Theory of Translation 1 Introduction

2.11.2 Nida’s View of Translation Shifts
Eugene A. Nida, in his book ‘
Toward a Science of Translating’ 
(1964), explains the 
concept of equivalence in translation. Though equivalence is the foremost objective in 
translation, total equivalence is next to impossible. Even the synonyms in the same 
language do not imply total equivalence. Each word contains within itself a set of 
non-transferable associations and connotations. Roman Jacobson aptly proclaims that 
in translation “only creative transposition is possible” (qtd. in Bassnett, 24). In Nida’s 
opinion, there are fundamentally two different types of equivalence: formal and 
dynamic (Science, 159). 
2.11.2.1 Formal Equivalence 
Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. 
“Viewed from this orientation, one is concerned that the message in the receptor 
language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source 
language” (Science, 159). By this, Nida means that the message in the target culture 
could be compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of 
accuracy and correctness. Nida terms it as ‘gloss translation’, where the translator 
attempts to reproduce as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content 
of the original message. Such translation, “would require numerous footnotes in order 
to make the text fully comprehensible” (Science, 159). 

---

59 
2.11.2.2 Dynamic Equivalence 
A translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is 
based upon the principle of equivalent effect (Science of Translating, 159). In this 
kind of translation, matching of “the receptor language message with the source 
language message” is rather less significant but the “dynamic relationship between 
receptor and message should be substantially the same” (Science, 159). Further, he 
adds: 
A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of 
expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within 
the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understands the cultural 
patterns of the source language context in order to comprehend the message 
(Science, 159).