Formal and Dynamic
Equivalence and the principle
of equivalent effect
Based on Eugene Nida’s Theory
Introduction
In Toward a Science of Translating Eugene Nida
discards using terms such as “literal”, “free” and
“faithful” in favor of “two basic orientations” or
“types of equivalence”.
These two types are:
1. Formal equivalence
2. Dynamic equivalence
Formal equivalence
" Formal equivalence focuses attention on the
message itself, in both form and content. In such a
translation one is concerned with such
correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to
sentence, and concept to concept. Viewed from this
formal orientation, one is concerned that the
message in the receptor language should match as
closely as possible the different elements in the
source language. " Nida (1964: 159)
What does this mean?
Formal equivalence arises if the translator
gives preference to the SL text, reflecting
both its content and form as truly as
possible. This includes:
1/ grammatical units
2/ the use of words
3/ the sense of terms.
To achieve the most faithful translation of
grammatical units, the translator will translate:
1/ a noun into a noun and a verb into a verb
2/ does not change sentence boundaries
3/ does not change paragraphs or the
punctuation, etc.
Formal equivalence is oriented towards
the ST structure:
“This means, for example, that the message in
the receptor culture is constantly compared
with the message in the source culture to
determine the standards of accuracy and
correctness” (Nida: 1964, p.159).
We can conclude that:
Formal equivalence is thus the "quality of a translation
in which the features of the form of the source text
have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor
language: (Nida & Taber, 1969, p. 201).
a general tendency towards formal equivalence is
characterized by, for example, a concern for accuracy
(1964, p. 159) and a preference for retaining the
original wording wherever possible.
Continued
Nida calls this translation a ‘gloss translation’, which
aims to allow the reader to understand as much of
the SL context as possible (ibid: 159).
In formal equivalence, the translator also attempts to
reproduce as literally and meaningfully as
possible the form and content of the original.
Formal equivalence is a valuable type of
translation of certain texts for a given circle of
receivers.
For example, it is used in academic
environment to gain close access to the
language and culture of the source culture.
Dynamic Equivalence
Defenition:-
“the closest natural equivalent to the source-language
message”
This definition contains three essential terms:
(1) equivalent, which points towards the source language
message
(2) natural, which points towards the receptor language
(3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on
the basis of the highest degree of approximation
We can conclude that:
Dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness
of expression.
This requires adaptation of :-
1. Grammar
2. Lexicon
3. Cultural references
“Correspondence in meaning must have priority
over correspondence in style” if equivalent effect is
to be achieved
Dynamic equivalence is the quality which
characterizes a translation in which "the message of
the original text has been so transposed into the
receptor language that the response of the receptor
is essentially like that of the original receptors" (Nida
& Taber, 1969, p.200).
This means:
The relationship between TL receiver and TL message
should aim at being the same as that between the
original receivers and the SL message. (ibid: 159)
Examples:
The treatment has remained dead letter since
then.
Formal equivalence:
وقد بقيت المعاهدة حرفا ميتا منذ ذلك الوقت
Dynamic equivalence:
وقد بقيت المعاهدة حبرا على ورق منذ ذلك الوقت
Examples
Ali’s decision to leave his job for a new one was ill-
thought- out of the frying pan into the fire.
Formal equivalence:
لم يكن قرار علي بترك وظيفته والشروع بأخرى حكيما – كان كالقافز من
المقالة إلى النار
Dynamic equivalence:
لم يكن قرار علي بترك وظيفته والشروع بأخرى حكيما – كان كالمستجير من
الرمضاء بالنار
Note:-
Sometimes the formal and the dynamic equivalence
may coincide to form the optimal translatability.
Examples:
Birds of feather flock together
الطيور على أشكالها تقع.
Out of sight, out of mind.
بعيد عن الذهن،بعيد عن العين.
Discussion of the importance of Nida’s
work:-
1. He pointed the road away from strict word-for-word
equivalence.
2. He introduced a receptor- based orientation to
translation theory.
3. Nida’s detailed description of real translation
phenomena and situations is an important rejoinder
to the vague writings on translation that had
preceded it
4. He influenced later scholars. However some scholars
criticized him.
Criticism:-
1. Lefever (1993: 7): equivalence is still overly concerned
with the word level
2. Broeck and Larose: consider equivalence effect to be
impossible:
How is the effect to be measured and on whom?
How can a tex,t possibly have the same effect and elicit the
same response in two different cultures and times?
3. The criticism that Nida’s work is subjective raises the
question of whether Nida’s theory of translation really is
‘scientific’.
The debate continued till the 1990s:-
Qian Hu: the equivalence effect is implausible
when meaning is bound up in form. eg. Literary
works
The closest natural meaning might be in
contradictory relation with dynamic equivalence.
Nida is aware of what he terms “ the artistic
sensitivity which is an indispensible ingredient in
any first-rate translation of a literary work”
The fiercest critic:-
Edwin Gentzler: Contemporary Translation Theory
(1993) contains a chapter about ‘the science of
translation’ .
Gentzler, working from within a deconstructionist
perspective , criticizes Nida’s work for its theological
and proselytizing standpoint since, in Gentzler’s
view, dynamic equivalence serves the purpose of
converting the receptors, no matter what their culture,
to the dominant discourse and ideas of Protestant
Christianity.
