variableNida Correspondence

Eugene Nida (1964)

Principles of Correspondence

1

Since 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, it stands to reason that there

can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations.

The total impact of a translation may be reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity

in detail. Constance B. West (1932: 344) clearly states the problem:

“

Whoever takes upon himself to

translate contracts a debt; to discharge it, he must pay not with the same money, but the same sum

.

”

One must not imagine that the process of translation can avoid a certain degree of interpretation by

the translator. In

fact, as D.G. Rossetti stated in 1874 (Fang 1953),

“

A translation remains perhaps the

most direct form of commentary.

”

Different types of translations

No

statement

of

the

principles

of

correspondence

in

translating

can

be

complete

without

recognizing the many different types of translations (Herbert P. Phillips 1959). Traditionally, we have

tended to think in terms of free or paraphrastic translations as contrasted with close or literal ones.

Actually, there are many more grades of translating than these extremes imply. There are, for example,

such ultraliteral translations as interlinears; while others involve highly concordant relationships, e.g.

the same source-language word is always translated by one and only one - receptor-language word.

Still

others

may

be

quite

devoid

of

artificial

restrictions

in

form,

but

nevertheless

may

be

overtraditional

and

even

archaizing.

Some

translations

aim

at

very

close

formal

and

semantic

correspondence,

but

are

generously

supplied

with

notes

and

commentary.

Many

are

not

so

much

concerned with giving information as with creating in the reader something of the same mood as was

conveyed by the original.

Differences in translations can generally be accounted for by three basic factors in translating: (1)

the nature of the message, (2) the purpose or purposes of the author and, by proxy, of the translator,

and (3) the type of audience.

Messages differ primarily in the degree to which content or form is the dominant consideration.

Of course, the content of a message can never be completely abstracted from the form, and form is

nothing

apart

from

content;

but

in

some

messages

the

content

is

of

primary

consideration,

and

in

others the form must be given a higher priority. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, despite

certain important stylistic qualities, the importance of the message far exceeds considerations of form.

On the other hand, some of the acrostic poems of the Old Testament are obviously designed to fit a

very strict formal

“

strait jacket.

”

But even the contents of a message may differ widely in applicability

to the receptor-language audience. For example, the folk tale of the Bauré

Indians of Bolivia, about a

giant who led the animals in a symbolic dance, is interesting to an English-speaking audience, but to

them

it

has

not

the

same

relevance

as

the

Sermon

on

the

Mount.

And

even

the

Bauré

Indians

2

themselves

recognize

the

Sermon

on

the

Mount

as

more

significant

than

their

favorite

“

how-it- happened

”

story.

At the same time, of course, the Sermon on the Mount has greater relevance

to these Indians than have some passages in Leviticus.

In poetry there is obviously a greater focus of attention upon formal elements than one normally

finds in prose. Not that content is necessarily sacrificed in translation of a poem, but the content is

necessarily

constricted

into

certain

formal

molds.

Only

rarely

can

one

reproduce

both

content

and

form in a translation, and hence in general the form is usually sacrificed for the sake of the content.

On

the

other

hand,

a

lyric

poem

translated

as

prose

is

not

an

adequate

equivalent

of

the

original.

Though

it

may

reproduce

the

conceptual

content,

it

falls

far

short

of

reproducing

the

emotional

intensity and flavor. However, the translating of some types of poetry by prose may be dictated by

important

cultural

considerations.

For

example,

Homer's

epic

poetry

reproduced

in

English

poetic

form

usually

seems

to

us

antique

and

queer

-

with

nothing

of

the

liveliness

and

spontaneity

characteristic of Homer's style. One reason is that we are not accustomed to having stories told to us

in poetic form. In our Western European tradition such epics are related in prose. For this reason E.V.

Rieu chose prose rather than poetry as the more appropriate medium by which to render The Iliad and

The Odyssey.

