Excellent! Thanks for the corrections, Jerome. I'll remember this information.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Translation Terminology
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
And (as Anthony Pritchard and I told you), 'others used "receptor language" even earlier'.
thus...
1961 William Samarin
1933 Valery Larbaud ["la langue réceptrice"]
1899 Eduardo de la Barra ["la lengua receptora"]
Shall I go on?
thus...
1961 William Samarin
1933 Valery Larbaud ["la langue réceptrice"]
1899 Eduardo de la Barra ["la lengua receptora"]
Shall I go on?
Naw, you've made your point. Thank you! But please note that I claimed no great knowledge about the term, and deliberately was ambiguous. I was open to correction and learning.
concordance: (1) the process of translating every occurrence of a given word in the original with the same word in the TL (target language). The problem with this is that seldom does a given word in the TL have the same range of meaning as a word in the SL (source language). (2) a book or document listing every occurrence of various words in a document.
interlinear: a literal translation that translates not only word for word, but keeps the word order of the original. It is called interlinear because such a translation is usually printed with the original and the translation lined up together. The purpose of an interlinear translation is study.
Many mistake dynamic equivalence for a form of "free translation," but it isn't really. Here are several scholarly definitions of "free translation" by secular translation studies scholars.
“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.
“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.
The opposite of "free translation" is "literal translation." However, there is a lot of debate about just what "literal" means.
“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, p. 203). Nida's usual term for a literal translation is "formal translation," meaning a translation that strives to follow closely the form of the syntax (sentence structure) and semantics (the study of meaning) of the original language.
You can just feel the scorn in Nida's definition. He literally hated literal translation! However, when it came to back translations, even Nida had to approve of it. "Dr. Nida instructed Viv to translate the first two chapters—the hardest chapters in Luke—from Tboli back into English, word for word. When they finished checking these, verse after verse, question after question, Dr. Nida turned to Vivian and said, ‘Young lady, you’ve done a splendid job’” (Doris Fell, Lady of the Tboli. Chappaqua, NY: Christian Herald Books, 1979, 97).
What's back translation, you say? “A process in which a text which has been translated into a given language is retranslated into SL” [source language--JoJ] (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies. New York: Routledge, 1997, 14). This is usually used to allow translation consultants to give help even when they don't know the target languoage.
“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, p. 203). Nida's usual term for a literal translation is "formal translation," meaning a translation that strives to follow closely the form of the syntax (sentence structure) and semantics (the study of meaning) of the original language.
You can just feel the scorn in Nida's definition. He literally hated literal translation! However, when it came to back translations, even Nida had to approve of it. "Dr. Nida instructed Viv to translate the first two chapters—the hardest chapters in Luke—from Tboli back into English, word for word. When they finished checking these, verse after verse, question after question, Dr. Nida turned to Vivian and said, ‘Young lady, you’ve done a splendid job’” (Doris Fell, Lady of the Tboli. Chappaqua, NY: Christian Herald Books, 1979, 97).
What's back translation, you say? “A process in which a text which has been translated into a given language is retranslated into SL” [source language--JoJ] (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies. New York: Routledge, 1997, 14). This is usually used to allow translation consultants to give help even when they don't know the target languoage.
Secular translation studies scholar Palumbo is not so dismissive of literal translation.
“Literal translation is a translation strategy or technique involving a choice of TL [target language--JoJ] equivalents that stay close to the form of the original while ensuring grammaticality in the TL” (Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, 70).
On the other hand, some secular scholars are not so kind. “Literal translation: A word-for-word translation of an utterance or text into another language, without regard for the differences between the two languages as to grammatical structure and idiomatic peculiarities” (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, 124).
But Grudem replies to the critics. "The label 'formal equivalence' is often used by defenders of dynamic equivalence theory, perhaps in part because this makes it so easy to caricature and thus dismiss essentially literal translation theory as a theory that places too much emphasis on the order of words in the original language" (Translating Truth, Chapter One, "Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God?" by Wayne Grudem, 10).
“Literal translation is a translation strategy or technique involving a choice of TL [target language--JoJ] equivalents that stay close to the form of the original while ensuring grammaticality in the TL” (Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, 70).
On the other hand, some secular scholars are not so kind. “Literal translation: A word-for-word translation of an utterance or text into another language, without regard for the differences between the two languages as to grammatical structure and idiomatic peculiarities” (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, 124).
But Grudem replies to the critics. "The label 'formal equivalence' is often used by defenders of dynamic equivalence theory, perhaps in part because this makes it so easy to caricature and thus dismiss essentially literal translation theory as a theory that places too much emphasis on the order of words in the original language" (Translating Truth, Chapter One, "Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God?" by Wayne Grudem, 10).
My favorite back translation story - perhaps apocryphal - involves two Russian translators and Matt 26:41b (omitting "indeed", as it's often quoted), "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
The first Russian renders that into his own language, then the second one independently renders the Russian back to English:
"The ghost is happy, but the meat is spoiled."
The first Russian renders that into his own language, then the second one independently renders the Russian back to English:
"The ghost is happy, but the meat is spoiled."
Great story! Good illustration of the necessity for a translator knowing the range of meaning of words, not just a gloss (one word translation).
And now the elephant in the room, dynamic equivalence. Here is how it's inventor, Eugene Nida, described it:
“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 Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969 & 1982, p. 200.)
However, Nida felt the term was being misused, so he changed his favored term. According to Stine’s book about Nida, “Nida later felt that the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term ‘dynamic’ to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined ‘dynamic equivalence’ in terms of ‘functional equivalence,’ he began to use this latter term instead. “Functional equivalence” was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard” (Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, p. 51).
The main point for Nida was "reader response," as the first quote shows. That is really about all you need to know to understand dynamic equivalence. The translator weights his rendering towards the understanding of the reader, not the meaning of the divine Author was conveying, or what is called "authorial intent."
“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 Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969 & 1982, p. 200.)
However, Nida felt the term was being misused, so he changed his favored term. According to Stine’s book about Nida, “Nida later felt that the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term ‘dynamic’ to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined ‘dynamic equivalence’ in terms of ‘functional equivalence,’ he began to use this latter term instead. “Functional equivalence” was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard” (Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, p. 51).
The main point for Nida was "reader response," as the first quote shows. That is really about all you need to know to understand dynamic equivalence. The translator weights his rendering towards the understanding of the reader, not the meaning of the divine Author was conveying, or what is called "authorial intent."