In translating Bible international diplomacy Eg.

Examples of formal equivalence in translation. There are a variety. In brief it is true that Bayars types of equivalence have already been tackled by western theorists but her illustration of equivalence enhances its importance in translation studies. On the other hand dynamic equivalence gives more emphasis on the aspect of natural.

The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience Fawcett 1997. A personal example I can give is watching the Simpsons as a kid. The two have been understood basically with dynamic equivalence as sense-for-sense translation with readability in mind and with formal equivalence as word-for-word translation.

The New International Version NIV attempts to strike a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence. Because care is taken to render the text as close as possible to the original it makes it easier to study the Scripture in a. This again reflects the intent of the translator.

Words and ideas may not be present in the target language or there may be a great deal of baggage that is. It allows the person to interpret the Scriptures for themselves. 1 equivalence at word level 2 equivalence above word level 3 grammatical equivalence 4 textual equivalence and 5 pragmatic equivalence.

Formal equivalence attempts to translate the text word-for-word literally eg. Im British and didnt know a lot about American culture. Nida cites his examples from Bible translation where the phrase Lamb of God would be rendered into Seal of God for the Eskimos because the lamb doesnt symbolize innocence in their culture.

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. Its cold in here. Some place it is a dynamic equivalence translation while others place it as leaning more towards formal equivalence.