| Formal Equivalence |
Website Links For Dynamic |
Information AboutFormal Equivalence |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DYNAMIC AND FORMAL EQUIVALENCE | |
| translation | |
| biblical criticism | |
|
These two approaches represent emphases on Readability and literal faithfulness to the original text, respectively. However, it should be noted that dynamic equivalence stops short of Paraphrasing . There is no sharp boundary between formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase; they represent rather a spectrum of translation possibilites. Because dynamic equivalence subordinates adherence to the original text, in favor of a more natural translation, it is used when the readability of the translation is more important than preserving the original wording. For example, a Novel would be translated with dynamic equivalence so that it reads well, but in international Diplomacy , the exact original meaning may be very important, so formal equivalence would be more desirable. Unfortunately, completely unambiguous formal translation is more often a goal rather than a reality, because different languages usually contain words and concepts which have no direct equivalents in other tongues. In such cases dynamic translation is the only option. The more the source language differs from the target language, the more dynamic the translation must be, because literal translation becomes less and less understandable. But formal equivalence allows readers familiar with the source language to see how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving original Idiom s, Rhetoric al patterns (such as Biblical Hebrew poetic parallelism), and diction. For these reasons, dynamic equivalence translations of the Bible are often used for everyday reading and devotionals, while serious Bible students usually prefer a formal equivalence translation. The dynamic equivalence principles were first described by the linguist Eugene Nida . The New Living Translation is an example of a Bible translation made with dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence of 17th Century English to the Hebrew and Greek source manuscripts is exemplified by the King James Version . The New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version are the most popular translations in contemporary use, other than the King James version . Both of these versions seek a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence. For an overview of the debate between the two methods of translation, see The Bible Version Debate . EXTERNAL LINK |
|
|