The famous American translation theorist Eugene Nida proposed two main principles to guide translation practice in his book "Exploration of Translation Science", namely formal equivalence (F-E) and dynamic equivalence (D-E). ). He wrote in the book: "Formal equivalence focuses on the information itself in terms of form and content..." Therefore, the translator focuses on "the equivalence of poetry to poetry, and the equivalence of sentences to sentences." ”
(D-E) (Nida 1964). The former focuses on "the information itself" and "the target information should be as consistent as possible with the original information." On the other hand, dynamic translation seeks to be expressively appropriate and natural, and is based on the "equivalence principle".
It can be seen that "formal equivalence" seems to be less popular with translators than "dynamic equivalence". Even Nida himself later confirmed, "... there has been a marked shift in emphasis from formal to dynamic equivalence" (1964). Shi Xishu and Du Ping also mentioned this change in Nida’s translation theory or principle in their article “A Dialectical Look at Nida’s ‘Functional Equivalence’ Theory”. In view of this, this section mainly discusses the translator's attitude towards "dynamic equivalence" (or "functional equivalence").
Professor Zhang Meifang pointed out in her 1999 paper "Limitations of Dynamic Equivalence Theory from Contextual Analysis" that the "dynamic equivalence" proposed by Nida has certain flaws. Based on an analysis of an article written by Mr. Cha Liangyong on the day of Hong Kong's return, she pointed out that "dynamic equivalence" cannot be achieved under the following circumstances:
"When the purpose of the original text and the translation are inconsistent, Their functions cannot be equal; when the cultural background and reading experience of the recipients are different, the readers' reactions cannot be equal; the communicators of the target text and the relationships between them are different from those of the original text, and the translation style It may change accordingly." (1999: 13)
Nida's "dynamic equivalence" theory was introduced into China in the early 1980s, setting off a wave of "Nida" in the domestic translation industry. "Wind", translators must use Nida's translation theory as the basis when discussing their own translation or conducting translation practice. It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that Nida's theory began to be questioned, and translators began to look for various counterexamples to demonstrate the flaws of this theory, thus embarking on the path of total denial. However, we need to think about all this calmly, because it is not advisable to accept it completely or deny it completely, which is not conducive to a correct and comprehensive understanding of a certain theory. The "dynamic equivalence" theory emphasizes "reader response" as the standard for translation. This criterion provides compelling reasons for resolving the debates between "literal translation" and "free translation" and between "domestication" and "foreignization." But it is worth noting that Nida proposed a systematic "reader response theory", which was mainly based on his experience in translating the Bible. However, in general translation, readers have different social and cultural backgrounds, viewpoints, aesthetic tastes, etc., which lead to their understanding of different original texts or translated texts.
In short, the translator should dialectically treat a certain text Theory, no theory is "one size fits all". The "dynamic equivalence" theory is no exception. It is "a product of a certain historical period" (Shi Xishu and Du Ping 2004).
The above information comes from /article.php?id=23009
Dong Yufang <