Translation Studies and Nida

Last year my reading in Translation Studies was minimal. I did manage to read through Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition).

Among the many topics of interest covered there, I remember being struck by how different the chapter was by Eugene Nida in comparison to my previous understanding of his translation theory.

Like many, I had presumed a distorted view of Nida's approach of 'dynamic' (then later 'functional') 'equivalence'. But reading a 1964 extract (from Toward a Science of Translating) in a chronologically-based reader gave me a new appreciation for Nida's approach to the discussion (and goal of others) at that time for formulating theories of equivalence. And I noticed the absence of overly simplistic polarities that I had earlier presumed to be there. So for example:

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.

Also (among other examples) his acknowledgment that a translator must 

contend with the special difficulties resulting from such an effective exploitation of the total resources of the source language

demonstrates that Nida's approach was not overly simplistic as is often presumed.

I was recently pleased to discover a paper by Ernst Wendland and Stephen Pattemore, “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper”—A Response (OTE 26 2013): 471-490, as 

"This article overviews and responds to Roland Boer’s recent wide ranging critique of Eugene A Nida’s theory and practice of “dynamic equivalence” in Bible translating. Boer’s narrowly focused, rather insufficiently-researched evaluation of Nida’s work suffers from both a lack of historical perspective and a current awareness of what many, more recent translation scholars and practitioners have been writing for the past several decades. Our rejoinder discusses some of the major misperceptions and misleading assertions that appear sequentially in the various sections of Boer’s article with the aim of setting the record straight, or at least of framing the assessment of modern Bible translation endeavors and goals in a more positive and accurate light."

The article is readily available online, including Wendland's academia page, which shows evidence that Bible Translation Studies is more alive than I first bemoaned. That the discipline has already been so named (BTS) is good news. The article has lead me today, indirectly, to discover the Nida School of Translation Studies (NSTS) which

was launched as an initiative of the Nida Institute in 2007, following several years of active involvement with the well-known CETRA program. Designed with the goal of putting into practice a transdisciplinary approach to translation theory and practice, as well as that of incorporating sacred text translation more fully into the world of modern translation studies, the Nida School meets for two weeks annually at its campus in Misano Adriatico (Rimini), Italy.

I am thrilled to discover this. Also there is a journal associated with it: Translation: A Transdisciplinary Journal, which has published four issues so far.
 
Over the Christmas-New Year period I finished reading David Bellos, Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: The Amazing Adventure of Translation (London: Penguin Books: 2011).

Bellos includes a chapter featuring a bit on Nida, which I found illuminating and will mention in my next post.