The

particular

purposes

of

the

translator

are

also

important

factors

in

dictating

the

type

of

translation. Of course, it is assumed that the translator has purposes generally similar to, or at least

compatible with, those of the original author, but this is not necessarily so. For example, a San Blas

story-teller is interested only in amusing his audience, but an ethnographer who sets about translating

such stories may be much more concerned in giving his audience an insight into San Blas personality

structure.

Since,

however,

the

purposes

of

the

translator

are

the

primary

ones

to

be

considered

in

studying the types of translation which result, the principal purposes that underlie the choice of one or

another war to render a particular message are important.

The

primary

purpose

of

the

translator

may

be

information

as

to

both

content

and

form.

One

intended

type

of

response

to

such

an

informative

type

of

translation

is

largely

cognitive,

e.g.

an

ethnographer's

translation

of

texts

from

informants,

or

a

philosopher's

translation

of

Heidegger.

A

largely informative translation may, on the other hand, be designed to elicit an emotional response of

pleasure from the reader or listener.

A translator's purposes may involve much more than information. He may, for example, want to

suggest

a

particular

type

of

behaviour

by

means

of

a

translation.

Under

such

circumstances

he

is

likely to aim at full intelligibility, and to make certain minor adjustments in detail so that the reader

may understand the full implications of the message for his own circumstances. In such a situation a

translator is not content to have receptors say,

“

This is intelligible to us.

”

Rather, he is looking for

some such response as,

“

This is meaningful for us.

”

In terms of Bible translating, the people might

understand

a phrase

such

as

“

to

change

one's

mind

about

sin

”

as

meaning

“

”

But

if

the

3

indigenous way of talking about repentance is

“

spit on the ground in front of,

”

as in Shilluk

l

spoken in

the Sudan, the translator will obviously aim at the more meaningful idiom. On a similar basis,

“

white

as snow

”

may be rendered as

“

white as egret feathers,

”

if the people of the receptor language are not

acquainted with snow but speak of anything very white by this phrase.

A

still

greater

degree

of adaptation

is

likely

to

occur

in

a

translation

which

has an

imperative

purpose. Here the translator feels constrained not merely to suggest a possible line of behavior, but to

make

such

an

action

explicit

and

compelling.

He

is

not

content

to

translate

in

such

away

that

the

people are likely to understand; rather, he insists that the translation must be so clear that no one can

possibly misunderstand.

In addition to the different types of messages and the diverse purposes of translators, one must

also consider the extent to which prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability and in potential

interest.

Decoding

ability

in

any

language

involves

at

least

four

principal

levels:

(1)

the

capacity

of

children, whose vocabulary

and cultural experience are limited; (2) the double-standard capacity of

new

literates,

who

can

decode

oral

messages

with

facility

but

whose

ability

to

decode

written

messages

is

limited;

(3)

the

capacity

of

the

average

literate

adult,

who

can

handle

both

oral

and

written

messages

with

relative

ease;

and

(4)

the

unusually

high

capacity

of

specialists

(doctors,

theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc.), when they are decoding messages within their own area of

specialization. Obviously a translation designed for children cannot be the same as one prepared for

specialists, nor can a translation for children be the same as one for a newly literate adult.

Prospective audiences differ not only in decoding ability, but perhaps even more in their interests.

For example, a translation designed to stimulate reading for pleasure will be quite different from one

intended for a person anxious to learn how to assemble a complicated machine. Moreover, a translator

of

African

myths

for

persons

who

simply

want

to

satisfy

their

curiosity

about

strange

peoples

and

place

s

will

produce

a

different

piece

of

work

from

one

who

renders

these

same

myths

in

a

form

acceptable to linguists, who are more interested in the linguistic structure underlying the translation

than in cultural novelty.

Two basic orientations in translating

Since

“

there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalents

”

(Belloc 1931 and

1931a: 37), one must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent. However, there are

fundamentally two different types of equivalence: One which may be called formal and another which

is primarily dynamic.

Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a

translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and

concept

to

concert.

Viewed

from

this

formal

orientation,

one

is

concerned

that

the

message

in

the

4

receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.

This

means,

for

example,

that

the

message

in

the

receptor

culture

is

constantly

compared

with

the

message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness.

The

type

of

translation

which

most

completely

typifies

this

structural

equivalence

might

be

called a

“

gloss translation,

”

in which the translator attempts to reproduce as literally and meaningfully

as

possible

the

form

and

content

of

the

original.

Such

a

translation

might

be

a

rendering

of

some

Medieval French text into English, intended for students of certain aspects of early French literature

not requiring a knowledge of the original language of the text. Their needs call for a relatively close

approximation to the structure of the early French text, both as to form (e.g. syntax and idioms) and

content (e.g. themes and concepts). Such a translation would require numerous footnotes in order to

make the text fully comprehensible.

A gloss translation of this type is designed to permit the reader to identify himself

as fully as

possible with a person in the source- language context, and to understand as much as he can of the

customs,

manner

of

thought,

and

means

of

expression.

For

example,

a

phrase

such

as

“

holy

kiss

”

(Romans

16:

16)

in

a

gloss

translation

would

be

rendered

literally,

and

would

probably

be

supplemented

with

a

footnote

explaining

that

this

was

a

customary

method

of

greeting

in

New

Testament times.

In contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is

based upon

“

the principle of equivalent effect

”

(Rieu and Phillips 1954). In such a translation one is

not

so

concerned

with

matching

the

receptor-language

message

with

the

source- language

message,

but

with

the

dynamic

relationship,

that

the

relationship

between

receptor

and

message

should

be

substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.

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 understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend

the message. Of course, there are varying degrees of such dynamic- equivalence translations. One of

the modern English translations which, perhaps more than any other, seeks for equivalent effect is J.B.

Phillips' rendering of the New Testament. In Romans 16: 16 he quite naturally translates

“

greet one

another with a holy kiss

”

as

“

give one another a hearty handshake all around.

”

Between

the

two

poles

of

translating

(i.e.

between

strict

formal

equivalence

and

complete

dynamic

equivalence)

there

are

a

number

of

intervening

grades,

representing

various

acceptable

standards of literary translating. During the last fifty years, however, there has been a marked shift of

emphasis from the formal to the dynamic dimension. A recent summary of opinion on translating by

literary

artists,

publishers,

educators,

and

professional

translators

indicates

clearly

that

the

present

direction is toward increasing emphasis on dynamic equivalences (Cary 1959).

Linguistic and cultural distance

5

In any discussion of equivalences, whether structural or dynamic, one must always bear in mind

three different types of relatedness, as determined by the linguistic and cultural distance between the

codes

used

to

convey

the

messages.

In

same

instances,

for

example,

a

translation

may

involve

comparatively closely related languages and cultures, e.g. translations from

Frisian

into English, or

from

Hebrew

into

Arabic.

On

the

other

hand,

the

languages

may

not

be

related,

even

though

the

cultures are closely parallel, e.g. as in translations from German into Hungarian, or from Swedish into

Finnish (German and Swedish are Indo-European languages, while Hungarian and Finnish belong to

the

Finno-Ugrian

family).

In

still

other

instances

a

translation

may

involve

not

only

differences

of

linguistic affiliation but also highly diverse cultures, e.g. English into Zulu, or Greek into Javanese.

2

Where

the

linguistic

and

cultural

distances

between

source

and

receptor

codes

are

least,

one

should expect to encounter the least number of serious problems, but as a matter of fact if languages

are too closely related one is likely to be badly deceived by the superficial similarities, with the result

that

translations

done

under

these

circumstances

are

of

ten

quite

roar.

One

of

the

serious

dangers

consists of so- called

“

false friends,

”

i.e. borrowed or cognate words which seem to be equivalent but

are not always so, e.g. English

demand

and French

demander,

English

ignore

and Spanish

ignorar,

English

virtue

and Latin

virtus,

and English

deacon

and Greek

diakonos.

