Eugene A. Nida, a world-famous American linguist and translation theorist, has an overwhelming influence in the translation field. One of Nida’s greatest contributions to translation theory is the concept of functional equivalence, which was first put forward as dynamic equivalences opposed to formal equivalence in his book Towards a Science of Translating in 1964. He argues that there are two types of equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content”, while dynamic equivalence is based upon “the principle on equivalent effect” (Nida, 1964: 159). In formal equivalence translation, one is constantly concerned with such correspondence as word to word, and sentence to sentence, which means that two languages are constantly compared to ensure accuracy and correctness. However, translation is more than merely a linguistic activity. It attempts to bring together two ethnographically different words. Enlightened by communicative linguistic theory which believes that language is used for communication, Nida introduces the concept of “dynamic equivalence” into translation, which is defined “in terms of 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, 1969: 24) 2.1.2. From dynamic equivalence to functional equivalence A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate receptor to modes of behavior relevant within context of his own culture. In Nida’s theory, “dynamic equivalence” is defined with “receptors’ response” as its nature. Unlike traditional theories, which focus on verbal comparison between the original text and its translation, Nida’s concept translating shifts from “the form of the message” to “the response of the receptor”. Thus, a new and extremely important factor is to be taken into consideration: the receptor, the judge of the translation’s effect. In his work From One Language to Another, Nida starts to use the term “functional equivalence” to avoid misunderstanding, but he explains that the meaning of functional equivalence is the same as that of dynamic equivalence. As to the content of functional equivalence, Nida describes it as follows: “Basically, dynamic equivalence has been described in terms of functional equivalence. The translation process has been defined on the basis that the receptors of a translation should comprehend the translated text to such an extent that they can understand how the original receptors must have understood the original text.” (Nida, 1986: 103) 2.1.3. Two levels of functional equivalence In the 1990s, Nida perfects his theory by taking the language and cultural differences into consideration. In his book Language, Culture and Translating, Nida puts functional equivalence into two levels according to the degree of adequacy: the minimal equivalence and the maximum equivalence. The definition of minimal functional equivalence is “The readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original reader of the text must have understood and appreciated it.” (Nida, 1993: 118) Anything less than this degree of equivalence should be unacceptable. The maximum functional equivalence can be stated as “The readers of a translated text should be able to understand and appreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did.”(ibid) The maximum level of equivalence is rarely achieved except for texts having little or no aesthetic value and involving only routine information since it requires a higher degree of language-culture correspondence. Nida’s functional equivalence theory put emphasis on cultural factors in translation. In Nida’s view, “The most serious mistakes in translating are usually made not because of verbal inadequacy, but of wrong cultural assumptions.” (Nida, 1993: 29) If regardless of the cultural differences, the receptors will find the translation requiring so many efforts to understand that they are likely to stop reading, unless they are highly motivated. Therefore, “For truly successful translating, biculturalism is even more important than bilingualism.” (Nida, 1993: 110) In a word, Nida’s functional equivalence theory has offered a convincing answer to the disputes over literal and free translation lasting for 200 years and gives priority to the receptor over the forms of the language. 2.2. Two essential notions of Functional Equivalence Theory |
