Eugene A. Nida (November 11, 1914 – August 25, 2011) was a linguist who patent clear the dynamic-equivalence Bible-translation theory. Nida was born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on November 11, 1914. He became a Christian at a pubescent age, when he rejoined to the altar allure at his temple “to recognize Christ as my Saviour" He graduated from the University of California in 1936. After graduating he animated Camp Wycliffe, wless Bible translation speculation was taught. Subjoined Nida became a building charter factor of Wycliffe Bible Translators, a sister construction of the Summer Institute of Linguistics.
In 1937, Nida lowertook studies at the University of Southern California, wless he obtained a Master’s Property in New Testament Greek in 1939. In 1943, Nida ordinary his Ph. D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan, His Ph. D. dissertation, A Synopsis of English Syntax, was the primeval unmeasured-scale resolution of a elder tongue according to the "immediate-constituent" speculation. He began his success as a linguist delay the American Bible Society (ABS). He was quickly promoted to Associate Secretary for Versions, then exertioned as Executive Secretary for Translations until his retreat.
Nida lonely in the future 1980s, although he continued to yield lectures in universities all environing the universe, and lived in Madrid, Spain and Brussels, Belgium. He died in Madrid on August 25, 2011 interval-honored 96. Nida was instrumental in engineering the junction trial among the Vatican and the United Bible Societies (UBS) to product cross-denominational Bibles in translations across the sphere. This exertion began in 1968 and was carried on in accordance delay Nida's translation energy of Negotiative Equivalence. His gifts in public Nida has been a chief in the rooms of translation speculation and linguistics.
His most separateed gift to translation speculation is Dynamic Equivalence, as-well-behaved notorious as Negotiative Equivalence. Nida as-well-behaved patent clear the "componential-analysis" technique, which rend utterance into their factors to acceleration enumerate equivalence in translation (e. g. "bachelor" = manly + solitary). This is, perchance, not the best pattern of the technique, though it is the most polite-behaved-known. Nida's dynamic-equivalence speculation is repeatedly held in obstacle to the ideas of philologists who conceal that an discernment of the spring passage (ST) an be endd by assessing the inter-animation of utterance on the page, and that aim is self-contained delayin the passage (i. e. regardtelling balance rendezvoused on achieving semantic equivalence). This speculation, concurrently delay other theories of tallyment in translating, are elaborated in his essay Principles of Correspondence, wless Nida begins by asserting that yieldn that “no two tongues are selfsame, either in the bequest yieldn to selfselfhomogeneous symbols or in the ways in which symbols are shapely in phrases and decisions, it stands to conclude that tless can be no despotic tallyment among tongues.
Hence, tless can be no abundantly upright translations. ” Conjuncture the contact of a translation may be bar to the ancient, tless can be no oneness in factor. Some of his theories in factor Primeval elder gift: Dynamic equivalence Nida then sets forth the contendences in translation, as he would wholeity for it, delayin three basic undeniabletyors: (1) The regularity of the missive: in some missives the pleased is of pristine consequence, and in others the mould must be yieldn a higher guidance. 2) The point of the agent and of the translator: to yield notification on twain mould and pleased; to aim at unmeasured transparency of the discoverer so he/she may comprehend the unmeasured twists of the missive; for urgent points that aim at not honest discernment the translation but as-well-behaved at ensuring no misdiscernment of the translation. (3) The character of assembly: prospective assemblys conattend twain in decoding force and in potential study. Nida conveys in the reminder that conjuncture tless are no such things as “identical equivalents” in translating, what one must in translating conattend to do is confront the “closest leveltual equiponderant”.
Here he identifies two basic orientations in translating fired on two contendent characters of equivalence: Sufficient Equivalence (F-E) and Dynamic Equivalence (D-E). Energy of dynamic equivalence * Public portico In Internal a Science of Translating, Nida primeval put bold the energy of dynamic equivalence which he defines as "the kindred among receptor and missive should be unquestionably the selfselfhomogeneous as that which depended among the ancient receptors and the missive" (Nida,1964, p. 59). Aftercited this energy, dynamic equivalence, as defined by Nida, is to reproduct "in the receptor tongue the barst leveltual equivalence of the spring-tongue missive…"(Nida and Taber, 1969: 12). Nida (1964: 167) especially forcees that "a leveltual statement must fit the receptor tongue and refinement as a gross; the conpassage of the point missive; and the receptor-tongue assembly". To put it unembellished, either the aim or mould should not investigate "foreign".
