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 4.1.1 A survey of Jin’s translation activity and translation study
In his work (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 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 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 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 “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 reader s, 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 reader s‟ 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 , 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 , 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 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 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.
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 4.1.1 A survey of Jin’s translation activity and translation study
In his work (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 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 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 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 “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 reader s, 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 reader s‟ 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 , 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 , 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 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 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.