This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2010) |
In semantics, dynamic and formal equivalence are approaches to translation that prioritize either the meaning or literal structure of the source text respectively. The distinction was originally articulated by Eugene Nida in the context of Bible translation.
Approaches to translation
The "Formal-equivalence" approach emphasizes fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the source language, whereas "dynamic equivalence" tends to employ a rendering that is more natural to the target language.
According to Eugene Nida, dynamic equivalence, the term as he originally coined, is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors." The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.
In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "functional equivalence". What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures.
A similar distinction was expressed by Maimonides in a letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon, his translator, in 1199. He wrote:
I shall premise one rule: the translator who proposes to render each word literally and adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the original, will meet with much difficulty and the result will be doubtful and corrupt. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp the meaning of the subject, and then state the theme with perfect clarity in the other language. This, however, cannot be done without changing the order of words, putting many words for one word, and vice versa, so that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates.
Maimonides comes down on the side of dynamic/functional equivalence, though perhaps not going so far as to consider the cultural function of the text. He does clearly reject formal equivalence as "doubtful and corrupt".
Theory and practice
Because the functional equivalence approach eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of 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 grammatical structure.
Formal equivalence is often 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 without modifying or rearranging the words in the target language. On the other hand, formal equivalence can allow readers familiar with the source language to analyze how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated idioms, rhetorical devices (such as chiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible) and diction in order to preserve original information and highlight finer shades of meaning.
Minor Differences between Approximate Equivalents
Sandy Habib observed how the Arabic, Hebrew and English words for angel have slightly varying connotations.: 216–217 This leads to religio-cultural differences over questions such as whether angels are immortal or capable of doing evil, and their appearance (e.g. the colour of their wings). Due to his focus upon natural semantic metalanguage, Ghil'ad Zuckermann considers such minute distinctions between lexical items in different languages to be a major obstacle in producing translations that are both accurate and concise.: 216
Bible translation
Translators of the Bible have taken various approaches in rendering it into English, ranging from an extreme use of formal equivalence, to extreme use of dynamic equivalence.
- Predominant use of formal equivalence
- Douay–Rheims Bible (1610)
- King James Bible (1611)
- Young's Literal Translation (1862)
- Revised Version (1885)
- American Standard Version (1901)
- Concordant Version (1926)
- Revised Standard Version (1952)
- Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (1966)
- New American Standard Bible (1971)
- New King James Version (1982)
- Green's Literal Translation (1985)
- New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1985)
- New Revised Standard Version (1989)
- Orthodox Study Bible (1993)
- Third Millennium Bible (1998)
- Recovery Version (1999)
- World English Bible (2000)
- English Standard Version (2001)
- Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition (Ignatius Bible) (2006)
- Lexham English Bible (2011)
- Modern English Version (2014)
- Tree of Life Version (2014)
- English Standard Version Catholic Edition (2018)
- Literal Standard Version (2020)
- Moderate use of both formal and dynamic equivalence
- New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961, revised 1984, 2013)
- Confraternity Bible (1969)
- Modern Language Bible (1969)
- New American Bible (1970, revised 1986 & 1991)
- New International Version (1978)
- Holman Christian Standard Bible called "optimal equivalence" (2004)
- New Community Bible (2008)
- Common English Bible (2011)
- New American Bible Revised Edition (2011)
- Christian Standard Bible (2017)
- Evangelical Heritage Version (2019)
- / New Catholic Version (St. Joseph New Catholic Bible) (2019)
- Revised New Jerusalem Bible (2019)
- Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both
- The Holy Bible: Knox Version (1955)
- Amplified Bible (1965)
- Jerusalem Bible (1966)
- New Life Version (1969)
- New English Bible (1970)
- Good News Bible (formerly "Today's English Version") (1976)
- New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
- Easy-to-Read Version (1987)
- Christian Community Bible (1988)
- Revised English Bible (1989)
- God's Word Translation (1995)
- Contemporary English Version (1995)
- New Living Translation (1996)
- Complete Jewish Bible (1998)
- New International Reader's Version (1998)
- New English Translation (2005)
- Today's New International Version (2005)
- CTS New Catholic Bible (2007)
- (2018)
- Extensive use of paraphrase
- The Living Bible (1971)
- The Street Bible (UK) (2003), as the word on the street (US) (2004)
- The Message Bible (2002)
- The Voice (2012)
- The Passion Translation (2017)
See also
- Bible concordance
- Bible version debate
- Exploratory data analysis
- Lexical markup framework
- Idiom (language structure)
- Natural semantic metalanguage
- Textualism in jurisprudence:
- Original meaning (cf. formal equivalence)
- Original intent (cf. dynamic equivalence)
- Purposivism (also called purposive theory)
References
- Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation, With Special Reference to Bible Translating, 200. Leiden: Brill.
- Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p. 51 Philip C. Stine – 2004 "That probably would not have happened if it hadn't been for Nida's ideas" (Charles Taber, interview with author, 21 Oct. 2000).7 Nida later felt that the term "dynamic equivalence" had been misunderstood.
- Translation and religion: holy untranslatable? p91 Lynne Long – 2005 "In order to avoid certain misunderstandings, de Waard and Nida (1986: 7, 36) later replaced the term 'dynamic equivalence' with 'functional equivalence', but they stated clearly that 'The substitution of "functional equivalence"' is not…"
- The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George – 2004 "190 For this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term 'dynamic equivalence,' preferring instead 'functional equivalence.' 191 The idea is to produce the closest natural equivalent in the target or 188 190 Nida, …"
- Stitskin, Leon D. (Fall 1961). A Letter of Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 93 JSTOR
- Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2020). Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199812790.ISBN 9780199812776
- Data collected from two sources that have nearly identical ranking with an overlapping (supplemental) list of translations studied: 1. Thomas, Robert L., Bible Translations: The Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching, pages 63ff Archived 2012-09-16 at the Wayback Machine; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., The Comprehensive New Testament, page iii.
- "Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek | NWT". JW.ORG. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- New Catholic Bible
- "KNOX BIBLE - Reviews of the new publication of this Bible". www.knoxbible.com. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
- "A Classic Translation Back in Print". National Review. 27 October 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Dynamic and formal equivalence news newspapers books scholar JSTOR August 2010 Learn how and when to remove this message In semantics dynamic and formal equivalence are approaches to translation that prioritize either the meaning or literal structure of the source text respectively The distinction was originally articulated by Eugene Nida in the context of Bible translation Approaches to translationThe Formal equivalence approach emphasizes fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the source language whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a rendering that is more natural to the target language According to Eugene Nida dynamic equivalence the term as he originally coined is the quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion In later years Nida distanced himself from the term dynamic equivalence and preferred the term functional equivalence What the term functional equivalence suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text translation in the target culture but that function can be thought of as a property of the text It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures A similar distinction was expressed by Maimonides in a letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon his translator in 1199 He wrote I shall premise one rule the translator who proposes to render each word literally and adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the original will meet with much difficulty and the result will be doubtful and corrupt This is not the right method The translator should first try to grasp the meaning of the subject and then state the theme with perfect clarity in the other language This however cannot be done without changing the order of words putting many words for one word and vice versa so that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates Maimonides comes down on the side of dynamic functional equivalence though perhaps not going so far as to consider the cultural function of the text He does clearly reject formal equivalence as doubtful and corrupt Theory and practiceBecause the functional equivalence approach eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of 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 grammatical structure Formal equivalence is often 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 without modifying or rearranging the words in the target language On the other hand formal equivalence can allow readers familiar with the source language to analyze how meaning was expressed in the original text preserving untranslated idioms rhetorical devices such as chiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible and diction in order to preserve original information and highlight finer shades of meaning Minor Differences between Approximate EquivalentsSandy Habib observed how the Arabic Hebrew and English words for angel have slightly varying connotations 216 217 This leads to religio cultural differences over questions such as whether angels are immortal or capable of doing evil and their appearance