TRANSLATION

Is equivalence in translation merely an idealistic concept?

Is equivalence in translation merely an idealistic concept?

Introduction

Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. The dynamic (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to carry thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text's voice grammar, etc.), While formal attempts to render the text word for word (if necessary, at the expense of normal expression in target language) (Baker, 1998, 24). The two approaches represent emphasis, respectively, above and readability over literal fidelity to the source text. There are, however, in reality no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Largely, the two approaches represent a spectrum of translation (Benjamin, 1970, 83).

The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence" are associated with the translator Eugene Nida and were originally invented to describe ways of translating the Bible, but both approaches are applicable to any translation.

Nida's Formal and Functional Equivalences

In 1964, Eugene Nida published his famous book, Toward a Science of Translating, in which he contended that since no two languages are identical, either in the meaning of symbols or in the ways in which they are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. That is, there are no such things as identical equivalents. Therefore, a translator must seek to find the closest possible equivalent (Benjamin, 1970, 69). He introduced two different types of equivalence: one which is called formal and another which is primarily dynamic. Nida defines formal equivalence as follows:

"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 (Dongfeng, 2002, 24). 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" (Even-Zohar, 1998, 86).

Nida differentiates between two types of equivalences: formal and dynamic (or functional) as basic translation orientations. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. It is a means of providing some insight into the lexical, grammatical or structural form of a source text, which is similar to literal translation (Jianping, Rongxi, 2002, 38).

Functional equivalence, however, is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the SL message (Munday, 2001, 66). In language, Culture and Translating, a minimal definition of functional equivalence is stated as ?the readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it (Newmark, 2001, ...