MUNDAY, J.

Chapter 3. EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT

EFFECT

Sections 3.2 – 3.2.4 (Eugene Nida)

Ch 3. EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT
STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Nida and ‘the science of translating’.

The nature of meaning. Types of
meaning. The influence of Chomsky.

2. Formal and dynamic equivalence.

The criticism of Nida. The
importance of Nida’s work.
 3.2 – 3.2.1 Nida and the ‘science of translating’
• Nida’s theory of translation developed from his own practical
work from the 1940s onwards when he was translating the
Bible.
• His theory is presented in two works, Toward a science of
translating (1964) and the co-authored Theory and practice of
translation (Nida and Taber 1969).

• Nida attempts to move translation into a more scientific era by

incorporating recent work in linguistics.
• Nida borrows theoretical concepts and terminology from
semantics and pragmatics and from Chomsky’s work on
syntactic structure (generative-transformational grammar).
 3.2 – 3.2.1 Nida and the ‘science of translating’
• Central to Nida’s work is the move away from the old
idea that a word has a fixed meaning
• and towards a functional definition of meaning in
which a word ‘acquires’ meaning through its context.

• Nida (1964): meaning is broken down into

– Linguistic meaning (borrowing elements of
Chomsky’s model)
– Referential (the denotative ‘dictionary’ meaning)
– Emotive (or connotative) meaning
3.2 – 3.2.1 Nida and the ‘science of translating’

 A series of techniques, adapted from work in

linguistics, is presented as an aid for the
translator in determining the meaning of
different linguistic items.

 Techniques to determine referential and

emotive meaning focus on analyzing the
structure of words and differentiating similar
words in related lexical fields.
 These include:
3.2 – 3.2.1 Nida and the ‘science of translating’
– Hierarchical structuring (superordinate/hyponym:
animal-goat)
– Techniques of componential analysis (establishing
specific features of a range of related words, e.g.
kinship terms)
– Semantic structure analysis (e.g. Spirit = demons,
angels, gods, ghost, alcohol, etc.; bachelor – the
meaning is conditioned by its context)
 Nida is known for:
– Distinguishing between formal and dynamic
equivalence
– Application of this idea to Bible translation
 3.2.2 The influence of Chomsky
Avram Noam Chomsky, PhD (born 1928)
 Noam Chomsky
• Noam Chomsky is Professor Emeritus of
linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.

• Chomsky is credited with the creation of

the theory of generative grammar,
considered to be one of the most
significant contributions to the field of
theoretical linguistics made in the 20th
century.
 Noam Chomsky
• According to the Arts and Humanities
Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited
as a source more often than any other
living scholar during the 1980–1992 time
period,
• and was the 8th most cited scholar in any
time period.
• In a list compiled by the magazine New
Statesman in 2006, he was voted 7th in
the list of "Heroes of our time".
 Chomsky’s influence
• Nida incorporates key features of
Chomsky’s model into his ‘science’ of
translation.

• In particular, Nida sees that it

provides the translator with a
technique for decoding the ST and a
procedure for encoding the TT.
 Chomsky’s influence
• The surface structure of the ST is
analyzed into the basic elements of the
deep structure;
• these are ‘transferred’ in the translation
process and
• then restructured semantically and
stylistically into the surface structure of the
TT.
 Chomsky’s influence
• Just as kernel sentences were the most
basic structures of Chomsky’s initial model
(discarded later), for Nida
• kernels ‘are the basic structural elements
out of which language builds its elaborate
surface structures’ (Nida and Taber
1969:39).
• Kernels are to be obtained from the ST
surface structure.
3.2.2 Chomsky and Translation Theory (from Nida &
Taber (1969:33); Figure 3.1 (Munday p40)
Box 3.1, Munday p41 (from Nida 1964:185-7)
 3.2.3 Formal correspondence and dynamic
equivalence (Nida and Taber 1969)
• The old terms such as ‘literal’, ‘free’ and
‘faithful’ translation are discarded by Nida in
favour of ‘two basic orientations’ or ‘types of
equivalence’:
• 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).
 Nida and Taber (1969): Formal
correspondence and dynamic equivalence
• Formal correspondence consists of a TL item
which represents the closest equivalent of a SL
word or phrase.

• Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not

always formal equivalents between language
pairs.

• They therefore suggest that these formal

equivalents should be used wherever possible if
the translation aims at achieving formal rather
than dynamic equivalence.
 Nida and Taber (1969): Formal
correspondence and dynamic equivalence
• The use of formal equivalents might at times
have serious implications in the TT since the
translation will not be easily understood by the
target audience (Fawcett, 1997).

• Nida and Taber themselves assert that

'Typically, 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 or to labor
unduly hard' (ibid.:201).
 Nida and Taber (1969): Formal correspondence
and dynamic equivalence
• 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 TC audience as the original wording did
upon the ST audience (‘the principle of
equivalent effect’).
• Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic
equivalence, as a more effective translation
procedure.
 3.2.4 Nida’s work
• Introduced a receptor-based (or reader-
based) orientation to translation theory
• The principle of equivalent effect and the
concept of equivalence was criticized –
how can it be measured?
• ‘equivalence’ entails subjective judgment
• Is Nida’s theory really scientific?
 3.2.4 Nida’s work
• Edwin Gentzler’s (1993) criticism; a whole
chapter is devoted to Nida’s theory
• Gentzler criticizes his work for the theological
and proselytizing (attempts to convert to
another belief) standpoint
• with the concept that dynamic equivalence
serves the purpose of converting the receptors,
no matter what their culture,
• to the dominant discourse and ideas of
protestant Christianity.
 3.2.4 Nida’s achievements
• Despite the heated debate it has provoked, his
approach has been influential;
• Nida produced a systematic analytical
procedure for translators working with all kinds
of text;
• introduced into the translation equation the
receivers of the TT and their cultural
expectations.