Translation Theory
By T. David Gordon, 1985. resource
While not everyone who drives an automobile needs to understand the theory behind the internal combustion engine, someone does need to know this theory. I may be able to drive my Pontiac without any knowledge of internal combustion engines, until the Pontiac breaks down. Then, I must find someone (presumably a mechanic) who does in fact know enough theory to get the Pontiac running again.
The same is true of translation theory. It is not necessary for everyone to know translation theory, nor is it even necessary for pastors and teachers to know everything about translation theory. It is necessary for pastors and teachers in the American church at the end of the twentieth century to know something about translation theory, for two reasons. First, it will affect the way we interpret the Bible for our people. If we are completely unaware of translation theory, we may unwittingly mislead our brothers and sisters in our interpretation. Second, there are so many English translations available, that no contemporary pastor will be able to escape the inevitable questions about which translations are superior.
It is not my intention to provide anything like an exhaustive approach to either translation theory or semantic theory (relax, I'll define this word later). Rather, I intend to discuss briefly the more important observations, which may be useful to the pastoral ministry.
1. Communication has three parties.
Translation theory shares a number of concerns with what is commonly called communication theory. Perhaps the most important observation which the communication theorists have produced for translators is the recognition that every act of communication has three dimensions: Speaker (or author), Message, and Audience. The more we can know about the original author, the actual message produced by that author, and the original audience, the better acquainted we will be with that particular act of communication. An awareness of this tri-partite character of communication can be very useful for interpreters. Assuming that an act of communication is right now taking place, as you read what I wrote, there are three dimensions to this particular act of communication: myself, and what I am intending to communicate; the actual words which are on this page; and what you understand me to be saying. When the three dimensions converge, the communication has been efficient.
If we know, perhaps from another source, what an individual author's circumstances are, this may help us understand the actual message produced. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letters from Prison" are better understood by someone who knows the circumstances under which they were written rather than by someone who is oblivious to mid-20th century American history. If we know information about the author's audience, this may also help us to understand the message itself. John Kennedy's famous, "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech is better understood if one understands the apprehensions which many West German citizens had about American foreign policy during the early 1960s (and, knowing the audience was German may help explain why he did not speak this sentence in English!).
Recognizing that in addition to the message itself, there are the two other components of author and audience, the interpreter attempts to uncover as much information as possible about the author and audience. This is why biblical scholars spend so much time attempting to locate the circumstances of a given epistle; they are trying to discover information about author and audience, which will help complete the understanding of the particular act of communication represented by the message.
At this point, an important warning needs to be expressed. For students of literature whose original audience and author are not present (i.e., dead), we only have direct access to one of the three parties in the communicative process: the message itself. Whereas we would be profited by having direct access to author and audience ("Paul, what in the world did you mean about baptizing for the dead?"; or, "How did it hit you Galatians when Paul said he wished his troublers would castrate themselves?"), it would be incorrect to suggest that we must have such access for any understanding to take place. Frequently one encounters the extravagant statement to the effect that "one cannot understand a biblical book unless one understands the author's (or audience's) circumstances." The problem with such statements is that they imply that we can have no understanding without access to information which simply does not always exist. We haven't any idea who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, or why, other than what may be indicated in the letter itself. Does this mean that we can't understand it in any sense? I think not. We just have to recognize that information, which would assist the act of interpretation, is, in this case, missing.
Related to this warning is a second. For Protestants, scripture itself is authoritative. Our reconstructions, often highly conjectural of the historical circumstances under which a given biblical work was written and read, are not authoritative, by my understanding of Protestant theology. Those reconstructions may assist our understanding of the biblical text, but they are not, in and of themselves, of any religious authority.
Finally, we might add that the essential error of many exegetical theories is their exclusion of one or more of these three parties from consideration. While many important debates are continuing to influence interpretive theory, our evaluation of these debates would do well to retain a role for each of the three above-mentioned dimensions.
2. Formal and Dynamic Equivalence
One of the ongoing debates about translations revolves around the question of whether, and in what degree, the translation should reflect the syntax, or form, of the original language. All translators agree that the translation should reflect faithfully the message of the original, but all are not agreed on whether the translation should adhere closely to the grammatical forms of the original language.
Translations can be located on a spectrum, which would have, at one extreme, rigid adherence to the form of the original language (formal equivalence), and at the other extreme, complete disregard for the form (not the message) of the original language (dynamic equivalence). An interlinear would come the closest to the first extreme, followed by the NASB. At the other extreme would be the NEB and TEV. In between would be the RSV and NIV, with the RSV leaning more toward a formal equivalence, and the NIV leaning more toward a dynamic equivalence.
It is probably fair to say that most contemporary linguists favor the dynamic equivalence approach in theory, though they might be disappointed in the various attempts at producing one. The reason for preferring to reproduce the thought of the original without attempting to conform to its form is that all languages have their own syntax. While the syntax of one language may be similar to the syntax of other languages, it is also dissimilar as well. Thus, if we attempt to adhere to the formal syntax of another language, we reproduce forms which are abnormal or confusing, if not downright distracting in the target language.
For example, Greek tends to have very long sentences, whose various clauses are arranged in a logically hierarchical fashion. That is, there will be a number of dependent clauses connected to an independent clause. This type of sentence structure, perfectly normal in Greek, is called hypotactic (clauses are arranged logically under one another). English, by contrast, is not so comfortable with long sentences, and does not provide any easy way of indicating which clauses are dependent upon others. Our sentence structure is called paratactic (clauses are arranged logically alongside of one another). If we attempt to reproduce, in English, sentences of the same length as the Greek original, our audience will not be able to follow our translation. Ephesians 1:3-14, for instance, is one sentence in Greek, with well-defined subordinate clauses. If we attempt to reproduce a sentence of this length in English, the result will be so awkward that few, if any, English readers would be able to follow it. Consequently, translators must break the longer Greek sentences into shorter English sentences.
For the pastor and teacher, it is important to be able to recognize the hypotactic structure of the original language, because it is frequently of theological and ethical significance. For instance, there is only one imperative (independent clause) in the Great Commission -- "make disciples." All the other verbs are dependent. The other clauses help to describe what the commandment means. Most English translations, however, obscure this matter by translating the Great Commission as though it were a string of equivalent imperatives. What's worse, they tend to treat one of the dependent clauses as though it were the major (independent) clause ("Go"). So the teacher or pastor needs to be able to understand what is going on in the structure of the original language, without necessarily trying to reproduce it in an English translation.
There are other differences between the two languages. Greek typically uses passive verbs; English prefers active verbs. Greek typically makes nouns out of verbs (making "redemption" as common as "redeem''). Speakers of English are not as comfortable with these abstractions; we are happier with verbs. A dynamic equivalence translation will commonly reproduce the meaning of the Greek in a more natural manner in English. In 2 Thess 2:13, for instance, pistei aletheias, is translated "belief in the truth" (formal equivalence) by the RSV, but "the truth that you believe" (dynamic equivalence) by the NEB. The latter, while not any more accurate than the former, is a little more natural, and thus more easily understood.
A classic example of the difference between English and Greek syntax is evidenced by the difference in their respective employment of the participle. First, the Greek participle is much more common than the English. But the Greek participle is also used differently than the English participle. Greek commonly employs the participle in an attributive fashion, as a verbal adjective. This is very rare in English. James Taylor does sing about the "The Walking Man," but this is rare outside of artistic expression. We would normally produce a relative clause, "the man who walks." Because of the differences in the way the two languages use their respective participles, we simply cannot translate a Greek participle with an English participle in many cases, without being obscure or ambiguous. Dikaiothentes in Romans 5:1 should not be translated, "having been justified" (NASB: formal equivalence), but, "since we are justified" (RSV: dynamic equivalence).
There are problems, however, with dynamic equivalence translations. Since the translator is "freer" from the grammatical forms of the original language he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are formal equivalence translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong. For instance, in Romans 8:3, Paul uses the phrase: dia tes sarkos. A formal equivalent translation, the RSV, renders this "by the flesh," which is faithful to the original but somewhat ambiguous in English. The NIV renders this much more precisely, by the phrase, "by the sinful nature." Unfortunately, the NIV is precisely wrong here, because Paul is not talking about a lower nature, or a sinful nature at all. In fact, he is not speaking anthropologically, but redemptive-historically. In this particular case, I believe we would be better off with the ambiguous "flesh," and have to ask what, 'flesh' means for Paul, than to have the more precise but utterly un-Pauline "sinful nature."
Another problem associated with dynamic equivalence translations is related to their use as study Bibles. Since a given word may have a number of meanings, it is frequently impossible, and more frequently confusing, to attempt to translate a given Greek word with the same English word in every case. Consequently, the dynamic equivalence translation can give a more specific rendering in English, being unbound by an attempt to reproduce the same Greek word in the same English manner. This produces better understanding, frequently, of individual sentences or clauses. However, it does not permit the English reader to know when the same Greek word lay behind two different English words. Since the only way to know what a word means is by first examining its full range of uses, there is no way for the English reader to know what words are behind the English words found.
For instance, when Paul says he could not address the Corinthians as pneumatikoi, but rather as sarkinoi (1 Cor 3), he employs the adjectival forms of what we normally translate "Spirit" and "flesh." And, in Romans 8 (as well as elsewhere), it is clear that life in the Spirit is redeemed life; whereas life in the flesh is unredeemed life. If the adjectives in 1 Cor are translated "spiritual," and "fleshly," the reader can see the correspondence to other Pauline passages, and understand that Paul is saying, in effect, "I could not address you as redeemed people, but as unredeemed people." But the NIV construes sarx as "sinful nature" in Rom 8, and sarkinos as "worldly" in 1 Cor 3, with the result that the reader of this translation is not aware that in the original the same root form was employed. The conclusion of this is that the dynamic equivalence translation, when done well, renders in more precise and more vivid English particular expressions. However, it makes it more difficult to compare individual passages with parallel passages elsewhere.
In any given congregation, a variety of translations will be present. The teachers in the church must have the competence to discern which one represents the original most accurately in English in any circumstance. In my judgment, none of the contemporary translations is manifestly superior to the others. Each is a blend of strengths and weaknesses, due to the difficulty of the task.
From the pulpit, of course, some versions can be excluded rather easily. Paraphrases, while useful to illustrate a point, should never be used as the basic sermon text, because they reflect so thoroughly the opinions of the paraphraser. Also, children's Bibles, such as the Good News, and, to a lesser degree, the NIV should not be used as the basis of a sermon directed toward the entire congregation. The NASB should not be used, simply because its English is atrocious. Its rigid adherence to the formal equivalence principle, while making it highly useful in the study, renders it completely inappropriate in a setting where communication is important.
The NIV should not be used from the pulpit, in my judgment, because it is a sectarian translation. It is a self-confessedly "evangelical" translation, which excluded non-evangelicals from the translation process. It is therefore ecclesiastically unacceptable (it excludes from the outset people who don't call themselves "evangelical," just as the Kingdom Translation excludes people who don't call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses). In fact, even for study purposes, one will have to be cautious about the evangelical bias reflected in this translation, whereby the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of evangelicalism have not been offset by a more "inclusive" committee.
