holy communicative
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
1/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
HOLY COMMUNICATIVE?
Current approaches to Bible translation worldwide
Peter Kirk, SIL International,1June 2002
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
From the day that the Christian Church was founded, the day of Pentecost, the proclamation of the Christian
message has been directed to speakers of many languages from every nation under heaven. 2ithin a few
decades the words of !esus Christ, originally spoken in "ramaic or #ebrew,$had been translated into %reek,
the lingua franca of the &editerranean world, and published in the familiar %ospel form.'(he four ma)or
%ospels, and the other early Christian writings which were later collected with them to form the *ew
(estament, also contain many +uotations from the #ebrew ible translated into %reek. (he Christians were
not the first to translate the #ebrew -criptures there is a record of oral translation of the (orah from perhaps
as early as the /thcentury C0,/and the written %reek and "ramaic translations date from well before the
time of Christ. ut from the very start of the Christian faith the principle was established that the #oly
-criptures, even the words of %od and of Christ, could and should be translated. For the early Christian
vision was of a perfected community consisting of a great multitude that no one could count, from every
nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages,1and -cripture translation was soon seen as a means
towards making this vision a reality.
"s early as the 2ndcentury C0 the *ew (estament was being translated into other ma)or languages of the
time, atin, -yriac and Coptic. 0ver since then ible translation has been a continuing effort of the Christian
community. (he pace was modest during the &iddle "ges it is estimated that portions had been translated
into $/ languages by 3/44. (ranslation accelerated rapidly during the 5eformation period and afterwards, so
that by 3644 parts of the ible had been translated into 16 languages, and by 3744 into /22 languages.
8uring the 24thcentury there was further acceleration9 as of the end of 2443, the full ible is available in $72
languages, and *ew (estaments have been published in a further 3432 languages. Portions have been
published in a further 66$ languages, so the total number of languages represented was 226:.:
ut, of the
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
2/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
1647 living languages listed by the 0thnologue6;for 2444
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
3/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
won the day3/however, some, especially in more conservative churches, remained strongly opposed to this
innovative approach. >n order to avoid certain misunderstandings, the name dynamic equivalencewas later
replaced byfunctional equivalence.31(he same general approach is also known as idiomatic translationor
meaningbased translation.3:8espite increasing criticism since the 3774s, it continues to be the basis for
most new ible translation work, especially work in minority languages.
(he foundation of dynamic equivalence is the conviction that a translation should be communicative. *ida
and (aber start their discussion with the premises that what one must determine is the response of the
receptor to the translated message... Correctness must be determined by the e=tent to which the average
reader for which a translation is intended will be likely to understand it correctly. 36(he original authors
intended to communicate a message to their audiences, and the aim of a translation, according to this
approach, is to communicate the same message to a modern audience, in a different language and a different
cultural conte=t. Communication of the message is given priority over resemblance of the translation to the
original te=t stylistic considerations are not ignored, but they are secondary.
Eatharine arnwell, in her widely used introductory course in ible translation, summarises the dynamic
equivalencemethod in terms of three essential +ualities9 accuracy, clarity and naturalness. -he writes that
" good translation should be9
A!!"#A$% (he translator must reDe=press the meaning of the original message as e&actly as
possiblein the language into which he 'sicis translating.
!%A#(he translation should be clear and understandable. (he translator aims to communicate the
message in a way that people can readily understand.
NA$"#A" translation should not sound Bforeign. >t should not sound like a translation at all, but
like someone speaking in the natural, everyday way.37
"s accuracy is defined not in terms of formal features but as accurate reDe=pression of meaning, it cannot be
separated from clarity.
(he +uality of naturalness is perhaps the most controversial of the three. ut it is central to the dynamic
equivalenceprogramme, as seen in *ida and (abers definition, (ranslating consists in reproducing in the
receptor language the closest natural e+uivalent of the sourceDlanguage message, first in terms of meaning
and secondly in terms of style 24 ut naturalness has its limits set by the re+uirement of accuracy which for
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
4/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
e=ample, rules out historical adaptation. *ida and (aber continue9 (he best translation does not sound like a
translation. uite naturally one cannot and should not make the ible sound as if it happened in the ne=t
town ten years ago, for the historical conte=t of the -criptures is important... >n other words, a good
translation of the ible must not be a Bcultural translation. 5ather, it is a Blinguistic translation.
