Communicative Bible translation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term communicative Bible translation is used to describe a type of translation that takes the effectiveness of communication as the first standard, i.e. the understanding of the recipient or the “ faithfulness to the effect ”. We also speak of “dynamic”, “ functional ” and “communicative” equivalence, which means equivalence of target and source text with regard to the same “communicative values” (equivalent communicative effect or function), not necessarily the same meaning (faithfulness to meaning) . Expressions that are ambiguously used in the target language are avoided with this type of translation. This often makes formulations impossible that are parallel to the sentence structure or the semantics of the individual words in the source text (“formal equivalence”). Such “more literal” meanings are added from time to time. Various communicative translations of the New and Old Testaments have also been submitted, for example by the American theologian and linguist Eugene Nida .

advantages and disadvantages

Representatives of communicative translation emphasize e.g. B. Differences in the culture in which the source text was created and the culture for which the target text is to be prepared. For example, with a change in living conditions, the associations with certain motives or values, for example with regard to family structures, have changed. In particular, texts that work with such images and values, such as parables, are therefore difficult to translate in a formally and functionally equivalent form. If, however, the intended translation purpose prefers the recipient's understanding, a language form that deviates from the source text may have to be sought, which can equally fulfill the function of the source text in the target language. Of course, this also means that identical words in the target text are reproduced in the target text with different expressions depending on the context.

The preference for communicative over formal equivalence means that the translator himself has to search for formulations of equal communicative value in the target language. The proportion of interpretative interventions in text structure and semantics is therefore naturally higher, especially since ambiguities have to be unambiguous. Some critics therefore hold that communicative Bible translations “serious reinterpretations” and consider the translation principle of functional equivalence to be more suitable for purely practical texts such as technical operating instructions.

use

Communicative Bible translations are used in many Christian communities, both in the Protestant regional churches , the Catholic Church and the Protestant free churches . In technical use, only formally equivalent translations are generally acceptable.

Examples of communicative Bible translations

literature

  • Ines-A. Busch-Lauer: Text genres in linguistic translation research , in: Harald Kittel et al. (Ed.): Translation . An international handbook on translation research, Vol. 1, de Gruyter, Berlin 2004, pp. 607–618.
  • Stefan Felber: Communicative Bible translation . Eugene A. Nida and his model of dynamic equivalence, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 2013, 2nd edition 2016, 481 pages, ISBN 978-3438062499 ( http://www.bibelonline.de/products/Wwissenschaftliche-Bibelverbindungen/Biblische- Woerterbuecher-Lehrbuecher / Kommunikation-Bibeluebersetzung.html ).
  • Rudolf Kassühlke: One Bible - Many Translations , An Overview with Help for Assessment, Brockhaus, Wuppertal 1998.
  • Lynne Long (ed.): Translation and religion . Holy untranslatable ?, Multilingual Matters, Tonawanda, NY u. a. 2005, therein u. a. Peter Kirk: Holy Communicative? , Current approaches to bible translation worldwide, pp. 89-102.
  • Anthony Howard Nichols: Translating the Bible . A Critical Analysis of EA Nida's Theory of Dynamic Equivalence and Its Impact Upon Recent Bible Translation, Sheffield, University of Sheffield, 1996, 336 S. (PhD dissertation, available at http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/ vital / access / manager / Repository / mq: 7128 )
  • Katharina Reiss : What does translating mean? , in: Joachim Gnilka / Hans Peter Rüger (ed.): The translation of the Bible - task of theology , Luther-Verlag, Bielefeld 1985, pp. 33–47.
  • Katharina Reiss / Hans J. Vermeer : Foundation of a General Translation Theory , Niemeyer, Tübingen 1984, 2nd A. 1991.
  • Heidemarie Salevsky : Translation Studies . A compendium. Vol. 1. With the collaboration of Ina Müller and Bernd Salevsky. Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a. 2002, in particular pp. 202–255 an overview of the most important "theories and models of translation" including Katharina Reiss, Komissarov, Koller, Snell-Hornby, Nida, Svecjer, Vermeer, Toury.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Radegundis Stolze: Hermeneutics and Translation. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen 2003, p. 147
  2. ↑ This concept goes back mainly to Rudolf Schottlaender: To update ancient drama. The principle of effective translation. In: J. Harmatta, WO Schmitt (Ed.): Translation problems of ancient tragedies. Berlin 1969, pp. 89-93, and Hans J. Vermeer: To describe the translation process. In: W. Wilss, G. Thome (Hrsg.): Aspects of theoretical, language-related and applied linguistics. Heidelberg 1974. Vermeer later moved away from his demand for “faithfulness to effect”, cf. the epilogue to the reprint of the text in: W. Wilss (Ed.): Translation Studies. Darmstadt 1981, pp. 250-262. A classification of Bible translations according to "structurally true", "true to spirit", "true to effect" is e.g. B. Suggested by Heidemarie Salevsky: Translation Type , Translation Theory and Evaluation of Bible Translations. In: Walter Gross (ed.): Bible translation today. German Bible Society, Stuttgart 2001, pp. 119–150.
  3. ^ EA Nida: Towards a science of translation, with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill 1964. On the reception of concept formation and concept, cf. B. Kirk 2005, 92ff.
  4. ↑ Concept formation and classification go back to K. Reiss / HJ Vermeer 1984.
  5. ↑ For the underlying translation principles, e.g. BJ de Waard, E. A. Nida: From One Language to Another. Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nelson, Nashville 1986.
  6. ↑ So z. B. a request to speak by Stefan Felber, Bernhard Rothen, Peter Wick: 18 theses on modern Bible translations that claim to be easier to understand. (PDF file; 108 kB).
  7. ↑ Cf. for example MJ Gorman: Elements of Biblical Exegesis. Hendrickson, Peabody, Massachusetts 2009, p. 43 f. et passim.