Framing Nida

Extracted text from Framing_Nida.pdf:

Framing Nida: The Relevance of Translation Theory in the United Bible Societies Stephen Pattemore

1. Is there a theory of translation? Between the theory and the practice of translation there exists a particularly problematic, almost tortured, relationship. This is nicely brought out in a conversation between a translation theorist and a professional translator (Chesterman and Wagner, 2002). Wagner, the translator, is dismissive of the practical usefulness of translation theories that have been advanced to date. She is looking, in short, for something which is ultimately prescriptive. Chesterman on the other hand says that translation theorists have been trying to escape from the top-down prescriptive approach, as unscientific and unempirical, and moving to a descriptive and explanatory framework, something more akin to literary theory than to mechanics (p.2), a human rather than a natural science. Wagner is happy with observation and analysis but also wants to be guided, to have a common language and at least a tentative set of standards established (p.3), effectively describing a triangle of theory, practice and ethics. Chestermans response is worth recording: [O]pinions would be divided over the appropriateness of talking about guidelines and 'doctrines' here, as if the job of the theory was to advise people what to do. This approach has perhaps gone furthest in Bible translation, where there is a long tradition of guidelines and principles expressly designed to help future Bible translators...Many scholars would prefer to think in terms of hypotheses or generalizations or probabilisitic laws, based on observation. (Chesterman and Wagner, 1986: 4) And his set of tools ranges from concepts like deverbalization (p.9-10) which could be described as vintage Nida, to relevance (p. 10) where he commends Gutts concept of interpretive resemblance within a cognitive environment. This is precisely the span of my interest in this essay, in which I seek to investigate some of the historical developments in the way translation theory has been developed and used in the United Bible Societies.

So is there a theory of translation? The answer may seem obvious, but having been trained, originally, in the natural sciences, reading discussions of translation theory within Bible translation circles has usually left me unconvinced that what purports to be such a theory is in fact a theory in the scientific sense of the word, and doubtful as to whether such a theory can be found. My initial question itself conceals two questions: Have scholars or practitioners of translation succeeded in describing a theory of translation? and, behind that, Can there be such a thing as a theory of translation? This second, covert question is the more fundamental. Is translation a natural phenomenon, susceptible to direct observation and generalisation leading to empirical laws, or is it a deliberative social activity, open to sociological interpretation and description, leading perhaps to ethical guidelines or even prescriptive laws? Reading more broadly in the field of translation studies1 I discover that both these questions are

1 So called since Holmes 1972 paper, The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, Holmes (1988): 67-80. open and live issues in the wider community of both academics and practitioners. While there is work which much more closely resembles the movement of scientific study, from observation and description to generalisation and the formulation of laws (the work of Hatim and Mason (1990), Toury (1995) and Chesterman (1997) are just three examples), there remains a considerable variety of opinions on just what a theory of translation would look like (as the discussion in Chesterman, 1997: 42-46, makes clear). In the face of an increasingly interdisciplinary focus in translation studies, Arduini (2004) has called for an end to the boundaries imposed by disciplines and assumed by the concept of interdisciplinarity, and the development of epistemology as a network of interconnecting nodes. He sees theory as a growing confidence in our ability to ask fundamental questions without hiding behind mere descriptivism...Theory, in this sense, happens when knowledge must be rethought and restructured. Doing theory represents a declaration of conflict; it is a subversive move that academic institutions may later turn into method....theory offers a critique of translation ideologies (Arduini, 2004: 9)

The distinction implied here between theory on the one hand and either description or method on the other, is one which is rarely appreciated or made clear in writings on translation, and one which will prove useful in the task of this essay.

While the wider world of academic translation studies remains the context of discussion, I want to focus here on the place of theory in the translation work of the United Bible Societies (UBS), over the four decades since the publication of Nidas Towards a Science of Translating (1964) and Nida and Tabers Theory and Practice of Translation (1969)2. I will begin with a brief look at TAPOT, since this has undoubtedly provided the framework within which all discussion of Bible translation has taken place, both within and outside the UBS, and at the normative developments from that work. But Nidas work has itself been framed: it has been understood differently by people in different contexts and continues to exert a strong influence within what is now a much wider understanding of the theory of translation within UBS. I will note some of the criticisms from outside the UBS which directly or indirectly stimulated reassessment of the accepted position, and will then attempt to track the role of theory in UBS translation practice by examining publications arising out of successive Trienniel Translation Workshops from 1981 to the present.3 To conclude I will briefly examine the presentation and reception of Gutts (1992, 2000) relevance-theoretic account of translation within the UBS community, since it seems to bring to focus precisely the questions with which I began, at least as they apply to the world of Bible translation..

2. Theory in The Theory and Practice of Translation

2 Henceforward these two works will be referred to as TASOT and TAPOT respectively. 3 Most of these workshops have resulted in the publication of a collection of significant papers in a volume entitled, Current Trends in Bible Translation, a special edition of the UBS Bulletin. My own personal involvement is limited to three TTWs those at Chiang Mai (1994), Malaga (2000) and Iguassu Falls (2003). For the rest I rely on papers published in Current Trends or in The Bible Translator and on the memory of colleagues. Eugene Nidas immense contribution to the cause of Bible translation has been noted, celebrated and assessed in a number of recent publications (Stine, 2004; and several papers in BT 56/1, 2005, especially Porter, 2005). In 1986 one critic of the dynamic- equivalence theory propounded in TAPOT, nevertheless said, Nidas name dominates all literature on translation theory and not just that concerned with Bible translation. (Nichols, 1986:43) While the same would not be true today, his writings have shaped the translation practice not only of the United Bible Societies but of other organisations, such as the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), Pioneer Bible Translators and many others, and he is probably still the Bible translation scholar most frequently quoted in non- religious academic translation studies.4 But are the foundational works of Nida and colleagues based on a theory of translation? I suggest that they are not, at least not in the sense of a set of generalizations drawn from observation of translations or translators, leading to an explanatory framework. Rather they are based on a wide array of theoretical foundations largely in the area of linguistics and communication theory, and in particular on theories of lexical semantics, transformational grammar and a code or conduit model of communication.

It is instructive to note the increasing confidence of the titles of Nidas publications: Bible Translating (1947), Towards a Science of Translating (1964), The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969). But if we can allow Nida to critique himself, one of his more recent publications (Nida, 2001: 1-9) is so equivocal on the role of theory as to suggest that the apparent confidence exhibited in the 1969 title was illusory, and that he would perhaps prefer to revert to his 1947 title! Further, he says of TASOT that it reflects a number of different insights from different disciplines because no single discipline or theory can possibly provide the necessary insights to deal satisfactorily with the many faceted aspects of interlingual communication. (Nida, 2001:93). The same comments accurately describe TAPOT, which developed a more pedagogical approach based on the insights of TASOT, more specifically applied to Bible translation. There are in fact three most important theoretical foundations supporting the proposed methodology of translation. It is based firstly and importantly on a theory of communication. In declaring the priority of dynamic equivalence over formal correspondence, Nida and Taber assume a code model of communication, ultimately dependent on Shannon and Weaver (1949) (TAPOT, 22-24 and 163-65; in more detail in TASOT, 120-44). We shall have more to say about the model, as its shortcomings are the locus of much of the criticism of Nidas theory.

Perhaps even more importantly, their basic paradigm for translation analysis of the source language into kernel sentences, transfer to the target language, and restructuring of the target language kernels into an appropriate level of complexity is ultimately based on theories of transformational grammar (TAPOT, 33-55). It is most important to the dynamic-equivalence model that surface form should be clearly distinguished from meaning, which resides at some deeper level. But, although this is undoubtedly dependent on Chomskian linguistics, Hatim and Mason (1991: 31) are wrong to suggest that Nida advances this as an explanatory model for the process which takes place

4 The most likely challenger for that title would be Ernst-August Gutt. subconsciously when someone translates (thereby implying that it represents an empirical theory of translation.) In TASOT (68) and TAPOT (33) the three stage process is proposed as a conscious methodology of translation. It is clearly prescriptive not descriptive.

Thirdly, there is a theory of meaning on a word-level, which is strongly based on lexical semantics and componential analysis (TAPOT: 57-90). And while the chapter on Connotative Meaning (TAPOT: 91-98) may be seen as making some moves in the direction of pragmatic construction of meaning, even here contextual constraints are marginal rather than central. Words, and sentences, are containers for meaning, as is made clear in the analogy with packing the same clothes into different shaped suitcases (p.105).

