Is Dynamic Equivalence a Bad Thing?

John,

I write better in the day than at night.

First, I am not what I consider 'functional' in Japanese. I do take my hat off to your translational work. However, I have been mistaken for a Japanese on the telephone. And while one of those high paid military linguists you mentioned was unable to separate Japanese from North Korean, I could separate the languages in 2 to 3 sentences (that was before I could use either language). Most poly-lingual speakers consider me a natural linguist (DLAT tested me as one), but I do not. Several European speakers have thought that I must be European with a strange American accent.

I think we have been miscommunicating.

I believe that you view language as relatively difficult to learn, yet relatively simple simple once learned. I believe that you feel that a language can be broken down into its sub parts and reproduced (translated) easily.

I look at communication as what is broken down into sub units that most people call languages.

I mentioned that Japan was a rice culture, you mentioned that they now eat other foods. However, I have never met a Japanese that would not consider himself (or herself) as being from a 'rice based culture'. My Japanese friends can taste the difference of about 6 grades of cooked rice. They have described that difference in English to me - but, I do not understand that difference. You might be able to taste the difference, but I cannot taste the difference. Yet, I can communicate some of that difference, even though I cannot feel the difference (this is a lexical ability).

You hear a language, I feel a culture. My moniker usually denotes 'the blonde man' (by dictionary). But it usually cannotes, "a White Mexican". And even this subtle difference can be HUGE depending upon the Spanish dialect of the listener.

I have identified people's native language by their accents in English, Japanese, Spanish, Korean, Chinese (a miracle for me), and even in unknown languages. A man remarked that 'no one has ever identified me as Romanian. How could you tell that by my accent in English?" I do not know 'how', I merely do (at better than 95% accuracy).

Back to translation. What I can feel, I doubt that you can translate. What you can translate, I may not be able to feel. But, this is the reason for dynamic equivelence. This is the reason that we do our best to preach exegetically. We are trying to take the 'intent' of a passage and communicate it to a people that have never used an outhouse, walked 20 miles, or lived without a roof over their heads.

The issue is: can a literal discussion of pastoring sheep be understood easily by those that have never seen sheep? Do sheep really stink? Are sheep stupid? Does mutton taste terrible? Or, as in my previous post, why did the 'animistic' POV of Pilate influence his decisions (and his actions) regarding the Christ?

And the answer is: depends upon the level of understanding between the author (speaker) and the audience. A shepherd speaking to his children would not have to explain much. But, a preacher speaking to a bunch of Americans (USA not USofM) might not be able to communicate clearly what was transpiring behind Pilates words and actions.

Therefore, I do believe that a DE translation is sometimes crucial for understanding the underlying text (in English, Greek, or Japanese). I do not believe that someone MUST use a DE translation when they study. But, using a good commentary is similar to using a DE translation.

IMHO

 

this is hilarious!!

in every instance i see DE (i.e. meaning-based translation) exemplified, making the Form conform to the Meaning.

where 2 sentences communicate the meaning n impression better than 1 sentence in the original, DE demands doing the former.

where the use of additional forms of politeness where none exists in the original, DE demands its use if it helps avoid introducing meanings of impoliteness.

where a different form is used fr the original gloss is required to avoid confusion, by all means do so, says DE.

so what gives?! :wavey:

but i won't get hung up by anyone's hatred of certain terminology if the final product is true to the Meaning of the message even if the Form in the Target Language has been apparently mangled.

 

Sigh. No, DE does not mean "meaning based translation." All translation should be "meaning based." What DE seeks to do is produce the same response in the receptor language as the original writer intended. That is certainly not what I have done. Have you actually read anything by Nida?

 

Then perhaps you made a mistake by disagreeing with someone who has lived and worked here since 1981.:smilewinkgrin:

Are you fluent in any language other than English?

I always appreciate it when people actually ask me what I believe rather than assuming. While I do view language as difficult to learn, I certainly do not believe it is "relatively simple once learned." I also do not believe that "a language can be broken down into its sub parts and reproduced (translated) easily."

Language is extremely complex, and nuances abound. That is why I do not believe in the DE method. It often seeks to simplify so that the reader in the receptor language has an easy time of it. I believe that a translation should do it's best to bring out the nuances of the original, so that the reader can interpret for himself rather than having the translator do it for him.