Specifically, the NIV shows many signs of being individualistic, experientialist, and revivalistic (I am speaking about the NIV New Testament; I haven't evaluated the NIV Old Testament thoroughly yet). At the same time, the NIV ought to be in the minister's study because it is a good illustration of the demands of a dynamic equivalence translation, and it is also very successful at many points. The RSV, reflecting the breadth of the church, a high style of English, and a reasonably accurate representation of the original text, is perhaps the preferred text for pulpit use.
3. Translation is a theological task
It has become increasingly clear that translation cannot really be performed in a theological vacuum. When a variety of linguistic options present themselves, theological factors can influence the decision to choose one option over the other. In fact, such factors should influence the translation. The resolution of the translation question about how to translate telos in Romans 10:4 is resolved in large part by resolving larger questions about Paul's theology; how he understands the relation between the older testament and the Christ event, etc. Since theology is to be determined by the Bible, and since translating the Bible is determined, at least in part, by theological considerations, it is easy to see that there is something of a circle here. Fortunately, it is not a vicious cycle, because if one is willing to entertain sympathetically a variety of options, one can grow in the confidence with which one evaluates a given translation. One must never pretend, however, that translation is a step of "pre-exegesis" or "pre-interpretation." The first step of interpretation is translation. This step will influence all other steps, so it must be approached with the entire arsenal of theological tools.
Semantic Theory
It is appropriate now to move to some consideration of dealing with the meaning of individual words (commonly called lexical semantics). A lexicon in the hands of an over-imaginative preacher may be the deadliest of all human instruments. In terms of sheer percentages, more pulpit nonsense may be attributable to a misunderstanding of how words communicate meaning than any other interpretive error. Since the technical study of linguistics began in the early nineteenth century, a number of very valuable insights have been discovered by the linguists. What follows is an attempt at providing some of their most useful insights for those who want to teach and preach faithfully.
1. Semantic Field and Context
Most words can mean a number of things. Take the English word, "run." It can appear in the following (and many more) contexts:
The athlete is running.
Her nose is running.
We scored a run in the sixth inning.
I have a run in my stocking.
Does your car run?
My computer runs on Windows.
For how long is the movie running?
You want to run that by me again?
His sermons seem to run on forever.
She's running the flag up the pole.
Jackson is running for President.
Who left the water running?
Enough, already. It is obvious that most words can mean a number of different things. How do we know what a word means in a given circumstance? Well, we don't just choose the one we prefer. In fact there are two components to meaning: semantic field and semantic context.
By semantic field, we mean the full range of ways the word has and can be used (an example is the above, partial semantic field for "run"). By examining the "field" of possible meanings, we begin to narrow the options. Normally, there are still too many options, so we have to take another step. The second step is to determine the semantic context. If "run," for instance, can refer to rapid, bipedal locomotion in some contexts, we can eliminate that option in contexts where there are no legs or feet. If "run" can mean "flow," or "drip," it is a possible way of understanding it where noses and faucets appear, but not where liquids do not appear. In everyday speech, we do this kind of comparison to semantic context so rapidly and unreflectively that we are not normally aware of doing it. But we do it nevertheless, and normally with great accuracy. It is imperative that we do this with biblical literature as well. No word brings its full semantic field with it into any given context. Yet many fanciful pulpit statements are due to the attempt to do this very thing.
2. "Root" Meanings
Many people speak of "root meanings." Many people speak of ghosts. Neither exists. Apparently, when people speak of "root" meanings of words, they are attempting to find the distilled essence, or the common semantic range of the word in each of its contexts. This may, by dumb luck, work in some circumstances, but it won't work in most. What common "root" meaning is there in the word "run" which can account for the variety of uses listed above? Is it motion? Perhaps, for the athlete, the flag, even the nose (which doesn't move itself, but its contents do). But is there any "motion" involved in the statement that a person is running for an office? Is any motion taking place when a movie "runs" for six weeks? Is a "run" in a stocking a movement of some sort? I fail to see how there is, without redefining the word "motion" to include virtually everything. And if we do this, then we aren't learning anything specific about the term in question (This is the practical deficiency of the Componential Analysis approach to Semantics; if one finds an element common enough to be related to all the various uses, it isn't specific enough to be any real help in any given context). In actual fact, we don't really know why people use terms in such a broad range of ways as they do. But the answer certainly doesn't lie in the fact of some alleged "root" meaning, common to all uses. Thus, for interpretation's sake, it is better not to speak of "root" meanings at all. Just look at the entire semantic field, and then limit that field by the contextual considerations.
This doesn't mean that there are no similarities in the variety of a term's uses. If we return to "run," we can determine several "sub"-fields. We can see "run" used of liquids, to indicate they are flowing. We can see "run" used with machines to indicate that they are operating as they should. We can see it used in reference to putting one foot ahead of another repeatedly, in rapid succession, which would embrace the athlete, and, by extension, the "runs" in a baseball game (which are a short-hand reference to someone "running" around the bases). But these fields do not appear to be related to each other, and worse, these fields do not account for the stocking or the flag. Perhaps we ought to just bring "root" meanings out once a year, on October 31st, and then put them back for the rest of the year.
3. Etymologies and Semantic Change
Etymology is a perfectly valid field of study. Etymology is the study of the history of a word's usage. It has the historical benefit of demonstrating to us what a word might have meant in a given period. One thing etymologists have discovered, of course, is that words change over time. That is, people apparently use terms in an increasing variety of ways, extending known usages, and coining new usages. Thus, the history of a word's usage is not necessarily any help in determining its meaning in a particular context. And certainly it is not the case that the "earliest" known meaning is the "true," "real," or, need I say it, "root" meaning. "Gay," for instance, might well have meant "happy" or "carefree" in certain places in certain times. It most emphatically does not mean that today in San Francisco. Do not be misled; a "happy" hour at a "gay" bar may be a very miserable experience for a heterosexual teetotaler.
The biblical interpreter is not particularly interested in what a term may have meant several centuries prior to the time in question. Rather, the biblical interpreter wants to know what range of meaning a term had in the period in question. Etymology is not particularly helpful as a guide to the meaning of a term in any given context. Semantic context is the more reliable guide.
4. Polyvalency
You may run across (oops, another use of "run") this term from time to time, so you may as well know what it means. "Polyvalency" refers to the ability of a given term to have a number of meanings in any given historical period. "Run" is polyvalent. It is important for the interpreter to be aware of the full range of possible meanings of a given word, before determining what it means in its given context.
5. Words and Concepts
For the sake of clarity, it is helpful to distinguish between a word and a concept. Most words can be employed to denote a number of concepts, and most concepts can be addressed by using a range of terms. Thus, charis is a word; grace is a concept which can be labeled in a variety of ways. So, if you want to study, "The Grace of God in the New Testament," you would certainly include not only a word study of charis, but also passages which refer to God's gracious activity without employing that particular term. For instance, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard reflects God's gracious character, as those who come along late in the day receive equal recompense with those who have labored all day. God graciously gives the kingdom not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, who come on the scene a bit late, redemptive-historically speaking.
6. Semantic "Minimalism"
One of the best axioms to apply when attempting to discover the meaning of any given word was first coined by Ferdinand de Saussure and his followers. The best meaning of a given term is the meaning which contributes the least to the overall meaning of the sentence. In most communication acts, we do not "load up" a given word with a lot of meaning. Rather, we speak in paragraphs and sentences -- the individual words have little meaning in and of themselves, but much meaning when tied to one another. Many seminarians and preachers seem to be unaware of this, for they frequently interpret the Bible as though its individual words were almost magical, possessing great truths and mysteries in six or seven letters. There are very few technical terms in any language, which are more heavily "loaded" than most words.
Concluding Observations
If one were to state briefly the results of linguistic study in the last few generations, one would certainly have to refer to the importance of context. Linguistics has made us repeatedly aware of the fact that the fundamental communicative unit is the sentence, not the word. Individual words, removed from the context of a sentence, rarely communicate effectively. Words strung together, mutually supporting and interpreting one another, can communicate very effectively. For biblical students, this means that we must look at the larger unites of communication (the sentence and paragraph) at least as seriously as we look at individual words. We must be aware of the fact that a given word can signify a number of different things in a number of different contexts.
Personally, I would like to see more sermons on whole chapters of scripture, and even on entire books, and fewer sermons on a verse here or there. If a person can produce a single 20-minute distillation of Romans 1-11, he can certainly handle Romans 6:3 when it shows up. If the contextual emphasis of contemporary linguistics can help us see the "forest" of a biblical book, as opposed to merely the "trees" of individual words, it will have done us and God's kingdom a great service.
Rabu, 11 April 2012
#6. Translation Theory
Some Principles of “Common-Language” Translation
by William L. Wonderly resource
The Bible Translator 21/3 (July 1970), pp. 126-37.
William L. Wonderly is UBS Regional Translations Coordinator for the Americas based in Mexico.
A number of readers of The Bible Translator are already acquainted with the writer’s book Bible Translations for Popular Use; 1 the present article is an attempt to summarize, in a non-technical way, some of the main principles outlined in it. For further details, both of theoretical basis and of concrete biblical examples, the reader is referred to the book itself.
We are here considering chiefly the matter of Bible translation into the so-called literary languages—languages that are spoken by relatively large numbers of people, which represent a complex and socially stratified society, and which have a literary tradition such that the well-educated or “cultured” person is expected to have a command of the language superior to that possessed by the uneducated person. In such languages, Bible translations have traditionally been made without much attention to the differing levels of language represented by this social stratification and have thus been, in effect, translations designed for the educated reader. Even in non-literary languages, where the factors of social stratification are absent or less marked, translators have frequently exploited the potential resources of the language at a level that tends to be above the reach of the average reader.
It is, of course, far easier to produce a translation in which no restrictions are made and in which the translator can draw upon the whole potential of the receptor language without regard to the level of preparation of his readers. For one thing, the translator himself is apt to be an educated person whose use of the language is superior to that of his intended readers; and unless he is both perceptive and willing to sacrifice some of his erudition in the interest of communicating the gospel, his line of least resistance is to produce a translation on a higher level of language than is familiar to his readers.
In order to explore some of the factors that must be taken into consideration in translating for readers of limited or non-specialized biblical background, we may think in terms of certain dimensions of language difference—that is, of factors that make the speech of certain groups different from that of other groups within the same major language. Leaving aside the matter of geographical differences, we may here consider the dimensions of (1) socio-educational level, (2) situational variety, (3) time, (4) in-group speech (including religious language), and (5) translationism or interference from other languages.
1. Socio-Educational Level: The “Vertical” Dimension
In a complex society, groups of different social level employ different dialects or varieties of language, even when the language is the “same”, as in the case of English, Japanese, Arabic, and so on. Since language proficiency has in itself been made a prime factor in education in these societies, these differences are correlated to a great extent (but by no means exclusively) with degree of education and reader experience; hence we use the term socio-educational level.
There is thus a gradation from upper or educated speech to lower or uneducated speech. At the upper level, the language contains erudite vocabulary and elaborate literary forms beyond the reach of the uneducated reader, while at the lower level it contains forms that are considered substandard or vulgar; but the important thing is that there is a common core or overlap in which are to be found the really essential features, of both vocabulary and grammar, of both upper and lower levels.
