Chapter 3
Equivalence and Meaning
Abstract
This chapter explores the pivotal role of linguistics in shaping modern translation theory during the 1950s and 1960s, focusing on the concepts of meaning and equivalence. It highlights Roman Jakobson’s foundational 1959 work and the influential contributions of Eugene Nida, who proposed that translations should aim for an equivalent effect—producing the same response in the target-language audience as the original did in the source-language audience. While the attainability of such equivalence has since been debated, Nida’s lasting impact lies in shifting the focus of translation theory away from the traditional literal versus free translation dichotomy. His distinction between formal and dynamic equivalence brought attention to the receiver’s experience and laid the groundwork for more systematic, function-oriented models of translation. Nida’s influence has been especially strong in German translation studies. The chapter sets the stage for a further examination of linguistic models and their role in translation theory in the next chapter.
Video Introduction
Flashcards
Test your understanding of the foundational concepts within the chapter by using these flashcards.
Quiz
Test your understanding of this chapter with our multiple choice questions.
Research Questions
- Equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect are keystones of Nida’s theory of translation. Research more deeply the arguments around the issues and how the concepts have developed over the years (see the Further Reading section for initial references). Why do you consider that there has been such heated debate? How can the concepts be used in translator training today?
- ‘Nida provides an excellent model for translation which involves a manipulation of a text to serve the interests of a religious belief, but he fails to provide the groundwork for what the West in general conceives of as a “science”’ (Gentzler 2001: 59, see Further Reading). Do you agree with Gentzler? Is this model tied to religious texts? How well does it work for other genres (e.g. advertising, scientific texts, literature, etc.)?
- Newmark (1981: 39, see Exploration) states: ‘In communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation.’ Find examples of texts that support or challenge this claim. Revise the wording of the claim according to your findings.
Video Summary
Further Reading
Explore the chapter further using our combined reading list and free reading section.
See Exploration box 3.C of textbook.
Miao, J. (2000). The limitations of ‘equivalent effect.’ Perspectives, 8(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2000.9961388
This paper by Ju Miao makes reference to the work of Nida, Newmark and Koller discussed in Chapter 3 and discusses the difficulties of achieving equivalent effect between English and Chinese.
Semko, S. A. (1997). On some hermeneutical aspects of translation. Perspectives, 5(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.1997.9961295
Semko reviews Russian translation theory, often neglected in the West. This detailed article focuses on linguistic concepts as they are linked to the hermeneutic circle (compare Chapter 10). Some influence of Nida’s work is discerned, especially in the discussion of elements that are communicatively relevant, or irrelevant, in translation.
Extract from Introducing Translation Studies 5th Edition
Elizabetta Adami and Sara Ramos Pinto (2019) ‘Meaning-(re)making in a world of untranslated signs’, in Monica Boria et al. (eds) Translation and Multimodality, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Hongwei Jia “Roman Jakobson’s Triadic Division of Translation Revisited” (2017)
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/css-2017-0003/html
Marais, K. (2019) A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality. London and New York: Routledge.
Miao, Ju (2000) ‘The limitations of equivalent effect’, Perspectives, 8(3), pp. 197–205.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0907676X.2000.9961388
European Commission: Directorate-General for Translation, Study on language and translation in international law and EU law – Final report, Publications Office, 2012
Gentzler, E. (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories, 2nd edition, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kenny, D. (2009) ‘Equivalence’, in M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edition, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 96–9.
Nida, E. (2002) Contexts in Translating, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2010) Exploring Translation Theories, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, chapters 2 and 3.
Qian, H. (1992) ‘On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part I)’, Meta 37.2: 289–301, http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1992/v37/n2/003148ar.pdf
Subsequent parts of the Qian article were published in Meta in 1993 and 1994 and are available online at http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta Kaindl, K. (2020). A theoretical framework for a multimodal conception of translation. In M. Boria, À. C., M. N.-S., & M. T. (Eds.), Translation and Multimodality: Beyond Words (pp. 49-70). Routledge. From Monica Boria, Ángeles Carreres, María Noriega-Sánchez and Marcus Tomalin, (2020) Translation and Multimodality Beyond Words, Routledge.