Become a member of TranslationDirectory. The concept of equivalence has been one of the key words in translation studies. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years. The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of equivalence.
Nida's dynamic equivalence theory from the point of view of requirements for a good translation theory. In Nida's theory, the new concepts of dynamic equivalent, equivalent effects and three-stage translating procedures made the theory so influential in the following century.
Nida discarded traditional approach placing too many demands upon the reader to become informed about the original culture, approached Equivalence in translation 2 essay from a scientific point of view and shifted the focus to the receptor's response.
After careful examination and analysis against each requirement, Nida's theory is found to be theoretically satisfying and practically applicable.
In the early s, the American linguist and translator Eugene A. Nida, in his Toward a Science of Translating Nida, and the co-authored The Theory and Practice of Translation Nida and Taber,expounds the theory of dynamic equivalence which shifts the focus in translating from the above debate to the response of the receptor and attempts to analyze translation with a systematic, theory-based approach to many disciplines, particularly linguistics.
Nida's translation theory of dynamic equivalence has exerted considerable influence all over the world and brought about a quantum leap of translation theory. Meanwhile, Nida's translation theory also receives fierce criticism for many reasons, which, not surprisingly, leads to the suggestion that Nida's dynamic equivalence theory appears not to be a satisfying theory.
It is for this reason, I intend to use the insights gained from the discussion of requirements for a good translation theory to investigate whether Nida's theory is a good translation theory from both the theoretical and practical points of view.
In Part 2 I try to 1 describe the requirements of a good theory on which the essential argument of this essay rests, 2 discuss some scholars' opinions on Nida's dynamic equivalence translation theory.
Then in Part 3 I will explore in details Nida's conceptual framework of dynamic equivalence. In part 4 I endeavor to examine how Nida's translation theory of dynamic equivalence satisfies the requirements of a good theory and how empirical it is in real and practical Chinese and English translating and conclusions are drawn in Part 5.
In this part I will briefly represent a few of the influential writings on evaluating or judging Nida's dynamic equivalence theory.
A more comprehensive definition is suggested by Shuttleworth and Cowie For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the term sometimes also includes interpreting.
This definition introduces the sub-types of translation, including not only written or sometimes oral products interpretingbut also machine translation in which computers and computerized analysis of language are heavily involved in the process and the product of translation.
To sum up, the term translation encompasses several distinct perspectives: The sense of process centres on what a translator does in turning the source text ST into a target text TT in another language. The sense of product focuses on the text that is produced in the translating process.
The sense of abstract concept of the general phenomenon can be said to be the general subject field. Clearly a theory of translation must attempt to describe and explain what translation is and how it happens.
The objective of a translation theory, in a nutshell, is to normalize our relationship to the phenomena of translation and improve our perception of translation.
If we simply focus on the written translation rather than interpreting oral translationthere may be three possible theories of translation as defined by Bell This would require a study of information processing and would draw heavily on psychology and on psycholinguistics.
This would require a study of texts not merely by means of the traditional levels of linguistic analysis syntax and semantics but also making use of stylistics and recent advances in text-linguistics and discourse analysis.
This would require the integrated study of both and such a general theory is, presumably, the long-term goal for translation studies. According to Ronowicz Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word This strategy is useful when the ST word is too expressive and can give to the TT a different hint from the original.
In this way the translator avoids the creation of misunderstandings by using a neutral equivalent. We will write a custom sample essay on Equivalence in Translation specifically for you for only $ $/page.
Order now (2) dynamic equivalence has priority over formal correspondence, (3) the aural (heard) form of language has priority over the written form, (4) forms that are used by and acceptable to the audience for which a. Many scholars reject its existence in translation.
In his essay The Concept of Equivalence in Translation, Broek stated, "we must by all means reject the idea that the equivalence relation applies to translation." (Broek, ) Broek refuses the idea of equivalence in translation as a form of linguistic synonymy.
dynamic equivalence were crucial in introducing a receptor – based orientation to translation theory. However, both the principle of equivalent effect and the concept of equivalence have come to be heavily criticized for a number of reasons.
Van den Broeck and Larose consider equivalent effect . Equivalence in Translation Introduction Dynamic equivalence, as a respectable principle of translation, has been around in the translation sector for a long time.
It is the method whereby the translator's purpose is not to give a literal, word-for-word rendition but to transfer the meaning of the text as would be best expressed in the words of the receptor (native) language. In my work I would like to present and critically discuss two linguistic approaches to equivalence, which in my opinion is the main aim of the translator.
Equivalence has always been an unachievable aim of translators. Equivalence in the field of translation can be defined as the central issue.