*evertheless, this does not mean that it should e=hibit in its grammatical and stylistic forms any trace of
awkwardness or strangeness.23
>n evaluating this, the anticipated target audience must be clearly understood. arnwell has in mind minority
groups with little or no formal education, and e=pects that e are translating not only for the educated, but
also for the ordinary, lessDeducated people... not only for Christians... for all kinds of people in the
community.22For the less educated people the foreignness of a te=t, if this is reflected in a translation, will
not be appreciated but will simply be confusing. >t is widely recognised that in languages with a long literary
tradition and a large educated readership there is a place for formal correspondence translations alongside
dynamic equivalenceones2$in most such cases,formal correspondencetranslations already e=ist, although
they may be in need of revision. ut there are probably no living languages in which every speaker has the
level of education to read a formalcorrespondencetranslation with full understanding and so, it may be
argued, there is always a need for dynamic equivalence translation, which will at least be understood rather
better, although it will never be perfectly communicative to all.
(he dynamic equivalenceapproach has always had its critics. %enerally the most vocal of such critics have
been in the more conservative churches. ut these have produced few coherent arguments against the
principles, although specific translations have been pilloried with lists of alleged e=egetical and theological
errors. >t is often apparent that the real fault found is that the translation is different from the traditionally
accepted one, such as E!?G"? for 0nglish speakers. (hese critics also show their lack of appreciation of the
difficulties of many less educated people, even in western countries, in understanding more literal
translations, especially if they are also in oldDfashioned language. &ore careful theological critics, such as
Carson,2'have cautiously accepted *idas general principles of dynamic equivalencewhile warning against
e=cesses which others have proposed or practised.
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
5/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
FOREIGNISING AND DOMESTICATION
(he goal of making ible translations which communicate the message to a wide audience is also often in
tension with the aspirations of some scholars to produce translations which they consider academically
respectable. "nd so dynamic equivalence has been criticised by such scholars. (he key issue to recognise
when evaluating such criticisms is that different audiences are best suited by translations of completely
different types. "n edition prepared for teenagers or for newly literate adults will not be suitable for high
level scholarly study, nor vice versa. Hnfortunately this issue is often obscured by marketing claims such as
that a particular version is one ible for all of life... suitable for any situation. 2/&oreover, scholars often
)udge ible translation methods according to the criteria they use for literary translation, without clearly
recognising that most readers of the ible read it not as literature but as an authoritative religious te=t and
;though arguably naively< as a practical guide to life.
&any of the scholars who criticise dynamic equivalenceappeal to Friedrich -chleiermachers much +uoted
argument In the 8ifferent ðods of (ranslating, that there are only two. 0ither the translator leaves the
author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him. Ir he leaves the reader in peace, as
much as possible, and moves the author towards him.21-chleiermacher preferred the former strategy,
foreignising, to the latter, domestication, for apparently he imagined readers so attuned to cultural diversity
that they would develop an ear for translations from different languages. 2:ut unlike -chleiermachers
imagined audience, the real audiences for most ible translations, especially into minority languages, do not
have this level of sophistication, and so are likely only to be confused by foreign features in their ibles. >n
some circumstances e=planatory footnotes and glossaries may be helpful, but in other cases, especially with
newly literate audiences, they may add to the confusion.
&any scholars today claim to follow in the tradition of -chleiermacher. "ccording to 8ouglas 5obinson,
these later theorists typically dualiJe translation and assign overtly moral charges to the two choices9 either
you domesticate the @source languageA te=t, cravenly assimilate it... or you foreigniJe it..., and so heroically
resist the flattening pressures of commodity capitalism.26 awrence ?enuti has considered dynamic
equivalencefrom this background, identified it with the domesticationwhich he deprecates, and re)ected it.
ut his dualistic approach has stopped him appreciating how dynamic equivalence, as formulated by *ida,
re)ects domesticationof the cultural background, while encouraging domesticationof linguistic structures.27
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
6/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
&ore recent refinements of the dynamic equivalence approach may be seen as clarification of this
distinction, as an attempt to prevent overly domesticating the -criptures, as occurs, for e=ample, in the
inappropriate use of cultural or theological substitutes, and at the same time to maintain the concern to not
overly foreigniJe the te=t @e.g. by preserving source language linguistic structuresA so as to alienate readers
or perpetuate stereotypes about biblical language.$4
"nother reason why contemporary audiences and translators, especially for minority languages, might not
want ible translations to sound foreign is the legacy of colonialism. $337thcentury missionary endeavours,
and some more recent ones, have been widely and generally )ustly$2 criticised for their close links with
colonial e=pansionism, and for seeking to impose western cultural and religious forms more than to present
the core Christian message. >n the latter half of the 24 thcentury, as colonialism has been a hot issue, Christian
workers in developing countries have sought, with varying success, to dissociate themselves from the old
paternalistic missionary methods and present themselves as servants of the indigenous peoples and churches.
