Target Language (TL): the language into which a document is being rendered. Eugene Nida calls this the receptor language, based on his existential theory of reader response.
-
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!
Bible Translation Studies Definitions
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
Anyone want to take a crack at defining "idiom"? This is a hard one. 
Short and sweet, but I like it Jim.
In translation and linguistics, though, there are two meanings to idiom. Care to take a crack at the other one?
What we need is a definition for that individual expression. What makes an expression an idiom? For example, "Go to church" is not an idiom, but "He's just playing church" is, at least in America.
One thing that makes an expression an idiom is when the understood meaning for the group of words together in that expression is different from the normal or literal meaning of the individual words in regular useage.
When the meaning of the individual words making up an idiom in one language are translated literally into another language, the meaning of that literal translation does not present to readers of that target language the same meaning as the idiom has in the original language.
This is a good definition, except that I would add that only one word can be an idiom. For example, there are idioms with all the temperature words: hot, cold, warm, cool.
This is usually true. However, occasionally the meaning of the idiom is close enough to the literal meaning that the idiom can be translated literally with success. (Can't think of an example at the moment.
Someone once doubted me when I listed "free translation" as a method of translation. :smilewinkgrin: So I'm giving two non-JoJ definitions of free translation.
First of all, this is under a heading of "Free vs. literal translation," where the author contrasts them as opposites:
"This is the binary opposition that has dominated the debate on translation over the centuries. Free translation is usually taken to concentrate on conveying the meaning of the ST (source text--JoJ) 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, 2009, p. 49).
Here's the other definition:
"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, p. 77).
Of these two definitions I like the first best.
First of all, this is under a heading of "Free vs. literal translation," where the author contrasts them as opposites:
"This is the binary opposition that has dominated the debate on translation over the centuries. Free translation is usually taken to concentrate on conveying the meaning of the ST (source text--JoJ) 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, 2009, p. 49).
Here's the other definition:
"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, p. 77).
Of these two definitions I like the first best.
I think for a figure of speech to rise to being considered an idiom, it would be in common usage, used by an identified group, and during a period of time. For example "three days and three nights" may be a Jewish idiom that means on the third day, which of course is not the literal meaning.
I think a word for word translation attempts to translate the meaning of word into a word with the same intended meaning in the TL. So to the extend words are chosen to convey what seems to be the idea of the author, rather than the literal meaning of the words used, it is more of a dynamic translation.
The problem with a paraphrase is if the translators did not understand the intended message, it will not appear in the paraphase, and instead a corruption preventing the reader from discerning the message will appear.
When we think of word meanings, it is important to go with the meaning as used at the time written, rather than say the meaning now because the meaning may have drifted over time.
What I see as a failure in all modern translation is the lack of coherance. The same Greek word is translated into many different English words. I think translators should work very hard at translating the same word in the same way as much as possible. Otherwise the translation loses objectivity.
I think a word for word translation attempts to translate the meaning of word into a word with the same intended meaning in the TL. So to the extend words are chosen to convey what seems to be the idea of the author, rather than the literal meaning of the words used, it is more of a dynamic translation.
The problem with a paraphrase is if the translators did not understand the intended message, it will not appear in the paraphase, and instead a corruption preventing the reader from discerning the message will appear.
When we think of word meanings, it is important to go with the meaning as used at the time written, rather than say the meaning now because the meaning may have drifted over time.
What I see as a failure in all modern translation is the lack of coherance. The same Greek word is translated into many different English words. I think translators should work very hard at translating the same word in the same way as much as possible. Otherwise the translation loses objectivity.
Technically, most sources do not call an idiom a figure speech. The term "figure of speech" is usually used of metaphors and similes, not idioms. But you are right that we can't just make up a term and call it an idiom without it being in common usage.
Perceptive. This brings up the term "authorial intent," which would be a good one for someone to define.
I agree.
Here's are some definition for you.
