I've never been a huge fan of the Nida formal/dynamic equivalence distinction - it can be useful but is (a) often misunderstood and (b) applies to only part of what makes a text communicate. In some reading on other ways to distinguish between translation methods I ran across this which I thought some would find interesting:
SL=source language; TT=target language
"Newmark . . . goes on to refer to the following methods of translation:
- Word-for-word translation: in which the SL word order is preserved and the words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context.
- Literal translation: in which the SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical words are again translated singly, out of context.
- Faithful translation: it attempts to produce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures.
- Semantic translation: which differs from 'faithful translation' only in as far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value of the SL text.
- Adaptation: which is the freest form of translation, and is used mainly for plays (comedies) and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually preserved, the SL culture is converted to the TL culture and the text is rewritten.
- Free translation: it produces the TL text without the style, form, or content of the original.
- Idiomatic translation: it reproduces the 'message' of the original but tends to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not exist in the original.
- Communicative translation: it attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership (1988b: 45-47)."
https://translationjournal.net/journal/41culture.htm
