Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. Formal equivalence is thus the quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language. The best way to do that is to take an example from the scriptures. On how to achieve functional equivalence in translation between chinese and english li suju foreign studies college, northeastern university, shenyang, liaoning 14, china abstract. 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 text and the target text, as evidenced in biblical translation. A comparative study of nida and newmarks translation theories. A crucial question constantly confronts all bible translators. 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 text and the target text, as evidenced in biblical translation the two have been understood basically, with dynamic equivalence as senseforsense translation translating the. Nida establishes four priorities as guiding principles in translating and bases for judgment, namely contextual consistency. Formal equivalence formal correspondence consists of a tl item which represents the closest equivalent of a sl word or phrase. View nida s dynamic equivalence research papers on academia.
The latter two are dynamic equivalent translations. Nida here presents his theory of the formal dynamic equivalence. Basically, a formal equivalence translation, as nida 1964, 165 states, is sourceoriented, which is. Before his time, all bible translation was done using a formal, wordforword method. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence translating approach on a literary piece of text.
Functional equivalence means that the translation gives a higher priority to the semantics of the original, bringing out the force of original text regardless of how it is worded. What is the difference between the dynamic equivalence and. Nida posited that attention should be directed towards the recipients response to the translated message. Nidas dynamic equivalence research papers academia. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence international. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in translation between chinese and english liu dayan school of foreign languages chongqing jiaotong university no. B a twofold problem formal and functional apparently haunted by the ghost of nida and an unfinished critique of the theory and practice of dynamic equivalence, boer returns after some years to complete his mission. This is a passage whose interpretation is uncertain, i.
Nida s finding in this book is basically based on the bible. There are dozens of examples, but to keep our study as simple as possible, ive tried to choose just one example that. Nidas approaches in translation are formal and dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language nida 1993. According to him, a gloss translation mostly typifies formal equivalence where form and content are reproduced as faithfully as possible and the tl reader is able to understand as much as he can of the customs. We believe this method, known as formal equivalence fe, to be the proper technique. According to nida and taber 2003, dynamic equivalence is defined. The german translation theorist werner koller classifies equivalence into denotative equivalence, connotative equivalence, textnormative equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. The dynamic also known as functional method attempts to convey the thought expressed in the source text using equivalent expressions from a contemporary language like english thought for thought. Nida s approaches in translation are formal and dynamic equivalence. Comparing versions formal and functional equivalence an explanation of the translation chart in whats in a version.
Conclusion all in all, dynamic equivalence translation principle might not suitable for all styles and in every situation, and for genre of poetry that emphasize a lot on forms, formal equivalence principle is more suitable than dynamic equivalence principle. Contextual consistency over verbal consistency dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence the aural form over the written form form which are understandable to. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself,in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon the principle of equivalent effect 1964. His major contributions to modern translation studies are the scientific study of translation and the principle of equivalence. Dec 12, 2017 formal equivalence means that the translation attempts to retain the wording and syntax of the original language as much as possible. Boers narrowly focused, rather insufficientlyresearched evaluation of. Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence and newmark.
His translation theory has exerted a great influence on translation studies in western countries. Dynamic and formal equivalence are two methods or styles used to convert source text e. This may be because, despite newmarks relevant criticisms of equivalent effect, they raise some of the same points concerning the translation process and the importance of the tt reader. A comparative study of nida and newmarks translation. Nida gave up the longterm used words throughout history, such as literal translation, free translation, and faithful translation. In dynamic equivalence translations, translators attempt to translate the messagemeaning of the originallanguage texts into an equivalent english word or expression. This article discusses the principle of equivalent effect, including propositions before nida, and comments by western and chinese translation theorists. Th e limits of dynamic equivalence the limits of dynamic. The present study aimed to investigate which of these approaches are the main focuses of the translators in the translations of the two short. Dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information nida it is a pragmatic focus on the communicative requirements of the text receiver and purpose of translation without losing sight of the communicative preferences of original message producer or function of original text. Nida proposes that dynamic equivalence provides a basis for the principle.
It presents limitations of equivalent effect and the authors viewpoint on the theory. In bible translation dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. Nidas definitions of formal and dynamic equivalence in 1964 consider cultural implications for translation. Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence and. Thomas howe, in a critique of the dynamic equivalence approach written in an edition of the christian apologetics journal vol. The terms are not found in general linguistics or translation. Comparing versions formal and functional equivalence. Carson, the limits of dynamic equivalence in bible translation, notes on translation 121 oct 1987 1, hails the triumph of dynamic equivalence in these words. In contrast, dynamic equivalence is the closest natural equivalent to the source language message nida, 1964, p.
Based on nida s theory on functional equivalence, this paper contrasts formal correspondence and. The development of equivalence, nida s equivalence theory. How far should a bible translator go in adapting the message to the language and the culture of the receptors. What dynamic equivalence is, and why it is important, needs explanation. The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, coined by eugene nida, are associated with two dissimilar translation approaches that are employed to. To get an ataglance understanding of the key differences between the two methods, dr. The difference between literal and dynamic translations of. To pave the way for the linguistic theories and trends on the pragmatic meaning or the cultural load in a certain text, it is pivotal to obtain comprehensive. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself,in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation.
Nida s formal equivalence and dynamic functional equivalence there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalence beslloc, 1931, p37, one must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent. On the contrary, he advocated two equivalence ways as the basic directions and guidelines of translation. Nida 1914 is a distinguished american translation theorist as well as a linguist. In translation theory, formal equivalence refers to translating by finding reasonably equivalent words and phrases while following the forms of the source languaage as closely as possible. For formal equivalence, the translator focuses on the message itself, that is, its form and content, and there should be a.
