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. ;))
Two Approaches: Linguistics and Exegesis
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Apr 19, 2019.
Page 1 of 4
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So, please do not make this a thread to discuss "formal" and "dynamic." That's been done over and over. -
@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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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).
-
Here is an exlanatory video of his book, for which I baught a copy. I found it interesting.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
-
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 1 of 4