The substance of dynamic equivalence is the receptor's retort, in Nida's own vocable, "the property to which the receptors of the missive in the receptor tongue rejoin to it in unquestionably the selfselfhomogeneous husk as the receptors in the spring tongue" (Nida and Taber, 1969: 68). The reaction or retort is fired on the compendious entertainment of the missive, not barely discernment the aim or pleased, but as-well-behaved sensation in the way the ancient discoverers do. By laying force on the receptor's retort, he lowerlines the correction to the spring passage by the receptor's subjectivity and aesthetic sentiment. The promotive features of the energy we must primeval comprehend environing the promotive features of this energy and D-E translation. As Nida himself points out, the promotive features of D-E translation consists of the aftercited points: (1) equiponderant, which points internal the spring-tongue missive. (2) leveltual, which points internal the receptor tongue (3) barst, which binds the two orientations concurrently on the premise of the primary property of identity (Nida, 1964). All these points aim at affecting "resembling retort" among the spring passage discoverers and the target passage discoverers.
A. Equiponderant As mentioned aloft, this bequest at reproducing the missive of the ancient passage. This is the basic fitness of D-E translation, as is delay any other husk of translation. That is to say, to product a D -E translation, the translator must aim chiefly at conveying the aim of the ancient passage, and to do grossthing else is promotively wickedness to his administration as a translator, owing translation is basically a husk of intimation (Nida and Taber, 1982). B. Eventual A D-E translation is directed chiefly internals the co-ordination of retort.
To end this point, the translation must be leveltual, for it is of big consequence to affecting in the target discoverers a retort resembling to that of the ancient discoverers. To be leveltual, the equiponderant moulds should not be "foreign" either in vocables of mould, or in vocables of aim, which resources that the translation should not show any signs of its non-home spring (Nida, 1975). Nida forcees that leveltualness in a D-E translation must fit these three aspects: (1) The receptor tongue and refinement as a gross, 2) The conpassage of the point missive, (3) The receptor-tongue assembly (Nida, 1964). He advance remarks: The best translation does not investigate enjoy a translation [It should not] unfold in its plain and stylistic moulds any derive of difficulty or strangeness It should studiously dodge 'translationese' he defines as 'sufficient faithfulness, delay resulting treason to the pleased and the contact of die missive' (Nida and Taber, 1982). C. Closest "Closest" less is of a embrace regularity.
On the one fruitman, it indicates that equivalence in translation can never be despotic oneness, owing "forfeiture arises in all moulds of intimation, whether it implicates translation or not" (Bassenet and Lefevere, 1990, p. 35). It can barely be an identity, owing no two tongues are selfsame, either in the bequest yieldn to selfselfhomogeneous symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are shapely in phrases and decisions. Therefore, the whole contact of a translation may be concludeably bar to the ancient, but tless can be no oneness in factor.
On the other fruitman, past equivalence in translation is honest a husk of identity, not despotic oneness, it leveltually results in the possibility to fir equivalence among the spring passage and the target passage on multiframe propertys or in contendent aspects. However, it is the primary property that a D-E translation is expected to conattend for. In other utterance, though forfeiture of aim is infallible, the translator should try his best to convey it to the restriction. D. Resembling Retort This is the leading aim of the D-E translation and all the aloft three points are directed to it.
The voctelling "response" less alludes to the way in which receptors of a passage comprehend the passage, including the property the passage products on them conjuncture "resembling retort" implicates a identity of two harmonys: the harmony of the target passage discoverers to the target passage should be unquestionably the selfselfhomogeneous to that of the spring passage discoverers to the spring passage. That is to say, the target passage discoverers must not barely comprehend how the spring passage discoverers must bear involved the pleased of the passage, but they should as-well-behaved be telling to esteem some of the contact and resort which such a passage must bear had for t he spring passage discoverers (Jin Di and Nida, 1984).
Formal Treaty in obstacle to dynamic equivalence: Nida puts bold dynamic equivalence in obstacle to mouldal tallyment. In telling of leveltualness, he is strongly degrudge 'translationese' as we mentioned Basically, a mouldal equivalence translation, as Nida (1964, 165) states, is spring-oriented, which is indicated to show as regardtelling as potential the mould and pleased of the ancient missive, that is, to pair as barly as potential the mouldal part-amongs enjoy plain units, solidity in order action, bequest in vocables of the spring stuff, honest to indicate some. David Crystal, J.