Perhaps it needs to be said that as well as these three theoretical foundations, there are some other assumptions: Firstly the accessibility and priority of authors intended meaning, because this is what must be translated. Secondly a postulate of translatability, which is really a theory of mind that what can be said in one language can always be said in another, because human experience is at root universal. And while Holmes (1988:81-91) both commends and criticizes Nida for dealing mainly at the level of the sentence, there is already in TAPOT a recognition that texts are more than a collection of sentences and the seeds of a movement towards inclusion of discourse-structural features in translation strategy.

3. Development of Nidas translation model in the field of Bible translations. Nidas basic framework for translation was developed and applied by most of those involved in Bible translation over a period of several decades. While ideas, such as the implications of discourse analysis for translation (eg. Smalley 1979, 1980), which were merely suggestions in TAPOT, became whole disciplines, the theoretical foundation of the separability of form and meaning, at both grammatical and lexical levels, remained essentially unchallenged. Wonderly (1969), while majoring on the sociolinguistics of common-language translations, accepted Nidas three stage translation process in theory (p. 51). Nida himself reflected the importance of both transformational grammar and the code model of communication for the praxis he advocated (Nida 1972 a, b) while at the same time broadening its sociolinguistic basis (Nida 1972 c)

A number of widely-used SIL publications, while giving no explicit attention to theory, are clearly based on the same cluster of theoretical foundations. Beekman and Callow (1974) are deliberately pedagogical rather than theoretical, but they assume the priority of meaning over form, suggesting that the ideal translation is an idiomatic one, with a primary criterion of fidelity. The book is mostly focussed on word-level lexical semantics, but moves on towards semantic structures at paragraph level. Kathleen Callows (1974) companion volume shifts the focus to interpersonal and textual issues, based on a Hallidayan conception of language function (p.12) Two course-books at different levels of sophistication (Barnwell 1980; 1992)5 acknowledge dependence on

5 The first editions of these are 1974 and 1975 respectively. the theory and principles of TAPOT and Beekman and Callow (1974). They both begin with the distinction of form and meaning and give considerable attention to lexical semantics, though Barnwell (1980) move on to the semantic structure of large units of text. More sophisticated yet, but still designed as a coursebook, is Larson (1998 first edition 1984). Beginning at the same point, form and meaning, Larson interprets these in terms of surface (or grammatical) structure and deep (or semantic) structure where meaning resides. Semantic structure is more nearly universal than grammatical structure. (29) And it is semantic structure which is the main focus of this textbook, whether at a lexical level, where words are bundles of meaning components (the main focus, 59-295), or at the progressively higher levels of intersentential relationships (299- 377) or whole texts (381-505). However, a movement towards the pragmatics of translation is evident in sections on the communication situation both at word and text level (143-53, 459-76). This meaning-based model for translation is more highly developed, particularly in the area of discourse structure, but represents once again the same theoretical bases as were laid out by Nida and Taber and the bibliography, even of the 1998 edition, shows relatively little interaction with the wider world of translation studies.

If TAPOT was the bible of UBS translation activity, then de Waard and Nidas From One Language to Another (1986)6 was the authorised commentary and some attention must be given to how it approaches the theoretical foundations of translation.

It has been a matter of some debate as to whether the terms dynamic equivalence, as used TAPOT, and functional equivalence, as in FOLTA, are substantially the same or not. There is no doubt that in the minds of the authors of FOLTA, no distiction was intended: The substitution of functional equivalence is not designed to suggest anything essentially different from what was earlier designated by the phrase dynamic equivalence. (FOLTA, 7)

The change in terminology was largely driven by the desire to avoid the connotations mistakenly drawn from the term dynamic. De Waard and Nida viewed their new work as an elaboration of the earlier approach rather than its replacement. Basically dynamic equivalence has been defined in terms of functional equivalence. (36) And it is certainly true that the description of what is required for dynamic equivalence in TAPOT is expressed in terms of three funtions the informative, expressive and imperative functions (TAPOT 24-28). From this point of view, FOLTA (25) merely extends or elaborates the number of functions to include the expressive, cognitive, interpersonal, informative, imperative, performative, emotive and aesthetic In FOLTA (10f), as in TAPOT, the aim of translation is to produce the closest natural equivalent to the source text, and to ascertain equivalence...one must focus upon the functions. Yet the definitions themselves evidence a shift which might be described as a slight withdrawal to a more defensible position. Compare the following two quotes (where the emphasis is mine):

6 Henceforward FOLTA. Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language. (TAPOT, 24) The translation process has been defined on the basis that the receptors of a translation should comprehend the translated text to such an extent that they can understand how the original receptors must have understood the original text. (FOLTA, 36) The change in the criterion from response to comprehension may well reflect a realisation that response is ill-defined and probably unmeasurable, whereas comprehension can be tested. Statham (2003, 2005) has argued that the difference between dynamic and functional equivalence runs deeper than than authors allow and that the change in terminology reflects the shift to a social-scientific understanding of language as a cultural phenomenon.

Apart from this question of terminology, the presentation of the theoretical foundation of translation in FOLTA has both similarities and differences with that of TAPOT. The postulate of translatability is explained as resting on a number of presumed commonalities such as language universals, similarities of mental processes and similarities between cultures (42-44). The code model of communication is, if anything, even more central to the discussion. From the perspective of our more pragmatically and cognitively oriented times, it seems strange that a section about The Nature of Communication (11-19) should essentially be a description of how elements of the code model apply to translation. Certainly there are very helpful extensions: form is viewed as often significant for meaning, the setting (or settings) of an act of communication is seen as importantly contributing to its success or otherwise, and codes include non- linguistic as well as linguistic signs. Yet there is little here which is not found already, at least in embryo, in TAPOT. What gives the code model its renewed vigour in FOLTA is a new theory of meaning, one based on semiotics. This is indeed what distinguishes FOLTA from what had gone before. In defending their choice of the term functional equivalence, de Waard and Nida say this text employs the expression functional equivalence, particularly since the twin bases of effective translation seem to be best represented in a sociosemiotic and sociolinguistic orientation, in which the focus is upon function. (FOLTA, 36)

The books central chapter, entitled Translating Means Translating Meaning seeks to understand the process of translation in terms of sociosemiotic relationships between isomorphic sets of signs. This has the very positive function of embedding the text and its interpretation in the wider context of its social setting, and connecting the signs in the text with extra-textual signs:7

7 It is interesting to note that while earlier in the book the authors sought to distinguish exegesis from interpretation, and locate the translators activity firmly within exegesis, by focussing on the text as a sign, and a sign of signs, they here move definitively towards interpretation as the locus of translation. a sociosemiotic approach to the meaning of verbal signs always involves the total communication of an event within the social context; in other words, a text cannot be isolated from its context... a sociosemiotic approach to the process of translating is particularly useful in highlighting the fact the practically everything about a translation carries meaning, in the sense that anything that consitutes a sign of something is meaningful...from a sociosemiotic point of view meaning is not to be found merely in words or grammatical constructions. Signs have meaning whether on a lexical, grammatical, or rhetorical level, and whether paralinguistic or extralinguistic. (FOLTA, 73, 76) Yet meaning is still, as it was in TAPOT, containerised, located within the text itself, and accessible by a process of decoding, only now it is contained in signs rather than in words: A verbal written text is essentially a record of the meaning indicated by a series of signs, but the text is never a perfect transcript. It is always devoid of certain features of intonation, voice quality, and as already noted, lacks very important elements of paralinguistic and extralinguistic features. Decoding devices (principles of exegesis) should attempt to obtain from the text all the meaning that resides in it... (FOLTA, 65, emphasis mine)

The consequence of a semiotic understanding of meaning, in terms of an infinite regression of signs, is recognised by the authors, although it is doubtful that they realize how far this would be taken by others, as leading to an ultimate destabilisation of meaning and a dethroning of the text as the locus of meaning:8 This interpretive process of identifying the significance of a sign by means of other signs involves essentially a kind of infinite progression, or regression...Thus defining meaning is theoretically endless, although from a practical standpoint there is a point of diminishing returns. There can be no ultimate definitions and no absolute verbal formulations. (FOLTA, 74) The point of diminishing returns is of interest as it raises the question of how audiences interpret texts, given that they are signs which only have significance in terms of other signs. There are indications here that the authors are moving towards a more pragmatic understanding of the way meaning is constructed and the role of context in determining it, and also of locating the impact of context in the mind itself9: The mind is constantly in the process of change as the result of new information, new paradigms for intellectual activity and new value systems. But for effective

8 A much more realistic view of the extreme possibilities of semiotics is to be found in one of Nidas recent writings: Articles and books by Barthes and Derrida also interested me, but their existentialism and insistence on the complete independence of a document from its historical or original purpose seemed to conflict too severely with my concerns for understanding documents in relation to their cultural setting. (Nida, 2004: 15) 9 All of these features, and especially the last, would be central to a Relevance Theoretic approach to communication and translation. communication there must be some measure of partial isomorphism between communicating individuals or communities.... In order to discover the meaning of expressions which one has not heard before, it is almost always necessary to set up certain hypotheses based on possible isomorphic relations...
(FOLTA, 71-72)

Another feature which distinguishes FOLTA from earlier works is the attention given to rhetorical function, which is seen as a process of selection and arrangement of material to generate meaning at a level higher than that of grammar and not constrained by grammar- like rules (p.78 and the following two chapters). And it is only appropriate that this is where their analysis begins, and only then do they move to discuss meaning on a grammatical and finally lexical level. The rhetorical processes achieve many of the affective aims of a text as well as contributing its literary and aesthetic quality.

