Formal and Dynamic Equivalence in Translation
An Introductory Essay and Discussion

Part 2

By Vlad
(6/28/09)

Excursus on Gender-inclusiveness
Gender-inclusively is a large part of the paraphrastic movement and an even larger part of the reaction against it, though it is not necessarily part of the methodology itself. The example text following, chosen at random, is not the most illuminating, but arguments and examples against gender-inclusiveness are easy enough to find.

Galatians 6.1, according to the Revised Standard Version: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted.” It is unlikely that a Christian woman would be confused as to whether she is also addressed in this verse, or if she also should be restored after a trespass. Yes, the sentiment does look patriarchal, but the Bible is an ancient text and it cannot be divorced of its roots.

There is nothing wrong with, for example, the NET Bible’s “Brothers and sisters, if a person is discovered in some sin…” and sometimes it is rather easy to make the language gender-inclusive, as they did using “person” for adelphoi. But it is unnecessary. The role of the translator is not to make the Bible fit the zeitgeist, and certainly not to protect it from feminist criticism. It is an exercise in futility anyway: there simply is too much patriarchalism to paint over. Some of it should be preserved to maintain fidelity to the text and allow the reader himself to appropriate ancient Scripture to the modern day.

This is neither contra gender-inclusiveness in principle nor translations incorporating it, but is meant simply to show that, given my overall argument, it is a poor rationale for a paraphrastic translation philosophy.

[Following is a conversation about this essay which helps illuminate the issues and adds some clarity. It has been slightly edited for brevity.]

Mike:

I think you’re confusing the issue of difficult passages with formal equivalence: The former has nothing to do with either translation theory and will be a challenge to both. If a given passage has a meaning that is difficult to explain in English, I don’t see how a formal translation is going to make that any better.

Your discussion of gender makes a couple assumptions too. While there is always culture involved, the question is more a linguistic one. Grammatical gender is not natural sexual gender. Grammatical gender marks noun classes. And some languages have up to 20 – e.g. Bantu languages generally have 18.

The label of the noun class for αδελφος is arbitrarily assigned simply because ανηρ means man. Had αδελφος been arbitrarily assigned to the class with τεκνον this translation debate wouldn’t exist. And why don’t we seek to emphasize that children are “neuter” in Greek?

Translating the word “brothers and sisters” doesn’t make a text less patriarchal. It does a good enough job as it is with the passages that actually mention patriarchy.

 

As to your statement about a Christian women probably not being confused if she saw the translation “brothers,” you’re probably right. But that would also depend on how old she is. The younger the person is, especially teens and early twenties, it’s going to sound really strange. Simply put the language is changing. It hasn’t finished (and it never will). But there is a definite need for translations that can connect to new generations and there always will be.

Vlad:

If the a given passage has a meaning that is difficult to explain in English, I don’t see how a formal translation is going to make that any better.

I think you’re reading me quite wrong, but, for what it’s worth let me try this: Formal equivalence (FE) would be inclined to preserve the ambiguity of houtos (how much? in what way?) in John 3.16, whereas DE would be inclined to choose one way or another for the sake of clarity. It is a challenge to both, as you say, but the answer is different. (This is just an example off the top of my head, and it’s not a good litmus test.)

Your discussion of gender makes a couple assumptions too. While there is always culture involved, the question is more a linguistic one. Grammatical gender is not natural sexual gender….αδελφος

My mother tongue has gender, so I’m rather familiar with how it works, and I do not assume them to be the same anywhere in my post. Apropos of nothing, but adelphos can stand in contrast to adelphe, so there is some relation to sex, and you know well enough that grammatical gender can follow natural gender. This is not to say that in this case adelphoi can only refer to males, and I think that was clear in my comments on the NET rendition. As to aner and anthropos, it is not arbitrary but rather a common anthropological phenomenon: in many languages the term for a man can be used generically of persons irrespective of sex. Culture and linguistics are intertwined.

But that is neither here nor there. The point is that the vocabulary is male-centered as is the culture, and that this does not need to be covered over.

τεκνον…And why don’t we seek to emphasize that children are “neuter” in Greek?

 

You mean this rhetorically, but perhaps the answer is that it’s neuter in English too. (Come on, you know that’s funny!)

Translating the word “brothers and sisters” doesn’t make a text less patriarchal.

