言上下文的分析的基础上，判断单词或语义单位在原文中的含义。从而确定语义的翻译转换：人生需要一种境界，面对别人的成功与荣耀：我明白那掌声已有所属，匆匆忙忙赶过去．不会有成功等着你：跟着别人永远只能摸着成功的尾巴，的翻译很费神，时下人心浮躁，比喻知识分子的高洁”某些语言现象通过上下文无法弄清其确切意义，必须参考语言使用时发生的事件、参与者和交际方式等因素才能确定其意义。姐姐竟是我的大恩人．使我从前之名一洗无余了“奴愿做妹子。每日服侍姐姐梳头洗面。只求姐姐在二爷跟前替我好言方便方便。《红楼梦》上例说的是王熙凤骗尤二姐人大观园的情景。为了骗取尤氏的信任”一向言辞泼辣的王熙凤突然变得温柔恳切。满嘴花言巧语，句句甜言蜜语，极尽讨好奉承之能事，译者David Hawkes洞察了人物性格的变化，把握住了情景语境的作用。再现了不同场景下的人物的不同嘴脸，忠实地传达了原文的意思，文化语境，文化语境指语言运用的社会文化背景、历史文化传统及社会心理等。由于各民族历史发展过程不同、地理位置不同、同一时期所处的社会发展阶段不同：因而其价值观、习俗、宗教信仰等都存在很大差异。翻译是种跨文化的语言交际，翻译的内容不仅是语言符号的转码。而且是语言符号所承载的文化。翻译不可避免地与文化发生着千丝万缕的联系。不同国家、不同民族、不同言语社团活动的多样性和观念的多元化，使其文化内容和形式出现多样性。这些便是文化差异的渊源，也是造成翻译障碍的主要因素，翻译中时常会遇到诸如词汇空缺、文化误解甚至文化冲突等难题，这些难题难以用翻译技巧加以解决。因此译者必须要深入了解源语和译人语文化，对于真正成功的翻译而言。熟悉两种文化甚至比掌握两种语言更重要：因为词语只有在其作用的文化背景中才有意义“请看下例，1 was Frankenstein. 此处翻译难点是Pygmalion和Frankenstein所涉及的文化语境。Pygmalion是希腊神话中的塞浦路斯国王”他雕了一个绝美的女像：并不由自主爱上了她;他的爱发自内心。就连爱神阿芙罗狄特(Aphrodite)也为之动情，便赋予那女像以生命。二人得以终成眷属，Frankenstein是英国作家谢利(Mary W．Shelley)小说Frankenstein中的主人公，他是个年轻的医学研究者，创造了一个怪物却最终被其毁灭，Pygmalion在此比喻，创造美和享受美，而Frankenstein则比喻。【四】文体对等不同文体的翻译作品有着各自独特的语言特征”只有在同时掌握源语和目的语两种语言的特征，且能熟练运用两种语言的情况下“译者才能创造出真实体现源语风格的翻译作品，作品语言风格的不同就意味着所蕴涵的文化因素也各不相同”科技体裁所承载的文化因素较少。准确如实地将源语信息内容转化成目的语远远比对两种语言文化的转换要重要得多，在文学体裁的作品中。文化就成为翻译中应考虑的重要因素之一：如果忽略了文化因素．译作就成了没血没肉的、只是由词汇和句子堆积起来的躯壳，优秀的译者在文学翻译实践中应充分考虑如何处理不同体裁作品中的文化差异。以诗歌为例，诗歌是富含文化因素最多的一种文学体裁，无论是其形式或内容都充分展现了它自身的文化特性。英语的十四行诗和汉语的七律诗都体现了各自浓厚的文化特色，在翻译实践中。除准确地再现诗的内涵、风格和原作者的思想外，还应译出诗的文化特色，许多翻译技巧。

