Introducing

Translation Studies
Theories and applications

Jeremy Munday

London and New York

34 PRE-TWENTIETHCENTURY TRANSLATION THEORY

cultures. K e l l y (1979) i s especially s t r o n g o n the L a t i n t r a d i t i o n . P y m (1998)

m a y also b e u s e f u l as a p r e s e n t a t i o n of investigative m e t h o d s in t r a n s l a t i o n
Equivalence and equivalent effect
history

Discussion and research points

I Find recent reviews of translations in the press in your own languages. W h a t kinds of
comments are made about the translation itself? H o w far is the vocabulary used
similar t o that described in this chapter?
2 Modern translation theory tends t o criticize the simplicity of the 'literal vs.freel
debate. Why, then, do you think that the vocabulary of that earlier period often
continues t o be used in reviews of translation, in comments by teachers and
exarniners,and in writings by literary translators themselves?
I Key concepts
I
The problem of equivalence in meaning, discussed by Jakobson (1959) and central
3 Investigate what writing was produced on translation in your own languages and
t o translation studies for t w o decades.
cultures before the twentieth century. H o w closely does it resemble the writings
Nida's adaptation of transformational grammar model, and 'scientific' methods t o
discussed in this chapter?Are there significant differences in early translation theory
analyze meaning in his work on Bible translating.
written in different languages?
Nida's concepts of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence and the principle
4 The Italian axiom traduttore, traditore ('the translator is a traitor') has become a cliche.
o f equivalent effect: focus on the receptor.
What elements discussed in this chapter may help t o explain its origin?
Newmark's semantic translation and communicative translation.
5 H o w useful do you consider Dolet's principles and Tytler's laws t o be for guiding a
Development of ~bersetzun~swissenschafi ('science of translating') in the
translator?
Germanies of the 1970s and 1 980s.
6 '1 have endeavoured t o make Virgil speak such English as he would himself have spoken,
Theoretical criticisms of equivalence and the tertium cornparationis.
if he had been born in England,and in this present age', wrote Dryden in 1697 in his
preface t o his translation of the Aeneid. H o w do you imagine he would have set about
doing this?What issues does it raise for the literary translator?
7 D o translators' prefaces frequently appear in translations in your own country? Why
Key texts
do you think this is? If they do, what function do they serve, and what kind of language
do they use t o describe the translation? Bassnett, S. (1980, revised edition 1991) Translation Studies, London and N e w York:
Routledge, chapter I .
Jakobson, R. (195912000) 'On linguistic aspects of translation'. in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000)
pp. 113-18.
Koller, W. (1979a) Einfihrung in die ~bersetzun~swissenschaft, Heidelberg-Wiesbaden:
Quelle und Meyer.
Koller, W. (1979b189) 'Equivalence in translation theory', translated by A. Chesterman, in
A. Chesterman (ed.) ( 1989), pp. 99-1 04.
Newmark, P. (1 98t) Approaches to Translation, Oxford and N e w York: Pergamon.
Newmark, P. (1 988) A Textbook of Translation, N e w York and London: Prentice-Hall.
Nida, E. (1964a) Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. j. Brill.
Nida, E. (1964b12000) 'Principles of Correspondence', in L. Venuti (ed.), pp. 126-40.
Nida, E. and C. Taber (1 969) The Theory and Practice of Translotion, Leiden: E. j. Brill.

3.0 Introduction
A f t e r t h e centuries of c i r c u l a r debates a r o u n d l i t e r a l a n d free t r a n s l a t i o n
(see chapter 2), theoreticians in t h e 1950s a n d 1960s began t o a t t e m p t m o r e
systematic analyzes o f translation. T h e n e w debate r e v o l v e d a r o u n d c e r t a i n
key linguistic issues. T h e m o s t p r o m i n e n t o f these issues were those o f
 36 EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT 'THE SCIENCE OF TRANSLATING' 37