This overlap is diagramed in Figure 1, in which the whole bar represents the entire language in all of its levels; the upper levels (educated language) are represented by sections A and B, and the lower levels (uneducated language) by sections B and C. Section B, the area of overlap, is common to both levels. This central section represents the level of language that is used by educated persons and is also either used or understood by uneducated ones. Section A represents the resources of the language used only by the educated; section C, those that are used by the uneducated but not accepted by the educated. It is important to note that the dialect of any given person or group corresponds to a vertical segment of considerable extension on the bar, and not to a single point, and that in fact any given dialect or level of speech represents a substantial part of the whole bar. That is, people at any level use a large part of the total resources of their language. Note also that a wavy line is used to separate A and B, indicating that this boundary is quite flexible and depends on the degree of education of the speaker; whereas the boundary between B and C is relatively fixed due to standards of “correctness”.
It is the area B of overlap that makes effective communication possible across socio-educational dialect boundaries, and that makes these dialect levels all part of the same language. And it is this area of overlap that is the key to preparing Bible translations (and other materials) in what we shall call common language, by which we mean a level of language that is accessible to the lower group and at the same time acceptable to the upper group.
These twin criteria of accessibility at the lower level and acceptability at the higher level are especially important. If the materials are not accessible or within the reach of the reader, then reading will not be a fully rewarding experience, and the reader may become discouraged or lose interest; if, on the other hand, they are not on a level acceptable to the upper group, the lower group will not accept them either, as the standards of this group are based largely on the norms set by the more educated people.
2. Situational Variety: The Dimension of Functional Variation
The second dimension is that of situational variety. People behave, dress, and speak differently in different social situations, ranging from formal on the one hand to casual and intimate on the other. We shall not here attempt to define the specific differences, except to point out that the speech of a more formal occasion, with its more carefully worked out sentences and use of rather higher level vocabulary, differs widely from that appropriate in a casual situation among friends, with its greater proportion of slang, purposely incomplete sentences, and so on. People at any given socio-educational level thus have different situational varieties in their speech; the less formal varieties are no less “correct” than the more formal ones—in fact, to use a formal variety in a casual or intimate situation would be entirely inappropriate, and just as “incorrect” as to wear a tuxedo 2 on the golf course.
The dimension of situational variety is shown in Figure 2 as a left-to-right dimension, and by the use of the two dimensions now presented we may roughly classify any Bible translation or other piece of literature in contemporary language. In preparing a Bible translation that is accessible to inexperienced readers, we need not only to keep from going too high in level, but to avoid a style that is too formal. In other words, we shall keep downward and toward the left on our diagram, but without either going so low as to be unacceptable or so far toward informality as to be considered inappropriate for the subject matter.
On Figure 2 we have attempted to classify in terms of these dimensions, although highly impressionistically, the language used in the New English Bible (NEB), the J. B. Phillips version (JBP), and Today’s English Version (TEV).
3. Time: The Chronological Dimension
The Bible translations shown on Figure 2 are all in contemporary or present-day language. Since many of our translations date from earlier periods, they cannot be adequately classified in terms of the two dimensions presented above. The dimension of time must be added, since they are in an archaic or semi-archaic form of the language, depending upon when they were first produced. Even more recent versions, especially if they are direct revisions of earlier ones, frequently contain archaisms of one degree or another.
In Figure 3 we show the time dimension from front to back on the threedimensional figure, with the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 as an example of an archaic version. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), not shown on the diagram, would lie somewhere between the front and back and be classified as semi-archaic.
4. In-Group Speech: Religious Language
Certain lexical and grammatical features are peculiar to restricted groups of speakers within a given language. Examples are slang, jargon, technical language (including theological language), and so on. Religious language is actually another case of language that is restricted to one group or another, and it is often possible to tell what religious in-group (e.g. Protestant or Catholic, conservative or liberal, etc.) one belongs to by the vocabulary and style he uses.
Much of the religious language of Christians is derived from the traditional versions of the Bible, with extensions to liturgical use, prayer, and speaking about religious matters. It therefore contains archaic features not used by people outside the group, and any effort to produce a Bible translation for the “uninitiated” should avoid such specialized forms. Bible translations for general use should not only be in language that is entirely contemporary but should avoid in-group restrictions.
5. Translationism: Interference from Other Languages
Our traditional versions of the Bible, and the in-group religious language that is in turn influenced by them, are not only archaic (using language forms that are no longer in current use); they also use language forms that never were in current use. This is due to the interference from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin features of vocabulary, grammar and style that has come about in the process of translating. We sometimes refer to this as translationism. It is most noticeable in the carrying over of Hebrew and Greek idioms into a language where they do not fit (blessing I will bless, die the death, son of perdition), but is more subtle (and perhaps a greater impediment to communication) in matters of style. For example, the style of the Pauline Epistles, with their heavy use of verb-derived nouns and of intricately related subordinate clauses, is carried over into many of our traditional Bible translations to produce a style which is really foreign to the genius of the receptor language. Of course, readers who have had considerable education or religious instruction can, with a certain effort, figure out a large proportion of the meaning that was intended; but this is far from the kind of translation which communicates to the reader what the original text communicated to its readers.
It may thus be said that the present-day speaker or reader who has mastered the style of language used in a traditional Scripture version has usually learned an in-group variety of his language that no one speaks or uses outside of religious situations. He has managed to learn it as a result of diligent church attendance or Bible reading, often enough because be has been reared in a religious environment. When persons not familiar with the religious variety of their language are confronted with such a traditional Bible translation, they must somehow adjust to this new language form before the content of its message can become really meaningful to them. Many people of course reject the special language form—and with it the message—rather than make the adjustment.
6. Reader Capacity and Overloading
Readers differ in the levels at which they can effectively utilize written materials. If we draw a graph in which the horizontal axis represents the flow of reading matter and the vertical axis the degree of difficulty of the materials (or technically, their communication load), we may use a horizontal line at a given height to represent the horizon of difficulty (or “threshold of frustration”) which a reader or class of readers may tolerate. In Figure 4, line A represents the horizon of difficulty of an educated middle class speaker, line B that of an inexperienced reader from a lower social dialect. The solid wavy line represents a piece of reading matter that is adequate for the educated middle class reader; it has peaks and troughs of difficulty, but fluctuates around the horizon of reader A in such a way as to be now challenging, now relaxing, now just on his level. The dotted wavy line represents a different piece of reading matter, designed for the inexperienced reader. Note that if the more difficult material is given to reader B, it will be above his horizon so much of the time that he cannot use it effectively and will become discouraged; conversely, if the easier material is given to A, it will be beneath his horizon so much of the time that he will soon lose interest. At each reader’s level, the reading matter must fluctuate in difficulty somewhere around the reader’s horizon, but should occasionally rise above it in order to challenge him. Without such challenge, even if the general level is satisfactory, the reader may lose interest; and with too many peaks above the horizon he may become discouraged.
If a Bible translation is to be accessible to the reader on the lower level, it should therefore be kept generally within his horizon of difficulty, but with occasional peaks to challenge him; however, the use of difficult words and expressions should be reserved primarily for (1) items in which the semantic content is such that no simple expression can be found and (2) places where the content is so easy that a higher level expression can be used for rhetorical effect without blocking communication. In the first instance it is frequently necessary to use the principle known in information theory as redundancy, whereby the unknown or difficult expression is made less difficult through building more familiar expressions into the context in a way that will either directly explain the difficult part or else help the reader to be able more nearly to guess what it means.
By this means one can avoid overloading the communication channel. That is, it is possible to increase the communication load (i.e. the difficulty) semantically (i.e. in terms of content) when tbe subject matter so requires, or to increase it in terms of lexical or grammatical structure for certain rhetorical purposes; but if one increases both factors simultaneously, overloading results, with consequent blocking or impeding of communication.
7. Producer Language and Consumer Language
Another factor to be considered is the difference between producer language and consumer language. Everybody can consume (i.e. hear or read) over a wider range on the vertical scale than he is able or willing to produce (i.e. speak or write). The producer language of a given reader is more familiar and comprehensible to him than his consumer language, and as a general practice one should seek to keep a Bible translation within the producer level in preparing reading materials. However, one should also utilize the resources of the reader’s consumer level from time to time, both to challenge him and to develop his reading ability. Frequently, therefore, it is best to operate within the producer level as a general norm but to have the resources of the consumer level as a reserve which may be tapped when the subject matter is such as to require it.
The degree to which a writer will keep within the producer level will also depend upon the purpose of the reading material itself. Since the primary purpose of a Bible translation is to communicate basic information, the surest way to accomplish this is to keep as nearly as possible within the producer language; on the other hand, when one is dealing with literature whose main purpose is to give the reader added experience and to raise his level of reading ability and use of the language, he will naturally introduce words and expressions that will serve this purpose, while still keeping within the bounds of tolerance of the horizon of difficulty of the intended readers.
8. Techniques to Maintain a Common Level: Vocabulary
Various specific techniques may be mentioned for producing materials that are at once accessible and acceptable. In terms of vocabulary, when there is a choice between synonyms of a higher and lower level (e.g. purchase: buy: grant: give), one may choose the lower one so long as it is within the limits of acceptability and translational fidelity. In the case of terms which have no one-word equivalent on the popular level, descriptive phrases may be used (e.g. blaspheme: talk against God; divination: guessing the future). Frequently it is necessary to use qualifiers or other contextual definition alongside certain words that would otherwise be difficult or ambiguous (e.g. law is ambiguous in biblical usage, but Today’s English Version frequently translates it unambiguously as Law of Moses).
It should be pointed out here that the use of vocabulary lists based on word-frequency is of quite limited value in preparing literature at this level. These lists are of some use in preparing materials on a more elementary level, to train the beginning reader to recognize words that he will encounter frequently; but they do not necessarily reflect the ease with which a given word will be recognized in a particular context. This is due to various factors. (1) Frequency lists are usually based on written rather than spoken materials, and hence do not directly reflect people’s overall acquaintance with words. (2) High frequency of words is usually due to the frequency with which people have to use them, not necessarily to their actual knowledge of such words (bread is more frequent than onion, but both are well known). (3) Many words occur with a high frequency precisely because they are highly ambiguous and can be used in so many senses, including senses unfamiliar to the reader. For example, a list would fail to tell us that mad, though frequent enough, is seldom used popularly in its literary sense of “crazy”. High frequency words often have meanings in upper-level speech that are not the same as the meanings attached to them by readers at lower levels. (4) Perhaps the most serious difficulty with word lists is that they are based upon gross or overall frequency and not upon the frequency with which a word appears in a specific context. What makes for readability is not so much the use of words that are well known per se, as the use of words that are normal for their specific contexts. A vast multitude is a more readable expression than a vast woman; even though woman is no doubt a more frequent word, it is less likely to appear (and is therefore stranger) in this particular context.
To achieve optimum readability or accessibility for the inexperienced reader, the writer should therefore use words in their natural or expected combinations, rather than using (purposely or otherwise) unusual lexical combinations. Such unusual combinations, if employed by skilful writers, may be quite effective ways of heightening interest when it comes to experienced readers, but they should be used sparingly in materials for inexperienced ones.
This same principle applies to figurative language, which is in fact a special case of the use of unusual combinations. Studies of reader ability have shown that good readers have little difficulty with figures of speech, but that poor readers have great difficulty. It is therefore important to keep figurative language to a minimum and to limit it primarily to figures that are in common use or that fit within the normal patterns of figurative speech in the receptor language.
