BEWARE OF ADAPTATIONS
An adaption is never as simple as people want to argue and though it can be valid in terms of dialectical variations between languages, it is important to point out that it does not necessarily speed up the process in a significant way. Actually a thorough research has to take place before embarking on such an endeavour, as to of course, the linguistic proximity and the socio-linguistic desirability. The issue is not so much that it cannot or should not be done, but the idea that in itself it will acelarate the process is not a given.
rFrom experience now, I have learned that so many other issues besides linguistic and socio-linguistic matters are key depending on the situation:
a. We need to ascertain what the verse numbering tradition is of the target text and the "source text" . There can be a great divide between what the community is used to in terms of versnumbering and verse content tradition and what the text they want to adapt has. These issues should be dealt with beforehand both in the Translation Brief, as well as in terms of technical PTX setup to avoid much grief at a later stageehr There can be a big difference between the translation method and style of the text that is used for the adaptation and the expectation of the community and the churches. In their enthusiasm to make Scriptures in their mothertongue available, stakeholders might decide quickly for a translation and think that it is just a matter of lexical and syntactic changes. And then discover along the way that the translation style is not all what they wanted, changing gear midway and chosing another, maybe more literal, text to adapt, if available.
c. And then there is the issue of exegetical choices. The churches, and BS might only after some time discover that too many exegetical choices differ from what they want or agree with and that there is the whole issue of "exegetical preferences" . For example, if a translation consistently choses minority vieuws or is slanted in a certain way. It is not just a matter of saying well text A has been consultant and exegetically checked, so go ahead and adapt it in language dialect B. The translation belongs to the community and acceptability issues can differ per language and church communities. (E.g. the same consultant can "approve" different valid exegetical choices for the same text in different projects because he/she differs to the local team and gives priority to their choices, as long as these choices are defensible. )
In closing, there is so much more to be said and there is a bigger and wider philosophical discussion as to the status of adaptations as such and the way we can view them both from a Bible Translation perspective, as from different divergent translations studies' theories. There is also the issue of adaptations that are done within the same language, but in order to adapt the language register (e..g moving from a "high level language translation" to a more colloquial and/or let's say a child's level text.).
But my point here is that when preparing adaptation proposals and when actually starting the work, stakeholders must be aware of the complexity. The TC more than often does not read the language of translation, and the decision is left in hands of the local community, who focussing only language proximity, eagerly accepts a quick solution by agreeing with an adaptation, only to discover during the process that there are more than purely linguistic matters in play. Issues of exegetical choices, text critical and translation methodological framing should be addressed head on from the very get go in order to have realistic view of the desirability of proceeding with such an endeavour, but moreover a realistic project time span and an elaboration of the actual steps needed in the project, the division of roles and the projected result.
7 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
Thank you for your post and your concern about adaptation approach. I think there are a lot of similarity between transmediation, translation, adaptation and paraphrasing. With the development and technology of the connectivity between different language groups in the context of global village I think innovation with technology and collaboration is the reality and the fear of change are also real. I just wonder how can we resolve these issues and concerns with an effective way to evaluate and implement different strategy in different context. I hope we can have more discussion along these lines in the near future.
I have been working within a cluster project for 15 years in which the local language translators themselves don't realize how different their closely related dialects are until they are working together to produce accurate translations that are exegetically related but as different as their language varieties require. "Yes, we have that word, but apparently we don't mean the same thing that you mean." The translators are using adaptation tools to assist them in producing closely related translations. However, this does NOT represent a move towards speedily produced translations. If anything, it may take a little longer because of the extra dialogue that is necessary between the various language team partners. Yet, the great value that comes from this dialogue is key, not only in terms of increased quality of the translation product, but also in terms of the people who are being equipped for continued contributions in the Bible translation movement. With an adaptation strategy, they are being trained together to continue in this task for both ongoing translation (and revision) of their own language translations and also for assisting other language communities in the wider region. In our case, adaptation tools are simply assisting people in a very human-oriented translation process. Yet it seems we often have very different expectations put on us in terms of pacing because the world has been continually hearing the message that "computers speed up the process" and "adaptation speeds up the process." So why aren't we going faster? Well, that's the nature of this highly complex task. There's a lot involved, and there are often not easy answers. And computers and adaptation don't automatically speed things up, at least not in the way that people typically think. In fact, these computer and adaptation tools often help us manage the highly complex task in ways that would be nigh to impossible without these tools. Marlon has pointed out some very real considerations regarding the complexities of adaptations. There are many more.
We tried adaptation tolls between two major dialects of a small language (ca. 30 000 speakers) in North-west Russia in early 2010's only to hear the translator start complaining about problems in discourse structure (wrong word order) and idioms! I have ever since been sceptical about adaptation as a quick and neat solution to translation.
Thank you Jeremiah. Yes, I think that in itself the processes and language transformations that the translator applies when adapting can be describe in the way you are are pointing too. Often there is the thought is that in an adaption process the team does not need translation training as such and that "they are just adapting" but in reality, at least in quite a few situations "adaption" is not a straightforward direct relationship and even on the linguistic level we encounter shifts in discourse, honorific systems, and/or lexical pragmatic and semantic shifts, not to speak of "treacherous" shifts which are only discovered, after a bulk of material have been processed. Thanks for interacting with the topic. Indeed a further discussion could be valuable.
Thank you Benjamin for your valuable and insightful comments . Indeed as you point out the complexity of adaptations has in no way been addressed by my short post here. I have not delved into the sociolinguistic aspects and other aspects your are hinting at. I totally agree with you that more often than not "adaptation" is seen as a tool to speed up and without due research before or in order to come up with a realistic project there is often a wrong sense of utopian expectation that technology in adaptation can be used to its fullest since it is "adaptation and not translation". There are probably some types of adaptations where that might be the case (but probably not worth doing the adaptation because the language variations are minimal); in most cases you are totally right that "aptation tools are simply people in a very human-oriented translation process." Really enjoyed your input and you sharing your experience which in a totally different setting than mine.
Indeed Seppo, I think this is exactly the issue where there was no pre-testing and research on exactly the differences. In proposing adaptation projects often stakeholders, with all good intentions in the world will only talk about or look at surface similarities, but do not take time to find out the "under the water iceberg reality" of the differences between the language varieties. And even, if that is not the main issue, the textual and church related, shifts I mentioned are not properly investigated. I totally understand your scepticism given your experience. And for sure I think that "a quick and neat solution to translation" adaptation is not. Whether it should be attempted or can have more benefits than disadvantages depends on the specific language, sociolinguistic and other traditional textual Scripture engagement realities. One thing is for sure: Stakeholders should receive a realistic brief as to the practical conundrums surrounding this way of working and moreover the actual experience of teams over the world as to best case practices and also pitfalls. But for sure there seems to be a utopian technological ideal at play which in many case has led to high expectations which cannot or are not met. There are for sure cases where translators are at times better of using the "language variant text" as a resource and base or model text rather than to work on "on merely adapting". The gain in time, quality and acceptability is offsets the adaption model. Experiences like yours Seppo and other more positive experiences should all be shared more so that insightful decisions can be made. Thanks for your valuable contribution.
Thank you Jeremiah for your elaborate response. You mention several good points relating to the matter of whether adaption can speed up a project. Totally agree with you that there is a certain complexity to the topic a usual . There are some points you are making, on the other hand, which would require some unpacking. Will point them out at another time.