Dynamic Equivalence and the Receptor of the Message

1
Dynamic Equivalence and the Receptor of the
Message

• Week 5

2

• Basil Hatim and Jeremy Munday (2004).
  Translation. An Advanced Resource Book.
  Routledge London New York
• Section A
• Chapters 6
• Section B
• Chapters 6

3

• Meaning, culture and audience (ST and TT)
• Process of translation
• - Equivalent effect (context, meaning,
  translation method)

4

• Anything which can be said in one language can
  be said in another, unless the form is an
  essential element of the message. (Nida Taber
  1969)
• Formal equivalence
• Dynamic equivalence

5

• FORMAL EQUIVALENCE
• The pure formal replacement of one word or
  phrase in the SL by another in the TL.
• It is different from literal translation.

6

• While literal translation tends to preserve
  formal features almost by default (i.e. with
  little or no regard for the context, meaning or
  what is implied by a given utterance), a formal
  translation is almost always contextually
  motivated formal features are preserved only if
  they carry contextual values that become part of
  the overall text meaning.

7

• attention on the message itself, in both form
  and content
• to bring the target reader nearer to the
  linguistic or cultural preferences of the ST

8

• DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE
• If somebody messes with you, go to court. Thats
  the American way.
• Bernard Adusei, who immigrated to the United
  States 21 years ago, criticizing a lawsuit in
  connection with a disputed lottery win.
• (Newsweek 21 May 2001)

9

• A threat to comprehensibility
• Explicitation or adjustment
• Dynamic forms of equivalence they can express
  a rich variety of contextual values and effects
  which a literal translation would simply
  compromise.
• We opt for varying degrees of dynamic
  equivalence when form is not significantly
  involved in conveying a particular meaning, and
  when a formal rendering is therefore
  unnecessary.

10

• Dynamic and formal equivalence are points on a
  cline.
• The two methods are not absolute tecniques but
  rather general orientations.
• Experienced translators resort to a formal
  rendering of the ST most of the time, then they
  reconsider their desicions and make their
  definitive choice.

11

• Eugene A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating,
  1964
• Messages differ primarily in the degree to which
  content or form is the dominant consideration. Of
  course, the content of the message can never be
  completly abstracted from the form, and form is
  nothing apart from content but in some messages
  the content is of primary consideration, and in
  others the form must be given a higher priority.

12

• A translators purpose may involve much more
  than information. He may, for example, want to
  suggest a particular type of behaviour by means
  of a translation. Under such circumstances he is
  likely to aim at full intelligibility, and to
  make certain minor adjustments in detail so that
  the reader may understand the full implications
  of the message for his own circumstances.

13

• In such a situation a translator is not content
  to have receptors say This is intelligible to
  us. Rather, he is looking for some such response
  as, This is meaningful for us.
• E.g.
• to change ones mind about sin repentance
• to spit on the ground in front of repentance
  (Sudan)
• white as snow
• white as egret feathers

14

• Two basic orientations in translating
• Formal equivalence
• It focuses all attention on the message itself,
  in both form and content.
• the message in the receptor language should
  match as closely as possible the different
  elements in the source language.
• Gloss translation (footnotes)

15

• A gloss translation of this type is designed to
  permit the reader to identify himself as fully as
  possible with a person in the source-langauge
  context, and to understand as much as he can of
  the customs, manner of thought, and means of
  expression.
• E.g.
• Holy kiss (Romans 16 16)

16

• Dynamic Equivalence
• A translation which attempts to produce a
  dynamic equivalence is based upon the
  equivalent effect. In such a translation one is
  not so concerned with matching the
  receptor-language message with the
  source-language message, but with the dynamic
  relationship, that the relationship between
  receptor and message should be substantially the
  same as that which existed between the original
  receptors and the message.

17

• A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at
  complete naturalness of expression, and tries to
  relate the receptor to modes of behaviour
  relevant within the context of his own culture
  it does not insist that he understand the
  cultural patterns of the source-language context
  in order to comprehend the message.
• J.B. Phillips
• greet one another with a holy kiss
• give one another a hearty handshake all around

18

• THE TRANSLATION PROCESS
• The translator
• - analyses the SL message into its simplest and
  structurally clearest forms (kernels)
• - transfers the message at this kernel level
• - restructures the message in the TL to the level
  which is most appropriate for the audience
  addressed

19

• Languages agrees far more on the level of the
  kernels than on the level of the more elaborate
  structures. (Nida)
• Kernels (semantic categories)
• Object words
• Event words
• Abstracts
• Relationals

20

• Transfer
• the analysed material is transferred in the mind
  of the translator from language A to language B
  (Nida)
• reconfiguration in the TL of sets of SL
  semantic and structural components
• Restructuring
• Procedures
• stylistic form appropriate to the receptor
  language and to the intended receptors (Nida
  Taber)

21

• Adjustments
• -redundancy
• -gist

22

• SOURCE LANGUAGE RECEPTOR
  LANGUAGE
• TEXT
  TRANSLATION
• ANALYSIS
  RESTRUCTURING
• TRANSFER

23

• Translating
• Reproducing in the receptor language the closest
  natural equivalent of the message of the source
  language, first in terms of meaning and second in
  terms of style.