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.)
“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.)