So many modern readers want to be spoon fed the Bible. However, the righteous man in Psalm 1 meditated in God's Word day and night. If it were simple, that would not be necessary.

Japan in the 21st century is rapidly changing. It would take too much time and effort to explain how here. Maybe you can visit Japan some time and see for yourself.

Once again you are deciding what I am and think without consulting me. I believe it is ignorant to separate language and culture. Culture does not exist without language.

As interesting as this is, it does not make you a linguist and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Any translation that tries to translate feeling has already failed. Feeling is emotion, not meaning.

As for translating "outhouse," it is looking down on the reader to translate it with something else than a direct or optimal equivalent simply because the reader has never heard of one. What must be done is to find an "optimal equivalent," a word of phrase that comes as close as possible in the receptor language to the meaning of the original. The problem with translating "outhouse" with a DE rendering that doesn't mean the same as the original is that the reader may someday go to the "big city," get educated and find out what an outhouse really is. He will then know that he has been lied to! :smilewinkgrin:

 

ideally yes. but DE actually manages to articulate how this is done rather than rely on the jingle "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." :smilewinkgrin:

however, contra ur denial, it is commonly accepted that DE does mean "meaning-based translation"; DE's the old term, n MBT's the newer, but both mean abt the same thing. in an interview with Nida, one researcher says that:

He coined the term dynamic equivalence translation to describe a "meaning-based" approach to translation—one that looks for functional equivalence rather than formal resemblance in translation. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/011/2.46.html)
​

did u see what he says? DE's not something different fr MBT.

yes, i have a rather old work by Nida which he did with Taber, but it's a standard work. it's called the Theory n Practice of Translation, but most of the examples are drawn fr the Bible itself. have u read it? do u see anywhere where he/Taber suggest introducing concepts that are neither implicit nor explicit in the Source Language texts?

speaking of reader response, cld that have been a concern of yours when u employ polite forms in Japanese? what cld be the motivation?

 

i think in comparison with the previous diatribes against DE this paragraph's both candid n helpful. yes, languages are devilishly complicated n nuanced--n that's undeniable. but that's precisely why "That is why I do not believe in the DE method" sounds so random.

while it's true that DE often "seeks to simplify so that the reader in the receptor language has an easy time of it," we shd ask what the alternative is. make it more difficult? what's the point of translation at all? why not just teach/learn the dead language (koine Gk/Hebrew/Aramaic)? why not just stop at transliteration? or at most, at an interlinear? why facilitate understanding if that's making things easy, n making easy understanding's somehow undesirable?

yet i must say this is noble: "I believe that a translation should do it's best to bring out the nuances of the original, so that the reader can interpret for himself rather than having the translator do it for him." the question is how far shd the translator go? what do u do with the Selahs? that's a good nuance. what does transliteration communicate? what does leaving it communicate? what abt signalling a pause (as one interpretation of the word says)? whichever way, there's a decision to be made, n a hard one at that. so anyone wants to cast the first stone?

ah, lovely!

i'm really curious: how do u translate OUT + HOUSE in Japanese using the FE or "optimal" approach?

do u use 2 words? does it communicate the same meaning/feelings as the original to an English native speaker? does it communicate (in the FE or "optimal" rendering) any more or less than if u simply transliterated the forms?

 

I admit I'm still learning. I'll follow up on the MBT term. I'm kind of isolated over here in Japan and can only follow up what I find on the Internet or Amazon.

It seems somewhat selfish to me, though to appropriate the term "meaning based" as if other translation methods were not meaning based.

Of course no translator wants to introduce concepts that are neither implicit nor explicit in the originals, and no doubt I wouldn't be able to find a quote from Nida/Taber where they say they do. My point is that by concentrating on the response in the receptor language rather than the meaning suggested by the grammar of the original, you sometimes introduce new meaning without meaning to. I've tried to prove that in other posts on the translation of Psalms.

That is where I'll admit my translation approaches DE (or MBT, or whatever; in recent articles I've seen scholars still use the DE term). I was wondering if anyone would catch that. Congratulations!

Actually, my Japanese linguist consultant thinks I should even be more literal and leave out the polite forms, but he is kind of radical. :smilewinkgrin:

So, Oh Thou of the Massive Sarcasm, you said my post was "hilarious," and that ALL of my renderings in the example I gave were DE (or MBT, or whatever). Teach me. How in the world is substituting a proper name for a pronoun considered to be DE? Can you give me a quote from a DE/MBT scholar on that?