source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different

meaning and 'equivalence', discussed In Roman Jakobson's 1959 paper (see codes. n
section 3.1 below). Over the following twenty years many further attempts
uakobson 195912000: 114)
s
P)
were made t o define the nature of equivalence. In this chapter, we shall
look at several major works of the time: Eugene Nida's seminal concepts For the message to be 'equivalent' in ST and TT, the code-units will be X
(p
of formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect different since they belong t o two different sign systems (languages) which
(section 3.2), Peter Newmark's semantic and communicative translation partition reality differently (the cheeselsyr example above). From a linguistic
(section 3.3), and Werner Koller's Korrespondenz and Aquivalenz (section and semiotic angle, Jakobson approaches the problem of equivalence with
3.4). the follouring, now-famous, definition: 'Equivalence in difference is the car-
dinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.' In Jakob-
son's discussion, the problem of meaning and equivalence thus focuses on
3.1 Roman lakobson: the nature of linguistic meaning differences in the structure and terminology of languages rather than on any
and equivalence inability of one language to render a message that has been written in another
In chapter 1 we saw how, in his paper 'On linguistic aspects of translation' verbal language. Thus, Russian can still express the full semantic meaning of
(195912000), the Russian-born American structuralist Roman Jakobson cheese even if it breaks it down into two separate concepts.
describes three kinds of translation: intralingual, interlingual and inter- For Jakobson, cross-linguistic differences centre around obligatory gram-
semiotic, with interlingual referring to translation between two different matical and lexical forms: 'Languages differ essentially in what they must
written languages. Jakobson goes on to examine key issues of this type of convey and not in what they may convey' (p. 116). Examples of differences
translation, notably linguistic meaning and equivalence. are easy t o find. They occur at:
Jakobson follows the relation set out by Saussure between the signifier (the the level of gender: e.g. house is feminine in Romance languages, neuter in
spoken and written signal) and the signified (the concept signified). Together, German and English; honey is masculine in French, German and Italian,
the signifier and signified form the linguistic sign, but that sign is arbitrary or feminine in Spanish, neuter in English, etc.;
unmotivated (Saussure 1916183: 67-9). Thus, the English word cheese is the the level of aspect: in Russian, the verb morphology varies according to
acoustic signifier which 'denotes' the concept 'food made of pressed curds' whether the action has been completed o r not;
(the signified), although there is no inherent reason for that t o be so. Jakob- the level of semantic fields: e.g. the German Geschwister is normally expli-
son stresses that it is possible to understand what is signified by a word even cated in English as brothers artd sisters; and the English cl~ildrenin the
I if we have never seen or experienced the concept or thing in real life. statement 'I've got two children' is translated as the gender-specific hijas
Examples he gives are ambrosia and nectar, words which modern readers will in Spanish if both children are female.
have read in Greek myths even if they have never come across the substances
in real life; these contrast with cheese, which they almost certainly have Even what for many Western languages is a basic relational concept such as
encountered first hand. be (English), {tre (French) and sein (German) is broken down in Spanish t o ser
Jakobson then moves on t o consider the thorny p o b l e m of equivalence and estur, while Russian does not use such a verb explicitly in the present
in meaning between words in different languages. He points out (195912000: tense. These examples illustrate differences between languages, but they are
114) that 'there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units'. He still concepts that can be rendered interlingually. Only poetry - where form
gives the example of cheese in English, which is not identical t o the Russian expresses sense, where 'phonemic similarity is sensed as semantic relation-
ship' - is considered 'untranslatable' by Jakobson and requires 'creative
syr (or, for that matter, the Spanish queso, the German Kiise, etc.) since the
transposition' (p. 1 18).
I Russian 'code.unitl does not include the concept of cottage cheese. That
I The questions of meaning, equivalence and translatability became a con-
would be tvarok and not syr in Russian. While one might quibble that the
stant theme of translation studies in the 1960s and were tackled by a
English cheese only really covers the realm of cottage cheese by the addition
new 'scientific' approach followed by one of the most important figures in
of the term cottuge, the general principle of interlinguistic difference between
translation studies, the American Eugene Nida.
terms and semantic fields is established.
In Jakobson's description, interlingual translation involves 'substitut[ing]
messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages 3.2 Nida and 'the science of translating'
in some other language':
Eugene Nida's theory of translation developed from his own practical work
The translator recvdes and transmits a message received from another from the 1940s onwards when he translating and organizing the
EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT 'THE SCIENCE OF TRANSLATING' 39

translation of the Bible. His theory took concrete form in two major works t o the word are its connotative value, and these are considered t o belong t o
the realm of pragmatics o r 'language in use'. Above all, Nida (p. 51) stresses
in the 1960s: Toward a Sciertce of Translating (1964a) and the co-authored The =r
Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida and Taber 1969). The title of the the importance of context for communication when dealing with meta- DJ

