摘要：奈达的翻译理论尤其是动态对等理论对整个翻译界有着巨大的影响并且他的理论已被广泛接受。动态对等主要阐释的是译入语读者对译文的反应要同原语读者对原文的反应相对等。本文将尝试对动态对等理论进行全面的解读和分析。
关键词: 奈达, 动态对等, 读者反应
Eugene A. Nida is one of the most distinguished and influential contemporary translation theorists in the west. His theory of translation developed from his own practical work of translating and organizing the Bible. His major works contain Towards a Science of Translating, The Theory and Practice of Translation and Language and Culture.
1.The definition of dynamic equivalence
Dynamic equivalence theory was first put forward in 19. Before defining what is dynamic equivalence, Nida presents a new concept about translating which is concerned more with receptor languages and then puts forward the definition of translating. 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. (Nida, 2004) He figure out one must aims primarily at reproducing the message in the process of translating and during this process, the translator must strive for meaning equivalence rather than identity. As has already been indicated in the definition, meaning has been given priority, and therefore, the meaning equivalence has priority over formal correspondence. Having the basic theoretical principle and practical facts, Nida introduces the definition of dynamic equivalence which is a new point looking at translations in terms of the receptors, rather than in terms of their respective forms. The concrete content of dynamic equivalence is that the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language. (Nida, 2004) He points that instead of traditionally evaluating whether the translation is faithful through simply comparing the involved two messages, we should focus attention upon the manner in which the two receptors understand the corresponding messages. Nida believes that the formal correspondence translation contains some overt weaknesses, for instance, it may leads the meanings to unclearly ambiguity or unstandability, however, the dynamic equivalence is not only more meaningful to receptors but also more accurate. Later in 1986, Nida put forward the term of functional equivalence in his book called From One Language to Another. At the same time, he said that there are not essential distinguishes between dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence.
2.The nature of Nida’s dynamic equivalence
(1)The theoretical basis of dynamic equivalence
(A): social linguistics and the communicative function of language: the generating of dynamic equivalence is dependent upon social linguistics and the communicative function of language, Nida believes that translation is communication, and the reason why he use functional to replace dynamic is he thinks the word functional can be considered as a means of communication. One can associates functional equivalence with communication which more emphasize on content and consequence of translating. Therefore, functional equivalence is more reasonable than dynamic equivalence.
(B) Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar
According to Chomsky’s TG grammar which separated sentence structure as surface structure and deep structure, Nida points out that the functional equivalence within deep structure has priority over the formal correspondence within surface structure. Consequently, the receptors can understand and appreciate the translating text as the same manner as the receptors in the source text.
(2) Translating criterion and principles
The nature of translating is to reproduce a new meaning in a totally different historical-culture context, which is expected to be understood by the receptors. In another words, Nida thinks meaning is prior to form. Though form is secondary to content, it is nevertheless important. What should be mentioned is that in the process of achieving equivalence, context must primarily be concerned. The minimal level of equivalence would be one in which receptors of the translated text would be able to understand and appreciate it to the point of being able to comprehend how the original receptors must have understood and appreciated the message.
3.The practice of dynamic equivalence in translation
According to Nida’s idea, the best translation does not sound like a translation, what the strict translator strives for is the closest natural equivalence. One can depart from the form in order to make the message understandable and acceptable. As to what extend the form or style of texts should be changed for pursuing faithful meaning depends on the differences between two languages. Therefore, Nida’s theory, different from traditional translating theories, puts emphasize on the judgment of translation transferring from comparison between the two messages to readers’ responds.
As for how to practice dynamic equivalence in translating, three parts can be involved.
(1)Abandoning traditional grammar and adopting lexical category to interpret semantic relation of words
In traditional grammar, the description of words depend more on parts of speech, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. If translators are limited in linguistic form of the texts, the translation will sound as unnatural. For instance, the sentence of “She was reliably informed ” is translated as “她被很可靠地告知”. “Reliably” is an adverb which modifies “informed”. And apparently, this kind of part of speech can only present word to word relations. So Nida reclassify words as object, event, abstract, and relation instead of parts of speech, considering word relation in a new perspective. Accordingly, the example above can be translated as “我得到的信息很可靠”。
(2)Considering kernel sentences to overcome those obstacles caused by syntactic structure
If a translator wants to state the relationship between words in ways that are the clearest and least ambiguous, he must restructure surface expression so that translating can be more correct and equivalent in terms of meaning rather than verbal identity. Nida adopted the so called concept of “kernels” which is coined in transformational grammar to lead translators to achieving a closest natural translation. For example, the sentence “John ran quickly so that he hit Bill who was ill” can be separated as three kernels that one can understand the inner relationship in the sentence. The three kernels are “John ran quickly”, “Bill was ill”, “John hit Bill”. This principle can help translator depart the constraints caused by texts, avoiding presenting unnatural expressions.