 

I'd love to answer all of your post, but I don't have time right now. Gotta run to the church soon.

But there is a Japanese word for outhouse with four Chinese characters. Knowing the Japanese, though, they would be just as happy with a transliteration. They love transliterating, and even have a separate alphabet for loan words called katakana.

 

John,

I am a natural linguist, said that someplace. I respect your translational ability, think I wrote that somewhere. You are great in Japanese. Still don't get that rice thing, but you are better than I am - or will become this side of eternity.

Don't have a problem with DE. I don't have a problem with literal translations either. I think the proper translation is a literal. Word order, verb conjugation, politeness level, & illustrations should all be literal - word for word. No variance. The reason that I prefer that is simple - that is the manner in which it was intended to be communicated to the target audience. And that is why I read the original languages when I prepare sermons - I believe the word order emphasizes some elements over others.

But, I don't think that literal would communicate good [sic] in Japanese, or in English.

 

Nida redivivus

but really, u wldn't be afoul of Form Equivalence, which is as its name implies, an approach tied to the forms, not the meaning (implicit or otherwise), of the Source Language. yet, because the result of a consistent Fe's often hideous, FEs are forced to take liberties that they justify (like D.A. Waite does) as accommodating to the "parlance." but no, MBT's basically the same thing as DE, only more current.

i wld suggest that sticking to the Form does precisely that, often without the well-intended translator realising it! insisting on the number in Hebrew nouns, for instance, might produce form-based equivalents in the Target Language in terms of plurals n duals that really introduce new meaning not intended in the original. as a form-based advocate, for instance, how wld one "ensure" that MAYIM (dual - water/s) is "accurately" translated into the TL? lots more ... Mizraim for Egypt, denarii for currency, etc. DEs know what to do--make sure the meaning, the same estimated reader response, the thot get across. what do FEs do? create exceptions to an inadequate theory? sing the old jingle? i really dunno. :tear:

at least he's consistent, heh heh! but i do think DE accounts more comprehensively for the vagaries of language differences (u've amply demonstrated ur understanding that Japanese n English don't map; same for biblical languages!) than does FE, which was never quite fleshed out (AFAIK) the way Nida did for his.

hmm, u didn't optimally translate it original aramaism O Thou Son of Massive Sarcasm, but i'll let that slide :laugh:

i failed to locate ur "substituting a proper name for a pronoun" among ur examples in the original post referred to. mind reposting it here?

off the cuff, seems like it's a liberty FEs wld grant to themselves when Paul gets too verbose for their liking. but yes, that's right in line with DE principles--communicating the thot n not the form! a proper name is NOT the same in form as a pronoun. but the proper name communicates the same meaning, the same thot (aha, thot for thot), n often evokes the same the reader response as the pronoun that stands for it.

have u read Nida n Taber? the book goes into how this is done fr SL to TL, carefully analysing the form of the SL (e.g. pronoun) to get its meaning (which includes possible responses/understandings by the original audience), then reproducing those similar responses/understandings/meanings in the TL using whatever TL forms are necessary to achieve that.

which is all somehow sinister to the anti-DE folk who have no qualms abt their favourite translation doing the very same transformations in its better-rendered portions! :smilewinkgrin:

 

The Bible In English : An Overview

By Dick France ( within the book : The Challenge of Bible Translation ) .

A revised version , produced after Wycliffe's death , probably by his secretary John Purvey , shows more respect for English idiom ; the reviser's prologue states a remarkably modern-sounding aim : " to translate after the sentence and not only after the words ... ; and if the letter may not be followed in the translating , let the sentence ever be whole and open [ plain] . " ( p.180 )

The following quote is from Ernst R. Wendland , " Martin Luther , the Father of Confessional , Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation : Part 1 , " Notes On Translation 9/1 (1995 ) : 16-36 .

