Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Page 47
45
Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, is conceived
by Nida in terms of receptor response. Such translation
aims at producing
‘the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message,
first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.’ This
type of definition contains three essential terms: (1) equivalent,
which points toward the source-language message, (2) natural,
which points towards the receptor language, and (3) closest,
which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the high-
est degree of approximation. (Nida 1964:166)
Translation emphasizing formal equivalence with the
source text will be necessarily inferior to the original, since
such structural correspondence will almost inevitably
involve loss of communicative force. On the other hand, as
Newmark has pointed out (1988:42), such an emphasis
may make the translation accessible to a fairly wide audi-
ence, since although conditioned by the grammatical con-
ventions of the target language, it is a more or less
unmarked response to the original author, his language and
mtent. It will therefore be no more acceptable to one group
in the target culture than to another.
Translation aiming at dynamic equivalence, or equiva-
lence of response from a new readership, may even
improve upon the original in some respects if it manages to
gain in communicative effect and clarity of expression.
Such would almost inevitably have to be at the cost of lit-
eral meaning. As communication, however, it is also likely
to i36 effective on a more limited basis: it is in effect “cus-
tom tailored” to serve a particular function or to fit a cer-
tain preconceived audience.
Maintenance of all the communicative dimensions of
the original is not always the end in itself: Jager differ-
entiates between “kommunikativ aquivalente Sprach-
mittlung” and “kommunikativ heterovalente Sprach-
mittlung”. (1975:28ff.) The former he describes as trans-