By jmh on june 29, 2011 in bible and theology, current events, inerrancy, scripture. Dynamic equivalence defined by michael marlowe, july 2009. Nidas dynamic equivalence research papers academia. In addition, a brief survey distributed to 72 students at cedarville university provides both qualitative and quantitative data regarding which english. May 15, 20 on the contrary, he advocated two equivalence ways as the basic directions and guidelines of translation. Dynamic equivalency posted on march 29, 2011 by aliveintheword one of the first decisions to be made when translating written work from one language to another is whether to translate literally wordforword or to translate thoughtforthought. The nature of dynamic equivalence in translating eric. In a sense, some of these principles focus on formal. He introduced the notion of formal and dynamic equivalence which confirms this claim. Consequently, nida 1964 proposed two translation methods which are formal and dynamic equivalence. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence and newmarks semantic and communicative translation translating theories on two short stories shabnam shakernia abstract m.
Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon the principle of equivalent effect 1964. Nidas functional equivalence in order to achieve passage equivalence. In contrast to catfords formaltextual equivalence, nida advocates dynamic equivalence. Dec 22, 2012 in chapter two the problem of formal and dynamic equivalence we dwell upon different translation theorists who proposed different translation techniques, mostly e. Four bible translation types and some criteria to distinguish them 3 3. I will also draw attention to statements in which nida acknowledges limitations of the dynamic equivalence method. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in translation between chinese and english liu dayan school of foreign languages chongqing jiaotong university no. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal correspondance and dynamic equivalence. Pdf examining nidas translation theory in rendering arabic. The concept of equivalence in translation studies the concept of equivalence, which has an important role in translation studies, is a broad concept. Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence translating approach on a literary piece of text. Even though the two issues are not the same, they are related, and we find the. There are other issues too, such as which text to use as a starting point, and how to handle extremely obscure old testament terms. Examining nidas translation theory in rendering arabic.
Contextual consistency over verbal consistency dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence the aural form over the written form form which are understandable to audience over traditionally more prestigious ones. View nida s dynamic equivalence research papers on academia. The first language may also have words, phrases or grammatical structures that do not exist in the second language. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in pdf.
Of course, it is necessary to consider the fact that nidas equivalence theory is put forward as early as 1960s, while others are far later from his theory. Dynamic and formal equivalence are concepts from linguistics when a language is translated into another one, there is a problem. Clearly, a translation is poor if by preserving formal equivalence in word. Their purpose is to enable the receptors to understand the implications of the cognitive content or to make a corresponding emotive response without recourse to the original text. Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence and newmarks semantic and communicative translation translating theories on two short stories shabnam shakernia abstract m.
Developments in translation theory have externalized processes used intuitively by translators for centuries. According to him, a gloss translation mostly typifies formal equivalence where form and content are reproduced as faithfully as possible and the tl reader is able to understand as much as he can of the customs. International journal of english and education issn. The defects of dynamic equivalence nidas dynamic equivalence theory is of great practical value, as well verified by his bible translation. Formal equivalence is thus the quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language. Oct 05, 2009 the terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence mask the fact that at least two distinct theoretical issues separate most translations.
Chapter 2 focuses on the british translation theorist peter newmarks semantic and communicative translation, which is a refinement of nida s two types of equivalence. The limits of dynamic equivalence in bible translation which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more prestigious. Wordforword translation is known as formal equivalence while thoughtforthought translation is known as dynamic equivalence. Nida and taber themselves assert that typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand dynamic equivalence dynamic equivalence aims at creating a similar impact as the sl text on its readers or to recreate a. On the contrary, he advocated two equivalence ways as the basic directions and guidelines of translation. The bible version debate is not just about dynamic and formal equivalence. Nidas translation theory of dynamic equivalence and initiates a. Aug 25, 2011 eugene nida, the father of the dynamic equivalence bible translation philosophy, has passed away at age 96. My purpose here is to illustrate and to critically examine how eugene nida applied principles of dynamic equivalence in his books, by using an example given in his book the theory and practice of translation leiden. With regard to their implications on translation quality, however, two signi. They liken this new method of translation to the pearl of great price and acknowledge that once an individual finds the supposed value of this method he tends to leave all other translations in favor of the newly. Nidas theory of formal and dynamic functional equivalence. Next, formal and dynamic equivalence strategies were applied to render the.
Validity of the principle of dynamic equivalence citeseerx. According to nida, a formalequivalence translation is basically sourceoriented, i. Nida s functional equivalence in order to achieve passage equivalence. Contextual consistency over verbal consistency dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence the aural form over the written form form which are understandable to. His work and ideas had a lasting influence on many of the bibles on our bookshelvesand on the way that scholars today approach the task of translating scripture. Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of. Oct 05, 2004 their goal is ultimately to replace the older formal equivalence versions with the dynamic equivalence paraphrases. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are associated with the translator eugene nida, and were originally coined to describe ways of translating the bible, but the two approaches are applicable to any translation. Whether youve loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them. In chapter two the problem of formal and dynamic equivalence we dwell upon different translation theorists who proposed different translation techniques, mostly e. In a work now considered a classic nida describes dynamic equivalence translation as the closest natural equivalent to. Eugene nida the theory and practice of translation pdf.
Nida 1964 argues that the essential skill of translator is being able to understand correctly the meaning of a source text nida, 2001, p. The difference between literal and dynamic translations of. With regard to equivalence, nida maintains that there are two basic types of equivalence. Pdf eugene nida and translation ernst wendland dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation.
