| Revision as of 19:34, 4 September 2007 editMaxschmelling (talk | contribs)1,594 edits →External links: removed linkspam← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:36, 4 September 2007 edit undoMaxschmelling (talk | contribs)1,594 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{TOCright}}'''Dynamic equivalence''' and '''formal equivalence''' are two approaches to ]. The former (also known as '''functional equivalence''') attempts to convey the ] expressed in a ] (at the expense of ], original ], the ]'s ], etc., if necessary), while the latter attempts to render the text word-for-word (at the expense of natural expression in the ], if necessary). The two approaches represent emphases, respectively, on ] and on ] to the source text. There is, however, in reality no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches. | {{TOCright}}'''Dynamic equivalence''' and '''formal equivalence''' are two approaches to ]. The former (also known as '''functional equivalence''') attempts to convey the ] expressed in a ] (at the expense of ], original ], the ]'s ], etc., if necessary), while the latter attempts to render the text word-for-word (at the expense of natural expression in the ], if necessary). The two approaches represent emphases, respectively, on ] and on ] to the source text. There is, however, in reality no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches. | ||
| The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence" were originally coined to describe ways of translating the ], but the two approaches are applicable to any translation. | The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence" are associated with the translator ], and were originally coined to describe ways of translating the ], but the two approaches are applicable to any translation. | ||
| ==Theory and practice== | ==Theory and practice== | ||
Revision as of 19:36, 4 September 2007
Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. The former (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc., if necessary), while the latter attempts to render the text word-for-word (at the expense of natural expression in the target language, if necessary). The two approaches represent emphases, respectively, on readability and on literal fidelity to the source text. There is, however, in reality no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches.
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.
Theory and practice
Because dynamic equivalence eschews strict adherence to the original text in favor of a more natural rendering in the target language, it is sometimes used when the readability of the translation is more important than the preservation of the original wording. Thus a novel might be translated with greater use of dynamic equivalence so that it may read well, while in diplomacy the precise original meaning may be the uppermost consideration, favoring greater adherence to formal equivalence.
Completely unambiguous formal translation of larger works is more goal than reality, if only because one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language. In such cases a more dynamic translation may be used or a neologism may be created in the target language to represent the concept (sometimes by borrowing a word from the source language).
The more the source language differs from the target language, the more difficult it may be to understand a literal translation. On the other hand, formal equivalence can sometimes allow readers familiar with the source language to see how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated idioms, rhetorical devices (such as chiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible), and diction.
Bible translation
The concept of dynamic equivalence applied to Bible translation was developed especially by the linguist Eugene A. Nida.
Modern translations of the Bible that seek formal equivalence include the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version (the King James Version also seeks formal equivalence, albeit to 17th-century English) and Green's Literal Translation. The New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version seek a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence, while the New Living Translation makes extensive use of dynamic equivalence.
References
- Christopher Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil," The Polish Review, vol. XXVIII, no. 2, 1983, pp. 83-87. Includes a discussion of the terms, "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence," and of synonyms, including, respectively, "paraphrase" and "metaphrase."
- L.G. Kelly, The True Interpreter: a History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1979, ISBN .