Sure it does, from the standpoint that in the English it’s less male-centered than saying “brothers.” Again, I said that there is nothing wrong with the NET translation: indeed, since the original audience would have understood a generic rather than male use of the word, it’s appropriate to make it look that way in English. My point is that it isn’t necessary, because a thoughtful reader within any Christian tradition will recognize even the male terms “brothers” and “man” as generic. In fact, I’d bet a lot would recognize it that way simply intuitively, the same way my female friends know that I’m greeting them, too, when I say, “Hey guys” to a group of men and women.

But there is a definite need for translation that can connect to new generations and there always will be.

My post was not about new translations in general, but I understand what you’re saying. I simply disagree about the value of making a translation “relevant” to the extent many attempt to.

Mike:

 

That’s a strong response. Well done. But that still doesn’t mean you have it all together (and neither do I). But this is my field. This is what I went to school for. This is what I do with my life. Translation. Translation theory.

If I’m calling anything naive it’s formal equivalence itself. Forget about the word philosophy. Let’s talk about theory. Let’s talk about method.

The methodology of Formal is to maintain as much as possible a word-for-word correspondence between two languages. Formal methodology is naive because it thinks translation glosses are adequate for conveying meaning. Formal methodology focuses too much on individual words and risks missing the meaning of the whole. And that’s demonstrable. Read Psalm 1.1-2 in the ESV. Stand in the way of sinners??? In English that phrase has the opposite meaning as it does in Hebrew.

The methodology of Dynamic/Functional is crosslinguistic – or at least that’s how it is framed and used by linguists (and how it should be used). DE asks the question how is meaning X expressed in Greek or Hebrew and then how is meaning X expressed in the target language? That’s how Nida frames it in his Theory and Practice of Translation and in Language Structure and Translation.

The method of DE says, what is the meaning of these words together in a clause, in a discourse and how are they best expressed in another language?

And it’s actually a lot harder and takes more skill to do a quality DE translation than a formal one. Any first year Greek student can give you a translation that looks like the NASB, but only someone who has spent years, if not decades in the text, can give you a quality DE translation.

The fact that it’s harder is what makes FE seem so much more appealing. It gives the sense of easy accuracy.

The question of clarity and ambiguity is secondary and, in fact, unnecessary. It’s completely possible to have a Dynamic translation that maintains ambiguity when it’s there. The tragedy is that most DE translations are generally aimed toward a lower reading level and thus they avoid ambiguity. But that has nothing to do with the theory and everything to do with a particular translation committee.

Would ουτως, in John 3:16, be ambiguous to a Greek speaker? I doubt it. ουτως only expresses degree when its used to modify an adjective, which it isn’t here. Simply because some English speakers in commentaries disagree on what the Greek meaning is doesn’t make it ambiguous.

As to gender you’re right. I’ll give you that, there is a anthropological & cultural element to noun classes, but that element is secondary to usage. I might even be willing to say that no passage is dependent upon grammatical gender for proving whether the referent is male or female.

Finally, as to your statement about relevancy, that misses the point of what I’m saying. I’m not talking about making the text relevant. I’m talking about making the text comprehensible for new generations (and yes, this does apply to translating gender). Relevancy is the wrong question. The question is: Will the translation still be accurate? Will it be correct 20-30 years from now? Is it even correct for a fifteen year old girl today? Definitely not in Canada.

Vlad:

 

On John 3.16: I’m not entirely convinced either way and even you are less than dogmatic here, precisely because there is wiggle room in the syntax, as there usually is. But this was simply illustrative of the proclivity of DE translations. I’m entirely sympathetic to the argument that this isn’t really a function of the methodology, but of the translation committees. But, of course, looking at the versions produced by DE is my only way, ultimately, of judging the methodology; and this tendency to impose clarity for its own sake, for readability, is quite clear, as you even mention.

I understand that the goal is simply for understandability, as I made clear in the first paragraph of this essay, but in striving for readability DE allows more room for modern cultural influence. You may well argue that translations have no choice but to account for modern culture, which of course is right. I think we simply differ as to the extent.

The method of DE says, what is the meaning of these words together in a clause, in a discourse and how are they best expressed in another language.

But, of course, that is basically what FE does too, otherwise you don’t have a translation in any meaningful sense of the word.  FE and DE simply "lean" in different directions, since translation can’t be done without an understanding of the whole clause, discourse, and, I would aver, even Scripture as a whole. I suppose this is why I framed my writing in terms of philosophy, approach, rather than methodology (though your point is well taken). I’ve never been involved in a full-size translation project, but I can see how different approaches play out, and having grown up with two different languages has also allowed me to experiment in a way that controls for the distance between the modern West and ANE, which is a complicating factor.

