Bible Translation Studies Definitions

[Rippon]

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.

Sense-for-sense. Jerome,John Purvey and Martin Luther,among others used that approach in their translations.

 

[John of Japan]

Sense-for-sense. Jerome,John Purvey and Martin Luther,among others used that approach in their translations.

I believe you're right in general about Purvey and Luther. Jerome is debateable.

Jerome defends his regular translation method in his "To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating," in which he specifically says he translated "sense for sense" normally. However, Jerome also says, "For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word" (W. H. Fremantle's translation, par. 5).

From looking at the Vulgate with my very shaky high school Latin, I think he translated fairly literally, but did not follow the Greek word order. He would probably not be as literal as the NASV, but more so than others. At any rate, the fact that the Vulgate has endured for so long means it was an excellent translation in its time.

 

[John of Japan]

syntax: that branch of grammar that deals with how a sentence is constructed.

 

[John of Japan]

Receptor language (a dynamic equivalence term): See “target language.” Nida uses this term instead of the more usual TL because his translation theory makes the response or reception of the reader primary in translation.

 

[John of Japan]

reader response (a dynamic equivalence term): Nida defined the goal of translation as a rendering which will evoke the same response from the modern reader as it did from the original readers of the New Testament. This is a foundational concept in DE.

 

[Rippon]

reader response (a dynamic equivalence term): Nida defined the goal of translation as a rendering which will evoke the same response from the modern reader as it did from the original readers of the New Testament. This is a foundational concept in DE.

But a number of dynamic-equivalent English translations do not affirm the above. The NLTse for example is certainly a dynamic-equialent translation (not a paraphrase). Yet in its Preface not once does it say in the 5 and a half pages of tiny print anything of what Nida espoused regarding reader's response.

 

[John of Japan]

But a number of dynamic-equivalent English translations do not affirm the above. The NLTse for example is certainly a dynamic-equialent translation (not a paraphrase). Yet in its Preface not once does it say in the 5 and a half pages of tiny print anything of what Nida espoused regarding reader's response.

In Nida's view, if they did not aim at reader response they were not truly dynamic equivalence. He is very definite on this. I'll try to get some quotes on this later.

From what you say, maybe the NLTse translators thought they were doing dynamic equivalence when they were not. :smilewinkgrin: Maybe they should have called it a sense-for-sense translation rather than DE. Or maybe they were just giving the popular definition rather than the technical definition.

 

[Rippon]

In Nida's view, if they did not aim at reader response they were not truly dynamic equivalence. He is very definite on this.

Well there are a number of translations in English which use what is called dynamic-equivalence. Perhaps there are versions in other language groups that do the same.

From what you say, maybe the NLTse translators thought they were doing dynamic equivalence when they were not. :smilewinkgrin:

I don't know if the reader's response aspect is the crux of the matter. I think a number of Bible versions can rightly be called dynamic-equivalent even if there is some departure from elements of Nida's particular method.

Maybe they should have called it a sense-for-sense translation rather than DE.

Maybe. But a sense-for-sense oriented version such as the 2011 NIV is more form-driven than the slew of D-E versions.

Or maybe they were just giving the popular definition rather than the technical definition.

I think that's certainly the case. The name of Nida's translational method has been appropriated,but his rules are not followed to the T.

 

[John of Japan]

Well there are a number of translations in English which use what is called dynamic-equivalence. Perhaps there are versions in other language groups that do the same.

A Japanese pastor did a paraphrase called the Gendai Yaku ("Modern Translation"). In his book explaining his translation he said that someone told him he was doing DE, but he didn't know what that was! Believe me, this is strictly a paraphrase, not DE. The Japanese Confraternity Version has a lot of the earmarks of DE, but I've never read that they claimed to be doing DE.

Rippon: I don't know if the reader's response aspect is the crux of the matter. I think a number of Bible versions can rightly be called dynamic-equivalent even if there is some departure from elements of Nida's particular method.

This is odd. Though I don't agree with Nida's method, I feel like he should get more credit than he does, and I feel like his methodology should get due credit, which can't happen without folks understanding it. It seems like everyone likes the DE terminology, but not enough people understand the methodology.

Here's what Philip Stine wrote, Nida's co-worker and biographer:

“The terms ‘source,’ ‘message’ and ‘receptor’ all make totally explicit Nida’s starting assumption: translation is a form of communication. His communication model in its simplest form describes how a message requires a source, a content or meaning, and a receptor. In translation, a translator can function both as a receptor of a source language message and a source in the target language…. But Nida points out how much more is actually involved, especially since interpersonal communication takes place in a sociolinguistic, historical and cultural context. The meaning of the message and the way the reader responds to the message are shaped by these factors.” Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written, 2005, p. 40.

