Contemplating the Future of Chinese Bible Translation: A Functionalist Approach

Abstract

Functionalist approach to translation: A sketch To set up a framework for discussion, we shall first visit some developments in a functionalist approach to translation in recent decades. in Toward a Science of Translating (1964) and The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969, with charles R. taber), eugene A. Nida distinguishes between formal identity and dynamic equivalence in translation (e.g., Nida and taber 1969, 12) and advocates that the focus in translating should not be the “form of the message” but “the response of the receptor” (Nida and taber 1969, 1). the task of translating, then, “consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the sourcelanguage message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style” (Nida and taber 1969, 12). to accomplish this task, Nida proposes a three-step process in translating, starting with the grammatical and semantic analysis of the sourcelanguage text (source text), followed by transferring the components identified in the first step to the receptor’s language (target language), and finishing with a restructuring of the components in the target language (Nida and taber 1969, 33). in a later book, From One Language to Another (1986, with Jan de Waard), Nida refines his approach by replacing the expression “dynamic equivalence” with “functional equivalence” (de Waard and Nida 1986, vii) and reiterates that translating is actually communicating, and translating means translating meaning (de Waard and Nida 1986, 9ff. and 60ff.; cf. Nida 1964, 30ff. and 120ff.). Nida’s translation theory has profoundly influenced the practice of Bible translation since the 1960s, not only within the circle of the United Bible Societies but also outside it. The impact of his work also goes beyond the field of Bible translation and actually lays a basis upon which modern translation studies is founded (see, e.g., Gentzler 1993, 46). Despite all its merits, Nida’s theory of equivalence generates issues to be resolved. One critical issue is the borderline between “translation with elements of text revision” (= equivalence) and “text revision with translated element” (= non-equivalence; Nord 1997, 8). the question is how far translation can go in restructuring without crossing over the borderline and stepping into the realm of rewriting. Another issue is in what way or ways these “equivalences” can be judged