Nida's concepts of equivalence
We have already briefly discussed Eugene Nida's two types of equivalence: formal and dynami c. Formal equivalence “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content” “Principles of Correspondence” in (Venuti, 129). This would mean adherence to the SL text as closely as possible in terms of language and structure and also that the TL text would be constantly compared to the SL for accuracy. Nida points out that this translation can also be termed ‘gloss translation', because it would need extensive explanatory notes. The text would be translated literally, making it awkward at times. These texts are mainly academic in nature, possibly undertaken with the aim of introducing the culture and milieu of the SL text, as also its structural and semantic peculiarities. It is but natural that a text of this kind would require explanatory notes.
Dynamic equivalence is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect”. In this sort of translation the emphasis is on the “dynamic relationship” between message and receptor, and care is taken that “the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message” (129). Here the SL and TL texts are not compared for correspondence and the translator is under no obligation to reproduce the cultural underpinnings of the original. What the translator tries to do is to reproduce the text such that the TL reader can relate to it in a different cultural context. This does give considerable freedom to the translator as he is given a wider range. Catford terms such translations ‘free' as opposed to ‘literal' translations; Dagut goes even further and classifies them as ‘reproductions' rather than translations. Nida points out that there are a “number of intervening grades” between these two poles of translation. Recent trends in translation, however, seem to be inclined towards dynamic rather than formal equivalence. |
