Eugene Nida

Eugene A. Nida(November 11, 1914 August 25, 2011) was a linguistwho developed the high-voltage- equationBible- commentpossibility. Nida was born inOklahoma City,Oklahomaon November 11, 1914. He became a Christian at a young age, when he responded to the communion table c altogether at his church to accept Christ as my saver He graduated from theUniversity of Californiain 1936. After graduating he attend Camp Wycliffe, where Bible transmutation supposition was taught. Later Nida became a founding charter member ofWycliffe Bible Translators, a sister organization of the spend Institute of Linguistics.In 1937, Nida beneathtook stu sc bes at theUniversity of Southern California, where he obtained a Masters Degree in New Testament Greek in 1939. In 1943, Nida received his Ph. D. in Linguistics from theUniversity of Michigan, His Ph. D. dissertation,A Synopsis of English Syntax, was the send-off full-scale analysis of a study dustup according to the immediate-constituent possibi lity. He began his c atomic number 18er as alinguistwith theAmeri jakes Bible ordering(ABS). He was quickly promoted to Associate Secretary for Versions, then craped as decision maker Secretary for renditions until his retirement.Nida retired in the early 1980s, although he continued to give lectures in universities whole around the world, and lived in Madrid, Spain andBrussels,Belgium. He died in Madrid on August 25, 2011 aged 96. Nida was instrumental in engineering the joint thrust amidst theVaticanand theUnited Bible Societies(UBS) to break cross-denominational Bibles in shifts across the globe. This work began in 1968 and was carried on in accordance with Nidas reading principle of available comparability. His contri butions in general Nida has been a pi peerlesser in the fields of adaptation theoryandlinguistics.His most nonable contribution to commentary theory is can-do Equivalence, also knget as Functional Equivalence. Nida also developed the componential-an alysis technique, which check spoken communication into their components to help determine equation in description (e. g. live = male + unmarried). This is, perhaps, non the outgo example of the technique, though it is the most well-known. Nidas energizing- comparing theory is often held in opposite to the views ofphilologistswho maintain that an witnessing of the solution schoolbookual matter(ST) an be light upond by assessing the inter-animation of words on the page, and that essence is self-contained at bottom the schoolbook (i. e. oft more focused on achieving semantic equivalence). This theory, along with some other theories of balance in translating, atomic number 18 elaborated in his es regulatePrinciples of Correspondence,where Nida begins by asserting that given that no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the rooms in which symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence surrounded by languages.Hence, there can be no fully exact editions. While the conflict of a description whitethorn be close to the master copy, there can be no identity in detail. Some of his theories in detail First major contribution Dynamic equivalence Nida then sets forth the differences in supplanting, as he would account for it, within troika basic extraors (1) The nature of the inwardness in whatever essences the content is of primary favor, and in others the mark moldiness be given a higher priority. 2) The get of the author and of the interpretive program to give information on both form and content to rate at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message for imperative purposes that aim at not honorable understanding the translation but also at ensuring no see of the translation. (3) The type of ear panorama prospective audiences differ both in deciphermentab ility and in potential interest. Nida brings in the reminder that term there are no much(prenominal) things as identicalequivalents in translating, what one must in translating seek to do is fall upon the closest lifelike 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). Principle of high-powered equivalence * General introduction In Toward a Science of Translating, Nida first put forward the principle of dynamic equivalence which he defines as the relation backship between sensory receptor and message should be substantially the alike as that which personifyed between the original receptors and the message (Nida,1964, p. 59). succeeding(a) this principle, dynamic equivalence, as defined by Nida, is to reproduce in the receptor language the closest born(p) equivalence of the reference work-language message(Nida and Taber, 1969 12). Nida (1964 167) event ly stresses that a natural rendering must fit the receptor language and civilisation as a whole the context of the interpretericular message and the receptor-language audience. To put it plain, either the meaning or form should not heavy(p) foreign.The essence of dynamic equivalence is the receptors rejoinder, in Nidas own term, the item to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the inauguration language (Nida and Taber, 1969 68). The chemical reaction or response is based on the comprehensive reception of the message, not save understanding the meaning or content, but also tincture in the way the original readers do. By laying stress on the receptors response, he underlines the improvement to the theme text by the receptors subjectivity and esthetic maven. The inwrought features of the principle we must first know almost the essential features of this principle and D-E translation. As Nida himself points out, the essential features of D-E translation consists of the following points (1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message. (2) natural, which points toward the receptor language (3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the land of the highest spot of approximation (Nida, 1964). substancely these points aim at aro development comparable response between the source text readers and the position text readers.A. Equivalent As mentioned above, this aims at reproducing the message of the original text. This is the basic requirement of D-E translation, as is with any other kind of translation. That is to say, to produce a D -E translation, the interpretive program must aim primarily at conveying the meaning of the original text, and to do anything else is essentially ill-treat to his travail as a adapter, because translation is basically a kind of colloquy (Nida and Taber, 1982). B. Natural A D-E translation is direc ted primarily towards the similarity of response.To achieve this purpose, the translation must be natural, for it is of great importance to arousing in the fool readers a response similar to that of the original readers. To be natural, the equivalent forms should not be foreign either in terms of form, or in terms of meaning, which means that the translation should not reveal any signs of its non- congenital source (Nida, 1975). Nida stresses that naturalness in a D-E translation must fit these triple aspects (1) The receptor language and culture as a whole, 2) The context of the particular message, (3) The receptor-language audience (Nida, 1964). He further remarks The best translation does not salutary like a translation It should not exhibit in its grammatical and stylistic forms any trace of awkwardness or unfamiliarity It should studiously subdue translationese he defines as formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and the impact of die message (Nida an d Taber, 1982). C. Closest Closest here is of a double nature.On the one hand, it indicates that equivalence in translation can never be absolute identity, because termination occurs in all forms of converse, whether it involves translation or not (Bassenet and Lefevere, 1990, p. 35). It can alone be an approximation, because no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the slipway in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences. Therefore, the total impact of a translation may be reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity in detail.On the other hand, since equivalence in translation is just a kind of approximation, not absolute identity, it naturally results in the possibility to establish equivalence between the source text and the bulls eye text on various degrees or in different aspects. However, it is the highest degree that a D-E translation is expected to strive for. In other words, though lo ss of meaning is inevitable, the interpretive program should try his best to reduce it to the minimum. D. equivalent Response This is the principal aim of the D-E translation and all the above triad points are directed to it.The term response here refers to the way in which receptors of a text understand the text, including the effect the text produces on them composition similar response involves a comparison of two relations the relation of the target text readers to the target text should be substantially the same to that of the source text readers to the source text. That is to say, the target text readers must not hardly know how the source text readers must fuck off mute the content of the text, but they should also be able to appreciate some of the impact and appeal which such a text must have had for t he source text readers (Jin Di and Nida, 1984).Formal Correspondence in showdown to dynamic equivalence Nida puts forward dynamic equivalence in opposition to formal c orrespondence. In speaking of naturalness, he is strongly against translationese as we mentioned Basically, a formal equivalence translation, as Nida (1964, 165) states, is source-oriented, which is designated to reveal as much as possible the form and content of the original message, that is, to match as about as possible the formal elements like grammatical units, consistency in word usage, meanings in terms of the source context, just to name some. David Crystal, J.R. Firth, Catford and other linguists and translation theorists agree upon the six levels of formal equivalence, viz., phonetic, phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactical and semantic equivalence. We may throw more light on formal equivalence or correspondence by citing Catfords view. Catford and his views of equivalence in translation Catfords approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and th is approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday.Catford has defined formal correspondence as identity of officiate of synonymic items in two linguistic systems for him, a formal correspondent is any TL /target language/ household which may be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL/source language/ household occupies in the SL (Catford, 1965 32). His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed very b street types of translation in terms of three criteria 1.The extent of translation (full translationvspartial translation) 2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translationvs. unbounded translation) 3. The levels of language snarled in translation (total translationvs. restricted translation). We testament refer moreover to the second measuring rod of translati on, since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we will then impact on to analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence.Inrank-bound