Dynamic and formal equivalence

Last updated

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 and target text, as evidenced in biblical translation.

Contents

The two have been understood basically, with dynamic equivalence as sense-for-sense translation (translating the meanings of phrases or whole sentences) with readability in mind, and with formal equivalence as word-for-word translation (translating the meanings of words and phrases in a more literal way), keeping literal fidelity.

Approaches to translation

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 has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors." [1] The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.

In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "functional equivalence". [2] [3] [4] What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures.

Theory and practice

Because the functional equivalence approach 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.

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 without modifying or rearranging the words in the target language. On the other hand, formal equivalence can allow readers familiar with the source language to analyze how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated idioms, rhetorical devices (such as chiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible) and diction in order to preserve original information and highlight finer shades of meaning.

Overlooked semantic differences between alleged equivalents in the source and target languages

According to Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a major problem lies in the fact that there are completely overlooked semantic differences between a lexical item in the source language and its alleged equivalent in the target language. [5] : 216 

Zuckermann provides the example of the lexical item for "angels" in three different languages: English (angels), Arabic (malāʾika) and Hebrew (מלאכים, malakhím). These three terms are used to translate each other interchangeably, as if they meant exactly the same thing. As Zuckermann puts it, "for the non-sophisticated layman, an angel is an angel is angel." [5] : 216  However, employing natural semantic metalanguage to discover in depth the exact, complex meaning of each of the three lexical items, Zuckermann points out numerous differences that were identified by Sandy Habib, as following: [5] : 216 

Angels and malāʾika seem to be perceived as being in the place to which good people go after they die. Malakhím, on the other hand, seem to be perceived as being in a place that includes the place to which good people go after they die. Angels seem to be perceived as living in a hierarchical world; thus some angels appear to be higher in status than other angels. On the other hand, no linguistic evidence has been found in the corpus that demonstrates that Muslim Arabs view some of malāʾika as being superior to other beings of their kind. Some Islamic religious sources do speak of hierarchy among malāʾika, but, as no evidence has been found in the corpus to support this idea, it can be concluded that this idea might not be known to ordinary Muslim Arabs. The same holds for malakhím. The Hebrew Corpus shows eleven occurrences of the expressions malákh rashí (lit. ‘a chief malákh’). In seven of these contexts, the expression is used as an attempt to translate the English word archangel or the Romanian word Arhanghelul. In three other contexts, it is used to talk about one of the three angels that appeared to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; in these contexts, the malákh rashí is identified as God. In the eleventh context, the expression is used to talk about the devil in Islam. As a result, it can be concluded that no conclusive linguistic evidence has been found in the corpus to support the idea that native Hebrew speakers believe that some malakhím are higher in status than other malakhím. [5] : 216 
Angels and malakhím appear to be perceived as being immortal. Their immortality stems from the notion that they are spirits, and spirits do not die. On the other hand, Arabic malāʾika’s (im)mortality does not seem to be clear, as there was no evidence found in the corpus that shows whether Muslim Arabs think that these beings die or not. [5] : 216 
The three non-human beings also differ in their visual representation/appearance. Native English speakers and native Hebrew speakers seem to have the idea that angels and malakhím, respectively, are incorporeal, but notwithstanding, they depict them in a certain way. Muslim Arabs, on the other hand, are not allowed to produce drawings, paintings, or statues of malāʾika, or even imagine what they might look like. Whereas an angel or malákh can be imagined as having two wings, Arabic malāk can have (and not ‘can be imagined to have’) two or more wings. Native English speakers depict an angel’s wings as white bird-like wings, while Muslim Arabs and native Hebrew speakers can tell nothing about the colour or appearance of the wings of a malāk or malákh, respectively. Angels are depicted as having halos above their heads or light radiating from their bodies, and malāʾika are believed to have been created from light. Malakhím, on the other hand, do not seem to be imagined with halos or light. [5] : 217 
More differences emerge when examining the relationship between the three non-human beings and people. Unlike angels, who seem to be perceived as doing only good things to people, malāʾika and malakhím seem to be perceived as beings who are capable of doing good, as well as bad things to people. Also, unlike Muslim Arabs, native English speakers and native Hebrew speakers do not have the notion that angels or malakhím, respectively, play any role in tormenting people after their death. [5] : 217 

