Contribution
The chapter that named formal and dynamic equivalence, in the abridgement most readers meet. It sets out the two orientations, lists the characteristics of each, and gathers centuries of translators’ statements of “similar response” as the agreed standard. It moves the measure of a translation from the text toward the receptor’s response, without dropping the source’s meaning.
Key insight
For Nida, equivalence is a relation between relations: the receptor’s relationship to the translated message against the original receptors’ relationship to the original. The two texts can differ in proposition, as the kiss and the handshake do, and still be equivalent in that sense.
Assumptions
- No two languages are identical, in meanings or arrangements, so there is no absolute correspondence and no fully exact translation (p. 126).
- Translation involves interpretation; “a translation remains perhaps the most direct form of commentary” (Rossetti, quoted p. 126).
- The original receptors’ response can be estimated, though Nida grants “one is not always sure how the original audience responded or were supposed to respond” (p. 139).
- Cultural distance matters more than linguistic distance: “differences between cultures cause many more severe complications for the translator than do differences in language structure” (p. 130).
Key results
- Three factors (pp. 127–129). Translations differ by (1) the nature of the message, whose content or form may dominate, (2) the purposes of the author and “by proxy” the translator: information, suggested behaviour, an imperative purpose; and (3) the audience, which differs in decoding ability (children, new literates, the average literate adult, specialists) and in interest. The translator’s purposes are “the primary ones to be considered in studying the types of translation which result” (p. 127).
- Two orientations (pp. 129–130). “There are fundamentally two different types of equivalence: one which may be called formal and another which is primarily dynamic.” Formal equivalence “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content”, and its extreme is the “gloss translation”. In one, “a phrase such as ‘holy kiss’ (Romans 16:16) … would be rendered literally, and would probably be supplemented with a footnote explaining that this was a customary method of greeting in New Testament times” (p. 129). Dynamic equivalence “is based upon ‘the principle of equivalent effect’ (Rieu and Phillips 1954). In such a translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message” (p. 129). It “tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture”. J. B. Phillips’s New Testament, “perhaps more than any other, seeks for equivalent effect. In Romans 16:16 he quite naturally translates ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’ as ‘give one another a hearty handshake all around’” (pp. 129–130). Between the poles lie “intervening grades”, and the trend of the past fifty years is toward the dynamic (p. 130).
- Four requirements (pp. 131–134). From a survey of definitions (Procházka, Forster, Campbell, Goodspeed, Phillips, Arnold, Jowett, Souter, Knox), a translation should (1) make sense, (2) convey the spirit and manner of the original, (3) have a natural and easy form of expression, and (4) produce a similar response. Where they conflict, “correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style”, though not “in a purely mechanical fashion” (p. 134). “Definitions or descriptions of translating are not served by deterministic rules; rather, they depend on probabilistic rules”, and “there will always be a variety of valid answers to the question, ‘Is this a good translation?’” (p. 134).
- Formal equivalence in detail (pp. 134–135). An F-E translation is “basically source-oriented”. It reproduces grammatical units, keeps consistency in word usage (concordance) and gives meanings in terms of the source context, with notes for what cannot be reproduced. Such translations are “often perfectly valid translations of certain types of messages for certain types of audiences”.
- Dynamic equivalence in detail (pp. 136–140). In a D-E translation “the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response”. A bilingual can say of it, “That is just the way we would say it”. But “a D-E translation is not merely another message which is more or less similar to that of the source. It is a translation, and as such must clearly reflect the meaning and intent of the source” (p. 136). It is “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message”: equivalent points to the source, natural to the receptor language, closest binds them (p. 136). Naturalness must fit (1) the receptor language and culture, (2) the context of the message, and (3) the receptor audience (p. 136). It requires that “sarcasm, irony, or whimsical interest must all be accurately reflected”, and that “each participant … be accurately represented”, so that “social class or geographical dialect will be immediately evident” (p. 139). Cultural specialties (Pharisees, Lamb of God) cannot be naturalized and keep “foreign associations” (p. 137). Some discrepancies, like Jivaro hair or West African branches, are handled with footnotes (p. 137). Formal adjustments are unavoidable: “one cannot have his formal cake and eat it dynamically too” (p. 139).
