Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page25

thearchaicverbgird,aswellastheconfusingOldEnglishloins,andattemptto

substitutethemwithmodernequivalents.Somecommonlanguageversionsin

Englishhavetriedtoretaintheoriginalimagebyrenderingthepassageas‘stand

ready,withtruthasabelttightaroundyourwaist’(TEV).However,according

totheprinciplesofdynamic/functionalequivalence,iftherelevanceofbeltas

partofthisdefensivemilitaryattireisnotunderstoodinthetargetculture,itis

possibletodroptheimageandexpressthemeaningdirectly,asin‘Alwaysbe

readytodefendyourselfwiththetruth’.

Anotherofthebasictenetsofdynamicequivalencetranslationisthatwhatis

implicitinthetextcanbemadeexplicit,ifthisisnecessaryforthereaderor

hearertocorrectlyunderstandthemessageofthesourcetext.Inthecaseof

Ephesians6:14,aBibletranslatormightbejustifiedinmakingexplicit‘thetruth

of(thewordof)God’,anacceptableexegeticalinterpretationinthiscontext.

Usingthedynamicorfunctionalequivalenceapproach,itmightalsobenoted

thatcertainlanguagesneedtomakeexplicitwherethis‘truth’iskept,which

mightleadtoanevenwiderrendering,asin‘AlwayskeepthetruthofGodin

yourheart/mind/liver,beingreadytodefendyourself’(see

EXPLICITATION).

Thedynamicequivalenceapproachthusadaptsthetranslationtotherealitiesof

thetargetlanguageandculture,sothatthemeaningormessageofthesource

textcanbeclearlyunderstood.Translatorsarefreetousedifferentterms,

differentgrammaticalconstructions,andevendifferentwordandsentence

orders,inordertoexpressthemeaningofthesourcetext.Intranslation

parlance,thisapproach‘domesticates’thetext,byremovingdifficult

expressionsandimageswhichwouldbeincomprehensibleorpoorlyunderstood

ifrenderedliterally.

Anadvantageofthisapproachisthatitgivestranslatorsthefreedomtomake

difficulttheologicalconceptsclear.Forexample,comparingRSV’srenderingof

Romans3:28tocommonlanguageversions(TEVandCEV),thelatterconvey

themessagemoreclearlytotoday’sspeakersofEnglishthantheearlierversion

does:

However,thisapproachcaneasilybemisapplied.Overeagerorpatronizing

translatorsmayendupparaphrasingthetext.Sometranslationsofthistype

havethusbeenwidelycriticizedforbeingtooexplicit,i.e.addingoreven

changingideasofthesourcetext.Thisisoneofthereasonsmanyofthese

versionsareundergoingrevisiontoday.Indeed,translatorscaninadvertently(or

advertently!)introducetheologicalandotherideologicalbiasesintotheir

translations(seeIDEOLOGY),apracticedeemedunacceptablebymostBible

translationagenciestoday(Ogden1997;Zogbo2002).

Anothercriticismofthisapproachisthattranslatorsusingthismodelmaytake

toomuchliberty,therebyviolatinghistoricity.Forexample,isitpermissiblefor

translatorstosubstituteananimalsuchasasealinthekeyphrase‘thelambof

God’,inArcticcultureswheresheeparenotwellknown?Doestheuseofa

localfruitjuiceordistilledliquortorefertowinemadefromgrapesviolatethe

historicalaccuracyofthetranslationand/orrobthetextofanimportant

leitmotiv?Alongthesamelines,bytryingtomakeeverythinginthebiblicaltext

‘clearandnatural’,translatorsmayflattenoutpoeticlinesandimages,or‘over

translate’literaryforms,whosebeautyisreflectedpreciselythroughbrevityand

possiblemultiplereadings.Thisdomesticationofboththeformandcontentof

thetextpullsthetranslationawayfromthehistoricalandliterarybearingsofthe

sourcetext.ForadetailedassessmentofNidaandTaber’sTAPOTapproach,

seeWilt(2003a)andStine(2004).

Inthepast,whereexpatriateand/orindigenoustranslatorshavehadlittleorno

accesstothesourcetextsinthebiblicallanguages,amethodknownasthe

basemodelsapproachhasoftenbeenusedalongsidethedynamic/functional

equivalenceframework.Thus,ifatranslationteamdoesnothaveamember

qualifiedinHebreworGreek,translatorsareencouragedtouseamoreliteral

versionina

RSV Forweholdthatamanisjustifiedbyfaithapartfromworksoflaw.

TEV ForweconcludethatapersonisputrightwithGodonlythroughfaith,

andnotbydoingwhattheLawcommands.

CEV WeseethatpeopleareacceptabletoGodbecausetheyhavefaith,and

notbecausetheyobeytheLaw.