Scribd
Upload
33 views

Module 11 - Knowledge Capsule 2

The document discusses different types of equivalence in translation as proposed by scholars Nida and Taber and Baker. Nida and Taber propose formal correspondence, which focuses on form and content, and dynamic equivalence, which focuses on equivalent effect. Baker proposes word level equivalence, grammatical equivalence accounting for differences in rules, textual equivalence to maintain cohesion and coherence, and pragmatic equivalence to convey implied meanings.

Uploaded by

Manuel Stevenson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views

Module 11 - Knowledge Capsule 2

The document discusses different types of equivalence in translation as proposed by scholars Nida and Taber and Baker. Nida and Taber propose formal correspondence, which focuses on form and content, and dynamic equivalence, which focuses on equivalent effect. Baker proposes word level equivalence, grammatical equivalence accounting for differences in rules, textual equivalence to maintain cohesion and coherence, and pragmatic equivalence to convey implied meanings.

Uploaded by

Manuel Stevenson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Equivale

nce in
Translati
on
An extract from the
text: Equivalence in
Translation: Between
Myth and Reality by
Vanessa Leonardi in
the Translation
Journal, Volume 4,
No. 4, October 2000.

https://
translationjournal.ne
t/journal/
14equiv.htm
1.3 Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—
which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal
correspondence—and dynamic equivalence.  Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on
the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based
upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) or their
work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL


word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents
between language pairs. They therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should be
used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic
equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the
TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett,
1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the
grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the
message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard' (ibid.:201).

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator


seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger
the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They
argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change
follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in
the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and
the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200).

One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a
more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into
account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the translation
phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation
process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it
was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic
equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information'
(ibid:25).

Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the
message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make
sure that this message remains clear in the target text.
1.6 Baker's approach to translation equivalence

New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual,
pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of
recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence
can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon
which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of equivalence at
different levels, in relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of
translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. She
distinguishes between:

 Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one
language into another. Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to translation,
equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by the
translator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as
single units in order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL. Baker gives a definition of
the term word since it should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be
assigned different meanings in different languages and might be regarded as being a more
complex unit or morpheme.  This means that the translator should pay attention to a
number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense
(ibid.:11-12).

 Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across


languages. She notes that grammatical rules may vary across languages and this may pose
some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims
that different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in
the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the
translator either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular
grammatical devices in the TL itself. Amongst these grammatical devices which might
cause problems in translation Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice, person
and gender.

 Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in
terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since
it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help
the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC
audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to
maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will
be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation
and the text type.

 Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during


the translation process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied.
Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in order to get
the ST message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in
another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

You might also like