GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
21:02 Mar 14, 2004 |
English to Arabic translations [PRO] Art/Literary - Printing & Publishing / Principles of Translation | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: muhammad turman United States Local time: 01:04 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
3 +1 | النقل التأويلي أو الترجمة التأويلية |
| ||
1 +2 | ترجمة الاستعارة |
|
النقل التأويلي أو الترجمة التأويلية Explanation: أو الترجمة التأويليةالمتصرفة ترجمة (الانجيل) التأويلية Dynamic Equivalence is the method whereby the translator's purpose is not to give a literal, word-for-word rendition but to transfer the meaning of the text as would be best expressed in the words of the receptor [native] language. This differs from what is referred to as "complete" or "formal" equivalence, the more literal approach Reference: http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/accuracy.htm |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
ترجمة الاستعارة Explanation: أو التقابل الديناميكي الذي طوره يوجين نايدا في العديد من دراساته في الترجمة ويفترض هذا المفهوم أن على المترجم أن يقوم بإنتاج مقابل للنص الأصلي في لغة الترجمة بحيث يكون هذا المقابل قادرا على خلق استجابة مشابهة لتلك الاستجابة التي ابداها قاريء النص في لغته الأصلية Dynamic equivalence is a translation principle which was described by the Bible translation statesman Eugene Nida. With this principle a translator seeks 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 "response", 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 themselves, how words connect to each other (syntax, grammar), words in communication contexts (pragmatics), connotation, etc. We always want a hearer to understand the same meaning as did hearers of the source text. That, essentially, is what Nida was saying. But dynamic equivalence, as a concept, puts an overly narrow focus upon the response of hearers, perhaps sometimes at the expense of other factors which are also crucial to adequate Bible translation, such as accuracy of the message, the uniqueness of the original historical setting, etc. The term dynamic equivalence has often been mischaracterized. Because of this, and also because most translators recognize that translation adequacy calls for attention to a multiplicity of factors, most translators today do not use the term. Instead, as they characterize how it is often necessary to use different FORMS of the target language to encode the same MEANING as the original, they prefer to use terms which are easier to understand such as idiomatic translation, meaning-based translation, closest natural equivalent, and functional equivalence. A lay term used by some people is thought-for-thought translation. None of these terms is exactly the same as dynamic equivalence, although, like dynamic equivalence, all focus upon preservation of meaning, rather than form, when there is inevitable tension between the two. Reference: http://www.nizwa.com/volume15/p33_40.html |
| |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question. You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy. KudoZ™ translation helpThe KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also: Search millions of term translations Your current localization setting
English
Select a language Close search
|