Dynamic and formal equivalence
Wikipedia on Answers:
Dynamic and formal equivalence
Ads
VT By Assessmentwww.vtbyassessment
Save time, complete your portfolio of evidence for ORE online!
SmartDraw utube/SmartDrawV ideos
See How Easy Communicating Visually is With SmartDraw. Watch the V ideo!
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Wikipedia
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.
(August 2010)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)
Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. Dynamic equivalence (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc.), while formal equivalence attempts to render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural expression in the target language). The two approaches represent emphasis, respectively, on readability and on literal fidelity to the source text. There is no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches.[1]
The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence" are associated with the translator Eugen
e Nida, and were originally coined to describe ways of translating the Bible, but the two approaches are applicable to any translation.
Contents [hide]
∙1Theory and practice
∙2Bible translation
∙3See also
∙4References
∙5External links
Theory and practice
Because dynamic equivalence 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 struct
ure. Thus a novel might be translated with greater use of dynamic equivalence so that it may read well, while in diplomacy or in some business settings people may insist on formal equivalence because they believe that fidelity to the grammatical structure of the language equals greater accuracy.
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. 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.[2]
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.[3]
Formal equivalence
Relationship between some formal equivalence Bible translations
∙King James V ersion (1611)
∙Y oung's Literal Translation (1862)
∙Revised V ersion (1895)
∙American Standard V ersion (1901)
∙Revised Standard V ersion (1952)
∙New American Standard Bible (1995)
∙New King James V ersion (1982)
∙English Standard V ersion (2001)
∙New Revised Standard V ersion (1989)
∙Douay-Rheims
∙Green's Literal Translation (1985)
A balance between dynamic and formal equivalence
∙New International V ersion
∙Today's New International V ersion[4]
∙Holman Christian Standard Bible called "optimal" equivalence ∙New American Bible
∙New English Translation
∙Modern Language Bible
Extensive use of dynamic equivalence
∙New Jerusalem Bible
∙New English Bible
∙Revised English Bible
∙Good News Bible (formerly "Today's English V ersion")
∙Complete Jewish Biblepeer
∙New Living Translation
∙God's Word Translation
∙The Message
∙Contemporary English V ersion
See also
∙Lexical markup framework
∙The Bible version debate
∙Translation
References
1.^Kasparek, Christopher (1983). "The Translator's Endless Toil". The Polish Review (The Polish Review) XXVIII (2): 83–87.
2.^ Kelly, L.G (1979). The True Interpreter: a History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West. Lecture notes in mathematics 1358. St. Martin's
Press.
3.^ 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; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., The Comprehensive New Testament, page iii.
4.^ Barker, Kenneth L. "The Balanced Translation Philosophy of the TNIV". iv.info/light/balanced.php. Retrieved 2007-11-29.
External links
∙Bible Translation Chart
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。