Equivalence in translation theories a critical evaluation. Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation the two have been understood basically, with dynamic equivalence as senseforsense translation translating the meanings of phrases or whole sentences. Few if any languages are exactly parallel in terms of words, sentence structure. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal. Dynamic equivalence in practice an interaction with e.
The theoretical background of the article comprises the concept of equivalence as defined by scholars such as catford, newmark, nida and taber, venuti, bassnett, vinay and darbelnet, hatim, munday, to mention just a few. Translation theories eugene nida and dynamic equivalence. Th e limits of dynamic equivalence the limits of dynamic. Their goal is ultimately to replace the older formal equivalence versions with the dynamic equivalence paraphrases. According to nida and taber 2003, dynamic equivalence is defined.
One of the first decisions to be made when translating written work from one language to another is whether to translate literally wordforword or to translate thoughtforthought. He defines translation as reproducing in the receptors language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the sl, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style 1975, p. When i was studying at dts, my hebrew prof, who is fairly well known, was really excited about dynamic equivalence translation. Nida s formal and dynamic equivalence useful in their translation class. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, coined by eugene nida, are. Pdf gentzlers criticism on nida sara ganjiyan academia. Why the debate between formal equivalence and functional equivalence is deceptive.
Nida s theory of formal and dynamic functional equivalence. In formalequivalence translations, translators attempt to translate each word in the original language into an equivalent english word. In particular, nida argues that in formal equivalence the tt resembles very much the st in both form and content whereas in dynamic equivalence an effort is made to convey the st message in the tt as. The theory and practice of translation nida taber pdf pokspg dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation. Why the debate between formal equivalence and functional. Formal equivalence being described as word for word translation that is source oriented translation and dynamic. Nida suggested the main difference between those two was the purpose of the translation. Dynamic and formal equivalence simple english wikipedia. The bible translation theory called dynamic equivalence from the middle of the twentieth. The limits of dynamic equivalence in bible translation. The literature on bible translation in particular is dominated by eugene a. Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation.
Theory and practice because dynamic equivalence eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of. Although this concept is defined in terms of the relations between source and target texts by some scholars such as nida and jacobson, there are also some scholars, such as. Generally speaking, for english bibles, there are two dominant translation methodologies. Index termsvalidity, principle of dynamic equivalence, linguistic bases. The latter two are dynamic equivalent translations. Chapter 3 is the german translation theorist albrecht neuberts discussion of. These translations are generally considered more literal. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence and newmark. In bible translation dynamic equivalence and formal. Translation oriented towards formal equivalence formal equivalence is a translation theory put forward by eugene nida. Nidas dynamicequivalence theory studies translation from a totally new perspective, deviating from the traditional source textcentered theories, shaking off the.
Chapter 1 presents nida s dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence mask the fact that at least two distinct theoretical issues separate most translations. Nidas perspective and beyond dohun kim translation is an interlingual and intercultural communication, in which correspondence at the level of formal and meaningful structures does not necessarily lead to a successful communication. Nidas equivalence theory goes through the process of rising, prospering and falling, which of course is closely related. Pdf eugene nida and translation ernst wendland dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source. Apr 21, 2011 why the debate between formal equivalence and functional equivalence is deceptive. Jan 22, 2014 eugene nida was best known, however, for the dynamic equivalence principle of scripture translation what has become the operational principle of every major translation agency in the world. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books youve read. Firstly, its vehicular theory of meaning does not do justice to the formal. The dynamic equivalence translation theory of eugene a. Nidas theory of dynamic equivalence as it relates to bible translation, largely through a comparative study of select passages from the biblical genres of poetry, proverbs, and pauline epistles. Dynamic equivalence, by contrast, tends to favour a more natural rendering, for instance when the readability of the translation is more important than the preservation of the original grammatical structure. Nidas definition of translation shiyang ran school of foreign languages, shandong university.
Nida and his proteges whose work is informed by a wealth of intercultural experience. Nidas definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence in 1964 consider cultural implications for translation. Four bible translation types and some criteria to distinguish them. In this article i will explain the meaning of the term dynamic equivalence, as it is used in the writings of eugene a.
However, his theory raises some criticisms that the concept of equivalent. I the formal correspondence approach has a long pedigree in translation work. The debate between formal equivalence and functional equivalence has come up again at bbb, this time in the comment thread to a post about david kers the bible wasnt written to you. Nov 24, 2017 with regard to equivalence, nida maintains that there are two basic types of equivalence. Eugene nida 1964 adopted a part of the formal theory dealing with the tg. Nida observed that wordbyword translations result in grammatical inconsistencies and errors in understanding. Nida 1964 argues that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence or correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Eugene nida was best known, however, for the dynamic equivalence principle of scripture translation what has become the operational principle of every major translation agency in the world.
What is the difference between the dynamic equivalence and. Eugene nidaearly definitions of translation equivalence. International journal of english and education copyright international journal of english and education. Formal equivalence focuses on the need to pay attention to the form and content. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself,in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence. What is the difference between the dynamic equivalence and literal translation. Not only might there be original language textual differences but the intention of the translators in the type of bible they are trying to develop can be different.
2 673 998 563 669 712 829 818 889 194 1012 923 756 1037 798 622 359 29 1154 1252 1109 747 865 753 332 1532 852 110 14 876 338 380 721 467 465 113 39 74 1434