PERSONAL PROBLEMS IN THE TRANSLATION TRANSFER PROCESS

Since the transfer must take place in someone’s brain (machines are a
long way from effecting adequate transfers), it is inevitable that certain
personal problems are likely to distort the process. Unless one is
completely objective in his handling of the message, it is easy for
misconceptions about the nature of language, the task of the translator,
and the ultimate purpose of the translation to skew the results.
The personal problems which confront the average translator are not,
of course, the result of any conscious bias against his task or the content
of the message. Rather, they are largely unconscious predispositions
about translation procedures which tend to color his work and
ultimately impair the effectiveness of much that he may honestly be
attempting to do. Perhaps some of the more important problems may
be stated in terms of the relationships of the translator to the subject
matter, the receptor language, the nature of communication, and the
procedures which he should use. It should be pointed out that these
various personal problems may in some cases be more prevalent
among national than among foreign translators, or vice versa.

Too much knowledge of the subject matter

When it is emphasized repeatedly in books and articles on
translation that the translator must be complete master of the subject
matter, it may seem inconceivable that too much knowledge of the
subject matter can be a deterrent to effective translation. In fact, it is
actually not the excess of knowledge but the incapacity for imagination
which hampers translators at this point. They know so much about the
subject that they unconsciously assume the readers will also know
what they do, with the result that they frequently translate over the
heads of their audience.
Unfortunately most highly trained persons in any field of study tend
to discuss the technical phases of their discipline only with their peers.
They find it difficult, therefore, to put themselves in the position of
people who simply have no knowledge of the technical phases. Since
the theologian knows precisely what a verse means, even when it is
translated awkwardly, it is no problem to him. If the study of theology
tended to stimulate a person’s imagination, perhaps he would be more
capable of dealing with new and creative situations, but for the most
part theological studies concentrate on proving the given truth, rather
than on dealing with multiple hypotheses. Accordingly, neither in the
area of communication to the uninitiated nor in the handling of the
subject matter is there much emphasis upon the creative and
imaginative aspects of communicating Christian truth. It is perhaps for
these reasons that theologically trained persons have special problems
in learning how to translate for a level other than the one on which they
habitually operate. In other words, this problem relates more to the
amount of specialized training the translator has had than to whether
he is a national or a foreigner.

Taking translationese for granted

Under the impact of the wholesale translation of textbooks and other
semi-literary materials, a kind of translationese has arisen in many
parts of the world. This form of language is often accepted, especially
by educated nationals, as the only possible medium for communicating
materials which have first been expressed in a foreign language. Since
scholars have often had to read a good deal of such material, they come
to accept it more and more as a kind of literary standard, not realizing
that this banal and artificial form of language fails utterly to do justice
to the rich resources of the receptor language.
For the theologically trained national the influence of translationese
is likely to be especially strong, for he has probably done most of his
advanced study in a foreign language and has read a majority of texts
in translation. Being a Christian, he has often felt obliged to repudiate
at least in practice if not in theory, some of the literary developments in
his own language. Hence, not being familiar with or expert in the
literary use of his own tongue, he falls a ready victim to translationese.
All this is quite understandable, for in some situations the Christian
church itself has often taken a hard line against indigenous literature.
Moreover, there have been relatively few instances in which Christian
colleges and training schools have emphasized the development of
creative writing for a general audience. Since most of the
encouragement for written communication has been either to a
relatively “ingrown” community or has been primarily
“propagandistic” or “evangelistic” (depending upon one’s viewpoint),
little strenuous effort has been put forth to develop outstanding writers
and stylists within the Christian community.

Insecurity about one’s own language

Without realizing it, some persons have a deep sense of insecurity
about their own language. This may express itself in two, almost
opposite, tendencies. In the first place, some national writers feel
obliged to imitate the forms of other languages which they regard as
having more prestige. Hence they borrow wholesale, not only words,
idioms, and stylistic devices, but even grammatical forms, for they
conclude that these prestigious languages must be right.
In the second place, insecurity in a national about his own language
can express itself in an exaggerated confidence, which says: But if
English can say it that way, so can we, for our language is not inferior
to any. Basically, this is only a superiority reaction to basic insecurity,
and the results are as disastrous as those which arise from an inferiority
attitude.

A desire to preserve the mystery of language

Some persons, both national and foreign, genuinely fear that if the
Scriptures are made fully clear, something of the mystery of religion
will be lost. In a sense this is true, if one conceives of “mystery” in a
strictly non-Biblical sense, but in the Bible “mystery” identifies
something which was not formerly known but which has now been
revealed to the initiated. There is a vast difference between (1) the
mystery of the Christian faith e.g., the incarnation, the presence of the
Holy Spirit in the world, and the will of God in history, and (2) the
confusion which results from people not understanding what is
perfectly clear in the Scriptures themselves, i.e., in the original writings.
To substitute a sort of false mystery (based on unintelligibility of
translation) for the true mystery of Christian faith is a total debasing of
religion, and may be merely an excuse for ignorance.
At the same time one reason for not wanting to remove something of
the “mystery of words” is derived from the fact that in some instances
Christian scholars have a certain professionalism about their task and
feel that to make the Bible too clear would be to eliminate their
distinctive function as chief expositors and explainers of the message.
In fact, when one committee was asked to adopt some translations
which were in perfectly clear, understandable language, the reactions
of its members were, “But if all the laymen can understand the Bible,
what will the preachers have to do?”

Wrong theological presuppositions

Some Christians, both national and foreign, tend to adopt a view of
the Scriptures which is more in keeping with the tenets of Islam than
with the Biblical view of revelation, for they regard the Bible as being
essentially a dictated document, rather than one in which the distinct
stylistic features and viewpoints of the individual writers are
preserved. This in no way minimizes the doctrine of inspiration, but it
does mean that one must look at the words of the Bible as instruments
by which the message is communicated and not as ends in themselves.
It is essentially for this reason that we can emphasize the basic
principles that contextual consistency is more important than verbal
consistency, and that in order to preserve the content it is necessary to make
changes in form.