Seen against the backdrop of TASOT and TAPOT, FOLTA represents a significant movement of focus to larger levels of text and to the world outside of the text. Yet while the theory represented here grapples with the connection between text and context, it still locates meaning within the text, and does not represent a paradigm shift in translation theory within the Bible Society movement. The fundamental issues in TAPOT are still the fundamental issues in FOLTA. And the most innovative aspect of the book, an adoption of a semiotic understanding of meaning, was in fact to attract few followers, perhaps due to its radical questioning of the stability or even the originality of the source text. This is particularly true among those working in what was still seen as the core business of UBS translations, namely print media. On the other hand, it would be taken up enthusiastically by those working in new media or trans-media translations, and from there make its way back into the mainstream.

4. Dissent: Voices from outside UBS While TAPOT continued to be the largely unchallenged framework for translation either explicitly (in UBS) or more implicitly (in SIL), there was a growing number of voices suggesting alternative conceptions of what a theory of translation should look like, with consequent implications for the practice of translators. These voices came from within academic translation studies and from other (mostly biblical) scholars interested in Bible translation. Increasingly from the mid 1980s onwards, these voices found receptive targets within UBS circles and stimulated a major rethinking of the theoretical basis of UBS translation work. In this section I want to briefly echo some of the voices from without, and in the next section trace the movements for change from within.

Developments within the field of translation studies which have provided alternative ways of thinking of translation have been noted by Naud (2002) and Mojolo and Wendland (2003) who mention functionalist, descriptive, textlinguistic, relevance- theoretic, post-colonial, literalist and foreignization versus domestication approaches. Some of these have directly interacted with or reacted to Nidas theoretical foundations. I would like here to note three critiques from other sources: from the worlds of biblical scholarship, literary criticism and translation studies. All three found Nidas theory inadequate in ways which would subsequently preoccupy UBS scholars.  Nicholls (1986) expresses a certain appreciation for Nidas work and for the intrinsic merits and clarity of the TEV (now known as the GNT) as a common language translation.10 But his criticism is equally levelled at Nidas theoretical work, which at one point he describes as incoherent (45), and at the results as exemplified in the GNT. Interestingly it is not the Chomskian grounding of the theory that concerns him (44) but rather the criterion of the receptors response as a measure of the success of the translation (44), especially to the extent that it results in cultural adaptaion of the text in order to evoke a supposed similar response in the reader (50-51). Furthermore he suggests that Nidas translation theory is based on an inadequate theory of language (46). This would appear to be centred on the apparent disparagement of the significance of form for meaning, with the consequent priority of contextual over verbal concordance (45-47). This, he suggests, results in a loss of exegetical potential. He questions the need to resolve ambiguities by explication of assumptions, and also the need for restructuring the text in the target language for the sake of naturalness (47-48). He concludes: ..any theory of translation must draw on a theory of language. DE (Dynamic Equivalence) theory cannot provide the comprehensive account of the translation process that we seek, firstly because Nidas vehicular concept of meaning does not do justice to the complexity of language and to the significance of form. Secondly his translation model defines equivalence in terms of the response of the receptors. (Nicholls, 1986: 52) Further A written text such as the Bible has become decontextualized in the sense that we cannot expect helpful clues from the context of situation in the way we can with spoken messages. Nevertheless the structure and extent of the biblical corpus is such that the linguistic environement itself (co-text), provides a vast amount of historical and cultural information necessary for a successful understanding and translation of its message. A translation of the Bible.. should aim to retain as far as possible the exegetical potential of the source text. (Nicholls, 1986:53)

Given the date of this critique, and the fact that Nichols could not have seen FOLTA, there is considerable merit in some of these criticisms, although it must be said that the possibility of avoiding reconstruction of text and ignoring implied meaning is usually advanced with respect to Indo-European languages in cultures which share a great deal with each other and with the biblical world that shaped them. However, not only would FOLTA reevaluate the importance of form for meaning, but many of these issues have been the focus of much research and writing by UBS personnel over the past 20 years. Thus it is passing strange, not to say deeply anachronistic, that the same set of criticisms, cast this time in the style of a post-colonial crituqe, but with the same patronising or derogatory reference to Nida and his proteges, should be regurgitated in 2005 at a plenary session of the Society of Biblical Literatures International Meeting (Nicholls,

10 With regard to the practice of translation there is no richer source of wisdom than the writings of Eugene Nida. (Nichols, 1986:51). 2005)! This is remarkable not only in that the author has clearly not informed himself of what has been happening in UBS translation circles in the last 20 years, but equally that the academy seems happy to accept this as a fair critique of UBS translation practice. Clearly there is a lot of communication still to be done!

The second critique I will mention comes from within the world of literary criticism. Prickett (1986: 4-8) contrasts Coleridges tentative approach to the Scriptures, wary of how much his very thinking has already been shaped by them, with the Preface to the Good News Bible. Here he finds an overconfident assurance that an original meaning is to be found in the text, independent of cultural presuppositions, and that this meaning can readily be rendered into another language without doing damage to the language. Pricketts point of entry into the translation debate is the account of Elijah on Mt. Horeb, and the vexed issue of the translation of the Hebrew, qol dammah daqah, (a still, small voice, 1 Kgs 19.12, KJV). How far is it possible, in the words of the Good News Bibles Preface, to use language that is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous, when the Bible is not about things that are natural, clear, simple and unambiguous? (Prickett 1986: 10) Pricketts concerns are those not infrequently voiced by literary critics, that a translation theory which is predicated on translating meaning in preference to form (and his criticism is not restricted to UBS-sponsored translations), by losing the form of the text, sacrifices the only point of contact with the literary event which the text represents. What is really at issue is not the translation of this particular text, but a question of hermeneutics and epistemology. Prickett denies the possibility of accessing some supposed meaning or historical fact which is independent of the context of interpretation: ..any act of historical interpretation is conditioned not merely by the available evidence from the period in question, but also by the unconscious assumptions and the cultural context of the period when the interpretation is made...Perception is inseperable from interpretation; but interpretation without common ground in that which is to be interpreted is meaningless. The quest for historical fact has led to the place we might least expect: the ideological battleground of modern epistemology. (Prickett, 1986: 21)

Nor will a retreat from a search for historical facts behind a text to the intentions of the author provide any relief. Pricketts critique here of G.B.Caird and Dennis Nineham moves from the security of Wimsatts Intentional Fallacy onto the perilous ground of Kristeva and Barthes intertextuality with the ultimate questioning of the very possibility of the new and the slipping away of meaning into a welter of endless possibility (27). Not that Prickett wants to stay very long on that ground, but it highlights the essential problem with which he is wrestling, which is at the interface of epistemology and translation: Just as there is no longer an agreed hermeneutic procedure for interpreting the Old Testament, so, correspondingly, there is no universally applicable theory of translation. (29) Prickett notes that theories of translation depend on theories of language and quotes Louis G. Kelly to the effect that linguists focus on the transmission of data, while hermeneutic theorists assume translation to be a recreation of text. Building on Drydens famous analysis of translation types as metaphrase, paraphrase or imitation (with the last scarcely describable as translation), Prickett goes on to criticize Nidas theory as essentially that of paraphrase, where the supposed accessible meaning takes preference over the form, exegesis rather than hermeneutics. At heart, he says, is a problem with Nidas understanding of language as static. Innovation and change has, he justifiably argues, frequently been driven by translation, and nowhere more so than in the history of translation of the Bible. Nidas theory, he says, denies language its creative and innovative function: the new may be said to occur when there is no adequate translation available. (32) The Bible Society theory of translation seems to bring with it pre- conditioning assumptions..of a popular scientific and materialist culture ill-at-ease withe mysterious or ambiguous events that threaten to break the conventional categories of experience.. (35)

