holy communicative

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


2/22


1647 living languages listed by the 0thnologue6;for 2444


3/22


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


4/22


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.


5/22


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 &ethods 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


6/22


&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


7/22


#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.


9/22


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


10/22


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,


11/22


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


12/22


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.


13/22


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.


14/22


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


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


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 '


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


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$$


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.

holy communicative

Documents