奈达翻译理论研究 第四章 笔记

admin管理员组

文章数量:1535611

2024年1月22日发(作者：)

Chapter four A comparative study of Nida’s theory and

Jin Di’s theory

Jin Di, on the basis of Nida‟s theory, he formulated his own theory of “equivalent

effect”.

4.1 Jin Di’s Translation Theory

Jin Di is renowned for his translation theory of “equivalent effect” and his

Chinese version of Ulysses.

4.1.1 A survey of Jin’s translation activity and translation study

In his work In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect (1989), he put forward

his own theory of “equivalent effect”.

4.1.2 Jin’s view on translation before his reception of Nida’s theory

The gist of his argument was that “translating must meet the requirements of

accuracy and smoothness.”

“Accuracy” meant the content of the translated text should be consistent with that

of the original text.

“Smoothness” meant the language of the translated text should conform to the

convention of the target language.

Accuracy and smoothness in translation were two sides of a coin, and one could

not be separated from another.

What distinguished Jin from others was that he strongly objected to then the

popular idea that “faithfulness should be given priority over smoothness when one of

them has to be sacrificed”.

Jin mentioned more than once the close relationship between translation

accuracy and target readers. He wrote:

A translation should be smooth and natural so that target readers do not feel big gaps

between the two languages concerned. Accuracy and smoothness as a translation standard are

like two sides of a coin, one cannot be separated from the other. If the reader cannot understand

the so-called “accurate” translation and do not know what it means, there is of little significance

for such “accuracy”. If the translator only pays attention to smoothness in his work, but ignores

the consistency between the original text and the translated text, his translation is not legitimate.

4.1.3 Jin’s theory of equivalent effect and its relationship with Nida’s theory

In On Translation: with special reference to Chinese and English, Jin basically

adopted Nida‟s “dynamic equivalence”, which was defined in terms of a dynamic

relationship, namely, “the relationship of target language receptors to the target

language text should be roughly equivalent to the relationship between the original

receptors and the original text”.

The book mentioned above was acclaimed as “a masterpiece of combination of

Nida‟s translation theory with Chinese translation with Chinese translation practice”.

Jin argued that Nida‟s theory was intended to guide Bible translation for

evangelism, and the ultimate purpose of Bible translating was to make receptors

“response to the translated message in action”. Thus, according to Jin, the concept of

“response” in Nida‟s theory was not suitable for a theory of general translation. Jin

explained:

Although receptors’ response could be used as an important feedback to

evaluate how the receptors understand and appreciate the translation to some extent,

and the translator could test the quality of his translation according to receptor’s

response, such activity occurs only after the translation is completed. Since each

receptor’s response and reaction involve a number of subjective and objective

personal factors, it is necessary for us to explore these factors in our study of

translation process. Hence, in our discussion the term “effect” refers to the impact of

the translated message upon the receptors instead of the receptors’ response. (This

was the reason why Jin modified Nida’s “dynamic equivalence”, and put forward his

own theory of “equivalent effect”.

等效定义(方式一):

the objective of an equivalent effect translation is that although

the form of a translated text may be different from that of the original text, the

receptor-language reader can obtain a message as substantially the same as the

source-language reader does from the original, including main spirit, concrete facts

and artistic imagery.

分析:

in Jin‟s view, only when the three essential factors (“main spirit, “concrete

facts” and “artistic imagery”) of the original were successfully reproduced in the

receptor language could a translation be termed as a translation of equivalent effect.

In short, the delimitation of the concept of “effect” as “impact” instead of

“response”, and the emphasis on the reproduction of the three factors constitute Jin‟s

theory of “equivalent effect”.

In his article, “Translating Spirit”, he borrowed two characters from Yan Fu‟s

three-character translation principle and advanced his theory of “faithfulness,

expressiveness and spirit” (信，达，神韵). The term “spirit” in Jin‟s theory was used in a

broad sense, indicating various artistic styles of literary works.

等效定义（方式二）：the three-character principle of “faithfulness, expressiveness and

spirit” indicated that faithful representation of the fundamental facts, transference of

effect and reproduction of artistic style respectively.

In recent years Jin began to put more emphasis on the “reproduction of artistic

style”, and tried to develop his theory of “equivalent effect” by making use of Chinese

traditional translation theory and classic literary criticism.