Claims
| id | claim | strength | support |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | There are two basic orientations in translating, formal and dynamic, with grades between | asserted; a classification | definitions and examples (pp. 129–130) |
| C2 | Dynamic equivalence aims at a receptor–message relationship substantially the same as the original’s | definitional | p. 129 |
| C3 | Phillips’s handshake for the holy kiss is a natural dynamic equivalent | asserted; one example | p. 130 |
| C4 | Opinion has shifted toward dynamic equivalence over the past fifty years | weak | Cary (1959), cited (p. 130) |
| C5 | Similar response is widely held as the standard of good translation | moderate as a report of opinion | quotations from Arnold to Procházka (pp. 133–134) |
| C6 | Where form and content conflict, meaning has priority over style | asserted as consensus | Tancock (1958), cited (p. 134) |
| C7 | Cultural differences complicate translation more than structural ones | asserted | examples (pp. 130, 137) |
| C8 | A D-E translation must reflect the source’s meaning and intent, its tone and its participants’ characterization | definitional | pp. 136, 139 |
Concepts
- Formal equivalence (F-E): source-oriented correspondence of form and content: grammatical units, concordance, source-context meanings (pp. 129, 134).
- Gloss translation: the fullest formal equivalence, with notes, which lets the reader identify with “a person in the source-language context” (p. 129).
- Dynamic equivalence (D-E): receptor-oriented correspondence of the receptor–message relationship, “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message” (pp. 129, 136).
- Principle of equivalent effect / similar response: the translation should affect its receptors as the original affected its first receptors (pp. 129, 133).
- Naturalness: fit to the receptor language and culture, the message’s context, and the audience (p. 136).
Connections
It abridges a chapter of Toward a Science of Translating (LIT-791, unread). The “principle of equivalent effect” is Rieu and Phillips’s, dated 1954 here (p. 129); CASE-056 records the 1955 published date of that discussion. Gutt’s thesis (LIT-1845, read alongside) criticizes dynamic equivalence through Nida and Taber (1969), not this chapter: equivalence of response is unrealistic where cognitive environments differ. Nord’s article (LIT-1863, read alongside) places Nida’s dynamic and formal equivalence among the dichotomies her instrumental and documentary options recall.
Bearing on the record
- CASE-056: met, for the quotations. The case quotes Nida from Marlowe’s transcription of the book (pp. 159–60). The three passages it uses appear here word for word, at Reader pp. 129–130: the gloss alternative (“would be rendered literally, and would probably be supplemented with a footnote explaining that this was a customary method of greeting in New Testament times”), the principle (“the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message”), and the verdict (“quite naturally translates ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’ as ‘give one another a hearty handshake all around’”). Nida’s quotation of Phillips reads “all around”; CASE-056 quotes it so. The reading confirms the case’s source text first-hand. It adds no reader evidence, so the case’s condition (c) is unchanged.
- CLAIM-233: met for its ground, with one qualification. The claim holds that a functional-equivalence account as Nida states it “puts fidelity in the effect on the receiver, not in the text”, and so predicts that judged stance and footing beat embedding similarity. The text bears this out. D-E’s “focus of attention is directed … toward the receptor response” (p. 136). It must reflect “sarcasm, irony, or whimsical interest” and each participant’s social class and dialect (p. 139), which are stance and footing under other names. The qualification: Nida also says a D-E translation “must clearly reflect the meaning and intent of the source” (p. 136), and that “correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style” (p. 134). So the account predicts that meaning matters as well as response, and a propositional-similarity score would track part of what it values. It does not predict that text similarity does as well as judged pragmatic observables, so the claim’s conclusion stands.
- CLAIM-205: partly, for Nida’s functional account. The claim says functional accounts need not fix one context or a static profile. Nida makes the right translation depend on the message, the purposes, and an audience that varies in decoding ability and interest (pp. 127–128). He calls the rules “probabilistic” and the valid answers several (p. 134). Naturalness is fitted to a particular receptor audience (pp. 136, 139). So Nida’s account is audience-relative, as the claim says. The chapter gives no operationalization and does not bear on the claim’s proposed baseline.
- No instruction for machine-learning practice.
Limitations
- Abridged, cuts unmarked. The 1964 chapter runs 37 pages and this reprint 15. Whatever Nida says in the omitted pages is not read here.
- Opinion, not evidence. The case for similar response is a survey of translators’ statements. Nothing is measured on receptors, and Nida concedes the original response is often uncertain (p. 139).
- The poles are ideal types. Nida grants intervening grades and gives no criterion for placing a translation among them.
Open questions
- How is “substantially the same” relationship to be judged, and by whom, when the original receptors cannot be asked?
- When meaning and response conflict, as in the handshake, which wins? The rule that meaning comes before style does not settle it, because the handshake changes the meaning in order to keep the response.