4.尤金奈达language, culture and translation. 求原句及页数，谢谢

but his theories of translation are stated in terms of how to produce an acceptable translation. So we can translate based on his principle of functional equivalence. It is widely acknowledged that translation aims to achieve both formal equivalence of (content-oriented and form-oriented) factors and functional equivalence of extratextal (situational and”Eugene A. Nida:background;functional equivalence;some other translators尤金.奈达和他的翻译理论中文摘要对尤金. 奈达背景的介绍让我们对他有了更深层次的认识.虽然现今在科技方面还没有一个健全的翻译理论---即有一个统一的原则来解释一整类的现象.但是他的翻译理论是以如何翻译出可接受的译文为起始条件的.所以我们就可以在他的功能对等的原则基础上进行翻译. 译学界对翻译中的等值问题众说纷纭;但大致认为原文与译文应达到形式（内容和形式）等值和功能（语境和读者反应）等值，从这篇论文中。我们同时也可对其他的翻译家有一点了解.关键词,尤金.奈达:背景；翻译理论；功能对等；其他翻译家Brief Biography of Eugene NidaBorn on November 11；OK,summa cum laude,he enrolled in the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and discovered the works of such linguists as Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield. Nida then pursued a Master',s degree in Greek New Testament at the University of Southern California. In 1941 he began a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of Michigan and;and from then until he retired in the 1980’s,often using his SIL connections. These site visits led him to see that his most important role for ABS Translations'resources,training,1969,with C.R. Taber) helped him achieve this objective.These two very influential books were his first book-length efforts to expound his theory on what he called dynamic eqthe United Bible Societies (UBS) and the Vatican entered into a joint agreement to undertake hundreds of new interconfessional Bible translation projects ateacher,leader,the world of Bible translation and translation studies has been enriched and challenged into an exciting field of study and discourse.Retired since the early 1980s,Belgium.(1)Theories of TranslationAs yet there is no theory of translation in the technical sense of“psychology,and semiotics. The fact that there is no generally accepted theory for any one of these behavioral disciplines should be a sufficient reason for people to realize that there is nothing basically inadequate about translating simply because those who translate cannot explain by means of a comprehensive theory precisely why they do what they do.The various sets of principles or rules about how to translate can be,However,translatpsychology,(1) the tendency for advocates of a particular theory to build their theory on a specific discipline and often on its applicability to a single literary genre or designative rather than associative meaning. This is particularly true of those theories of translating which depend on some form of propositional logic to provide the categories for establishing:form,meaning,since these have been the only texts considered worthy of careful translating. Concern for why and how to translate,some philologists insisted that translation is simply impossible.