first book is significant; Nida attempts to move translation (Bible transla- phorical meaning and with complex cultural idioms, for example, where the
sense of the phrase often diverges from the sum of the individual elements.
R
(0
tion in his case) into a more scientific era by incorporating recent work in 1
linguistics. Nida's more systematic approach borrows theoretical concepts Thus, the Hebrew idiom bene Chuppah [lit. 'children of the bridechamber'] w
and terminology both from semantics and pragmatics and from Noam refers t o the wedding guests, especially the friends of the bridegroom (Nida
Chomsky's work on syntactic structure which formed the theory of 1964a: 95).
generative-transformational grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965). In general, techniques of componential analysis are proposed as a means
of clarifying ambiguities, elucidating obscure passages and identifying cul-
tural differences. They may serve as a point of comparison between different
3.2.1 The nature of meaning: advances in semantics and pragmatics languages and cultures.
Nida (1964a: 33f9 describes various 'scientific approaches t o meaning'
related t o work that had been carried out by theorists in semantics and 3.2.2 The influence of Chomsky
pragmatics. Central t o Nida's work is the move away from the old idea that
an orthographic word has a fixed meaning and towards a functional defin- Chomskyls generative-transformational model analyzes sentences into a
ition of meaning in which a word 'acquires' meaning through its context and series of related levels governed by rules. In very simplified form, the key
can produce varying responses according to culture. features of this model can be summarized as follows:
Meaning is broken down into linguistic meaning (borrowing elements of 1 Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying o r deep structure which is
Chomsky's model), referential meaning (the denotative 'dictionary' mean- 2 transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying structure
ing) and emotive (or connotative) meaning. A series of techniques, adapted t o another (e.g, active to passive), to produce
from work in linguistics, is presented as an aid for the translator in determin- 3 a final surface structure, which itself is subject t o phonological and
ing the meaning of different linguistic items. Techniques to determine refer- morphemic rules.
ential and emotive meaning focus on analyzing the structure of words and
differentiating similar words in related lexical fields. These include hier. The structure relations described in this model are held by Chomsky t o be a
archical structuring, which differentiates series of words according t o their universal feature of human language. The most basic of such structures are
level (for instance, the superordinate animal and its hyponyms goat, dog, cow, kernel sentences, which are simple, active, declarative sentences that require
etc.) and techniques of componential analysis. The latter seek to identify the minimum of transformation.
and discriminate specific features of a range of related words. The results can Nida incorporates key features of Chomsky's model into his 'science' of
be plotted visually t o assist in making an overall comparison. One example translation. In particular, Nida sees that it provides the translator with a
(Nida 1964a: 84-5) is the plotting of relationship terms (grandmother, mother, technique for decoding the ST and a procedure for encoding the TT (Nida
cousin, etc.) according to the values of sex (male, female), generation (the 1964a: 60), although he reverses Chomsky's model when analyzing the ST.
same, one, two or more apart) and lineality (direct ancestorldescendant o r Thus, the surface structure of the ST is analyzed into the basic elements of
not). Such results are useful for a translator working with languages that have the deep structure; these are 'transferred' in the translation process and then
very different kinship terms. restructured semantically and stylistically into the surface structure of the
Another technique is semantic structure analysis in which Nida (1964a: TT. This three-stage system of translation (analysis, transfer and restructur-
107) separates out visually the different meanings of spirit ('demons', ing) is presented in figure 3.1 :
'angels', 'gods', 'ghost', 'ethos', 'alcohol', etc.) according to their character- Nida and Taher's own description of the process (p. 68) emphasizes the
'scientific and practical' advantages of this method compared to any attempt
istics (human vs. non-human, good vs. bad, etc.). The central idea of this
analysis is to encourage the trainee translator to realize that the sense of a
to draw up a fully comprehensive list of equivalences between specific pairs
of SL and TL systems. 'Kernel' is a key term in this model. Just as kernel
complex semantic term such as spirit (or, t o take another example, bachelor)
varies and most particularly is 'conditioned' by its context. Spirit thus does sentences were the most basic structures of Chomsky's initial model, so, for
not always have a religious significance. Even (or perhaps especially) when it Nida, kernels 'are the basic structural elements out of which language builds
does, as in the term Holy Spirit, its emotive or connotative value varies its elaborate surface structures' (Nida and Taber 1969: 39). Kernels are t o
according t o the target culture (Nida 1964a: 36). The associations 'attached' be obtained from the ST surface structure by a reductive process of
i
40 EQUIVALENCEAND EQUIVALENT EFFECT 'THE SCIENCE OF TRANSLATING' 41

