Featured Two Approaches: Linguistics and Exegesis

I'm currently reading Mildred Larson's Meaning-Based Translation. It's considered to be a classic in the field of Bible translation, and I have found some helpful material in it. Beyond that, it has helped to to finalize a distinction in my mind of two methods to translate the Bible.

1. The traditional method is to exegete the original language text, then reproduce it in the target language with appropriate target language grammar.
2. The other method is to use a linguistic approach. This began with Eugene Nida and his usage of two linguistic theories: code theory and transformational (generational) grammar. In the case of Larsen, she uses something called propositional analysis, which I'm only beginning to understand. Another theory that replaces code theory is called relevance theory. (By the way, I highly respect the fact that Larson did a Bible translation into an Amazon tribal language in Peru, Aguaruna.)

Now, if you rely on linguistic theories such as Nida, Larson, and others, you will end up concentrating on meaning in the target (receptor, though I don't like the term) text, but if you are a traditionalist like I am, your emphasis will be on exegeting the original text, then reproducing the meaning in the equivalent grammar of the target language.

Along with this, we can note that the linguistic approach has apparently completely taken over the SIL/Wycliffe crowd. SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) often does not even do translation any more, according to my informants, but just does surveys--which are nevertheless helpful when a Bible translator does happen along. As for Wycliffe, their translators often do not even know the original languages, but do double translations from the English, quite often the TEV (GNB).

So, what do you think? Linguistics or exegesis or a combination?

P.S. Concerning SIL, check out their website at www.sil.org, and see if you can find anything Christian or about Bible translation. (It's there all right, but you have to look well. )

 

Actually, I have heard (or read?) that. The theory (as I remember) is that they wish to be able to liaise with the respective governments, especially if the government is anti-Christian. I can understand that to a certain degree.

 

That's not the angle I'm taking. First of all, "formal" and "dynamic" are the terms invented by Nida, but they are not used in translation studies generally (except by followers of Nida, few in the secular world.) Secondly, I'm specifically talking about how the original text is approached within a translation theory, not about translation theory in general.

So, please do not make this a thread to discuss "formal" and "dynamic." That's been done over and over.

 

Sorry, I don't have that one. Perhaps you can enlighten us. I've not found this particular aspect of translation theory discussed anywhere but I'm coming to believe it is important.

 

To be fair, the book I referenced by Mildred Larson does mention exegesis in several places. However, she seems to view it as a separate action than actual translation, whereas I consider exegesis to be part of the translation process. In simple terms, I believe that the translator should be translating as he/she exegetes.

Eugene Nida uses the word "exegetical" one time in The Science of Translating, but not as part of translation. It does not appear in From One Language to Another (Nida with De Waard). It does appear once in an appendix of The Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida & Taber), and is actually defined in the glossary of that book as "that discipline whose methods and techniques aim at understanding a text" (p. 200). Seems like if exegesis is how you understand the original text, then Nida should have spent a bunch of ink on it!

So I would say that exegesis is thought by functional equivalence advocates to be a very minor part of translation theory. IMO, any degree in Bible translation without classes required in Greek and Hebrew exegesis is a poor degree.

 

Thanks much for sharing that. Wish I could go there!

Concerning the source text for translations, I can't give any percentages for English source texts, but I have read about this from the biographies of translators, etc. I'm sure many Wycliffe translators work from the ancient languages, but the GNB (TEV) was used as a source text according to plan when it first came out.

 

To be fair, I found where Nida did not wish the TEV (GNB) to be the actual source text for translations, but the pattern for how to do it (Philip Stine, Let the Words Be Written, p. 83).

 

Thanks. I have to leave my office, so I'll check this out on Monday.

 

Okay, I agree to a certain extent. We have classes for our MA in basic linguistics, and one advanced linguistics class (transformational grammar, discourse analysis, etc.). But what linguistic principles are applicable to translation?

 

Absolutely!