Featured Definitions Again

I'm going to try this again. Note that this thread is strictly about definitions. Please do not make it an argument about different theories or methods of translation. Argue about the definitions if you wish, but don't argue about the methods. I'm going to make this easier so people don't get mixed up by not putting any definitions in this OP. This will make it easier to figure out the OP.

So, please put up definitions of your own or quotes from others about methods of translation or about specific translation matters.

 

Now that the OP is settled, here is a definition. Most people on the BB don't seem to know the older classifications of translation methodology, so here are several definitions of "free translation." What do you think? Are "free" and "thought for thought" synonymous?

“Free translation is usually taken to concentrate on conveying the meaning of the ST disregarding the formal or structural aspects of the ST. Literal translation is normally taken to be a mode of translation that remains close to the form of the original.”
Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo (New York and London: Continuum, 2009), 49.

“free translation: the rendering of the meaning of a statement, expression, text, etc., in another language, without following the original accurately.”
Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, 1954, 77.

"Free Translation A type of translation in which more attention is paid to producing a naturally reading TT [target text] than to preserving the ST wording intact; also known as sense for-sense-translation." Dictionary of Translation Studies, by Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, p. 62.

 

Thanks for the input. It is a somewhat rare term nowadays, but more common pre-Nida.

The definition you gave from SIL is a little vague, but then so is the whole concept of "free translation." Of the ones I gave I like Palumbo's best. He's a good writer.

 

Occasionally here on the BB someone mistakes transliteration for a method of translation, but it isn't. It is simply the process of putting a word or words from one language into the alphabet of the other, without regard to meaning except peripherally.

Here is a definition:

“Transliteration: The representation of a sound, phoneme or word or utterance in the conventional symbols of another language or system or writing.”
(Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor. Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 219).

 

We are edging closer to where some fireworks might occur.

I like a term I found in a secular book on translation, "verbatim." However, my son doesn't like the term, so I don't use it in my lectures and writing. Here is where I got it.

Verbatim translation: “Complete translation of every word of the original text” (Morry Sofer. The Translator’s Handbook, 3rd rev. ed., 403).

 

That's about it. The definition is incomplete. For example, the particle can only be translated rarely. And the Greek article can often not be translated, such as when it comes before a proper name.

 

I don't know what you mean, since that was a complete paraphrase.

 

And now (drum roll), here are some definitions of "literal," sometimes called "word for word." Note that one is Nida's, and the other secular, meaning that both of these admit that literal translating is possible.

“literalness: quality of a translation in which the form of the original is reproduced in the receptor language in such a way as to distort the message and/or the patterns of the receptor language.”
The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, 203).

“Literal translation is a translation strategy or technique involving a choice of TL equivalents that stay close to the form of the original while ensuring grammaticality in the TL.”
Giuseppe Palumbo, Key Terms in Translation Studies, 70.

 

Hey, don't talk to me, talk to the professional translator who defined it. I don't use the term.

 

Here is Eugene Nida's definition of dynamic equivalence. I will follow that with my own definition.

“dynamic equivalence: 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. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE.”
Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation, 1982, 200.

JoJ defintion:
Dynamic Equivalence (DE; see “functional equivalence”) is a theory of translation developed by Eugene Nida, beginning with his 1964 book Toward a Science of Translation. DE is influenced by existentialism, and by linguistics, in particular code theory and transformational grammar. Instead of working to discern authorial intent this method is characterized by an effort to produce an equivalent effect in the target (“receptor” in DE terminology) audience to that produced in the original audience. DE emphasizes the importance of meaning over grammatical form.

 

The term "functional equivalence" was chosen because Nida felt that his theory was being misused and applied to outright paraphrases. DE/FE is ostensibly not a method for paraphrasing, though it is more paraphrastic than most people think.