Theories of Translation: Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Function and Deductive
Translation
I. Definition

Formal Equivalence
 Types of Equivalence
II. Benefits
III. Disadvantages
1. Formal Equivalence

often called “thought-for-thought” translation as opposed to a word-for-word translation; a
translation method in which the translator attempts to reflect to the thought rather than
words or forms

Nida suggests not the reaction or just function in the target language or just function in the
target language or target culture but property of the text

features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduce in the receptor
language

often more goal than reality, because one language may contain a word for a concept which
has no direct equivalent in another language

a word order, grammar should be consider in using formal equivalence in translation
Benefits

high degree of clarity or readability;

appeals to a wider range of audience;

focuses on the meaning-statement thought

Presupposes Verbal, plenary inspiration.

Places importance upon knowing the Scripture as it was originally stated.

Promotes access to the structure & meaning of the Scripture in the original languages.

Provides opportunity for in-depth inductive Bible study.

Promotes word-for-word correspondence to the extent that the English has an exact
equivalent for each word & that the grammatical-linguistic structure can be reproduced in
understandable English.

Proclaims senses singular (single intended meaning); more objective.

Provides boundaries for interpreting & validating the Scripture within the framework of
the author/Author’s intended meaning.
Criticisms/Disadvantages

not transparently dependent on original language (word for word)

tendency to promote multiple meanings;

less objectivity, more interpretative license regarding original language.

Difficult to verify accuracy and usefulness and usefulness for in-depth study.

An exact equivalent for each & every word cannot actually be reproduced.

Objection:
teach what the original word means; Christians should be teachable. This
is a minor issue.

The pattern/structure of the original language in every respect cannot be reproduced in an
understandable language.

It could result in awkward statements and thus lead to potential misunderstandings of the
author/Author’s intended meaning.
Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence
Two different types of equivalence:
Formal equivalence (Nida 1964) or formal correspondence (Nida and Taber
(1969/1982)dynamic equivalence
Nida formal Correspondence:
-
focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content’
A. Formal correspondence
= a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase
HOWEVER:
There are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. Therefore, these
formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving
formal rather than dynamic equivalence. Serious implications at times in the TT since the
translation will not be easily understood by the target audience.
Nida and Taber 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'.
Nida’s Conclusion
The product of the translation process (i.e. the text in the TL) must have the same impact
on the different readers it was addressing
BUT:
'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of
information'
Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in
the message of the text, in its semantic quality. Therefore: We must 'make sure that this
message remains clear in the target text'
Equivalence in Translation Theory VI
Catford’s approach to equivalence I
A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965): distinction between “formal correspondence”
and “textual equivalence”.
„Formal correspondent”:
“any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of structure, etc.) which can be said to
occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL
category occupies in the SL”.
„Textual equivalent” (rather vague):
“A textual translation equivalent, then, is any TL form (text or portion of text) which is
observed to be the equivalent of a given SL form (text or portion of text)”.
Formal correspondence: rare, since languages are highly different in their systems. A certain
lexical unit or grammatical structure hardly ever fills in the same slot in the systems of the two
languages (e.g. E brother ≠ H fivér [cf. H báty, öcs, distinction missing in E]; E grandmother, H
nagymama ≠ R babushka [cf. H nagyszülők, E grandparents, umbrella term missing in R]
Catford’s examples: E yes ≠ Japanese hai or H igen; E yes ≠ French oui
Equivalence in Translation Theory IX
Nida’s approach to equivalence I
In Toward a Science of Translating Eugene Albert Nida regards the identity of the receiver’s
(reader’s, listener’s) reaction/response – and not the identity of the relevant markers of a situation
- as the main criterion for equivalence. He differentiates between formal and dynamic
equivalence.
Formal equivalence arises if the translator gives preference to the SL text, reflecting both its
contents and form as truly as possible and including:
1/ grammatical units, 2/ the use of words and 3/ the sense of terms. To achieve the most faithful
translation of grammatical units, the translator will translate:
1/ a noun into a noun and a verb into a verb, 2/ does not change sentence boundaries, 3/ does
not change paragraphs or the punctuation, etc.
Equivalence in Translation Theory X
Nida’s approach to equivalence II
E.g., Plato’s dialogues can be translated only in this way, in order for the reader to understand the
essence of Plato’s philosophical system and follow the evolution of his terminology.
Formal equivalence is to be achieved if a translation is made for linguists who want to
contrast the corresponding units of two languages.
Therefore formal equivalence is not something to be rejected but a valuable type of translation of
certain texts for a given circle of receivers.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XII
Nida’s approach to equivalence IV
Elimination of foreignness in two areas:
a/ in grammar: changes are easier to carry out as structural differences make such changes
compulsory, it is inevitable to rearrange the word order, a noun is often translated into a verb or
vice versa, a noun might be replaced with a pronoun, etc.
b/ in lexis: adjustment of the lexical structures of the SL to those of the TL much more
difficult.
Three lexical levels:
-names to which an equivalent is easy to find (folyó, fa, kő, etc.)
-names that denote culturally different objects but functionally similar objects (e.g. könyv)
-names that refer to some cultural peculiarities such as synagogue. It is not easy to escape their
foreignness, and if the cultures in question are very remote from each other, it appears to be
totally impossible.
Nida and Taber 1969: 39
These restructured
expressions are
basically what many
linguists call “kernels”; that is to say, they are the basic structural elements out of which the
language builds its elaborate surface structure. In fact, one of the most important insights
coming from “transformational grammar” is the fact that in all languages there are half a
dozen to a dozen basic structures out of which all the more elaborate formations are
constructed by means of so-called “transformations.”
What interests Nida and Taber, however, is back-transformation, because if we can
reduce surface structures to kernel sentences, then the “transfer” into the other language will be
easier.
“This is one justification for the claim that the three-stage process of translation is preferable
(. . .)” (ibidem, p.40)
3 stages: (1) analysis, in which the surface structure (i.e., the message as given in language
A) is analyzed in terms of (a) the grammatical relationships and (b) the meaning of the words and
combinations of the words, (2) transfer, in which the analyzed material is transferred in the mind
of the translator from language A to language B, and (3) restructuring, in which the transferred
material is restructured in order to make the final message fully acceptable in the receptor
language.
Reference:
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, Towards a Science of Translating (1964), The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969)
Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber (1969 / 1982) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E.
J. Brill.
V. Ivir (1981) 'Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence
Today, 51-59
www.simplybible.com – Dynamic Equivalence in Translation
www.biblegateway.com
Eugène Nida - `The Theory and Practice of the Translation``
Revisited', Poetics