Translate This

[John of Japan]

Referring to a quote from Nida/de Waard:

“The clear implication thereof is that things which do not involve ‘the integrity and unity of the biblical message’ may be altered with more freedom. But this, I think, is a freedom for which the cost may be too high for literary translation in general, including the translation of the Bible itself as a literary work in distinction from its translation for religious purposes” (Jin Di, On Translation, rev. 209). The original book was done by Jin Di with Nida himself, but Di came to disagree with Nida.

 

[John of Japan]

So, what turned Jin Di (a mainland China scholar) against DE? It was Nida's belief that "Greek everyone with a hearty handshake" was okay instead of "Great everyone with a holy kiss." Here are quotes from Jin Di's revised edition about that:

“The rendering ‘a hearty handshake all around’ is completely unacceptable—one may call it an out-of-control transformation—firstly because it alters the principal fact of the kiss and secondly because the original atmosphere of religious simplicity has been replaced with one which rather suggests the busy vote-solicitors in an American election campaign” (Di, 211).

“The ‘hearty handshake all around’ alteration is a failure because it causes an important loss which could easily be prevented” (Jin Di, 215).

“The idea is that things hard for the target-language readers to comprehend may be replaced with something familiar to them in their own culture. In fact, this is exactly Dr. Nida’s view which I have taken exception to in the aftermath of our cooperation in 1982. I will not repeat what I think I have made clear in some of my essays, except that the issue arose over Dr. Nida’s support for replacing ‘a holy kiss’ with ‘a hearty handshake’ in the translation of ‘Romans’ in the New Testament” (Di, 273-274).

 

[Rippon2]

I don't know why you are dwelling on the Phillip's rendering of 2 Cor. 13:12. His version is to the right of the ones that are considered more dynamic. The NCV, NLT, GW all have 'holy (or scared) kiss.' That indictment of the Phillip's wording doesn't apply to the functionally-equivalent versions. The discussion isn't applicable.

 

[Rippon2]

Back to the subject of paraphrasing in which I devoted post #54 to.

"Translations on the far right side of the spectrum are often considered paraphrases. Paraphrases are typically
viewed as a very close interpretation of the text rather than a translation in the proper sense of the term. Nevertheless, most of these (excluding, for example, The Message) are still usually guided by finding linguistic-cultural equivalents for the original language in the receptor language and so should not be quickly dismissed as useless for Bible reading and study (and the term paraphrase should probably not be used pejoratively as a way of dismissing such a translation)." (taken from Fundamentals Of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, p.185).

 

[John of Japan]

I don't know why you are dwelling on the Phillip's rendering of 2 Cor. 13:12. His version is to the right of the ones that are considered more dynamic. The NCV, NLT, GW all have 'holy (or scared) kiss.' That indictment of the Phillip's wording doesn't apply to the functionally-equivalent versions. The discussion isn't applicable.

It's not me. It's simply secular I am quoting authors who decry it because NIda approved of it. And it's a perfect example of a rendering with reader response in mind. Secular scholars recognize this.

 

[Rippon2]

It's not me. It's simply secular I am quoting authors who decry it because NIda approved of it. And it's a perfect example of a rendering with reader response in mind. Secular scholars recognize this.

So versions such as the NLT, NCV and GW are not actually dynamic translations because they didn't go the length that Phillips did on this lone occasion? Only the Phillip's qualifies as dynamic here? Does the rendering of one passage determine the translational category?

 

[John of Japan]

So versions such as the NLT, NCV and GW are not actually dynamic translations because they didn't go the length that Phillips did on this lone occasion? Only the Phillip's qualifies as dynamic here? Does the rendering of one passage determine the translational category?

I did not say any of that.

 

[John of Japan]

Many other secular linguists and translators have disagreed with Nida's theory. For example, DE is partially based on the code theory of communication. Gutt disagrees with Nida’s version of code theory, saying, “There are many aspects of human communication for which the code model simply cannot account” (Ernst-August Gutt, Relevance Theory, p. 11). Gutt's relevance theory is replacing code theory in the Bible translation world, even at SIL, where Gutt has lectured.

