Two Approaches: Linguistics and Exegesis

[John of Japan]

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. )

 

[Ziggy]

Might the reticence be part of a desire not to wave a red flag and overtly identify their work as Christian or related to Bible translation for the sake of those working in difficult regions?

 

[John of Japan]

Might the reticence be part of a desire not to wave a red flag and overtly identify their work as Christian or related to Bible translation for the sake of those working in difficult regions?

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.

 

[Van]

I think the two actual methods are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

In FE you figure out the intended message by study of the source language word or phrase meaning, and then present it while reflecting the grammar of the source language, i.e. nouns remain nouns, and verbs remain verbs, to the extent possible.

In DE you start with a presupposition of the intended message, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and then focus on presenting that message in the target language such that the receptor grasps the message just as those of the original audience.

Unfortunately, if you view DE but do not share the DE translators presuppositions, many times you see non-equivalence.

 

[John of Japan]

I think the two actual methods are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

In FE you figure out the intended message by study of the source language word or phrase meaning, and then present it while reflecting the grammar of the source language, i.e. nouns remain nouns, and verbs remain verbs, to the extent possible.

In DE you start with a presupposition of the intended message, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and then focus on presenting that message in the target language such that the receptor grasps the message just as those of the original audience.

Unfortunately, if you view DE but do not share the DE translators presuppositions, many times you see non-equivalence.

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.

 

[37818]

@John of Japan
Per chance have you read, "One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal?" by Dave Brunn
If so, briefly, how do you see what he explains in regards to the topic of this thread? Does he deal with this issue?

 

[John of Japan]

@John of Japan
Per chance have you read, "One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal?" by Dave Brunn
If so, briefly, how do you see what he explains in regards to the topic of this thread? Does he deal with this issue?

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.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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. )

I did not realize the SIL crowd is translating from English.

Interesting stuff.

This is kind of off topic, but somewhat relevant, this is video I took at the Museum of the Bible in DC:

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

I did not realize the SIL crowd is translating from English.

Interesting stuff.

This is kind of off topic, but somewhat relevant, this is video I took at the Museum of the Bible in DC:

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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).

 

[37818]

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.

In his book he makes a case why often a word of word translation as such is not done, even in NASB or ESV. So it may not directly cover this topic as you are presenting here.
Here is an exlanatory video of his book, for which I baught a copy. I found it interesting.

 

[John of Japan]

In his book he makes a case why often a word of word translation as such is not done, even in NASB or ESV. So it may not directly cover this topic as you are presenting here.
Here is an exlanatory video of his book, for which I baught a copy. I found it interesting.

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

 

[Van]

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.

I believe Exegetically based translations are tied closely with formal equivalence, whereas Linguistically based translations are closely tied with dynamic equivalence.

There has been a historical debate in the field of translation between ‘word to word’ (literal) and ‘sense to sense’ (free) translation. Linguistic approach can enter both these aspects of translation. However the ‘sense to sense’ translation is understood to actually carry to the same meaning as of the source text.

 

[Reformed]

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

Exegesis.

 

[Yeshua1]

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. )

We have to get back to what it meant originally to the readers, in their original languages, correct?

 

[37818]

We have to get back to what it meant originally to the readers, in their original languages, correct?

From the Hebrew and Greek texts. But to the target language it needs to be a matter of Linguistics.

 

[37818]

Exegesis.

An Exegesis to the Linguistics of the targent language.

 

[John of Japan]

From the Hebrew and Greek texts. But to the target language it needs to be a matter of Linguistics.

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?

 

[John of Japan]

We have to get back to what it meant originally to the readers, in their original languages, correct?

Absolutely!