Nida and Taber: Formal Correspondence and Dynamic Equivalence

Nida and Taber: Stately congeniality and dynamic equivalence Nida argued that there are two irrelative symbols of equivalence, namely stately equivalence — which in the assist edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as stately congeniality —and dynamic equivalence. Stately congeniality 'focuses watchfulness on the despatch itself,in twain fashion and content', heterogeneous dynamic equivalence which is grounded upon 'the fount of equiponderant effect' (1964:159). In the assist edition (1982) or their issue, the two theorists furnish a over minute explication of each symbol of equivalence. Formal congeniality consists of a TL part which represents the closest equiponderant of a SLword or characteristic. Nida and Taber find it obvious that there are not regularly stately equiponderants among articulation pairs. They accordingly recommend that these stately equiponderants should be usedwherever potential if the translation donation at achieving stately rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of stately equiponderants government at times bear careful implications in the TT since thetranslation obtain not be abundantly implied by the target parley (Fawcett, 1997). Nida andTaber themselves asseverate that 'Typically, stately congeniality distorts the plain andstylistic patterns of the receptor articulation, and future distorts the despatch, so as to fount thereceptor to misconceive or to work unduly hard' (ibid. :201). Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation fount according to which a translator seeks to transmake the import of the peculiar in such a way that the TL wording obtain trigger the selfselfidentical contact on the TC parley as the peculiar wording did upon the ST parley. Theyargue that 'Frequently, the fashion of the peculiar extract is changed; but as hanker as the changefollows the rules of tail intercharge in the fount articulation, of contextual consistence inthe make-over, and of intercharge in the receptor articulation, the despatch is preserved and thetranslation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200). One can abundantly see that Nida is in favour of the contact of dynamic equivalence, as a overeffective translation progress. This is exactly understandable if we capture into recital theconextract of the plight in which Nida was intercourse delay the translation interest, that is tosay, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the issue of the translation regularity, that is the extract inthe TL, must bear the selfselfidentical contact on the irrelative readers it was addressing. Only in Nidaand Taber's edition is it obviously established that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far over thanmere amend despatch of information' (ibid:25). Despite using a linguistic arrival to translation, Nida is fur over assiduous in thedespatch of the extract or, in other suffrage, in its semantic temper. He accordingly strives to findsure that this despatch sweepings obvious in the target extract.