meaning. The reader will still get the message even though the language of the original text is changing.
Newmark’s theory is supported by Catford who states that translation is “the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual
material in another language .” Catford, 1965: 20. According to Catford,
translation is the replacement of the text from SL into TL. This is similar to Newmark’s that also defines translation as a process ‘to replace’. However,
Catford does not explain whether the textual material should be in written language or not. Thus, the translation could have been derived from the
written or spoken language. Meanwhile, Nida and Taber state that “translating consists of
reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of
style.” 1974: 14. Unlike Newmark, Catford along with Nida and Taber consider equivalency in their definition. Here, Nida and Taber are more
interested in the process of translation, which is looking for a natural matching as closely as possible so that the message of the original text can be
conveyed. From the definitions mentioned above, the writer could see their
similarities. The first similarity is that there is a change from one language to another language. Second, the meanings or messages are retained. Third, it is
an obligation for the translator to find the equivalent word in the target language as close as possible to the original text.
2. Theories of Equivalence
Nida states that “There are fundamentally two different types of
equivalence: one which may be called formal and another which is primarily dynamic.” 1964: 159. In further discussion, Nida and Taber 1974: 22
define formal equivalence as “a quality of translation in which the features of
the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language
”. In brief, formal equivalence tries to remain as close to the original text as possible. This is much more of a word
–to–word translation. Contrasted with that, Nida and Taber state that dynamic equivalence is
“a quality of translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is
essentially like that of the original receptors ” 1974: 23. Dynamic
equivalence sometimes does not necessarily use the exact phrasing or idioms of the original. The difference between formal and dynamic equivalence can
be summarized in table as follows:
Table 1. Comparison of Nida’s Formal and Dynamic Equivalence
Formal Equivalence Dynamic Equivalence
Closest possible match of lexical, grammatical, or structural form
between SL and TL Closest natural equivalent between
SL and TL
Linguistic Interpretation Thematic Interpretation
Formal Equivalence Dynamic Equivalence
Focus on the form of the message Focus on the response of the
message for TR – in order to be
essentially like the SR The goal is to reproduce the same
meaning The goal is to reproduce the same
response
Meanwhile, Nida’s formal and dynamic equivalence are similar with
Newmark’s semantic and communicative translation. According to Newmark, semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and
syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original 1981:39. It means, semantic translation tries to
maintain the structure of the text so that the structure in the target text would be as closely as possible with the original text.
On the other hand, communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and
language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership 1981:40. Hence, the translator thoughts and ideas are sometimes involves in
this kind of translation because the translator is trying to achieve a certain effect or response from the reader in the target language. The difference
between semantic and communicative translation can be summarized in table as follows:
Table 2. Compa rison of Newmark’s Semantic and Communicative
Translation Semantic Translation
Communicative Translation
Written at author’s linguistic level Written at reader’s linguistic level
Used for expressive texts, e.g. autobiography, political statement
Used for informative texts, e.g. non- literary writin, popular fiction