R. Firth, Catford and other linguists and translation theorists tally upon the six smooths of mouldal equivalence, indicately, phonetic, phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactical and semantic equivalence. We may toss balance not-difficult on mouldal equivalence or "correspondence" by citing Catford's idea. Catford and his ideas of equivalence in translation: Catford's demeanour to translation equivalence clfuture contends from that adopted by Nida past Catford had a inclination for a balance linguistic-dignified demeanour to translation and this demeanour is fired on the linguistic exertion of Firth and Halliday.
Catford has defined mouldal tallyment as "oneness of administration of resembling aces in two linguistic systems: for him, a mouldal resembling is «any TL /target tongue/ sort which may be said to hold, as nfuture as potential, the «same» locate in the management of the TL as the yieldn SL/spring tongue/ sort occupies in the SL " (Catford, 1965: 32). His ocean gift in the room of translation speculation is the portico of the concepts of characters and displaces of translation. Catford contemplated very unreserved characters of translation in vocables of three criteria: 1.
The quantity of translation (unmeasured translation vs partial translation); 2. The plain adupright at which the translation equivalence is fired (rank-bound translation vs. unsparing translation); 3. The smooths of tongue implicated in translation (whole translation vs. scientific translation). We conquer allude barely to the cooperate proof of translation, past this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we conquer then provoke on to excite the idea of translation displaces, as elaborated by Catford, which are fired on the separation among mouldal tallyment and passageual equivalence.
In rank-bound translation an equiponderant is sought in the TL for each order, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unsparing translation equivalences are not tied to a point adjust, and we may additionally confront equivalences at decision, stipulation and other smooths. Catford confronts five of these adjusts or smooths in twain English and French. Thus, a sufficient tallyment could be said to depend among English and French if harmonys among adjusts bear closely the selfselfhomogeneous delineation in twain tongues, as Catford clbequest they do.
As far as translation displaces are unquiet, Catford defines them as 'departures from mouldal tallyment in the regularity of going from the SL to the TL' (ibid. :73). Catford persuades that tless are two ocean characters of translation displaces, indicately smooth displaces, wless the SL ace at one linguistic smooth (e. g. phraseology) has a TL equiponderant at a contendent smooth (e. g. lexis), and sort displaces which are separated into four characters: 1. Structure-shifts, which implicate a plain disagree among the constituency of the ST and that of the TT; 2.
Class-shifts, when a SL ace is transferd delay a TL ace which appertains to a contendent plain assort, i. e. a verb may be transferd delay a noun; 3. Unit-shifts, which implicate disagrees in adjust; 4. Intra-system displaces, which arise when 'SL and TL own systems which closely correjoin mouldally as to their character, but when translation implicates excerption of a non-selfselfhomogeneous voctelling in the TL system' (ibid. :80). For petition, when the SL curious becomes a TL plural.
The Guidance of Dynamic Equivalence balance Sufficient Treaty In idea of the difficulty in disturbing mouldal tallyment, and of the undeniablety that all intimation is goal-oriented, no stuff intralingual or interlingual intimation, the provoke from the spring's delineation to the receptor's rendering is absolutely leveltual and concludeable. So Nida's dynamic equivalence seems a cheerful way to disturb the interlingual intimation and it is honestified to say that dynamic equivalence repeatedly has guidance balance mouldal tallyment. C. W.
Orr enjoyns translation to painting: "the painter does not reproduct gross factor of the landscape", he selects what seems best to him, and for a translator, "it is the earnestness, not barely the epistle that he asks to aggregate in his own rendering” (Nida, 1964: 162). Merits and demerits of dynamic equivalence speculation As is notorious to all, translation in substance is a husk of intimation, and its ocean administration is to let the target discoverer comprehend the aim of the ancient passage. Whether a translation is cheerful or not depends largely on whether the target discoverer comprehends the ancient missive extendedly.
However, traditionally, the balance of translation is magistrated barely on the premise of the tallyment in utterance and phraseology among the spring and target tongues, and this is rarely misleading (Nida, 1993). Past translating resources intimation, evaluating the balance of a translation cannot plug delay a identity of selfselfhomogeneous lexical bequest, plain assortes, and spirited devices. In less, it cannot plug delay a identity of the unwritten moulds of the spring and target passages.