Jin‟s theory deviated away from Nida‟s theory because Nida‟s theory fails to

adequately address the problem of transference of aesthetic values in literary

translation; while Jin, having attempted to solve it, has to absorb Chinese traditional

translation theory and classic literary criticism, where discussion about stylistic or

aesthetic effects and their transference are abundant.

4.2 Rethinking Nida’s dynamic equivalence

4.2.1 The relationship between dynamic equivalence and the principle of

equivalent effect

As early as 1790, Tytler stated that a good translation was once in “which the

merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be

distinctly apprehended, and strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that

language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work”.

Tytler was considered the first person who had discussed the issue of equivalent effect

in the history of translation theory. But it was E.V. Rieu who first used the expression

“the principle of equivalent effect” to discuss translation.

Arnold stated that “A translation should affect us in the same way as the original

may be supposed to have affected its first hearers”.

Jowett expressed that “The translator seeks to produce on his reader an

impression similar or nearly similar to that produced by the original”.

The reason why Nida‟s theory is also called the principle of “equivalent effect” in

the west is that: a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a

formal equivalent is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect”. In such a

translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message

with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the

relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that

which existed between the original receptors and the message.

4.2.2 The scientific basis of dynamic equivalence/functional equivalence

Nida borrows the concept of the decoder‟s channel capacity from information

theory to explain the acceptability of message by readers in both original

communication and translation. And he proves that a dynamic equivalent translation

fits the receptor‟s channel capacity so as to decode the translated text with ease and

efficiency in his own cultural text.

The term “dynamic” implies a scientific basis. The dynamic aspect is about a

comparison of two relations, namely, “The relation of target language receptors to the

target language text should be roughly equivalent to the relationship between the

original receptors and the original text”. Such relationship indicates that translating is

not completed unless the translated message is received by the reader in the receptor

language in substantially the same manner as the original message is received by the

original reader.

When “dynamic equivalence” is replaced with “functional equivalence” in order

to avoid misunderstandings about the term “dynamic”, Nida, having drawn upon the

concept of isomorphs, further justifies “functional equivalence”. Isomorphs are an

extension of the semiotic concept of “iconicity” or “matters of likeness”. Functional

isomorphs are defined on the basis of the means for accomplishing essentially the

same results within different systems.

To sum up, “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence” is based on the

principle of “equivalent effect”. What distinguished Nida‟s theory from other

principle of equivalent effect was that it had a solid scientific basis, and Nida proved

the legitimacy of his theory from insights coming from communication theory and

sociosemiotics.

4.2.3 The immediate concern of dynamic equivalence

Nida further explained “dynamic equivalence” in a way that was directly

relevant to Bible translating:

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 such as those found in the

Bible. That is to say, a translation of the Bible must not only provide information

which people can understand but must present the message in such a way that people

can feel its relevance and can then respond to it in action.

4.3 Jin’s role in popularizing Nida’s theory

4.3.1 Jin’s contribution to a better understanding of Nida’s theory

Jin rightly commented on Nida‟s contribution to the principle of “equivalent

effect”:

The great contribution Eugene Nida made was to shift the focus the

comparison texts, the source-language and the target-language texts, to a comparison

of the two communication processes involved. As the message in a communication is

carried by means of the text, the new method of comparison does not disregard the

importance of the text, but the shift of focus implies the consideration of various

linguistic and cultural complication that can affect the receptors’ perception of the

message carried by the text.

In Jin‟s view, Nida justified the principle of “equivalent effect” from the

scientific perspective of information theory, and his “dynamic equivalence” solved the

debate over literal translation and free translation among western translation scholars

in the past two thousand years.

In his writings on the principle of “equivalent effect”, Jin further elaborated on

the three important concepts, namely, “receptor”, “effect” and “equivalence” in

Nida‟s theory.

The translator should take into consideration target readers in translating, for only

keeping his readers in mind could he render the original text more satisfactorily into

the receptor language.

According to Jin, translation equivalence between two texts concerned was not a

mechanical equivalence, but a comprehensive one, which required the translator to

consider all the factors involved in translating. Translation equivalence was not

word-for-word equivalence, but equivalence impacts upon the reader produced by a

whole sentence or paragraph in any two languages concerned.