Concordance: the process of translating every occurance of a given word in the original with the same word in the TL. 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).
Polysemy: the tendency of words to have more than one meaning.
Last edited by a moderator:
Equivalence: the concept that for every word or phrase in one language there is a word or phrase in another language with the same or nearly the same meaning. This concept has been used in the naming of translation methods such as dynamic equivalence (functional equivalence), optimal equivalence, etc.
I certainly agree that source language words have a range of meanings. Certainly the same root can have different add on's making it a noun, verb, and so forth. But the same word in the same form by the same author probably means the same thing in every usage. I would certainly start there and only pull off if no suitable TL word or phrase will work in every usage in the text. I believe we could go a long way toward improving the transmission of God's message if we used such an approach.
Lets take a simple example, Romans 3:30. Most versions read something like circumcised are saved by faith and uncircumcised are saved through faith. I you every read a commentary that explains the idea here.
I think the circumcised are being saved out of faith [in the Law] and the uncircumcised are being saved through faith [in Christ.] In other words I did not see any need to pull off the basic meaning of "ek."
I think the circumcised are being saved out of faith [in the Law] and the uncircumcised are being saved through faith [in Christ.] In other words I did not see any need to pull off the basic meaning of "ek."
You may or may not be right about this particular passage. But you are certainly not right about "the basic meaning of 'ek'". Greek prepositions are the last type of word that should be translated by concordance. Their meaning changes according to the case they take, whether they follow a certain verb form (einai in the case of ek), whether the phrase is adverbial, etc. etc.
But again, please start another thread and I'll interact with you there.
Transformational grammar: A theory of grammar from linguistics used in various translation methods which emphasizes the way meaning is expressed by relating various “transformations” that can be done to an original, “kernel” sentence. Example: for the kernel sentence “I drive,” we can have a negative transformation (I don’t drive), a passive transformation (I am driven), an interrogative transformation (Do I drive?), etc.
In the near future I will have an article up on this subject at my son's blog at: http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.com/
In the near future I will have an article up on this subject at my son's blog at: http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.com/
back translation: in tribal translation work, in particular, this is a retranslation from the TL draft back into the original language in order for translation consultants to check it.
Here are several definitions for semantics:
“Semantics: A science dealing with the relations between referents and referends—linguistic symbols (words, expressions, phrases) and the objects or concepts to which they refer—and with the history and changes in the meanings of words.” (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 193).
“Semantics—the study of meaning” (An Introduction to Transformational Grammar, by Diane Bornstein, p. 245). And this is nothing new. The classic text on linguistics from 1933 by Leonard Bloomfield says exactly the same thing (Language, p. 513).
According to Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, by David Alan Black: “The branch of linguistics concerned with meaning is called semantics” (p. 120). And the title of chapter five in Black’s book is “Semantics: Determining Meaning.”
Biblical Bible Translating by Charles Turner also has a chapter on semantics entitled, “Chapter 14, Semantics: Verbal Meanings.”
“Semantics: A science dealing with the relations between referents and referends—linguistic symbols (words, expressions, phrases) and the objects or concepts to which they refer—and with the history and changes in the meanings of words.” (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 193).
“Semantics—the study of meaning” (An Introduction to Transformational Grammar, by Diane Bornstein, p. 245). And this is nothing new. The classic text on linguistics from 1933 by Leonard Bloomfield says exactly the same thing (Language, p. 513).
According to Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, by David Alan Black: “The branch of linguistics concerned with meaning is called semantics” (p. 120). And the title of chapter five in Black’s book is “Semantics: Determining Meaning.”
Biblical Bible Translating by Charles Turner also has a chapter on semantics entitled, “Chapter 14, Semantics: Verbal Meanings.”
sense for sense translation: a translation philosophy that concentrates on translating meaning without necessarily preserving the grammatical forms of the original text. Very close to the term "free translation" but nuanced in a different way.