4. A comparative analysis of the two Chinese versions in the light of functional analysis 6

4.1 Functional equivalence achieved in meaning 6

4.1.1 Referential meaning 6

4.1.2 Connotative meaning 7

4.2 Functional equivalence achieved in style 8

4.2.1 Plainness 8

4.2.2 Ironic effect 9

5. Conclusion 10

Reference 11

1. Introduction

1.1 Research aims and significance

This paper attempts to research on the translation of a classical English essay written by Jonathan Swift by making a comparative study of two Chinese versions of the essay from the perspective of Nida’s functional equivalence. Zhou Zuoren’s translation is compared with Liu Bingshan’s translation on two different levels: functional equivalence achieved in meaning and functional equivalence achieved in style. 

While quite a few articles have been published on Jonathan Swift’s representative prose, most talk about its rhetorical devices and satirical humor. Not much works have talked about its translation. Such a deliberately-conceived, beautifully-structured and thought-provoking essay can be a challenge to any translator. By analyzing the translation of this essay one can see what quality is essential for a translator and could also see how a good translator handles his work. A contrastive study of two different versions of translation will give new inspiration to the researcher in his understanding of translation as a subject, and will nurture a good taste for him in appreciating translation. Since Jonathan Swift himself is an exceptional stylist who had given his famous definition of style as “proper words in proper position”, it is interesting to study whether the words are “proper” and “in proper position” when they are translated into Chinese. The functional equivalence theory raised by Eugene A. Nida is adopted as a criterion for evaluating the two versions. Based on Nida’s functional equivalence theory, the analysis will finally give a result as to which version is more functionally equal to the original work. 

1.2 Research methods

As a comparative study, the paper adopts a comparative method to analyze the two different translations on the meaning level and stylistic level and to see whether the translations have achieved functional equivalence and how well equivalent response is achieved. Criterions for judgments are the four basic requirements raised by Nida, namely making sense; conveying the spirit and manner of the original; having a natural and easy form of expression; and producing a similar response. 

1.3 The structure of the paper

The paper consists five parts. In the introduction, it states the aims and significance of the study as well as the methods adopted during the research. The second part is literature review. In this part the life and work of Jonathan Swift is discussed, for it is very important to know the author and his style in translating literary works. The two Chinese versions of the A Modest Proposal are also introduced in this part. The third part discusses the theoretical framework of the study: Nida’s functional equivalence theory. Functional equivalence and its principles are discussed in detail. The fourth part is a comprehensive contrastive analysis of the two Chinese versions at meaning and style level. Examples and analysis are provided to demonstrate to what extent functional equivalence is achieved. The fifths part gives the conclusion that Liu’s version is considered more functionally equivalent with the original text than Zhou’s. 《育婴刍议》两种中译本的对比研究(2):http://www.youerw.com/yingyu/lunwen_45547.html