Instead, it should receive into consequence the discoverer's retort and identity should be made among "the way in which the ancient receptor involved and esteemd the passage and the way in which receptors of the transferd passage comprehend and esteem the transferd passage" (Nida, 1993 p. 116). Merits It has a lot of merits to receive into consequence the discoverers' retort and rendezvous on the co-ordination among the retort of the spring passage discoverers and that of the target passage discoverers, which apprehend the aftercited aspects: - Rationality of Gate into Consequence the Reader's Retort Past translation is oceanly prepared for its discoverers to comprehend, absolutely leveltually, we should receive into consequence how the discoverers expound the translation, indicately, their retort to the target passage, and parallel it delay that of the spring passage discoverers to the spring passage. Barely when the retort o f the spring passage discoverers and that of target passage discoverers are resembling can we say that the translation is extended. If we do not receive into consequence the discoverers' retort when judging the balance of a translation, it is repeatedly misleading.
As we comprehend, rarely what seems to be equiponderant translation of the ancient passage in vocables of lexical, plain features may in-circumstance disband the aim. Most antecedent demeanoures to translation bear rendezvoused study upon the kindred of the spring passage to the target passage, whether in vocables of mould or pleased. The concept of dynamic equiponderant translating introduces an dignified new delineation, indicately, the kindred of receptors to the relative passages.... [It] communicates not narrowly signs as signs, but rendezvouses on the ways in which unwritten signs bear aim for receptors.
It is unquestionably delayin such a conpassage that discussions of transnational balance and recognizeforce fashion sentiment (Jin Di and Nida, 1984). In less, gate into consequence the discoverers' retort accelerations to reproduct the ancient missive extendedly and answer-for equivalence among the spring passage and the target passage in genuine sentiment. B. Avoiding the Contest balance Dogmatic Translation versus Operating Translation Whether to transfer dogmaticly or spontaneously is an end that has desire been contestd in the translation divergence.
Some scholars persuade for dogmatic translation conjuncture others persuade for operating translation. It seems that the two ideas conquer never conciliate delay each other. However, it is no use arguing which is rectify, past dogmatic translation and operating translation twain bear their hardness and limitations. Instead, it is balance accelerationful, in the agent's idea, to communicate delay this end from a contendent perspective and get a energy of translation that can polite-behaved-behaved be-mixed them. In a sentiment, the energy of dynamic equivalence may benefit as an propertyive resources to spin separate the contest.
Since it rendezvouses on the resembling retort, any husk of translation, either dogmatic or operating, is extended, so desire as it can disturb the resembling retort. Thus, the contest balance dogmatic translation versus operating translation attends to be unserviceable, and the exquisite among them depends on which can rectify convey environing the "closest leveltual equiponderant" and educe "unquestionably the selfselfhomogeneous retort". C. Freeing the Translator from the Binding of the Ancient Unwritten Mould and Increasing Translatforce Languages conattend from each other, and each tongue has its own peculiarities.
Sometimes the ways of using tongue are peculiar to a undeniable tongue. In this levelt, if the translator rendezvouses on the ancient unwritten mould, he is usually incapable. However, if he spins separate from the unwritten mould and rendezvouses on the resembling retort, he can rarely "crack the nut". D. Balance discovertelling and comprehendtelling passage The practice of dynamic equivalence is that it usually products a balance discoverable/understandtelling Bible rendering. Future translations of Bible were rarely conceal and may penetrate the interest of untransparency as they were pure-minded on conserving the ancient passage. Demerits
Nida's dynamic equivalence speculation is of big useful appreciate, as polite-behaved-behaved signed by his Bible translation. However, it is not all-powerful and absolute. Tless are calm?} some dubitates which tempt evidence. A. The intellectual regularity of dynamic equivalence as a translation proof The primeval dubitate aspect upon the speculation is that it is too intellectual to be used as a proof to magistrate the property of a translation. Nida conceals, "to appraise dynamic equivalence, we can barely unexceptionably parallel the equivalence of retort, rather than the property of tallyment among the ancient spring and the subjoined receptors …"(Nida and Taber, 1969: 23).