(hey have attempted to present the Christian message and to translate the ible within the cultural
e=pectations of the peoples they work with, as far as this is possible without distorting the message. ?ery
often, though not always, this domesticationapproach has been well accepted by the indigenous peoples. $$
ut, as they cannot fully distinguish the foreignness of the ancient *ear 0ast from that of modern 0urope and
*orth "merica, they are likely to associate aforeignisingtranslation with colonialism and re)ect it.
RELEVANCE THEORY AND TRANSLATION
"nother important criticism of dynamic equivalencehas come from the direction of relevance t*eory. (his
theory, developed by 8an -perber and 8eirdre ilson,$' emphasises the inferential nature of
communication. >t has important implications for translation, and has been studied by many within the ible
translation community. Ine ma)or issue is that relevance t*eoryhas seriously undermined the code modelof
communication which underlies the sourcemessagereceptormodel of translation, which is important in
*idas detailed formulation of dynamic equivalence.$/(his shows that some reformulation of these details is
re+uired in the light of advances in linguistics but the general principle of dynamic equivalence is
strengthened rather than threatened by such improvements.
" more fundamental challenge has come from 0rnstD"ugust %utt, who, after working in ible translation in
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
7/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
#elevance+ !ognition and !onte&t.$1orking within the categories of relevance t*eory, %utt characterises
translation as interlingual interpretive useand as the interlingual analogue of +uotation.$:#e makes a clear
distinction between the all too familiar language barrier... @andA the distinct second barrier of conte&tual
differences... the primary responsibility of the translator is the mastery of the first barrier. $6%utt then goes
on to describe the translatorKs responsibility to the second, conte=tual barrier. #e accepts that translators may
choose to adapt the te=t to overcome it,$7and he calls the result an indirect translation. ut he sees this
conte&tual adaptation;which must be distinguished from cultural adaptatione.g. of historical references'4f translations are not
perceived as being relevant by the receptors, they will not be used.'6%utt offers a model of an ideal
aut*entic direct translation without conte&tual adaptation, but because the conte=tual barriers to
communication are not overcome within the te=t, the translation will initially be neither understood nor
perceived as relevant. #e accepts that the deployment of translation may re+uire additionalmeasures which
lie outside of but are complementary to t*e translation effortitself and which are designed to ad)ust the target
audiences conte=t as necessary.'7>n the conte=t of ible translation, typically the conte=tual differences
are great, re+uiring the provision of e=tensive information about the socioDcultural and historical setting in
which the original was written./4ut the target audience needs to accept these additional measures. >f they
need to study to assimilate this e=tensive information before they can start to read and correctly understand
the te=t, they are likely to see this as un,ustifiable effort, and so, as relevance t*eoryteaches, they will
perceive the translation as not relevant and not use it./3-uch a translation is likely to )oin the already
regrettably large number which have been prepared with great effort but have been used mostly to decorate
shelves.
%utt has made a helpful distinction between linguistic adaptationand conte&tual adaptationof a translation,
which have often been confused, both in the dynamic equivalence approach and in discussions of
domestication. #e is right to accept the former adaptation as always necessary and to e=press some cautions
about the latter. #e is also right to point out that that it is generally impossible to provide fully ade+uate
conte&tual adaptation within the te=t itself, without unacceptable e=pansion. ut in his concern for
aut*enticity, as he understands it, he seems to have downplayed the importance of successful communication
of the iblical message. (he priority of successful communication is a conse+uence of his own theoretical
framework, relevance t*eory it is also the historical and continuing position of the Christian church.
"n unfortunate impression has sometimes been given that relevance t*eory in itself re+uires that ible
translation must be direct translation./2ut it is clear even from %utts writings that this is not true, that
indirect translationis not necessarily invalid or at least that any argument for its invalidity must come not
from relevance t*eorybut from theology. >ndeed, the argument above suggests that the relevance t*eory
actually implies the opposite.