Figure 3.1 Box 3.1

Nida's three-stage system of translation (from Nida and Taber 1969: 33)
Greek ST:
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
egeneto anthropos, apestalmenos para theou, onoma aut6 l6annGs
Literal transfer (stage I):

( (analysis) (restructuring)
I I I 2 3 4 5 6
becamelhappened man, sent from God, name to-him John
Minimal transfer (stage 2):
7 8

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
There C A M ~ W A Sa man, sent from God, WHOSE name was John

1 Literary transfer (stage 3,example taken from the American Standard Version,
1901):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I
There CAME a man, sent from God, WHOSE name was John
back-transformation (Nida 1964a: 63-9). This involves analysis using
generative-transformational grammar's four types of functional class: o r (example taken from Phillips New Testament in Modern English, 1958 '):
events (often but not always performed by verbs); 2 6 78 3 4
A man, NAMED * John WAS sent BY God
objects (often but not always performed by nouns);
abstracts (quantities and qualities, including adjectives); Notes: Adjustments from the ST are indicated as follows: changes in order are indicated by
relationals (including gender, prepositions and conjunctions). the numeral order, omissions by an *,structural alterations by SMALL CAPITALS and additions by
italics.
Examples of analysis (Nida 1964a: 64), designed t o illustrate the different
constructions with the preposition of, are:
surface structure: will of God
back transform: B (object, Sod) performs A (event, wills) 3.2.3 Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of
equivalent effect
The old terms such as 'literal', 'free' and 'faithful' translation, which were
examined in chapter 2, are discarded by Nida in favour of 'two basic orienta-
surface structure: creation of the world tions' or 'types of equivalence' (Nida 1964a: 159): (1) formal equivalence and
back transform: B (object, the world) is the goal of A (event, creates). (2) dynamic equivalence. These are defined by Nida as follours:
Nida and Taber (1969: 39) claim that all languages have between six and a 1 Formal equivalence:
dozen basic kernel structures and 'agree far more on the level of kernels than
on the level of more elaborate structures'. Kernels are the level at which the Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
message is transferred into the receptor language before being transformed content . . . One is concerned that the messagc in the receptor language
into the surface structure in three stages: 'literal transfer', 'minimal transfer' should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source
language.
and 'literary transfer'. An example of this transfer process is the verse from
John 1:6 in box 3.1 (cited in Nida 1964a: 185-7). The two examples of (Nida 1964a: 159)
literary transfer are different stylistically, notably in syntax, the first being Formal equivalence is thus keenly oriented towards the ST structure,
more formal and archaic. The reason for this may be the kind of equivalence which exerts strong influence in determining accuracy and correctness.
and effect that is intended, a crucial element of Nida's ,model, which is Most typical of this kind of translation are 'gloss translations', with a
discussed in the next section. close approximation t o ST structure, often with scholarly footnotes,
allowing the student (since this type of translation will often be used
in an academic environment) to gain close access to the language and
customs of the source culture.
 'THE SCIENCE OF TRANSLATING'
42 EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT

Indeed, the whole question of equivalence inevitably entails subjective

2 Dynamic equivalence: Dynamic equivalence is based on what Nida fi
judgement from the translator o r analyst.
calls 'the principle of equivalent effect', where 'the relationship between
receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which
It is interesting that the debate continued into the 1990s in leading transla- 's
existed between the original receptors and the message' (Nida 1964: 159).
tion journals. In 1992 and 1993, for example, Meta, the international journal
of translation studies, published a series of papers by Qian Hu whose
4
tD
The message has to be tailored to the receptor's linguistic needs and
express aim was to demonstrate the 'implausibility' of equivalent response. W
cultural expectation and 'aims at complete naturalness of expression'.
The focus in these papers is notably on the impossibility of achieving equiva-
'Naturalness' is a key requirement for Nida. Indeed, he defines the goal
lent effect when meaning is bound up in form, for example the effect of word
of dynamic equivalence as seeking 'the closest natural equivalent to the
order in Chinese and English, especially in literary works (Qian Hu 1993:
source-language message' (Nida 1964a: 166, Nida and Taber 1969: 12).
455-6). Also, that 'the closest natural equivalent may stand in a contra-
This receptor-oriented approach considers adaptations of grammar, of
dictory relation with dynamic equivalents', for example in Chinese 'over-
lexicon and of cultural references to be essential in order to achieve
translations' of English words animal, veget~tbleand mineral. Qian Hu also
naturalness; the TT language should not show interference from the SL,
discusses cultural references, and the argument which recalls the kind of
and the 'foreignness' of the ST setting is minimized (Nida 1964a: 167-8)
criticism that has surrounded a notorious example where Nida (1964a: 160)
in a way that would now be criticized by later culturally oriented transla-
considers that give one another a hearty handshake all round 'quite naturally
tion theorists (see chapters 8 and 9).
translates' greet one another wlith a holy kiss.
For Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving The criticism that Nida's work is subjective raises the question of whether
equivalent response. It is one of the 'four basic requirements of a Nida's theory of translation really is 'scientific'. While the techniques for the
translation', which are (p. 164): analysis of meaning and for transforming kernels into TT surface structures
are carried out in a systematic fashion, it remains debatable whether a trans-
1 making sense;
lator follows these procedures in practice. However, Nida's detailed descrip-
2 conveying the spirit and manner of the original;
tion of real translation phenomena and situations is an important
3 having a natural and easy form of expression;
rejoinder t o the vague writings o n translation that had preceded it. Addition-
4 producing a similar response.
ally, Nida is aware of what he terms (1964a: 3) 'the artistic sensitivity which
It is interesting to note the similarity with Tytler's principles of translation in is an indispensable ingredient in any first-rate translation of a literary work'.
one of the early attempts at systematizing translation theory at the end of the One of Nida's fiercest critics is Edwin Gentzler, whose Contemporary
eighteenth century (see chapter 2 ) . Translation Theories (1993) contains a chapter on 'the "science" of transla-
Although dynamic equivalence is aimed at, it is also a graded concept since tion' (Genztler's quotation marks). Gentzler, working from within a
Nida accepts that the 'conflict' between the traditional notions of content deconstructionist perspective (see chapter lo), denigrates Nida's work for its
and form cannot always be easily resolved. As a general rule for such con- theological and proselytizing standpoint with the concept that dynamic
flicts, Nida underlines that 'correspondence in meaning must have priority equivalence serves the purpose of converting the receptors, no matter what
over correspondence in style' if equivalent effect is t o be achieved. their culture, t o the dominant discourse and ideas of Protestant Christianity.
Ironically, Nida is also taken t o task by certain religious groups who maintain
that the word of God is sacred and unalterable, the changes necessary to
3.2.4 Discussion of the importance of Nida's work
achieve dynamic equivalence thus verging on the sacrilegious.
The key role played by Nida is to point the road away from strict word-for- However, Nida w o r k i n g 'in the field' in the 1960s, dealing daily with real
word equivalence His introduction of the concepts of formal and dynamic and practical translation problems and attempting to train translators for
equivalence were crucial in introducing a receptor-based (or reader-based) work in very different cultures - achieved what few of his predecessors
orientation t o translation theory. However, both the ~ r i n c i p l eof equivalent attempted: he went a long way to producing a systematic analytical pro-
effect and the concept of equivalence have come to be heavily criticized for a cedure for translators working with all kinds of text and he factored into the
number of reasons: Lefevere (1993: 7 ) feels that equivalence is still overly translation equation the receivers of the TT and their cultural expectations.
concerned with the word level, while van den Hroeck (1978: 40) and Larose Despite the heated debate it has provoked, Nida's systematic linguistic
(1989: 78) consider equivalent effect or response t o be impossible (how is the approach to translation has been influential on many subsecl~~ent and
'effect' to be nleasured and on whom? how can a text possibly have the same prominent translation scholars, among them Peter Newmark in the UK
effect and elicit the same response in two different cultures and times?). and Werner Koller in Germany.