Thus by seeking to look behind the text, to a truly inaccessible place, Nidas theory looses sight of the very thing which contains the web of meaning, namely the text itself. We are left with the paradox that an apparently transparent approach to the Bible turns out to be, in reality, severely (if unconsciously) formalist and opaque, while an apparently opaque technique seems to be the only way to restor a genuinely transparent reading. To put it another way, it is those who look through the text who, disconcertingly, see least; those who would look at it and study the detailed paterning of its surface as an artifact, who discover most. (Prickett, 1986: 35-36) Once again we will see shortly that the issue of the literary quality of a bible translation has occupied the attention of some UBS researchers and practitioners since this critique was written. But the driving concern of Prickett is typical of literary scholars in the European world, where cultures and languages are related to each other and owe a common debt to the cultures and languages of antiquity. Prickett asserts that the concerns he has raised over the still small voice are in fact applicable to the whole of the biblical text: So far from being an exception to a general rule, the stubborn oddities of metaphrase may turn out to be, on examination, paradigmatic of biblical language as a whole. (Prickett, 1986: 33) This, however, is never demonstrated and remains an unsupported assertion. It is hardly reasonable to critique a translation, and indeed a whole translation theory, by the way it treats one of the most obscure and paradoxical texts in the canon, and then to assert that the same applies to the bulk of more straightforward narrative and hortatory material. Nidas concern, and the concern of the Bible Society movement as a whole, is for the communication of the Bibles message in cultures and languages with little or no connection to the original context of Scripture. Having said this, the points that the subject matter of the Bible is often mysterious, and that its text should retain the power to intrude newness into a culture, are points well made. For both Nichols and Prickett, the theory of translation is heavily dependent on a theory of language. In fact it could be said that everything beyond that is the practice of translation, rather than theory.

Venutis relevance to our focal interest is guaranteed by two things. First, he grounds his translation theory on the concept of foreignizing translation developed by Schleiermacher (Venuti, 1995: 19-20, 116-118 and passim), whose relevance to Biblical translation is undoubted. But secondly he specifically picks out Nidas approach as a prime example of the opposite, domesticating tradition of translation.

It must be said, before anything else, that Venutis motivation is openly political: I want to suggest that insofar as foreignizing translation seeks to restrain the ethnocentric violence of translation, it is highly desirable today, a strategic cultural internvention in the current state of world affairs, pitched agains the hegemonic English-language nations and the unequal cultural exchanges in which they engage their global others. Foreignizing translation in English can be a form of resistance against ethnocentricism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations.
(Venuti, 1995: 20) But just here he reveals a limitation of his relevance, because his primary concern is with translations into English and the global dominance of Anglo-American culture. What does this have to say to those translators who are translating from English into their own minority languages? His critique of Nida is largely centred on the results in terms of English translations of the Bible. Yet at the heart of it is a questioning of the priority of naturalness and communication within the target language culture (21-22) and of the criterion of equivalence of response. These are issues which, to one degree or another, have stimultated re-examination of the criteria for effective translation within the Bible Societies. While there are few who would advocate producing unnatural translations, the cultural and linguistic contexts of the source-languages of Hebrew and Greek have been given greater priority and weight. Ironically, although Venuti is fiercely critical of Nidas underlying motivation in terms of Christian mission (22-23), it is precisely here that his critique is of the greatest service because it has helped to refocus the presentation of the value systems reflected in the source documents, over against prevalent target- culture (most often non-Anglo-American) assumptions. By now it is obvious that the main issues presented by Venutis critique are ethical rather than having to do with translation theory. Whether to produce foreignizing or domesticating translations is an ethical choice, as is the decision to produce a translation of the Bible at all. This too would become a growing area of interest and research.

5. Critical Development: Voices within UBS We turn back the clock again now, to examine some of the developments within UBS which have modified, gone beyond, and ultimately challenged the dominance of Nidas theoretical framework for Bible translation.

Growing out of drawing-room meetings of a few North American scholars involved with Nida in Bible translation in the 1950s, the UBS Trienniel Translation Workshops have evolved into major international forums where UBS translation consultants from all continents and confessional communities debate the theory and practice of their craft with each other, and interact with scholars from outside the Bible translation world.11 In the early meetings, Nida presented material from books on which he was working at the time and canvassed response and interaction to help finalize his drafts. Thus TASOT came out after meetings in the early 1960s and final drafts of TAPOT were discussed at the El Escorial (Spain) TTW in 1969, which was the first such gathering to include participants from Africa and Asia. TTWs in 1969 and the early 70s also saw work presented by Johannes Louw and William Smalley which extended the basic unit of translation, and the interest in translation theory, from the sentence up towards the entire discourse. In 1972 at Rschlikon, Switzerland, Nida and Louw presented their work on biblical lexicography which would ultimately lead to their Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains (Louw and Nida, 1988). However, tensions surfaced at some of these meetings between linguists and biblical scholars and these resulted in strong disagreement at the 1975 TTW which was again held in Rschlikon. This was the first TTW where there was significant input from outside speakers. Hendrikus Boers presented on form criticism, but the focus of disagreement surrounded the presentations of Gerald Shepherd on canonical hermeneutics. The issue had little to do with translation, and much to do with theological differences between linguists (who were generally conservative biblically) and the more liberally-inclined biblical experts. It concerned the nature of what was being translated rather than how it should be (or was being) translated. While the rifts between linguists and biblical specialists within UBS appear to have been healed by the early 1980s, one unfortunate side-effect of the 1975 TTW was that a further 16 years would pass before outside speakers were again invited to make major presentations at these key UBS translation gatherings. And this, ironically, during a period of dramatic growth and development within the academic world of translation studies.

The 1978 TTW in Bangkok, Thailand, was significant for (at least) two reasons. Nida and Jan de Waard presented material that would later be published in FOLTA, in which the terminological (and, some would argue, substantive) change is made from dynamic equivalence to functional equivalence as the criterion for translation, based on a movement towards socio-semiotic theories of language.12 And it was here that Nida announced that he was handing over leadership of UBS translation affairs to Heber Peacock.

The 1981 TTW under Peacocks leadership, at Chania, Crete, was also a notable turning point. This appears to be the first occasion on which all participants were expected to read a paper and the first which saw the publication of a collection of the papers in a special edition of the UBS Bulletin entitled Current Trends in Scripture Translation. Peacock (1981) in his keynote paper provides a valuable state-of-play summary of the

11 See Stine (2004: 92-94). I am indebted to the following colleagues for supplying information about TTWs: Daniel Arichea, David Clark, Phil Stine, Norm Mundhenk,...ADD MORE 12 See elsewhere for discucssion role of theory in the practice of UBS translation, noting the significant shift towards discourse oriented translation practice, and the consequent difficulties in teaching: It is an axiom of modern translation practice that meaning is more important than form. What is now needed is the next step that moves behind meaning to message. Perhaps it can even be expressed in the statement that message is more important than meaning...The translation process was once word-oriented....The move has now been made from sentence-oriented translation to discourse-oriented translation, but this requires a far more complicated approach...The rather straightforward rules of analysis, transfer, and restructuring have to be replaced with a far more intuitive (right-brained) grasping of the message in such a way that it may be transferred effectively to the receptor language.
(Peacock, 1981: 5-6) This statement expresses qualitatively something similar to what Holmes (1988:83-84) had portrayed graphically as a necessary refinement or complication of the TAPOT three- stage model, to take into account the nature of texts as texts.13 It reflects a natural development from the process advocated in TAPOT.