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
9/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
Ine significant reaction to %utts approach is that he fails to make it clear what either a direct translationor
an indirect translationof a ible passage would look like in practice. %utts failure to give e=amples has
surely contributed to the misunderstanding that direct translationis essentially literaltranslation. (im Farrell
and 5ichard #oyle have attempted to fill this gap concerning indirect translation, offering a real e=ample of
how the conte=tual barrier might be crossed in a translation./$>n a ma)or study, Eevin -mith has e=plore@dA
the viability of direct and indirect translation as approaches to ible translation and offered sample direct
and indirect translationsof the letter to (itus/'but in his conclusions he admits that (he indirect translation
;"ppendi= "< seems much like a regular functionally e+uivalent translation, lying somewhere toward the
freer end of the spectrum that functional e+uivalence covers, and, (he te=t of my direct translation
;"ppendi= < is not significantly different from that of other 0nglish versions that strive to balance
literalness with naturalness ;e.g. *5-?n this paper several different attempts to make a bipolar classification of translation have been e=amined9
the ancient distinction literal vs. free -chleiermachers foreignising vs. domestication *idas formal
correspondence vs. dynamic equivalence and %utts direct translation vs. indirect translation. (hese
distinctions differ from one another in several significant respects, as their proponents are careful to point
out. ut there seems to be a common factor underlying each of them. "ccording to the first of each pair of
strategies, the translators priority is to preserve the aut*enticity, in the sense of the word used by %utt, of the
original message according to the second of each pair, the priority is to communicate the message to the
target audience. 0ach distinction is based on a realisation that full aut*enticity and communicative clarity
cannot in general both be achieved, especially where, as with the ible, the source and target cultures are
very different. -o a choice must be made.
(he first option is to give aut*enticitypriority over clarity. >t is sometimes suggested that only literal or
formal correspondence translations are authentic. %utt, however, links aut*enticityto the relevance t*eory
concept of interpretive resemblance, which is resemblance not in form but in meaning. -o, although his
direct translationis not literalbut includes linguistic adaptation, he concludes that the target audience can
e=pect to gain from direct translation as aut*entic an understanding of t*e original as it ever could across
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
10/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
language boundaries./:ut as aut*entic--- as it ever could implies that some aut*enticity is necessarily
lost in translation and, as discussed above, a direct translationof the ible can be understood only after
e=tensive background study. Ine is left feeling that if aut*enticity is allDimportant to certain readers, they
should take the additional step of learning the iblical languages so that they can access the fully aut*entic
original te=t. For, as >ver arsen concludes from a different approach, a translation neither can nor should
be authentic in theprimarysense of that word, because translation is different from original authorship. /6>n
other words, if aut*enticityis the controlling criterion, the ible is untranslatable.
ut if the second option is chosen and clarity is given priority over aut*enticity, a completely different set of
parameters comes into play. (he priority becomes clear communication of the message. !onte&tual
adaptationbecomes an acceptable and necessary strategy, but the amount of it re+uired will depend on the
audiences needs. (he dynamic equivalenceapproach, as refined over more than forty years, seems to be, at
least in general terms, the best way currently available to achieve communicative clarity. >t is important to
remember that dynamic equivalencecontinues to demand accuracy as well as clarity and naturalness. ut its
definition of accuracy, or faithfulness, is not the same as %utts definition of aut*enticity rather it is that the
translation communicates the e=act meaning of the original message./7 hile dynamic equivalence
demands faithfulness to historical and didactic references as well as to the dynamics of the original, it
accepts conte&tual adaptationand allows that some parts of the meaning which are implicit in the original
te=t may be made e=plicit in the translation. (his is one of the areas in which the theory needs continuing
improvement and clarification, perhaps even reformulation, in the light of #elevance $*eory and other
theoretical advances, as well as of ongoing e=perience. >n particular, it would be helpful to have more
specific updated guidelines on the limits of accuracy. 14ut meanwhile the approach can still be used, with
care.
ut what of the argument that a translation, especially of the ible, should be aut*enticL13 "ccording to
%utts definition of aut*enticity, a translation with conte&tual adaptation is not aut*entic. ut, as %utt
recognises, it is not always possible to make even a direct translationwhich perfectly resembles the original
and so is fully aut*entic, because of linguistic differences between source and target languages for e=ample
linguistic adaptationmay re+uire that some ambiguities are resolved and some implicit information is made
e=plicit.12-ince no translation is fully aut*entic, readers whose primary concern is this kind of aut*enticity,
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
11/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
such as pastors and theological students, should be encouraged to learn the original languages and read the
original te=ts, or to refer to technical commentaries. arsen argues that a translation can have authenticity,
but only in a secondary sense of trustworthiness certified by a suitable authority, such as an accredited
translation consultant authenticity in this sense depends on communicative accuracy, for the authority must
certify that the translated te=t communicates the same message as the original te=t. 1$
>s there in fact a middle wayL (heoreticians tend to suggest that there is not but a look at real translations
suggests that there is. !ohn eekman and !ohn Callow comment, 0ven though there are few, if any,
translations that are completely literal or completely idiomatic, each has been produced with one or the other
approach in mind.1'For &aking a good translation always re+uires creative compromise in the face of
conflicting demands, which include acceptability to the audience1/ the e=pectations of the intended
audience are of crucial importance for the success of every ible translation pro)ect.11ut it is important
that audience representatives should be given some training or e=planation so that they can make an
informed choice1:otherwise their choice may be based on pre)udice or on what an influential outsider has
e=horted them to prefer. (he principles are simple9 first define the audience, and then help them to make an
informed decision about what kind of translation will meet their needs. >f they are academics or well
educated church members, they may choose a formal correspondence translation or a direct translation.
