Dynamic and formal equivalence

The term "dynamic equivalent" is also used in electrics, physics, economics and yoga.

In Bible translation dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. The terms are not found in general linguistics or translation theory but were coined by Eugene Nida. In later years he distanced himself from the former term and preferred the term "functional equivalence." ^[1][2][3]

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.

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.

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 structure. 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.

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.^[4]

A predominant use of formal equivalence

Relationship between some formal equivalence Bible translations

• King James Version (1611)
• Young's Literal Translation (1862)
• Revised Version (1895)
• American Standard Version (1901)
• Revised Standard Version (1952)
• New American Standard Bible (1995)
• New King James Version (1982)
• English Standard Version (2001)
• New Revised Standard Version (1989)
• Douay-Rheims
• Green's Literal Translation (1985)

Moderate use of dynamic equivalence

• New International Version
• Today's New International Version^[5]
• 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 Version")
• Complete Jewish Bible
• New Living Translation
• God's Word Translation
• The Message
• Contemporary English Version

See also

• Lexical markup framework
• The Bible version debate
• Translation
• Textualism in jurisprudence:
  • Original meaning (cf. formal equivalence)
  • Original intent (cf. dynamic equivalence)
  • Purposivism or purposive theory (cf. balanced/"optimal" approach)

References

1. ^ Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p51 Philip C. Stine - 2004 "That probably would not have happened if it hadn't been for Nida's ideas” (Charles Taber, interview with author, 21 Oct. 2000).7 Nida later felt that the term “dynamic equivalence” had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for ..."
2. ^ Translation and religion: holy untranslatable? p91 Lynne Long - 2005 "In order to avoid certain misunderstandings, de Waard and Nida (1986: 7, 36) later replaced the term 'dynamic equivalence' with 'functional equivalence', but they stated clearly that 'The substitution of "functional equivalence" is not ..."
3. ^ The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George - 2004 "190 For this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term “dynamic equivalence,” preferring instead “functional equivalence.”191 The idea is to produce the closest natural equivalent in the target or 188 190 Nida, ...
4. ^ 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.
5. ^ Barker, Kenneth L. "The Balanced Translation Philosophy of the TNIV". http://www.tniv.info/light/balanced.php. Retrieved 2007-11-29. 

External links

• Bible Translation Chart