Oct 21, 2012 which in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Dynamic and formal equivalence wikipedia republished. To get an ataglance understanding of the key differences between the two methods, dr. Critical analysis of nidas dynamic equivalence theory. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are associated with the translator eugene nida, and were originally coined to describe ways of. The importance of achieving textual equivalence through pragmatics and the semiotics of culture is an important and pivotal element in translating all text types especially literary, social and political texts. This approach is what is going to be illustrated in this thesis with a focused light on pragmatics. Dynamic equivalence focuses on producing the equivalent effect of the message. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal correspondance and dynamic equivalence.
Before his time, all bible translation was done using a formal, wordforword method. There are types of equivalence defined by nida, which are also called two basic orientations of translation formal correspondence a faithful translation would be characterized by formal equivalence dynamic equivalence. Nida s translation theory of dynamic equivalence and initiates a. The limits of dynamic equivalence in bible translation which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more prestigious. 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. The priority of dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in translation. Conclusion all in all, dynamic equivalence translation principle might not suitable for all styles and in every situation, and for genre of poetry that emphasize a lot on forms, formal equivalence principle is more suitable than dynamic equivalence principle. Equivalence consists of the concept of sameness and similarity. 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. Equivalence and its practical application in japanese to. Nidas model of translation is closely related to dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence.
In this, translator focuses more on the culture and linguistics expression. A comparative study of nida and newmarks translation. Translation equivalence translations communication free. During the past fifty years, however, there has been a marked shift of emphasis from the formal to the dynamic dimension. 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. A comparative study of nida and newmarks translation theories. The difference between literal and dynamic translations of. The dynamic also known as functional method attempts to convey the thought expressed in the source text using equivalent expressions from a contemporary language like english thought for thought. Nida gave up the longterm used words throughout history, such as literal translation, free translation, and faithful translation. This approach is what is going to be illustrated in this thesis with a. Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of. These translations are generally less literal on a wordforword basis but still seek to.
Textual equivalence through pragmatics by a thesis presented. 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. In contrast, dynamic equivalence is the closest natural equivalent to the source language message nida, 1964, p. Translation theories eugene nida and dynamic equivalence. Apr 21, 2011 why the debate between formal equivalence and functional equivalence is deceptive. What is the difference between the dynamic equivalence and. The translator would not simply write an equivalent english word in place of each greek word as is done below figure 3. Nidas translation theory of dynamic equivalence and initiates a. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based. Dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence the terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence were originated by eugene nida to describe ways of translating scripture, but the two approaches are applicable to any translation of any text especially liturgical texts. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, coined by eugene nida, are associated with two dissimilar translation approaches that are employed to achieve different levels of literalness between the source text and the target text, as evidenced in biblical translation. Equivalence and equivalent effect by nida duration. In translation theory, formal equivalence refers to translating by finding reasonably equivalent words and phrases while following the forms of the source languaage as closely as possible.
Comparing versions formal and functional equivalence. Show full abstract model guiding the analysis was nida s notion of dynamic equivalence, which specifically emphasizes the effects that a translated text has on its target audience. Eugene nida s formal equivalence and dynamic functional equivalence there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalence beslloc, 1931, p37, one must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent. In the first case, the fo cus is on rendering the message a s accurately as possible in terms of content and form, while in. 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. Western translation theories as responses to equivalence. Dynamic equivalence in practice an interaction with e. 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. Dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence conveys the essential thoughts expressed in a source text.
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 german translation theorist werner koller classifies equivalence into denotative equivalence, connotative equivalence, textnormative equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. Principle of dynamic equivalence general introduction in toward a science of translating, nida first put forward the principle of dynamic equivalence which he defines as the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message nida,1964, p. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in translation between chinese and english liu dayan school of foreign languages chongqing jiaotong university no. Dynamic equivalence is based on the equivalent effect, while formal equivalence is focused on the message itself. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. Comparison between paraphrase, dynamic equivalence and literal formal by robin schumacher the recent decision by houstons first baptist church to formally discontinue the use of the new international version niv bible resurfaced the sometimes very touchy subject of bible translations. 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. Oct 05, 2009 the terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence mask the fact that at least two distinct theoretical issues separate most translations. 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. The present study aimed to investigate which of these approaches are the main focuses of the translators in the translations of the two short stories. It is the method whereby the translators purpose is not to give a literal, wordforword rendition but to transfer the meaning of the text as would be best expressed in the words of the receptor native language.
Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence translating approach on a literary piece of text. The s formal equivalence and dynamic functional equivalence 3024 words pages. 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. Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence which in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. 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. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence and newmark. Dec 22, 2012 equivalence in translation introduction dynamic equivalence, as a respectable principle of translation, has been around in the translation sector for a long time. Translation theory unit 5 equivalence in translation. There were thus different kinds of equivalence that could be established, independently of whatever was considered natural before the translator entered the scene. Why the debate between formal equivalence and functional. Nida and tiber distinguished two types of equivalence formal equivalence correspondence and dynamic equivalence. May 15, 20 nida gave up the longterm used words throughout history, such as literal translation, free translation, and faithful translation. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalencewhich in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondenceand dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses on transferring the message.
The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, coined by eugene nida, are associated with two dissimilar translation approaches that are employed to achieve different levels of literalness between the source text and the target text, as evidenced in biblical translation the two have been understood basically, with dynamic equivalence as senseforsense translation. Nidas 1964 much debated theory of formal vs dynamic equivalence proposes two respective approaches to achieving equivalence, and was an attempt to move away from looking at translations as either faithful, literal or free. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself,in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence. Nida 1964 proposed two translation methods which are formal and dynamic equivalence. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence mask the fact that at least two distinct theoretical issues separate most translations. Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect. Formal equivalence definition and meaning collins english. Nida s dynamic equivalence theory is often held in opposition to the views of philologists who maintain that an understanding of the source text st can be achieved by assessing the interanimation of words on the page, and that meaning is selfcontained within the text i. In dynamic equivalence translations, translators attempt to translate the messagemeaning of the originallanguage texts into an equivalent english word or expression. Thomas howe, in a critique of the dynamic equivalence approach written in an edition of the christian apologetics journal vol. 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.
Comparing versions formal and functional equivalence an explanation of the translation chart in whats in a version. Nida s definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence in 1964 consider cultural implications for translation. In toward a science of translating eugene nida discards using terms such as literal, free and faithful in favor of two basic orientations or types of equivalence. Eugene nidaearly definitions of translation equivalence. We believe this method, known as formal equivalence fe, to be the proper technique. Equivalence and equivalent effect in translation theory essay. He also modified his attitude towards formal correspondence which had been regarded as the opposite of dynamic equivalence in his works of the 1960s. Dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information nida it is a pragmatic focus on the communicative requirements of the text receiver and purpose of translation without losing sight of the communicative preferences of original message producer or function of original text. Even though the two issues are not the same, they are related, and we find the. Religious translation, nida s theory, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence 1. Nidas definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence in 1964 consider cultural implications for translation. Nida 10 distinguishes between formal and dynamic equivalence.
Dynamic and formal equivalence are two methods or styles used to convert source text e. The present study aimed to investigate which of these approaches are the main focuses of the translators in the translations of the two short. Nida observed that wordbyword translations result in grammatical inconsistencies and errors in understanding. Th e limits of dynamic equivalence the limits of dynamic. A wordforword replacement is often of little use, because it is only a form of words equivalent, and may not convey the force of meaning the dynamic equivalence whilst each english word in figure 3 is a counterpart of a greek word, this string of english. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence which in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondenceand dynamic equivalence. Removing the paraphrase from the mix leaves us with the dynamic vs. 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. Theory and practice because dynamic equivalence eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of. The present study aimed to investigate which of these approaches are the main focuses of the translators in the. The s formal equivalence and dynamic functional equivalence 3024 words pages 2. Dynamic equivalence is generally thought to be a more natural way of. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon.
Nida s model of translation is closely related to dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence and. Formal equivalence approach tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with less literal accuracy 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. 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. Later scholars continued the study of translation theory and developed their own understanding of equivalence. Carson, the limits of dynamic equivalence in bible translation, notes on translation 121 oct 1987 1, hails the triumph of dynamic equivalence in these words. International journal of english and education issn. Pdf translation of marked word order from english into.
139 466 1316 910 858 866 789 1238 356 1552 154 1355 1096 1129 1212 1136 840 1368 251 654 752 577 312 502 1144 708 1396 515 129 170 805 784 610 49 464