Peacocks perspective was also forward looking. He called for UBS translation practice to attend more seriously to biblical exegesis, to the text itself, and to the reader. Under biblical exegesis he included not only detailed attention to biblical backgrounds, but also the development of a theology of translation and attention to the theological message of the Bible: The theology of translation needs to be something more than a philosophy about how translation is to be viewed and how it is to be done. There are a number of questions that need to be raised about the legitimacy of translation, the necessity of compromise and the limits thereof, and the creation of a message that is at least partially new because it impacts a new situation...A hermeneutical approach to translation will have to deal with a maze of problems related to understanding and interpretation.
(Peacock, 1981: 7) The theology of translation, as one of its theoretical footings, has occupied many UBS writers since. But Peacocks expression of the problem touches, at least tangentially, on issues which were and would be faced more directly in the semiotic and deconstructionist approaches to translation. Pym(1993) would helpfully bring these ideas to bear on thinking about translation and its teaching, and suggested that in the idea of indeterminacy in translation, following Quine (1960), might be the only true theory of translation in the strict sense.14

In calling for more serious attention to be given to the text to be translated, Peacock intended not primarily textual criticism, but rather understanding the meaning of the form of the text as it has been transmitted. (p. 7) This applies to both the discourse

13 Holmes paper Describing Literary Translations: Models and Methods, was presented in Leuven in 1976. Peacocks formulation seems to be independant of this. 14 Pym, Translation and Text Transfer, quoted in Chesterman (1997:43). structure of the whole text and to the significance of a formal feature or literary device. Once again, this is a direction which UBS scholars have subsequently explored in some detail, notably Ernst Wendlands many publications on discourse and literary aspects of translation (1985, 1995, 2003, to note only one from each decade), and Simon Crisps (2002) Orthodox vision of iconic translation. The whole field of literary translation theories engages with the same or similar issues.

Peacocks final call was to take the reader more seriously, saying The day is gone when the bare text can be put in the hands of the reader if he is expected to understand its message. He needs help in bridging the temporal and cultural gap between the biblical period and today. (p. 8) Here, in embryo, is the whole move towards increased sophistication of readers aids, towards study bibles of various kinds. Peacock suggests that the UBS should commit to producing Bibles with adequate readers helps to make it possible for the full meaning of the text and its message to be made accessible for the reader. As yet this still envisages the meaning as contained within the text, but it is also an anticipation of attention to text pragmatics, which was to become perhaps the dominant paradigm by the turn of the century and to provide the models and metaphors for newer translation theory.

These three directions of interest would shape (but not limit) much of what was to come from UBS scholars in the following 20 years. Other papers in the 1981 edition of Current Trends suggest that Peacock was reading signs already present as much as being prophetic. Newman (1981) attempts to describe what a theology of translation might or might not look like. Mundhenk (1981) and Sterk (1981) attend to the form and style of the source text respectively. And several contributers address the issue of study bible and readers helps (Ellingworth, Fry, Scanlin, Erickson, Fick, 1981). In anticipation of a major new direction in UBS interests, with significant theoretical implications, Koops (1981) explores the implications for translation of a shift in medium from print to audio.

The 1984 TTW at Bernhusser Forst, Germany, saw the position of Translation Research Coordinator pass from Peacock to Phil Stine, and the theological agenda forwarded through papers by Arichea(1985) and Mojola(1985). Thomas(1985) moved the hermeneutic question towards understanding how the translation and publication of scriptures should be guided by the hermeneutical methodologies of other faith communities, combining attention to theology with attention to the reader. I-Jin Loh (1985) and Ellingworth and Mills (1985) attended to study bibles from different perspectives the first hermeneutic and the second through statistical research.

Under Stines leadership, participants at the 1987 TTW at Harpers Ferry, W. Virginia, USA, were asked to focus their presentations on one of three areas: discourse studies, sociolinguistics and social approaches to exegesis. Stine felt that the lack of focus at previous TTWs limited the effectiveness of these meetings in raising the level of scholarship and competence among consultants.15 This time papers were published not only in a UBS Bulletin issue (Stine, 1987), but also in a UBS Monograph (Stine, 1988).

15 Philip Stine, personal communication, 2005. The three focal areas continue a response to Peacocks call for attention to text and readers. A number of papers pursued areas already opened up in previous TTWs, such as the hermeneutical implications of study Bibles. In a presentation that was to become seminal and thus republished again later, Fry (1987) examined how the criterion of faithfulness and the task of restructuring translated text, both central concepts in TAPOT, would impact on the production of scriptures in media other than print (at this stage primarily thinking of audio tapes.) Of particular interest (at least to this writer!) are two papers which move discussion on from discourse pragmatics to the pragmatics of communication and reception. Dorn (1987) used reader response theory to modify Nida and Tabers communication model to take better account of the translators role as intermediary. The aim, he suggested, is to allow the modern reader to look over the shoulder of the original reader, to read someone elses mail. In order for this to happen not only the text itself, but its wider context must be communicated in such a way that the translator has adequately regenerated the original biblical communication event so that what the real author and reader were communicating and receiving can now be intercepted and understood by todays reader (p. 116). Since many readers will be far from ideal readers, the translation itself should communicate as much of this total meaning as possible, but a wide array of readers helps also contributes. Hope (1988) introduces pragmatics as a discipline, and though he spends most of his time on discourse pragmatics (and deixis in particular), he significantly moves on to discuss the role of implicature in communication, introducing not only Grice but also (at least in his bibliography) the work of Sperber and Wilson into the UBS translation field.16 We find in this paper too a very rare reference to the work of Austin and Searle.17

The next TTW was held in 1991, a year late, at Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. Not only was this a significant move away from the American-European sphere, but outside speakers were invited to present major plenary series of lectures for the first time since 1975, and this was to become the pattern for subsequent TTWs. Phyllis Bird gave lectures in the field of Old Testament studies. And, most significantly in terms of our interests in this essay, Ernst-August Gutt, a member of SIL who had completed his PhD at University College, London, under Deirdre Wilson, presented a series of lectures which would be published under the title Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation (Gutt, 1992). Here for the first time was a significantly new approach to the theory of translation. Up until this point, the developments in translation theory within UBS had consisted of taking elements of the multiple theoretical foundations of TAPOT and extending them in many directions. Focus on functional equivalence as a criterion for good translation had influenced work on the discourse structure of texts, on the point of view and social location of the readers and the information they needed to be given, on the move to translate for media other than print. At the same time issues concerning the nature and authority of the biblical text itself, and on the degree to which form and meaning are separable were pushing the theoretical framework of TAPOT towards the

16 It was first introduced into Bible translation worldwide by Gutt (1985, 1986a, 1986b). 17 It is an itriguing side-issue to note that Speech-Act theory, which significantly impacted biblical studies through the works of Thiselton, Vanhoozer and many others, has hardly been noticed in Bible translation literature. limits of tolerance. But Gutts theoretical account of translation without a translation theory (see Gutt 1990) was something quite different. Instead of constructing a theory of translation, Gutt viewed translation as a special type of communication, and thus used a particular cognitive theory of communication (Relevance Theory), in which coding and decoding is subordinate to an efficiency-determined process of inference, to provide a theoretical explanation for how translations of various kinds operate. The pursuit of relevance, Gutt claimed, underlies all of the communicative aspects (in both primary and secondary communication situations) which have been the focus of so much attention in the Bible translation field. Although many at the time could sense the potential usefulness of this approach, subsequent history has not seen this potential realised. The reasons for this require some attention and we will return to them after completing the present survey. For the moment it is sufficient to note some continuities and discontinuities in the development of UBS translation theory. Nida was a linguist and had always brought the insights of current linguistic study to bear on the task of translation. Gutt was doing precisely the same thing but the domain of the linguistic theory had shifted from text-based semantics to the pragmatics of inferential communication.18 And instead of using theoretical footings to advocate a particular methodology of translation, Gutt was using RT as an empirical and explanatory theory of communication to explain how translational communication worked. Furthermore, through Gutt, the influence of others working in the translation studies field began to be felt more keenly.19

The 1991 TTW was also notable for a very significant focus on translation for what was called Audio Video Media (and would subsequently be referred to as New Media). Non-print media had been the focus of a UBS consultation in Thailand in 1990 and a working group at Victoria Falls extended the theoretical and practical discussions. Stine (1991) demonstrated that theories of orality and narrative, which had become influential in biblical studies, had relevance also for translation; Boomershine (1991) noted that current shift to electronic media was only the latest in a series of media changes to have affected the Bible and its translation.20

By 1994, Basil Rebera had taken over the leadership of UBS translation work, as Translation Services Coordinator, and organised the TTW in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Here the overtures to orality and narrative treatment of texts were developed in Joanna Deweys plenary sessions on the Gospel of Mark. But most significant for our purposes,