9. Techniques: Grammatical Structure
In the area of grammar, there are certain types of constructions that are less frequent at the lower socio-educational levels than at the higher ones. In English these include, among others, the so-called past perfect tense, the passive voice, and the use of non-restrictive clauses introduced by who or which. Although not entirely inaccessible in terms of consumer language, such constructions should be used sparingly, with an attempt to keep their overall frequency from differing too widely from the overall frequency with which they appear in the producer language of the intended readers.
Another basic factor, and one which employs insights derived from recent developments in transformational linguistics, is the use of grammatical constructions that to a greater or lesser degree approximate kernel sentences. 3 By kernel sentences we mean, rather non-technically, those basic constructions from which derived constructions can be formed by grammatical transformation. In English, the active transitive verb construction John hit Bill is, for example, one kernel form; from it the passive construction Bill was hit by John may be derived. Although writing exclusively in kernel sentences would result in a choppy and childish style, the judicious employment of a high proportion of kernel or near-kernel constructions makes for a high degree of accessibility for the new reader. This is seen in several ways.
For one thing, the use of near-kernel constructions results in events being expressed as verbs rather than nouns (e.g. accept instead of acceptance), and abstract qualities as adjectives or adverbs rather than nouns (e.g. good instead of goodness); certain psychological studies have indicated that this not only provides a closer correspondence between linguistic forms and the real world but may also be much closer to the way people actually think. The use of verbs instead of verb-derived nouns also forces the writer to specify the participants (subject and object), thereby adding concreteness and increasing readability. Contrast, for example, forgiveness of sins with God forgives us our sins. Or, with adjective instead of noun, contrast happiness was everywhere with everybody was happy. Specifying the participants not only adds concreteness, but may often be used to heighten interest by making the style more personal, yet still within the limits of what is implicit in the source language text.
Still another factor is the use of straightforward constructions. The inexperienced reader tends to read slowly and laboriously, from left to right, without being able to scan back and forth as the experienced reader does; hence he must hold in his memory the first part of a sentence until he gets far enough along in it for it to hang together and make sense. If he has to read sentences that are “front-heavy”, he is subjected to a greater memory burden than if he is given materials that can be “unraveled” in strictly left-to-right order, making sense at each step. Sentences with long subordinate constructions at the beginning, for example, are front-heavy. Note the following: In order to secure from the man who had arrived the day before the information he needed, John came early. Here the main clause is John came early; but the reader must wade through a long and complex subordinate expression before he has any idea of this. The sentence may be rewritten more straightforwardly as: John came early in order to secure the information he needed from the man who had arrived the day before.
As a general rule, when we have a complex expression made up of two parts, with one part noticeably longer than the other, and if the language structure permits the parts to occur in either order, a more straightforward and readable form will result from putting the shorter part first. This is especially important if the longer part is a subordinate construction which depends upon the shorter part to complete its sense.
Furthermore, one should avoid heavy embedding of constructions, whether front-heavy or not. In embedding, a subordinate construction appears within another construction in such a way as to interrupt the latter, and sometimes this type of embedding consists of several layers. Consider the following sentence: The man who spoke to the girls who had arrived after the show featuring the actor who had come from France was over was a very good conversationalist. Here we have a number of layers, one within another. The entire expression who spoke … was over is a subordinate clause modifying man; but embedded within it is another subordinate clause who had arrived … was over, modifying girls. Still further, within this embedded clause there is another subordinate expression featuring … France, modifying show; and within this is the subordinate clause who had come from France, modifying actor. This would obviously be a very difficult sentence for an inexperienced reader to unravel. In the first place, it attempts to pack entirely too much information into one sentence; and in the second place, it does so in a way that creates a heavy memory burden for the reader who has to retain all these structural layers and keep them in their proper relationships until he finally arrives at the main predicate expression, was a very good conversationalist. For proper readability, the material would need to be presented in smaller “doses”, each capable of being assimilated before the next one is given.
Most of the foregoing techniques for increasing readability through attention to grammatical factors may be summarized by saying that the translator or writer should, within the grammatical constructions that are familiar to his readers, use simple and straightforward phrase structure and present the relationships between words and phrases in a way that will be clear and unambiguous at each step. At the same time, however, he should avoid a childish style such as would result from too short and choppy sentences, and should seek to make his style conform to the normal discourse structure found in writing designed for adult readers.
10. The Translation Process
In the above sections we have assumed that the translator knows the meaningful content of the source language and that his problem is one of how to express this content in the receptor language. But in reality the translation process begins with the decoding or analysis of the source language text, whose content obviously can be transferred to the receptor language only after it is adequately decoded and understood by the translator.
This, therefore, involves us in a three-step process: (1) analysis or decomposition of the source language text, to determine its basic semantic components and the relationships between them in terms of kernel sentences of the source language; (2) transfer to equivalent components and relationships in terms of kernel sentences in the receptor language; and (3) restructuring or recomposition in the receptor language in terms of the normal grammatical and discourse structure of this language. Details of this approach will not be discussed here, inasmuch as they are available elsewhere to readers of The Bible Translator. 4
This three-step process, although perhaps never carried out in full and explicit detail in the actual procedures of translation, provides us with a concept leading to dynamic equivalence (i.e. equivalence in terms of the decoding process on the part of the receptors) instead of static equivalence (i.e. equivalence in terms of formal correspondence between items in the source and receptor languages). It also provides a recourse for the translator in his approach to syntactically difficult passages in which events appear in the source text as nouns (repentance, justification), abstract qualities as nouns (greatness, riches), etc.; or in which the semantic relationships do not parallel the relationships of surface structure in the source text (Father of glory, riches of his grace).
Furthermore—and of special importance in considering “commonlanguage” translations—the concept of a three-step process permits us to decide what level of complexity we shall choose for our final restructuring in the third step. We can reconstruct on any of the levels shown in Figure 1 that we choose to, within those levels that are generally acceptable, thereby producing a translation which is accessible to readers of whatever level we are intending to reach. A reconstruction within the level represented by section B of Figure 1 is that which gives us a “common-language” translation, intended to reach a wide spectrum of readers, including those with limited education. Reconstructions on a higher level, drawing from both sections A and B, lead to translations of a more literary nature, intended chiefly for readers with greater educational preparation.
The following reconstructions of Ephesians 1 : 7 in English 5 will illustrate three different levels:
(1) Quasi-kernel level (too low for general acceptability): “We sinned. But Christ died; therefore God sets us free and he forgives us. This is because God shows great grace toward us."
(2) “Common-language” level (Today’s English Version): “For by the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven. How great is the grace of God … ”
(3) Literary level (The New English Bible): “For in Christ our release is secured and our sins are forgiven through the shedding of his blood. Therein lies the richness of God’s free grace … ”
by William L. Wonderly resource
The Bible Translator 21/3 (July 1970), pp. 126-37.
William L. Wonderly is UBS Regional Translations Coordinator for the Americas based in Mexico.
A number of readers of The Bible Translator are already acquainted with the writer’s book Bible Translations for Popular Use; 1 the present article is an attempt to summarize, in a non-technical way, some of the main principles outlined in it. For further details, both of theoretical basis and of concrete biblical examples, the reader is referred to the book itself.
We are here considering chiefly the matter of Bible translation into the so-called literary languages—languages that are spoken by relatively large numbers of people, which represent a complex and socially stratified society, and which have a literary tradition such that the well-educated or “cultured” person is expected to have a command of the language superior to that possessed by the uneducated person. In such languages, Bible translations have traditionally been made without much attention to the differing levels of language represented by this social stratification and have thus been, in effect, translations designed for the educated reader. Even in non-literary languages, where the factors of social stratification are absent or less marked, translators have frequently exploited the potential resources of the language at a level that tends to be above the reach of the average reader.
It is, of course, far easier to produce a translation in which no restrictions are made and in which the translator can draw upon the whole potential of the receptor language without regard to the level of preparation of his readers. For one thing, the translator himself is apt to be an educated person whose use of the language is superior to that of his intended readers; and unless he is both perceptive and willing to sacrifice some of his erudition in the interest of communicating the gospel, his line of least resistance is to produce a translation on a higher level of language than is familiar to his readers.
In order to explore some of the factors that must be taken into consideration in translating for readers of limited or non-specialized biblical background, we may think in terms of certain dimensions of language difference—that is, of factors that make the speech of certain groups different from that of other groups within the same major language. Leaving aside the matter of geographical differences, we may here consider the dimensions of (1) socio-educational level, (2) situational variety, (3) time, (4) in-group speech (including religious language), and (5) translationism or interference from other languages.
1. Socio-Educational Level: The “Vertical” Dimension
In a complex society, groups of different social level employ different dialects or varieties of language, even when the language is the “same”, as in the case of English, Japanese, Arabic, and so on. Since language proficiency has in itself been made a prime factor in education in these societies, these differences are correlated to a great extent (but by no means exclusively) with degree of education and reader experience; hence we use the term socio-educational level.
There is thus a gradation from upper or educated speech to lower or uneducated speech. At the upper level, the language contains erudite vocabulary and elaborate literary forms beyond the reach of the uneducated reader, while at the lower level it contains forms that are considered substandard or vulgar; but the important thing is that there is a common core or overlap in which are to be found the really essential features, of both vocabulary and grammar, of both upper and lower levels.
This overlap is diagramed in Figure 1, in which the whole bar represents the entire language in all of its levels; the upper levels (educated language) are represented by sections A and B, and the lower levels (uneducated language) by sections B and C. Section B, the area of overlap, is common to both levels. This central section represents the level of language that is used by educated persons and is also either used or understood by uneducated ones. Section A represents the resources of the language used only by the educated; section C, those that are used by the uneducated but not accepted by the educated. It is important to note that the dialect of any given person or group corresponds to a vertical segment of considerable extension on the bar, and not to a single point, and that in fact any given dialect or level of speech represents a substantial part of the whole bar. That is, people at any level use a large part of the total resources of their language. Note also that a wavy line is used to separate A and B, indicating that this boundary is quite flexible and depends on the degree of education of the speaker; whereas the boundary between B and C is relatively fixed due to standards of “correctness”.
It is the area B of overlap that makes effective communication possible across socio-educational dialect boundaries, and that makes these dialect levels all part of the same language. And it is this area of overlap that is the key to preparing Bible translations (and other materials) in what we shall call common language, by which we mean a level of language that is accessible to the lower group and at the same time acceptable to the upper group.
These twin criteria of accessibility at the lower level and acceptability at the higher level are especially important. If the materials are not accessible or within the reach of the reader, then reading will not be a fully rewarding experience, and the reader may become discouraged or lose interest; if, on the other hand, they are not on a level acceptable to the upper group, the lower group will not accept them either, as the standards of this group are based largely on the norms set by the more educated people.
2. Situational Variety: The Dimension of Functional Variation
The second dimension is that of situational variety. People behave, dress, and speak differently in different social situations, ranging from formal on the one hand to casual and intimate on the other. We shall not here attempt to define the specific differences, except to point out that the speech of a more formal occasion, with its more carefully worked out sentences and use of rather higher level vocabulary, differs widely from that appropriate in a casual situation among friends, with its greater proportion of slang, purposely incomplete sentences, and so on. People at any given socio-educational level thus have different situational varieties in their speech; the less formal varieties are no less “correct” than the more formal ones—in fact, to use a formal variety in a casual or intimate situation would be entirely inappropriate, and just as “incorrect” as to wear a tuxedo 2 on the golf course.