However, the appraisement is voluntary, hanging upon intellectual penetration, for how can we comprehend upunexceptionably the retorts of the spring tongue receptors, especially if the spring passage was written ages ago? Moreover, the receptors Nida has in view are the favoring discoverers of undeniable passage and it is their retorts that are required to magistrate the property of a translation, but he does not petition the mean discoverers of the translation to stop delay the spring passage, past they do not comprehend or honest comprehend a diminutive spring tongue, that is to say, those who magistrate virtually are not mean discoverers but the critics of a translation or linguists.
B. - The property of "naturalness" in translation Moreover, in telling of "naturalness", Nida insists that the best translation should not investigate enjoy a translation, but I deem divergently for two concludes: Firstly, tongue and refinement are redundant. "Language is an gross slower of refinement," John Lyon says, "and that the lexical separations drawn by each tongue conquer atattend to mirror the culturally-dignified features of objects, institutions and activities in the part-amongicipation in which the tongue operates unity that uses a point tongue as its resources of countenance".
As translation bequest to entelling one to get unprotected to exotic exertions, conjuncture you are translating a exotic tongue passage, you are introducing its refinement as polite-behaved. The disagree of some images demeanour cultural features conquer undoubtedly decrease the cultural assault of its tongue and permission incomplete the administration of cultural transmission. By leveltualizing the translation, dynamic equivalence, to undeniable property, has ignored the assimilating force of peoples.
In grudge of the undeniablety that contendences do depend, the resemblingities among men are finally regardtelling biger than the contendences", and "all factors of the capacity divide unaffected attributes of cognizance and retort which are clear in oration utterances and which can for-this-reason be grasped and transferd. In sum, to investigate "natural" to the receptor is cheerful, conjuncture to deeptain "foreignness" or "strangeness" to undeniable property is as-well-behaved legitimate. In this sentiment, as far as the guardianship of the cultural part-amongs of the spring tongue is unquiet, it is desirtelling that a translation discover enjoy a translation. C. The simplification of the spring tongue
What as-well-behaved comes lower censure is that dynamic equivalence risks simplifying the spring tongue, level decreasing its studious appreciate. One of the redundant features of studious exertions is the inspissated use of emblematical tongue and unfaded countenances, and the agent’s genuine delineation is to be sought among the lines. If transparency or the communicative property of the receptor tongue passage is constantly yieldn the guidance and all the emblematical images in the spring passage are left out, or all that is indicated is made manifest, then, degrudge its transparency, the receptor tongue passage discovers boring and fails the point of scholarship.
Therefore, in translating unmonastic studious exertions, unenjoy Bible translation, transparency should not be barely forceed. In subjoined years Nida has increasingly genuineized the quantity and in his exertion From One Tongue to Another, he no desireer tallys to the guidance of transparency but locates resembling moment on transparency, discoverforce and recognizeability. D. Modification of Dynamic Equivalence and Sufficient Treaty Aware of the defects in his dynamic equivalence speculation, Nida continues to disagree and absolute his theories, including those regarding mouldal tallyment.
He acknowledges that any part-among-among in kindred delay receptor tongue passage is aimful, including the mould: "For propertyive contact and resort, mould cannot be separated from pleased, past mould itself carries so regardtelling aim…"(Nida, 1989: 5). If mould is sacrificed, aim is damtime-honored as polite-behaved, so he reluctant the translator not to largely disagree the mould and asks them to end as regardtelling mouldal tallyment as potential, which marks a displace from whole disregard of mould to attaching undeniable consequence to mouldal part-amongs.
Mention should as-well-behaved be made of his replacing “dynamic equivalence” by “negotiative equivalence” in From One Tongue to Another. No stuff how multitudinous the ways of countenance of tongues are, he holds, they bear the selfselfhomogeneous or resembling administrations, for-this-reason, administrational equivalence seems balance referenceful and pointed. E. Risk of impointed translation The translator is "freer" from the plain moulds of the ancient tongue, he is balance enjoyly to yield the environs of an referenceful translation, in an trial to accost leveltually in the home tongue.
That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are captelling of substance balance leveltual and balance pointed than are mouldal equivalence translations, but they are as-well-behaved balance captelling of substance pointedly wickedness. Cooperate elder gift: Componential resolution To enumerate the aim of any mould dissimilarity must be build, for tless is no aim aslower from momentous contendences. Nida (1975: 31) states “If all the universe were bluish-colored, tless would be no bluish-coloredness, past tless would be molehill to dissimilarity delay bluish-colored. The selfselfhomogeneous is gentleman for the bequest of utterance.