18 In fact the move to RT as a basic explanatory framework is really a move beyond linguistics proper, as we shall see later. 19 Indexes of The Bible Translator from 1970-87 reveal a small trickle of reviews of the work of translation scholars from the outside: Reiss (25/1, 1974) by Ellingworth; Orlinsky (27/3) by de Waard; Margot and House (32/3, 1981), Newmark (33/3, 1982) and Wilss (35/1, 1984) by Nida; Aryeh Newman (34/3, 1983) by de Waard. Katharina Reiss had two important contributions published in The Bible Translator (Reiss, 1976, 1983), the latter a paper delivered to the UBS Europe Regional Translation Committee in 1983. 20 There was no issue, following this TTW, of a UBS Bulletin entitled Current Trends in Scripture Translation. Instead a number of the Audio Video Media papers and discussion documents were published in UBS Bulletin 160/161. Basil Hatim and Ian Mason presented a series of lectures on translation theory and practice, essentially as published in Hatim and Mason (1990). Whereas Gutt came from within a partner Bible translation organisation, Hatim and Mason for the first time brought the perpsective of secular professional translation studies into the spotlight. Given the vast amount of work that had taken place in Bible translation, and the pioneering role of Nida in thinking and publishing on translation theory, there was a natural tendency within UBS to wonder what such rank outsiders had to offer. Their approach was both empirically based, derived from examples of what translators had done in different circumstances, and textually focussed, allowing the nature of the text (texture and turbulence) to determine translation strategies. Such was the success of their presentations that they were invited back for the 1997 TTW in Merida, Mexico, where there lectures reflected their newer publication (Hatim and Mason, 1997), in which translation is still centred on textuality, but is seen as acting on an act of communication (in some ways echoing Gutts perspective, but in a very text-oriented world).

New Media were a major focus at both Chiang Mai 1994 and Merida 1997. At the former, there were previews of the ABSs multi-media computer-based presentations of scriptural narratives which raised many issues relating to the ways in which either a dramatised or a post-structuralist visual depiction of biblical narrative can remain faithful to an original text narrative. Thomas (1994, a and b) furthered the discussion begun by Frys 1987 paper and presented a new proposal for criteria of faithfulness in multimedia translation. Boomershine (1994) developed his earlier ideas into a more systematic theory of transmediatization, relying considerably on Relevance Theory and on Gutts application of it to translation to provide his foundations.21 Merida, 1997, followed an American Bible Society symposium, held at the same location, on Fidelity in New Media Translation and there was considerable flow-on from the media symposium to TTW, including a presentation by Mona Baker. It is in publications arising from these symposia and the multi-media work of the ABS, addressing situations where the print- medium based textual theories no longer provide a helpful theoretical framework, that we find the most explicit application of semiotic theories to the realm of Bible translation. From here they in turn impact theoretical thinking in the more conventionial print media as we shall see. Soukup (1999) discusses Careys (1989) distinction between models of communication theory: communication as transport, and as ritual, and adds to them communication as semiotic system and as conversation, a two-way interaction around a text. While TAPOT falls squarely in the first category, he classifies Gutt tentatively under the semiotic type (something I doubt Gutt would agree with!). Hodgson (1997) applies semiotics to the question of faithfulness of new-media translation and Stecconi (1999) adapts Pierces semiotic triangle to the double communication situation of translation; while at the same time demonstrating how semiotics questions the originality of the original and leads towards the primacy of translation.

The increasing strain on the Funcional Equivalence model for translation is evident in several papers from Merida 1997. De Blois (1997) provides a useful summary of the

21 In my memory, Ted Hope was the only other person at Chiang Mai to present a paper which drew from Gutts 1991 presentations. See below. movement from TAPOT to FOLTA and goes on to record a variety of attitudes from different social, nationial and cultural situations, toward the functional equivalence model, with the principles behind the new Dutch translation a specific focus. In general he finds a movement in many countries, especially those with a long an established Christian tradition, towards a more intermediate position on the continuum between the extremes of functional equivalence and formal correspondence. (p. 25) This is seen to be because the functional equivalence model tend to focus too exclusively on ideational meaning and to loose either interpersonal or textual meanings. Statham (1997) argues against Gentzler and in defence of Nidas approach to translation. His main point is that Gentzler has misrepresented Nida and has failed to comprehend the richness and sensitivity of his approach to scripture. But from a translation-theoretic perspective, perhaps his most interesting point is to reject Gentzlers linking of Nidas kernel sentences to both his own (Nidas) view of the universality of the christian message and to Chomskys linguistic universals and deep structure. The kernel sentences in Nida are, in Stathams view, not so much a universal core of meaning as a device within a recommended process of translation. ...when we examine Nidas discussion of kernel sentences we find that these do not occur in a context of a bolstering of any theory about the universality of the biblical message but in the context merely of a pragmatic attempt to provide means by which translators could free themselves of the shackles of the forms of their own languages.
(Statham, 1997: 35) That Nida has not used kernels as support for a theological construct of the message is a point well made. Nevertheless, the same references make clear that it was precisely an appropriation of Chomskian generative grammar which provided the theoretical support for such a pragmatic device.

Hopes (1997) paper is the most comprehensive attempt up to this point to actually provide a replacement (or major upgrade) for Nidas model of the translation process. He begins by noting TAPOTs dependence on generative grammar and the limitations imposed by treating sentences as the basic unit of translation, using Hallidays text- oriented approach as his critical tool. His proposal is based on a new communication model which takes account of the significant role of context in creating meaning, on the contribution to meaning of multiple structures within the text, from discourse level through to rhetorical, and literary devices, and on inferential and semiotic processes taking place in communication. Significantly too, readers are no longer merely passive receptors, but contribute to the meaning-construction task. Text comprehension is a complex process by which a string of signs is interpreted through a grid of textual processing systems (a magic ring of textual competence), informed by context and the interpreters stored reservoir of knowledge. The success of a translation thus depends on the way textual signs are used and the degree to which the significance of these signs is preserved or recreated. (p. 14) This understanding of text-processing owes a lot to Relevance Theory, but Hopes aim (n.1 p.19) is not the construction of a model with the greatest theoretical validity, or with arguing alternative interpretations of data, but rather the model which makes the best practical use of a variety of theoretical insights in order to help translators do a better job. It is pedagogical rather than empirical or explanatory.  Given that most of what had been published in UBS circles up to this point could be considered as a process of refinement, elaboration and development of ideas either explicit or just below the surface in TAPOT and FOLTA, it is perhaps not surprising that in 1999 TAPOT was still considered by a significant number of people to be indicative of an organizationally supported, contemporary approach to Bible translation. (Wilt, 2003: ix).22 And yet it is true that the theoretical framework had been stretched to breaking point and was no longer perceived as relevant by a significant number of the senior translation staff of the UBS. The dethroning of generative grammar and virtual abandonment of the search for universal deep-structures had left the fundamental concept of the separation of form and meaning on the syntactic level without theoretical grounding. Lexical semantics had not been supplanted but had been significantly de- emphasised by attention to pragmatic dimensions of meaning and significance. Communication theory had changed almost beyond recognition, taking account of the context of interpretation in terms of cultural conditioning, sociological and organisational forces, textual structure and inferential meaning-construction, to name but a few factors. As a result, arising out of a training seminar for new translation consultants in 1999, a team of senior consultants was commissioned to produce a book in which the theoretical and practical basis of UBS translation work at the turn of the 21st century could be captured, and which would function in something of the same role as TAPOT had for 30 years. Draft papers were read in plenary sessions at the 2000 TTW in Malaga, Spain, discussed by participants in small groups, and the result was the publication of Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Wilt, 2003). But before turning attention to this publication, it is worth noting some other voices to be heard at Malaga, as found in the 2002 edition of Current Trends in Scripture Translation.23

De Blois and Mewe (2002) discussed the sensitive balance aimed for in the new Dutch translation (NBV) between form and function, foreignization and domestication, contextual and concordant meaning, and at the same time reflected the growing influence of Skopos theory in European translation thinking. Desnitsky (2002) and Crisp (2002), both writing from within the context of Russion Orthodox life and faith, question the relevance of functional equivalence translation, Desnitsky from the point of view of the relative sophistication of the audience and their history of Bible usage, and Crisp from the perpsective of an Orthodox understanding of the iconic way in which language works to represent and make present the reality it stands for. Towner (2002) discusses Richard Hays approach to intertextual references as providing a nexus of meaning between texts and the challenges this provides to translation, while Pattemore (2002) discusses the same issue from a Relevance-Theoretic perspective, moving tentatively towards some practical implications of relevance theory for translation practice. Another paper written from an RT perpsecitve, this time on a linguistic topic, was presented by Windedt (2000), but this did not appear in the Current Trends volume.

