Language
Country/Area
No result found
Mysterious language conversion: Do you know what cultural differences are hidden in translation?
Translation is not only the replacement of words, but also the transmission of culture. Eugene Nida proposed two theories of translation in semantics: dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. The fundamental difference between these theories lies in their different understandings of information transmission. Dynamic equivalence focuses on the meaning of the source text, while formal equivalence focuses more on preserving the linguistic structure of the original text. These developments in translation theory not only influenced the way the Bible was translated, but also reflected differences in understanding and expression between different cultures.
The quality of dynamically equivalent translation means that the information of the original text has been effectively converted into the receiving language, so that the recipient's response is basically consistent with the original recipient's response.
In the later period of Nida, he chose to change dynamic equivalence to functional equivalence, emphasizing that the "function" of translation can be regarded as an attribute of the text. Functional equivalence shows the correspondence between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the translated text in the target culture, and the concept of "function" also reflects the way people interact in different cultures.
The translator should first understand the meaning of the topic and then express the topic clearly in another language, and in doing so, one has to change the order of words, replace multiple words with one, or vice versa, making the topic Become clear and intelligible in the translated language.
Such a translation concept has its roots in history. The medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides made this point clear in a letter to his translator in 1199. He argued that blindly pursuing literal translation would lead to dubious and worrying translation quality in terms of linearity. This concept still plays an important role in translation practice today.
In the practice of translation, a challenge that many translators often face is balancing the difference between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence seeks to retain the vocabulary and grammatical structure of the original text, while dynamic equivalence focuses on the fluency and readability of translation, conveying the meaning and emotion of the original text. Especially when literal translation has difficulty conveying concepts, dynamic translation may be more beneficial for understanding.
Formal equivalence allows readers familiar with the source language to analyze the meaning of the original text, while dynamic equivalence focuses on allowing readers to feel the same emotions in the target language.
Such cultural differences also lead to minor differences in translation, such as the different meanings of the word "angel" in Arabic, Hebrew, and English. These subtle semantic differences may lead to religious and cultural differences on the life, immortality, and evil power of angels. This is what needs to be carefully considered during the translation process.
The translation of the Bible is a prime example of the tension between dynamic and formal equivalence. From the Dewey-Reames Bible in 1610 to the new version to be released in 2100, translators have adopted various translation strategies, ranging from the extreme of formal equivalence to the extreme of dynamic equivalence, each with its own unique Style and purpose.
In the practice of Bible translation, formal equivalence often involves precise literal translations, such as the Gold Medal Bible, which allow readers to understand the nuances of the original text. However, when a specific cultural concept cannot be expressed directly in another language, translation often needs to create new words or borrow words from the source language to fill the cultural gaps.
Dynamic equivalence translations sometimes focus on preserving readability, while formal equivalence allows readers to understand how the text is expressed from the perspective of the source language.
Faced with such challenges, modern translators need to possess deeper cultural literacy in order to retain the original meaning while also giving new life to the text. From ancient times to the present, the art of translation lies in how to find the perfect balance between the two, so that more people can appreciate the beauty of culture. When we think about translation, are there cultural differences and elements that shape our understanding that deserve deep exploration?