The dimension of situational variety is shown in Figure 2 as a left-to-right dimension, and by the use of the two dimensions now presented we may roughly classify any Bible translation or other piece of literature in contemporary language. In preparing a Bible translation that is accessible to inexperienced readers, we need not only to keep from going too high in level, but to avoid a style that is too formal. In other words, we shall keep downward and toward the left on our diagram, but without either going so low as to be unacceptable or so far toward informality as to be considered inappropriate for the subject matter.
On Figure 2 we have attempted to classify in terms of these dimensions, although highly impressionistically, the language used in the New English Bible (NEB), the J. B. Phillips version (JBP), and Today’s English Version (TEV).
3. Time: The Chronological Dimension
The Bible translations shown on Figure 2 are all in contemporary or present-day language. Since many of our translations date from earlier periods, they cannot be adequately classified in terms of the two dimensions presented above. The dimension of time must be added, since they are in an archaic or semi-archaic form of the language, depending upon when they were first produced. Even more recent versions, especially if they are direct revisions of earlier ones, frequently contain archaisms of one degree or another.
In Figure 3 we show the time dimension from front to back on the threedimensional figure, with the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 as an example of an archaic version. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), not shown on the diagram, would lie somewhere between the front and back and be classified as semi-archaic.
4. In-Group Speech: Religious Language
Certain lexical and grammatical features are peculiar to restricted groups of speakers within a given language. Examples are slang, jargon, technical language (including theological language), and so on. Religious language is actually another case of language that is restricted to one group or another, and it is often possible to tell what religious in-group (e.g. Protestant or Catholic, conservative or liberal, etc.) one belongs to by the vocabulary and style he uses.
Much of the religious language of Christians is derived from the traditional versions of the Bible, with extensions to liturgical use, prayer, and speaking about religious matters. It therefore contains archaic features not used by people outside the group, and any effort to produce a Bible translation for the “uninitiated” should avoid such specialized forms. Bible translations for general use should not only be in language that is entirely contemporary but should avoid in-group restrictions.
5. Translationism: Interference from Other Languages
Our traditional versions of the Bible, and the in-group religious language that is in turn influenced by them, are not only archaic (using language forms that are no longer in current use); they also use language forms that never were in current use. This is due to the interference from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin features of vocabulary, grammar and style that has come about in the process of translating. We sometimes refer to this as translationism. It is most noticeable in the carrying over of Hebrew and Greek idioms into a language where they do not fit (blessing I will bless, die the death, son of perdition), but is more subtle (and perhaps a greater impediment to communication) in matters of style. For example, the style of the Pauline Epistles, with their heavy use of verb-derived nouns and of intricately related subordinate clauses, is carried over into many of our traditional Bible translations to produce a style which is really foreign to the genius of the receptor language. Of course, readers who have had considerable education or religious instruction can, with a certain effort, figure out a large proportion of the meaning that was intended; but this is far from the kind of translation which communicates to the reader what the original text communicated to its readers.
It may thus be said that the present-day speaker or reader who has mastered the style of language used in a traditional Scripture version has usually learned an in-group variety of his language that no one speaks or uses outside of religious situations. He has managed to learn it as a result of diligent church attendance or Bible reading, often enough because be has been reared in a religious environment. When persons not familiar with the religious variety of their language are confronted with such a traditional Bible translation, they must somehow adjust to this new language form before the content of its message can become really meaningful to them. Many people of course reject the special language form—and with it the message—rather than make the adjustment.
6. Reader Capacity and Overloading
Readers differ in the levels at which they can effectively utilize written materials. If we draw a graph in which the horizontal axis represents the flow of reading matter and the vertical axis the degree of difficulty of the materials (or technically, their communication load), we may use a horizontal line at a given height to represent the horizon of difficulty (or “threshold of frustration”) which a reader or class of readers may tolerate. In Figure 4, line A represents the horizon of difficulty of an educated middle class speaker, line B that of an inexperienced reader from a lower social dialect. The solid wavy line represents a piece of reading matter that is adequate for the educated middle class reader; it has peaks and troughs of difficulty, but fluctuates around the horizon of reader A in such a way as to be now challenging, now relaxing, now just on his level. The dotted wavy line represents a different piece of reading matter, designed for the inexperienced reader. Note that if the more difficult material is given to reader B, it will be above his horizon so much of the time that he cannot use it effectively and will become discouraged; conversely, if the easier material is given to A, it will be beneath his horizon so much of the time that he will soon lose interest. At each reader’s level, the reading matter must fluctuate in difficulty somewhere around the reader’s horizon, but should occasionally rise above it in order to challenge him. Without such challenge, even if the general level is satisfactory, the reader may lose interest; and with too many peaks above the horizon he may become discouraged.
If a Bible translation is to be accessible to the reader on the lower level, it should therefore be kept generally within his horizon of difficulty, but with occasional peaks to challenge him; however, the use of difficult words and expressions should be reserved primarily for (1) items in which the semantic content is such that no simple expression can be found and (2) places where the content is so easy that a higher level expression can be used for rhetorical effect without blocking communication. In the first instance it is frequently necessary to use the principle known in information theory as redundancy, whereby the unknown or difficult expression is made less difficult through building more familiar expressions into the context in a way that will either directly explain the difficult part or else help the reader to be able more nearly to guess what it means.
By this means one can avoid overloading the communication channel. That is, it is possible to increase the communication load (i.e. the difficulty) semantically (i.e. in terms of content) when tbe subject matter so requires, or to increase it in terms of lexical or grammatical structure for certain rhetorical purposes; but if one increases both factors simultaneously, overloading results, with consequent blocking or impeding of communication.
7. Producer Language and Consumer Language
Another factor to be considered is the difference between producer language and consumer language. Everybody can consume (i.e. hear or read) over a wider range on the vertical scale than he is able or willing to produce (i.e. speak or write). The producer language of a given reader is more familiar and comprehensible to him than his consumer language, and as a general practice one should seek to keep a Bible translation within the producer level in preparing reading materials. However, one should also utilize the resources of the reader’s consumer level from time to time, both to challenge him and to develop his reading ability. Frequently, therefore, it is best to operate within the producer level as a general norm but to have the resources of the consumer level as a reserve which may be tapped when the subject matter is such as to require it.
The degree to which a writer will keep within the producer level will also depend upon the purpose of the reading material itself. Since the primary purpose of a Bible translation is to communicate basic information, the surest way to accomplish this is to keep as nearly as possible within the producer language; on the other hand, when one is dealing with literature whose main purpose is to give the reader added experience and to raise his level of reading ability and use of the language, he will naturally introduce words and expressions that will serve this purpose, while still keeping within the bounds of tolerance of the horizon of difficulty of the intended readers.
8. Techniques to Maintain a Common Level: Vocabulary
Various specific techniques may be mentioned for producing materials that are at once accessible and acceptable. In terms of vocabulary, when there is a choice between synonyms of a higher and lower level (e.g. purchase: buy: grant: give), one may choose the lower one so long as it is within the limits of acceptability and translational fidelity. In the case of terms which have no one-word equivalent on the popular level, descriptive phrases may be used (e.g. blaspheme: talk against God; divination: guessing the future). Frequently it is necessary to use qualifiers or other contextual definition alongside certain words that would otherwise be difficult or ambiguous (e.g. law is ambiguous in biblical usage, but Today’s English Version frequently translates it unambiguously as Law of Moses).
It should be pointed out here that the use of vocabulary lists based on word-frequency is of quite limited value in preparing literature at this level. These lists are of some use in preparing materials on a more elementary level, to train the beginning reader to recognize words that he will encounter frequently; but they do not necessarily reflect the ease with which a given word will be recognized in a particular context. This is due to various factors. (1) Frequency lists are usually based on written rather than spoken materials, and hence do not directly reflect people’s overall acquaintance with words. (2) High frequency of words is usually due to the frequency with which people have to use them, not necessarily to their actual knowledge of such words (bread is more frequent than onion, but both are well known). (3) Many words occur with a high frequency precisely because they are highly ambiguous and can be used in so many senses, including senses unfamiliar to the reader. For example, a list would fail to tell us that mad, though frequent enough, is seldom used popularly in its literary sense of “crazy”. High frequency words often have meanings in upper-level speech that are not the same as the meanings attached to them by readers at lower levels. (4) Perhaps the most serious difficulty with word lists is that they are based upon gross or overall frequency and not upon the frequency with which a word appears in a specific context. What makes for readability is not so much the use of words that are well known per se, as the use of words that are normal for their specific contexts. A vast multitude is a more readable expression than a vast woman; even though woman is no doubt a more frequent word, it is less likely to appear (and is therefore stranger) in this particular context.
To achieve optimum readability or accessibility for the inexperienced reader, the writer should therefore use words in their natural or expected combinations, rather than using (purposely or otherwise) unusual lexical combinations. Such unusual combinations, if employed by skilful writers, may be quite effective ways of heightening interest when it comes to experienced readers, but they should be used sparingly in materials for inexperienced ones.
This same principle applies to figurative language, which is in fact a special case of the use of unusual combinations. Studies of reader ability have shown that good readers have little difficulty with figures of speech, but that poor readers have great difficulty. It is therefore important to keep figurative language to a minimum and to limit it primarily to figures that are in common use or that fit within the normal patterns of figurative speech in the receptor language.
9. Techniques: Grammatical Structure
In the area of grammar, there are certain types of constructions that are less frequent at the lower socio-educational levels than at the higher ones. In English these include, among others, the so-called past perfect tense, the passive voice, and the use of non-restrictive clauses introduced by who or which. Although not entirely inaccessible in terms of consumer language, such constructions should be used sparingly, with an attempt to keep their overall frequency from differing too widely from the overall frequency with which they appear in the producer language of the intended readers.
Another basic factor, and one which employs insights derived from recent developments in transformational linguistics, is the use of grammatical constructions that to a greater or lesser degree approximate kernel sentences. 3 By kernel sentences we mean, rather non-technically, those basic constructions from which derived constructions can be formed by grammatical transformation. In English, the active transitive verb construction John hit Bill is, for example, one kernel form; from it the passive construction Bill was hit by John may be derived. Although writing exclusively in kernel sentences would result in a choppy and childish style, the judicious employment of a high proportion of kernel or near-kernel constructions makes for a high degree of accessibility for the new reader. This is seen in several ways.
For one thing, the use of near-kernel constructions results in events being expressed as verbs rather than nouns (e.g. accept instead of acceptance), and abstract qualities as adjectives or adverbs rather than nouns (e.g. good instead of goodness); certain psychological studies have indicated that this not only provides a closer correspondence between linguistic forms and the real world but may also be much closer to the way people actually think. The use of verbs instead of verb-derived nouns also forces the writer to specify the participants (subject and object), thereby adding concreteness and increasing readability. Contrast, for example, forgiveness of sins with God forgives us our sins. Or, with adjective instead of noun, contrast happiness was everywhere with everybody was happy. Specifying the participants not only adds concreteness, but may often be used to heighten interest by making the style more personal, yet still within the limits of what is implicit in the source language text.
