Measuring translation 'error': adequacy in the host text

Extracted text from Handout_Measuring_adequacy.doc:

1

Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text

Nathan Esala

The Liknl1 New Testament2 Within Skopostheorie a translation error is defined as anything that obstructs the purpose (Nord 1997, 74). a failure to carry out the instructions implied in the brief (75). an inadequate solution to a translation problem Note: This definition of error has a powerful relational caveat that is the ethical constraint of loyalty (see below). It is important that the definition is contextually defined (not static). Functional Typology of Translation problems arranged hierarchially (Nord 1997, 75). Pragmatic translation problems are the most important. They depend on extra-textual factors which are described in the translation brief . I highlighted six components of pragmatic error from within Nords description: translation type, sender specific features of the original author, sender or receiver orientation of the translation functional unit, sender specific features of time, medium and place. Cultural translation problems are culture specific norms and conventions. I identified five types of cultural translation problems in Nords writing: translation conventions, text layout conventions, genre conventions, poetic conventions, measurement conventions, and non-verbal behavior. In instrumental translation cultural problems are ranked on par with pragmatic problems. Linguistic translation problems occur when there are mistakes in language structure such as vocabulary, syntax, or supra-segmental features like discourse markers. Typically, Nord grades these errors as lower level errors, however, if these errors affect the function or offend the audiences preferences such that a translations function is affected then these errors are raised up in importance. Note that linguistic problems often receive a disproportionate amount of time, energy and resources in comparison to research into crucial pragmatic issues like medium. Text specific translation problems are isolated to a particular source text: figures of speech, neologisms, or puns. Special features of literary translations The description Nord offers for literary translation include: hermeneutical interpretation, text function (see Jakobson 1960), cultural distance, form and effect, fictional characters, and intonation and focus.

1

The Liknl language (Komba) is a Gurma language of Northern Ghana, part of the macro language family of Likpakpaaln (Konkomba). The people are called Bikm while the speech variety is Liknl. 2

The Translation Brief for the Liknl New Testament is available online: http://www.lbt.org/papers/technical/Komba_Translation_Brief.pdf

2

Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text

Nathan Esala

The research purpose is to measure the presentation of text signs in the printed Liknl New Testament by comparing the translation decisions to the translation instructions in the translation brief. I limited my scope to the book of Philemon. The research goal is to identify and grade translation errors in the book of Philemon based on the hierarchy of translation problems in Skopostheorie. The research question: What is the severity of translation errors in the Liknl New Testament in the Skopostheorie framework? The concepts for measurement are the types of translation problems listed above. The indicators are underlined next to the descriptions in the hierarchy of translation problems above. For each indicator there should be an instrument or a tool to help measure the indicator. The instrument contains probes which are the actual data collection components that make up the Instrument (Nahhas, Keltall, Mann 2011). For each probe there must be criteria that lead to answering to the Research Question. It is helpful to decide ahead of time what the answer to a criteria will mean in relation to the research question. So for instance, I indicate that a yes answer means that there is a possible translation error, and a no answer would indicate that there is no translation error. Before assigning error the researcher must also consider the ethical constraint of loyalty. Within Skopostheorie, this constraint to be loyal to the source author and host audience trumps the instructions of the translation brief. The Skopoi of the Liknl New Testament Primary goal: The host text is to be a written text read aloud in church services, funerals, marriages, baptisms or naming ceremonies, Bible studies, and other specialized church situations. Secondary goal: The host text will serve as a symbol and motivator for ethnic and cultural uplift and unity in churches, communities and schools. It should be similar in form and style to other Ghanaian translations. Tertiatry goal: The host text should be suitable to be read aloud for mass media formats and lend itself to be further adapted for other oral and recorded media.

3

Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text

Nathan Esala

Example of an instrument measuring Pragmatic problem of translation type. The Liknl translation brief calls for a homologous instrumental translation. So the translation should analogously translate the communicative functions of the host text. Here I am trying to ascertain how the host text achieves this goal and where it might fall short. Number Bible Ref description 1 Adopted As is? Y/N Y=2 N=3 1. PH 1-2 author/ addressee convention prisoner

2 If 1 is Y, was this adequate?

3 If 1 is N, was it domesticated adequately? Y = good N = error

comments

Y= good N=error Y

Explain error analysis source convention adopted, with slight adjustment to receptor strange for Paul, as a Christian to be a prisoner, handled in introduction. some may not realize metaphorical usage, an adjustment could have been made while retaining the metaphor The concept of house church is not explained.

Y

PH 1

Y

Y

PH 2

fellow soldier

Y

N

PH2

church in your house

Y

N

PH 25

your spirits

Y

N

This seems to be a bit of Christian-ese. the conventions is famililar because of church culture in English. Not very natural Komba.