He suggested that attempts should be made to narrow the differences so as to

achieve the closest effect to the original text as much as possible.

Jin‟s another contribution to Nida‟s theory is his attempt to put the theory of

“equivalent effect” into his translation of Ylysses, and its success confirms that Nida‟s

theory is applicable to literary translation between English and Chinese.

4.3.2 Problems with some Jin’s views about Nida’s theory

First, Jin misinterprets Nida‟s “readers‟ response”.

Second, he has a partial understanding of some aspects of “dynamic

equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”.

(1) Jin’s misinterpretation of the term “response” in Nida’s theory

There are four translating procedures in Nida‟s theory, including (1) analysis

of the source text, (2) transferring from source to target language, (3)

restructuring in the target language, (4) testing the translated text with

persons who represented the intended audience.

According Nida, if “dynamic equivalence” was used as a translation criterion, the

critic must take “readers‟ response” seriously. He explained:

In the past most testing of a translation has been undertaken by assigning a

bilingual person to compare the source and target texts and to determine the degree of

correspondence. The problem with this approach is that the bilingual judge is

probably already so familiar with the text and the type of contents that he can

understand the text without too much trouble. An adequate evaluation of a translation

can only be accomplished by testing the reaction of monolingual persons who are

representative of the consistency for whom the translation has been made.

It deserves to be mentioned that, in evaluating readers‟ response to a translation,

the critic was not to examine readers‟ response to the content of the original, but the

“stylistically awkward, structurally burdensome, linguistically unnatural, and

semantically misleading or incomprehensible” formal features.

“Reader‟s response” in Nida‟s theory is really treated in a broad sense. Later on,

when Nida replaced “dynamic equivalence” with “functional equivalence”, and

redefined it at two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level, he avoided using

the term “response”.

(2) His misinterpretations concerning some aspects of dynamic

equivalence/functional equivalence

In Nida‟ theory, a formal equivalent translation “permits the reader to identify

himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-language context, and to

understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and means of

expression”.

A dynamic equivalent translation “aims at complete naturalness of expression,

and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his

own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural pattern of the

source-language context in order to comprehend the message”.

In accordance with the principle of “dynamic equivalence”, in order to produce a

dynamic equivalent translation, the most important thing for the translator was not to

keep the original words, but to communicate effectively the original meaning, so that

readers in the receptor language could understand the translation without any

difficulty.

As a matter of fact, “dynamic equivalence” was not solely built upon Bible

translating. The basic translation principles in Nida‟s theory were developed

considerably before his work with the Bible translators. In his early years of graduate

work and doctoral study at university, he had objected to strict literal translation, and

preferred an intelligible and stylistically appropriate translation. Later on, he

elaborated his views on translation with examples from Biblical translations. It is a

fact that Nida‟s theory is intended to guide Bible translations, but this does not mean

that it is determined by Bible translating and only confined to Bible translation.

4.4 Difference between Jin’s theory and Nida’s theory

4.4.1 Reader-oriented vs. Text-oriented

“Dynamic equivalence” pays more attention to the target readers, while Jin‟s

theory of “equivalent effect” attaches more importance to the original text.

“Dynamic equivalence” is defined in terms of readers’ response. For Nida, to

measure “dynamic equivalence”, one should “only rightly compare the equivalence

of response”.

Jin‟s equivalent effect translation, however, requires reproduction of the “main

spirit”, “concrete facts”, “artistic imagery” of the original text. Nida‟s focus on

readers‟ response allows necessary linguistic adjustments.

To Yuen Ren Chao, the noted Chinese linguist, whether or not naturalizing

translation was adopted should depend on the context. If a figure of speech was the

main topic of a discourse (such as “the Lamb of God” in the biblical text), the

translator should faithfully reproduce it into the receptor language. If it was used in a

casual way, it should be replaced with an idiomatic equivalent in the receptor

language.

4.4.2 Flexible vs. Inflexible

Nida‟s “dynamic equivalence” is more flexible than Jin‟ theory of “equivalent

effect”.

A dynamic equivalent translation tends to be a type of free translation, while

Jin‟s equivalent effect translation tends to be a literal translation.

