Scribd
Upload
22 views

Lesson 05

Uploaded by

zegemma3
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

Lesson 05

Uploaded by

zegemma3
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Course: Translation

Level: L3
Semester: 05

Lesson 05: The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies.


1. What is Equivalence?
Equivalence is the term used to refer to the relationship existing between a translation and
the original text, a relationship that has been observed by scholars from a wide variety of
perspectives. Often presented as a central concern for those who study translation, equivalence
is also perhaps the most problematic and divisive issue in the field of translation studies.
Equivalence can be seen as a relationship of ‘sameness’ or ‘similarity’, which however
leads to the problems of ‘establishing relevant units of comparison, specifying a definition of
sameness, and enumerating relevant qualities’ (Halverson 1997: 210). In other words, once two
texts are described as equivalent, it remains to be seen:
 At what level equivalence is established? (is it morphemes, words, sentences or
whole texts?).
 How sameness or similarity is defined? (and to what degree it holds?).
 In terms of what specific traits or qualities two texts can be said to be the same or
similar? (is it meaning, context or function?)
Different scholars have provided different answers to these questions, while some have
assigned equivalence a primary role, making it their principal object of study and using it to
differentiate translation from other forms of derivative text production.
Below, are two prominent models in translation studies that address equivalence as a
translational phenomenon, each with a distinct approach combining originality and
practicality. The first model represents the early foundational studies of this phenomenon,
while the second reflects its later, more advanced developments.
2. Nida’s Formal and Dynamic Equivalence and the Principle of Equivalent Effect
The old terms such as ‘literal’, ‘free’ and ‘faithful’ translation, are discarded by Nida in
favour of ‘two basic orientations’ or ‘types of equivalence’ (Nida 1964a: 159): formal
equivalence; and dynamic equivalence. These are defined by Nida as follows:
2.1.Formal equivalence
Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message, in both form and content . . . One is
concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the
different elements in the source language. (Nida 1964a: 159)
Formal equivalence, later called ‘formal correspondence’ (Nida and Taber 1969: 22–8), is
thus keenly oriented towards the ST structure, which exerts strong influence in determining
accuracy and correctness. Most typical of this kind of translation are ‘gloss translations’, with
Course: Translation
Level: L3
Semester: 05

a close approximation to ST structure, often with scholarly footnotes. This type of translation
will often be used in an academic or legal environment and allows the reader closer access to
the language and customs of the source culture.
2.2.Dynamic equivalence
Dynamic, later ‘functional’, equivalence is based on what Nida calls ‘the principle of
equivalent effect’, where ‘the relationship between receptor and message should be
substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’.
(Nida 1964a: 159).
The message has to be tailored to the receptor’s linguistic needs and cultural expectation and
‘aims at complete naturalness of expression’. ‘Naturalness’ is a key requirement for Nida.
Indeed, he defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as seeking ‘the closest natural equivalent
to the source-language message’ (Nida 1964a: 166, Nida and Taber 1969: 12). This receptor-
oriented approach considers adjustments of grammar, of lexicon and of cultural references to
be essential in order to achieve naturalness. The TT language should not show interference from
the SL, and the ‘foreignness’ of the ST setting is minimized (Nida 1964a: 167–8) in a way that
would be criticized by later culturally-oriented translation theorists.
2.3.Successful Translation According to Nida
For Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalent effect or
response. It is one of the ‘four basic requirements of a translation’, which are:
 Making sense.
 Conveying the spirit and manner of the original.
 Having a natural and easy form of expression.
 Producing a similar response.
Although dynamic equivalence aims to meet all four requirements, it is also a graded concept
since Nida accepts that the ‘conflict’ between the traditional notions of content and form cannot
always be easily resolved. As a general rule for such conflicts, Nida considers that
‘correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style’ if equivalent
effect is to be achieved.
3. Pym’s ‘Natural’ and ‘Directional’ Equivalence
Within a genuine approach to equivalence in translation that challenges traditional ideas
about “equivalence” as an essential standard for translation, Anthony Pym, an Australian
scholar and theorist in translation studies, introduced the concepts of “natural and directional
equivalence” to analyse different approaches to translation:
Course: Translation
Level: L3
Semester: 05

3.1.Natural Equivalence
Natural equivalence refers to a situation where two languages have expressions or structures
that can be considered "naturally equivalent," meaning that they convey the same meaning
directly, with little to no adjustment needed. It’s a focus on finding equivalents that feel
inherent to both languages, allowing the translator to work with terms or phrases that seem
“already equivalent.” Natural equivalence assumes that the same concept exists in both
languages and that it can be conveyed similarly without extensive changes, making translation
more direct and straightforward (Pym 2014:20-6). For example, translating “apple” as
manzana in Spanish, where a one-to-one equivalent exists.
3.2.Directional Equivalence
Directional equivalence, by contrast, acknowledges that translation often involves
directional or cultural adjustments to achieve equivalence. Here, translation flows in a
"direction" from one language to another, requiring context-based adaptations. This approach
accepts that natural equivalents might not exist for certain ideas, idioms, or structures, and thus
the translator must create a contextually equivalent expression in the target language (Pym
2014:38-24). For example, translating a cultural idiom like "like a bull in a china shop" may
require a different phrase to convey "clumsy, reckless or dangerous person / (adv.) recklessly,
clumsily" in languages, such as Arabic, where this specific image does not exist.
3.3.Key Differences
 Natural equivalence is based on the belief that languages contain inherent equivalents,
so translation relies on finding pre-existing matches.
 Directional equivalence sees translation as inherently transformative, where the goal
is not to replicate words directly but to guide meaning across linguistic or cultural
differences.
Pym’s distinction offers a way to think about the translator’s role in crossing between what
is "naturally" equivalent versus what requires deliberate choices to capture meaning accurately
across languages.

References:
1. Nida, E. A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating.
2. Nida, E. A. and C. R. Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation.
3. Halverson, S. (1997) The concept of equivalence in translation: Much ado about something.
4. Pym, A. (2014) Exploring Translation Theories - Second edition.

You might also like