Ignorance of the nature of translation

Another personal problem is simple ignorance of what translation is
all about. Because the average person naively thinks that language is
words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves
replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the
more “conscientious” this sort of translator is, the more acute the
problem. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation
was on the word. It was later recognized that this was not a sufficiently
large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again,
expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that the
individual sentence in turn is not enough. The focus should be on the
paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. Otherwise, one tends
to overlook the transitional phenomena, the connections between
sentences, and the ways in which languages structure the discourse in
distinctive ways. One of the particularly unfortunate ways of
translating the Bible is to proceed verse by verse, for the verse divisions
are often quite arbitrary units. Of course, one cannot at one and the
same time bear in mind all the components of a paragraph, but every
part of the paragraph should be translated with the structure of the
whole being carefully considered, since all must fit together to form a
unit.

PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN TRANSFER

Transfer must be done by people, and very often by a group of

people, usually organized as some kind of committee. Of course, there
are some situations in which one individual, unusually gifted in a
knowledge of the original languages and skilled in the style of the
receptor language, can undertake the task of Bible translating alone.
But such one-man translations are increasingly less possible. This
means that the actual transfer must take place in a cooperative
undertaking, involving primarily two types of situations: (1)
cooperation between an expatriate foreigner (the missionary) and the
national translator, and (2) cooperation between national translators.

Cooperation between expatriate and national translators

In most instances in which expatriates and national translators
collaborate to undertake translation work, it is the expatriate who is the
specialist in the source language (Greek, Hebrew, English, French,
Spanish, etc.) and the national who is the expert in the receptor
language. If these men are to function effectively, however, they must
both have a knowledge of both source and receptor languages. If the
national translator does not have a knowledge of the source language,
he is essentially not a translator, but an informant, or translation helper.
The techniques for dealing with this type of situation are not
considered in this book, for there are a number of very special
problems and difficulties which require highly specialized methods
and techniques.
When expatriate and national translators collaborate as a team, it is
most important that the problems of translation be discussed not in the
source language but in the receptor language. That is to say, the basic
difficulties must be raised at the post-transfer point, before the
restructuring has been undertaken. If, on the contrary, people attempt
to discuss the problems in the source language, there are too many
possibilities of slips and distortions taking place when the material has
to be transferred into the receptor language.

Cooperation between national translators

The basic structure of committees to undertake the work of
translation is discussed in the appendix, but at this point it is important
to note the distinctive roles of the “scholar” and the “stylist,” for they
represent two basic functions which cannot always be easily
differentiated. In the past, the tendency has been to have a scholar do
the translating and then to ask a stylist, very late in the proceedings, to
fix up whatever seemed unduly rough and awkward. But it is very
difficult to achieve a good style by reworking a draft which is all but
completed. It is preferable to have the stylist involved as early as
possible in the enterprise. How early he can be of help depends upon
whether or not he has any command of the source language.
Ideally, the stylist has some grasp of the source language but is not a
scholar in it. If he does have such an understanding, he can be the
primary translator, working from the source text and producing a first
draft which is aimed at an appropriate style. In such a situation, the
scholar can contribute in a vital way at two points: (1) He can provide
the stylist-translator with an analysis of the source text into the quasi-
kernel structure in the source language at all points where the surface
structure is difficult, ambiguous, or otherwise problematic. This gives
the stylist crucial guidance in understanding the message, preparatory
to transferring it into the receptor language, which he can then do
either instinctively on the basis of his native ability, or as the result of
training. (2) When the stylist has completed a draft translation, the
scholar can then go over it with great care, making sure that it is
accurate and bringing to the attention of the stylist errors of various
kinds. Experience has shown that it is much easier to achieve the
proper combination of accuracy and adequate style in this manner than
in the more traditional approach in which the scholar translated and
the stylist corrected. 1
If, on the other hand, the stylist has no knowledge of the source
language, the scholar must perforce make the transfer from the quasi-
kernel level achieved by his analysis (point X in the diagram, see
below) to an analogous level in the receptor language (point Y in the
diagram), in which all statements are as simple as possible and
everything as explicit and as unambiguous as possible. The stylist picks
up the job at this point and restructures it into a draft of the finished
translation, calling the scholar’s attention to residual problems of
meaning or of awkwardness. In this approach, it is vital that the
scholar not produce a draft that appears to be finished, for this
psychologically inhibits the freedom of the stylist to restructure the text
into a really acceptable style.
In either case, it is usually essential that at various points in the
collaborative effort of scholars and stylists, someone act as a kind of
“go-between” to help each understand the distinctive contributions of
the other. This is one of the vital functions of Bible Society Translation
Consultants.
It is also important, whichever approach is used, to submit the final
draft to a stylist who is not a Christian, or at least who is not familiar
with the Bible. This may or may not be the same as the one who does
the restructuring. But if the stylist is already too familiar with the Bible,
he may too easily accept certain terms or expressions merely because
they are traditional, without realizing that they may be rare or
awkward.
A similar statement is made in Nida and de Waard's book, From One Language to
Another (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), p. 192. "In the case of stylist-scholar teams, the
usual process of translating should be reversed. Rather than having a scholar prepare a
somewhat literal translation which is then revised by a stylist, it is the stylist who should
prepare the first draft, but only on the basis of extensive preliminary discussions with the
biblical scholar. Only later is the text gone over carefully by the scholar and various options
discussed."

(From The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969), pp. 99-104; accessed at
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nida3.html )