translationan equivalent is sought in the TL for all(prenominal) word, or for all(prenominal) morpheme encountered in the ST. Inunbounded translationequivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels. Catford finds five of these ranks or levels in both English and French. Thus, aformal correspondencecould be said to exist between English and French if relations between ranks have somewhat the same configuration in both languages, as Catford claims they do.As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as departures from formal correspondence in the movement of going from the SL to the TL (ibid. 73). Catford argues that the re are two main types of translation shifts, namelylevel shifts,where the SL item at one linguistic level (e. g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e. g. lexis), andcategory shiftswhich are divided into four types 1. Structure-shifts,which involve a grammatical diverseness between the structure of the ST and that of the TT 2.Class-shifts,when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i. e. a verb may be translated with a noun 3. Unit-shifts, which involve convinces in rank 4. Intra-system shifts,which occur when SL and TL induce systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves choice of a non-corresponding term in the TL system (ibid. 80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.The Priority of Dynamic Equivalence over Formal Correspondence In view of the difficulty in retaining formal correspondence, and of the fact that all communication is goal-or iented, no matter intralingual or interlingual communication, the move from the sources intention to the receptors interpretation is preferably an natural and reasonable. So Nidas dynamic equivalence seems a good way to foster the interlingual communication and it is justified to say that dynamic equivalence often has priority over formal correspondence. C. W.Orr likens translation to painting the painter does not reproduce every detail of the landscape, he selects what seems best to him, and for a translator, it is the spirit, not only the permitter that he asks to embody in his own version (Nida, 1964 162). Merits and demerits of dynamic equivalence theory As is known to all, translation in essence is a kind of communication, and its main task is to let the target reader understand the meaning of the original text. Whether a translation is good or not depends largely on whether the target reader understands the original message adequately.However, traditionally, the adequacy of translation is judged only on the basis of the correspondence in words and grammar between the source and target languages, and this is sometimes misleading (Nida, 1993). Since translating means communication, evaluating the adequacy of a translation cannot founder with a comparison of corresponding lexical meanings, grammatical classes, and rhetorical devices. In short, it cannot stop with a comparison of the verbal forms of the source and target texts.Instead, it should head into consideration the readers response and comparison should be made between the way in which the original receptor understood and appreciated the text and the way in which receptors of the translated text understand and appreciate the translated text (Nida, 1993 p. 116). Merits It has a lot of merits to take into consideration the readers response and focus on the similarity between the response of the source text readers and that of the target text readers, which include the following aspects modestnes s of Taking into Consideration the Readers Response Since translation is mainly intended for its readers to understand, quite naturally, we should take into consideration how the readers interpret the translation, namely, their response to the target text, and compare it with that of the source text readers to the source text. Only when the response o f the source text readers and that of target text readers are similar can we say that the translation is adequate. If we do not take into consideration the readers response when legal opinion the adequacy of a translation, it is often misleading.As we know, sometimes what seems to be equivalent translation of the original text in terms of lexical, grammatical features may real distort the meaning. Most earlier approaches to translation have focused anxiety upon the kind of the source text to the target text, whether in terms of form or content. The concept of dynamic equivalent translating introduces an cardinal newfangled dimens ion, namely, the relationship of receptors to the respective texts. It deals not merely signs as signs, but focuses on the ways in which verbal signs have meaning for receptors.It is really within such a context that discussions of transnational adequacy and acceptability make sense (Jin Di and Nida, 1984). In short, taking into consideration the readers response helps to reproduce the original message adequately and guarantee equivalence between the source text and the target text in real sense. B. Avoiding the Debate over Literal displacement reaction versus Free deracination Whether to translate verbally or freely is an sleep with that has long been debated in the translation circle.Some scholars argue for literal translation while others argue for free translation. It seems that the two views will never reconcile with each other. However, it is no use arguing which is better, since literal translation and free translation both have their validity and limitations. Instead, it is more helpful, in the authors opinion, to deal with this rationalise from a different perspective and provide a principle of translation that can well combine them. In