Does the theories of ecquivalence play a useful role in professional translation - Essay Example

These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for further study regarding this topic. Our first study is on the theory introduced and expounded by Nida and Taber about formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon "the principle of equivalent effect" (1964:159).

A more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence is provided in the second edition (1982) of their work, but a brief analysis will be discussed in this paper. Nida, in consultation with other pioneers in the field, developed the theory of "dynamic equivalence" or "functional equivalence," which stressed the importance of transferring meaning, not grammatical form (Poythress, 2004). Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase.

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TL audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. (Nida and Taber, 1982: 200) In dynamic equivalence, translation is done by the translator's use of his/her own words and expressing it in the TL, the impact should be the same as it was in the ST. The sentences are not the literal interpretation, but rather a different wording seeking to arrive at the same impact as in the original text.

Nida was also concerned of delivering the "fullest meaning" instead of a bare minimum (Nida, 1947, cited in Poythress, 2004).The distinction between the two - formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence - is that in the former a word can have an equivalent to an SL word or phrase, whilst in the latter, equivalence is achieved by giving the meaning of the words or phrases from the original. Both can achieve equivalent effect. In formal equivalence, the problem lies in not getting an equivalent word in the two languages.

Fawcett (1997) criticizes this theory because he argued that the use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation might not be easily understood by the target audience. Formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand the message (Fawcett, 1007: 201).Nevertheless, Nida and Taber argue that "the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful" (p. 200).Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure, considering that he has been into Bible translation.

Nida is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text (hence, dynamic equivalence).But herein lies the contradiction as far as Bible translation is concerned.