Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Correspondence in Translation between
Chinese and English
LIU Dayan School of Foreign Languages Chongqing Jiaotong
University No.66, Xuefu Road, Nan’an District, Chongqing China, 400074
Abstract This paper
gives a critical review of E.A.Nida’s translation theory of dynamic equivalence
and initiates a comparative study of dynamic equivalence and formal
correspondence with special reference to the translation between English and
Chinese, for the purpose of confirming the applicability of dynamic equivalence
to English-Chinese translation. The findings further prove that though the
theory of dynamic equivalence has its defects, it usually takes precedence over
formal correspondence in the translation between the Chinese and the English
languages.
Keywords: dynamic equivalence, formal correspondence,
functional equivalence, translationese
1. Introduction E.A.Nida
establishes four priorities as guiding principles in translating and bases for
judgment, namely contextual consistency; dynamic equivalence over formal
correspondence; the aural (heard) form of language over the written form; forms
that are used by and acceptable to the audience for which a translation is
intended over forms that may be traditionally more prestigious (Nida and Taber,
1969: 14). Among them, dynamic equivalence is of primal concern, which is the
core or essence of Nida's entire theoretical system. Besides, the question of
equivalence, as agreed by many translation theorists home and abroad, is a
decisive factor in disclosing the nature of translation and a criterion by
which the quality of translation is judged. Basically, the diversity of
translation theories is attributed to the varied views on equivalence. Therefore,
my thesis will only be devoted to the priority of dynamic equivalence over
formal correspondence, with a view to examining the validity of dynamic
equivalence, particularly in regard to Chinese-English or English -Chinese
translation, and, as an ultimate aim, to getting a thorough understanding of
Nida's translation theories.
2. Nida’s Translation Theory of Dynamic Equivalence Nida's dynamic-equivalence theory studies
translation from a totally new perspective, deviating from the traditional
source text-centered theories, shaking off the straitjacket of sticking to some
specific linguistic problems and shifting the focus to the function of
translation —— to make certain that the receptor understands accurately the
message carried by the source text. In this sense, it is a big step forward in
translation studies. Nida bases his
dynamic equivalence theory on some linguistic achievements made by Jakobson and
Chomsky who claims that a dynamic dimension can be added to language structure
through the use of transformation. Nida thus categorizes the kernel sentences
of a language into seven types, in other words, the surface structure of any
language is but the logic organization of those kernel sentences, which
justifies the possibility of dynamic equivalence between different ways of
expression within one language (戴灿宇, 1987: 61). He, therefore,
concludes that all languages have the same capability of expressing by saying:
"Anything that can be said in one language can certainly be said in
another language…", with reasonable accuracy by establishing equivalent
points of reference in the receptor's culture and matching his cognitive
framework by restructuring the constitutive elements of the message (Nida,
1984: 13). A dynamic equivalence, as
defined by Nida, is to reproduce "in the receptor language the closest
natural equivalence of the source-language message…"(Nida and Taber, 1969:
12).
The Special Issue on Humanities and Behavioral Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas,
USA
243
The key words are "closest", "natural"
and "equivalence". By "closest", he indicates that owing to
the impossibility of absolute equivalence, the "closest" equivalence
is the most ideal one. Nida (1964: 167) particularly stresses that "a
natural rendering must fit the receptor language and culture as a whole; the
context of the particular message; and the receptor-language audience". To
put it plain, either the meaning or form should not sound "foreign".
The essence of dynamic equivalence is the receptor's response, in Nida's own
term, "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 and Taber, 1969: 68). The reaction or response is
based on the comprehensive reception of the message, not only understanding the
meaning or content, but also feeling in the way the original readers do. By
laying stress on the receptor's response, he underlines the improvement to the
source text by the receptor's subjectivity and aesthetic sense. 3. Formal Correspondence Nida puts forward dynamic equivalence in
opposition to formal correspondence. In speaking of naturalness, he is strongly
against translationese —— formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the
content and impact of the message. Basically, a formal equivalence translation,
as Nida (1964, 165) states, is source-oriented, which is designated to reveal
as much as possible the form and content of the original message, that is, to
match as closely as possible the formal elements like grammatical units,
consistency in word usage, meanings in terms of the source context, just to
name some. David Crystal, J.R.Firth, Catford and other linguists and
translation theorists agree upon the six levels of formal equivalence, namely,
phonetic, phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactical and semantic
equivalence (乐眉云, 1989: 38).
