Abstract
ABSTRACT Eugene Nida’s concept “dynamic equivalence” is well-known all over the world – or is it? In this paper I argue first that Nida himself didn't understand the implications of his concept very well, and later, in shifting to the term “functional equivalence,” ruined it completely; then that it is effectively a rhetorical concept, in which the equivalence sought is not between two functions but between two rhetorical situations. To develop this, the paper folds Nida’s concept into Aristotle’s three channels of persuasion, logos (logical persuasion), ethos (authoritative persuasion), and pathos (emotional persuasion), and explores the implications for Nida’s own work in Bible translation; and then tackles problems faced in translating another sacred text, namely the Chinese Mengzi. Interwoven with these arguments are reports of classroom discussions on them with a class of Chinese MA students in Hong Kong.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
