Principles of equivalence
Nida also spells out the principles that govern formal and dynamic equivalenc es. Formal equivalence translation is source-oriented as it is intended to reveal the original text in its true context, to the farthest extent possible. It would naturally keep close to the original in the usage of words, grammatical units and meanings. It would attempt to retain even the punctuation marks. Such translations are of great help to specialists in the area but will not be appealing for the general reader.
If formal equivalence is source-oriented, dynamic equivalence pays attention to the receptor. Nida defines a dynamic equivalence (D-E) translation as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message” (136). The term ‘natural' will apply to three aspects of the process – the TL and culture, the context of the SL message and the TL readership. We call a translation ‘natural' when it blends seamlessly with the receptor language and culture. This would mean that the translation would not have any alienating elements like unfamiliar sentence constructions etc. Natural translation calls for adjustments at the levels of grammar and lexicon. In the case of grammar, the adjustments might be that nouns would have to be substituted with verbs and so on. In the case of lexicon, the situation is more complex as the decision, as Jirí Levý points out, is to decide from multiple possibilities. The example that Nida gives is that of nouns like river for which there are plenty of synonyms. The translator's choice will depend on a host of factors that are socio-cultural as well as linguistic.
Despite such adjustments, Nida points out that no translation will be able to bridge the “cultural gap” between languages and remove all traces of a foreign setting. D-E translation is a matter of give and take in which loss and gain in translation are involved. The loss might be, in case of verse, in the rhythm and intonation whereas the gain might be in creating an unforeseen impact. |
