Criteria to be Used in Judging Translations

E. A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964), pp. 182-84.

CRITERIA TO BE USED IN JUDGING TRANSLATIONS

Since different principles apply to different types of F-E (Formal-

Equivalence) and D-E (Dynamic-Equivalence) translations, it is not
easy to judge the relative merits of two or more translations. However,
three fundamental criteria are basic to the evaluation of all translating,
and in different ways help to determine the relative merit of particular
translations. These are: (1) general efficiency of the communication
process, (2) comprehension of intent, and (3) equivalence of response.
The efficiency of a translation can be judged in terms of the maximal
reception for the minimum effort of decoding. In a sense, efficiency is
closely related to Joos's "first law of semantics" (Joos, 1953), which may
be stated simply: "That meaning is best which adds least to the total
meaning of the context." In other words, the maximizing of
redundancy reduces the work of decoding. At the same time,
redundancy should not be so increased that the noise factor of
boredom cuts down efficiency. Perhaps the factor of efficiency may be
restated thus: "Other things being equal, the efficiency of the
translation can be judged in terms of the maximal reception for the
minimal effort in decoding." Because of the diversities in linguistic
form and cultural backgrounds, however, translations are more likely
to be overloaded (and hence inefficient in terms of effort) than so
redundant that boredom results.
The second criterion in judging translations, comprehension of the
original intent (or, stated in other terms, the accuracy with which the
meaning of the source-language message is represented in the
translation), is oriented either toward the source culture (a formal-
equivalence translation) or toward the receptor culture (a dynamic-
equivalence translation). In an F-E translation, the comprehension of
intent must be judged essentially in terms of the context in which the
communication was first uttered; in a D-E translation this intent must
be understood in terms of the receptor culture. The extent to which
intent can be interpreted in a cultural context other than the one in
which the message was first given is directly proportional to the
universality of the message. Aristophanes' play The Clouds obviously
does not lend itself so well to comprehension of intent in different
cultures as does the Book of Job.
This criterion of "comprehension of original intent" is designed to
cover what has often been traditionally spoken of as "accuracy,"
"fidelity," and "correctness." Actually, one cannot speak of "accuracy"
apart from comprehension by the receptor, for there is no way of
treating accuracy except in terms of the extent to which the message
gets across (or should presumably get across) to the intended receptor.
"Accuracy" is meaningless, if treated in isolation from actual decoding
by individuals for which the message is intended. Accordingly, what
may be "accurate" for one set of receptors may be "inaccurate" for
another, for the level and manner of comprehension may be different
for the two groups. Furthermore, comprehension itself must be
analyzed in terms of comprehending the significance of a message as
related to its possible settings, i.e. the original setting of the
communication and the setting in which the receptors themselves exist.
This second criterion (i.e. comprehension of intent) is in no sense
designed to sidestep the issues of accuracy and fidelity, but to place
them in their right perspective—in terms of a total theory of
communication.
The third criterion in judging translations, equivalence of response, is
oriented toward either the source culture (in which case the receptor
must understand the basis of the original response) or the receptor
culture (in which case the receptor makes a corresponding response
within a different cultural context). The extent to which the responses
are similar depends upon the cultural distance between the two
communication contexts.
 In this description of the various criteria involved in the judging of
translations, intent and response have been isolated from each other.
But actually such isolation is impossible; for the nature of the response
is closely tied to intent, presumed or actual, and any final judgment of
translations must deal with both interrelated elements. At the same
time, this formulation implies that the orientation can be to either the
source or the receptor context, while in actual practice no either/or
distinction can be made; rather, various grades of mixture or
interpenetration must be dealt with. The either/or distinction is
primarily a matter of principal focus of attention, or of priority of
concern. In the same way, no judgment on translations can completely
isolate the source context from the receptor one. Nevertheless, though
the three criteria of efficiency, comprehension of intent, and similarity
of response cannot be fully isolated from one another, they are all basic
to an understanding and evaluation of different translations.
Though there is a relatively wide range of possible legitimate
translations beginning with somewhat literal F-E (Formal Equivalent)
renderings to rather highly D-E (Dynamic Equivalent) ones, there are
certain points on both ends of this scale at which extremely F-E or D-E
translations fall off rapidly in efficiency, accuracy, and relevance. On
the F-E end of the scale a translation which is exceedingly literal,
contains numerous awkward expressions, and is hence "overloaded" as
far as the prospective receptors are concerned, is obviously far below
legitimate standards. At the other end of the scale, a D-E translation
may likewise fail to come up to a valid standard, if in the translator's
concern for the response of the receptors he has been unfaithful to the
content of the original message.
F-E translations which fall below standards are generally more
common than correspondingly inadequate D-E translations, for the
gross errors in F-E translating arise primarily out of ignorance,
oversight, and failure to comprehend the true nature of translating. On
the other hand, mistakes in D-E translations are generally less
numerous, for they are usually made with the translator's eyes wide
open. In a sense, renderings which err in being too far in the direction
of a D-E translation may be more dangerous, particularly if a translator
is clever in concealing his "slanting." But the mistakes resulting from
filling a translation with renderings which are too much in the
direction of F-E translating are more ruinous, for the translation is
usually so overloaded that it is unlikely to be used with any great
effectiveness, except where there is an unusual amount of incentive
and cultural pressure.
(http://www.bible-researcher.com/nida5.html )