Still another factor is the use of straightforward constructions. The inexperienced reader tends to read slowly and laboriously, from left to right, without being able to scan back and forth as the experienced reader does; hence he must hold in his memory the first part of a sentence until he gets far enough along in it for it to hang together and make sense. If he has to read sentences that are “front-heavy”, he is subjected to a greater memory burden than if he is given materials that can be “unraveled” in strictly left-to-right order, making sense at each step. Sentences with long subordinate constructions at the beginning, for example, are front-heavy. Note the following: In order to secure from the man who had arrived the day before the information he needed, John came early. Here the main clause is John came early; but the reader must wade through a long and complex subordinate expression before he has any idea of this. The sentence may be rewritten more straightforwardly as: John came early in order to secure the information he needed from the man who had arrived the day before.
As a general rule, when we have a complex expression made up of two parts, with one part noticeably longer than the other, and if the language structure permits the parts to occur in either order, a more straightforward and readable form will result from putting the shorter part first. This is especially important if the longer part is a subordinate construction which depends upon the shorter part to complete its sense.
Furthermore, one should avoid heavy embedding of constructions, whether front-heavy or not. In embedding, a subordinate construction appears within another construction in such a way as to interrupt the latter, and sometimes this type of embedding consists of several layers. Consider the following sentence: The man who spoke to the girls who had arrived after the show featuring the actor who had come from France was over was a very good conversationalist. Here we have a number of layers, one within another. The entire expression who spoke … was over is a subordinate clause modifying man; but embedded within it is another subordinate clause who had arrived … was over, modifying girls. Still further, within this embedded clause there is another subordinate expression featuring … France, modifying show; and within this is the subordinate clause who had come from France, modifying actor. This would obviously be a very difficult sentence for an inexperienced reader to unravel. In the first place, it attempts to pack entirely too much information into one sentence; and in the second place, it does so in a way that creates a heavy memory burden for the reader who has to retain all these structural layers and keep them in their proper relationships until he finally arrives at the main predicate expression, was a very good conversationalist. For proper readability, the material would need to be presented in smaller “doses”, each capable of being assimilated before the next one is given.
Most of the foregoing techniques for increasing readability through attention to grammatical factors may be summarized by saying that the translator or writer should, within the grammatical constructions that are familiar to his readers, use simple and straightforward phrase structure and present the relationships between words and phrases in a way that will be clear and unambiguous at each step. At the same time, however, he should avoid a childish style such as would result from too short and choppy sentences, and should seek to make his style conform to the normal discourse structure found in writing designed for adult readers.
10. The Translation Process
In the above sections we have assumed that the translator knows the meaningful content of the source language and that his problem is one of how to express this content in the receptor language. But in reality the translation process begins with the decoding or analysis of the source language text, whose content obviously can be transferred to the receptor language only after it is adequately decoded and understood by the translator.
This, therefore, involves us in a three-step process: (1) analysis or decomposition of the source language text, to determine its basic semantic components and the relationships between them in terms of kernel sentences of the source language; (2) transfer to equivalent components and relationships in terms of kernel sentences in the receptor language; and (3) restructuring or recomposition in the receptor language in terms of the normal grammatical and discourse structure of this language. Details of this approach will not be discussed here, inasmuch as they are available elsewhere to readers of The Bible Translator. 4
This three-step process, although perhaps never carried out in full and explicit detail in the actual procedures of translation, provides us with a concept leading to dynamic equivalence (i.e. equivalence in terms of the decoding process on the part of the receptors) instead of static equivalence (i.e. equivalence in terms of formal correspondence between items in the source and receptor languages). It also provides a recourse for the translator in his approach to syntactically difficult passages in which events appear in the source text as nouns (repentance, justification), abstract qualities as nouns (greatness, riches), etc.; or in which the semantic relationships do not parallel the relationships of surface structure in the source text (Father of glory, riches of his grace).
Furthermore—and of special importance in considering “commonlanguage” translations—the concept of a three-step process permits us to decide what level of complexity we shall choose for our final restructuring in the third step. We can reconstruct on any of the levels shown in Figure 1 that we choose to, within those levels that are generally acceptable, thereby producing a translation which is accessible to readers of whatever level we are intending to reach. A reconstruction within the level represented by section B of Figure 1 is that which gives us a “common-language” translation, intended to reach a wide spectrum of readers, including those with limited education. Reconstructions on a higher level, drawing from both sections A and B, lead to translations of a more literary nature, intended chiefly for readers with greater educational preparation.
The following reconstructions of Ephesians 1 : 7 in English 5 will illustrate three different levels:
(1) Quasi-kernel level (too low for general acceptability): “We sinned. But Christ died; therefore God sets us free and he forgives us. This is because God shows great grace toward us."
(2) “Common-language” level (Today’s English Version): “For by the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven. How great is the grace of God … ”
(3) Literary level (The New English Bible): “For in Christ our release is secured and our sins are forgiven through the shedding of his blood. Therein lies the richness of God’s free grace … ”
#5. Translation Theory
Basic Principles and Procedures for Bible Translation
BY.Forum of Bible Agencies
After discussion over a period of two years and wide review within each member organization, the following joint statement on basic principles and procedures for Bible translation was unanimously agreed by all member organizations of the Forum of Bible Agencies, Translation section, at their meeting on April 21, 1999.
As member organizations of the Forum of Bible Agencies, we affirm the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures and commit ourselves to the following goals.
Concerning translation principles:
1.To translate the Scriptures accurately, without loss, change, distortion or embellishment of the meaning of the original text. Accuracy in Bible translation is the faithful communication, as exactly as possible, of that meaning, determined according to sound principles of exegesis.
2.To communicate not only the informational content, but also the feelings and attitudes of the original text. The flavor and impact of the original should be re-expressed in forms that are consistent with normal usage in the receptor language.
3.To preserve the variety of the original. The literary forms employed in the original text, such as poetry, prophecy, narrative and exhortation, should be represented by corresponding forms with the same communicative functions in the receptor language. The impact, interest, and mnemonic value of the original should be retained to the greatest extent possible.
4.To represent faithfully the original historical and cultural context. Historical facts and events should be expressed without distortion. At the same time the translation should be done in such a way that the receptor audience, despite differences of situation and culture, may understand the message that the original author was seeking to communicate to the original audience.
5.To make every effort to ensure that no contemporary political, ideological, social, cultural, or theological agenda is allowed to distort the translation.
6.To recognize that it is sometimes necessary to restructure the form of a text in order to achieve accuracy and maximal comprehension. Since grammatical categories and syntactic structures often do not correspond between different languages, it is often impossible or misleading to maintain the same form as the source text. Changes of form will also often be necessary when translating figurative language. A translation will employ as many or as few terms as are required to communicate the original meaning as accurately as possible.
7.To use the most reliable original language Scripture texts as the basis for translation, recognizing that these are always the primary authority. However, reliable Bible translations in other languages may be used as intermediary source texts.
Concerning translation procedures:
1.To determine, after careful linguistic and sociolinguistic research, the specific target audience for the translation and the kind of translation appropriate to that audience. It is recognized that different kinds of translation into a given language may be valid, depending on the local situation, including, for example, both more formal translations and common language translations.
2.To recognize that the transfer into the receptor language should be done by trained and competent translators who are translating into their mother tongue. Where this is not possible, mother-tongue speakers should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the translation process.
3.To give high priority to training mother-tongue speakers of the receptor language in translation principles and practice and to providing appropriate professional support.
4.To test the translation as extensively as possible in the receptor community to ensure that it communicates accurately, clearly and naturally, keeping in mind the sensitivities and experience of the receptor audience.
5.To choose the media for the translation that are most appropriate for the specific target audience, whether audio, visual, electronic, print, or a combination of these. This may involve making adjustments of form that are appropriate to the medium and to the cultural setting, while ensuring that the translated message remains faithful to the original message.
6.To encourage the periodic review of translations to ascertain when revision or a new translation is needed.
Concerning partnership and cooperation:
1.To organize translation projects in a way that promotes and facilitates the active participation of the Christian and wider community, commensurate with local circumstances. Where there are existing churches, we will encourage these churches to be involved in the translation and to carry as much responsibility for the translation project as is feasible.
2.To partner and cooperate with others who are committed to the same goals.
BY.Forum of Bible Agencies
After discussion over a period of two years and wide review within each member organization, the following joint statement on basic principles and procedures for Bible translation was unanimously agreed by all member organizations of the Forum of Bible Agencies, Translation section, at their meeting on April 21, 1999.
As member organizations of the Forum of Bible Agencies, we affirm the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures and commit ourselves to the following goals.
Concerning translation principles:
1.To translate the Scriptures accurately, without loss, change, distortion or embellishment of the meaning of the original text. Accuracy in Bible translation is the faithful communication, as exactly as possible, of that meaning, determined according to sound principles of exegesis.
2.To communicate not only the informational content, but also the feelings and attitudes of the original text. The flavor and impact of the original should be re-expressed in forms that are consistent with normal usage in the receptor language.
3.To preserve the variety of the original. The literary forms employed in the original text, such as poetry, prophecy, narrative and exhortation, should be represented by corresponding forms with the same communicative functions in the receptor language. The impact, interest, and mnemonic value of the original should be retained to the greatest extent possible.
4.To represent faithfully the original historical and cultural context. Historical facts and events should be expressed without distortion. At the same time the translation should be done in such a way that the receptor audience, despite differences of situation and culture, may understand the message that the original author was seeking to communicate to the original audience.
5.To make every effort to ensure that no contemporary political, ideological, social, cultural, or theological agenda is allowed to distort the translation.
6.To recognize that it is sometimes necessary to restructure the form of a text in order to achieve accuracy and maximal comprehension. Since grammatical categories and syntactic structures often do not correspond between different languages, it is often impossible or misleading to maintain the same form as the source text. Changes of form will also often be necessary when translating figurative language. A translation will employ as many or as few terms as are required to communicate the original meaning as accurately as possible.
7.To use the most reliable original language Scripture texts as the basis for translation, recognizing that these are always the primary authority. However, reliable Bible translations in other languages may be used as intermediary source texts.
Concerning translation procedures:
1.To determine, after careful linguistic and sociolinguistic research, the specific target audience for the translation and the kind of translation appropriate to that audience. It is recognized that different kinds of translation into a given language may be valid, depending on the local situation, including, for example, both more formal translations and common language translations.
2.To recognize that the transfer into the receptor language should be done by trained and competent translators who are translating into their mother tongue. Where this is not possible, mother-tongue speakers should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the translation process.
3.To give high priority to training mother-tongue speakers of the receptor language in translation principles and practice and to providing appropriate professional support.
4.To test the translation as extensively as possible in the receptor community to ensure that it communicates accurately, clearly and naturally, keeping in mind the sensitivities and experience of the receptor audience.
5.To choose the media for the translation that are most appropriate for the specific target audience, whether audio, visual, electronic, print, or a combination of these. This may involve making adjustments of form that are appropriate to the medium and to the cultural setting, while ensuring that the translated message remains faithful to the original message.
6.To encourage the periodic review of translations to ascertain when revision or a new translation is needed.
