Translation Terminology

[John of Japan]

I've been challenged today on my assertion that the translation term "reader response" (I think it was) dates back to Eugene Nida and no further. So, I await with baited, oops, bated Baptist breath for Jerome and Anthony to correct me, since both objected to that. In the meantime, I thought I'd start a thread where we can all share knowledge of terminology used in translation. I'm at prayer meeting, which will start in a little while, and I'll post more tomorrow.

I'll start with the very term "translation."

“translation: The rendition of anything said or written in one language into another language.”[1] In recent practice, though, written renditions are translating, and spoken ones are interpreting" (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics (Towata, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1967), 219.).

“What is generally understood as translation involves the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that (1) the surface meaning of the two will be approximately similar and (2) the structures of the SL will be preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the TL structures will be seriously distorted.” (Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies, 4th ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 1980, 1991, 2002, 2014), 14.).

Christiane Nord, a Skopos theory scholar, has widened her definition to include culture: “Translation: In the wider sense, any translational action where a source text is transferred into a target culture and language. According to the form and presentation of the source text and to the correctibility of the target text we distinguish between oral translation (= ‘interpreting’) and written translation (= translation’ in the narrower sense).” (Christiane Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity (New York: Routledge, 1997, 141).

Care to add your own definition of "translation" or "translating"?

 

[John of Japan]

Here is my own definition of Bible translation.

Bible translation is the faithful rendering of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek source texts of God’s verbally inspired Word into another language. On occasion, when the translator has little or no knowledge of the original languages, Bible translation can take place from a non-biblical language.

 

[John of Japan]

Anyone want to take a stab at "equivalence," the most difficult translation term of all? Shuttleworth and Cowie write, "The issues lurking behind the term are indeed complex and the concept of equivalence has consequently been a matter of some controversy; Hermans, for example, has described it as a 'troubled notion'" (Dictionary of Translation Studies, p. 49).

 

[Logos1560]

Care to add your own definition of "translation" or "translating"?

The very word translation by definition (when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language) would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent.

By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.” Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? Without original-language texts from which to be translated, a Bible translation would not exist.

By the law of identity and by the law of the excluded middle, a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language texts from which it is translated. By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original-language texts of Scripture. To state that a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth. By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence.

A translation without any antecedent underlying texts or sources to which it is related by being translated from them would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its original language source or sources; otherwise, by definition, it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The very word translation by definition (when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language) would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent.

By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.” Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? Without original-language texts from which to be translated, a Bible translation would not exist.

You are, I'm sure, aware that the 'Lollard' Bible, promoted by John Wycliffe and probably undertaken by his colleague John Purvey, was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. The reason for that was that the orginal Greek and Hebrew documents were not available to them and the languages were almost unknown. Even 150 years later, William Tyndale would not have learned Hebrew at Oxford or Cambridge University, but probably from a Jew while he was on the Continent. The Jews had all been expelled from England by Edward 1 in 1290 and were not re-admitted until the time of Oliver Cromwell (c. 1650).

So do you count the Lollard Bible as a translation?

 

[John of Japan]

The very word translation by definition (when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language) would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent.

By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.” Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? Without original-language texts from which to be translated, a Bible translation would not exist.

By the law of identity and by the law of the excluded middle, a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language texts from which it is translated. By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original-language texts of Scripture. To state that a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth. By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence.

A translation without any antecedent underlying texts or sources to which it is related by being translated from them would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its original language source or sources; otherwise, by definition, it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate.

A good post overall, though not a succinct definition (though I did not say "succinct"!). There is the small item that in a couple or two places you used a different form of the word to define the word, something lexicographers avoid. Example: "translated" as part of your definition of "translation" in the first paragraph, and likewise in other places.

 

[Jerome]

I've been challenged today on my assertion that the translation term "reader response" (I think it was) dates back to Eugene Nida and no further. So, I await with baited, oops, bated Baptist breath for Jerome and Anthony to correct me, since both objected to that.

Huh? How in the world did you get that from what I posted?

