Book Catalog   Tracts Catalog   Retail Store  Bible Resource Store   Energion Publications

Participatory Study Series Pamphlets

Comparing Versions - Formal and Functional Equivalence

An explanation of the Translation Chart in What's in a Version?

by Henry Neufeld

In translation theory, formal equivalence refers to translating by finding reasonably equivalent words and phrases while following the forms of the source languaage as closely as possible. It is often referred to as "literal translation." In the first chart, I rate 20 translations based on how closely they follow the forms of the source language. In making this determination, I took a single passage in all of the versions, and took the ratio of the total words used in translation to the number of words that can be strictly linked to the forms of the source language. Simple word reordering necessary for the translated text to follow word order rules of the receptor language are not included, but I also count one word off for every sentence break not reflected in the source text and for each instance of substantial reordering, such as moving a clause from one sentence to another. I also count off one word for any word which is not reflected in the translation. After this I modify the value somewhat according to some other factors in the translation including translation of idioms, conversion of measures, and other such issues.

It is very important to understand that the measure of "formality" is not the equivalent of the measure of accuracy. In this index, and the following index of idiom translation, the issue is the approach to translation; accuracy as such is not the issue. In order to be accurate a translator may need to stick close to the form of the source language, but on the other hand careful paraphrasing may be necessary to make the translation clear and understandable.

Formal Equivalence (Literal)

Idiomaticity or Functional Equivlance

Functional equivalence, sometimes called dynamic equivalence or meaning based translation, is a translation method in which the translator attempts to reflect the thought of the writer in the source language rather than the words and forms. The translator will read a sentence or other unit of thought, try to understand it as well as possible, and then write that thought in the target language. The forms of the source language are not important, because they are not the same as the forms of the target language.

This index is a measure of the extent and type of rephrasing used in translating idioms. I checked thirty verses containing Greek or Hebrew idioms in each of the translations. A word for word translation is rated at no points, an understandable but basic and dry translation is rated at one point, while translation with an English idiom with a similar impact to the idiom in the source language receives two points. The scale values are based on the number of points possible.

Again, don't read this index as a value judgment on various Bible versions. The New American Standard Bible, for example, aims to be a word-for-word translation. Its high score on formal equivalence and low score on idiomaticity reflects the intent of the translators. The Message, on the other hand, scores very poorly on formality, but has a practically perfect score on idiomaticity. This again reflects the intent of the translator. Neither tells us how accurately either version reflects the intent of the authors in the source language. That requires separate and much more extensive study.