Consider this phenomenon, which is probably ubiquitous: I’ve found that when I’m translating aurally/orally, I’m inclined to be more literal in more formal and important circumstances than in informal ones. If I’m in a legal setting, for instance, the translation will be rather wooden. Only if I see that it isn’t clear enough will I "soften" it a second or third time. In other words, I may have to "interpret" the original "gloss" to better account for culture and other factors, but I want the "gloss" up front. This is analogous to the point I make about putting alternate renderings or explanatory notes at the foot of the text. There is no 1:1 equivalence at either the lexical or syntactical level, and given this I find FE more useful overall, which I’ll come back to momentarily.

Does it take more skill to do DE? I’ll have to take your word for it. I find that takes a certain fluency in both source and target languages to do any kind of translation, and I’m humbled by the task every time I approach it, whatever the languages and "method." First-year Greek students may produce a NASB-looking text, but you run out of simple sentences pretty fast. What the NASB loses in readability it gains in, for example, transparency to the clausal structure of the source. Surely that is worth something, too. Is this unobtainable in DE? Probably not. But it seems to me the farther one goes that way on the FE/DE scale, the more one loses for the sake of readability, and I find it easier to make up for FE shortcomings than DE, where it’s harder to tell where you’ve lost something. The imposition of clarity has made the loss invisible

.
Mike:

 

I think that we’re growing closer together in our views now that a few things are clarified. For example:

But, of course, looking at the versions produced by DE is my only way, ultimately, of judging the methodology; and this tendency to impose clarity for its own sake, for readability, is quite clear, as you even mention.

Agreed. And if you read enough of John Hobbin’s discussions of translation you will see that he see DE as the most preferable method of translation, but finds fault in all present DE translations because they simplify too much. What he wants, what I want, and what Wayne Leman of BetterBibles wants is a quality literary translation we haven’t had a true one since the KJV (though translations such as the NEB and the REB come close). And the KJV is more of a Dynamic translation than it is Formal (in fact, I would argue that much of what we call formal translation is really just traditional translation.

As to your statement about oral translation. I find it very interesting and something I’m going to have to think about it. Its the opposite of what I’ve read about UN translators. If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt), I should do more reading on this subject.

But, of course, that is basically what FE does too…

True, but the difference is that consistent FE will always do this and it will fail at two points.

1) FE will fail when it comes to metaphor. Again pointing to Psalm 1.1-2. FE fails to convey the meaning of the text. In places where Formal translations successfully convey the meaning of metaphor one of two things happens. Either the translation will simply adopt a dynamic or functional rendering or the metaphor itself is universal enough that it doesn’t need to, which is much less common, especially in Hebrew.

2) FE will fail when it comes to grammatical constructions that do not exist in the target language. The Greek infinitive is a good example. English does not formally have an infinitive, only a prepositional equivalent. This gets worse when we come to constructions like the Greek [Prep+Article+Inf]. This construction is never translated formally. In such places in scripture Formal translations become Functional.

 

One more point and this is on your last paragraph. Let me explain why true DE translation is the harder task.

What the NASB loses in readability it gains in, for example, transparency to the clausal structure of the source. Surely that is worth something, too.

I don’t know. We may have to part ways on this one. Meaning is expressed in structures above the clause, both in the sentence, the paragraph and beyond. Yes, so clause structure is very important. The question is, does a given clause structure in the source language have the same meaning as it does in the target language? Perhaps in Indo-Eurpean languages this is more likely to be the case (especially in comparing Russian and Greek), but it becomes less the case as we move farther away in language type.

To use an analogy. The most obvious way meaning is represented is by the Word. And probably the most subtle way meaning is represented is by the structure of a discourse. Now for a translation if its completely unhelpful to simply transliterate a Greek word, why do we consider it helpful to transliterate Greek syntax and discourse?

I guarantee meaning is lost by such a procedure.

Vlad:

 

Why would the literary quality of, say, the REB be a virtue from the standpoint of DE? Not all of the Bible looks like “literature.” Why make Mark sound more elegant than he is?

 

Of course you can’t always go word-for-word, and of course metaphor and idiom are a problem. Is a translation no longer FE if it “loosens” the verbiage to account for the problem? Ok, we’ll call it something else. That’s a distinction without a difference to me, as it doesn’t seem to advance the argument either way. The NRSV’s “As literal as possible, as free as necessary” is instructive here.

Does the ESV fail in the metaphor at Ps 1.1,2? It’s ambiguous, yes, but I don’t know how to eliminate all ambiguity in language. I’m not confused by the passage, but I’m sympathetic to those who might be—although I still don’t like the idea of aiming for the lowest common denominator of a reader—and their English stylists should have caught it if the translators didn’t. This, in fact, illustrates a comment I made before, which is that one is more likely to see the problems in an essentially literal text, whereas a paraphrastic text will wash over everything. I think it’s easier to deal with a quirk like “stand in the way of sinners” than the hidden land mines of a paraphrastic text.

But I’ve no interest in defending any particular translation at the moment. You’ll find that nowhere do I claim FE translations to be more “accurate,” though I’m not prepared to say the opposite, either. In this essay I tried to make two points. First, the nature of paraphrastic translations allows a greater amount of theological influence. Second, the “easier to read” rationale doesn’t carry as much weight as may appear.

As to Bantu languages and whatnot, I’m sure your right. They are entirely out of my purview. But, especially for a close reading of Scripture without access to the primary literature, it is helpful to have as much preserved of the original structure as possible. I may have been unclear on this before, so let me put it this way: Specific grammatical constructions cannot necessarily be transferred over, but a dependent clause is generally a dependent clause across the board, and those relationships are more likely to disappear in paraphrastic versions.

As a guest on my blog I’d like to give you the last word on this. I’d be interested to have you sketch out what a literary translation would look like.

Mike:

 

I have to say that this is one of the most enjoyable discussions I’ve had. And just to warn you, in what follows, I jump around a lot.

I really think that we’re approaching the question from different angles and that we have more agreement that it appears. I think we’re defining terms differently: Your understanding of FE and DE seem to be the more general thrust of the translation – that is, which of those does it lean closer toward. Where as my understanding of them is more micro managed – that is, clause by clause, which is why I say that FE fails in metaphor and idiom while DE does not.

There are of course still points of disagreement, particularly regarding ambiguity. I remain convinced that formal translation more like creates more ambiguity than there really is.

As to dependent clauses, you’re correct. The challenge is that paragraph structure in English is different than Greek. Greek paragraphs are often a single complex sentence or two. While English tends toward many more multiple sentences. Dependent semantic relationships do not need to be represented by syntactic dependency.

A good example of this is in Ephesians 1.3-14. The repetition of relative clauses connects all the verses together in Greek and this would have been perfectly easy to follow for the native speaker. But in English, one can get lost quickly for two reasons: there aren’t enough independent clauses and there are too many pronouns. Greek allows pro-drop, so often times no subject at all is necessary. Overt subjects are only introduced to point out a new topic or theme.

Personally, I think the best way to represent this semantic dependency in English is to use a cleft construction, “It is in Christ…” I like to think that my recent translation does this rather well (though there are plenty of other things wrong with it – it was a spontaneous event).

All that to say, English doesn’t use dependent clauses the way Greek does.

 

If I may make one more comment about culture. It can be just as easily lost in a Formal translation. The word “grace” used in formal translations for χαρις destroy the many, many Greco-Roman connotations of the word. Not even our little church definitions like “unmerited favor” get it right (cf HERE for an explanation).

One more new thought. The less a language is like Greek, the less possible it is to have a formal translation. The national language of the Philippines is a good example. Most languages have separate parts of speech, Noun, Verb, etc. And then often times there are sub-parts of speech as well – for the verb: infinitive, gerund, etc. Tagalog doesn’t have separate parts of speech for nouns and verbs. It has a single part of speech. Nouns and Verbs in Tagalog are more like sub parts of speech than separate ones (and some have claimed that there is no difference at all between them!). Your can imagine the challenges of translation with that.

A literary translation: Well for one, the word “literary” can be deceiving, which is clear from your comment. Essentially, it means be as literary as the original author was whether very much so or not at all. What would I like to see in a translation?

 

Well how about the maintaining in the translation of metaphor and imagery, word play, word order (when it does not violate the semantics of the clause, sentence or discourse as a whole – Psalm 1.1 in the KJV tradition, mentioned previously [it may be understandable to those of us who have studied, but its not a natural English meaning]), and the linguistic register (literary ability) of the author? It should also accurately transfer into the target language the rhetorical strategies and discourse structure of the author.

 

I want to see the simple sentences of John translated in simple English. I would want the brilliant rhetoric of Hebrew to shine through like a speech written by a professional speech writer, both rich in language and depth of meaning like the original. I want all of this and I want natural language.

Such a translation would virtually be impossible, I admit. And that is exactly why I would advocate the use of multiple translations of all types. Because no translation gets it right. Any translation, whether formal or dynamic is only a terse commentary.Thank you for letting me ramble so much on your blog, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts, this series and especially conversing with you.

[This writer further discussed this topic on his blog here.]