Merit Research Journal of Education and Review (ISSN: 2350-2282) Vol. 2(1) pp.

001-007, January, 2013

Available online http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/er/index.htm
Copyright © 2014 Merit Research Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and

Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation)
translating theories on two short stories
Shabnam Shakernia
Abstract

M.A. in Translation Studies, Working This study aimed to investigate the use of Nida’s formal and dynamic
as a Translator equivalence and Newmark’s Semantic and communicative translation on
two short stories. The present study aimed to investigate which of these
E-mail: approaches are the main focuses of the translators in the translations of the
shabnam_shakernia@yahoo.com
two short stories. In order to systematically conduct the study, two short
stories with their corresponding Persian translations were analyzed. The
findings obtained from the analysis show that the readability of the
translation especially in short stories is more important than preserving the
original wording. Moreover, the findings manifest that these translations are
also tried to have naturalness.

Keywords: Formal and dynamic equivalence, Semantic and communicative

translations, Stories, Translators, Naturalness

INTRODUCTION

This paper tends to introduce Nida’s formal and dynamic on the readers of the original.
equivalence and Newmark’s semantic and Semantic Translation is more complex, awkward,
communicative translation. Nida and Newmark are two more detailed and concentrated, however,
outstanding western theories in the field of translation. Communicative Translation is more smoother, simple,
Both of them have rich experience in translation and they Clearer, more direct and conventional.
have written many articles and theoretical works on This paper also works on two English short stories and
translation. Nida’s approaches in translation are formal compares them with their different translations which
and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses were done by some different translators to identify their
attention on the message itself, in the both form and works are intended to be Formal or dynamic equivalence,
content. However, dynamic equivalence is seeking the be Semantic or Communicative translation, through their
closet natural equivalence to the source – language specific features.
message. Newmark’s semantic and communicative
translations like Nida’s are great contribution to the
translation study in the world. Semantic translation Nida’s and Newmark’s translation theories
attempts to render as closely as the semantic and
syntactic structures of the second language allow, the Pre – linguistic period of writing on translation, was dated
exact contextual meaning of the original. However, from Cicero through St.Jerome, Luther, Dryden, Tytler,
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its Herder, Goethe, Schleiermacher, Buber, Ortega, y
readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained Gasset, and the, opinion between literal and free, faithful
002 Merit Res. J. Edu. Rev

