'Dynamic equivalence' and 'formal equivalence' are two approaches to
translation. The former (also known as 'functional equivalence') attempts to convey the
thought expressed in a
source text (at the expense of
literalness, original
word order, the
source text's
grammatical voice, etc., if necessary), while the latter attempts to render the text word-for-word (at the expense of natural expression in the
target language, if necessary). The two approaches represent emphases, respectively, on
readability and on
literal fidelity to the source text. There is, however, in reality 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 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 wording. Thus a
novel might be translated with greater use of dynamic equivalence so that it may read well, while in
diplomacy the precise original meaning may be the uppermost consideration, favoring greater adherence to formal equivalence.
Completely unambiguous formal translation of larger works is 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
The concept of dynamic equivalence applied to Bible translation was developed especially by the
linguist Eugene A. Nida.
Modern translations of the Bible that seek formal equivalence include the
New American Standard Bible, the
English Standard Version (the
King James Version also seeks formal equivalence, albeit to
17th-century English) and
Green's Literal Translation. The
New International Version and the
New Revised Standard Version seek a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence, while the
New Living Translation makes extensive use of dynamic equivalence.
References
★
Christopher Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil," ''
The Polish Review'', vol. XXVIII, no. 2, 1983, pp. 83-87. Includes a discussion of the terms, "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence," and of
synonyms, including, respectively,
"paraphrase" and "metaphrase."
★ L.G. Kelly, ''The True Interpreter: a History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West'', New York, St. Martin's Press, 1979, ISBN .
See also
★
The Bible version debate
External links
★
List of dynamic and formal equivalent Bibles
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
