Dynamic equivalence

the living language of Christian worship by Keith F. Pecklers

Publisher: Liturgical Press in Collegeville, MN

Written in English
Published: Pages: 238 Downloads: 617
Share This

Edition Notes

StatementKeith F. Pecklers.
Classifications
LC ClassificationsBX
The Physical Object
Paginationxxi, 238 p. :
Number of Pages238
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL22567868M
ISBN 100814661912
OCLC/WorldCa51294162

One of the first decisions to be made when translating written work from one language to another is whether to translate literally word-for-word or to translate thought-for-thought. Word-for-word translation is known as formal equivalence while thought-for-thought translation is known as dynamic equivalence. Few if any languages are exactly parallel in terms of words, sentence . The dynamic equivalence (DE) method was developed by the late Eugene Nida (), missionary/translator and former president of the American Bible Society. Before his time, all Bible translation was done using a formal, word-for-word method.   David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box , Port Huron, MI , [email protected] In dynamic-equivalence translations, translators attempt to translate the message/meaning of the original-language texts into an equivalent English word or expression. These translations are generally less literal on a word-for-word basis but still seek to capture the meaning of .

Functional equivalence is typically referred to as a thought-for-thought translation. This is an attempt to translate the text so it has the same effect on the current reader as it had on the ancient reader. Translations are seldom purely formal or dynamic, but do favor one theory or the other. Optimal equivalence recognizes that the form.   Here is what Nida says: "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" (Toward a Science of Translating, p. ). Dynamic and formal equivalence are two methods or styles used to convert source text (e.g. Hebrew or Greek) into another language (e.g. English). The Dynamic (also known as functional) method attempts to convey the thought expressed in the source text using equivalent expressions from a contemporary language like English ('thought for thought.   It is a translation standard set by Nida for transforming source language to target language, which is in contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented at. In his book Toward a Science of Translating (), he introduced the term “dynamic equivalence.

the following explanation of dynamic equivalence was offered on the first page of the book: The older focus in translating was the form of the message, and translators took particular delight in being able to reproduce stylistic specialties, e.g., rhythms, rhymes, plays on words, chiasmus. Translations: Dynamic Equivalence or Essentially Literal. by Keith Sharp. For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his.   In the world of Bible translations there are two primary models or theories for bringing the ancient text into contemporary language. One is usually referred to as formal equivalence (or “literal” or “essentially literal”). The other is referred to as “dynamic” or functional equivalence. Formal equivalence involves trying to make a translation that changes as little as .

Dynamic equivalence by Keith F. Pecklers Download PDF EPUB FB2

Dynamic Equivalence Defined by Michael Marlowe, July In this article I will explain the meaning of the term "Dynamic Equivalence," as it is used in the writings of Eugene A.

Nida. I will also draw attention to statements in which Nida acknowledges limitations of the "dynamic equivalence" method.

Question: "What is dynamic equivalence in Bible translation?" Answer: Dynamic equivalence is a method of Bible translation that seeks to reproduce the original text of Scripture using modern language and expression to communicate the message of the Bible. In translating a verse, dynamic equivalent translation is less concerned with providing an exact English word.

Dynamic Equivalence traces the history of liturgical language in the Western Christian tradition as a dynamic and living reality. Particular attention is paid to the twentieth century Vernacular Society within the United States and how the vernacular issue was treated at Vatican II, especially within an ecumenical : Keith F.

Pecklers SJ. Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence — which in the second edition by Nida and Taber () is referred to as formal correspondence —and dynamic correspondence ‘focuses attention on the message itself,in both form and.

No theory is perfect. But let me give you an example of the logical outcomes of dynamic equivalence. I preface this example with the simple observation that the gospel of John makes heavy use of the words “truth” and “glory.” In How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler teaches that we must come to terms with the author we’re reading.

What. The translator would not simply write an equivalent English word in place of each Greek word as is done below (Figure 3). A word-for-word replacement is often of little use, because it is only a form of words equivalent, and may not convey the force of meaning (the dynamic equivalence).

Whilst each English word in Figure 3 is a counterpart of a Greek word, this string of English. Dynamic Equivalence translation means to choose the translation which is closest to the original language on a natural basis.

The so-called closest mainly in regards of the sense, and the translator focus more on the meaning and spirit of the original text, rather than rigidly adhere to the structure and form.

for the dynamic equivalence approach. Carson, "The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation," Notes on Translation (Oct ) 1, hails the triumph of dynamic equivalence in these words: "As far as those who struggle with biblical translation are concerned, dynamic equivalence has won the day`and rightly so."File Size: KB.

Start studying The Lion and the Lamb Ch. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. equivalence: formal correspondence and textual equivalence ().

Nida’s model of translation is closely related to dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. The German translation theorist Werner Koller classifies equivalence into denotative equivalence, connotative equivalence, text-normative equivalence and pragmatic Size: KB.