and beautiful, exact and natural translation was changed, is useful when the original language is very different from
depending on whether their intention was to for the the target language, making a more literal translation
author or the reader, the source or the target language of difficult to understand. The term “dynamic equivalence” is
the text. Up to the nineteenth century, literal translation usually used in the context of Bible translations.
was concentrated by the translators. In the nineteenth The New Living Translation (NLT) is an example of a
century, a more scientific approach was brought. It translation uses dynamic equivalence. The New
suggested that certain types of texts must be accurately International Version (NIV) attempts to strike a balance
translated, while other texts could not be translated. between dynamic and formal equivalence; some place it
However, modern linguistics supported this fact to focus is a dynamic equivalence “translation, while others place
on the reader and it was shown notably in Nida, Firth, it as leaning more towards “formal equivalence”.
Koller and the Leipzig school. Nida took the old terms An example of these differences can be found in John
such as literal, free and faithful translation away in favor 17:6. the ESV (English Standard Version) a more literal
of two basic types of equivalence: (1) Formal equivalence translation, translates the original as “I have manifested
and (2) dynamic equivalence your name”, while the NIV (a translation that uses
dynamic equivalence) uses the phrase “ I have revealed
you”. The NIV is simpler, and is thus easier for an English
Nida’s formal and dynamic equivalence translation reader to understand. However, the NIV translation omits
the fact that in the original God` s name.
Nida argued that there are two different types of Since in the following verses he specifically prays
equivalence, namely formal equivalence and dynamic about God` s name, the connection between this
equivalence. Formal equivalence tries to remain as close statement and other verses (including the ones that
to the original text as possible, without adding the immediately follow) is eliminated by this less literal
translator` s ideas and thoughts into the translation. Thus, translation.
the more literal the translation is, the less danger there is Nida’s definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence
of corrupting the original message. This is therefore much in 1964 consider cultural implications for translation.
more of a word – for – word view of translation. The According to him, a “gloss translation” mostly typifies
problem with this form of translation is that it assumes a formal equivalence where form and content are
moderate degree of familiarity with the subject matter on reproduced as faithfully as possible and the TL reader is
the part of the reader. The king James Version (KJV) and able to “understand as much as he can of the customs,
English Standard Version (ESV) are two examples of this manner of thought, and means of expression” of the SL
kind of translation. KJV and ESV are English translations context. Contrasting with this idea, dynamic equivalence,
from the Herbrew of the opening if Genesis, the first book tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant
of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. within the context of his own culture” without insisting that
Most printings of the KJV specially mark words (using he “understand the cultural patterns of the source –
Square brackets or italics) that are implied but not language context”. According to him problems may vary
actually in the original source text, since words must in scope depending on the cultural and linguistic gap
sometimes be added to have valid English grammar. between the two (or more) languages concerned. Nida
However, dynamic equivalence is an approach to cites his examples from Bible translation, where the
translation in which the original language is translated phrase “Lamb of God” would be rendered into “seal of
“thought for thought” rather than “word for word” as in God” for the Eskimos because the Lamb doesn’t
formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence involves taking symbolize innocence in their culture. In this case, a literal
each sentence (or thought) from the original text and translation (formal equivalence) doesn’t mean anything in
rendering it into a sentence in the target language that a different culture, so the dynamic equivalence is
conveys the same meaning, but does not necessarily use necessary.
the exact phrasing or idioms of the original. The idea is to Completely unambiguous formal translation of larger
improve readability by rephrasing constructions that could works is more goal than reality, if only because one
be confusing when literally translated, but retain some language may contain a word for a neologism may be
faithfulness to the original text rather than creating a created in the target language to represent the concept
complete paraphrase. Because dynamic equivalence (sometimes by borrowing a word from the source
sacrifices some faithfulness to the original text to achieve language). The more the source language differs from
a more natural translation, it is designed to be used when the target language, the more difficult it may be to
the readability of the translation is more important than understand a literal translation on the other hand, formal
preserving the original wording. For example, a novel equivalence can sometimes allow readers familiar with
could be translated with dynamic equivalence so that the source language to see how meaning was expressed
reads well, but in international diplomacy the exact in the original text, preserving un translated idioms,
original meaning may be very important, so formal rhetorical devices (such as chiastic structure in the
equivalence would be more suited. Dynamic equivalence Hebrew Bible), and diction.
 Shabnam 003