22 What is more surprising is that this should be found surprising! 23 Since presenters from within UBS were dealing with the significant developments in translation theory and practice, the invited plenary speakers, Julian Schenker and Kwame Bediako, dealt with textual and theological issues, continuing the response within UBS to Peacocks 1981 call.  The history of the development of Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, from its first inception in 1999 to publication, has been well described in Wilt (2002) and the book itself is the subject of a number of reviews in press (BT 56/3, 2005), so my reflections on it will be restricted to several key questions. What are the continuities and discontinuities between earlier UBS models and Frames? Or put another way, to what extent is it a replacement for TAPOT as a flagship for UBS translation practice? And is there a theory of translation, or perhaps multiple theories, to be found in it?

Firstly we should note, with Mojola and Wendland (2003), that the context of Bible translation and thinking about Bible translation, has changed dramatically. Over the decade of the 1990s, in fact since Gutts Victoria Falls presentation, scholars in the UBS translation community have read and interacted with an immense number of alternative viewpoints theoretical and practical on translation. Nothing like this existed in the 1960s. After a period of relative isolation from developments in secular translation studies, there has been a large and stimulating degree of catching-up to do.

Yet the fundamental approach to translation represented in Frames is remarkably similar in outline to that in TAPOT. It consists not of a unitary theory of translation in the sense of an empirical and explanatory generalisation of how translation happens, but rather of multiple theoretical footings in a number of disciplines, which coincide or grow out of the disciplines with which Nida and Taber worked. Yet within each discipline, and in their relationships to each other, there are very significant differences from the TAPOT approach. Now a theory of communication is more explicitly fundamental to all that happens in translation. This is outlined inWilts (2003) article, which includes a much more detailed account of context and its structure, takes into account the semiotics of texts, and explicates the metaphor of frames of reference as a model for communication. That this is the subtitle of the book might suggest that it is a metaphor central to all the presentations, but this is only true of the first two chapters. Elsewhere it is rather incidental (one is tempted to say cosmetic). There is, as one would expect, discussion of the nature of meaning, but Bascom (2003) shifts the domain of discussion from a language-internal semantics to the cultural domain, informed both by Katans work on cultural frames, and by Lakoff and Johnson on the interaction of language and culture in the use of metaphor. In some ways this is a substitute for TAPOTs componential analysis of meaning, and further is distinctly socio-cultural rather than socio-semiotic. Ross (2003) surveys linguistic trends over the recent past and demonstrates that no single perspective or theoretical description has a monopoly on usefulness to the translator. Ogden (2003) performs a similar task in the field of biblical studies. Finally, Wendland (2003) demonstrates the complexity of the literary structure of the biblical text in many genres. Pointing out the shortcomings of functional equivalence renderings as commonly understood, he does not yet dispense with the idea of functional equivalence, but refines it, calling for literary functionial equivalence (or LiFE) translations.

All of this is driven by a very similar motivation to that which guided the earlier books on translation within UBS the desire that Bible translators should do the best possible job in their role of mediating the ancient text in new and different contexts, and allowing its message to be heard. There is still a sense running through the entire book, even when the tenor is descriptive rather than hortatory, that this is what you should do or this is something you should attend to as you go about your task of translation or supervising translation. There is very little, if anything, that falls into the category of a descriptive or explanatory theory of what happens when translators translate.

There is, at least in embryo, a model of the translation process (Wilt, 2003:79. See Figure 10.1). But unlike TAPOT, even the most pervasive model of communication in action, provided by the frame metaphor, is not clearly worked out in terms of the practicalities of doing and teaching translation (despite the pointers offered in the appendices). It should be said that this is clearly recognised by the authors and editor, and that the pedagogical and practical functions will be met by another publication which is close to completion.

In parallel with the global workshops organised by UBS, the American Bible Society has actively promoted writing and research on translation theory, now focussed by its Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship. We have already noted the symposia on New Media translation in 1995 And 1997. In 2001 the ABS hosted the International Conference on Similarity and Translation, the proceedings of which are published in Arduini and Hodgson (2004).. This was highly significant in bringing together translation scholarship from UBS (Nida, Sterk, Koops, Mojola, Wendland, Hodgson), from SIL (Gutt, Sim, Boswell) and from academic translation studies (Nord, Chesterman, Stecconi, Arduini to name a few). This programme of cross-fertilization is continued through cooperation with the Louvain University-based Center for Translation, Cultures, and Communication (CETRA), most notably through ABS and UBS participation in its annual Translation Studies seminars in Misano Adriatico, Italy. Another example of this sort of dialogue is the symposium hosted by the Bible Society of South Africa in 2001, with papers published in Naud and van der Merwe (2002). The present volume is a further evidence of todays climate of collaborative academic inquiry in the area of translation research.

To conclude this survey of translation theory in UBS through the lens of Trienniel Translation Workshops, I need to make some mention of the 2003 meeting in Iguassu Falls, Brazil. Here the outside speakers were Elsa Tamez, on theology, and Anthony Pym who presented a series of lectures on the ethics of translation, focussed around key questions: What should we translate? For whom should we translate? How should we translate? Why should we translate? Here translation is seen as, in itself a deliberative, morally ambivalent social activity, but Pyms underlying theme is that translators and intepreters are the mediators, the peacemakers, the bridgebuilders of a new globalised society. It is interesting to note how closely Pyms concerns here mirror those which have been expressed slightly differently in UBS circles since Peacock, in dealing with the theology of translation. Pym presents, in effect, a secular theology of translation. At the same time many of the questions are also those asked by scholars involved in the functionalist or skopostheorie school (Nord, 1997), which from the late 90s on has been significantly influential among UBS-related translators, especially in the European (Dutch) and South African fields. Van der Merwe (2003) presented a paper at Iguassu Falls outlining a research programme into different types of Afrikaans translations which was guided by assumptions derived largely from Nords writings. But van der Merwe has also been a strong supporter of Gutts work and this is also reflected in his paper. Among other presentations at Iguassu Falls Harriet Hill (2003) of SIL described empirically-based support for Gutts application of RT to translation.

6. Relevance Theory, proposals and reactions: a case of honourable bigotry? In this essay we have traced the development of the theory undergirding the practice of translation in UBS circles, from Nida through to Frames of Reference and beyond. What we have seen could, in general, be described as incremental or non-catastrophic change, the development and embelishment of ideas already present, at least in embryo, in Nidas early work. This is so much the case that although Frames claims in some sense to present a new theoretical basis for translation, it structurally resembles Nidas theory to a very considerable degree.24 I would like here to examine briefly the way in which Relevance Theory has been presented as a candidate for a paradigmatic shift in translation theory, and the progress or lack of progress it has made in the face of a more evolutionary development. I must record at the outset that I am a strong proponent of RTs account of human communication, and of its consequent relevance to both interpretation and translation. However, in this section my interest is in the history of reception of RT (and in particular Gutts application to translation) as theory within UBS, rather than in advocating its validity.

At least on the surface, the areas in which Gutts relevance-theoretic explanation of translation diverges from Nidas treatment are very similar to those of Wilt and his colleagues: principally the abandonment of a Chomskian search for deep structures as a point of translational equivalence (on a theoretic or practical level), and the shift in emphasis from lexical semantics to highly context-sensitive pragmatics. But at a more fundamental level, it is the RT understanding of the way communication functions which

24 Wilt (2002b: 141) comments: In a very general sense, it is a continutaiotn of the tradition popularised by Nida. He goes on to list such areas of similarity as its interdisciplinary approach, its view of translation as communication, continually looking for advances in scholarship for understanding translation, based on a reverence for the Scriptures, and having the goal of contributing to all peoples appreciation of the scriptures. The main difference he sees is in the theory of communication being used. presents a radical challenge to what has gone before. I will here examine in a little more detail Gutts presentation at TTW 1991, published in Gutt (1992), rather than his longer and more systematic work (1991, 2000) because this is precisly the point of impact of his theory on UBS translation thinking and the starting point for the history that follows.

