Communicative translation theories

Communicative translation theories were developed later than linguistic ones, and the dynamic equivalence developed by Nida was the first one. Nida was a linguist, so his theory still has a linguistic touch.⁴² Communicative theories differ from linguistic theories: according to them, translation is communication, with a signal and a message.⁴³ There have been several other theories since dynamic equivalence. Dynamic theory (or its later developments) has been very influential in Bible translations around the world, however, and that is why this study concentrates on that theory. I will present two examples of other communicative theories before introducing dynamic equivalence in more detail. These are functional equivalence theories, which are very

35 Catford 1989, 70

‒

36 Catford 1989, 70‒71, 74‒79; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 48.

37 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 48

‒

38 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 50.

39 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 50‒51.

40 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 51.

41 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 51‒52.

42 Nida’s theory will be presented later more fully in 1.2.5.

43 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 58.

close to Nida’s dynamic equivalence. I took as an example Reiss’ theory, which is a functional theory, and skopos theory, by Vermeer. This has been popular in the translation world.⁴⁴

What will be seen is that skopos theory, even though it is popular in the translation world today, has not actually offered new tools to solve the problem of translating theological terms. That is why I will concentrate on the theory of dynamic equivalence and its later developments in this research.

Katharina Reiss’ theory

The major idea in Reiss’ theory is the existence of different text types. According to her, texts are divided into three types: informative, expressive, and operative. A translator should always follow the source text in its text type. It is, of course, clear that texts are usually mixtures of text types, but usually there is still one primary type.

Translation is successful if: 1) in an informative text, it guarantees full access to the conceptual content of the source language text; 2) in an expressive text, it transmits a direct impression of the artistic form of the conceptual content; 3) in an operative text, it produces a text-form that will directly elicit the desired response.⁴⁵ These text types are described in Figure 1.1 below.

Informative text type

Encyclopaedia Report Lecture Manual Brochure

Autobiography Sermon Official speech

Play Election speech

Poem Satire Advertisement

Figure 1.1: Different functions and text types⁴⁶

44 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 58, 69‒70. There are also other theories that has been developed in translation studies in the latter part of 20^th century, but are not treated in this research. These include the work of George Steiner, Hans Vermeer, Ernst-August Gutt, Gideon Toury and Lawrence Venuti. Cheung 2013, 7–12.

45 Reiss 1989, 109.

46 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 72.

Reiss also notes that there are different kinds of translation types, and all of them can be justified in some circumstances. In Table 1.2, column one describes how the source text is seen in the translation.

Table 1.2: Translation types⁴⁷

Text concept Translation type Translation aim

Text = sum of words Word-for-word translation

(interlinear) Comparative linguistic research Text = sum of sentences Literal translation (grammar

translation) Foreign language learning

Text = basic linguistic sign Learned translation (deliberately

marked + commentary) Study of culture-bound language differences

Text = verbal component of communication process (text with a function)

Communicative translation a) normal case

b) special subtype

a) integral comm. performance b) all kinds of changes of function

Reiss concludes that an assessment of a translation, therefore, requires that one must determine: 1) what kind of text the original represents, 2) the translator’s conception of the translation, and 3) the aim of the translated text.⁴⁸

Skopos theory

Another communicational translation theory is skopos theory. This is a part of the theory of translational action. Translation is always doing something, for example,

‘writing a translation’ or ‘putting a German text into English’. Therefore, the basic idea is that translation is an action, and an action always has an aim or a purpose. This aim is called skopos. The aim of the translation can be different from the aim of the source text. The skopos could be, for example, that the translation should be as functionally equivalent to the source text as possible. It is also possible that a translation has multiple goals, and these goals can be hierarchically structured. The skopos of the translation depends on the target audience.⁴⁹

Translational action leads to a target text (not necessarily a verbal one); translation leads to a translatum⁵⁰. A precise specification of the aim is essential to a translator.⁵¹ Vermeer describes skopos this way:

For instance, one legitimate skopos might be an exact imitation of the source text syntax, perhaps to provide target culture readers with information about this syntax. Or an exact imitation of the source text structure, in a literary translation, might serve to create a literary text in the target culture. Why not? The point is that one must know, what one is doing, and what consequences of such actions are, e.g. what the effect of a

47 Reiss 1989, 115.

48 Reiss 1989, 115.

49 Vermeer 1989, 173‒174; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 92‒94.

50 Translatum = resulting target text.

51 Vermeer 1989, 173‒174; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 92, 94.

text created in this way will be in the target culture and how much the effect will differ from that of source text and the source culture.⁵²

The skopos can be defined in an assignment for the translator, or the translator can define their own skopos. A translation should follow the skopos that is defined at the beginning of the translation work. Skopos theory campaigns against the idea that a translation has no aim.⁵³ The point is that a translation must be done systematically, according to a principle. The theory itself does not provide this principle.⁵⁴

According to most theories, a translation should be equivalent to the source text.

This equivalence can be very flexible, and it has changed through the history of translation. This demand of equivalence has been seen as a chain to the translator.

Some scholars have stated that there is no need to have an equivalence, and instead, a translation should be adequate.⁵⁵ Skopos theory replaces the equivalence with the skopos.⁵⁶

Even though the concept of equivalence is not seen as valid according to skopos theory, a translator should still remain loyal to the source text, and they are not allowed to translate the text arbitrarily. According to Vehmas-Lehto, Christiane Nord has described this as ‘loyalty’ to the text. A translator is responsible for the translation and accountable to a reader of the translation. It is not morally right to give a reader of the translation a wrong image of the relationship between the source text and the translation. A reader of the translation may assume, for example, that the intentions of the translator are similar to those of the author of the original text.⁵⁷

Skopos theory, then, is also wrestling with the concept of equivalence, even though it is not stated so clearly by the developers of the theory. Nida, however, has dealt with this question in detail in his theory, so it is worth using it as the main theory when dealing with the topic of translating theological terms in Bible translations.

I will now turn to the theory of dynamic equivalence and its later developments, which is the main emphasis of this research. Since the topic of this research is to study Bible translations, and dynamic theory has been so influential in the Bible translation world, it is more relevant to this research to study dynamic theory than other, more modern or recent theories that are not used on a large scale when making Bible translations.