Concerning partnership and cooperation:
1.To organize translation projects in a way that promotes and facilitates the active participation of the Christian and wider community, commensurate with local circumstances. Where there are existing churches, we will encourage these churches to be involved in the translation and to carry as much responsibility for the translation project as is feasible.
2.To partner and cooperate with others who are committed to the same goals.
#4. Translation Theory
Translation Theory and Practice
By. Oxford University Press resource
Description
Translation: Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader responds to the need for a collection of primary texts on translation, in the English tradition, from the earliest times to the present day. Based on an exhaustive survey of the wealth of available materials, the Reader demonstrates throughout the link between theory and practice, with excerpts not only of significant theoretical writings but of actual translations, as well as excerpts on translation from letters, interviews, autobiographies, and fiction.
The collection is intended as a teaching tool, but also as an encyclopaedia for the use of translators and writers on translation. It presents the full panoply of approaches to translation, without necessarily judging between them, but showing clearly what is to be gained or lost in each case. Translations of key texts, such as the Bible and the Homeric epic, are traced through the ages, with the same passages excerpted, making it possible for readers to construct their own map of the evolution of translation and to evaluate, in their historical contexts, the variety of approaches. The passages in question are also accompanied by ad verbum versions, to facilitate comparison.
The bibliographies are likewise comprehensive. The editors have drawn on the expertise of leading scholars in the field, including the late James S. Holmes, Louis Kelly, Jonathan Wilcox, Jane Stevenson, David Hopkins, and many others. In addition, significant non-English texts, such as Martin Luther's "Circular Letter on Translation," which may be said to have inaugurated the Reformation, are included, helping to set the English tradition in a wider context. Related items, such as the introductions to their work by Tudor and Jacobean translators or the work of women translators from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries have been brought together in "collages," marking particularly important moments or developments in the history of translation.
By. Oxford University Press resource
Description
Translation: Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader responds to the need for a collection of primary texts on translation, in the English tradition, from the earliest times to the present day. Based on an exhaustive survey of the wealth of available materials, the Reader demonstrates throughout the link between theory and practice, with excerpts not only of significant theoretical writings but of actual translations, as well as excerpts on translation from letters, interviews, autobiographies, and fiction.
The collection is intended as a teaching tool, but also as an encyclopaedia for the use of translators and writers on translation. It presents the full panoply of approaches to translation, without necessarily judging between them, but showing clearly what is to be gained or lost in each case. Translations of key texts, such as the Bible and the Homeric epic, are traced through the ages, with the same passages excerpted, making it possible for readers to construct their own map of the evolution of translation and to evaluate, in their historical contexts, the variety of approaches. The passages in question are also accompanied by ad verbum versions, to facilitate comparison.
The bibliographies are likewise comprehensive. The editors have drawn on the expertise of leading scholars in the field, including the late James S. Holmes, Louis Kelly, Jonathan Wilcox, Jane Stevenson, David Hopkins, and many others. In addition, significant non-English texts, such as Martin Luther's "Circular Letter on Translation," which may be said to have inaugurated the Reformation, are included, helping to set the English tradition in a wider context. Related items, such as the introductions to their work by Tudor and Jacobean translators or the work of women translators from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries have been brought together in "collages," marking particularly important moments or developments in the history of translation.
#3. Translation Theory
Definition of the translation
(1) The process of turning an original or "source" text into a text in another language.
(2) A translated version of a text.
An individual or a computer program that renders a text into another language is called a translator. The discipline concerned with issues related to the production of translations is called translation studies.
Etymology:
From the Latin, "transfer"
Examples and Observations:
•Three Types of Translation
"In his seminal paper, 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation' (Jacobson 1959/2000. see Section B, Text B1.1), the Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobson makes a very important distinction between three types of written translation:
1.intralingual translation - translation within the same language, which can involve rewording or paraphrase;
2.interlingual translation - translation from one language to another, and
3.intersemiotic translation - translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign, for example music or image.
Only the second category, interlingual translation, is deemed 'translation proper' by Jakobson."
(Basil Hatim and Jeremy Munday, Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge, 2005)
•"Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful."
(attributed to Yevgeny Yevtushenko, among others)
•Translation and Style
"To translate, one must have a style of his own, for otherwise the translation will have no rhythm or nuance, which come from the process of artistically thinking through and molding the sentences; they cannot be reconstituted by piecemeal imitation. The problem of translation is to retreat to a simpler tenor of one's own style and creatively adjust this to one's author."
(Paul Goodman, Five Years: Thoughts During a Useless Time, 1969)
•The Illusion of Transparency
"A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer's personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text--the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the 'original.' The illusion of transparency is an effect of fluent discourse, of the translator's effort to insure easy readability by adhering to current usage, maintaining continuous syntax, fixing a precise meaning. What is so remarkable here is that this illusory effect conceals the numerous conditions under which the translation is made . . .."
(Lawrence Venuti, The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. Routledge, 1995)
•The Process of Translation
"Here, then, is the full process of translation. At one point we have a writer in a room, struggling to approximate the impossible vision that hovers over his head. He finishes it, with misgivings. Some time later we have a translator struggling to approximate the vision, not to mention the particulars of language and voice, of the text that lies before him. He does the best he can, but is never satisfied. And then, finally, we have the reader. The reader is the least tortured of this trio, but the reader too may very well feel that he is missing something in the book, that through sheer ineptitude he is failing to be a proper vessel for the book’s overarching vision."
(Michael Cunningham, "Found in Translation." The New York Times, Oct. 2, 2010)
•The Untranslatable
"Just as there are no exact synonyms within a language ('big' does not mean precisely the same as 'large'), there are no exact matches for words or expressions across languages. I can express the notion 'four year old male uncastrated domesticated reindeer' in English. But our tongue lacks the economy of information packaging found in Tofa, a nearly extinct tongue I studied in Siberia. Tofa equips reindeer herders with words like 'chary' with the above meaning. Furthermore, that word exists within a multidimensional matrix that defines the four salient (for the Tofa people) parameters of reindeer: age, sex, fertility, and rideability. Words are untranslateable because [they] do not exist in a flat, alphabetised dictionary style list, but rather in a richly structured taxonomy of meaning. They are defined by their oppositions to and similarities to multiple other words--in other words, the cultural backdrop."
(K. David Harrison, linguist at Swarthmore College, in "Seven Questions for K. David Harrison." The Economist, Nov. 23, 2010)
(1) The process of turning an original or "source" text into a text in another language.
(2) A translated version of a text.
An individual or a computer program that renders a text into another language is called a translator. The discipline concerned with issues related to the production of translations is called translation studies.
Etymology:
From the Latin, "transfer"
Examples and Observations:
•Three Types of Translation
"In his seminal paper, 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation' (Jacobson 1959/2000. see Section B, Text B1.1), the Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobson makes a very important distinction between three types of written translation:
1.intralingual translation - translation within the same language, which can involve rewording or paraphrase;
2.interlingual translation - translation from one language to another, and
3.intersemiotic translation - translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign, for example music or image.
Only the second category, interlingual translation, is deemed 'translation proper' by Jakobson."
(Basil Hatim and Jeremy Munday, Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge, 2005)
•"Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful."
(attributed to Yevgeny Yevtushenko, among others)
•Translation and Style
"To translate, one must have a style of his own, for otherwise the translation will have no rhythm or nuance, which come from the process of artistically thinking through and molding the sentences; they cannot be reconstituted by piecemeal imitation. The problem of translation is to retreat to a simpler tenor of one's own style and creatively adjust this to one's author."
(Paul Goodman, Five Years: Thoughts During a Useless Time, 1969)
•The Illusion of Transparency
"A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer's personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text--the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the 'original.' The illusion of transparency is an effect of fluent discourse, of the translator's effort to insure easy readability by adhering to current usage, maintaining continuous syntax, fixing a precise meaning. What is so remarkable here is that this illusory effect conceals the numerous conditions under which the translation is made . . .."
(Lawrence Venuti, The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. Routledge, 1995)
•The Process of Translation
"Here, then, is the full process of translation. At one point we have a writer in a room, struggling to approximate the impossible vision that hovers over his head. He finishes it, with misgivings. Some time later we have a translator struggling to approximate the vision, not to mention the particulars of language and voice, of the text that lies before him. He does the best he can, but is never satisfied. And then, finally, we have the reader. The reader is the least tortured of this trio, but the reader too may very well feel that he is missing something in the book, that through sheer ineptitude he is failing to be a proper vessel for the book’s overarching vision."
(Michael Cunningham, "Found in Translation." The New York Times, Oct. 2, 2010)
•The Untranslatable
"Just as there are no exact synonyms within a language ('big' does not mean precisely the same as 'large'), there are no exact matches for words or expressions across languages. I can express the notion 'four year old male uncastrated domesticated reindeer' in English. But our tongue lacks the economy of information packaging found in Tofa, a nearly extinct tongue I studied in Siberia. Tofa equips reindeer herders with words like 'chary' with the above meaning. Furthermore, that word exists within a multidimensional matrix that defines the four salient (for the Tofa people) parameters of reindeer: age, sex, fertility, and rideability. Words are untranslateable because [they] do not exist in a flat, alphabetised dictionary style list, but rather in a richly structured taxonomy of meaning. They are defined by their oppositions to and similarities to multiple other words--in other words, the cultural backdrop."
(K. David Harrison, linguist at Swarthmore College, in "Seven Questions for K. David Harrison." The Economist, Nov. 23, 2010)
#2. Translation Theory
The Role of Translation Theory
Trans•late verb to turn into one’s own or another language (Webster)
By.SIL.INTERNATIONAL Research
To define translation is rather simple; to explain what translation entails is quite another matter. Explaining this phenomenon has been the subject matter of translation theory throughout history.
SIL’s commitment to scholarship in language development includes research in translation theory and practice in order to promote greater understanding of the process of translation. This research then informs the practical work of translation teams. In many places, SIL works in partnership with language communities to facilitate the translation of books and booklets for educational programs, stories related to culture and folklore, health and community development resources and Scripture texts.
Quality translation of these important materials should be:
accurate: representing the meaning of the source text as faithfully as possible;
natural: using the receptor language in ways appropriate to the text being translated; and,
communicative: expressing the meaning in an understandable way to the intended audience.
SIL’s approach to translation theory is multidisciplinary, involving Translation Studies, Cognitive Linguistics, Relevance Theory, Discourse Studies, and other related fields.
Trans•late verb to turn into one’s own or another language (Webster)
By.SIL.INTERNATIONAL Research
To define translation is rather simple; to explain what translation entails is quite another matter. Explaining this phenomenon has been the subject matter of translation theory throughout history.
SIL’s commitment to scholarship in language development includes research in translation theory and practice in order to promote greater understanding of the process of translation. This research then informs the practical work of translation teams. In many places, SIL works in partnership with language communities to facilitate the translation of books and booklets for educational programs, stories related to culture and folklore, health and community development resources and Scripture texts.
Quality translation of these important materials should be:
accurate: representing the meaning of the source text as faithfully as possible;
natural: using the receptor language in ways appropriate to the text being translated; and,
communicative: expressing the meaning in an understandable way to the intended audience.
SIL’s approach to translation theory is multidisciplinary, involving Translation Studies, Cognitive Linguistics, Relevance Theory, Discourse Studies, and other related fields.
