Nida and Taber: Formal Correspondence and Dynamic Equivalence

Nida and Taber Formal remainder and can-do equivalence Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence which in the second pas seul by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal isotropy and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the depicted object itself,in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon the principle of equivalent effect (1964159). In the second variate (1982) or their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed chronicle of each type of equivalence.Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the appressed equivalent of a SLword or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore insinuate that these formal equivalents should be usedwherever possible if the transformation aims at achieving formal alternatively than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents migh t at times progress to serious implications in the TT since thetranslation will not be slow understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997).Nida andTaber themselves assert that Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical andstylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause thereceptor to interpret or to labor unduly hard (ibid. 201). Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to sympathise the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same affect on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience.Theyargue that Frequently, the form of the original textual matter is changed but as long as the changefollows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency inthe transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and thetranslation is faithful (Nida and Tabe r, 1982200). One can easily see that Nida is in save of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a moreeffective translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account thecontext of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is tosay, his translation of the Bible.Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text inthe TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nidaand Tabers edition is it clearly verbalize that dynamic equivalence in translation is far more thanmere represent communication of information (ibid25). Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is lots more interested in themessage of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to makesure that this message remains clear in the target text.