a sense, the principle of dynamic equivalence may serve as an effective means to liberate away the debate.Since it focuses on the similar response, any kind of translation, either literal or free, is adequate, so long as it can arouse the similar response. Thus, the debate over literal translation versus free translation tends to be useless, and the choice between them depends on which can better bring about the closest natural equivalent and elicit substantially the same response. C. Freeing the Translator from the Binding of the Original Verbal Form and increase Translatability Languages differ from each other, and each language has its own peculiarities.Sometimes the ways of using language are peculiar to a authorized language. In this case, if the translator focuses on the original verbal form, he is usuall y incompetent. However, if he turns aside from the verbal form and focuses on the similar response, he can sometimes crack the nut. D. More readable and apprehensible text The service of dynamic equivalence is that it usually produces a more readable/understandable Bible version. Early translations of Bible were sometimes obscure and may slip away the edge of unintelligibility as they were keen on preserving the original text. DemeritsNidas dynamic equivalence theory is of great practical value, as well substantiate by his Bible translation. However, it is not almighty and perfect. There are take over some doubts which invite argument. A. The abstract nature of dynamic equivalence as a translation criterion The first doubt cast upon the theory is that it is too abstract to be used as a criterion to judge the quality of a translation. Nida maintains, to measure dynamic equivalence, we can only rightly compare the equivalence of response, rather than the degree of agreement betwe en the original source and the later receptors (Nida and Taber, 1969 23).However, the measurement is intuitive, dependent upon subjective judgment, for how can we know exactly the responses of the source language receptors, particularly if the source text was written ages ago? Moreover, the receptors Nida has in mind are the specific readers of original text and it is their responses that are required to judge the quality of a translation, but he does not request the intermediate readers of the translation to check with the source text, since they do not know or just know a little source language, that is to say, those who judge virtually are not average readers but the critics of a translation or linguists.B. The degree of naturalness in translation Moreover, in speaking of naturalness, Nida insists that the best translation should not lumbering like a translation, but I think other for two reasons Firstly, language and culture are inseparable. Language is an integral part of culture, John Lyon says, and that the lexical distinctions drawn by each language will tend to reflect the ethnically-important features of objects, institutions and activities in the society in which the language operates association that uses a particular language as its means of expression.As translation aims to enable one to get exposed to foreign works, while you are translating a foreign language text, you are introducing its culture as well. The change of some images bearing cultural features will undoubtedly diminish the cultural load of its language and leave unfinished the task of cultural transmission. By naturalizing the translation, dynamic equivalence, to certain degree, has ignored the assimilating ability of peoples.In spite of the fact that differences do exist, the similarities between men are finally much great than the differences, and all members of the species share primal attributes of perception and response which are obvious in speech utterances and which can therefore be grasped and translated. In sum, to sound natural to the receptor is good, while to keep foreignness or strangeness to certain degree is also permissible. In this sense, as far as the preservation of the cultural elements of the source language is concerned, it is desirable that a translation read like a translation. C. The simplification of the source languageWhat also comes under criticism is that dynamic equivalence risks simplifying the source language, even decreasing its literary value. One of the distinctive features of literary works is the frequent use of analogical language and fresh expressions, and the authors real intention is to be sought between the lines. If intelligibility or the communicative effect of the receptor language text is always given the priority and all the figurative images in the source text are left out, or all that is unuttered is made explicit, then, despite its intelligibility, the receptor language text reads boring and fails t he purpose of literature.Therefore, in translating secular literary works, unlike Bible translation, intelligibility should not be solely stressed. In later years Nida has increasingly realized the trouble and in his work From One Language to Another, he no long-life agrees to the priority of intelligibility but places equal weight on intelligibility, readability and acceptability. D. allowance of Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Correspondence Aware of the defects in his dynamic equivalence theory, Nida continues to modify and perfect his theories, including those concerning formal correspondence.He acknowledges that any element in connection with receptor language text is meaningful, including the form For effective impact and appeal, form cannot be separated from content, since form itself carries so much meaning(Nida, 1989 5). If form is sacrificed, meaning is damaged