residents-缺席
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
smoo
thness
.
”
“
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
o
wn 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 Y
an
Fu
?
s
three-
character
translation
principle
and
advanced
his
theory
of
“
faithfulness
,
expressiveness
and
spirit
”
(
< br>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
”
< br> 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
receptor
s’
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
“
equ
ivalence
”
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
“
< br>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
reader
s?
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.