Contrast of formal and dynamic equivalence scientific paper or agenda of a meeting. They principally
convey information.
Those who prefer literal or formal equivalence believe The core of the vocative function of language is the
that literal translation is closer to the original, therefore it readership, the addressee. The readership is called upon
is better. Those who prefer free or dynamic equivalence to act, think or feel, or in a word, to react in the way
suggest that such translations enable people to better intended by the text. Notices, publicity, propaganda,
understand the original, therefore it is better. The problem persuasive writing and advertisements are typical
with formal equivalence is that it might demand too much vocative texts.
of some readers. The problem with dynamic equivalence When faced with a text the translator has to ask
is that the reader encounters the text with most of the himself several questions: To which text – type does it
decisions already made and must assume that the work belong? Should the focus of translation be on the author
of the translators is not prejudicial. or on the readership? The conflict of loyalties, the gap
His introductions of the concepts of formal and between emphasis on source and target language will
dynamic equivalence were crucial in introducing a always remain as the overriding problem in translation
receptor – based orientation to translation theory. theory and practice. Newmark suggests narrowing the
However, both the principle of equivalent effect and the gap by replacing the old terms with those of semantic and
concept of equivalence have come to be heavily criticized communicative translation, with the former mainly for
for a number of reasons. Van den Broeck and Larose expressive texts and the latter mainly for informative and
consider equivalent effect or response to be impossible. vocative. The distinction between semantic translation
In deed, the whole question of equivalence inevitably and communicative translation is that the former focuses
entails subjective judgment from the translator or analyst. on the meaning while the letter on the effect. As
The criticism that Nida’s work is subjective raises the Newmark remarks in his approaches to translation,
question of whether Nida’s theory of translation really is semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the
scientific. Also, it was debatable whether a translator semantic and syntactic structures of the second language
follows these procedures in practice. Edwin Gentzler allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original while
(1993) denigrates Nida’s work for its theological and communicative translation attempts to produce on its
proselytizing stand point with the concept that dynamic readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on
equivalence serves the purpose of converting the the readers of the original semantic translation is
receptors, no matter what their culture, to the dominant basically focused on the writer of the source language
discourse and ideas of protestant Christianity. text and follows his thought – processes. It tends to be
Despite the heated debate it has provoked, Nida’s more complex, more detailed, and more awkward and it
systematic linguistic approach to translation has been tends to over translate. It remains within the original
influential on many subsequent and prominent translation culture and language as much as possible.
scholars, among them Peter Newmark in the UK. Communicative translation addresses itself solely to
readers in the target language, who do not anticipate
difficulties or obscurities and would expect a general
Newmark’s semantic and communicative translation transfer of foreign elements into his own culture and
language where necessary. It tends to under translate, to
Newmark takes Buhler’s functional theory of language as be smoother, more direct, more idiomatic and easier to
his theoretical basis. According to Buhler, language has read. Syntax is remodeled and commoner words are
three main functions: the expressive, the informative and used. But here the translator still has to respect and work
the vocative. Every original text exercises at the same on the form of the original text as the only basis for his
time these three main functions, with a difference in the work. In a communicative translation badly or
significance of each function in the text. inaccurately written passages should be corre3cted while
Texts are classified into three broad categories in a semantic translation the translator is denied this
according to their dominant function. The core of the freedom. In a word, semantic translation is individual,
expressive function is the mind of the speaker, the writer, follows one single person (the author of the original text),
the originator of the utterance. He uses the utterance to communicative translation is social, concentrates on the
express his feelings irrespective of any response. Serious message and the main force of the text and serves a
imaginative literature, authoritative statements, large readership.
autobiography, essays and personal correspondence are Most texts require communicative rather than
typical expressive text – types. semantic translation, since the number of informative and
The core of the informative of language is external vocative texts far exceeds that of expressive texts. Most
situation, the facts of a topic, reality outside language, non – literary writings comprise material suitable for
including reported ideas or theories. Informative texts are communicative translation. On the other hand, original
concerned with any topic of knowledge and often expression, where the manner is as important as the
have standard formats: a text book, a technical report, a matter, whether it is philosophical, political, technical or
004 Merit Res. J. Edu. Rev