When the cultures are related but the languages are quite different, the translator is called up on

to

make

a

good

many

formal

shifts

in

the

translation.

However,

the

cultural

similarities

in

such

instances usually provide a series of parallelisms of content that make the translation proportionately

much less difficult than when both languages and cultures are disparate. In fact, differences between

cultures

cause

many

more

severe

complications

for

the

translator

than

do

differences

in

language

structure.

Definitions of translating

Definitions

of

proper

translating

are

almost

as

numerous

and

varied

as

the

persons

who

have

undertaken to discuss the subject. This diversity is in a sense quite understandable; for there are vast

differences

in

the

materials

translated,

in

the

purposes

of

the

publication,

and

in

the

needs

of

the

prospective

audience.

Moreover,

live

languages

are

constantly

changing

and

stylistic

preferences

undergo

continual

modification.

Thus

a

translation

acceptable

in

one

period

is

of

ten

quite

unacceptable at a later time.

A

number

of

significant

and

relatively

comprehensive

definitions

of

translation

have

been

offered. Prochazka (Garvin 1955: 111 ff.) defines a good translation in terms of certain requirements

which must be made of the translator, namely: (1)

“

He must understand the original word thematically

and stylistically

”

; (2)

“

he must overcome the differences between the two linguistic structures

”

; and

(3)

“

he must reconstruct the stylistic structures of the original work in his translation.

”

6

In a description of proper translation of poetry, Jackson Mathews (1959: 67) states:

“

One thing

seems

clear:

to

translate

a

poem

whole

is

to

compose

another

poem.

A

whole

translation

will

be

faithful to the

matter,

and it will 'approximate the form' of the original; and it will have a life of its

own, which is the voice of the translator.

”

Richmond Lattimore (1959, in Brower 1959: 56) deals with

the same basic problem of translating poetry. He describes the fundamental principles in terms of the

way in which Greek poetry should be translated, namely:

“

to make from the Greek poem a poem in

English which, while giving a high minimum of meaning of the Greek, is still a new English poem,

which would not be the kind of poem it is if it were not translating the Greek which it translates.

”

No

proper

definition

of

translation

can

avoid

some

of

the

basic

difficulties.

Especially

in

the

rendering

of

poetry,

the

tension

between

form

and

content

and

the

conflict

between

formal

and

dynamic

equivalences

are

always

acutely

present.

However,

it

seems

to

be

increasingly

recognized

that adherence to the letter may indeed kill the spirit. William A. Cooper (1928: 484) deals with this

problem rather realistically in his article on

“

Translating Goethe's Poems,

”

in which he says:

“

If the

language

of

the

original

employs

word

formations

that

give

rise

to

insurmountable

difficulties

of

direct

translation,

and

figures

of

speech

wholly

foreign,

and

hence

incomprehensible

in

the

other

tongue, it is better to cling to the spirit of the poem and clothe it in language and figures entirely free

from awkwardness of speech and obscurity of picture. This might be called a translation from culture

to culture.

”

It must be recognized that in translating poetry there are very special problems involved, for the

form

of

expression

(rhythm,

meter,

assonance,

etc.)

is

essential

to

communicating

the

spirit

of

the

message to the audience. But all translating, whether of poetry or prose, must be concerned also with

the response of the receptor; hence the ultimate purpose of the translation, in terms of its impact upon

its intended audience, is a fundamental factor in any evaluation of translations. This reason underlies

Leonard Forster's definition (1958: 6) of a good translation as

“

one which fulfills the same purpose in

the new language as the original did in the language in which it was written.

”

The

resolution

of

the

conflict

between

literalness

of

form

and

equivalence

of

response

seems

increasingly to favor the latter, especially in the translating of poetic materials. C.W. Orr (1941: 318),

for

example,

describes

translating

as

somewhat

equivalent

to

painting,

for,

as

he

says,

“

the

painter

does not reproduce every detail of the landscape

”

- he selects what seems best to him. Likewise for

the translator,

“

It is the spirit, not only the letter, that he seeks to embody in his own version.

”

Oliver

Edwards (1957: 13) echoes the same point of view:

“

We expec

t approximate truth in a translation ….

What

we

want

to

have

is

the

truest

possible

feel

of

the

original.

The

characters,

the

situations,

the

reflections must come to us as they were in the author's mind and heart, not necessarily precisely as he

had them on his lips.

”

It is one thing, however, to produce a generalized definition of translating, whether of poetry or

prose; it is often quite another to describe in some detail the significant characteristics of an adequate

7

translation. This fact Savory (1957: 49-50) highlights by contrasting diametrically opposed opinions

on a dozen important principles of translating. However, though some dissenting voices can be found

on virtually all proposals as to what translating should consist of, there are several significant features

of translating on which many of the most competent judges are increasingly in agreement.

Ezra

Pound

(1954:

273)

states

the

case

for

translations

making

sense

by

declaring

for

“

more

sense and less syntax.

”

But as early as 1789 George Campbell (1789: 445 ff.) argued that translation

should not be characterized by

“

obscure sense.

”

E.E. Milligan (1957) also argues for sense rather than

words, for he points out that unless a translation communicates, i.e. makes sense to the receptor, it has

not justified its existence.

In addition to making sense, translations must also convey the

“

spirit and manner

”

of the original

(Campbell 1789: 445 ff.). For the Bible translator, this means that the individual style of the various

writers

of

the

Scriptures

should

be

reflected

as

far

as

possible

(Campbell

1789:

547).

The

same

sentiment is clearly expressed by Ruth M. Underhill (1938: 16) in her treatment of certain problems

of translating magic incantations of the Papago Indians of southern Arizona:

“

One can hope to make

the

translation

exact

only

in

spirit,

not

in

letter.

”

Francis

Storr

(1909)

goes

so

far

as

to

classify

translators

into

“

the

literalist

and

the

spiritualist

schools,

”

and

in

doing

so

takes

his

stand

on

the

Biblical text,

“

The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.

”

As evidence for his thesis, Storr cites the

difference between the Authorized Version, which he contends represents the spirit, and the English

Revised Version, which sticks to the letter, with the result that the translation lacks a

Sprachgefü

hl.

The

absence

of

literary

stylists

on

the

English

Revised

Committee

was,

however,

corrected

in

the

New English Bible (New Testament, 1961), in which one entire panel was composed of persons with

special sensitivity to and competence in English style.

Closely

related

to

the

requirement

of

sensitivity

to

the

style

of

the

original

is

the

need

for

a

“

natural

and

easy

”

form

of

expression

in

the

language

into

which one

is

translating

(Campbe1789:

445 ff). Max Beerbohm (1903: 75) considers that the cardinal fault of many who translate plays into

English is the failure to be natural in expression; in fact, they make the reader

“

acutely conscious that

their work is a translation. …. For the most part, their ingenuity consists in finding phrases that cou

ld

not possibly be used by the average Englishman.

”

Goodspeed (1945: 8) echoes the same sentiment

with respect to Bible translating by declaring that:

“

The best translation is not one that keeps forever

before the reader's mind the fact that this is a translation, not an original English composition, but one

that makes the reader forget that it is a translation at all and makes him feel that he is looking into the

ancient

writer's

mind,

as

he

would

into

that

of

a

contemporary.

This

is,

indeed,

no

light

matter

to

undertake or to execute, but it is, nevertheless, the task of any serious translator.

”

J.B. Phillips (1953:

53) confirms the same viewpoint when he declares that:

“

The test of a real translation is that it should

not

read

like

translation

at

all.

”

His

second

principle

of

translating

re-enforces

the

first,

namely

a

translation into English should avoid

“

translator's English.

”