...
There is no opposition between using the word as the basic translation unit and
at the same time make an extensive use of the context in actual translation
work. ...
...
E.A. Nida was the one who took the lead in the abandonement of the word as the
fundamental translation unit. He was inspired by Chomsky`s "deep
structures," and on this basis he suggested the "kernel" as the translation
unit. The kernels are short expressions of the *idea* the translator gets
from a short sequence of words. (see E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber (1974). "The
Theory and practice of Translation"). I will use a NT example to illustrate
how the "kernel"- approach can mislead the reader. In Ephesians 1:4 the
literal rendering of KATABOLHS KOSMOU is "the foundation of the world," as
RSV renders the words. The kernel in this expression is "(God) creates the
world" according to Nida and Taber (pp. 35, 36), and NIV renders it as "the
creation of the world". A noun can even in a literal translation be redered
by a verb, ...
... but the problem here is that "to create" and "to found" are not
necessarily the same. ...
...
I agree with Peter that if one word consistently is used for each SL word as far as possible, this can mislead the TL readers, because of the meaning and connotations of a word in their TL. However, the possibility of distorting the message with a non-literal translation, as in the example above, is more serious. And this is the case in hundreds of cases in modern Bibles. If the target group understands that they should take the core of each TL word (in their language) and find the Biblical nuances that do not occur in their own language by looking up the passages where this word occurs in the Bible, then a literal translation will serve its purpose.
Nida`s system with kernels is today followed by very few Bible translators. The system has been refined and refined, coming a little closer to the word. But still there is a great distance between the methods used by "orthodox" translators and those who take the word as the fundamental translational unit. And the basic problems created by Nida remain.And so do the basic problems with taking the word as the fundamental translational unit, the very problems which led Nida to develop his theory in the first place - although these problems had been recognised long before Nida, e.g. by Jerome and Luther, both of whom criticised literal translation, and by the KJV translators who incorporated many non-literal wordings. Yes, Nida's theory needed refining, and some of that refining has been done. And the refined version of his theory produces a translation which is very much better for certain large target audiences than anything that the old literal method can produce. Further work is needed, of course, but not a return to the methods which have been recognised as lacking for centuries.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.