Nida`s Principles of Correspondence

As we’ve also discussed in class last Monday, no viewpoint or way of thinking has directly come down to earth. Especially when it comes to the analysis of some certain theoretical development, sequential thinking is necessary. This is how one can easily derive the fundaments of functional theories out of Nida’s principles of corresponding two distinct cultural and lingual systems.

Nida initiates determining his principles of correspondance with a reference to the three basic constituents of communication theory: sender, message and receiver. Though he focuses on, and prescribes, only one type of translation in an extensive manner, from the beginning of his essay, Nida acknowledges the existence of various types of translations varying in between the source and target. And these three variables, as he states, are the main rationals behind the existence of these different types.

Throughout his essay, Nida uses these three terms of sender, message and receiver interrelatedly. Explicating what message is, he touches on how a single message may arise different conceptions according to the social and cultural dynamics surrounding the receiver. As for the third constituent, the sender, his particular purpose is also indicated as a strong determiner. Although Nida assigns the particular purpose of the sender as ‘recreating and transmitting the same effect’- in other words hestipulates an identification with the authorial position adopting all authorial intentions- he at least acknowledges the possibility of adopting a different purpose.[1] It’s true that according to his proposal, departing from authorial intentions could threaten the transmission of the ‘same effect’. But, I suppose, stating the possibility of such a departure from the authorial intention, Nida drags the debates on translational concerns one step further.

The main duality on which Nida builds his theory is that of form and effect. Classifying two main types of correspondence as formal and dynamic, Nida explicitly states the impossibility of achieving a translation that would embrace both. Presumably, as a Bible translator, making a choice among the two hasn’t constructed a huge challenge for him. Even in such cases in which the translator carries great structural worries- here Nida gives the example of translating poetry in which form and content proceed hand in hand- effect needs to be taken as the most fundamental factor. It’s rather legitimate for Nida to translate Homeric epic in the form of prose, for instance. Henceforth, this strong emphasis on ‘effect’ is another significance of Nida’s theory bringing forth both its defects and contributions.

Firstly, within the article, there are references to Nida’s concern of a ‘good’ translation. It’s for sure that, here, this good eventually meets with the achievement of the closest effect. In other words, Nida defines the transmission of the effect, or ‘impact’ he calls it in some places, as the primal criteria of evaluating ‘good’ translation. On the one hand, this seems to be a revolution also, since there’s the indication of a search for something concrete for evaluating the translation product. On the other, the concreteness of this criteria is rather debatable. Although throughout the article Nida mentions about this ‘effect’ whose transmission is crucial, and quotes other scholars that agree with this argument of his, he can’t somehow define this existence in concrete terms. He enumerates such tecnhiques of rendering it (such as naturalizing the language/expressions, domesticatd arrangement in style, adopting the stylistic deviations of the source author to the target language etc), he resorts to textual exemplifications that he finds appropriate and inappropriate, he even classifies the lingual and cultural systems according to the probability of the transmitting the effect, but the term ‘effect’ still lacks a definition. It still remains too ambiguous a term to be adopted as a criteria of evaluating the translation product.

As for the contributions of these discussions on effect in translation theory, Nida’s definition of translation as an encoding-decoding process (in order to achieve the closest effect) passes beyond the linguistic concerns. As Nida proposes, translation practice is actualized on both lingual and cultural bases. And it is the existence of the cultural base, that poses the main challenge for the translator. Words and expressions are culturally contextualized in the source text ( Here, one of Nida’s effective examples is that onomatopoeic expressions are totally inappropriate in the African system whereas they are the main means of communication in Waiwai). The path to achieve the effect passes through decontextualizing the message and locating it in target language through recontextualizing it. At this point, Nida’s statement for translating poetry gains relevance for all sorts of translation I guess, translation has never been a mechanical activity, it is ‘re-creation’, not a ‘reproduction’ (Nida 1964: 134).

Although this article of Nida doesn’t reveal a sharp departure from the ‘sacred’ and textual concerns of the prior scholars, the inclusion of cultural and contextual concerns within translation scene is a significant attempt. His domesticating approach that favors naturalizing translations doesn’t seem to be a fresh idea, however, such points he touches on as translator’s purpose and the nature of the message make his approach the precursor of functional theories to some extent. His intention of finding an evaluative criteria for translation product is also a reminder of contemporary translation theory. In this way, reading Nida after locating him in the bigger picture of the development of translation theory increases the significance of both the ‘principles’ that construct his theory in particular, and his theory in general.


[1] Ref. : ‘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’. (Nida 1964: 127)