[ This is what Luther said ] "what is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway ? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style . Rather he must see to it -- once he understands the Hebrew author -- that he concentrates on the sense of the text , asking himself , ' Pray tell , what do the Germans say in such a situation ? ' Once he has the German words to serve the purpose , let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows . "

 

Let me get this straight. You come on this thread on page 7, leave out many of your vowels, consonants and captial letters (making your posts hard to read), call my post hilarious, make various other snide remarks, call my methodology "formal equivalence" when I have said clearly it is not, and now you actually expect me to look back on my own "hilarious" post and find something I said because you don't have the character to read it carefully enough?

El_Guero has been gracious. Rippon has earned some respect by proving he is well read in the subject. But if you expect respect here, you certainly don't have it from me.

 

hmm, btw there was really no sarcasm or snideness intended in characterising ur claims as "hilarious." it was simply unbelievable, what i saw! as i've pointed out, whatever u call it, and contra ur vigorous denial, that list showed all the hallmarks of DE rather than the opposite.

also, i'm not sure u see the irony when u post: "You ... leave out many of your vowels, consonants and captial letters." but no, i'm afraid this is how i type (minimising my keystrokes for personal reasons), n u didn't seem to have difficulty or comprehending it before; yet u can feel free to ignore my postings. i just sense, when u say "because you don't have the character to read it carefully enough" rather than to restate what wasn't in the original post, that u've chosen to engage in ad hominem rather than to deal w the issue at hand. :tear:

can i take it that u won't be answering the questions i've posed? this wld be disappointing to me, as i'd hoped to continue our exchange after u came back fr church. (n i'm assuming u're back by now, since u mentioned, "I'd love to answer all of your post, but I don't have time right now. Gotta run to the church soon.") for now, i'll take it that u're busy w missionary work, but do feel free to return to the topic at hand when the load lightens up n u're more inclined to go on! :thumbs:

 

Thanks for the tip, Doctor.

I'm impressed by scholarship. I'm also impressed by Christian character.

 

And your "modesty" comment on the paraphrase thread was sweet Christian love?

I'd love to interact more if you actually care to interact graciously with someone who doesn't toe the DE line. But it's the weekend and I rarely post much then for obvious reasons.

 

i assume u're referring to this statement:

"Optimal Equivalence" (optimal for what, but i'm blown away by the modesty!)​

it appears in ur other posts that u disclaim authorship of this term, referring to HCSB. according to the HCSB Intro (http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb-intro.html) its "optimal" approach is in between DE n FE. what's not clear is the why: it has not clarified the necessity of reproducing SL forms in the TL or articulated how verbal correspondence is somehow relevant or accurate. fact is, without DE, HCSB won't sell, or any other self-proclaimed "translation."

at any rate, if the term "optimal" didin't originate fr u, why take it personally? HCSB isn't alone in the modesty department. there was another English version that came out abt 10 yrs ago claiming to be betw DE n FE, and (get this!!) claiming to be "Closest Natural Equivalence"!! that is, they basically ripped off (some wld say, Plagiarised) Nida's other name for DE, claiming it to be theirs n placing it in opposition to DE, what cheek! here's what the publishers of that translation claim:

- the difference between closest natural equivalence and function equivalence is that a metaphor will not be eliminated
- The goal of closest natural equivalence is to communicate as much of the source text as possible in a way that is useable for the type of readers that the original author targeted
- Closest natural equivalence recognizes that translation should not obscure meaning and make the Bible more difficult to read than it ought to be (as form equivalence may do)​

as one critique of DE n Nida notes: "Later he complained of abuses of the method he outlined, and for this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence," preferring instead "functional equivalence." Recently some others have preferred to call it "meaning-based translation" or "closest natural equivalence," a phrase which Nida also sometimes used in his writings. These shifts in terminology do not represent changes in the method. I use the term "dynamic equivalence" because it continues to be the one most widely used" (http://www.lwelliott.com/Documents/dynamic equavilance2.htm).

well, whatever. like i said, modesty.

hmm, i'll just leave it to the moderators to respond to the continued ad hominem. as far as i'm concerned, if u make the claim (esp a big one, as i've pointed out), it's up to u to back it up. if challenged, u're free to respond. otherwise, the option's open to withdraw the claim.

have a gt weekend!

 

So, you rate me on how many languages I can speak?

Do I get more points for FARSI, Arabic, Chinese, or Biblical Hebrew and Greek? Just curious.

 

Scholarship and language ability are not synonyms. But if you are fluent in all of these I am impressed with your work ethic! :smilewinkgrin: