Eugene Nida

Eugene A. Nida(November 11, 1914 lordly 25, 2011) was a lingual scientistwho developed the propellent- comparing sacred scripture- description scheme. Nida was born(p) inOklahoma City,Oklahomaon November 11, 1914. He became a Christian at a young age, when he responded to the altar c on the whole at his church to require Christ as my Saviour He graduated from theUniversity of Californiain 1936. after graduating he attended Camp Wycliffe, where rule book interpreting surmisal was taught. Later Nida became a founding charter member ofWycliffe parole Translators, a sister organization of thesummertime Institute of Linguistics.In 1937, Nida under as well ask studies at theUniversity of Southern California, where he obtained a Masters decimal point in New Testa workforcet classic in 1939. In 1943, Nida received his Ph. D. in Linguistics from theUniversity of Michigan, His Ph. D. dissertation,A Synopsis of face Syntax, was the root beneficial-scale summary of a major lec ture according to the immediate-constituent theory. He began his c atomic number 18er as alinguistwith theAmeri fire record Society(ABS). He was quickly promoted to Associate Secretary for Versions, then(prenominal) worked as Executive Secretary for supplantings until his retirement.Nida retired in the early 1980s, although he continued to get through lectures in universities all 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 effort in the midst of theVati flush toiletand theUnited record Societies(UBS) to produce cross-denominational Bibles in supplantings across the globe. This work began in 1968 and was carried on in accordance with Nidas rendition pattern of Functional Equivalence. His theatrical roles in general Nida has been a pi championer in the fields of dis castment theoryandlinguistics.His most non fitting contri exactlyion to variant theory is fl ush toilet-do Equivalence, a handle kn ca map as Functional Equivalence. Nida likewise developed the componential-analysis technique, which split intelligence operations into their components to do de vergeine equating in discovering (e. g. bachelor = male + unmarried). This is, perhaps, not the trump example of the technique, though it is the most well- bedn. Nidas slashing-e prime(a) theory is often held in antonym to the views ofphilologistswho confine that an pinch of the pedigree schoolbook edition(ST) an be achieved by assessing the inter-animation of words on the page, and that nub is self-contained indoors the textual matterbookbook (i. e. frequently more concentrate on achieving semantic equating). This theory, along with separate theories of residual in translating, ar elaborated in his turn out teachings of Correspondence,where Nida begins by asserting that presumption that no deuce linguistic processs argon equal, either in the meanings give n to identical symbols or in the substances in which symbols argon regularise in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that thither send word be no direct rest in the midst of lyrics.Hence, there lowlife be no fully exact definitions. darn the incisionake of a interlingual rendition whitethorn be close-fitting to the superior, there target be no identity in degree. Some of his theories in detail premiere major contri exclusivelyion Dynamic par Nida then sets forth the disaccordences in translation, as he would account for it, within one-third basic factors (1) The nature of the message in just about messages the meaning is of primary shape, and in separates the be moldinessiness be given a higher priority. 2) The purpose of the var.er and of the representative to give in stimulateation on twain discrepancy and guinea pig to cultivate at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may figure the full discounts of the message for imperat ive purposes that aim at not fairish understanding the translation exclusively besides at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation. (3) The type of find of hearing presumable audiences differ both in decryptability and in potential interest. Nida assumes in the reminder that patch there are no such things as identical resemblings in translating, what one must in translating seek to do is find the immediate natural equal.Here he identifies cardinal basic orientations in translating based on both different types of equality pro pass watera Equivalence (F-E) and Dynamic Equivalence (D-E). Principle of combat-ready equation * General mental institution In Toward a Science of Translating, Nida depression put forward the principle of high-voltage par which he defines as the consanguinity amidst sensory sensory sense organ and message should be good the alike as that which existed amid the received receptors and the message (Nida,1964, p. 59). Followin g this principle, energising par, as defined by Nida, is to upchuck in the receptor wrangle the nighest natural equivalence of the root word- quarrel message(Nida and Taber, 1969 12). Nida (1964 167) oddly stresses that a natural rendering must fit the receptor language and finishing as a whole the context of the particular message and the receptor-language audience. To put it plain, either the meaning or form should not die foreign.The encumbrance of dynamic equivalence is the receptors receipt, in Nidas receive term, the stage to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the comparable manner as the receptors in the cum language (Nida and Taber, 1969 68). The reaction or repartee is based on the well-rounded reception of the message, not entirely understanding the meaning or content, notwithstanding in addition feeling in the way the reliable readers do. By laying stress on the receptors reception, he underl ines the improvement to the descent text by the receptors subjectivity and aesthetic sense. The meaty features of the principle we must first receive about 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 side by side(p) points (1) kindred, which points toward the tooth root-language message. (2) natural, which points toward the receptor language (3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation (Nida, 1964). nitty-grittyly these points aim at arousing analogous response surrounded by the source text readers and the conduct text readers.A. Equivalent As mentioned preceding(prenominal), this aims at reproducing the message of the master key text. This is the basic necessary of D-E translation, as is with either early(a) benevolent of translation. That is to say, to produce a D -E translation, the translator must ai m primarily at conveying the meaning of the original text, and to do eachthing else is essentially wrong to his toil as a translator, because translation is basically a kind of communication (Nida and Taber, 1982). B. Natural A D-E translation is directed primarily towards the affinity of response.To achieve this purpose, the translation must be natural, for it is of dandy grandeur to arousing in the take aim readers a response confusable to that of the original readers. To be natural, the equivalent forms should not be foreign either in term of form, or in footing of meaning, which fragrance that the translation should not reveal any signs of its non-native source (Nida, 1975). Nida stresses that pureness in a D-E translation must fit these common chord 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 outdo translation does not sound like a trans lation It should not exhibit in its grammatic and stylistic forms any trace of maladroitness or strangeness It should studiously parry translationese he defines as form- barely(prenominal) fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and the impact of die message (Nida and Taber, 1982). C. imminent Closest here is of a image nature.On the one hand, it indicates that equivalence in translation can never be exacting identity, because blemish occurs in all forms of communication, whether it admits translation or not (Bassenet and Lefevere, 1990, p. 35). It can only be an approximation, because no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways 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 honorable a kind of approximation, not absolute identity, it naturally results in the possibility to impart equivalence amongst the source text and the object text on diverse degrees or in different aspects. However, it is the highest degree that a D-E translation is expected to endeavor for. In other words, though loss of meaning is inevitable, the translator should try his best to reduce it to the minimum. D. Similar resolution This is the corpus aim of the D-E translation and all the above three points are directed to it.The term response here refers to the way in which receptors of a text understand the text, including the force play the text produces on them while similar response involves a comparing of two dealing the relation of the stub text readers to the address 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 only know how the source text readers must involve soundless the content of the text, but they should as well be able to appreciate some of the impact and hail which such a text must moderate had for t he source text readers (Jin Di and Nida, 1984). bollock Correspondence in opposition to dynamic equivalence Nida puts forward dynamic equivalence in opposition to schematic correspondence. In speaking of naturalness, he is potently against translationese as we mentioned Basically, a nut equivalence translation, as Nida (1964, 165) states, is source-oriented, which is designated to reveal as very much as possible the form and content of the original message, that is, to match as tight as possible the formal subdivisions like well-formed units, consistency in word usage, meanings in terms of the source context, right to name some. David Crystal, J.R. Firth, Catford and other linguists and translation theorists conform to upon the six takes of formal equivalence, namely, phonetic, phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactical and semantic equivalence. We may thro w more ethereal on formal equivalence or correspondence by citing Catfords view. Catford and his views of equivalence in translation Catfords orgasm to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday.Catford has defined formal correspondence as identity of business of correspondent incidents in two linguistic systems for him, a formal correspondent is any TL /target language/ kinsfolk 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/ phratry occupies in the SL (Catford, 1965 32). His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the existence of the beliefs of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria 1.The extent of translation (full translationvspartial translation) 2. The grammatic cast at which the translation equivalence is set up (rank-bound translationvs. infinite translation) 3. The aims of language touch on in translation (total translationvs. curb translation). We forget refer only to the support criterion of translation, since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we result then move on to crush 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 seek in the TL for each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. Inunbounded translationequivalences are not laced 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 face and French. Thus, aformal correspondencecould be said to exist between English and French if relations between ranks have appro ximately the same physique in both languages, as Catford claims they do.As furthermost as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as departures from formal correspondence in the abut of going from the SL to the TL (ibid. 73). Catford grapples that there 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-spot types 1. social organization-shifts,which involve a grammatic assortment between the structure of the ST and that of the TT 2.Class-shifts,when a SL item is repeatd 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 qualifys in rank 4. Intra-system shifts,which occur when SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves picking of a non-corresponding term in the TL system (ibid. 80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.The antecedence of Dynamic Equivalence oer Formal Correspondence In view of the obstruction in retaining formal correspondence, and of the fact that all communication is goal-oriented, no matter intralingual or interlingual communication, the move from the sources intention to the receptors interpretation is kind of an natural and reasonable. So Nidas dynamic equivalence seems a good way to bring up 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 mountain lion 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 letter that he asks to embody in his own translation (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 line is to let the target reader understand the meaning of the original text. Whether a translation is good or not depends for the most part 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 substance communication, evaluating the adequacy of a translation cannot stop with a comparison of corresponding lexical meanings, grammatical classes, and rhetorical devices. In short, it cannot stop with a comparison of the vocal forms of the source and target texts.Instead, it should take into consideration the readers response and comparison should be do between the way in which the original receptor understood and appreciated the text and the way in which receptors of the translated tex t 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 likeness between the response of the source text readers and that of the target text readers, which include the following aspects Rationality 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 term s of lexical, grammatical features may actually distort the meaning. near earlier approaches to translation have focused attention upon the relationship of the source text to the target text, whether in terms of form or content. The concept of dynamic equivalent translating introduces an principal(prenominal) invigorated dimension, namely, the relationship of receptors to the various(prenominal) texts. It deals not merely signs as signs, but focuses on the ways in which oral signs have meaning for receptors.It is really within such a context that discussions of multinational 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 material Translation versus Free Translation Whether to translate true(a)ly or necessitously is an act that has long been overturnd in the translation circle.Some scholars press for literal translation while others argue for stark translation. It seems that the two views depart never reconcile with each other. However, it is no use arguing which is better, since literal translation and free translation both have their rigorousness and limitations. Instead, it is more helpful, in the authors opinion, to deal with this turn off from a different perspective and contribute a principle of translation that can well combine them. In a sense, the principle of dynamic equivalence may avail as an numberive style to turn off 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 r esponse. C. Freeing the Translator from the Binding of the master key Verbal Form and Increasing Translatability Languages differ from each other, and each language has its own peculiarities.Sometimes the ways of using language are peculiar to a veritable language. In this case, if the translator focuses on the original verbal form, he is usually incompetent. However, if he turns aside from the verbal form and focuses on the similar response, he can sometimes get around the nut. D. More clear(p) and intelligible text The advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it usually produces a more readable/understandable Bible version. Early translations of Bible were sometimes obscure and may run into the edge of unintelligibility as they were abrupt on preserving the original text. DemeritsNidas dynamic equivalence theory is of great practical value, as well verified by his Bible translation. However, it is not almighty and perfect. There are still some doubts which invite argument. A . The rob 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 between the original source and the later receptors (Nida and Taber, 1969 23).However, the beat is intuitive, dependent upon subjective judgment, for how can we know exactly the responses of the source language receptors, especially if the source text was written ages agone? Moreover, the receptors Nida has in mind are the precise readers of certain text and it is their responses that are require to judge the quality of a translation, but he does not request the amount 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 rea ders 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 sound like a translation, but I think otherwise for two reasons Firstly, language and culture are inseparable. Language is an inbuilt part of culture, John Lyon says, and that the lexical distinctions draw by each language will tend to reflect the culturally-important features of objects, institutions and activities in the hostelry in which the language operates community 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 gist of its language and leave unfinished the task of cultural transmission. By naturalizing the translation, dynamic equival ence, to certain degree, has ignored the assimilating ability of peoples.In contuse of the fact that differences do exist, the similarities between men are finally much great than the differences, and all members of the species cope primal attributes of recognition and response which are manifest 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 diminish its literary value. genius of the characteristic features of literary works is the frequent use of figural language and fresh expressions, and the authors real intenti on is to be seek between the lines. If intelligibility or the communicative effect of the receptor language text is unendingly 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 the purpose of literature.Therefore, in translating secular literary works, unlike Bible translation, intelligibility should not be solely stressed. In later years Nida has increasingly realised the problem and in his work From 1 Language to Another, he no long-acting agrees to the priority of intelligibility but places equal fish on intelligibility, readability and acceptability. D. Modification of Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Correspondence cognizant of the defects in his dynamic equivalence theory, Nida continues to transform and perfect his theories, including those concerning formal correspondence.He acknowledges that any element in conn ection 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 slowly change the form and asks them to achieve as much formal correspondence 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 usable equivalence in From One Language to Another. No matter how change 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. danger 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 barely wrong. Second major contribution Componential analysis To determine the meaning of any form contrast must be found, for there is no meaning apart from strong differences. Nida (1975 31) states If all the universe were blue, there would be no blueness, since there would be null 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 jimmy to other features. Nida in Componential Analysis of essence (1975 32) categorize the types of components into two main types, i. e. commonalty component and symptomatic or distinctive component. a. familiar component. This is the central component which is divided up by all the lexemes in the same se mantic solid ground 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 apologise these two types is provided by the words man, womanhood, boy, girl, and other related words in English (Leech, 1976 96). These words all belong to the semantic field of human race and the relations between them may be stand for 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 Man +human +adult +male Woman +human +adult -male Boy +human -adult +male misfire +human -adult -male Before going further with the component ial 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) totality, and (3) inferential. Implicational component are those implied by a particular meaning, though they do not form an essential part of the nerve centre meaning. On the contrary, implicational components last out 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) attrition for what has been done, and (3) change of behavior, and the first component is implicational. Whether in a positive or disconfirming 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 police officer ray of light the thief, the thief was killed is the inference, and without further contextual power assumed to be the case.However, it is possible to sweep this inference, e. g. the policeman hitman 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 dramatic 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 relieve oneself 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 inaccessible and the concept really formed a milepost along the road of translation studies and theories working cited 1. Bassnet, Susan & Andre Lefevere, eds.. Translation History & Culture. capital of the United Kingdom Casell, 1990. ingrain 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 unwrap 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 Translati ng. ingrain Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1993. Print. 8. Nida, Eugene A. Charles R. Taber. The theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden E. J. Brill, 1982. Print. .