Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 .
A dynamic equivalence (free) translation tries to clearly convey the thoughts and ideas of the source text. A literal translation, it is argued, may obscure the intention of the original author. A free translator attempts to convey the subtleties of context and subtext in the work, so that the reader is presented with both a translation of the ...
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 ...
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 + unmarried). This is, perhaps, not the best example of the technique, though it is the most well-known.
Dynamic equivalence translation; Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation) Idiomatic, or paraphrastic translation, as used by the late Kenneth N. Taylor; though modern linguists, such as Bible scholar Dr. Joel Hoffman, disagree with this classification. [41] Other translation approaches include:
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.
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 ...
The CEB uses a balance of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence translation principles. Ease of comprehension was measured using the standard Dale-Chall Readability Formula so a seventh grade reading level could be attained. [9]