What I noted was quite wrong was this from you:

"...his seminal book 1964 book, Toward a Science of Translating....But Nida did not even use the term 'receptor' in that book, but later in his 1982 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. I'm positive you will find no earlier usages of the term."

Was the term 'receptor' not used until 1982? Clearly not, as Nida used the term in his 1969 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Nida also used the term in his 1964 book, Toward a Science of Translating. But he, and others before him, used the term even earlier than that.

So, here, I'll correct what you wrote:

"But Nida did not even use the term 'receptor' in that book, but and later in his 1982 1969 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. I'm positive you will find no earlier usages of the term."

 

[John of Japan]

The word "render" with the cognate "rendering" refers to a brief translation of just a word or sentence. Example: "How did you render the Greek ekklesia in your New Testament translation?"

 

[John of Japan]

Huh? How in the world did you get that from what I posted?

What I noted was quite wrong was this from you:

"...his seminal book 1964 book, Toward a Science of Translating....But Nida did not even use the term 'receptor' in that book, but later in his 1982 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. I'm positive you will find no earlier usages of the term."

Oops, okay, I goofed. It was "receptor" rather than "reader response." Mea culpa. Let's see if I can get it right.

Was the term 'receptor' not used until 1982? Clearly not, as Nida used the term in his 1969 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Nida also used the term in his 1964 book, Toward a Science of Translating. But he, and others before him, used the term even earlier than that.

Toward a Science of Translating was 1964 according to the copyright page, and it did not have "receptor" in its index. Maybe it did somewhere in the book, but I have not found it.

The Theory and Practice of Translation that I have was definitely copyright in 1982. I am looking at the copyright page. The glossary of that book had "receptor" and "receptor language." However, looking again I see that my copy is a reprint, originally published in 1969. Thanks for the correction.

So, here, I'll correct what you wrote:

"But Nida did not even use the term 'receptor' in that book, but and later in his 1982 1969 book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. I'm positive you will find no earlier usages of the term."

Thanks. I'll wait for someone to come up with a pre-1969 mention of "receptor."

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I've been challenged today on my assertion that the translation term "reader response" (I think it was) dates back to Eugene Nida and no further. So, I await with baited, oops, bated Baptist breath for Jerome and Anthony to correct me, since both objected to that. In the meantime, I thought I'd start a thread where we can all share knowledge of terminology used in translation. I'm at prayer meeting, which will start in a little while, and I'll post more tomorrow.

I'll start with the very term "translation."

“translation: The rendition of anything said or written in one language into another language.”[1] In recent practice, though, written renditions are translating, and spoken ones are interpreting" (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics (Towata, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1967), 219.).

“What is generally understood as translation involves the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that (1) the surface meaning of the two will be approximately similar and (2) the structures of the SL will be preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the TL structures will be seriously distorted.” (Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies, 4th ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 1980, 1991, 2002, 2014), 14.).

Christiane Nord, a Skopos theory scholar, has widened her definition to include culture: “Translation: In the wider sense, any translational action where a source text is transferred into a target culture and language. According to the form and presentation of the source text and to the correctibility of the target text we distinguish between oral translation (= ‘interpreting’) and written translation (= translation’ in the narrower sense).” (Christiane Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity (New York: Routledge, 1997, 141).

Care to add your own definition of "translation" or "translating"?

I am not entering another round of discussion on this topic. My previous comments stand.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not entering another round of discussion on this topic. My previous comments stand.

No problem. Perhaps you'll contribute to the thread, though. It's meant to be non controversial, simply listing terms and their meanings.

 

[John of Japan]

From the man himself here are relevant definitions in the glossary of The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber (1969, 1982):

"receptor: person receiving or intended to receive a message" (p. 205).
"receptor language: the language into which a message is translated from the original or SOURCE LANGUAGE" (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

David Crystal wrote: “The term ‘translation’ is the neutral term used for all tasks where the meaning of expressions in one language (the ‘source’ language) is turned into the meaning of another (the ‘target’ language)” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 344).

David Crystal wrote: "The aim of translation is to provide semantic equivalence between source and target language" (p. 344).