In an interview Jin himself admitted that his translation was not so flexible as

Nida‟s dynamic equivalent translation. He said:

The translator is not required to adhere closely to the original text. This is

because his theory is to guide Bible translation, and his translation purpose is to

make people believe in Christianity. So Nida holds that the most important thing in

translating is not word or content, but “receptors’ response”, namely, their belief in

Christianity. In my opinion, such a view is not suitable for literary translation. What I

strive for is “effect”---the impact of the translation upon its readers is similar to the

impact of the original text upon its readers.

In Jin‟s view, a literary translation must adhere closely to the original text. As

long as the three factors of the original text are faithfully reproduced, an equivalent

effect can be achieved.

4.4.3 Ideal objective vs. realistic goal

Jin‟s translation objective is ideal while Nida‟s dynamic equivalence is far more

than an ideal goal.

Jin stated that an equivalent effect translation was “an ideal objective”. Though

there was no perfect translation, it was desirable for a serious translator to work at it.

He even summarized that “the theory of „equivalent effect‟ was an attempt to

define the ideal of the non-existent perfect translation and to explore the approach to

approximating it in practice.

Nida‟s attitudes toward “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence” were

different from phase to phase.

(1) In phase one (1959-1964), Nida simply described the features of two basic

translation equivalences and did not point out which was better.

Between strict formal equivalence and complete dynamic equivalence, there were

“a number of intervening grades, representing various acceptable standards of literary

translating”. There were also “varying degrees” of dynamic equivalent translations.

A D-E translation did not mean that the more a translation approached the

original text, the better it was.

If a D-E translation went to extremes, the very freedom of form tended to distort

the original message as well.

(2) In phase two (1969-1984), Nida discussed “dynamic equivalence” in

opposition to “formal correspondence”. During this period, he suggested that

“dynamic equivalence” was a good translation, in which the form was restructured to

preserve the same meaning, whereas “formal correspondence” and “paraphrase” were

bad translation.

One can justify two different types of dynamic equivalent translation designed

primarily for two rather different purposes. It is safe for us to say that dynamic

equivalent translations are not those that are closest to the original text in lexicon and

grammar. Rather, depending on the readers for whom the translation is made, there is

more than one dynamic equivalent translation.

(3) At phase three (1984- ), “functional equivalence” was divided into two levels

of equivalence: the maximal level and the minimal level.

The maximal level was an ideal. He claimed that this maximal level of

equivalence was “rarely if ever, achieved, except for text having little or no

aesthetic value and involving only routine information”. So it was impossible to

attain such an objective in literary translation.

In brief, a functional equivalent translation was not an ideal goal that the

translator must pursue in their work. Rather, it had “different degrees of

adequacy” from minimal to maximal level and a good translation always lay

somewhere in between the two levels.

4.4.4 Reasons for the differences between Jin’s theory and Nida’s theroy

There are mainly two reasons for the differences between Jin‟s theory and Nida‟s

theory: (1) Jin‟s theory is, to some extent, very much influenced by traditional

Chinese translation theories. (2) Nida‟s theory fails to address the issue of

transference of aesthetic elements.

(1) Before Jin accepted Nida‟s theory in the late 1970s, he had formed his own

views about translation, and taken the combination of “accuracy and smoothness” as

the standard of a good translation.

The translator‟s objective is to accurately reproduce the content and feeling of the

original text in an idiomatic language, but in actual translating it is hard to accomplish

it.

After he had contact with Nida‟s theory, he tried to find the way out of it from the

standpoint of readers and communication theory. He wrote:

Accuracy and smoothness in translating are inseparable from target readers.

Translating is communicating across two languages. An accurate translation

indicates that the message the target reader obtains from the translated text should be

substantially the same as the message the original reader has acquired from the

original text. A smooth translation indicates that the target reader can understand the

translation and receive the translated message without any difficulty.

After Jin advanced his own theory of “equivalent effect” in the 1980s, he was not

totally free from the bondage of his former translation standard of “accuracy and

smoothness”. He held that an equivalent effect translation was to preserve “accuracy

and smoothness” at the same time. This explained why he emphasized the importance

of transference of “concrete facts” in his definition of equivalent effect translation.

In 1990s, Jin‟s dependence upon Chinese traditional translation theory was more

conspicuous. In his article "Translating Spirit", Jin put forward his translation

principle of "faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit". He held that to accomplish an

equivalent effect translation, the translator should "make the translated text similar to

the original text in terms of "faithfulness,expressiveness and spirit".