A formal equivalence translation, strictly speaking, is
impossible, because of the differences between linguistic structures and
socio-cultures. As Saussure points out that there is no essential link between
the signified and the signifier, and such arbitrariness determines that
languages, particularly those of different language families, differ greatly in
form (扬忠, 李清和, 1995: 11). In many instances,
certain formal elements of the source language, as mentioned by Nida, cannot be
reproduced, like puns, chiasmic orders of words, instances of assonance, or
acrostic features of line-initial sounds. Crystal, too, agrees that it is
impossible to achieve equivalence on all formal levels —— the absolute formal
equivalence —— and, on usual occasions, semantic equivalence should be given
priority while other levels, especially phonetic, lexical, morphological,
syntactical equivalence, etc., are given attention only to achieve special
translation effects (乐眉云, 1989: 38).
To take the translation between Chinese and English as an
example. A formal equivalence translation between the two languages, belonging
to different language families, is hard indeed, if not at all impossible.
Chinese, belonging to the Sino-Tibetan language family, is an ideographic
language of paratactic structure, composed of monosyllable units —— logographic
characters —— which represent ideas or things rather the sound of a word,
whereas English, belonging to the Indo-European language family, is an
alphabetic language of hypotactic structure, composed of Latin letters,
representing the sound of a word. As two totally different languages, some
language phenomena which exist in one are lacking in the other, for instance,
in English, the indefinite and definite articles, inflection, tense,
post-modifiers of a noun, etc., and in Chinese the various classifiers, special
sentences with either an adjective, a subject-predicate construction or verbal
expressions in series as its predicate, the pivotal sentence, etc. A detailed comparison between Chinese and
English syntax is listed below to further prove the difficulty in maintaining
formal correspondence between the two languages: A. In most cases, the English interrogation
sentence is formed by inverting the order of the subject and the predicate verb
(or part of the predicate verb). In Chinese, however, a yes-no question is
formed simply by adding an auxiliary word “吗”
(pronounced as ma) at the end of a declarative sentence (see Table 1). Table
1 Chinese English (1) 苏珊是你的导师。
Susan is your tutor. (2) 苏珊是你的导师吗？ Is Susan your
tutor?
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12 [Special Issue -
June 2012]
244
In forming Chinese special questions, no inversion of any
kind is required. The question word may be placed anywhere within a sentence
and its position simply depends on its grammatical function. So the word order
of a special question is just the same as that of a normal declarative
sentence. B. In English an adverbial of
place is usually put at the end of a sentence, while in Chinese an adverbial of
place is usually placed between the subject and the predicate verb. C. In
English an attribute (except for a noun or an adjective) is usually put after
the word it modifies, whereas in Chinese an attribute is always put before the
word it modifies, hence transposition is required in achieving structural
equivalence. D. In English there are also rhetoric inverted sentences. In
Chinese auxiliary words are employed to express emotion or show emphasis
instead of resorting to inverted word order. (3)这些(these) 花(flowers)
多(how)
美(beautiful)
啊(auxiliary
word)! (4) How beautiful these flowers
are. E. In English the modifier is sometimes separated from the word it
modifies either for the sake of balancing the sentence or for rhetoric
purposes. However, in Chinese the modifier is never separated from the word it
modifies. (5) Many paintings are in existence of farmers working in the fields.
(6) 保存着许多描绘农民在田间劳动的画。
In (5), the words are in existence are inserted between the
modifier (of farmers working in the fields) and the modified (paintings). In
its Chinese translation (6), the modifier (描绘农民在田间劳动的) immediately
precedes the modified (画). F. In English there are some elliptical sentence
structures which are employed for the sake of simplicity or emphasis. As there are
no similar structures in Chinese, the omitted parts will be added or repeated
when these structures are turned into Chinese. (7) Histories make men wise,
mathematics ( ) subtle; logic and
rhetoric ( ) able to contend. (8) 历史使人明智，数学使人周密，逻辑和修辞使人善辩。
In (7), the words make men are omitted in the following two
parallel structures, but in the Chinese translation of the sentence (8), the
Chinese meaning of the words (使人) is repeated in those structures. 4. The Priority of Dynamic Equivalence over
Formal Correspondence In view of the
difficulty in retaining formal correspondence, and of the fact that all
communication is goal-oriented, no matter intralingual or interlingual
communication, the move from the source's intention to the receptor's
interpretation is quite natural and reasonable. So Nida's dynamic equivalence
seems a good way to foster the interlingual communication and it is justified
to say that dynamic equivalence often has priority over formal correspondence.
