sagittariusDynamic equivalence vuk(DE) equivalence is the central problem in translating practice. Nida distinguishes two types of
equivalence, formal and dynamic. By formal equivalence, he “focus attention on the message itlf, in both form
and content”(Nida, 1964: 159) with aims to allow readers to understand as much of the SL context as possible.
柯林斯
Dynamic equivalence emphasizes more on the effect the receiver receives the message with the aim to “relate the
receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture” (ibid). Later, realizing that there is no
absolute symmetry between languages (Snell-Hornby, 2002: 13-22; Wilss, 2002: 134-157), he prefers the term
“functional equivalence” in the n that “equivalence can be understood in terms of proximity, i.e. on the basis of
degrees of cloness to functional identity” (Nida, 2003: 87). This view of functional equivalence implies different
从零开始学法语degrees of adequacy from minimal to maximal effectiveness on the basis of both cognitive and experiential factors
Dynamic equivalence is a translation principle which was described by the Bible translation statesman Eugene Nidaskiphop. With this principle a translator eks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language wording will trigger the same impact in its hearers that the original wording had upon its hearers. As some have mistakenly concluded, Nida never pitted "meaning" against "impact" (or reader "respon", as he called it). Nida, as do all informed translators, understood that meaning is a totality ("bundle") which includes meanings of parts of words (morphemes), words themlves, how words connect to each other (syntax, grammar), words in communicatio
n contexts (pragmatics), connotation, etc. We always want a hearer to understand the same meaning as did hearers of the source text. That, esntially, is what Nida was saying.
But dynamic equivalence, as a concept, puts an overly narrow focus upon the respon of hearers, perhaps sometimes at the expen of other factors which are also crucial to adequate Bible translation, such as accuracy of the message, the uniqueness of the original historical tting, etc. The term dynamic equivalence has often been mischaracterized. Becau of this, and also becau most translators recognize that translation adequacy calls for attention to a multiplicity of factors, most translators today do not u the term. Instead, as they characterize how it is often necessary to u different FORMS of the target language to encode the same MEANING as the original, they prefer to u terms which are easier to understand such as idiomatic translation, meaning-bad translation, clost natural equivalent, and functional equivalence. A lay term ud by some people is thought-for-thought translation. None of the terms is exactly the same as dynamic equivalence, although, like dynamic equivalence, all focus u
pon prervation of meaning, rather than form, when there is tension between the two.
Functional equivalence
占地面积英文Functional equivalence translation is a subcategory of what many call idiomatic translation.
mean歌词A newer theory of translation is function-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called paraphrasing). 托福考试准备时间In this type of translation, the translator tries to make the English function the same way the original language functioned for the original readers.
2020考研英语一答案However, in trying to make the translation easy to read, the translator can omit concepts from the original text that don't em to have corresponding modern English equivalents. Such a translation can produce a readable text, but that text can convey the wrong meaning or not enough meaning. Furthermore, function-equivalent translations attempt to make some books readable on levels at which they were not intended. For instance, Song of Songs was not written for children. Paul's letter to the Ephesians is very sophisticated and not intended for novices.