e g the colour of their wings Due to his focus upon natural semantic metalanguage Ghil ad Zuckermann considers such minute distinctions between lexical items in different languages to be a major obstacle in producing translations that are both accurate and concise 216 Bible translationTranslators of the Bible have taken various approaches in rendering it into English ranging from an extreme use of formal equivalence to extreme use of dynamic equivalence Predominant use of formal equivalenceRelationship between some formal equivalence Bible translationsDouay Rheims Bible 1610 King James Bible 1611 Young s Literal Translation 1862 Revised Version 1885 American Standard Version 1901 Concordant Version 1926 Revised Standard Version 1952 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 1966 New American Standard Bible 1971 New King James Version 1982 Green s Literal Translation 1985 New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh 1985 New Revised Standard Version 1989 Orthodox Study Bible 1993 Third Millennium Bible 1998 Recovery Version 1999 World English Bible 2000 English Standard Version 2001 Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition Ignatius Bible 2006 Lexham English Bible 2011 Modern English Version 2014 Tree of Life Version 2014 English Standard Version Catholic Edition 2018 Literal Standard Version 2020 Moderate use of both formal and dynamic equivalenceNew World Translation of the Holy Scriptures 1961 revised 1984 2013 Confraternity Bible 1969 Modern Language Bible 1969 New American Bible 1970 revised 1986 amp 1991 New International Version 1978 Holman Christian Standard Bible called optimal equivalence 2004 New Community Bible 2008 Common English Bible 2011 New American Bible Revised Edition 2011 Christian Standard Bible 2017 Evangelical Heritage Version 2019 New Catholic Version St Joseph New Catholic Bible 2019 Revised New Jerusalem Bible 2019 Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or bothThe Holy Bible Knox Version 1955 Amplified Bible 1965 Jerusalem Bible 1966 New Life Version 1969 New English Bible 1970 Good News Bible formerly Today s English Version 1976 New Jerusalem Bible 1985 Easy to Read Version 1987 Christian Community Bible 1988 Revised English Bible 1989 God s Word Translation 1995 Contemporary English Version 1995 New Living Translation 1996 Complete Jewish Bible 1998 New International Reader s Version 1998 New English Translation 2005 Today s New International Version 2005 CTS New Catholic Bible 2007 2018 Extensive use of paraphraseThe Living Bible 1971 The Street Bible UK 2003 as the word on the street US 2004 The Message Bible 2002 The Voice 2012 The Passion Translation 2017 See alsoBible concordance Bible version debate Exploratory data analysis Lexical markup framework Idiom language structure Natural semantic metalanguage Textualism in jurisprudence Original meaning cf formal equivalence Original intent cf dynamic equivalence Purposivism also called purposive theory ReferencesNida Eugene A and Charles R Taber 1969 The Theory and Practice of Translation With Special Reference to Bible Translating 200 Leiden Brill Let the words be written the lasting influence of Eugene A Nida p 51 Philip C Stine 2004 That probably would not have happened if it hadn t been for Nida s ideas Charles Taber interview with author 21 Oct 2000 7 Nida later felt that the term dynamic equivalence had been misunderstood Translation and religion holy untranslatable p91 Lynne Long 2005 In order to avoid certain misunderstandings de Waard and Nida 1986 7 36 later replaced the term dynamic equivalence with functional equivalence but they stated clearly that The substitution of functional equivalence is not The History of the Reina Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George 2004 190 For this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term dynamic equivalence preferring instead functional equivalence 191 The idea is to produce the closest natural equivalent in the target or 188 190 Nida Stitskin Leon D Fall 1961 A Letter of Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon Tradition A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought Vol 4 No 1 p 93 JSTOR Zuckermann Ghil ad 2020 Revivalistics From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond New York Oxford University Press ISBN 9780199812790 ISBN 9780199812776 Data collected from two sources that have nearly identical ranking with an overlapping supplemental list of translations studied 1 Thomas Robert L Bible Translations The Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching pages 63ff Archived 2012 09 16 at the Wayback Machine and 2 Clontz T E and Clontz J The Comprehensive New Testament page iii Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek NWT JW ORG Retrieved 2017 09 04 New Catholic Bible KNOX BIBLE Reviews of the new publication of this Bible www knoxbible com Retrieved 5 March 2023 A Classic Translation Back in Print National Review 27 October 2012 Retrieved 5 March 2023
