Ma, H. J. (2003): A Study on Nida’s Translation Theory, Beijing, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 250 p.

Eugene A. Nida (1914-) is a distinguished American translation theorist as well as linguist. His translation theory has exerted a tremendous influence on translation studies in western countries. His works on translation set off the study of modern translation as an academic field (Snell-Hornby 1988:1; Heylen 19993:4; Baker 1998:277), and he is regarded as the most influential one among all contemporary translation theorists (New Mark 1993:133). Nida’s influence upon Chinese translation studies is greater still. Before his theory was introduced into China in the 1980s, scholars mainly focused attention on traditional Chinese translation theories, especially Yan Fu’s (1854-1921) three-character principle of translation, i.e. faithfulness, smoothness and elegance. Since Nida’s theory was grounded solidly on contemporary developments of linguistics, communication theory, information theory, semiotics and anthropology, Chinese translation scholars took great interest in his theory. In fact, Nida’s and his theory have been a hot topic in China for almost two decades. In the beginning, Nida’s theory was extensively introduced and much discussed among translation scholars, and was given a high profile for its new perspectives on translation. As time went by, his theory was questioned and challenged. In recent years, his theory was strongly criticized, and even considered as outdated and having outlived its usefulness. It is evident that Nida’s translation theory has undergone dramatic ups and downs since it was introduced into China. This phenomenon is very interesting and has provoked a series of reflections on the part of the Chinese translation scholars. Why is there such a big change in Chinese translation scholars’ attitudes towards Nida’s theory? Are the criticisms against his theory justified? What are the demerits for which his theory is being severely criticized? Is his theory really useless or outdated for Chinese translation studies, as some scholars have so argued? All these questions about Nida’s theory are of great significance in the sense that, to some degree, they determine how Nida’s theory will be received in the future Chinese translation studies. Something cautions us against taking leave of his theory without further consideration. Despite the fact that the distinguished Chinese translation theorist Jin Di’s (1921-) theory of “equivalent effect” is essentially similar to Nida’s theory, there are some differences between them. In this monograph, a comparative study between the two theories is made with a view to disclosing their similarities and differences. Examples from Jin’s Chinese version of James Joyce’s Ulysses are examined against the principle of “equivalent effect,” demonstrating that Nida’s theory is applicable to literary translation between English and Chinese in three important aspects: 1) the application of “dynamic equivalence,” 2) the significance of the concept of the decoder’s channel capacity, and 3) the important role receptors play in evaluating literary translation. Thus this book tries to prove that the argument is untenable that his theory is irrelevant to English-Chinese literary translation. While validating the strength of Nida’s theory, the book tries to demonstrate its limitations in transferring aesthetic values in literary translation. This is probably because literary translation is not Nida’s immediate concern and, therefore, he fails to address the issue of transference of aesthetic values. In this research, attempts have been made to add to his theory with further dimensions, that is, representing aesthetic values of literary works by means of “formal aesthetic markers” and “non-formal aesthetic markers,” hoping to make it more suitable for literary translation between Chinese and English. The effect to amend Nida’s theory along these lines is the first step toward this end. From this book we obtain the following reflections: When we examine a translation theory, we should concentrate on its true nature rather than its …