Formal and Dynamic Equivalence

As mentioned above, Jakobson (1959) introduced the term “equivalence in difference” in translation research. However, Eugene Nida (1964) expanded the concept of equivalence by distinguishing between formal and dynamic equivalence. According to him, formal equivalence focuses attention on the form and content of the message. In formal

48

equivalence, the translator produces a message that matches “as closely as possible the different elements in the source language”. Thus, “the message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness” (Nida 1964: 159). An example of such a translation given by Nida (1964: 159) is “a rendering of some Medieval French text into English, intended for students of certain aspects of early French literature not requiring a knowledge of the original language of the text”. Such a translation would require “a relatively close approximation to the structure of the early French text, both as to form (e.g. syntax and idioms) and content (e.g. themes and concepts) [as well as] numerous footnotes in order to make the text fully comprehensible” (Nida 1964: 159). In a way, Nida’s formal equivalence is similar to Jerome’s word for word translation.

On its part, dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect (Nida 1964).

Here, the translator tries to produce a text that has an effect on the receptor audience that is similar to the effect the source text has on the source audience. This kind of translation

“aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant within the context of his own culture” (Nida 1964: 159). Understanding the cultural patterns of the source language contexts is not important, rather, what should matter is the cultural patterns of the receptor language. An instance of such a translation, according to Nida (1964:160), is J. B. Phillips rendering of Psalm 16: 16 as “give one another a hearty handshake all around”, in contrast to “greet one another with a holy kiss”

as rendered in the KJB. Incidentally, as observed by Waard and Nida (1986: 7-8), the term

“dynamic equivalence” has “been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors”. So, they replace it with “functional equivalence”, although they insist that there is nothing essentially different between the two terms. Both terms are thus used interchangeably in this study.

The distinction between formal and dynamic equivalence is better appreciated within the framework of Nida and Taber’s (1974) definition of translation cited above: “[t]ranslating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style” (Nida and

49

Taber 1974: 12, emphasis added). The choice of “receptor language” as against “target language” (c.f. Catford1965: 20) is hinged on the desire to

emphasize the fact that the message must be decoded by those who receive it. One does not merely shoot the communication at a target. Rather, the communication must be received, and this process is crucial in evaluating the adequacy of a translation. (Nida 1969: 484)

Here, Nida (1969) sees translation, especially Bible translation, as a form of communication that has a source and a receptor. The role of the receptor in the communication process is equally, if not more important than that of the source text. Thus, the “closest natural equivalent” should elicit from a native speaker of the receptor language the statement: “this is just the way we would say it” (Nida 1964: 166). He clarifies that equivalent points toward the source-language message, natural points towards the receptor language, while closest binds the two orientations together based on the highest degree of approximation. Since dynamic equivalent translation is concerned more with equivalence of response than equivalence of form, Nida (1964) clarifies the three areas the word “natural” is applied to so as to elicit such a response: “a natural rendering must fit (1) the receptor language and culture as a whole, (2) the context of the particular message, and (3) the receptor-language audience” (Nida 1964: 167).

It could be observed that, in a way, dynamic or functional equivalence is similar to Jerome’s ([395] 2004) and Luther’s ([1530] 2002) sense for sense translation. Just as Luther ([1530]

2002) insists on not retaining the lexical and syntactic forms of the source text, Nida (1964:

167) maintains that dynamic equivalence involves grammatical and lexical adaptation.

Grammatical adjustment involves maintaining the syntax of the receptor language, rather than adjusting it to reflect that of the source language. This involves shifting word order, replacing verbs with nouns and vice versa, etc. Lexical adaptation, on its part, involves three levels of lexical items: terms with readily available parallels in the receptor language, terms that identify culturally different items but have similar functions, and terms that identify cultural specialties, i.e. items that are found in the source culture but not in the receptor culture. The first set of terms does not pose any problem to the translator. It is the

50

second and third groups that would require a lot of cultural adaptations. This study focuses attention on lexical items that fall under the last two groups because their use as equivalents of the ST words involves some lexical and semantic changes, which are instances of language elaboration. Thus, they are cultural adaptations of Igbo concepts and lexical items to represent Christian or Biblical concepts. Hence, it is necessary that I expatiate on cultural adaptation, especially as it affects Bible translation. However, before I do that, I would like to highlight Anthony Pym’s (2009, 2010a and 2010b) contribution to the meta-discussion of equivalence, for I find some of his insights very useful in the analysis.