According to chang 1996, this would in theory put an end to the centuriesold contention between literalism and liberalism in translation. Dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information nida it is a pragmatic focus on the communicative requirements of the text receiver and purpose of translation without losing sight of the communicative preferences of original message producer or. Nidas model of translation is closely related to dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Nidas dynamic equivalence theory and poetry translation. May 15, 20 nida gave up the longterm used words throughout history, such as literal translation, free translation, and faithful translation. Equivalence and equivalent effect by nida duration. Translation theories eugene nida and dynamic equivalence. A pragmatic approach to the study of english arabic. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon. As a general rule, dynamic equivalence is dedicated to the elimination of ambiguities. Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence which in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in the both form and content.
This latter view of translation is the communicative view, and it sees translation equivalence not as a static relationship between pairs of texts in. Nida is an american translation theorist as well as linguist. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence which in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondenceand dynamic equivalence. The limits of dynamic equivalence in bible translation which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more prestigious. Pdf translation of marked word order from english into.
Nidas theory of dynamic equivalence, which is introduced in this unit, also approaches translation from a sociolinguistic perspective. One type of passage illustrates particularly well the commitment of dynamic equivalence to the practice of hermeneutics. This article overviews and responds to roland boers recent wide ranging critique of eugene a nidas theory and practice of dynamic equivalence in bible translating. Oct 21, 2012 which in the second edition by nida and taber 1982 is referred to as formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. A pragmatic approach to the study of english arabic translation. In speaking of naturalness, he is strongly against translationese formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and impact of the message. Theory and practice because dynamic equivalence eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of. To start with, nida 1964 distinguished between two types of equivalence, formal and dynamic equivalence. Nida 1964 proposed two translation methods which are formal and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself,in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon the principle of equivalent effect.
Oct 05, 2009 the terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence mask the fact that at least two distinct theoretical issues separate most translations. Dynamic equivalency posted on march 29, 2011 by aliveintheword one of the first decisions to be made when translating written work from one language to another is whether to translate literally wordforword or to translate thoughtforthought. Dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence conveys the essential thoughts expressed in a source text. He also modified his attitude towards formal correspondence which had been regarded as the opposite of dynamic equivalence in his works of the 1960s. The s formal equivalence and dynamic functional equivalence 3024 words pages. Nida and taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. Textual equivalence through pragmatics by a thesis presented. Catford in his formal linguistic model and eugene nida and his dynamic equivalence model can be very much focused on the notion of equivalence. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence translating. These translations are generally less literal on a wordforword basis but still seek to capture the meaning of the originallanguage texts. He also modified his attitude towards formal correspondence which had been regarded as the opposite of dynamic equivalence. Pdf eugene nida and translation ernst wendland dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by eugene nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation. Contextual consistency over verbal consistency dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence the aural form over the written form form which are understandable to audience over traditionally more prestigious ones. Dynamic and formal equivalence wikipedia republished.
Idiomatic expressions of the sewing frame in english and. Study of nida s formal and dynamic equivalence translating approach on a literary piece of text nazanin azimi introduction this paper tends to introduce nida. Dynamic equivalence, based upon the principle of equivalent eect nida 1964. B a twofold problemformal and functional apparently haunted by the ghost of nida and an unfinished critique of the theory and practice of dynamic equivalence, boer returns after some years to complete his mission. The model guiding the analysis was nida s notion of dynamic equivalence, which specifically emphasizes the effects that a translated text has on its target audience. For certain descriptive purposes, therefore, we can rightly oppose formal correspondence translations and dynamic equivalence translations, but in terms of the diversity of structures of particular source and receptor languages, a dynamic equivalent translation is located at the optimal position on the scale of formal correspondence. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. A wordforword replacement is often of little use, because it is only a form of words equivalent, and may not convey the force of meaning the dynamic equivalence whilst each english word in figure 3 is a counterpart of a greek word, this string of english words is not. Nidas formal equivalence and dynamic functional equivalence there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalence beslloc, 1931, p37, one must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent.
Nida puts forward dynamic equivalence in opposition to formal correspondence. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence and newmark. Eugene nida dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence guided reading eugene a. I will explore nidas formal and dynamic equivalence theory. In this, translator focuses more on the culture and linguistics expression. Aug 30, 2011 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 texts grammatical voice, etc. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in translation. With regard to equivalence, nida maintains that there are two basic types of equivalence.
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. Study of nidas formal and dynamic equivalence and newmarks. Nidas theory of translation is characterized by the distinction between two types of equivalence. However, dynamic equivalence is seeking the closet natural equivalence to the source language message. Formal equivalence intends to achieve equivalence between original text and translation text, and to some extent reflect the linguistical features. The nature of dynamic equivalence in translating eric. During the past fifty years, however, there has been a marked shift of emphasis from the formal to the dynamic dimension. Nida is secretary for translations, the american bible society. 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. Eugene nida formal correspondence in translation 1970. Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of.
Strauss, literal meaning fallacy 3 indeed, the last few years have seen a resurgence in formal equivalence as a translation theory, a trend d. The present study aimed to investigate which of these approaches are the main focuses of the translators in the translations of the two short stories. Even though the two issues are not the same, they are related, and we find the. Eugene nidaearly definitions of translation equivalence. International journal of english and education issn. The essence of dynamic equivalence is the receptors response, in nidas own term, the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language. Their purpose is to enable the receptors to understand the implications of the cognitive content or to make a corresponding emotive response without recourse to the original text. Dynamic or functional equivalence, as is well known, focuses on. Removing the paraphrase from the mix leaves us with the dynamic vs.
365 1174 1459 764 1107 602 54 1418 1573 629 1506 255 584 1212 297 828 1500 1174 1420 1102 1080 1005 1217 1214 1557 1140 287 643 1173 1197 85 948 1173 1208 81 1341 836 387 963 1473 1198 642 1353