C.W.Orr likens translation to painting: "the painter does not reproduce
every detail of the landscape" —— he selects what seems best to him, and
for a translator, "it is the spirit, not only the letter, that he asks to
embody in his own version” (Nida, 1964: 162).
To further demonstrate that dynamic equivalence translation is feasible
and merits commendation, listed below are four different translations of a
Chinese sentence “巧妇难为无米之炊” (see Table 2): Table
2 Translation Strategy English Version
A. word-for-word (WT) clever-woman -difficult-do-without-rice-'s-cook B.
literal translation (LT) Even the cleverest woman cannot cook a meal without
rice. C. free translation (FT) Nobody can make something out of nothing. D.
dynamic equivalence (EQ) One cannot make bricks without straw.
Version A violates the grammatical rules of the receptor
language and does not make any sense.
Version B rearranges the words on the phrase level, thus occur some
phrases in conformity with English vocabulary and grammar, like "the
cleverest woman", "cook a meal" and "without
rice".
The Special Issue on Humanities and Behavioral Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas,
USA
245
Though B is in keeping with the linguistic rules of the
receptor language, the two languages exhibit distinct cultural features. The
Chinese idiomatic expression bears a strong local flavor, for rice is the
staple food in China. Without the knowledge, receptors of other languages would
find it hard to understand. Version C
further reorganizes the literal translation on sentence and paragraph levels.
The aim is not to seek formal correspondence but to make explicit the real
meaning. That's why the equivalent words of Chinese like "woman"(妇),
"cook"(为), "meal"(炊),
etc., are nowhere to be found.
Version D is the final adjustment and perfection of function
and form of FT on the discourse level, and is the "closest natural
equivalence", which conforms to English idiomatic expression and bears its
distinct cultural features. In this way, it is easily understood and similarly
responded to by the receptors. 5. The
Defects of Dynamic Equivalence Nida's
dynamic equivalence theory is of great practical value, as well verified by his
Bible translation. However, it is not almighty and perfect. There are still
some doubts which invite argument. What to be discussed are not the special
occasions mentioned by Nida himself in Toward a Science of Translating,
including linguistic restrictions, cultural restrictions and diglot
publication, but in a general sense and application. 5.1 The abstract nature of dynamic
equivalence as a translation criterion
The first doubt cast upon the theory is that it is too abstract to be
used as a criterion to judge the quality of a translation. Nida maintains,
"to measure dynamic equivalence, we can only rightly compare the
equivalence of response, rather than the degree of agreement between the
original source and the later receptors…"(Nida and Taber, 1969: 23). However,
the measurement is intuitive, dependent upon subjective judgment, for how can
we know exactly the responses of the source language receptors, particularly if
the source text was written ages ago? Moreover, the receptors Nida has in mind
are the specific readers of certain text and it is their responses that are
required to judge the quality of a translation, but he does not request the
average readers of the translation to check with the source text, since they do
not know or just know a little source language, that is to say, those who judge
virtually are not average readers but the critics of a translation or
linguists. 5.2 Contradictions in regard
to the cultural elements in translation
It is, then, argued that dynamic equivalence exhibits certain
contradictions in regard to the cultural elements in translation. On the one
hand, Nida favors a natural rendering which aims to "fit the receptor
language and culture as a whole", in other words, it means certain
adjustments should be made, including replacing the images projected by the
culture of the source text with those familiar to the receptors, like the
dynamic equivalence translation of “巧妇难为无米之炊”, in which the original images of “meal” (炊) and
“rice”(米)
are replaced by “bricks” and “straw” which sound familiar to the receptors. On
the other hand, Nida is in favor of "linguistic" translation other
than "cultural" translation, whereas sometimes it is no easy task to
distinguish between "cultural" translation and some adjustments of
cultural elements to achieve similar receptor responses, as proposed by dynamic
equivalence, since the latter, too, is intuitive and the line is somewhat
blurred by the individual's subjectivity.
5.3 The degree of "naturalness" in translation Moreover, in speaking of "naturalness",
Nida insists that the best translation should not sound like a translation, but
I think otherwise for two reasons:
Firstly, language and culture are inseparable. "Language is an
integral part of culture," John Lyon says, "and that the lexical
distinctions drawn by each language will tend to reflect the
culturally-important features of objects, institutions and activities in the
society in which the language operates"(邱懋如, 1989: 27). Peter Newmark (1988:
94) echoes Lyon's opinion by stating: "culture is the way of life and its
manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language
as its means of expression". As translation aims to enable one to get
exposed to foreign works, while you are translating a foreign language text,
you are introducing its culture as well. The change of some images bearing
cultural features will undoubtedly diminish the cultural load of its language
and leave unfinished the task of cultural transmission. It is undesirable,
therefore, to use typical target cultural elements to replace those of the
source text, but acceptable to preserve certain "foreignness".