literary, needs to be translated semantically. mentioned above. The first story which this paper is going
Autobiography, private correspondence and any other to study is Animal Farm by George Orwell. And the
personal effusion also require a semantic translation, second short story is OF Mice and Men by John
since the original is more important than the effect on the Steinbeck. This paper is going to cover several
reader. paragraphs and compare them with different translations
It is not thoughtful to say that a text requires a by different translators to identify whether the translators
completely semantic or communicative translation. In a used Formal or dynamic equivalence, Semantic or
literary text there may be a sentence, a paragraph or a Communicative translations.
section that requires communicative translation. For
instance, when a figurative usage can’t be transferred or
if transferred the form will be quite misleading or DISCUSSION
incomprehensible to the reader, and then it must be
translated communicatively. On the other hand, there Based on the features of Nidas’ and Newmarks’
may be part of non – literary writing that requires a approaches in Translation, this part of the paper is going
semantic translation. It is impossible to apply only one to study some paragraphs in the first short story name
method to a text. The two methods are usually taken into Animal Farm by George Orwell and compares it with its
use alternatively with varying focuses. And there are different translations.
times when the two methods can’t be distinguished from The first sample is the first paragraph of chapter 1:
each other. They actually become one. For instance, if
the translation of serious philosophical, artistic or
technical works is not constrained by temporal or Sample 1
geographical elements and a rather close translation can
render the reader in the target language with the same Mr. Jones, of the Manor Farm,, had locked the hen –
message and acquaint him with the stylistic features of houses for the night, but was too drunk to remember to
the original language, there is no way and no necessity to shut the pop – holes. With the ring of light from his
identify which method is applied. lantern dancing from side to side, he lurched across the
The description of communicative translation yard, kicked off his boots at the back door, drew himself a
resembles Nida’s dynamic equivalence in the effect it is last glass of bear from the barrel in the scullery, and
trying to create on the TT reader, while semantic made his way up to bed, where Mrs. Jones was already
translation has similarities to Nida’s formal equivalence. snoring.
From our general review of Newmark’s semantic and The first translation was done by Salehe Hosseini and
communicative translation we can see clearly that Masoumeh Nabizadeh:
Newmark differs from Nida mainly in that Newmark ،‫در مرغداری را قفل کرده بود‬ ِ ،‫ صاحب مزرعۀ اربابی‬،‫شب که شد آقای جونز‬
proposes different translation methods for different text – ‫ در حلقۀ‬.‫منتھا از فرط مستی يادش رفته بود روزنه ھای باالی آن را ببندد‬
types while Nida regards that the function of a message ‫ تلوتلو خوران از حياط‬،‫روشنايی فانوسش که اين سو و آن سو تاب می خورد‬
is of overwhelming importance in translation. Nida ‫در عقب که رسيد چکمه اش را با شلنگه از پا در آورد و آخرين‬ ِ ‫گذشت به‬
stresses receptors’ responses while Newmark ‫گيالس آبجو را از بشکه ظرفشورخانه پر کرد و راھش را کشيد به تختخواب‬
emphasizes faithfulness not only to readers, but also to .‫ صدای خر و پوفش بلند شده بود‬،‫ تا بگويی چه‬،‫ خانم جونز‬.‫رفت‬
the author and the source text.
There is a basic difference in their attitude toward the
importance of readers in the mind of the translator. FINDINGS
Newmark’s view is that the translator should attempt, on
the basis of the variety of language used in the original, This translation is intended to follow dynamic equivalence
to characterize the readership of the original and then of of Nida because it does not use the exact phrase of ST
the translation, and to decide how much attention he has (English) into TT (Persian). For example in English, there
to pay to the target language readers. He suggests that in is (of the Manor Farm), however, it is rendered ( ‫صاحب‬
the case of a poem or any work written primarily as self – ‫)مزرعه اربابی‬. In the English, we do not have the word
expression the amount of attention is very little. His which means the owner. However, in the translation in
attention is distributed in accordance with the function of Persian, the owner is translated. Also, the place of
a text. phrases changed (some changes in structure). In
As the paper considered the content of these four translation, the first sentence is started by (‫;)شب که شد‬
approaches of translation, it tends to apply those However, In Original text, we have “for the night” as the
approaches in tow English short stories with their several equivalence.
translations by different translators. It tends to clarify the It doesn’t come at the beginning of the sentence in
function of these approaches in real texts to distinguish English, at first. Also, it is not literally meaning
different approaches which were proposed by Nida and and translation. The last sentence in English
Newmark through their specific features which were “where Mrs. Jones was already snoring” is ren-
 Shabnam 005

