18
universal, cultural or obscurely subjective”.
28
Take this passage as an example:
“they‟ve never met a warrior dreamwalker”
29
. The translator translates the word dreamwalker originally in the target language and
its meaning isn‟t change in target language.
Newmark stated about the translation of original metaphor that “The metaphor is virtually a literal rendering, and the readers of each
version faced with virtually the same difficulties of interpretation. However, if an original cultural metaphor appears to you to be a little
obscure and not very important, you can sometimes replace it with descriptive metaphors or reduce it to sense.”
30
C. Meaning Equivalence
Translation is an activity to produce the closest meaning of source language to target language. However, in producing the meaning, the
translator has to adjust the message for the equivalence. Equivalence is a problem of translation to find closest and natural meaning in target language.
Nida defined equivalence into: Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence.
“Dynamic equivalence is „the principle of equivalent effect‟, where the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same
28
Peter Newmark, Loc.Cit
29
James Cameron‟s, Op.Cit, p.18
30
Peter Newmark, Loc. Cit, p. 112
19
as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.”
31
Nida defined the aim of dynamic equivalence as seeking the closest natural equivalent to the source language 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”
32
Dynamic Equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it
in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language.
33
This is an aim to make people understand and present the message and it is more far than mere correct communication of information.
“Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content… One is concerned that the receptor language should
match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.”
34
Formal Equivalence is basically recreated from the translation process oriented in the source language structure and arrowed to come across
as wide as possible the form and the meaning of the original. “Most typical of th
is kind of translation are „gloss translation‟ with a close approximation
31
Eugene Nida in Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications London: Routledge, 2001 p, 42
32
Eugene Nida, Toward A Science of Translating, Netherland:Leiden E.J Brill, 1964, p. 159
33
Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Netherland: Leiden E.J Brill, 1969 p. 24
34
Eugene Nida in Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London: Routledge, 2001. p, 41