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. [6]

Predominant use of formal equivalence
Relationship between some formal equivalence Bible translations Formal bible trans rel.png
Relationship between some formal equivalence Bible translations
Moderate use of both formal and dynamic equivalence (optimal equivalence)
Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both
Extensive use of paraphrase

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Today's New International Version</span> Updated translation of the Bible

Today's New International Version (TNIV) is an English translation of the Bible which was developed by the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). The CBT also developed the New International Version (NIV) in the 1970s. The TNIV is based on the NIV. It is explicitly Protestant like its predecessor; the deuterocanonical books are not part of this translation. The TNIV New Testament was published in March 2002. The complete Bible was published in February 2005. The rights to the text are owned by Biblica. Zondervan published the TNIV in North America. Hodder & Stoughton published the TNIV in the UK and European Union.

Amen is an Abrahamic declaration of affirmation which is first found in the Hebrew Bible, and subsequently found in the New Testament. It is used in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim practices as a concluding word, or as a response to a prayer. Common English translations of the word amen include "verily", "truly", "it is true", and "let it be so". It is also used colloquially, to express strong agreement.

Jah or Yah is a shorter name of God than יהוה (YHWH), the four consonants that form the tetragrammaton, the personal name of God: Yahweh or Yehovah, which the ancient Israelites used. The conventional Christian English pronunciation of Jah is, even though the letter J here transliterates the palatal approximant. The spelling Yah is designed to make the pronunciation explicit in an English-language context, especially for Christians who may not use Hebrew regularly during prayer and study.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bible translations</span> Translations of the Bible

The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. As of September 2022 all of the Bible has been translated into 724 languages, the New Testament has been translated into an additional 1,617 languages, and smaller portions of the Bible have been translated into 1,248 other languages according to Wycliffe Global Alliance. Thus, at least some portions of the Bible have been translated into 3,589 languages.

Partial Bible translations into languages of the English people can be traced back to the late 7th century, including translations into Old and Middle English. More than 100 complete translations into English have been written. A number of translations have been prepared of parts of the Bible, some deliberately and some projects have been abandoned.

<i>Gods Word Translation</i> English translation of the Bible translated by the Gods Word to the Nations Society

The God's Word Translation (GW) is an English translation of the Bible. God's Word to the Nations Mission Society managed and funded the translation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Living Translation</span> English translation of the Bible

The New Living Translation (NLT) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published in 1996 by Tyndale House Foundation, the NLT was created "by 90 leading Bible scholars." The NLT relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New American Standard Bible</span> English translation of the Bible

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published by the Lockman Foundation, the complete NASB was released in 1971. The NASB relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hallelujah</span> Religious interjection

Hallelujah is an interjection from the Hebrew language, used as an expression of gratitude to God. The term is used 24 times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in deuterocanonical books, and four times in the Christian Book of Revelation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Revised English Bible</span> 1989 English-language translation of the Bible

The Revised English Bible (REB) is a 1989 English-language translation of the Bible that updates the New English Bible (NEB) of 1970. As with its predecessor, it is published by the publishing houses of both the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It is not to be confused with the Revised English Bible of 1877, which was an annotated and slightly emended King James Bible.

The New English Translation is a free, "completely new" online English translation of the Bible, "with 60,932 translators' notes" sponsored by the Biblical Studies Foundation and published by Biblical Studies Press.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Modern English Bible translations</span> English Bible translations published since 1800

Modern English Bible translations consists of English Bible translations developed and published throughout the late modern period to the present.

