EUGENE NIDA (19142011) Principles of Correspondence

Keywords:

content, cultural relatedness, dynamic equivalence, form, formal equivalence

1. Author information

Eugene Nida was a famous American linguist and scholar, a pioneer in the development of theory and praxis of translation, especially of the dynamic-equivalence Bible translation theory. He obtained his Masters degree in Greek New Testament at the University of Southern California, and then earned a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of Michigan. In 1943, he joined the staff of the American Bible Society (ABS) as a linguist and was later made Associate Secretary for Versions and then Executive Secretary for Translations a function held until his retirement in the 1980s. He spent the years of working for ABS in educating translators and providing them with better models, resources and training. He also built a translations network and organisational structure that became the global United Bible Societies Translations Program.

His works include The Bible Translator (1949, a journal founded and edited by Nida), Message and Mission (Harper, 1960), Religion Across Cultures (Harper, 1968), Contexts in translating (John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 2002), but his most important publications are Toward a Science of Translating (Brill, 1964) and The Theory and Practice of Translation (Brill, 1969, with C.R. Taber). These two very influential books were his first book-length efforts to expound his theory on what he called dynamic equivalence translation, later to be called functional equivalence, which has become extremely significant and revolutionary. In fact, hundreds of Bible translations have been effectively carried out with this methodology. Another publication, From One Language to Another (Nelson, 1986, with Jan de Waard) is the summative explication of functional equivalence translation. Over the years his many other books and articles covered other important subjects, such as exegesis, semantics and discourse structure, and a thorough semantic analysis of the 1

vocabulary of the Greek New Testament The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (UBS, 1988).

2. Abstract

The article is divided into several thematic parts and deals with different problems in translation, reflecting on various factors that make a good translation. Its most vital part is the introduction and explanation of formal equivalence (F-E) and dynamic equivalence (D-E) in translation. The author presents differences in translation explained with three basic factors: the nature of the message, the purpose of the author and, by proxy, of the translator, the type of audience. He then considers the impact of the linguistic and cultural distance on translation, stating that cultural relatedness is more important than the similarity of two languages. The author also describes various definitions of translating, translation difficulties and requirements, citing some famous experts in the field, to finally create four essential requirements of a good translation. He especially concentrates on the problem of form and content, concluding that if a compromise is not possible, meaning is more crucial than style. After explaining F-E and D-E, his final conclusion is that F-E translation works very well in some texts, like scientific ones, but for other texts D-E translation produces a more natural effect and therefore should be considered as a better alternative.

3. Terminology

Although the text is very clear and does not require outstanding language abilities, for better understanding it might be helpful to explain some basic terminology used by the author.

Source text term authors/ translators purpose content decoding ability dynamic equivalence

Meaning aim, intention

Term in Polish cel autora/tumacza

essence, substance understanding the text paraphrase, receptor response orientated

tre zdolno dekodowania ekwiwalencja dynamiczna

equivalence

the same logical value

ekwiwalencja, rwnowano

form formal equivalence receptor language relatedness

formal structure of message metaphrase, source orientated language of the recipient

forma ekwiwalencja formalna jzyk odbiorcy

level of connection between two zwizek languages and cultures

similar response

the same impact on readers of the podobny odbir translated text as of the original one

source language

language of the original

jzyk rdowy

4. Methodology

The text represents thorough research in the field of translation, which combines crucial elements of this process. The author forms new concepts from existing theories, i.e. why are some definitions as they are, and is it really correct? He puts together many different opinions and on that basis creates a new approach. His methodology is very logical and clear one thing results from another, and there are plenty of examples for a better understanding. This very practical attitude makes the text legible, without losing anything of its importance.

5. Links with other publications on the subject

Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation. London. New York: Routledge.

Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

House, J. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.

Jakobson, R. 1959. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, in: Reuben Arthur Brower, On translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nida, E. A. Towards a Science of Translating (1964), Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. 1969/1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Vinay, J. P. and J. Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

6. Critical commentary

In my opinion The Principles of Correspondence is an extremely significant article on the art of translation, a must-read for everybody who studies this new and dynamic discipline.

Probably the most important part of the text is the characterization of formal and dynamic equivalence, very clearly explained by the author. We can get the impression that he is absolutely in favour implementing dynamic equivalence in the translation process, as the more natural one, but it is not necessarily so. According to Nida, F-E translations are perfectly valid for certain types of messages, directed towards certain types of audience, e.g. in the field of science, and because of this type of receptors, they are usually not immediately intelligible to the average reader. For other texts, the naturalness represented by D-E translation becomes probably the best strategy.

Another interesting matter is the problem of content and form (also referred to as meaning and manner), which, in my opinion, is crucial in the art of translation. Nida tips the scales very gently towards the content, saying:

In general, translators are agreed that, when there is no happy compromise, meaning must have priority over style (Tancock 1958:29). What one must attempt, however, is an affective blend of matter and manner, for these two aspects of any message are inseparably united (Nida 2000: 134).

Eugene Nida scrutinizes many aspects of translation, which is important especially for the novices in the discipline who do not actually realize how many traps and dangers they can face. Nida takes the readers hand and conducts him safely through a complicated labyrinth of the properties, purposes and requirements of translation. However, the way he looks at the problems is quite general, and one can describe it as an eye-opener rather than a complete guidebook on translation.

I also appreciate the style of the author, which is very clear and concrete, presenting difficult matters in an intelligible way, by means of logical schemes.

7. Quotation to remember the text by

() one must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent. However, there are fundamentally two different types of equivalence: one which may be called formal and another which is primarily dynamic (Nida 2000:129).

() a translation is to meet the four basic requirements of: making sense, conveying the spirit and manner of the original, having a natural and easy form of expression and producing a similar response, () (Nida 2000:134).

() a formal equivalence (or F-E) translation is basically source-oriented; that is, it is designed to reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the original message (Nida 2000:134).

In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response (Nida 2000:136).

8. References

Nida, E. 2000. Principles of Correspondence, in: Laurence Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London. New York: Routledge. http://www.nidainstitute.org (retrieved 8th Nov 2011) http://translationjournal.net/journal/14equiv.htm (retrieved 25th Nov 2011)

dg