Lably
Skip to content

Dynamic and formal equivalence

Two dissimilar translation approaches

  • 4 min read
  • 4 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Translation, Semantics and Neologism

LabDNA JourneyLabAI & Python Builds (Medha AI)Lab · Class 10–11Sentiment Analysis On TextLab · Class 9–12Prompt Engineering Lab

The dynamic- versus formal-equivalence dichotomy was originally proposed by Eugene Nida in relation to Bible translation.

Approaches to translation

The "formal-equivalence" approach emphasizes fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the source language, whereas "dynamic equivalence" tends to provide a rendering that is more natural to the target language.

According to Eugene Nida, dynamic equivalence, the term he originally coined, is the 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 a receptor of the original text. The aim is that a reader of both languages will understand the meaning of the text similarly.

In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" in favor of "functional equivalence". What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures.

A similar distinction was expressed in 1199 by Maimonides in a letter to his translator, Samuel ibn Tibbon. He wrote:

I shall premise one rule: the translator who proposes to render each word literally and adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the original, will meet with much difficulty and the result will be doubtful and corrupt. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp the meaning of the subject, and then state the theme with perfect clarity in the other language. This, however, cannot be done without changing the order of words, putting many words for one word, and vice versa, so that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates.

Maimonides comes down on the side of dynamic/functional equivalence, though perhaps not going so far as to consider the cultural function of the text. He does clearly reject formal equivalence as "doubtful and corrupt".

Sign in to keep reading

3 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Language and linguistics

Simplified Chinese charactersStandardized set of Chinese charactersSicIndicates an intentional reproduction in quotationProto-Indo-European languageAncestor of the Indo-European languagesLoanwordWord borrowed from a donor language and incorporated into a recipient languageOCLCGlobal library cooperativePhilologyStudy of language in historical sources