dered “.‫ صدای خور و پوفش بلند شده بود‬،‫ تا بگويی چه‬،‫ ”خانم جونز‬in is simpler, clearer, and conventional. Also, it is trying to
Persian. The way of its rendering goes to the TL have the closet natural equivalence to the SL text
language and culture in order to make the translation (message), so it is dynamic equivalence.
more natural in conveying the message and as it was However, Translation by Zeinab Alizadeh tends to be
said naturalness is the key of dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalent which it focused on the message itself,
Now, based on Newmark’s approaches, if this text is in both form and content of the SL text. It hast loyalty to
studied, it will be said that it is following communicative the ST author, It has tendency to over translate. The style
translation. This text is easy to read, it is direct. It of writing is like the original text. It is more detailed. So,
addresses the readers in target language. It uses Based on Newmarks’ approaches, it is more semantic
common words. It also concentrates on the message. translation.
The second translation is rendered by Zeinab
Alizadeh.
‫ ولی از شدت‬،‫ شب در مرغدانی را قفل کرد‬،‫ مالک مزرعه ی مانو‬،‫آقای جونز‬ Sample 4
‫ در حالی که حلقه ی نور فانوس اش به‬.‫مستی فراموش کرد دريچه ھا را ببندد‬
‫ پشت در‬،‫ تلوتلو خوران طول حياط را پيمود‬،‫اين طرف و آن طرف می رقصيد‬ Translation by Mr. Hosseini and Mrs. Nabizadeh:
‫ آخرين گيالس آبجو را از‬،‫پوتين ھايش را از پا در آورد و به سويی پرت کرد‬ It is smoother, direct and easy to read. It doesn’t have
‫ در اتاق‬،‫بشکه ی آبدارخانه پر کرد و به طرف اتاق خواب در طبقه ی باال رفت‬ any obscurities for the Persian readers. It uses common
.‫خواب خانم جونز در حال خر و پف کردن بود‬ words. Suppose, in the third sentence in English it is
As it is shown, this rendering is almost intended to pursue written “mingle”, in rendering it is “‫”قاطی شدن‬.
formal equivalence because it tries to remain as close as It uses common word and makes the translation more
to the original text, it tries to remain the original words direct, or “rebellion in English text which is rendered
and the syntax. For instance, in the sentence “his lantern “‫”شورش‬.
dancing from side to side”, she translated “ ‫فانوس اش به اين‬ However, in Mrs. Alizadeh translation it is “‫”انقالب‬, so it
‫”طرف و آن طرف می رقصيد‬. On the other hand, the translator is shown in the first translated story, it uses more
tried to simplify the use of the grammar and change the common words. This translation has the tendency to
past perfect tense to past tenses in her renderings. So it under translate. It doesn’t go to the detailed. In short, it is
makes the text somehow smoother. It shows that the communicative translation, and as it tries to remain
translator interest is communicative translation as well as naturalness of the original message, it is dynamic
focusing on the source language text and follows his equivalence.
thought – process. In a way, in this translation, both However, translation by Mrs. Alizadeh is almost
methods are somehow used. semantic translation as it is so close to the form and
content of the original text. It has literal translation as
“spread” is translated “‫ ”منتشر شدن‬but in previous
Sample 2 translation it was rendered “‫”فرا گرفته بود‬. Or “sent out” in
her translation, it is “‫ ”می فرستادند‬However, in previous
-Translation by Mr.hosseini and Mrs. Nabizadeh rendering, it was “‫”مامور می کردند‬.
It is obvious that their renderings go to Dynamic Her translation is more concentrated and has
equivalence. The readability is improved in this tendency to over translate because it is more detailed.
translation. The thought of the translator is involved in
this rendering. So it goes to communicative translation. It
is smooth, direct and easy to read. It also tends to the TL Sample 5
culture.
-Translation by Zeinab Alizadeh: Translation by Mr. Hosseini and Mrs. Nabizadeh:
It mostly tried to remain the original form and content. They translated it very easily. They use more common
It is focused on the author, so formal equivalence is words such as “‫ ”عجيب و غريب‬for: mysterious” in English.
involved. It also tries to have the exact contextual Or excellent is translated “‫ ”حرف نداشت‬in Persian. Their
meaning of the original. It is almost literally translated. translated is almost direct, clear. It has loyalty to TL
Therefore, it is semantic translation. norms for example, it is used “‫ ”مدام‬which is not mentioned
in the SL text, so it is an addition word but by using it,
they tend to go to the TL culture and the way of
Sample 3 communication in TL On the whole, it is concluded that
their translation is communicative and based on Nida’s
Translation by Mr. Hosseini and Mrs. Nabizadeh: approaches, it tends to be dynamic equivalence.
Their translation is much more subjective, It is focused However, Translation by Mrs. Alizadeh is intended to
on the TT readers, it also transfers foreign elements in remain the form and content of the original text. It is loyal
the culture of TL (Persian): such as (‫)آنقدر خون دل خوردند‬, to the ST author and it is more detailed to render almost
(‫)نگو و نپرس‬. So it tends to be communicative translation. It all the words of ST. It tends to over translate, so In short,
006 Merit Res. J. Edu. Rev