#1. Translation Theory
Translation as a communication process
by Frédéric Houbert
The translator, before being a “writer” as such, is primarily a “message conveyor.” In most cases, translation is to be understood as the process whereby a message expressed in a specific source language is linguistically transformed in order to be understood by readers of the target language. Therefore, no particular adapting work is usually required from the translator, whose work essentially consists of conveying the meaning expressed by the original writer.
Everyone knows, for instance, that legal translation leaves little room for adaptation and rewriting. Similarly, when it comes to translating insurance contracts, style-related concerns are not paramount to the translating process; what the end reader needs is a translated text that is faithful to the source text in meaning, regardless of stylistic prowess from the translator.
Yet, in an number of cases, the translator faces texts which are to be used within a process of “active communication” and the impact of which often depends on the very wording of the original text. In these specific cases, the translator sometimes finds it necessary to reconsider the original wording in order to both better understand the source text (this also sometimes occurs in plain technical texts) and be able to render it in the target language. This is the moment when the translator becomes an active link in the communication chain, the moment when his communication skills are called upon to enhance the effect of the original message.
The translation process here becomes twofold: firstly, the translator needs to detect potential discrepancies and flaws in the original text and understand the meaning they intend to convey. To do this, the translator often needs to contact the writer of the text to be translated (or any other person who is familiar with the contents of the text) in order to clarify the ambiguities he has come across. Secondly, once this first part of the work is over, the translator will undo the syntactic structure of the original text and then formulate the corresponding message in the target language, thus giving the original text added value in terms of both wording and impact. It is important to stress that this work will always be carried out in cooperation with the original writer, so that the translator can make sure the translated message corresponds to the meaning the writer originally intended to convey; remember, the translator is essentially a message conveyor, not an author.
In order to give an example of this value-added part of the translator’s work, let us take the following excerpt, taken from a speech to be delivered by a local official working for a French “Mairie” (i.e., the local authority managing public services in French towns and cities) on the occasion of a visit from British partners as part of a twinning agreement (I could also have chosen an excerpt from a translated advertisement, for instance, in which the rewriting work of the translator is also of the essence). This translating assignment meant more than just converting information from one language into another: it involved paying particular attention to the point of view of the translation user (in this case, the listener speaking the target language), in addition to fully understanding the ideas to be transmitted. This is obviously accounted for by the fact that a speech, just as any other direct communication text, includes an extra dimension as compared to usual informative texts: this dimension could be referred to as the “listener-oriented” aspect of a text. Obviously, the text of a speech not only has a written dimension, a quality shared by all other texts whatever the field, but also an oral dimension. This double dimension obviously needs to be taken into account by the translator in his work: more than is the case with other types of texts, the viewpoint of the reader/listener should be kept in mind at all times.
Let us take an excerpt from the speech in order to better understand the above-described process. One section of the text reads: “Je me dis qu’il est bon aussi de formaliser de temps en temps ces rencontres pour créer une mémoire collective de nos correspondances.” A rough translation in English would give the following result: “I feel it is useful from time to time to give these meetings formal expression in order to create a collective memory of our correspondence.” The latter part of this sentence sounds rather funny and the reader/listener will probably find it difficult to see what it means exactly. This is why I thought the source text needed a couple of clarifications; for one thing, the French “mémoire collective” has a historical dimension to it which I felt was inappropriate in a text meant to convey a positive, future-oriented message. In the mind of most French people, the collocative “mémoire collective” brings about images of the two world wars and of other vivid French historical events such as “Mai 68,” which as you probably know was a period of turmoil marked mainly by students’ demonstrations. Secondly, the French term “correspondances” is inadequately used (after consulting the author of the text, I found that it meant “all of the mutual achievements of the twinning partners since the signing of their agreement”). In short, the overall notion given by the French text is rather blurred, past-oriented, and the author fails to convey his ideas in a persuasive way.
After having analyzed these two inaccuracies with the help of the author, I came up with the following translation: “I feel it is useful from time to time to give these meetings formal expression in order to put on record our mutual achievements for better future cooperation.” This adapted translation is much more suitable for two essential reasons: it clarifies the original message, and consequently gives it greater power while also providing it with a positive dimension. I deliberately chose to add “for better future cooperation” in order to reinforce the cogency of the message, which the French original obviously failed to convey.
By making this choice, I decided to take an active part in the communication process by giving the message an extra dimension which it lacked in the original text: I simply chose to consider my work as a creative process in the best interest of the original message.
Let us look into another example taken from the same text. The first line of the last paragraph begins with the following words: “Nous souhaitons ce renforcement des échanges...,” i.e., literally, “We support this intensifying of exchanges....” When I first read this, I thought, well, who wouldn’t support a positive, fruitful exchange process? In order to avoid obtaining the same awkwardness in English, I therefore chose to stress the idea of support by inserting the adverb “fully,” which again causes the overall impact of the message to be enhanced. The edited translation finally read as follows: “We fully support the idea whereby exchanges should be intensified....”
As these two examples show, the work of the translator often involves a great deal of creativity, as well as a wide range of communication skills. This aspect of translation was also the subject of an article by Steve Dyson which appeared in Traduire (2/96), the journal of the Société Française des Traducteurs (French Society of Translators). Dyson calls this creative process “interlingual copywriting” and defines it as “the necessity, where appropriate, to give effective communication priority over fidelity to the original.”
Professional translators, while giving the above issues a serious thought, should however never forget that most texts to be translated do not require “adaptation” or “reader-oriented rewriting”; a full understanding of the source text and accurate rendering in the target language usually prove enough to give the client satisfaction and make the task of the translator an intellectually gratifying one. As with all other communication skills, creativity is best appreciated and yields the best result when used appropriately.
by Frédéric Houbert
The translator, before being a “writer” as such, is primarily a “message conveyor.” In most cases, translation is to be understood as the process whereby a message expressed in a specific source language is linguistically transformed in order to be understood by readers of the target language. Therefore, no particular adapting work is usually required from the translator, whose work essentially consists of conveying the meaning expressed by the original writer.
Everyone knows, for instance, that legal translation leaves little room for adaptation and rewriting. Similarly, when it comes to translating insurance contracts, style-related concerns are not paramount to the translating process; what the end reader needs is a translated text that is faithful to the source text in meaning, regardless of stylistic prowess from the translator.
Yet, in an number of cases, the translator faces texts which are to be used within a process of “active communication” and the impact of which often depends on the very wording of the original text. In these specific cases, the translator sometimes finds it necessary to reconsider the original wording in order to both better understand the source text (this also sometimes occurs in plain technical texts) and be able to render it in the target language. This is the moment when the translator becomes an active link in the communication chain, the moment when his communication skills are called upon to enhance the effect of the original message.
The translation process here becomes twofold: firstly, the translator needs to detect potential discrepancies and flaws in the original text and understand the meaning they intend to convey. To do this, the translator often needs to contact the writer of the text to be translated (or any other person who is familiar with the contents of the text) in order to clarify the ambiguities he has come across. Secondly, once this first part of the work is over, the translator will undo the syntactic structure of the original text and then formulate the corresponding message in the target language, thus giving the original text added value in terms of both wording and impact. It is important to stress that this work will always be carried out in cooperation with the original writer, so that the translator can make sure the translated message corresponds to the meaning the writer originally intended to convey; remember, the translator is essentially a message conveyor, not an author.
In order to give an example of this value-added part of the translator’s work, let us take the following excerpt, taken from a speech to be delivered by a local official working for a French “Mairie” (i.e., the local authority managing public services in French towns and cities) on the occasion of a visit from British partners as part of a twinning agreement (I could also have chosen an excerpt from a translated advertisement, for instance, in which the rewriting work of the translator is also of the essence). This translating assignment meant more than just converting information from one language into another: it involved paying particular attention to the point of view of the translation user (in this case, the listener speaking the target language), in addition to fully understanding the ideas to be transmitted. This is obviously accounted for by the fact that a speech, just as any other direct communication text, includes an extra dimension as compared to usual informative texts: this dimension could be referred to as the “listener-oriented” aspect of a text. Obviously, the text of a speech not only has a written dimension, a quality shared by all other texts whatever the field, but also an oral dimension. This double dimension obviously needs to be taken into account by the translator in his work: more than is the case with other types of texts, the viewpoint of the reader/listener should be kept in mind at all times.
Let us take an excerpt from the speech in order to better understand the above-described process. One section of the text reads: “Je me dis qu’il est bon aussi de formaliser de temps en temps ces rencontres pour créer une mémoire collective de nos correspondances.” A rough translation in English would give the following result: “I feel it is useful from time to time to give these meetings formal expression in order to create a collective memory of our correspondence.” The latter part of this sentence sounds rather funny and the reader/listener will probably find it difficult to see what it means exactly. This is why I thought the source text needed a couple of clarifications; for one thing, the French “mémoire collective” has a historical dimension to it which I felt was inappropriate in a text meant to convey a positive, future-oriented message. In the mind of most French people, the collocative “mémoire collective” brings about images of the two world wars and of other vivid French historical events such as “Mai 68,” which as you probably know was a period of turmoil marked mainly by students’ demonstrations. Secondly, the French term “correspondances” is inadequately used (after consulting the author of the text, I found that it meant “all of the mutual achievements of the twinning partners since the signing of their agreement”). In short, the overall notion given by the French text is rather blurred, past-oriented, and the author fails to convey his ideas in a persuasive way.
After having analyzed these two inaccuracies with the help of the author, I came up with the following translation: “I feel it is useful from time to time to give these meetings formal expression in order to put on record our mutual achievements for better future cooperation.” This adapted translation is much more suitable for two essential reasons: it clarifies the original message, and consequently gives it greater power while also providing it with a positive dimension. I deliberately chose to add “for better future cooperation” in order to reinforce the cogency of the message, which the French original obviously failed to convey.
By making this choice, I decided to take an active part in the communication process by giving the message an extra dimension which it lacked in the original text: I simply chose to consider my work as a creative process in the best interest of the original message.
Let us look into another example taken from the same text. The first line of the last paragraph begins with the following words: “Nous souhaitons ce renforcement des échanges...,” i.e., literally, “We support this intensifying of exchanges....” When I first read this, I thought, well, who wouldn’t support a positive, fruitful exchange process? In order to avoid obtaining the same awkwardness in English, I therefore chose to stress the idea of support by inserting the adverb “fully,” which again causes the overall impact of the message to be enhanced. The edited translation finally read as follows: “We fully support the idea whereby exchanges should be intensified....”
As these two examples show, the work of the translator often involves a great deal of creativity, as well as a wide range of communication skills. This aspect of translation was also the subject of an article by Steve Dyson which appeared in Traduire (2/96), the journal of the Société Française des Traducteurs (French Society of Translators). Dyson calls this creative process “interlingual copywriting” and defines it as “the necessity, where appropriate, to give effective communication priority over fidelity to the original.”
Professional translators, while giving the above issues a serious thought, should however never forget that most texts to be translated do not require “adaptation” or “reader-oriented rewriting”; a full understanding of the source text and accurate rendering in the target language usually prove enough to give the client satisfaction and make the task of the translator an intellectually gratifying one. As with all other communication skills, creativity is best appreciated and yields the best result when used appropriately.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)