跪求Eugene A.Nida（尤金 奈达）的简介

跪求Eugene A.Nida（尤金 奈达）的简介
给您磕头了 有没有关于Eugene A.Nida（尤金 奈达）的介绍啊中英文皆可
刚注册的就25个积分只能给整数 要是有1W分我也会给的

Eugene A. Nida and His Theories of Translation
　　Abstract
　　T 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 Nida
　　Born 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 Translation
　　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 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 Insights
　　Philology, 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.