Two Approaches: Linguistics and Exegesis

[John of Japan]

Well, hold on now. Or should I say, “Whoa!” Let’s discuss that just a bit. I may be losing you. That’s the whole point of the problem isn’t it, that the literal translation of a passage may not carry the meaning that should be understood? Idiom certainly does carry literal meaning, it just may be too far removed contextually in either language to convey what was really meant.

To me, idioms are the exception to so-called formal equivalence. By their very definition, they do not carry literal meaning. I don't know of any advocate of literal methods (essentially literal, optimal equivalence, etc.) who says we must translate idioms just as they are with the literal meaning. So I'm not sure of your point here.

Idioms don’t carry the meaning properly when they have lost their original connection, and it can happen in either language. Metaphor and simile can be just as problematic, even in modern usage, because they are tied to something unfamiliar to the listener/reader. But perhaps you mean the Bible doesn’t contain such occurrences? Here’s one for you. “’Go tell that fox…,’” (see Luke 13:32).

In my experience, metaphor and simile are not near as problematic as idioms. Note my above comments on that. I did say that the translator can change the metaphor if there is not a theological problem. One example of a metaphor that cannot be changed with theological damage is "lamb of God." The term "lamb" in that case is referring to OT sacrifice, so it is a metaphor based on historical theology. If you change this to "seal pup of God" in an Inuit language (a myth, by the way; never happened) then you've lost that theological connection.

Concerning "Herod, that old fox," this is an idiom, not a metaphor. A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures...) says this means "cunning and cowardice," but another commentary says that in Jewish usage, "It typifies low cunning as opposed to straightforward dealing" (Geldenhyus, 384). However, it does not have theological significance, so even if we consider it to be a metaphor, it may have to change in a translation. The Japanese, for example, think of foxes much differently than the Jews did.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Hmm. Okay.

Thanks for the interaction. This is an interesting point, and I'll address it. Definitions of "idiom" differ. Here are two quotes about this.

“idiom: an expression consisting of several words and whose meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of the individual words, e.g. kick the bucket for die; also called exocentric expression.”
(Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, 203.)

Furthermore, the Handbok of American Idioms and Idiomatic Usage, rev. (Harold Whitford & Dixson) says, "An idiom...consists of more than one word."

So both of these sources think that an idiom must be more than one word. However, the "Handbook" then gives many one word idioms: backfire, globetrotter, etc.
.

In a sense, those two "exceptions" are multiple words, as they're each combinations of two stand-alone words. Does the "Handbook" cite any one-word idioms that are not compounds? The Germans are famous (or infamous depending on one's opinion) for stringing multiple words together; English generally stops at two.

 

[John of Japan]

In a sense, those two "exceptions" are multiple words, as they're each combinations of two stand-alone words. Does the "Handbook" cite any one-word idioms that are not compounds? The Germans are famous (or infamous depending on one's opinion) for stringing multiple words together; English generally stops at two.

Good point. Actually, the "Handbook" does give some one word idioms: axe (to fire someone), baloney (nonsense), etc.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

To me, idioms are the exception to so-called formal equivalence. By their very definition, they do not carry literal meaning. I don't know of any advocate of literal methods (essentially literal, optimal equivalence, etc.) who says we must translate idioms just as they are with the literal meaning. So I'm not sure of your point here.

Nothing. Figures of speech. It’s not worth pursuing.

In my experience, metaphor and simile are not near as problematic as idioms. Note my above comments on that. I did say that the translator can change the metaphor if there is not a theological problem. One example of a metaphor that cannot be changed with theological damage is "lamb of God." The term "lamb" in that case is referring to OT sacrifice, so it is a metaphor based on historical theology. If you change this to "seal pup of God" in an Inuit language (a myth, by the way; never happened) then you've lost that theological connection.

Yep. Understood.

Concerning "Herod, that old fox," this is an idiom, not a metaphor. A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures...) says this means "cunning and cowardice," but another commentary says that in Jewish usage, "It typifies low cunning as opposed to straightforward dealing" (Geldenhyus, 384). However, it does not have theological significance, so even if we consider it to be a metaphor, it may have to change in a translation. The Japanese, for example, think of foxes much differently than the Jews did.

Oh, no! Are you telling me that the KJV dropped “old” from an idiom in God’s inspired word? I’m not sure I can buy the idea that when Jesus calls someone a name it has no theological significance. In any case, translating this idiom as “fox” or “old fox” fails to convey any certain meaning in English. Is this a case where the idiom is lost so that it’s untranslatable, thus the literality? Or is it a case where some translators may just not have the exegetical experience to translate it properly?

