The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

What is usually completely missing in these discussions is the meaning of "dynamic equivalence." You have to define your terms, folks. Nida himself defined it thus:

“dynamic equivalence: 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. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE.”

Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation, 1982, 200.

The term was then misused so much (in exactly the same way some here on the BB misuse it) that according to Nida's friend Philip Stine, “Nida later felt that the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term ‘dynamic’ to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined ‘dynamic equivalence’ in terms of ‘functional equivalence,’ he began to use this latter term instead. “Functional equivalence” was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard” (Let the Words Be Written, by Stine, p. 51).

So dynamic equivalence is not simply paraphrasing. (More tomorrow.)

 

Your loss.

 

JJ said on 10/23/2012 :"Most scholars still use the DE term."

 

I will provide snips from the Introduction To The New Living Translation

"The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style."

"A dynamic-equivalence translation,...focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax."

[The translators]" translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.

On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable."

 

You have convinced me.
It is time to burn my copy of the NIV (1984) and become a KJVO.
Since the topic on "Drinking" has been closed, I feel I have no other choice but to μεθυσθωσιν.

 

It does seem to be more of a thought for though t than a word for word though, and there is still the problem of at times we get the translators interpretation that may or may not be what the original intended meaning was!

 

Not really, as His bible version of choice, the Nkjv, is better to use for pastoral studies!

 

I think his main point is that for being more accurate to the overall text, more often than not, its seen in the formal translation!

 

It comes back to the bottom line translation philosophy, do we try to go word for word wherever possible, or seek the more dynamic way when possible?
Do we go for the renderings that might sound awkward, but more accurate, or to try to make it readable as a primary consideration?

 

Why don't you take some extra time and proofread your posts?

Every version involves interpretation. You've been making the same foolish statements for years.

 

How many times does it have to be said that there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation?

If renderings are awkward can they really be considered more accurate?

 

Simply because a rendering is not completely literal does not make it dynamic equivalence. Until Nida wrote Toward a Science of Translating in 1964, kicking off the field of translation studies, there were a number of terms used for non-literal renderings. Here are some definitions which I hope will show that what has been discussed here so far is not DE.

“Free translation is usually taken to concentrate on conveying the meaning of the ST [source text] disregarding the formal or structural aspects of the ST.” Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, 49.

“free translation: the rendering of the meaning of a statement, expression, text, etc., in another language, without following the original accurately.”
Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, 1954, 77.

“Paraphrase: The statement of the contents of a passage, text, etc., in the same or another language, without following the original text verbatim” (Pei and Gaynor, p. 159).

"Free Translation A type of translation in which more attention is paid to producing a naturally reading TT [target text] than to preserving the ST wording intact; also known as sense for-sense-translation." Dictionary of Translation Studies, by Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, p. 62.

"Sense-for-sense Translation A general term used to describe the type of translation which emphasizes transfer of the meaning or 'spirit' of an ST [source text] over accurate reproduction of the original wording." Shuttleworth and Cowie, p. 151.

 

Now you've got it. I've seen nothing to indicate that the examples so far are really DE rather than just thought for thought.

 

DUH! Well, that's certainly news.

No translation can be verbatim. That's sheer nonsense.

John Purvey described his role as a translator of the second 'Wycliffe' Bible as going for a sense-for-sense method. Meaning that he followed sentence-for-sentence rather than word-for-word. The first 'Wycliffe" version was slavishly following the Latin and it turned out to be a dud of a translation. The second was written in the vernacular of the people --to be understood.

 

I have stated there are more formal translations, more striving to be more literal, as in word for word when able to be!

 

I hoped it was obvious that it was a joke. The "KJVO" philosophy eliminates the need for a discussion ... the matter is settled aprori.

I read on THIS SITE that for Christians, it only means "grape juice" (like Jesus made at the wedding).

 

Yes there can be, as at times it might read and sound strange into English, but more what was intended in the originals!