LECTURE 5. DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND TEXTUAL PRAGMATICS
5.1 Formal Equivalence
5.2 Dynamic Equivalence
5.3 Adjustment
5.4 The Translation Process: Analysis, Transfer, Re-Structuring
5.5 Langue- Oriented vs Parole-Oriented Equivalence
5.6 Equivalence: Double Linkage
5.7 Decision-Making
5.8 Textual Pragmatics
To insist on full translatability across languages and cultures is to risk being incomprehensible (i.e. producing TTs that are confusing at best). Similarly, to insist on full comprehensibility in translation is to perpetuate the myth that there is no real difference between translation and other forms of communication. A more reasonable position to take is perhaps to see translatability and comprehensibility in relative terms. These two principles are not always in conflict, constantly pulling in opposite directions. In practice, an important assumption which translators entertain seems to be one epitomized by something Eugene Nida said many years ago, echoing Jakobson (Jakobson, 1959/2000): Anything which can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the message (Nida and Taber,1969:4).
The focus in this “universalist” orientation to language use in translation is on the need to respond to the communicative requirements of the text receiver and, by implication, to the purpose of the translation, without necessarily losing sight of the communicative preferences of the original message producer or the function of the original text.
5.1 Formal Equivalence
This attitude to translatability and comprehensibility has given rise to dynamic equivalence, a translation method that may helpfully be seen in terms of its counterpart – formal equivalence. The latter (also referred to as structural correspondence), is a relationship which involves the purely “formal” replacement of one word or phrase in the SL by another in the TL. According to Nida, this is not the same as literal translation, and the two terms must therefore be kept distinct: While literal translations tend to preserve formal features almost by default (i.e. with little or no regard for context, meaning or what is implied by a given utterance), a formal translation is almost always contextually motivated: formal features are preserved only if they carry contextual values that become part of overall text meaning (e.g. deliberate ambiguity in the ST). To illustrate this special use of formal equivalence let’s consider the following example, drawn from the Newsweek obituary of Sir Alec Guinness (the famous British actor who died on 5 August 2000):
[…] a face so ordinary as to approach anonymity, a mastery of disguise so accomplished he could vanish without a trace inside a role and a wary intelligence that allowed him to reveal the deepest secrets of his characters while slyly protecting his own. (Newsweek 21 August 2000)
The general ambiguity, which is no doubt intended (i.e. it is contextually motivated) in a context such as that of an obituary, and which threads its way subtly throughout the text, must somehow be preserved in translation, and one way of doing this is perhaps through opting for formal equivalence. Any explication of while slyly protecting his own, for example, could seriously compromise intended meaning.
Preserving ST ambiguity is thus one legitimate use of formal equivalence. But there are other contexts. An extreme form of this kind of equivalence may be illustrated by St Jerome’s oft-cited injunction in the context of Bible translation: “even the order of the words is a mystery” (Jerome, 395/1997:25). More generally, however, Nida deals with such contexts in terms of focusing “attention on the message itself, in both form and content” for whatever purpose (Nida, 1964:159). This is strictly the sense which Nida most probably intended for his formal equivalence.
5.2 Dynamic Equivalence
Many newspapers and magazines (e.g. Readers’ Digest, Newsweek) publish so-called Quotable Quotes. These quotes are usually selected for their “understatement”, “ironical twist”, a “look-who-is-talking” kind of sentiment, which makes the quote noteworthy:
If somebody messes with you, go to court. That’s the American way. Bernard Adusei, who immigrated to the United States 21 years ago, criticizing a lawsuit in connection with a disputed lottery win. (Newsweek, 21 May 2001)
To explicate That’s the American way would be to give the game away and lose the sarcasm intended. Of course, a more dynamic approach may still have to be used, but only after we exhaust formal possibilities for conveying the intended effect.
Formal equivalence, then, is ideal for situations of this kind. It is a contextually motivated method of translation (i.e. a procedure purposefully selected in order to preserve a certain linguistic/rhetorical effect). We can sometimes preserve these effects in translation simply by doing nothing, which happens quite often when we do not need to interfere with the formal arrangement of words, structure, etc. But, even in such cases, the decision to opt for formal equivalence must always be a conscious decision (i.e. taken for a good reason and not gratuitously). The aim in this kind of adherence to form would be to bring the target reader nearer to the linguistic or cultural preferences of the ST.
Yet, for a wide variety of texts, and given a diverse range of readers and purposes of translation, there is often a need for some ST explication and adjustment. That is, if in the translator’s judgement a form of words that is not sufficiently transparent in the TT is likely to pose a threat to comprehensibility and therefore result in unintended and unmotivated opaqueness, intervention on the part of the translator becomes inevitable. In such cases, the translator would need to resort to more dynamic forms of equivalence.
Through dynamic equivalence, we can thus cater for a rich variety of contextual values and effects which utterances carry within texts and which a literal translation would simply compromise. These effects would not be so much form-bound, as content-bound. That is, we opt for varying degrees of dynamic equivalence when form is not significantly involved in conveying a particular meaning, and when a formal rendering is therefore unnecessary (e.g. in cases where there is no contextual justification for preserving ST opaqueness, ambiguity, etc.).
An important point to underline here is that opting for this or that form of equivalence is not an either/or choice. The distinction dynamic vs formal equivalence (or dynamic vs structural correspondence) is best seen in relative terms, as points on a cline. The two methods are not absolute techniques but rather general orientations. In fact, what experienced translators seem to do most of the time is to resort to a literal kind of equivalence initially, reconsider the decision in the light of a range of factors, and ultimately make a choice from literal, formal or dynamic equivalence in this order and as appropriate.