对奈达功能对等理论质疑的辩驳.doc

ugene A. Nida and his functional equivalence He believes that , since no two languages are identical, either in the meaning given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute translation, the translation may be close to the original, but there can be no identity in details. As there are no such things as identical translation, so the translators should strive what they can to achieve the closest equivalent. Given the facts that Nida distinguished two orientations in translation: formal equivalence and functional equivalence or can be called dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses on the message itself, in both form and content, that is to say , the message in the receptor language should match as closely as the original(I am curious about whether we can see the semantic translation from Peter Newmark’s theory is similar to the formal translation to some extent.), nevertheless, I think few people can accomplish this request, and in my perspective, I think it is meaningless to reach this level, for most of the time , our aim is to deliver the main idea yet the whole information. In contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather a formal equivalence is based on the principle of “equivalent effect”. With dynamic equivalence a translator is not so concerned with matching the receptor language message with the source language message should be substantially the same as that which satisfied both the original receptors and the message. Nida holds that translation consists in reproducing in the receptors language and the closest natural equivalence of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. Nida thinks that a translation of dynamic equivalence 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 no