(3)Explaining culture image by the concept of isomorphism in semiotics
As a national culture symbol, culture image has its typical connotative meaning, i.e. different nations have different culture images caused by living environment, custom, religion and culture traditions. Therefore, Nida employs isomorphism not only to explain culture elements but also to interpret other aspects about language. If many images or structures cannot be appropriately translated by linguistic forms, then culture image in source text is considered to be changed. For example, “雨后春笋” in Chinese is translated in English as “to grow like mushroom”, the word “mushroom” in English is correspondent with “笋” in Chinese, and this is a typical example of changing culture image between languages. Languages have something in common in their expressions. Something can be expressed in one language, and then must be expressed in another language. He believes that though there are differences between languages, human experience and expressive forms have common core. Therefore, employing isomorphism in process of translating can achieve meaning equivalence. By applying Nida’s dynamic equivalence to the translation of culture images, with the adoption of different methods, the translators can smoothly transmit the cultural deposits embodied in source language, and reduce the disnature, the dislocation, and the distortion of the culture images.
4.Limitations
Any theories have their own limitations; Nida’s theory on translation has its meaningful and foremost aspects, but several weaknesses have been apparently figured out by other scholars. Four overall limitations will be analyzed precisely below.
(1)Applied range of dynamic equivalence
Nida’s dynamic equivalence overly focus on the texts’ communicative and understandable aspects, therefore it seem to be applied to Bible, ads or other applied articles which are expected to convey certain information to receptors. However, in literary translations, dynamic equivalence cannot work correctly. Generally, literary works is the entity of content and form, and even form more vividly represent the core meaning of the work, such as poetry, essay, etc. Sometimes, writers pretend to create unclear meaning to express something on purpose, and then translators cannot easily find words or structures to equivalent with source language. Moreover, the theory of dynamic equivalence is put forward on the basis of practice of Bible translating which is widely used in communication or preach, while literary works are not. Newmark have ever said that “equivalent effect” is the desirable result, rather than the aim of any translation (Newmark, 1988).
(2)Problems about readers’ response
The reason why Nida said that “translation is communication” is to emphasize on readers’ responses. As mentioned in the definition of dynamic equivalence, Nida believed that readers are the important factor in evaluating translations. Only when readers of receptor languages can understand the texts, the translations are said to be good. While, many scholars think readers may be one of the factors that are employed to evaluate translations, many other people think translations are only evaluated by well-educated men not the common people. Furthermore, dynamic equivalence theory is concerned with comparison between readers’ response in receptor language and those in source language. However, what being ignored is that different people may have different responses in source language, which is caused by their age, occupation, education, faith, custom and so on. So to which kind of response the receptors should be equivalent?
(3)Neglecting the culture differences between languages
As we have mentioned above, readers’ response is a central element considered in translation by Nida. Therefore, we can say that he may adopt sort of domestication translation which may lead to prevent culture intercommunication. Many culture images may lose their culture implicatures. Translation is a complicated process that involve in not only meaning transformation but also historical, cultural and ideological problems. The differences existed in languages make absolute dynamic equivalence impossibly realized. For example, the form and language expression between Chinese and English are different, moreover, there are many distinguishes in terms of thinking pattern, historical background between the two nations. Chinese people are more likely to concrete and synthesize, westerners are more abstract and analytic. Especially, the differences in rhetoric structure, proverbs, and idioms reduce the possibility of realizing dynamic equivalence, even the two languages are in the same phylum.
(4) Ignoring form and discourse diversity
In the process of analyzing the linguistic structures involved in translation, Nida thinks deep structure is more important than surface structure, therefore, faithfulness can only be guaranteed by equivalence in deep structure. Form is more described by surface structure. Thus, the form and discourse diversity cannot be expressed in translation. What’s more, each language has its unique feature. In two languages, some words may seemingly refer to one concept, but actually not, such as “individualism” in English and “个人主义” in Chinese. Some linguistic images may exist in one language, but don’t exist in another, for instance, we cannot find equivalent words in English to express “琵琶”, “二胡” in Chinese.
Dynamic equivalence theory of Nida was tentatively analyzed above, concluding its definition, practice and limitations. This theory is the most famous and influential theory about translation of Nida. It provides a new way of looking at translating and meanwhile, it affirms the undoubted position of linguistics in translating. Although dynamic equivalence theory has some weaknesses, it is those limitations that offer us a new point to further study translation and fulfill theories of translating.
References: [1] Newmark, Peter. A Text Book of Translating[M]. New York: Prentice Hall.1988.
[2] 刘苾庆.《中西翻译思想比较研究》[M], 北京: 中国对外翻译出版公司, 2005.
[3] 耐达. 《翻译理论与实践》[M], 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
[4] 耐达. 《翻译科学探索》[M], 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 19.
[5] 谭载喜. 《新编耐达论翻译》[M], 北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999.