 

[John of Japan]

Oh, no! Are you telling me that the KJV dropped “old” from an idiom in God’s inspired word? I’m not sure I can buy the idea that when Jesus calls someone a name it has no theological significance. In any case, translating this idiom as “fox” or “old fox” fails to convey any certain meaning in English. Is this a case where the idiom is lost so that it’s untranslatable, thus the literality? Or is it a case where some translators may just not have the exegetical experience to translate it properly?

Oops. I guess I added the "old" in there.

Anyway, I'm open to the theological significance of Jesus calling Herod a fox. Any thoughts? At any rate, it would not do to literally translate it into a language where a fox is much admired. Think of the English idiom of the "fox" being an attractive lady.

 

[37818]

I'm open to the theological significance of Jesus calling Herod a fox.

It is interpreted to be a Hebrew perspective that foxs are greedy and vicious, Song of Songs 2:15.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Oops. I guess I added the "old" in there.

Anyway, I'm open to the theological significance of Jesus calling Herod a fox. Any thoughts? At any rate, it would not do to literally translate it into a language where a fox is much admired. Think of the English idiom of the "fox" being an attractive lady.

I have no certain knowledge, or good reason to speculate. It was just an observation. Song of Solomon 2:15 and Nehemiah 4:3 use “fox.” But those are understood contextually, used differently (though both involve ruin, as does Judges 15:4), and from earlier times.

It seems that here in Luke 13:32, translators don’t bother to find an equivalent term in English or don’t know one, as the context is somewhat uncertain and the term obscure. So, the preacher gets to apply his license, unless you guys come up with something. Maybe we should consult the cults here? They always seem to know what no one else does.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is interpreted to be a Hebrew perspective that foxs are greedy and vicious, Song of Songs 2:15.

Well, I would certainly believe that about Herod anyway.

 

[John of Japan]

It is interpreted to be a Hebrew perspective that foxs are greedy and vicious, Song of Songs 2:15.

Thank you. Most certainly true, but is there theological significance there so that "fox" must be translated literally into all languages?

 

[John of Japan]

I have no certain knowledge, or good reason to speculate. It was just an observation. Song of Solomon 2:15 and Nehemiah 4:3 use “fox.” But those are understood contextually, used differently (though both involve ruin, as does Judges 15:4), and from earlier times.

It seems that here in Luke 13:32, translators don’t bother to find an equivalent term in English or don’t know one, as the context is somewhat uncertain and the term obscure. So, the preacher gets to apply his license, unless you guys come up with something.

Well, I think the English language treats the fox much like the Hebrew and Greek ("the sly fox"), so I see no problem with a literal rendering into English. However, I just looked back at our Japanese translation (being proofread now), and see that we translated "fox" literally into Japanese. I'm thinking maybe we should at least put a footnote there, since in Shintoism there is a "Fox God," so they don't have quite the negative view of the fox that we do. On the other hand, our Japanese linguist "Uncle Miya" approved of it, so maybe it's okay.

Maybe we should consult the cults here? They always seem to know what no one else does.

Hardy har har!

 

[John of Japan]

I'll leave code theory/propositional analysis for now, though feel free to comment.

Another theory of modern linguistics recommended for use in translation by Nida and others (but apparently not by Larson) is called transformational (or generational) grammar. This theory was invented by famous linguist Noam Chomsky in the 1950's & 1960's based on the work of Zellig Harris (his teacher). I was actually taught some of this in high school English, though I didn't know it at the time.

Here is the basic idea of transformations. You can say, "I eat an apple." A negative transformation would be, "I do not eat an apple." A passive one would be, "An apple is eaten by me." And so forth. Beyond that, I won't try to describe the theory--mainly because I don't understand it all myself! Interested parties may check out the Wikipedia article, which isn't bad: Transformational grammar - Wikipedia

James Price of the optimal equivalence theory (NKJV, Holman) does a complete transformational grammar of Hebrew in his magnum opus, A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (2007). I had the privilege of reading much of this prepublication, since Dr. Price is my old Hebrew teacher, but I don't mind telling you that he lost me.