5.跪求Eugene A. Nida（尤金 奈达）的简介

Eugene A. Nida and His Theories of TranslationAbstractT he introduction of the background of Eugene Nida give a better understanding to the readers and let us know his works. As yet there is no theory of translation in the technical sense of “a coherent set of general propositions used as principles to explain a class of phenomena,” but his theories of translation are stated in terms of how to produce an acceptable translation. So we can translate based on his principle of functional equivalence. It is widely acknowledged that translation aims to achieve both formal equivalence of (content-oriented and form-oriented) factors and functional equivalence of extratextal (situational and, above all, recipient -oriented) factors. From this passage, we can also know some other translators besides Eugene A. Nida.Key words: Eugene A. Nida; background; theories of translation; functional equivalence; some other translators尤金.奈达和他的翻译理论中文摘要对尤金. 奈达背景的介绍让我们对他有了更深层次的认识.虽然现今在科技方面还没有一个健全的翻译理论---即有一个统一的原则来解释一整类的现象.但是他的翻译理论是以如何翻译出可接受的译文为起始条件的.所以我们就可以在他的功能对等的原则基础上进行翻译. 译学界对翻译中的等值问题众说纷纭，但大致认为原文与译文应达到形式（内容和形式）等值和功能（语境和读者反应）等值。从这篇论文中,我们同时也可对其他的翻译家有一点了解.关键词: 尤金.奈达； 背景； 翻译理论； 功能对等； 其他翻译家Brief Biography of Eugene NidaBorn on November 11, 1914, in Oklahoma City, OK, Eugene Nida and his family moved to Long Beach, California when he was 5 years old. He began studying Latin in high school and was already looking forward to being able to translate Scripture as a missionary. By the time he received his Bachelor’s degree in 1936 from the University of California at Los Angeles, he was well on his way. Having earned his degree in Greek, summa cum laude, he enrolled in the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and discovered the works of such linguists as Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield. Nida then pursued a Master's degree in Greek New Testament at the University of Southern California. In 1941 he began a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of Michigan and completed it in two years. His dissertation, A Synopsis of English Syntax was, at that time, the only full-scale analysis of a major language according to the “immediate constituent” theory.The year 1943 was a busy one for Eugene Nida. In addition to completing his Ph.D., he was ordained in the Northern Baptist Convention. He married Althea Nida, nee Sprague, and joined the staff of the American Bible Society (ABS) as a linguist. Although his initial hiring was experimental, Nida was made Associate Secretary for Versions from 1944-46, and from then until he retired in the 1980’s, he was Executive Secretary for Translations.Upon joining the ABS staff, Dr. Nida immediately set out on a series of extended field trips in Africa and Latin America. On these visits he worked with missionary translators on linguistic problems, and searched for potential indigenous translators, often using his SIL connections. These site visits led him to see that his most important role for ABS Translations' interests would not be limited to checking translations for publication, but of educating translators, and providing them with better models, resources, training, and organization for efficiency. This he managed to do through on-site visits, teaching and training workshops, and through building a translations network and organizational structure that became the global United Bible Societies Translations Program through which work in hundreds of indigenous languages is constantly in process around the world.Nida was determined to produce a theory that would foster effective communication of the Good News across all kinds of cultural and linguistics barriers. A prolific writer, his book Toward a Science of Translating (Brill, 1964), and later The Theory and Practice of Translation (Brill, 1969, with C.R. Taber) helped him achieve this objective.These two very influential books were his first book-length efforts to expound his theory on what he called dynamic equivalence translation, later to be called functional equivalence. How significant, revolutionary, and convincing this new approach proved to be can be seen in the fact that hundreds of Bible translations have now been effectively carried out with this methodology. In essence, this approach enables the translator to capture the meaning and spirit of the original language text without being bound to its linguistic structure.His 1986 publication, with Jan de Waard, From One Language to another (Nelson) is the summative explication of functional equivalence translation. Over the years his many other books and articles covered such important subjects as exegesis, semantics and discourse structure, and a thorough semantic analysis of the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament – Nida and Louw, The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (UBS, 1988).Nida’s work with indigenous language translations had shown that in order to reach people who bring no prior knowledge to their encounter with the Bible, the translation needs to place the highest priority on clear communication in easily understood language and style. Thus, under the leadership of translator William Wonderly, a Spanish New Testament, called the Versión Popular, a contemporary translation, was published in 1966.At almost the same time, the Good News Bible New Testament, Today’s English Version (TEV), under the leadership of Robert G. Bratcher, a Nida colleague, was published. Both of these books were enormously successful publications, with sales in dozens of millions even before the Bible editions were published in 1976.The success of these translations led to many churches endorsing the effectiveness of the functional equivalence approach for clarity of communication of the message of the Bible. In 1968, the United Bible Societies (UBS) and the Vatican entered into a joint agreement to undertake hundreds of new interconfessional Bible translation projects around the world, using functional equivalence principles. Again, Nida was one of the principals on this collaborative work.A scholar, teacher, leader, influencer, conceptualizer, innovator, and influential theoretician, Eugene A. Nida is very possibly unsurpassed in the history of the Bible Society movement in terms of global impact. His work, his organization, his ideas and the organization he put into place represent a watershed for the movement and for Bible translation. Thanks to him, the world of Bible translation and translation studies has been enriched and challenged into an exciting field of study and discourse.Retired since the early 1980s, Dr. Nida currently lives in Brussels, Belgium.