Nida
begins by asserting that given that "no two languages are identical,
either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which
symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there
can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence, there can be no
fully exact translations." While the impact of a translation may be close
to the original, there can be no identity in detail.
Nida
then sets forth the differences in translation, as he would account for it,
within three basic factors: The nature of the message: in some messages the
content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a
higher priority. The purpose of the author and of the translator: to give
information on both form and content; to aim at full intelligibility of the
reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message; for
imperative purposes that aim at not just understanding the translation but also
at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation.The type of audience:
prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability and in potential
interest.
Nida
brings in the reminder that while there are no such things as "identical
equivalents" in translating, what one must in translating seek to do is
find the "closest natural equivalent". Here he identifies two basic
orientations in translating based on two different types of equivalence: Formal
Equivalence (F-E) and Dynamic Equivalence (D-E).
F-E
focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. Such
translations then would be concerned with such correspondences as poetry to
poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Such a formal orientation
that typifies this type of structural equivalence is called a "gloss
translation" in which the translator aims at reproducing as literally and
meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original. The principles
governing an F-E translation would then be: reproduction of grammatical units;
consistency in word usage; and meanings in terms of the source context.
D-E
on the other hand aims at complete "naturalness" of expression. A D-E
translation is directed primarily towards equivalence of response rather than
equivalence of form. The relationship between the target language receptor and
message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the
original (source language) receptors and the message.
The
principles governing a D-E translation then would be: conformance of a
translation to the receptor language and culture as a whole; and the
translation must be in accordance with the context of the message which
involves the stylistic selection and arrangement of message constituents.
Thanks for letting me know...🤝
ReplyDeleteVery good
ReplyDelete