On a previous thread, a poster attacked me for being in favor of the dynamic equivalence (DE) theory of translation. This was in spite of me not ever saying that, and in fact having written against it here on the BB. So I thought that it must be time for me to rail against it again, so that the johnnie-come-latelies get the message--I strongly oppose it!!! 
First of all, consider the terminology. Eugene Nida invented the term, or at least made it public, in his groundbreaking book, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964). He wrote then, “In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response” (p. 166).
Here is how he defined the term and thus the method in his next book: “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. This response can never be identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose" (Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Tabor,The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982, 24).
What distinguishes DE from other thought-for-thought translation methods is "reader response," as you should be able to see from this quote. To Nida, the modern response of a reader to the translation ought to be the same as the response of the original readers; thus, "reader response." Some scholars have pointed out the impossibility of this hope.
At any rate, eventually Nida began to think the term DE was misused, so he changed it to "functional equivalence." In his book about Nida's career, his friend Stine wrote, "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" (Philip Stine, Let the Words Be Written. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, 51).
First of all, consider the terminology. Eugene Nida invented the term, or at least made it public, in his groundbreaking book, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964). He wrote then, “In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response” (p. 166).
Here is how he defined the term and thus the method in his next book: “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. This response can never be identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose" (Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Tabor,The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982, 24).
What distinguishes DE from other thought-for-thought translation methods is "reader response," as you should be able to see from this quote. To Nida, the modern response of a reader to the translation ought to be the same as the response of the original readers; thus, "reader response." Some scholars have pointed out the impossibility of this hope.
At any rate, eventually Nida began to think the term DE was misused, so he changed it to "functional equivalence." In his book about Nida's career, his friend Stine wrote, "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" (Philip Stine, Let the Words Be Written. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, 51).
Last edited:
