The theory and practice of translation nida pdf

Eugene A. Nida November 11, — August 25, was a linguist who developed the dynamic-equivalence Bible-translation theory and one of the founders of the modern discipline of translation studies. He became a Christian at a young age, when he responded to the altar call at his church "to accept Christ as my Saviour. He graduated summa cum laude from the University of California in After graduating he attended Camp Wycliffe, where Bible translation theory was taught. He ministered for a short time among the Tarahumara Indians in Chihuahua , Mexico, until health problems due to an inadequate diet and the high altitude forced him to leave. Sometime in this period, Nida became a founding charter member of Wycliffe Bible Translators , a related organization to the Summer Institute of Linguistics.

These books contain exercises and tutorials to improve your practical skills, at all levels! According to, dynamic equivalence 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 the original receptors. In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term 'dynamic equivalence' and preferred the term 'functional equivalence'. The term 'functional equivalence' suggests not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the 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. Theory and practice [ ] Because dynamic equivalence eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of the original text in favor of a more natural rendering in the target language, it is sometimes used when the readability of the translation is more important than the preservation of the original grammatical structure. Formal equivalence is often more goal than reality, if only because one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language.