(2) Another reason for the discrepancy between the two theories is the limitations

of Nida's theory. "Dynamic equivalence" is not restricted to Bible translation, but it

has some limitations in guiding literary translation. This is simply because Nida's

immediate concern is to about literary translation, hence it fails to address the

transference of formal structures possessing stylistic values and aesthetic effects.

Jin Yuelin also states:" Translating sense, which only requires expressiveness and

faithfulness, is not an easy thing, and in some cases it is very difficult.

Nevertheless,the difficulty is only a technical problem. Translating flavor, however, is

quite another matter, for it requires recreation in translating".

In Nida's theory ranslating means translating meaning, and his exploration of

style or spirit in very inadequate for literary translation. When Jin translated Joyce's

Ulysses, he had to face the problem of spirit transference. This is the reason why Jin

eventually turns to Chinese traditional theory and classic literary criticism to seek for

support for his theory of "equivalent effect".

4.5 Comment on Jin's Chinese version of Ulysses

In spite of differences between Jin's theory and Nida's theory, the two theories are

essentially the same. In fact, their discrepancies are only a matter of degree rather than

a matter of nature.

As Jin stated in the translator's note to his Chinese version of Ulysses, his

translation objective was "to reproduce the original text as faithfully as possible so

that the effect of this Chinese version upon its readers was similar to that of the

English text upon its readers".

4.5.1 Successful representation of Stream of Consciousness

Ulysses challenges the translator, because Joyce has used extensively "stream of

consciousness" throughout his novel, recording the multifarious thoughts and feeling

of characters without regard to logical argument or narrative sequence.

4.5.2 Successful representation of normal narratives

Although Ulysses is distinguished for its unique technique of stream of

consciousness, Joyce never hesitates to adopt normal narratives to describe what his

characters hear, see and feel.

4.5.3 Problems in Jin's Chinese version of Ulysses

(1) Some expressions in Jin's rendering are not idiomatic Chinese

(2) In handling stream of consciousness, Jin sometimes tends to adhere too

closely to the original, with the result that some of his renderings fail to achieve his

objective of "equivalent effect".

(3) Another major problem with Jin's version lies in his handling of allusions.

Allusions are references to well-know persons, things, or events. A writer usually

employs allusions on the assumption that his readers share with him a common

historical, cultural and literary heritage. When translating allusions, the translator has

to face the fact that common readers in the target language may not be familiar with

the allusions in another language and culture.

Most allusions are not satisfactorily rendered in his version.

In short, there are three major problems with Jin's version: (1) less idiomatic

language expressions and comparatively awkward styly in some passages, (2) failure

to make implicit information explicit in handling some passages of stream of

consciousness, (3) literal rendering of most allusion.

I think if Jin takes into full consideration average Chinese readers, or follows

Nida's "dynamic equivalence" throughout his translating, these problem could have

been easily solved.

4.5.4 Implications of Jin's translation practice for the applicability of Nida's

theory to literary translation

Jin says that there are three kinds of loyalty in translating:

(1) The first is the loyalty to the original text, where the translator adheres closely

to the word and sentence structure of the original text and is willing to sacrifice the

artistic qualities of the target language for this objective.

(2) The second is the loyalty to the target language, where the translator seeks to

produce an artistically satisfying text in the target language in accordance with his

own artistic standard regardless of the content in the original text.

(3) The third is the loyalty to both the writer and the reader, which he upholds.

However, sometimes Jin tends to be loyal to the writer and the text, and forgets

his intended readers. The unsteadiness in Jin's translation is due to the following

factors: 1) Jin does not take into full consideration the average Chinese reader

throughout his translation of Ulysses, 2) He has wrongly estimated the intended

reader of his version.

If Jin follows Nida's theory throughout his translating, he will pay more attention

to the acceptability of his readers.

If Jin takes a more liberal attitude towards the reproduction of cultural-specific

elements in handling allusions and avoids some "translationese" expression, I believe

he will more satisfactorily attain his translation objective of "equivalent effect" in his

work.

Jin's translation of Ulysses convinces us that Nida's theory is applicable to

literary translation between Chinese and English though it has some limitations about

how to represent the aesthetic values of the original text into another language.

本文标签： 研究等效方式定义翻译