Literal translation, direct translation, or word-for-word translation is a translation of a text done by translating each word separately without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence.

There have been various debates concerning the proper family of biblical manuscripts and translation techniques that should be used to translate the Bible into other languages. Biblical translation has been employed since the first translations were made from the Hebrew Bible into Greek and Aramaic. Until the Late Middle Ages, the Western Church used the Latin Vulgate almost entirely while the Eastern Church, centered in Constantinople, mostly used the Greek Byzantine text. Beginning in the 14th century, there have been increasing numbers of vernacular translations into various languages. With the development of modern printing techniques, these increased enormously.

The Concordant Version is an English translation of the Bible compiled by the Concordant Publishing Concern (CPC), which was founded by Adolph Ernst Knoch in 1909. The principal works of the CPC are the Concordant Literal New Testament with Keyword Concordance (CLNT) and the Concordant Version of the Old Testament (CVOT). A. E. Knoch designed the Concordant Version in such a way as to put the English reader who lacks a formal knowledge of Koine Greek in possession of all the vital facts of the most ancient codices: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus. The CPC's efforts yielded a restored Greek text, titled The Concordant Greek Text, containing all of the important variant readings found in the codices mentioned above. This was done with the intent of conforming, as far as possible, to the original autograph manuscripts. An utterly consistent hyper-literal sub-linear based upon a standard English equivalent for each Greek element is to be found beneath each Greek word. The Concordant Greek Text forms the basis of the Concordant Literal New Testament, which is more idiomatic in its English than the hyper-literal sublinear. The Concordant Literal New Testament and the Concordant Greek Text are linked together and correlated for the English reader by means of an English concordance—the Keyword Concordance—and a complementary list of the Greek elements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good News Bible</span> English translation of the Bible

Good News Bible (GNB), also called the Good News Translation (GNT) in the United States, is an English translation of the Bible by the American Bible Society. It was first published as the New Testament under the name Good News for Modern Man in 1966. It was anglicised into British English by the British and Foreign Bible Society with the use of metric measurements for the Commonwealth market. It was formerly known as Today's English Version (TEV), but in 2001 was renamed the Good News Translation in the U.S., because the American Bible Society wished to improve the GNB's image as a translation where it had a public perception as a paraphrase. Despite the official terminology, it is still often referred to as the Good News Bible in the United States. It is a multi-denominational translation, with editions used by many Christian denominations. It is published by HarperCollins, a subsidiary of News Corp.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugene Nida</span> American linguist

Eugene A. Nida was an American linguist who developed the dynamic-equivalence Bible-translation theory and one of the founders of the modern discipline of translation studies.

The earliest preserved translation of the Bible into the Mongolian language dates to 1827, but there is a written record of what may perhaps have been a translation existing as early as 1305. Since 1827, numerous other translations have been made.

Sense-for-sense translation is the oldest norm for translating. It fundamentally means translating the meaning of each whole sentence before moving on to the next, and stands in normative opposition to word-for-word translation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian Standard Bible</span> English translation of the Bible

The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published by Holman Bible Publishers in 2017 as the successor to the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the CSB "incorporates advances in biblical scholarship and input from Bible scholars, pastors, and readers to sharpen both accuracy and readability." The CSB relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

References

  1. ↑ Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation, With Special Reference to Bible Translating, 200. Leiden: Brill.
  2. ↑ Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p. 51 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
  3. ↑ 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..."
  4. ↑ 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, ..."
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2020). Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond . New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199812790. ISBN   9780199812776
  6. ↑ 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 Archived 2012-09-16 at the Wayback Machine ; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., The Comprehensive New Testament, page iii.
  7. ↑ "Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek | NWT". JW.ORG. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
  8. ↑ New Catholic Bible
  9. ↑ "KNOX BIBLE - Reviews of the new publication of this Bible". www.knoxbible.com. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
  10. ↑ "A Classic Translation Back in Print". National Review . 27 October 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.