Multiple Choice

---

Further Reading

---

Gentzler, E. (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories, 2nd edition, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kenny, D. (2009) ‘Equivalence’, in M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edition, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 96–9.

Nida, E. (2002) Contexts in Translating, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pym, A. (2010) Exploring Translation Theories, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, chs 2 and 3.

Qian, H. (1992) ‘On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part I)’, Meta 37.2: 289–301, http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1992/v37/n2/003148ar.pdf

Subsequent parts of the Qian article were published in Meta in 1993 and 1994 and are available online at http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta

Research projects

---

1. Equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect are keystones of Nida's theory of translation. Research more deeply the arguments around the issues and how the concepts have developed over the years (see the Further Reading section for initial references). Why do you consider that there has been such heated debate? How can the concepts be used in translator training today?
2. ‘Nida provides an excellent model for translation which involves a manipulation of a text to serve the interests of a religious belief, but he fails to provide the groundwork for what the West in general conceives of as a “science”’ (Gentzler 2001: 59, see Further Reading). Do you agree with Gentzler? Is this model tied to religious texts? How well does it work for other genres (e.g. advertising, scientific texts, literature, etc.)?
3. Newmark (1981: 39, see Further Reading) states: ‘In communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation.’ Find examples of texts that support or challenge this claim. Revise the wording of the claim according to your findings.

Exploration

---

3.3 Qian Hu (1992) ‘On the implausibility of equivalent response (Part I)’, Meta 37.2: 289–301, www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1992/v37/n2/003148ar.pdf.

Subsequent parts of the article were published in Meta in 1993 and 1994 and are available online at www.erudit.org/revue/meta.

Miao, Ju (2000) ‘The limitations of “equivalent effect’, Perspectives 8.3: 197–205.

3.6 European Commission report ‘Language and Translation in International Law and EU Law’

See also the Free Reading Materials tab.