Natural Equivalence and Directional Equivalence

Pym’s (2009, 2010a and 2010b) distinction between natural and directional equivalence emerges from his analysis of the meta-language of translation, especially theorizations on equivalence. Unlike Nida (1964) whose postulations are more prescriptive in that they are meant to help translators (especially of the Bible) in the act of translation, Pym’s (2010a and 2010b) views are rather descriptive of the existing postulations on equivalence.

For Pym (2010a:12), natural equivalence refers to “what different languages and cultures seem to produce from within their own systems” as against what is created from translation. It is termed “natural” because “it is assumed to exist before the translator’s intervention” (Pym 2010b: 2). Pym (2010a: 12) illustrates this with the report of Vinay and Dabelnet (1958) on the Canadian French versions of some bilingual (English-French) road signs in Canada. They report that the Canadian French versions, which are translations of the English versions, are different from what is normally seen in France, i.e., the French French versions or terms for the same ideas. For instance, lentement is given in one of the road signs as the Canadian French equivalent of “slow”, instead of French French ralentir.

Consequently, Vinay and Dabelnet (1958: 19) submit that

51

No monolingual speaker of French would ever have come straight out with the phrase, nor would they have sprayed paint all over the road for the sake of a long adverb ending in – MENT. Here we reach a key point, a sort of turning lock between two languages. But of course – parbleu! – instead of LENTEMENT [adverb, as in English] it should have been RALENTIR [verb in the infinitive, as in France]! (Quoted in Pym 2010a: 12)

Here, ralentir is the natural equivalent of “slow” and not lentement which was created from translation. A back-translation of a natural equivalent would give the same source text word. Thus, natural equivalence is non-directional (Pym 2009: 89) and/or reciprocal (Pym 2010a: 12). That is, in whatever direction the translation goes, from language A to language B, and back to language A, the same terms would be supplied as equivalents of the other terms. In other words, the test for natural equivalence is back-translation.

As opposed to natural equivalence, directional equivalence lacks the ability of reciprocity.

For such, back-translating the word from the target language to the source language would result in a term different from the original source text word. Consequently, Pym (2010a:

25) submits that “directionality is a key feature of translational equivalence, and that translations are thus the results of active decisions made by translators” (emphasis in original). The conceptualization of the target text word as having an equal or similar value as the source text word does not happen naturally. Rather, the word takes that status because the translator has ascribed it such during translation. The relation between the source text and the target text is asymmetrical because “equivalence is located on one side more than the other”.

As mentioned in the preceding section, Nida’s (1964) notion of dynamic equivalence involves three levels of lexical adaptation. Figure 2.1 shows the relationship between Nida’s (1964) levels of lexical adaptation and Pym’s (2010a) notions of natural and directional equivalence. Nida’s (1964) first level of lexical adaptation does not present any challenge to the Bible translator because there are readily available terms in the target language for the source text words. Hence, the equivalence relations between the source and target texts terms fall under Pym’s (2010a) natural equivalence. There is little or no

52

adaptation of the target text word to make it function as the equivalent of the source text word, which means that the meaning of the target text word does not change. On the contrary, the other two levels of lexical adaptation involve source and target texts terms that have, ab initio, some marked differences in meaning or referents. As such, using them as equivalent items results in some changes in the meanings or referents of the target text terms. Thus, they belong to Pym’s (2010a) directional equivalence.

Figure 2. 1. Levels of lexical adaptation vs natural and directional equivalence (after Oyali forthcoming)

Pym’s (2010a) concepts of natural and directional equivalence clarify the relationship between equivalence on the one hand, and lexical and conceptual innovation on the other.

When a translator translates a text containing information that is new to the receiving culture, the kind of equivalence they use cannot be natural, since the ideas are new in the culture (Pym 2010a: 21). Thus, directional equivalence engenders not only conceptual enrichment by introducing new ideas into the receiving culture, but also lexical enrichment because it emphasizes the fact that an existing word has been given new signification, or that some new word has been added into the language via the translation. The de-emphasis

Equivalence

Natural

Terms with readilly available parallels

Directional

Terms for culturally different concepts

with similar functions

Terms that identify cultural specialties

53

of the source text in directional equivalence gives the translator more room to exploit the creative resources in the receptor language to serve the desired purpose. This study explores new words and concepts added through directional equivalence in the Igbo language.

Pym’s (2010a) concepts of natural and directional equivalence highlight a fundamental aspect of Nida’s (1964) dynamic equivalence and its search for natural equivalence. To him, claims of “natural equivalence” where a translation brings a new way of thought to a culture are “fundamentally deceptive, and quite possibly imperialistic” (Pym 2010a: 21).

He asks rhetorically

Can Nida really pretend that the Christian God was already in the countless non-Christian cultures into whose languages the Bible is translated? When the “lamb of God” becomes a “seal of God” for Inuit readers²², the New Testament quite simply ceases to refer to first-century Palestine. (Pym 2010a: 21)

The point here is that Nida’s (1964) use of “natural equivalence” gives the impression that the new signification given to “seal” in its use in the Bible had existed even before the Bible was introduced to the Inuit. This makes the NT, where this phrase is used, the story of the 21^st century Inuit and not of the first-century Palestine. The same applies to the terms used for the Christian God in erstwhile non-Christian cultures, terms that becloud the fact that monotheism might not have been the people’s practice before the advent of Christianity²³. The use of Chineke for “God” in the IBTs gives the impression that the Igbo were monotheistic before the arrival of Christian missionaries, but Oyali (2016) shows that the idea of a Supreme God among the Igbo came with the missionaries (also see Chapter 5). So, while Nida’s (1964) concept of natural equivalence makes this cultural assimilation and

22 This is a famous example of Nida’s dynamic equivalence, whereby “Lamb of God” (symbolizing innocence) is translated as “seal of God” for the Inuit who are unfamiliar with lamb (Snell-Hornby 2006: 25). Since the goal of dynamic equivalence is to evoke equivalent effect and the Inuit are not familiar with lamb, the seal is used instead to evoke the same effect – innocence.

23 Richardson (1984) is an extensive study of how different non-Christian cultures around the world have concepts that mirror certain aspects of the Judeo-Christian teachings, which could be used as entry points for evangelism; that is, these non-Christian concepts can be explained as misunderstandings of the Christian teachings, the Christian viewpoint hereby presented as the correct viewpoint.

54

inherent imperialism obscure, Pym (2010a) would rather group such translations as directional, not natural, thereby exposing the asymmetrical power relations between the source language and culture and the receptor language and culture.