• 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!

The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

Status
Not open for further replies.

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.)
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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."
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nine letters? – it’s only one in Hebrew. Vav
This first example is a very poor example of DE.

Vav (or waw) usual glosses as “and”, “or”, “but”…
Waw is as I described it: a tiny connecting word. 'And' would be a perfectly good translation, but something needs to be there to connect verse 3 to verses 1 & 2.

Every verse in Psalm 119:41-48 begins with waw, but you would scarcely know that from the NIV (1984).

Psalm 119:41-48, NKJV. 'Let your mercies come also to me, O LORD.....'
So shall I have an answer to the one who reproaches me.........
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth......'
So shall I keep Your law continually......'
And I will walk at liberty.......
I will speak of Your testimonies also before kings........
And I will delight myself in Your commandments......
My hands also I will lift up to Your commandments......'


Psalm 119:41-48, NIV (1984). 'May your unfailing love come to me, O LORD......
Then I will answer the one who taunts me.......'
Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth......'
I will always obey your law......
I will walk about in freedom......
I will speak of your statutes before kings......
For I delight in your commands.....
I lift up my hands to your commands.......'
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I now want to look at unsatisfactory D.E. translations as seen in the NIV (1984).
The first one may not have much to do with D.E. but it has come up in a passage that I am preaching on tomorrow:

Isaiah 51:5, NKJV. 'My righteousness is near,
My salvation has gone forth,
And My arms will judge the peoples:
The coastlands will wait upon Me,
And upon My arm they will trust.'

Isaiah 51:5, NIV (1984). 'My righteousness draws near speedily,
My salvation is on the way,
And my arm will bring justice to the nations..
The islands will look to me
And wait in hope for my arm.'

My point here is that God's 'arm,' in the singular represents is strength and power, but when, quite rarely, it is in the plural, it has reference to His tenderness and compassion. 'And underneath are the everlasting arms.' As I shall show in my sermon, the promises in Isaiah 51:4-5 concern the Lord Jesus, and God's justice on those who wait for Him will be done with compassion (Psalm 85:10; Romans 3:26). 'My arms will judge the people.' The word here is plural. The NIV (1984) obscures this point and the preacher who uses it has the unhappy choice either of not mentioning it, or casting doubt upon the Bible version in front of the congregation.

Further examples as I have time.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
My point here is that God's 'arm,' in the singular represents is strength and power, but when, quite rarely, it is in the plural, it has reference to His tenderness and compassion. 'And underneath are the everlasting arms.' As I shall show in my sermon, the promises in Isaiah 51:4-5 concern the Lord Jesus, and God's justice on those who wait for Him will be done with compassion (Psalm 85:10; Romans 3:26). 'My arms will judge the people.' The word here is plural. The NIV (1984) obscures this point and the preacher who uses it has the unhappy choice either of not mentioning it, or casting doubt upon the Bible version in front of the congregation.

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.
;)
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.)
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!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

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.
;)
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!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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."
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?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It does seem to be more of a thought for though t than a word for word though,
Why don't you take some extra time and proofread your posts?
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!
Every version involves interpretation. You've been making the same foolish statements for years.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
How many times does it have to be said that there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation?
Do we go for the renderings that might sound awkward, but more accurate, or to try to make it readable as a primary consideration?
If renderings are awkward can they really be considered more accurate?
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

You have convinced me.
It is time to burn my copy of the NIV (1984) and become a KJVO.
Readers will note that I have made no mention of the KJV or the T.R. at any point in this thread, nor have I quoted from it. I want to keep this thread well away from those two topics which have been done to death several times on this board and no doubt will be again ere long.
Since the topic on "Drinking" has been closed, I feel I have no other choice but to μεθυσθωσιν.
;)
.It sounds as if you've already started :Biggrin
 
Last edited:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
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.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Simply because a rendering is not completely literal does not make it dynamic equivalence.
DUH! Well, that's certainly news.
“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).
No translation can be verbatim. That's sheer nonsense.
"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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
I have stated there are more formal translations, more striving to be more literal, as in word for word when able to be!
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Readers will note that I have made no mention of the KJV or the T.R. at any point in this thread, nor have I quoted from it. I want to keep this thread well away from those two topics which have been done to death several times on this board and not doubt will be again ere long.
I hoped it was obvious that it was a joke. The "KJVO" philosophy eliminates the need for a discussion ... the matter is settled aprori. :Whistling

It sounds as if you've already started :Biggrin
I read on THIS SITE that for Christians, it only means "grape juice" (like Jesus made at the wedding). :Tongue :)
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
Yes there can be, as at times it might read and sound strange into English, but more what was intended in the originals!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top