as well, so he cautions the translator not to easily change the form and asks them to achieve as much formal co rrespondence as possible, which marks a shift from total neglect of form to attaching certain importance to formal elements.Mention should also be made of his replacing dynamic equivalence by operating(a) equivalence in From One Language to Another. No matter how varied the ways of expression of languages are, he holds, they have the same or similar functions, therefore, functional equivalence seems more accurate and precise. E. Risk of imprecise translation The translator is freer from the grammatical forms of the original language, he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language.That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are formal equivalence translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong. Second major contribution Componential analysis To determine the meaning of any form bloodline must be found, for there is no meaning ap art from meaningful differences. Nida (1975 31) states If all the universe were blue, there would be no blueness, since there would be nothing to contrast with blue. The same is true for the meanings of words.They have meaning only in terms of systematic contrasts with other words which share certain features with them but contrastwith them in respect to other features. Nida in Componential Analysis of meaning (1975 32) categorize the types of components into two main types, i. e. common component and diagnostic or distinctive component. a. Common component. This is the central component which is shared by all the lexemes in the same semantic domain or lexical field. b. diagnostic or distinctive components.They serve to distinguish the meaning from others from the same domain. A very simple example to explain these two types is provided by the words man, adult female, boy, girl, and other related words in English (Leech, 1976 96). These words all belong to the semantic field o f human race and the relations between them may be represented by the following matrix. components man woman boy girl human + + + + adult + + - - male + - + - Table 1. Common and Diagnostic Components of the words man, woman, boy, and girl.In the semantic domain of man, woman, boy, and girl, human is the common component, and they are distinguished by adult, male, female as the diagnostic components. The meanings of the individual items can then be expressed by combinations of these features domain +human +adult +male Woman +human +adult -male Boy +human -adult +male Girl +human -adult -male Before going further with the componential approach, it is important to consider possible differences in the roles of diagnostic components (Nida, 1975 38).The differences can be best designated as (1) implicational, (2) center, and (3) illative. Implicational component are those implied by a particular meaning, though they do not form an essential part of the core meaning. On the contrar y, implicational components remain associated with a meaning, even when other components are negativized by the context. The word repent has three diagnostic components (1) previous wrong behavior, (2) contrition for what has been done, and (3) change of behavior, and the first component is implicational. Whether in a incontrovertible or negative context, e. . he repented of what he did or he didnt repent of what he did, the implication is that the person in question did something wrong. The negation affects the core components which specify the central aspects of the event, but does not modify the implicational component. The inferential components of meanings are those which may be inferred from the use of an expression, but which are not regarded as obligatory, core elements. In the expression the policeman shot the pillager, the thief was killed is the inference, and without further contextual condition assumed to be the case.However, it is possible to pass up this inference, e. g. the policeman shot the thief but didnt kill him. At the same time an inferential component may be explicitly stated, e. g. the policeman shot the thief to death or the policeman shot and killed the thief. Conclusion Nida is a great figure that contributed great efforts to the development of Translation Theories. His numerous books reflect a prominent translator and researcher as well. His major contribution was the introduction of dynamic equivalence which represented a shift in attention of the process of translation.Nidas dynamic equivalence contributes a remarkable insight into translating and helps to create an atmosphere of treating different languages and cultures from an entirely new perspective. The concept of dynamic equivalence, despite having some disadvantages but perfection is remote and the concept really formed a milestone along the road of translation studies and theories Works cited 1. Bassnet, Susan & Andre Lefevere, eds.. Translation History & subtlety. L ondon Casell, 1990. Print 2. Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of translation. London Oxford University Press, 1965. Print 3. Eugene A. Nida. Wikipedia Free Ecyclopedia. Web. 7 April 2013. 4. Jin Di Eugene A. Nida. . On Translation with special Reference to Chinese and English. Beijing China Translation Publish Corporation, 1984. print. 5. Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden E. J. Brill, 1964. Print. 6. Nida, Eugene A. Language Structure and Translation. Stanford Stanford University Press, 1975. Print 7. Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1993. Print. 8. Nida, Eugene A. Charles R. Taber. The theory and blueprint of Translation. Leiden E. J. Brill, 1982. Print. .