Nida’s theory introduces the receptors’ response to evaluate the quality of a translated text. In 1969, in his collaborated work with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Nida defines translation as “reproducing the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style”.(Nida, 1969: 12) The definition contains two essential notions: equivalence and receptors’ response. 2.2.1. Equivalence Traditionally, the adequacy of a translation is judged on the principle of the correspondence in lexicon and grammar between the source language and the target language. Furthermore, the correspondence is frequently stated in terms of “equivalence”. Nida suggests that functional equivalence should be discussed in terms of a range of adequacy because no translation is ever completely equivalent and no translation can be equivalent to the source message in all the aspects at the same time. The concept of equivalence in Nida’s theory is equivalence on varying degrees which gives practical significance to functional translation. Nida does not insist that complete equivalence is achievable, “Absolute correspondence between languages is not always possible.” (Nida, 1964: 185) In his view, translating was not to get something completely identical, but to reproduce “closest natural equivalent to the source language message” in the receptor language. (Nida, 1969: 12) As we can see, the term “equivalence” in Nida’s theory is used in a relative sense, i.e. the closest possible approximation to the source language message. So “equivalence” should not be understood in the meaning of “identity” but only in terms of “proximity”. Nida also proposes the minimal and maximal degrees of equivalence on the basis of both cognitive and experimental factors. He defines the minimal, realistic definition of functional equivalence as “The readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point than they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it.” (Nida, 1993: 118) and defines the maximal, ideal definition 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) Any translation less than the minimal degree of equivalence is unacceptable and the maximal level of equivalence is always only an ideal situation. What he wants to get is equivalence on different degrees, or practical equivalence, which is reasonable and practical. 2.2.2. Receptors’ response When evaluating a translation, some translation theories just concentrate on message-conveyance of the target language, neglecting the role of receptors. Their main concern is that the message in the target language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. Therefore they make constant comparison between the message in the source culture and the message in the target culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness. Enlightened by the communication theory, Nida attaches great importance to the role of receptor and the relationship between receptor and message by saying that “It is essential that functional equivalence be stated primarily in terms of a comparison of the way in which the original receptors understand and appreciate the text and the way in which receptors of translated text understand and appreciate the translated text.” (Nida, 1993: 116) According to Nida, the target audience for which a translation is made almost always constitutes a major factor in determining the translation procedures and the level of language to be employed. In producing a functional equivalence translation one must be constantly aware of the capacity and motivation of receptors. (Jin Di &Nida, 1984:89) In other words, how to translate a message first depends on whether the target receptors can understand it or not. According to Nida, the functional equivalence is based upon the “principle of equivalence effect”. It is of great importance to estimate how well the receptors understand and appreciate the translated text. What’s more, Nida’s ideal situation is that the target receptors’ response to the target text should be the same to the original receptors’ response to the original text. Therefore, judging the quality of a translation can not stop with a comparison of corresponding lexical meaning, grammatical classes and rhetorical devices, but with whether the translated text has the same effect on the receptors as the original text has on the original receptors. 3. Examples and analysis |