David Crystal wrote: “Exact equivalence is of course impossible: no translator could provide a translation that was a perfect parallel to the source text, in such respects as rhythm, sound symbolism, puns, and cultural allusions. Such a parallel is not even possible when paraphrasing within a single language: there is always some loss of information” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 344).

David Crystal added: "On the other hand, there are many kinds of inexact equivalence, any of which can be successful at a certain level of practical functioning" (p. 344).

 

[John of Japan]

David Crystal wrote: “The term ‘translation’ is the neutral term used for all tasks where the meaning of expressions in one language (the ‘source’ language) is turned into the meaning of another (the ‘target’ language)” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 344).

David Crystal wrote: "The aim of translation is to provide semantic equivalence between source and target language" (p. 344).

David Crystal wrote: “Exact equivalence is of course impossible: no translator could provide a translation that was a perfect parallel to the source text, in such respects as rhythm, sound symbolism, puns, and cultural allusions. Such a parallel is not even possible when paraphrasing within a single language: there is always some loss of information” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 344).

David Crystal added: "On the other hand, there are many kinds of inexact equivalence, any of which can be successful at a certain level of practical functioning" (p. 344).

Good quotes, linking translation and equivalence, both.

 

[John of Japan]

I will add to the second quote by Crystal that while what he says as a secular translator is true, I believe as a Bible translator that God's Truth can be successfully translated, even if as he says that rhythm, puns, etc. cannot be perfectly rendered.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm at our seminary retreat for this school year. Some of the kids were playing some rowdy game at the lodge, so I said, "Against my better judgment, I'm going to my cabin now...." So, with nothing much else to do before I hit the sack in this very nice cabin, I thought I'd add more definitions, especially from linguistics. Many consider translation to be a part of linguistics. At any rate, it is very helpful for a translator to know some linguistics.

First of all, look at linguistics itself. “linguistics Effectively of any investigation of language and languages if not clearly belonging to some other discipline, such as philosophy, the study of literature, etc.” (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Oxford, 2007, 228).

Phonetics is “The study of the nature, production, and perception of sounds of speech.” A knowledge of phonetics is very necessary in producing a written form for an unwritten language as a prerequisite for translating the Bible (Matthews, p. 299).

Semantics is often defined as simply “the study of meaning.” Using modern linguistic methods to determine meaning in both the source and target languages is hugely helpful to the translator.

Syntax is the study of how a sentence is constructed. This knowledge is vital for a translator.

The translator often practices sociolinguistics without being aware of it. This is “the field that studies the relation between language and society, between the uses of language and the social structures in which the users of language live.” A targeted study of this discipline is helpful (Bernard Spolsky, Sociolinguistics. Bristol, UK: Oxford, 1998, p. 3).

Discourse analysis is a term used “Effectively of any analysis of discourse.” (Matthews, p. 107). Other than that, most linguists have their own understanding of discourse analysis. I've seen it described or identified in several different ways. At any rate, it helps a translator to know what kind of discourse he or she is working with. For example, right now I'm translating Job, and probably not doing too well. (Some of it is really tough). But in analyzing the discourses of the men, I've been learning a lot! For example, Job's discourses are deep, well thought out, and well put. His three friends, however, are not that deep but plenty opinionated. When I came to Elihu, that's when I started changing my views on the book. I always thought he was kind of cool, but translating him made me realize he's about high school level of discourse, with an occasional, "Yeah, but you're a dummy!" kind of statement.

Transformational grammar (or generative grammar), simply put, involves how the different forms a sentence can take are related (declarative, interrogative, etc.). It can help the Bible translator determine the correct grammatical forms to use in the translation when the target language is dissimilar to the original Hebrew or Greek. Translation theorists Eugene Nida (dynamic/functional equivalence) and James Price (optimal equivalence) have both used this discipline in their theories, with Price critiquing Nida's usage.

お休みなさい。(Oyasumi nasai, "Honorably rest well. The 2nd character, the one for "rest" has a man next to a tree, just taking it easy!)