(1)Theories of TranslationAs yet there is no theory of translation in the technical sense of “a coherent set of general propositions used as principles to explain a class of phenomena,” but there are quite a few of “theories” in the broad sense of “a set of principles which are helpful in understanding the nature of translating or in establishing criteria for evaluating a translated text.” In general, however, these principles are stated in terms of how to produce an acceptable translation.The lack of a fully acceptable theory of translation should not come as a surprise, since translating is essentially a very complex phenomenon, and insights concerning this interlingual activity are derived from a number of different disciplines, e.g. linguistics, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, communication theory, literary criticism, aesthetics, and semiotics. The fact that there is no generally accepted theory for any one of these behavioral disciplines should be a sufficient reason for people to realize that there is nothing basically inadequate about translating simply because those who translate cannot explain by means of a comprehensive theory precisely why they do what they do.The various sets of principles or rules about how to translate can be helpfully discussed in terms of historical developments, which Snell—Hornby (2)has done very effectively, or they may be discussed in terms of certain disciplines which have provided the basic insights to explain various aspects of translation and interpreting. The formulation of translation theories, however, involves primarily the Western world, although in China people have discussed extensively their traditional three principles of and ideal translation, namely, faithfulness, smoothness, and elegance, but without ever coming to any conclusion about the relative importance of the principles. During the Middle Ages a great deal of translation took place in the Arab world from Bagdad to Toledo, but the principles which were employed have had no significant impact on present—day practice in the world community of translators.There are, however, certain difficulties involved in trying to discuss translation theories on a strictly historical basis. In many instances the differences about principles of translation only reflect changing fashions about literature, and in some cases heated arguments about how to translate seem to reflect little more than personal prejudices and literary rivalries. Too often the differences depend on extreme positions, e.g. the contention by Ortegay Gasset(3) and Croce (4)that translation is really impossible. Mounin (5) has remarked about how inconsistent such authors have been in agreeing to have their writings translated.Since the Bible has been translated for a longer period of time and into more languages than any other book, it is not strange that some of the conflicts about principles of translation have focused on how one can legitimately translate a book which is regarded as divinely inspired. The answer to this type of problem in the Arab world was to decide that the Koran should not be translated, and as a result most translations of the Koran have been done by non-Muslims. In Christendom, However, translating flourished in the first few centuries and again during the Reformation, but arguments about literal or free translations reflected theological presuppositions more than linguistic concerns.A more useful approach to the study of the diversity of translation theories is to group together variously related theories on the basis of the disciplines that have served as the basic points of reference for some of the primary insights: 1. philology, although often spoken of as “literary criticism” or “literary analysis,” 2.linguistics, and especially sociolinguistics (language used in communication), and 3. semiotics, particularly socio-semiotics, the study of sign systems used in human communication. This order of disciplines reflects a somewhat historical development, but each of these orientations in translating is endorsed and favored by a number of present-day scholars. At the same time it is important to recognize some of the important contributions being made to translation by other related disciplines, for example, psychology, information theory, informatics, and sociology.There are, however, two fundamental problems in almost all of these approaches to translating: (1) the tendency for advocates of a particular theory to build their theory on a specific discipline and often on its applicability to a single literary genre or designative rather than associative meaning. This is particularly true of those theories of translating which depend on some form of propositional logic to provide the categories for establishing “equivalence.”Theories Based on Philological InsightsPhilology, the study of written texts, including their authenticity, form, meaning, and influence, has been the primary basis for discussions of translation theories and practice for some two thousand years. In general the texts have been literary productions, since these have been the only texts considered worthy of careful translating. Concern for why and how to translate arose among Romans who were interested in rendering the Greek Classics into Latin. But the issues discussed by such persons as Cicero, Hoeace, Quintilian, Catullus, and the younger Pliny focused primarily on the issues of literal vs. free translating. Was a translator, for example, justified in rendering the sense at the expense of the words and grammar, or should the meaning of a phrase be sacrificed in order to conserve the form of the original text? For the most part leading Roman writers and scholars opted for freedom in translating, but the practice of translating and concern for principles of effective communication largely died out during the Middle Ages.With the intellectual explosion of the Renaissance Les Belles Infideles “the beautiful unfaithful ones” dominated the new trend in translating the Classics into the vernacular languages of Europe. And although Cowley’s(6) translation of Pindar’s Odes was by no means as extreme as some of the more “far out” examples of early enthusiasm for freedom in translating, he was nevertheless strongly criticized by Dryden (7), whi proposed a theory of translating based on three major types: metaphrase, paraphrase, and imitation. By metaphrase Dryden meant a literal, word-for-word rendering of a text, and by imitation he meant radical departures, including additions and reinterpretation. Accordingly, paraphrase was desighed to represent the logical compromise between the extremes.In this approach to the problem of translating literary texts Dryden was supported by Pope , but Matthew Arnold (8)reacted against such freedom and insisted on preserving the form of an original, even though the meaning and the spirit of a text might suffer. In order to illustrate his point of view, he translated the Illiad and Odysseyinto English hexameters. Since such attempts at literal rendering proved largely unacceptable, some philologists insisted that translation is simply impossible.

6.有哪本作品的英译汉翻译大量应用了尤金奈达的解包袱法？

t,but also so profound.

7.求尤金奈达的《翻译科学探索》电子书或者PDF版本 中文就可以～非常感

掌阅上有搜到，但没有上架。