• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Formal" vs "Functional"

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="John of Japan, post: 2778063, member: 5820] "Optimal equivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should not be changed...unless comprehension demands it.”
[/quote]
But form doesn't = meaning, does it? Obviously some of the form should be used in translating; it should not be neglected. However, much of the time the form has to be altered in order for the translation to make sense in the receptor language.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal equivalence but also recognizes its limits.”
Click to expand...

Yes, there are weaknesses associated with formal equivalence and strengths. Then too, functional equivalence has both its strengths and weaknesses.

D.A. Carson has an essay on The Limits Of Functional Equivalence.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
OE seeks to preserve ambiguities that were in the original."
Click to expand...

The above is a tricky one. Just how far does that go? I think New Testament scholars as well as Old Testament scholars would differ among themselves on this principle. Looking at footnotes from a number of English translations I see many that say "There is uncertainty about the original."
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
The chart is all messed up. The CSB and NIV should be in the center, GW should be to the right of the NLT. The ESV should be to the right of the NKJV.
As much as it was denied CNE is the same thing as functional equivalence. It's nothing new, It's the same thing. CNE is just another marketing slogan.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
Neither, because both are terms invented by Eugene Nida, who used the term "formal" to look down on literal methods.

One author wrote, “The label ‘formal equivalence’ is often used by defenders of dynamic equivalence theory, perhaps in part because this makes it so easy to caricature and thus dismiss essentially literal translation theory as a theory that places too much emphasis on the order of words in the original language” (Wayne Grudem, Chapter One, "Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God?" in Translating Truth, p. 10).

Nida himself wrote, "literalness: quality of a translation in which the form of the original is reproduced in the receptor language in such a way as to distort the message and/or the patterns of the receptor language” (Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 203).

As for functional equivalence, it has been described by both secular and Christian scholars as leading to or becoming a form of paraphrase. So I disagree with it.
Click to expand...


Which "major," well known Bible translations come to mind when you think of the term "functional equivalence" (in your opinion).
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
It would be interesting to see where the New English Translation (NET) would belong on this chart.
Click to expand...
That chart seems to be a "Christian advertisement" for God's Word translation. RipponRedeaux was right it is inaccurate. The GW translation goes to the extreme right of the chart. NET maybe center of the chart or to the right.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RipponRedeaux said:
What constitutes "good literary form? Understandable? Poetic? ESV-type "literary eloquence"?
Click to expand...

Good literary form depends on the biblical genre being translated. But it involves a lack of awkwardness, being easy to read without being distracted by the syntax, etc.

Is it possible to preserve all the information in the text? There is no trade-off? Because in translation by experts they acknowledge that it is impossible to preserve everything. It's a give and take proposition.
Click to expand...
Again, this is a complicated issue, depending on the text. In a narrative it is entirely possible to preserve all of the information in the text. In John's epistles this is also true, but not so much in Paul's. Then there are other genres. So if you are asking for a simple answer, there is none, but the effort is made in OE to preserve the information.

The Preface of the ESV claims that its translational methodology "seeks to carry over evry nuance of meaning" from the original text. Do you actually think that is possible in ANY translation?
Click to expand...
The key word is "seeks." Whether every nuance can be carried over or not, the attempt must be made.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RipponRedeaux said:
What about the marketing slogan of "Complete Equivalence" which is not a term I made up?
Click to expand...
What about it?? :Unsure I've already said that this was not Dr. Price's choice, but that of an editor. (He told this to me personally.) Therefore it is obvious that "optimal equivalence" represented his translation theory while "complete equivalence" did not.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
alexander284 said:
Which "major," well known Bible translations come to mind when you think of the term "functional equivalence" (in your opinion).
Click to expand...
The first translation done on purpose with dynamic equivalence (the term was changed to "functional" later) was the Today's English Version (TEV, Good News for Modern Man, now in revision the GNB), done at Nida's request by liberal Baptist Robert Bratcher. Other translations done with FE include the NET and the NIV (to a lesser extent), but not something like The Message, which is a purposeful paraphrase. Nida objected to paraphrases being called DE, and that is why he changed his term to FE.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
Very poor translation; functional/dynamic equivalence.
Click to expand...
That can be taken several ways. It's functional, i. e. dynamic equivalence. Therefore, it is a very poor translation.

It's a poorly done functional equivalence translation.

Which one is it? Or is there another option?

Are all functionally equivalent translations poorly done?

Are some functionally equivalent translations done well?

Are some formally equivalent translations poorly done?

Are Martin Luther's Bible translations (at least five during his life) poor just because he did them in a functionally equivalent manner? I know you're going to say since you don't speak or write German you wouldn't know. But you have read articles about Martin Luther's translational style.

The CSB, NIV, NABRE, NJB and NET Bible are all a blend of formal and functional. That's why they are considered to be standing in the center of honest translational charts. They are mediating translations --neither fish nor fowl.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
The Message, which is a purposeful paraphrase. Nida objected to paraphrases being called DE, and that is why he changed his term to FE.
Click to expand...
The Message is not a paraphrase. It's unduly free.

You can't expect people to know which is which when you just give the initials of FE. It could stand for either formally equivalent or functionally equivalent. You have to express the terms by using the full wording.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
The first translation done on purpose with dynamic equivalence (the term was changed to "functional" later) was the Today's English Version (TEV, Good News for Modern Man, now in revision the GNB), done at Nida's request by liberal Baptist Robert Bratcher. Other translations done with FE include the NET and the NIV (to a lesser extent), but not something like The Message, which is a purposeful paraphrase. Nida objected to paraphrases being called DE, and that is why he changed his term to FE.
Click to expand...
In the past, I've heard that the NET is "less" FE, so to speak, than the NIV, so I find your statement intriguing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top