 

[John of Japan]

James S. Holmes disagrees with the very idea of Nida's that linguistics is a science. “More than a few would question whether linguistics has yet reached a stage of precision, formalization, and paradigm formation such that it can properly be described as a science” (James S. Holmes, “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Venuti, 2nd ed., 183)

 

[John of Japan]

One of the leading secular authors on translation studies nowadays is Anythony Pym. In insisting that interpretation be in terms of the source context, Gutt effectively discounts much of the “dynamic equivalence” that Nida wanted to use to make biblical texts relevant to new audiences. Gutt insists not only that the original context is the one that counts, but also that this makes “the explication of implicatures both unnecessary and undesirable” (1991:166). In the end, “it is the audience’s responsibility to make up for such differences” (Exploring Translation Theories, by Anthony Pym. Florence, KY: Routledge, 2009, p. 37.

 

[Rippon2]

I am asking if translations that don't have a reader's response in mind can properly be called dynamic.

For instance, that sort of terminology is not in the six page Introduction To The NLT. But the NLT is regarded by many as the premiere dynamic --- equivalence translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

One of the leading secular authors on translation studies nowadays is Anythony Pym. In insisting that interpretation be in terms of the source context, Gutt effectively discounts much of the “dynamic equivalence” that Nida wanted to use to make biblical texts relevant to new audiences. Gutt insists not only that the original context is the one that counts, but also that this makes “the explication of implicatures both unnecessary and undesirable” (1991:166). In the end, “it is the audience’s responsibility to make up for such differences” (Exploring Translation Theories, by Anthony Pym. Florence, KY: Routledge, 2009, p. 37.

So in effect, what really counts is what it would have been understand as meaning to those first written to read it?

 

[John of Japan]

I am asking if translations that don't have a reader's response in mind can properly be called dynamic.

For instance, that sort of terminology is not in the six page Introduction To The NLT. But the NLT is regarded by many as the premiere dynamic --- equivalence translation.

I know already you disagree with me, but I consider that if the skopos of a translation does not include reader respons, it is not DE.

Nida himself is with me on this. He wrote, “A dynamic equivalent translation is much more difficult to produce than a literal or one which is erratically free. A dynamic equivalent translation can simply not be produced unless the translator has a profound understanding of all the factors which enter into the meaning of the source language text…. Furthermore, in producing a dynamic equivalent translation one must be constantly aware of the capacity and motivation of receptors” (On Translation, expanded edition, 2006, by Jin Di and Eugene Nida, p. 98).

Again, Nida wrote, "Unfortunately, the expression 'dynamic equivalence' has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating and Toward a Science of Translating. It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression 'functional equivalence' may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding" (Eugene Nida and Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another, pp. vii, viii)

 

[John of Japan]

So in effect, what really counts is what it would have been understand as meaning to those first written to read it?

Correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am asking if translations that don't have a reader's response in mind can properly be called dynamic.

For instance, that sort of terminology is not in the six page Introduction To The NLT. But the NLT is regarded by many as the premiere dynamic --- equivalence translation.

I though that was the Niv?

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct.

This is why the more functional the translation, greater chance to stray off that intended meaning for us to receive?

 

[Rippon2]

This is why the more functional the translation, greater chance to stray off that intended meaning for us to receive?

That wasn't a question. Why did you end your statement with a question mark?

 

[John of Japan]

My favorite secular translation studies scholar is Lawrence Venuti. In his history of translation, he writes something very significant about Nida's theory:

“Communication here is controlled by or for the receptors, it is in fact an interested interpretation, and therefore it seems less an exchange of information than an appropriation of a foreign text to serve a purpose in the receiving culture. Nida’s theory of translation as communication does not adequately take into account the ethnocentric violence that is inherent in every translation process—but especially in one governed by dynamic equivalence. In view of this violence, how can a translation possibly produce an effect on its receptors that is equivalent to the effect produced by the foreign text on its initial audience?” (Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility. 2nd ed., 2008, 17).

 

[Rippon2]

I know already you disagree with me, but I consider that if the skopos of a translation does not include reader respons, it is not DE.

So what category would you place translations such as the NLT, CEV, GNT, NCV, GW ? What term would you use that describes their translational philosophy?

 

[John of Japan]

So what category would you place translations such as the NLT, CEV, GNT, NCV, GW ? What term would you use that describes their translational philosophy?

I spend almost no time comparing versions. I can't even place what any of these initials stand for, much less evaluate them. When I do read a modern version, I compare it to the original languages, not to other modern versions.