hen the issues are properly e=plained, a less educated audience is likely to choose a dynamic equivalence
or indirect translation16approach. >n this case continuing consultation will be necessary concerning how
much conte&tual adaptationis re+uired for clear communication if rather little is necessary, the translation
may appear to embody a middle way, but its theoretical background and orientation towards communication
rather than aut*enticityshould be clear.
CONCLUSIONS
>n the late 24th century there has been a renewed understanding within the Christian church of its
international character, forced on it by the shift of its centre of gravity away from 0urope and *orth
"merica. Ine of the characteristics which distinguishes Christianity from other ma)or world religions is that
from the start it has re)ected specific ties to any one language or culture. >n principle, though not always in
practice, it has adapted its forms to the languages and cultures of its adherents, while guarding the meaning
of its central message (his same principle has guided its best ible translation efforts from !erome through
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
12/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
uther to the late 24 thcentury, with its dynamic equivalencetranslations in ma)or languages and its e=plosion
of translation effort in minority languages. (he same principle remains valid in the 23 stcentury and so ible
translation should continue to be the reDe=pression of a single unchanging message into the conte=t of the
many and changing languages and cultures of the world.
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
13/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen 8. "ndersen, Perceived "uthenticity9 (he Fourth Criterion of %ood (ranslation,Notes
on $ranslation;->< vol.32 no.$, 3776, pp.3D3$.
Baker (1992) &. aker,.n /t*er ords+ A !ourseboo1 on $ranslation, 5outledge, ondon 3772.
Baker (1998) &. aker ;ed., 8allas 3761 ;3stedition 37:/, 8allas
376:.
Beekman &
Callow
!. eekman and !. Callow, $ranslating t*e ord of God, Mondervan, %rand 5apids 37:'.
Bright !. right,A :istory of .srael, $rdedition, -C& Press, ondon 3764.
Buth 5. uth, anguage Hse in the First Century9 -poken #ebrew in a (rilingual -ociety in the
(ime of !esus,Journal of $ranslation and $e&tlinguistics;->< vol./ no.', 3772, pp.276D
$32.
Carson 8. ". Carson, (he imits of 8ynamic 0+uivalence in ible (ranslation,Notes on
$ranslation;->< no.323, Ictober 376:, pp.3D3/ reprinted from%vangelical #eview of
$*eologyvol.7, no.$, !uly 376/.
de Waard &
Nida
!. de aard and 0.". *ida,;rom /ne anguage $o Anot*er+ ;unctional %quivalence in
3ible $ranslating, *elson, *ashville 3761.
!" 0-? F"s ;promotional material for the 0-? iblemplicit >nformation in the ight of -aussurean,
5elevance, and Cognitive (heories,Notes on $ranslation;->< vol.7 no.3, 377/, pp.3D3/.#arrell &
$o%le (1997)
(. Farrell and 5. #oyle, (he "pplication of 5elevance (heory9 " 5esponse,Notes on
$ranslation;->< vol.33 no.3, 377:, pp.37D21.
#aw'ett P. Fawcett, >deology and (ranslation, in3a1er (6778), pp.341D333.
oerling F. %oerling, 5elevance and (ransculturation,Notes on $ranslation;->< vol.34 no.$
3771, pp.'7D/:.
rimes .F. %rimes ;ed.
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
14/22
As prepared for submission for publication (22ndJune 2002)
utt (1988) 0D". %utt, From (ranslation to 0ffective Communication,Notes on $ranslation;->?.
33Nida (6778),p.2$ see alsoJerome, paragraph /#obinson (;ree),pp.66D67#obinson (iteral),pp.32/D321.