This is one complicated theory, and it's easy to goof. In fact, Dr. Price pointed out one of Nida's errors:
“It is quite clear that paraphrase is unavoidable with dynamic equivalence theory. Glassman wrote, ‘It is, in fact, impossible to analyze, transfer and restructure without paraphrasing, at the level of the underlying kernel structures; and that, in turn, shows up at the final level of the surface structure.’ [Quoting Eugene Glassman, The Translation Debate, p.66—JoJ.] This is primarily true because of the subjectivity involved in the transfer step. The failure to employ transfer rules, but rather to depend on the translator’s subjective judgment, makes it almost certain that the information transferred to the receptor language will lack complete equivalence with the information of the source message. Thus the theory fails to accomplish equivalence; it is instead scientific paraphrase” (James Price, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, p. 17).

Okay, did you understand that?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'd want to know what this Fox God is a god of?

since in Shintoism there is a "Fox God,"

 

[John of Japan]

I'd want to know what this Fox God is a god of?

It is considered to be the mischievous messenger of the very popular "Great god" of Shinto, Inari. I remember a little shrine near our apartment in Yokohama to the fox. Seems like it was the patron of thieves, but I haven't been able to find that on the Internet.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In that case, I'd let it ride as the "idioms" fit with a minimum of shoehorning. Remember my experience is in Russian to English translation as the local language expert (Uncle Miya).

It is considered to be the mischievous messenger of the very popular "Great god" of Shinto, Inari. I remember a little shrine near our apartment in Yokohama to the fox. Seems like it was the patron of thieves, but I haven't been able to find that on the Internet.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'll leave code theory/propositional analysis for now, though feel free to comment.

Another theory of modern linguistics recommended for use in translation by Nida and others (but apparently not by Larson) is called transformational (or generational) grammar. This theory was invented by famous linguist Noam Chomsky in the 1950's & 1960's based on the work of Zellig Harris (his teacher). I was actually taught some of this in high school English, though I didn't know it at the time.

Here is the basic idea of transformations. You can say, "I eat an apple." A negative transformation would be, "I do not eat an apple." A passive one would be, "An apple is eaten by me." And so forth. Beyond that, I won't try to describe the theory--mainly because I don't understand it all myself! Interested parties may check out the Wikipedia article, which isn't bad: Transformational grammar - Wikipedia

James Price of the optimal equivalence theory (NKJV, Holman) does a complete transformational grammar of Hebrew in his magnum opus, A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (2007). I had the privilege of reading much of this prepublication, since Dr. Price is my old Hebrew teacher, but I don't mind telling you that he lost me.

This is one complicated theory, and it's easy to goof. In fact, Dr. Price pointed out one of Nida's errors:
“It is quite clear that paraphrase is unavoidable with dynamic equivalence theory. Glassman wrote, ‘It is, in fact, impossible to analyze, transfer and restructure without paraphrasing, at the level of the underlying kernel structures; and that, in turn, shows up at the final level of the surface structure.’ [Quoting Eugene Glassman, The Translation Debate, p.66—JoJ.] This is primarily true because of the subjectivity involved in the transfer step. The failure to employ transfer rules, but rather to depend on the translator’s subjective judgment, makes it almost certain that the information transferred to the receptor language will lack complete equivalence with the information of the source message. Thus the theory fails to accomplish equivalence; it is instead scientific paraphrase” (James Price, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, p. 17).

Okay, did you understand that?

Did you already define "scientific paraphrase" somewhere in this thread?

 

[John of Japan]

Did you already define "scientific paraphrase" somewhere in this thread?

I don't think so. Maybe some other thread. What Dr. Price meant by "scientific paraphrase" was that there was some linguistic science behind the DE theory in transformational grammar (TG), but DE was missing a key step.

I've studied TG on my own some, trying to understand it. I have read a basic textbook on it, but that is loaned out right now to a colleague. The missing step, as Dr. Price relates it, is the failure to formulate "transfer rules," instead using intuition, which is subjective. As far as I understand it, he means that in translating using TG, one must formulate a detailed set of rules based on the two languages. For example, in translating from Greek to English, the translator should not normally do transformations (renderings) that lose the nuance of a Greek passive voice by using an active voice, but should have a rule about when that is allowable and when it is not. Unfortunately, Dr. Price does not tell us in his books how to do that. For his part, Nida did not set any transfer rules either.

