Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In translation and semantics, dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are seen as the main 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.
His most notable contribution to translation theory is Dynamic Equivalence, also known as Functional Equivalence. For more information, see "Dynamic and formal equivalence." Nida also developed the componential analysis technique, which split words into their components to help determine equivalence in translation (e.g. "bachelor" = male ...
The theory first appeared in an article published by linguist Hans Josef Vermeer in the German Journal Lebende Sprachen, 1978. [2]As a realisation of James Holmes’ map of Translation Studies (1972), [3] [4] skopos theory is the core of the four approaches of German functionalist translation theory [5] that emerged around the late twentieth century.
In 1964, [citation needed] Eugene Nida described translation as having two different types of equivalence: formal and dynamic equivalence. [14] Formal equivalence is when there is focus on the message itself (in both form and content); [15] the message in the target language should match the message in the source language as closely as possible ...
The question of fidelity vs. transparency has also been formulated in terms of, respectively, "formal equivalence" and "dynamic [or functional] equivalence" – expressions associated with the translator Eugene Nida and originally coined to describe ways of translating the Bible; but the two approaches are applicable to any translation. "Formal ...
Another discovery in translation theory can be dated from 1984 in Europe and the publication of two books in German: Foundation for a General Theory of Translation by Katharina Reiss (also written Reiß) and Hans Vermeer, [12] and Translatorial Action (Translatorisches Handeln) by Justa Holz-Mänttäri. [13]
In translation studies, the accepted meaning is now as a new translation into the same target language of a previously translated work. [6] The traditional conceptualization holds that the process is linear [ 7 ] or chronological, with retranslation always taking place after the first translation. [ 8 ]
He estimates that the theory and practice of English-language translation had been dominated by submission, by fluent domestication. He strictly criticized the translators who in order to minimize the foreignness of the target text reduce the foreign cultural norms to target-language cultural values.