Links could be provided to "Translation" from "Dynamic and formal equivalence," "Dynamic equivalence" and "Formal equivalence." Nihil novi (talk)14 December (UTC) I would actually support this article staying in Bible translation since the majority of Translation Studies has moved away from using such binary terms, at least since.

Against the Theory of "Dynamic Equivalence" The debate surrounding how to translate the Bible is one that will probably never go away. If someone were to ask me if I favor dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence I would have to say on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday I favor formal equivalence and on Thursday, Friday and Saturday I favor dynamic.

Dynamic Equivalence is also called functional equivalence. It attempts to render the text in a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought manner. It is not so much concerned about the grammatical form of the original language as it is the thought or meaning of the original language.

The dynamic translation wants to bring across the meaning of the. “Dynamic Equivalence” in Practice (An Interaction with E.A. Nida) by Michael Marlowe, July My purpose here is to illustrate and to critically examine how Eugene Nida applied principles of "dynamic equivalence" in his books, by using an example given in his book The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E.J.

Brill, ), pp. Practical Implications of a New. In other words, the reality of dynamic equivalence may turn out to be more dynamics than equivalence. A more “readable” translation may sacrifice substance to style. 1 These dangers are, one regrets to say, all too often realized in the NIV As a result of simplification and paraphrase, the fine points of Scripture are sometimes lost, and.

dynamic equivalence (D-E), literary texts, Masnavi, Rumi Abstract. The present paper reports a research which aimed at investigating the level of dynamic equivalence (D-E) in four translations of forty five didactic couplets chosen from the First Book of Rumi’s Mathnavi.

In order to do so, a parallel corpus-based study was carried out based. Eugene A. Nida (Novem – Aug ) was a linguist who developed the dynamic-equivalence Bible-translation theory and one of the founders of the modern discipline of Translation Studies.

Dynamic equivalence translation is more pleasing and understandable to the modern ear, but it often tends to be more a paraphrase or a targum than a translation of the biblical text. And it downplays the significance and the relevance of the ancient culture and context, the ‘salvation history,' for the divine message of the Bible.

Dynamic equivalence is useful when the original language is very different from the target language, making a more literal translation difficult to understand. The term “dynamic equivalence” is usually used in the context of Bible translations.

The New Living Translation (NLT) is an example of a translation uses dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text’s grammatical voice, etc.), while formal equivalence attempts to render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural.

Members of the Committee on Bible Translation explain how accuracy is directly tied to meaning in translation work and offer insig. Formal equivalence, aimed at achieving equivalence as exact as possible, is the only legitimate goal in translation, and rough equivalence commonly mis- represents the text, causing interpretation problems.

Translation of idioms is very different from paraphrasing common to dynamic equivalence. Dynamic Equivalence responds to a key challenge of our time, and, indeed, of much of the history of the Church: how to speak the Word of Life in human words.

Pecklers succinctly maps the struggles that have accompanied the Church's liturgical proclamation and celebration of Price: $ Narrative Analysis: ' Dynamic Equivalence ' Words | 6 Pages. Dynamic Equivalence Nida first introduced the term “dynamic equivalence” in the eighth chapter of his book Toward a Science of Translating (Nida, ), in a section with the heading “Two Basic Orientation in.

Later in the same period, the code model of communication on which dynamic equivalence was based was challenged by the inference model of relevance theory. All this theoretical writing and postulating has been paralleled by or related to developments in the world of general translation theory and science.

Some versions follow the formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation method, which is preferred by study groups, while other versions provide a dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translation for reading purposes. The NCB, a formal equivalence translation with a 7th grade reading level, is both highly readable and accurate.

The Dynamic Equivalence principle leads to a more accessible, readable, enjoyable text But it is not the best choice for careful textual study.

Anyone who regularly reads the NIV would be well advised to also read one or more of the more literal translations to give a clearer picture of what the Holy Spirit inspired the original authors to write.

The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more prestigious.2 Dynamic equivalence displays its triumph in the publishing houses, in the continuing parade of File Size: KB.

then dynamic equivalence may be applied to adaptations of different types of text, such as book to film adaptations. Film adaptations are popular, largely because the story has already written. Eugene Nida, the father of the "dynamic equivalence" Bible translation philosophy, has passed away at age His work and ideas had a lasting influence on many of the Bibles on our bookshelves—and on the way that scholars today approach the task of translating Scripture.

Dynamic equivalence could apply to all textual translations, not just Bible translation. If this is the case, then dynamic equivalence may be applied to adaptations of different types of text, such as book to film : Sarah Welch.Eugene Nida, the father of the “dynamic equivalence” Bible translation philosophy, has passed away at age His work and ideas had a lasting influence on many of the Bibles on our bookshelves—and on the way that scholars today approach the task of translating Scripture.

Paul Helm over at Helm's Deep offers a thoughtful but (in my opinion) problematic post on Dynamic Equivalence. And since comments are turned off over there, I write these thoughts here: 1) I would suggest that Paul Helm has fallen into the same trap that many have in terms of the label Dynamic Equivalence in.