The table has identified two potential translation errors. #3, #4, and #38. I think both of them could have been avoided, but probably do not rank too high in terms of mistaking the translation type.

4

Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text

Nathan Esala

The Next steps for the development of instruments that measure translation error Streamline the tools so they can be used with different translation briefs Perhaps it could be used as a tool to help improve quality on a book by book basis Could help pinpoint ethical dilemmas and further edit the brief

Ethical considerations Error in my translation? Too much consistency? Language and Cultural power issues in deciding about translation type Shared responsibility in ethical decisions Is transparency good? The brief as mitigating colonial bombs?

References: Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Basic Books, 1981. Berger, Klaus, and Christiane Nord. 1999. Das Neue Testament und frhchristliche Schriften, neu bersetzt und kommentiert. Frankfurt/ Main: Insel Verlag. Botha, Pieter J. J. 1992. Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity: Suggested Implications for the Interpretation of Pauls Letter to the Galatians. Scriptura 42: 17-34. Comaroff, John and Jean Comaroff. 1991. Of Revelation and Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crisp, Simon. Translation Quality in an Era of Localisation, Paper presented at Bible Translation 2013, Dallas, TX, October 15, 2013.

5

Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text

Nathan Esala

de Blois, Kees F., and T. Mewe. 2002. Functional Equivalence and the New Dutch Translation Project. Pages 19-30 in Current Trends in Scripture Translation. Edited by P. Noss. UBS Bulletin 198/199. De Vaus, David A. 1986. Surveys in Social Research. Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin, Inc. de Vries, Lourens. 2001. Bible Translations: Forms and Functions. The Bible Translator 52(3): 306-19. Dube, Musa W. 1999. Consuming the Colonial Cultural Bomb: Translating Badimo into Demons in the Setswana Bible (Matt.8:28-34, 15:22, 10:8). Journal for the Study of the New Testament 73: 33-59. Esala, Nathan. 2011. The Liknl Translation Brief. http://www.lbt.org/papers/technical/Komba_Translation_Brief.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2011. __________. 2012. Skopostheorie: A Functional Approach for the Future of Bible Translation in Africa? Journal of African Christian Thought 15: No. 2, 26-32. __________.forthcoming. Implementing Skopstheorie in Bible Translation. The Bible Translator. Hill, Harriet. 2012. Are Vernacular Scriptures Being Used? Kabiye Research Results. The Bible Translator 63(2):63-80. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and Poetics. In Style in Language. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 350-377. Joubert, S. J. 2002. No Culture Shock? Addressing the Achilles Heel of Modern Bible Translations. Acta Theologica 22(1): 30-43. Andr Lefevere. 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London/New York: Routledge. Louw, Johannes and Eugene Nida eds. 1988. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Socieities. Maxey, James. Unpublished manuscript 2005. Translating Philemon: Oral, Rhetorical and Discourse Considerations. ___________. 2009. From Orality to Orality: A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation of the Bible. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Nahhas, Ramzi W. with Juliana Kelsall and Noel Mann. 2011. Research and Instrument Design Tool. Chang Mai: Payap University. http://li.payap.ac.th/images/stories/survey/RAID%20%28mahidol%29.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013. Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.

6

Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text

Nathan Esala

Peng, Kuo-Wei. 2012. Contemplating the Future of Chinese Bible Translation: A Functionalist Approach. The Bible Translator 63(1): 1-16. ____________. 2013. Study Bible as Bible Translation: The Test Case of the Chinese Union Study Bible Series. Paper presented at Bible Translation 2013, Dallas, TX, October 15, 2013 Pym, Anthony. 2012. On Translator Ethics: Principles for Mediation between Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Rei, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 2013. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Translated by C. Nord. Manchester: St. Jerome. Reprint of Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Trasnlationstheorie. 1984. Tbigen: Niemeyer. Rhoads, David. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. van der Merwe, Christo. 2003. A New Translation of the Bible into Afrikaans. A Theoretical and Practical Orientation. Paper presented at UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Iguassu Falls, Brazil. Sanneh, Lamin O. 1989. Translating the Message: the Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translators Invisibility: A History of Translation. London; New York: Routledge. Ward, Richard and David Trobisch. 2013. Bringing the Word to Life: Engaging the New Testament Through Performing It. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wendland, Ernst R. 2008. Finding and Translating the Oral-Aural Elements in Written Language: The Case of the New Testament Epistles. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. West, Gerald O. 2007. (Ac)claiming the (Extra)ordinary African Reader of the Bible. In Reading OtherWise: Socially Engaged Biblical Scholars Reading with Their Local Communities. Ed. Gerald West. SBL: Atlanta: 29-48. Young, Robert J.C. Paper presented at Nida School of Translation Studies Research Symposium, Cultural Translation, New York, NY, September 20, 2013

Interested in a copy of the paper or more dialogue? Email address: nathanesala@gmail.com