Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
There have also been debates regarding the benefits of formal translations over dynamic equivalence translations. Supporters of formal translation such as the King James Version criticize translations that use dynamic equivalence on the grounds that accuracy is compromised, since this technique tends to reword the text instead of translating it ...
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 ...
Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss see the NET (along with the NIV and the HCSB) as a "mediating version" between functional equivalence and formal equivalence. [8]In the preface to the first edition, W. Hall Harris III, PhD, "The NET Bible Project Director" claims that the NET Bible solves the problem of dynamic vs. formal equivalence:
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. [40] Other translation approaches include:
The debate between the formal equivalence and dynamic (or 'functional') equivalence translation styles has increased with the introduction of inclusive language versions. Various terms are employed to defend or attack this development, such as feminist, gender neutral, or gender accurate.
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 ...
In this attempt, Vermeer sought another method of translation that would go beyond looking only at the linguistics level and consequently move translation forward from “the eternal dilemmas of free vs. faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators, and so on”, [5] which are problems existing ...