it is semantic translation. And as it is close to the original communicative and based on Nida’s approaches, it tends
text without adding the translator’s ideas and thoughts, to dynamic equivalence.
into the translation, it is Formal equivalence.

Sample 8
Sample 6
Paragraph 1, chapter 3
In the following, there are some examples from another In Mrs Tabe Ahmadi’s translation, the form and
English short story named “OF Mice and Men” by John content of the sentence are remained. It is a literal
Steinbeck and compare it with two of its translation by translation as all the words are rendered without adding
two translators, Mrs. Elham Tabe Ahmadi and Mr. the translator’s ideas to the translation. It is author –
Mohammad Sadegh Shariati. oriented translation.
Here is the translation which is done by Mrs. Elham The translator focuses on the author of the text. In the
Ahmadi. English text, there is “bag”, as the translator rendered to
-paragraph 1, chapter 1 “‫”کيف‬. In fact, it is a literal translation and it made an
Her translation is not that much direct and simple. For obscurity. Also, as it can be a bag pack or something like
the reader, it is awkwark and complex to read. It is loyal a packet. It is overtranslated and more detailed. It is loyal
to the form and ST author. The translator does not add to ST author and ideas of the author. So this translation is
her own ideas and thoughts into the translation. This semantic.
translation is more literal so it makes some obscurities in However, Mr. Shariati’s translation is communicative
this sentence “from the mountain” two meanings can be because it is clearer, more direct, and very easy to read.
extracted from the text, “‫ ”در سمت کوھستان‬or “ ‫از کوه سرازير می‬ It tends to under translate. It utilizes common words to
‫”شود‬. The latter is used by Mr. Shariati in his rendering. make it simple for the readers. It is reader – oriented
Therefore, this text is involved with semantic translation. rendering as “bag” in English text is rendered “‫ ”کيسه ھا‬in
It is also remained the form and content of the original Persian. It is comprehensible by the readers because this
and so close to the ST, it is almost formal equivalence event as it is mentioned in this story happened in the
too. farm.
However, Mr. shariati’s translation is more direct, clear So, the translator focuses on the message and of
and easy to read. It tends to under translate. It is not course functions of the text.
detailed. It is subjective and focused on the readers of
the TL the sentences are short. This translation tends to
be communicative. And, as the thoughts of the Sample 9
translator are involved in the rendering, it is dynamic
equivalence. Paragraph 1, chapter 4
In Mr. Shariati’s translation, the obscurity is missed. In
the first sentence of this paragraph, “there was a noise at
Sample 7 the bunkhouse door” and it is rendered “ ‫صدايی در ميانه در‬
‫”خوابگاه آمد‬. However, in the other translation by Mrs.
Paragraph 1, chapter 2 Ahmadi, this sentence is rendered “ ‫صدايی از در خوابگاه‬
In this paragraph, it is completely shown the difference ‫”برخاست‬, here the reader has difficulties to clarify whether
between these two translations. the authors’ intention is that noise is of the door or it is
In the first one by Mrs. Tabe Ahmadi, it is more something or somebody at the back of the door.
awkward and detailed. It is not direct. It sticks to the Also, his translation is reader – oriented. Besides its
original text and tries to remain the form and content of respect for the form of the SL, it is loyal to TL norms. It is
the SL text. clear and direct and easy to under translate.
Translator’s ideas and thoughts are not involved in it. Common words are used so it is a simple text. It tends
It tends to over translate. In short, it is semantic to under translate. To conclude, it is communicative
translation. The translation is literal; like “night came translation. As this text tries to have naturalness and be
quickly” it is rendered “‫”شب به سرعت فرا رسيد‬. It is formal close to the source – language message, it is dynamic
equivalence. equivalence, also.
But in Mr. Shariati’s translation, the rendering is more But in Mrs. Tabe Ahmadi’s translation, the rendering is
direct, clearer. This translation is subjective and it is so close to the original text, and manner of thought of the
focused on TT reader. It is easy to read for the TT SL context. This rendering tries to remain form and
readers because of using common words. For example, content of the ST so in this way the TL reader is able to
“I have to stay with you” it is rendered “‫”بايد ھمراه تو باشم‬. understand as much as he can of the manner of thought.
However, in the previous translation it was “ ‫مجبورم با تو‬ In this sentence “ ‫نگاه لِنی به آھستگی برروی اندام زيبای زن به حرکت‬
‫”بمانم‬. On the whole, it can be said that this translation is ‫”درآمد‬, it is shown the manner of thought of the SL context.
 Shabnam 007