Rippon: I think that's certainly the case. The name of Nida's translational method has been appropriated,but his rules are not followed to the T.

But how can someone claim to be doing Nida's method without following how he laid out to do it? That seems intellectually lazy to me. It's like the pro wrestler doing a "judo chop." There ain't no such thing! Judo doesn't chop anyone!

 

[John of Japan]

formal equivalence (a dynamic equivalence term): Eugene Nida’s word for literal translation or word-for-word translation, which aims at preserving the form of the original as much as possible in both grammar and vocabulary.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the definition of DE by Eugene Nida himself. Note the importance of reader response in his concept, and also note some of his methods based on transformational grammar. In Nida's definition, DE does not occur without allowing for reader response by means of transformations. (Words in all caps are defined elsewhere in his glossary.)

"dynamic equivalence: quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE."

The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, 1982, p. 200.

 

[John of Japan]

Optimal Equivalence: A method of translation which seeks the optimal expression in the target language; that is, the expression which best reproduces the form and meaning of the original. This was the method used to translate the NKJV and HCSB. This method's main proponent is Dr. James Price, OT editor of the NKJV and a translator on the HCSB.

 

[John of Japan]

machine translation: an early word for computer translation. Eugene Nida devoted the last chapter of his book delineating his new theory to this subject (Towards a Science of Translating, 1964, Chapter 12).

 

[John of Japan]

computer translation: using computer software to produce a translation. This method shows promise, but is still in its infancy. Even the best software cannot yet mimic a translator’s knowledge of syntax in the SL and TL, his intuition and his ability to do transformations in the two languages.

 

[Rippon]

Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE."

I know you were quoting Nida,but before E.N. there were indeed Bible translations which were not form-driven. And I don't mean loose paraphrases either.

 

[John of Japan]

I know you were quoting Nida,but before E.N. there were indeed Bible translations which were not form-driven. And I don't mean loose paraphrases either.

Of course there were. "Sense for sense."

 

[Rippon]

Optimal Equivalence: A method of translation which seeks the optimal expression in the target language; that is, the expression which best reproduces the form and meaning of the original. This was the method used to translate the NKJV and HCSB. This method's main proponent is Dr. James Price, OT editor of the NKJV and a translator on the HCSB.

The NKJV and the HCSB do not use the same translational method. The HCSB is a mediating version along with the ISV,2011 NIV, New American Bible and the NET Bible.

However,the way things are worded regarding optimal equivalence --all of the last five mentioned can legitimately be said to use an optimal equivalent method.

Rememeber what Glenn J.Kerr said as he reviewed James Price's book :A Theory For Bible Translation:An Optimal Equivalence Model. Kerr stated :"Optimal Equivalence Theory does not lend itself easily to a simple definition,and Price's glossary entry could easily be applied to Dynamic Equivalance,Functional Equivalence,or Meaning-based theory."

 

[John of Japan]

The NKJV and the HCSB do not use the same translational method. The HCSB is a mediating version along with the ISV,2011 NIV, New American Bible and the NET Bible.

However,the way things are worded regarding optimal equivalence --all of the last five mentioned can legitimately be said to use an optimal equivalent method.

Rememeber what Glenn J.Kerr said as he reviewed James Price's book :A Theory For Bible Translation:An Optimal Equivalence Model. Kerr stated :"Optimal Equivalence Theory does not lend itself easily to a simple definition,and Price's glossary entry could easily be applied to Dynamic Equivalance,Functional Equivalence,or Meaning-based theory."

I disagree with Kerr, having read most of Dr. Price's book pre-publication and having interacted with him. DE is first and last about reader response. OE is not. It is as simple as that.

Edited in: By the way, please source this statement by Kerr for me.

 

[John of Japan]

Kerr also wrote at http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=7272&pc=9:

“This is a welcome alternative to translation theories that deal almost exclusively with semantics and ignore the structural equivalence issues. Brace yourself for the long haul, but dig in with interest.” – Dr. Glenn J. Kerr, Chief Translation Consultant, Bibles International

This shows he clearly understands the differences and delineates between optimal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

Edited in: I found Dr. Kerr's original review, and the above statement was taken from that. Note that Kerr remarks that OE deals with the structural equivalence issues, which are virtually ignored by DE. This is a very important point in understanding the difference betweent the two theories.

 

[John of Japan]

The NKJV and the HCSB do not use the same translational method. The HCSB is a mediating version along with the ISV,2011 NIV, New American Bible and the NET Bible.

However,the way things are worded regarding optimal equivalence --all of the last five mentioned can legitimately be said to use an optimal equivalent method.

While I don't agree with this, it does urge me to go back and rephrase my definition to include the influence of transformational grammar in OE.