Gutts Victoria Falls lectures began innocuously enough with a description of the inferential nature of human communication and the suggestion that this will have implications both for how we understand the meaning of the source texts, and the techniques we use to communicate them to new audiences (Gutt, 1992: 7-20). But in filling out these implications, he effectively removed or replaced many of the theoretical foundations of Nidas translation. From the very beginning the inadequacy of the code model of communication, even as developed within semiotics, is highlighted. And the next pillar to go is the postulate of translatability, itself dependent on a Chomskian view of the world of language. Instead, Relevance Theory suggests a condition of communicability which is more relevant and fundamental than any postulate of effability or translatability. ...our inferential account of communication entails a condition of communicability: An intended interpretation is recoverable not in just any context, but only in a context where the requirements of optimal processing are fulfiled, that is, where there are adequate contextual effects without unnecessary processing effort....In fact, successful communication requires that the utterance be processed in the context envisaged by the communicator (Gutt, 1992: 28) This imposes certain theoretical limits on translation in ways which are extremely uncomfortable to Bible translators: In Third world countries, where the knowledge background of many readers is much more restricted, we usually take thy line that essentially all that people need is a good translation of the biblical text. This strange state of affairs seems to have arisen from an inadequate understanding of the natural constraints to which communication is subject. This , in turn, leads to quite unrealistic expectations as to what a translation can achieve... (Gutt, 1992: 32) ...the assumption often made in translation cirles that any message can be communicated to any audience regardless of their background knowledge seems untenable. (Gutt, 1992: 35) Gutt next examines the idea of equivalence in translation. Equivalence as a criterion of successful translation is at the heart of Nidas dynamic equivalence and/or functional equivalence, however you wish to relate the two terms. Gutt notes the general pessimism in linguistic circles about the possibility of defining a notion of equivalence which can be of use to a general theory of translation. Wilss in particular suggests that only in text-type-related or even single-text-oriented (and we might add, language-pair specific) theories of translation may be it possible to define equivalence, and Gutt demonstrates the logical contradiction this leads to, a denial of the very possibility of theory (p.36). RT, however, by its definition of interpretive use of language, provides the possibility of a notion of faithfulness, which is not specific to translation but can be applied to it: in interpretive use the principle of relevance does, in effect, come across as a presumption of faithfulness. Here is the most radical point of Gutts proposals, namely that no particular theory of translation is necessary, only an application of more general principles that guide communication to the specific situation of interlingual intepretive use. In one way, it seems that this is , in fact, all we need to say about translation; for we have rexplained how a text in one language can be itnerpretively represented by a text in another language and we have explained howit will be intepreted...These conditions seem to provide exactly the guidance that translators and translation theorists have been looking ofr. They determine in what respects the transltion should resemble the original: only in those respects that can be expected to make it adequately relevant to the receptor-language audience. They determine also that the translation should be clear and natural in the sense that it should not be unneccessarily difficult to understand. (Gutt, 1992: 42) Gutt proceeds to demonstrate how successfully RT handles non-literal language, because it presumes that literalness is the exception rather than the rule. RTs success at describing the way in which figurative language works within a language has been well demonstrated in the works of Sperber and Wilson and Pilkington. This provides both good news and bad news for the translator: The good news is that it (RT) offers a sharp tool for getting a better understanding of the original text and also for the analysis of translation problems. The bad news is that it shows us that translation is probably even more challening in some respects than we had previously assumed. The richness of nonliteral meaning and its strong dependence on a shared cognitive environment may bring home to us with new clarity the question, How can the translator get this meaning across to an audience of another culture? (Gutt, 1992: 60)

But perhaps the single most seminal suggestion in this lecture series is the comparison of the task of translation with that of reporting the speech of another person, which offers the choice of direct or indirect quotation. Translation is in some ways like an interlingual speech quotation. But the option of a true direct quote is no longer available because of the intrinsic limits of interlingual communication, and every act of translation involves interpretation meaning based translation is, in fact, the only kind of translation possible (65). Yet by analogy with direct quotation it is possible to define a direct translation as one that presumes to interpretively resemble the original completely (in the context envisaged for the original. (66) The alternative, indirect translation, attempts to produce a resemblance of the original when understood in the new context. Here, in short, is both a defence of and a challenge to the theory behind meaning-based translation. On the one hand, this is the only possible kind of translaton. But on the other hand, at least for the direct translation option, the constraints implied by the condition of understanding within the original context, significantly limit the freedom to expand and distort the text. Yet at the same time this also explains clearly why literary translation experts, particularly those that operate within the Indo-European language family and Western cultural context, often fail to understand the problems of translation faced by those working outside this domain. They work entirely in a world in which the target languages allow construction of stimuli which interpretively resemble the original very closely because of the structure of the language and the cultural context.

Gutt concludes with a series of sixteen key statements about successful communication in translation (67-74), setting translation as a phenomenon to be understood within the parameters of a general theory of communication. They reinforce the primary importance of context, and specifically the new audiences access to the original context. The task of bridging the contextual gaps is one which must be tackled holistically: the ultimate objectives of Scripture translation cannot be achieved by translated texts alone. And note especially the following: Translators should have a firm grasp of hitherto neglected aspects of meaning. In particular, they should understand that there are important differences between expressing and implicating information, between strong and weak communication. They should understand the importance of open-endedness in communication, especially for figurative language and poetic effects, and the danger of limitation and distortion that can arise from explication. (Gutt, 1992: 72) I have quoted this last at some length for two reasons. Firstly, it responds very precisely to the criticisms levelled at Bible translation theory by literary scholars (as we have seen in the case of Prickett, and similarly Nicholls). But secondly it will be important to our assessment of the some of the criticism levelled at Gutt from within the UBS community.

It is worth noting here that RT itself arose as a cooperative venture between a linguist (Wilson) and a cognitive sociologist (Sperber), and from the beginning has never been a purely linguistic venture. It functions in many ways as a node of theory, similar to those proposed by Arduini, drawing from and feeding back into areas such as linguistics, communication theory, cognitive psychology, hermeneutics, mathematical modelling and many many more. As such it does not function within Gutts proposal as a precise substitute for either the code model of communication or Chomskian linguistics within Nidas scheme. This perhaps contributes to the difficulty there has been in accomodating it within other schemes.

Gutts RT framework, based around a principle of faithfulness by maximum interpretive resemblance within the intended context, does seem to cover all the criteria normally applied as tests of success in Bible translation, whether described as accuracy, clarity, naturalness, or closest natural equivalent or faithfulness to both source text and receptor language and context. It is reductionist and simplistic only at a theoretical or ontological level. Translation is an instance of communication (second order communication) and therefore it obeys the laws of communication. Yet even on this level, reductionist is a rather misleading label, as Gutt has recently pointed out, since the domain of RT itself is the intrinsic and complex functioning of the human mind.25

25 Gutt, personal communication, 2005: RT itself is actually an enormously complex and sophisticated theoretical framework...reflecting the complexity of the human mind and its endowment of ostensive-inferential communication. In this respect the term 'reduction' in the sense of 'simplification' can But at both an explanatory level (in terms of the role of context and the implicatures of poetic language) and on a prescriptive level (in terms of the key statement) it is anything but simplistic and his programme calls for an immense amount of work both for theorists in filling the details of how relevance guides language use (and this is being done in the academy) and for translators in taking into account all the richness of the source langauge communication event. In fact it seeks to both explain the functions of language and guide the activity of the translator along all of the literary, cultural, iconic, theological paths so eloquently explicated by some of the detractors of RT!

RT seems to have been criticised within SIL and UBS for rather different reasons. Within SIL largely because it was seen as undermining the strategies for meaning-based translation so painstakingly worked out and applied in hundreds if not thousands of translation projects around the world (reflected perhaps by his dethroning of the term meaning-based). Gutts advocacy of Direct Translaton was seen as a call to return to literal translation. This is not so on two levels. Firstly Direct translation is not the same thing as literal translation. In fact, ironically, it is based on an underlying commitment to meaning-based translation. And secondly Gutt is not prescriptive in the sense of saying this is how you must do it. Even the prescriptive edge to the key statements is really advice that if you do it this way, these will be the consequences or if you want to achieve this result, you will need to take into account the following items. And these predictions have been confirmed empirically in the work of Ralph and Harriet Hill (2003, a, b). Perhaps underlying the SIL opposition, though, is Gutts dismantling of the dream that a translation by itself in a totally different culture than the original, can effectively and faithfully communicate the Christian message. This he has done, and this is something that SIL may not like but UBS should have no problem with at all!!

UBS opposition seems to have been largely due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the absolute and reductionist claims for RT in Gutts formulation. These are seen as negating all the careful work that has been done, for example, by Wendland and Wilt in describing Literary Functional Equivalent translations. This is a misapprehension, and a careful reading of either Gutts TTW lectures or his book shows that he is affirming the need to examine the source text in precisely the detailed way Wendland, for example, exemplifies. What he does say is that since the search for optimal relevance undergirds all communication, the way in which literary and stylistic effects function will be most clearly understood if this is taken into account both on the source text and target text side. It is in this area of nonliteral language that RT is perhaps the most powerful.

The beginning of my own involvement with UBS coincided with my first reading of Gutts work following the Victoria Falls presen