Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 42

Translation Theory

Traddutore, traditore!

Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., copyright 1998, all rights reserved.


Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania
Terminology
 Donor language, the language from which a
translation is made (= the text being translated)

 Receptor language, the language into which a


translation is made

 Gloss,
a useful translation equivalent (often of the
unmarked meaning of the word) (see BAGD)
Terminology
 Meaning
 The sense of a word that can be expressed in a
definition (see LSD)
 Some words can be defined apart from a referent,
though they may have a referent in a particular context
 E.g., twelve” can be defined as a number indicating a
specific quantity, but there is no referent unless it is
used in a context that mentions, e.g., “the Twelve” =
the disciples)
Terminology
 Referent

 towhat (or whom) the word points (some words are


only referential, e.g., “Paul,” and cannot be defined)
Differences between languages
 Vocabulary
 Semantic domains, words in various languages have
varying ranges of meaning, the specific semantic
domain of one word (e.g., filevw, which includes love,
like, kiss) does not exactly overlap with the semantic
domain of its closest equivalent in another language
(e.g., “love,” which does not normally include the
more general term “like” and never means “kiss”).
Vocabulary
 Quantityof words, languages have different size
vocabularies, which points out quite clearly that there
can be no word-for-word translation, else how could
we translate koine Greek (vocab. of about 5,500
words) into Hebrew (which has only about 4,000)?
Differences
 Morphology/inflection, languages have different
systems of inflection which impinge on translation
as to how word function is indicated, etc.

 Syntax, varies widely from language to language;


a strict formal equivalence, maintaining the same
word order, results in nonsense:
Differences
 Verbal system, Hebrew and Greek do not
grammaticalize temporal reference (English does).
 Culture-related terms: weights, measures, dates,
currency, calendars, time; how do you translate
when the “scales” of each language are so very
different?
Differences
 Style

 How does one translate when good style in one


language is considered poor style in another?

 E.g.,an abundance of passive voice and particles


= good Greek style, but poor English style
Context and Semantics
 Illegitimate totality transfer: the fallacy of reading
all a word’s semantic domain into every individual
usage of the word to find “more meaning.” cf.
Amplified Bible; sermons that build multiple
points from different meanings.
 Importance of context (“Context is king.”)
The most important factor in determining the
meaning of a word is the context.
Word-for-word “translations”
 KJV, 1611 preface
 “Another thing we wish to advise you about, gentle reader, is
that we have not bound ourselves to any uniformity of phrasing
or to any identity of words. Perhaps some, noticing that some
scholars have been as exact as possible that way, would wish
that we did the same. Most assuredly we were extremely
careful. We made it a matter of conscience as was our
responsibility. When the word meant the same thing in both
places, we did not vary from the sense from what we had
translated before. For there are some words that do not have the
same meaning everywhere.
Word-for-word “translations”
 “However, it would mince the matter to express the same notion
by the same particular word…. Such would smack more of
fastidiousness than wisdom and would evoke more ridicule from
the atheist than profit for the devout reader. Has the Kingdom of
God become words or syllables? Then why should we be in
bondage to them when we may be free? Or use one word
precisely when another word would be no less appropriate? …
Add to this the fact that squeamishness in words has always
been counted the next step to trifling. The same is true about
fastidiousness in names.
Word-for-word “translations”
 “Further, we cannot follow a better pattern for style than God
Himself. If He used different words in Holy Writ, and
indifferently, for the same thing in nature, then we, if we are not
superstitious, may take the same liberty in our English
translations from Hebrew and Greek. (“The Translator’s to the
Reader, §16.)

 RV, 1885, Lightfoot’s dictum: “the same English words to


represent the same Greek words … as far as possible in
the same order” (NET preface, 7).
 Social contexts (sociolinguistics; Carson, ILD, 65-67)
Translation Models
 “Itis impossible not to lose something when you
translate an extended text from one language to
another” (Carson, ILD, 58).

 Usually something not in the donor text is added


as well! (e.g., separate forms for “we
inclusive/exclusive” in some languages; differing
temporal reference systems, etc.)
Translation Models
 “There is always some loss in the communication
process, for sources and receptors never have
identical linguistic and cultural backgrounds….
The translator’s task, however, is to keep such loss
at a minimum” (de Waard & Nida, FOLA, 42)
Translation Models
 Unhelpful categories

 “Literal” (because most who use this term assume that


it equals “more accurate, superior, faithful, exact”;
besides, just what does “literal” mean?)