It tends to over translate. It is more detailed and awkward should provoke reader’s interest toward their translation
so it is semantic translation. by choosing the appropriate ones. As here was
mentioned, this paper worked some approaches in
translation which were proposed by Nida (formal and
Sample 10 dynamic equivalence) and Newmark (semantic and
communicative translation) on two English short stories
Paragraph 1, chapter 5 and their different translations.
Mrs. Tabe Ahmadi’s translation is more detailed and The result of this comparison show that the more
awkward and it tends to under translate. It follows the smoother, simpler, clearer, conventional, generic
thought – process and author ideas. Her thoughts are not translation is, the less danger in hawing difficulties,
involved in her rendering so it can say, it is formal obscurities and confusion among the readers. Although it
equivalence, as her rendering is close to the original text. is believed that in literal translation the original message
Based on Newmark’s approach, Semantic translation is is less corrupted, it is studies in this paper that natural is
applied have. But in some sentences she tends to apply important to be preserved in rendering stories.
communicative translation as “‫”تقريبا ً ھوا تاريک شده بود‬.
However, Mr. Shariati’s translation is more clear and
direct. It emphasizes on force rather than the content of REFERENCES
the meaning. His rendering is simple and easy to
Alizadeh Z (1385). Anima Farm Translation. Yaran publications
understand. It is under translated. On the whole, he Hosseini S, Nabizadeh M (1385). Animal Farm Translation. Golshan
follows communicative approach of Newmark. And as he Publications.
seeks naturalness, dynamic equivalence is applied here. Munday J (2001). Inroducing Translation Studies. Theories and
Applications. London/New Yourk: Routledge.
Newmark P (1981). Approaches to Translation, Oxford and New York:
Pergamon.
CONCLUSION Nida EA (1964). Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: E:J.Brill
Orwell,George (1386). Animal Farm. Jungle publications.
Shariati MS (1386).Of Mice and Men Translation .Guyesh No. Tehran.
After studying on some samples of these short stories, it Steinbeck J (1381). Of Mice and Men. Takrim publications.
seems that readability of the translation especially in Tabe AE (1382). Of Mice and Men Translation. Jungle Publications.
short stories is more important than preserving the
original wording. This paper tried to show that translators