Third Level LMD Module :Translation TD
1
The concept of Equivalence in Translation.(part 02)
b-Roman Jakobson
c-Eugene Nida
The structuralist Roman Jakobson (1959) makes a very important distinction between
three types of written translation:a. Intralingual translation: translation within the
same language, which can involve rewording or paraphrase, b. Interlingual translation:
translation from one language to another. c. Intersemiotic translation: translation of the
verbal sign by non verbal sign for example music or image. Ex the Green light means
Go, or the traffic lights or the clock face...ect. More specifically, when addressing the
thorny problem of equivalence in meaning between words in different languages, he
immediately stresses the fact that there can be no full equivalence between two words
(Jakobson, 1959/2000, p. 114). He cites the example of cheese in English by saying
that it is not identical to the Russian syr the concept of cottage cheese not being
included in the latter. Jakobson does not propose that translation is impossible but
rather pinpoints the differences in the structure and terminology of languages.On
closer inspection of the aforementioned views on equivalence, one may claim that
there are some similarities
that translation is possible
despite cultural or grammatical differences between SL and TL. They both recognize
the fact that the role of the translator should not be neglected and acknowledge some
limitations of the linguistic approach, thus allowing the translator to also rely on other
procedures that will ensure a more effective and comprehensive rendering of the ST
message in the target text.
Eugene Nida:
The contribution of Eugene Nida in the field of translation studies cannot be
overstressed, with his two famous books in the 1960s: Toward a Science of
Translating (1964) and the co-authored The Theory and Practice of Translation
Borrowing theoretical concepts from semantics and pragmatics, and being influenced
Third Level LMD Module :Translation TD
2
-transformational grammar (1965), Nida adopts a more
systematic approach to exploring the field of translation studies. With regard to
equivalence, Nida maintains that there are two basic types of equivalence: (1) formal
equivalence and (2) dynamic equivalence. In particular, Nida argues that in formal
equivalence the TT resembles very much the ST in both form and content whereas in
dynamic equivalence an effort is made to convey the ST message in the TT as
naturally as possible. It could be argued that Nida is in favour of dynamic equivalence
since he considers it to be a more effective translation procedure. This comes as no
surprise given the fact that Nida was, at the time at which he proffered his views about
equivalence, translating the Bible, and hence trying to produce the same impact on
various different audiences
since it is argued that dynamic
equivalence in translation goes beyond correct communication of information (p. 25).
As Munday (2001) points out, Nida is credited for introducing a receptor-based
severely criticized for several reasons. In more detail, Lefevere (1993, p. 7)
holds that equivalence is still focused on the word-level whereas Broeck (1978)
wonders how it is possible to measure the equivalent effect since no text can have the
same effect or elicit the same response in two different cultures in different periods of
time (p. 40).
dedicates a whole Contemporary
Translation Theories (2001), using quotation marks around the word science perhaps
in order to indicate his own views on the scientific virtue of translation methods. it
could be concluded that Nida moved a long way forward from the position of his
predecessors because he was able to produce a systematic and analytical procedure for
translators working with all kinds of texts and, more importantly, brought into the
translation game, the readers; that is, the receptors, as well as their cultural
expectations.
Third Level LMD Module :Translation TD
3
formal equivalence:
dynamic equivalence :
equivalent effect :
References:
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jakobson, R. (1959/2000). On linguistics aspects of translation. In Venuti, L. (ed.)
(2000), The
Translation Studies Reader.London and New York: Routledge, 113-118.
Lefevere, A. (1993). Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative
Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Méthode de Traduction. Paris: Didier.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Nida, E. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. and Taber, C.R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sandra Halverson, (2006).The concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies.