 “Word-for-word” and “phrase-for-phrase” and


“thought-for-thought” (cf. Carson, ILD, 70)
Translation Models
 Interpretive(all translation is interpretive, even
formal equivalent ones)

 “Every reading of a text by a finite being is an


interpretation of it…. translation is never a
mechanical task…. Translators must understand
the donor text, or think they do, before rendering it
into the receptor text” (Carson, ILD, 72).
Theoretical models
 Formalequivalent: a translation that seeks to translate
from one language to another using the same
grammatical and syntactical forms as the donor
language whenever possible.

 “Consistent execution of formal equivalence is


impossible, and if one opts for the axiom ‘as formal as
possible,’ one frequently ends up with a translation that
actually distorts much of the meaning in the donor
text” (Carson, ILD, 70).
Theoretical models
 Functional equivalent: a translation that seeks to
represent adequately and accurately in good
receptor-language grammar, style, and idiom that
which the words and constructions in the donor
language conveyed to the original recipients.
 “The closest natural equivalent in the receptor
language, both in meaning and style” (NET
preface, 7 n.4)
Theoretical models
 Dynamic equivalence: “The quality of a
translation in which the message of the original
text has been so transported into the receptor
language that the response of the receptor is
essentially like that of the original receptors”
(Eugene Nida, The Theory and Practice of
Translation, 202).
 It seeks to make the same impact without regard to
the form of the original language.
Theoretical models
 Paraphrase: A simplified summary of the meaning
found in the donor language. “A paraphrase tells the
reader what the passage means, whereas a literal
translation tells what the passage says” (Metzger, 148).
 Practical continuum
 More formal
 More functional
 “No translation is exclusively formal; none entirely
avoids formal features” (Carson, ILD, 69).
Range of contemporary
translations

More Formal More Functional Paraphrase


Young’s NETn NKJV NETtxt GNB/ CEV Living
RV/ ASV KJV RSV NIV NLT Phillip s
NASB NRSV Cottonpatch
Teachout
 “The science of translation is both one of the easiest
and one of the most difficult of tasks. It is easy in the
sense that any beginning student of language can
develop confidence quickly in making wooden
translations—rendering the original in hard-to-
understand one-to-one correspondences. It is most
difficult in the sense that much expertise is needed in
both the source language (the original text) and the
target language (the translation) if a person is to
arrive at a good translation.
Teachout
 “The task is made more difficult because one
(ideally) has to interpret accurately and fully and yet
not read in foreign ideas that are not innate to the
text”
 “Early in his ministry, the writer believed that a strict,
word-for-word rendering was always best. However,
as his knowledge of Hebrew syntax improved, it
became more and more evident that this method can,
if uniformly used, actually be a hindrance to an
understanding of the true sense of the original.
Teachout
 “For a passage to be properly translated, it must
represent adequately in good English grammar that
which the Hebrew words and construction conveyed
to the original recipients. To do less actually
accomplishes the opposite of the translator’s
intention; that is, by trying to render a text in a
‘literal’ word-for-word manner, the translator (in
actuality) keeps the reader from properly
understanding the complete message of the Hebrew
original.
Teachout
 “Therefore the translator with this methodology
unintentionally robs the English reader of truth,
insofar as he does not adequately convey all of the
intended ideas in the text.”

 Robert
P. Teachout, Th.D., “Notes on Translation,”
unpublished, Detroit Baptist Seminary, [ca. 1979].
Cultural issues in translation
 “White as snow” in Irian Jyra = “make dirty”
(black people sitting around a fire and get white
ash on them = dirty!)

 “Stand at the door and knock” in some cultures


implies a thief! (Only a thief knocks to see if
anyone is home before robbing the house; a friend
will shout, not knock.)
Cultural issues
 “Nurse a baby” in Australia = hold a baby (not:
breastfeed)
 “Heart” in its biblical sense is equivalent to “gall
bladder” in some Philippine tribes and “liver” in
many African contexts.
 “Son of man” in Kouykon Indian dialect of
Alaska and Canada = “son of any man” =
“bastard, illegitimate son”—not an appropriate
translation as a title for Jesus Christ!
Cultural issues
 Snake meat vs. eel (In Other Words, June 84)
 “God of the Dead” (In Other Words, Ap. 89)
 Taboo language (In Other Words, Ap. 89)
Inclusive Language
 We should not automatically assume that any
“agenda” that seems to come through in a
translation must be a translator’s bias.
 It may well be a reflection of the Bible’s
agenda—which is often different from various
politically-correct agendas in contemporary
Western culture.
 Our task is to accurately represent the original
whether we like what it says or not.
Inclusive Language
 Must distinguish between:
 “Gender neutral” translation and
 “Inclusive language”

 Gender neutral attempts to eliminate any


reference to gender, whether of God or people
(e.g., “God our heavenly parent”).
 Inclusive language seeks to use terms that are as
inclusive in the receptor language as in the donor
language.
Inclusive Language
 Legitimacy of individual choices depends on the
extent to which the languages overlap.
 To what extent has English changed in the last 50
years?
 Has what began as a political agenda become
more generally “mainstream”?
 It doesn’t matter if you like the changes, but it
does matter what contemporary language means.
Inclusive Language
 We do not have a commission to reform language
or to impose grammatical preferences on our
audience.

 Wedo have a commission to communicate


accurately and clearly the truth of the gospel.
Inclusive Language
 Would you approve of missionaries going to the
Philippines and insisting on changing the Tagalog
language to suit their preferences when preaching
the gospel?
 Or would you expect that person to communicate
in fluent Tagalog?
 Is it helpful to offend people in your proclamation
of the gospel? (Other than by the offense of the
gospel itself?)
Inclusive Language
I used to resist such changes vigorously, but that
was when these changes were found only in the
radical feminist literature.
 In many parts of the country these changes have
now gone “mainstream.”
 As a result, I have had to rethink my prior
opposition and gradually begin to use more
inclusive language.
Inclusive Language
I would suggest that the approach taken by
Carson’s Inclusive Language Debate and by the
NET Bible are the best solution at the present
time.
 I resist “gender neutral” translation, since that
violates the original text, but where the original is
not gender specific, then I think that we should
use equivalent language in our translation—and in
our preaching.
Inclusive Language
 Thecontemporary “flap” re. the NIV’s revisions
was blown out of proportion by a “watchdog”
group who allowed their agenda to blind them to
genuine cultural issues.

 Theirreaction is understandable since they have


taken as their social mission the opposition of any
and all forms of the feminist agenda.
Inclusive Language
 But the feminists won this cultural battle long ago.
 Contemporary English language usage has
changed—for better or worse.
 Our job is now (as always) is to communicate in
the language of the people.
Misc. issues
 Purpose of a given translation:
 Judge on the basis of their stated purpose. There is no
one translation that is best for all purposes. Note the
contrasting purposes of: GNB, NIV, NKJV.
Use of italics
 Traditionally italics have been used to indicate supplied words, but
contemporary use is to indicate emphasis.
 How do you decide what words are essential and what words are
optional? (A very difficult decision at times!)
 Note that the NIV has chosen to use half brackets to mark
questionable additions: e.g., “the glory of the one and only Son”
(Jn. 1:14).
 The KJV, by contrast, has “the glory of the only begotten of the
Father,” leaving the reader to figure out who the only begotten is.
Since the context is very clear that the reference is to the Son, other
translations have supplied it for clarity.
 Note the the NET Bible always appends a f.n. when it explicitly
supplies the referent.
Use of italics
 Some portray the KJV as the model in its use of italics
to indicate words supplied, but its more generous use
of italics (by contrast with the NIV’s more restrained
use of half brackets) is sometimes overdone; e.g., 1
Cor. 14:2 supplies unknown—an illegitimate addition
that is not implied in the context.
Basic Resources
 John Beekman and John Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974.
 D. A. Carson. The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998.
 Jan de Waard and Eugene Nida. From One Language to Another: Functional
Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville: Nelson, 1986.
 Jack Lewis. The English Bible: From KJV to NIV. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
 Louw, Johannes P., ed. Meaningful Translation: Its Implications for the Reader.
New York: United Bible Societies, 1991.
 Bruce Metzger, “Theories of the Translation Process.” BibSac 150 (1993):140–
50.
 Mark Strauss. Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and
Gender Accuracy. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1998.
 Robert J. Williams, “The Science of Translating the Greek New Testament into
English.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Вам также может понравиться