毕业论文课题相关文献综述

Literature review

Overview of functional equivalence theory

In From One Language to Another, Nida (1986) firstly proposed the concept of functional equivalence, initially known as dynamic equivalence. Nida believes that the previous concept of dynamic equivalence is easily to be misunderstood because dynamic equivalence only emphasizes on the equivalence of the content than that of the form. It will mislead people that the content and the form are contradicted with each other. In order to highlight the communicative function of translation, it is suitable to use functional equivalence to replace dynamic equivalence. For functional equivalence requires equivalence between translated text and the original one not only in the content but also in the form. Compared with dynamic equivalence, functional equivalence is more persuasive.

Nida has built a vast system of translation theory in his series of works, whose core theory is Functional Equivalence theory. It believes translation does not seek rigid counterparts in the target text but achieves equivalence in function and the same effect for the target readers. Nida indicates that translation not only refers to the equivalence at the level of word meaning, but also includes semantics and style equivalence. The information transmitted by translation includes both lexical information and culture information. The equivalence in Functional Equivalence Theory covers the following four aspects: (1) Lexical equivalence (2) Syntax equivalence (3) Chapter equivalence (4) Stylistic equivalence.

Nida (2004) believes translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. This definition accurately points out that the essence and task of translation lie on reproducing the source text with target text, and the translation method is to reproduce the source information with the closest natural equivalent in the target language. In light of this, Nida (2001) puts forward four requirements of translation: (1) information conversion; (2) reproduction of the original spirit and style; (3) smooth language, which is in line with norms and practices of target language; (4) similar response between source readers and target ones.

The study of slang abroad

J. Brander Mathews (1893), a British lexicographer, pointed in The Atlantic Monthly: Slang is the foe and the friend of the English languageThe distinctive test of good slangis that it has a real meaning. Bad slang has no meaning; it is simply a succession of sounds which, because they come trippingly from the tongue, impose upon the ignorant imagination of the readerGood slang is idiomatically expressive and has a narrow escape sometimes from being poetical.

According to Longman Contemporary English-Chinese Dictionary (2000), slang is a language that is not usually acceptable in serious speech or writing, including words, expressions, etc., regarded as very informal or not polite, and those used among particular groups of people. Or sometimes in British English, slang is informal to attack with rude angry words.

Paperback Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary (2007) has defined slang as very informal words and phrases that are more common in speech than in writing and are used by a particular group of people