Hnfortunately !eromes te=t did not always live up to his theory9 seeNida (679E),pp.32D3$, 2$.
32ittel D 4oltermann,p.'23 see alsout*erNida (679E)pp.3'D3/.
3$Itherwise known as $oday5s %nglis* =ersion the full ible ;37:1< is $*e Good News 3ible.
3'Nida D $aber these words are the title of chapter 3 see alsoNida (679E).>n chapter 2 of the latter *ida recognised his
debt to older traditions. 0ssentially the same principles are taught by3ee1man D !allow,arson,3arnwell (6789)with
3arnwell (678F),andde aard D Nida.
3/!arson,p.3 see alsoNoss.
31(he new terminology was introduced byde aard D Nida, who wrote9 (he substitution of Bfunctional e+uivalence is
not intended to suggest anything essentially different from Bdynamic e+uivalence ;p.:, see also p.$1
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
18/22
21-chleiermacher, as +uoted by=enuti,p.2'2.
2:;awcett,p.333.
26#obinson (iteral), p.32:.
27
ilt, pp.3'7, 3/3D3/2.>e aard D Nida;p.'3< e=plicitly distinguishfunctional equivalence, which may be understood
as linguistic domestication, from cultural reinterpretations, which involve cultural domestication, like Clarence !ordans
!otton 4atc* =ersionof the *ew (estament. -ee also3ee1man D !allows discussion of the !otton 4atc* =ersion;p.$/f this paragraph sounds like moralising in favour of domestication, it can be taken as a balance to the overtly moral
charges in favour offoreignising;heroically resist the flattening pressures of commodity capitalism
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
19/22
$6Gutt (2000a), p.2$3, italics as in the original. *ote that %utt fully accepts the need to overcome the language barrier by
adaptation of linguistic forms he is not calling for a return to literalorformal correspondencetranslation. ut his analogy
between direct translationand direct +uotation, whose essential feature is correspondence in form to an original utterance,
has proved highly confusing. (hus even a scholar like endlandhas misunderstood %utts direct translationas e+uivalent
toformal correspondence ;pp.3$4D3$3, +uoting also %utt calling an 5-? +uotation a direct translationn practice this conte&tual adaptationconsists largely of taking background information which is implicit in the original
because it is part of the cognitive conte=t of the original audience, and, if is not known to the target audience, making it
e=plicit in the translation. >t may also include some e=planatory renderings of theologically difficult concepts. -uch
conte&tual adaptationis specifically permitted in the dynamic equivalenceapproach seeNida D $aber,pp.347D332.
'4Hnlike conte&tual adaptation, cultural adaptationor cultural translation, as e.g. in the !otton 4atc* =ersion, is e=plicitly
not permitted in dynamic equivalencebecause it changes the meaning and compromises accuracy seeNida D $aber,p.3$
as +uoted above, and3ee1man D !allow,pp.$/D$1.
'3Gutt (2000a), his argument from p.226 e=plained by a +uotation from p.2$3. %utt associates this approach with
-chleiermachersforeignisingstrategy, claiming that they share (he re+uirement that the readers of the translation should
familiariJe themselves with the historical and cultural setting of the original. %utt adds that -chleiermacher does not
stress that this may mean considerable work on the part of the receptor language audience ;both +uotations from pp.3:'D
3:/ note '
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
20/22
'6Goerling, p./$.
'7Gutt (2000a), p.2$3, italics as in the original.
/4Gutt (2000a), p.2$3.
/3
Gutt (6772)himself writes that (ranslations that do not fulfil the re+uirement of communicability, that is, that prove to
be inconsistent with the principle of relevance for the receptors, run a great risk of remaining unread ;p.16
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
21/22
and faithful is defined ;p.24$< in terms of evoking... essentially the same response, terms which have been superseded
in the reformulation asfunctional equivalence< see the preface ofde aard D Nida, p.:D6.3ee1man D !allowhave a whole
chapter on Fidelity in (ranslation ;pp.$$D''mplicit and 0=plicit >nformation ;pp.'/D11n this paper
;e=cept in +uotations< italics are used for such technical terms in an attempt to reduce the risk of such misunderstandings.
12Gutt (2000a), p. 227Gutt (2000b),pp./2D/$. >n Gutt (2000a), p.3:3, there is an apparently contradictory and +uite
e=traordinary claim ;whose substance is repeated on p.2$$
-
8/13/2019 Holy Communicative
22/22
16"s indirect translationdoes not necessarily e=clude cultural adaptation, the audience might need encouragement to
specify historical faithfulness as a further re+uirement.