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12 [Special Issue -
June 2012]
246
Secondly, by naturalizing the translation, dynamic
equivalence, to certain degree, has ignored the assimilating ability of
peoples. In spite of the fact that differences do exist, “the similarities
between men are finally much greater than the differences", and "all members
of the species share primal attributes of perception and response which are
manifest in speech utterances and which can therefore be grasped and
translated”(邱懋如,
1989: 28). Within the receptor's assimilating ability, certain
"strangeness" in translation is acceptable, particularly when some
new terms are first introduced during the primary stage of cultural
communication. Actually, in quite a lot of cases, rather than damaging its
perfection, the absorption into Chinese of new words and new ways of expression
further enriches the Chinese language, as well-proved by some words in vogue
which are merely translated from English, like sofa (沙发,
pronounced as shafa), clone (克隆, pronounced as kelong), etc.
In sum, to sound "natural" to the receptor is
good, while to keep "foreignness" or "strangeness" to
certain degree is also permissible. In this sense, as far as the preservation
of the cultural elements of the source language is concerned, it is desirable
that a translation read like a translation.
5.4 The simplification of the source language What also comes under criticism is that
dynamic equivalence risks simplifying the source language, even decreasing its
literary value. One of the distinctive features of literary works is the
frequent use of figurative language and fresh expressions, and the author’s
real intention is to be sought between the lines. If intelligibility or the
communicative effect of the receptor language text is always given the priority
and all the figurative images in the source text are left out, or all that is
implicit is made explicit, then, despite its intelligibility, the receptor
language text reads boring and fails the purpose of literature. Therefore, in
translating secular literary works, unlike Bible translation, intelligibility should
not be solely stressed. In later years Nida has increasingly realized the
problem and in his work From One Language to Another, he no longer agrees to
the priority of intelligibility but places equal weight on intelligibility,
readability and acceptability. 6.
Modification of Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Correspondence Aware of the defects in his dynamic
equivalence theory, Nida continues to modify and perfect his theories,
including those concerning formal correspondence. He acknowledges that any element
in connection with receptor language text is meaningful, including the form:
"For effective impact and appeal, form cannot be separated from content,
since form itself carries so much meaning…"(Nida, 1989: 5). If form is
sacrificed, meaning is damaged as well, so he cautions the translator not to
easily change the form and asks them to achieve as much formal correspondence
as possible, which marks a shift from total neglect of form to attaching
certain importance to formal elements.
Mention should also be made of his replacing “dynamic equivalence” by
“functional equivalence” in From One Language to Another. No matter how varied
the ways of expression of languages are, he holds, they have the same or
similar functions, therefore, functional equivalence seems more accurate and
precise (谭载喜, 1989: 34).
7. Conclusion For all the defects
and doubts, Nida's dynamic equivalence contributes a remarkable insight into
translating and helps to create an atmosphere of treating different languages
and cultures from an entirely new perspective in order to promote interlingual
communication and understanding between peoples. Through seeking dynamic
equivalence, the communication between languages and cultures, and the
formidable task of translation become at all possible.
The Special Issue on Humanities and Behavioral Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas,
USA
247
References 戴灿宇[Dai,
Canyu]. 1987.“论奈达翻译理论中的动态对等”,《外语教学》第 3 期,第 61 页.
乐眉云[Le, Meiyun]. 1989.“语言学与翻译理论”，《外国语》, 第 5 期, 第 38 页.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall
International Ltd. Nida, E.A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden:
E.J. Brill. Nida, E.A. and Charles
R.Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: EJ.Brill. Nida, E.A. 1984. "Approaches to
Translating in the Western World". In Foreign Language Teaching and
Research. No. 2, p.13. Nida, E.A. 1989. "Theories of Translation,"《外国语》,第 6 期, 第 5 页.
邱懋如[Qiu,
Maoru]. 1989. "Equivalence VS. Translation Equivalence as Translation
Theory and Its Application to English-Chinese Translation,"《外国语》4-6
期.
谭载喜[Tan, Zaixi]. 1989.“奈达和他的翻译理论—— 译序”，《外国语》第
5 期,
第
34-35 页. 扬忠[Yang, Zhong]，李清和[Li,
Qinghe]. 1995. “意-义-译—— 议等值翻译的层次性和相对性,”《中国翻译》
第
5 期,
第
11 页.
No comments:
Post a Comment