The truth is, some scholars say that TG was not meant for translation, but only to examine one particular language. I can see that, but do think that a knowledge of TG would help the translator think through his renderings. In my view, the translator does transformations instinctively as he or she translates, according to the God-given "universal grammar" within him (another of Chomsky's theories).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't think so. Maybe some other thread. What Dr. Price meant by "scientific paraphrase" was that there was some linguistic science behind the DE theory in transformational grammar (TG), but DE was missing a key step.

I've studied TG on my own some, trying to understand it. I have read a basic textbook on it, but that is loaned out right now to a colleague. The missing step, as Dr. Price relates it, is the failure to formulate "transfer rules," instead using intuition, which is subjective. As far as I understand it, he means that in translating using TG, one must formulate a detailed set of rules based on the two languages. For example, in translating from Greek to English, the translator should not normally do transformations (renderings) that lose the nuance of a Greek passive voice by using an active voice, but should have a rule about when that is allowable and when it is not. Unfortunately, Dr. Price does not tell us in his books how to do that. For his part, Nida did not set any transfer rules either.

The truth is, some scholars say that TG was not meant for translation, but only to examine one particular language. I can see that, but do think that a knowledge of TG would help the translator think through his renderings. In my view, the translator does transformations instinctively as he or she translates, according to the God-given "universal grammar" within him (another of Chomsky's theories).

Thanks for the explanation of "scientific paraphrase." Sounds a bit like an intended slight. I rather like it, though. Yep, could come in handy.

I appreciate that translators are trying to do their best and develop theories regarding the processes involved in their art. Perhaps the various theories can be useful tools for the craftsman to choose from in a given situation.

 

[John of Japan]

In that case, I'd let it ride as the "idioms" fit with a minimum of shoehorning. Remember my experience is in Russian to English translation as the local language expert (Uncle Miya).

Sounds good to me!

 

[John of Japan]

In 1991, Ernst-August Gutt gave a series of lectures at a UBS meeting in Zimbabwe on a new theory of communication called relevance theory (RT), developed in the 1980's by D. Sperber and D. M. S. Wilson. In 1992, SIL International printed the lectures in a book, Relevance Theory. It is somewhat odd that SIL people often tout code theory, but Gutt directly attacked code theory and even directly criticized the work of Nida, darling of the SIL/Wycliffe crowd.

RT teaches that simply coding a thought into words and then decoding it into another language doesn't describe communication well enough. Everyone who hears the communication will interpret it according to its relevance to their own situation: culture, idiom, society. This makes far more sense to me than code theory.

Gutt did not try to put together a translation theory from RT, but his work is influential among translators, from what I understand. So here (thinking of the OP), we can differentiate between translation theories formed from modern linguistics, and lingistic theories that help the translator. DE, using code theory, tries to tell translators how to translate. RT simply helps the translator understand what he is doing.

I'm all about linguistics helping the translator. I'm not about linguists telling the translator how to do his or her job, as DE tries to do. Linguists have often never done translation work, though Mildred Larson was a translator. (Eugene Nida never translated the Bible.)

 

[John of Japan]

I'm about done here. My main point has been that exegesis of the Scriptural text is the foundation of translation, and a good translation theory centers on that and not on linguistic theories such as code theory and transformational grammar.

I am not denying that linguistics is very helpful. But remember that until the 20th century, none of the great translators had the benefit of modern linguistics: Ulfilas, the LXX translators, Jerome, Luther, the KJV translators, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, etc. Yet they produced amazing translations.

Having said all of that, maybe I should have put this first. There are a number of linguistic tools which are very helpful, or even necessary, to translators.

1. Phonology—“The study of the sound systems of languages and of the nature of such systems generally.”[1] “Phonemes are the smallest elements of sound that contrast with each other in the phonological system of a language.”[2]

2. Morphology—“The study of the grammatical structure of words and the categories realized by them.”[3] “Morphemes may be defined as the minimal units of speech that convey a specific meaning.”[4]

3. Semantics—“The study of meaning.”[5]

4. Sociolinguistics—“Sociolinguistics 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.”[6]

5. Discourse analysis—“Effectively of any analysis of discourse,”[7] which is, “Any coherent succession of sentences, spoken or (in most usage) written.”[8]

[1] P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford, 2007), 300.

[2] David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Nashville: B & H, 2009), 3.

[3] Matthews, 252.

[4] Black, 4.

[5] Matthews, 360.

[6] Bernard Spolsky, Sociolinguistics (Bristol, UK: Oxford, 1998), 3.

[7] Matthews, 107.

[8] Ibid.