They bear aim barely in vocables of uniconceive dissimilaritys delay other utterance which divide undeniable features delay them but dissimilaritydelay them in reference to other features”. Nida in “Componential Resolution of Meaning” (1975: 32) categorize the characters of factors into two ocean characters, i. e. contemptible factor and feature or redundant factor. a. Contemptible factor. This is the mediate factor which is divided by all the lexemes in the selfselfhomogeneous semantic doocean or lexical room. b. Feature or redundant factors.
They benefit to separate the aim from others from the selfselfhomogeneous lordship. A very undesigning pattern to exunembellished these two characters is getd by the utterance man, dowager, boy, damsel, and other kindred utterance in English (Leech, 1976: 96). These utterance all bedesire to the semantic room of ‘civilized race’ and the harmonys among them may be represented by the aftercited matrix. factors| man| dowager| boy| damsel| | [human]| +| +| +| +| | [adult]| +| +| -| -| | [male]| +| -| +| -| | Ttelling 1. Contemptible and Feature Components of the utterance man, dowager, boy, and damsel.
In the semantic doocean of man, dowager, boy, and damsel, [human] is the contemptible factor, and they are separateed by [adult], [male], [female] as the feature factors. The bequest of the singular aces can then be explicit by combinations of these features: Man +[human] +[adult] +[male] Dowager +[human] +[adult] -[male] Boy +[human] -[adult] +[male] Damsel +[human] -[adult] -[male] Before going advance delay the factorial demeanour, it is dignified to regard potential contendences in the roles of feature factors (Nida, 1975: 38).
The contendences can be best indicated as (1) twistal, (2) kernel, and (3) deductive. Implicational factor are those involved by a point aim, though they do not mould an promotive slower of the kernel aim. On the opposite, twistal factors reocean associated delay a aim, level when other factors are negativized by the stuff. The order grieve has three feature factors: (1) antecedent wickedness bearing, (2) penitence for what has been effected, and (3) disagree of bearing, and the primeval factor is twistal. Whether in a dogmatic or indirect stuff, e. . he grieveed of what he did or he didn’t grieve of what he did, the twist is that the idiosyncratic in scrutiny did star wickedness. The disaffirmation affects the kernel factors which detail the mediate aspects of the levelt, but does not disagree the twistal factor. The deductive factors of bequest are those which may be accruing from the use of an countenance, but which are not guarded as incompatible, kernel part-amongs. In the countenance the policeman shot the embezzler, ‘the embezzler was murdered’ is the corollary, and delayout advance stuffual requisite antecedent to be the levelt.
However, it is potential to disavow this corollary, e. g. ‘the policeman shot the embezzler but didn’t murder him’. At the selfselfhomogeneous interval an deductive factor may be manifestly recurrent, e. g. the policeman shot the embezzler to fall or the policeman shot and murdered the embezzler. Conclusion Nida is a big appearance that contributed big trials to the product of Translation Theories. His inspissated books mirror a distinctive translator and researcher as polite-behaved. His elder gift was the portico of "dynamic equivalence" which represented a displace in study of the regularity of translation.
Nida's dynamic equivalence contributes a remarktelling apprehension into translating and accelerations to fashion an atmospless of treating contendent tongues and refinements from an entirely new perspective. The concept of dynamic equivalence, degrudge having some disadvantages but absoluteion is closed and the concept unquestionably moulded a milestone concurrently the pathway of translation studies and theories Works cited 1. Bassnet, Susan & Andre Lefevere, eds.. Translation: History & Culture. London: Casell, 1990. Print 2. Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Speculation of translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. Print 3. "Eugene A. Nida. Wikipedia Operating Ecyclopedia. Web. 7 April 2013. 4. Jin Di ; Eugene A. Nida. . On Translation: delay peculiar Reference to Chinese and English. Beijing: China Translation ; Publish Corporation, 1984. print. 5. Nida, Eugene A. Internal a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Print. 6. Nida, Eugene A. Tongue Constituency and Translation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975. Print 7. Nida, Eugene A. Language, Refinement and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Exotic Tongue Education Press, 1993. Print. 8. Nida, Eugene A. ; Charles R. Taber. The speculation and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982. Print. .