Translation Issues

I wish I could relate to you the wonders and complexities of language, I only know a little myself, but here is a (very) brief idea about the tremendous obstacles there are for bible translators.

This from: Costas Gabrielatos phd

Translation impossibilities: Problems and opportunities (for TEFL.TESOL Greece Newsletter 60, 21-24.)

"Translation has a long history in English Language Teaching (Howatt, 1984; Richards & Rogers, 1986; 3-4) and is still employed by a great number of teachers in monolingual contexts, as well as some materials writers. Translation is most frequently used as a convenient shortcut when teaching vocabulary, by providing 'equivalents' in the learners' mother tongue. Unfortunately, such practice creates a number of serious long-term problems for learners. There are two main reasons for this.

Firstly, language is not a mere collection of words and grammar rules; it is the expression of a culture. It embodies the efforts of a language community to conceptualise and interpret the world, as well as human experience and relations. As a result, language reflects the complex 'personality' of such a community. Therefore, language can only be interpreted and learned with reference to a specificcultural context. Uncritical use of translation, which does not take account of language idiosyncrasies resulting from cultural factors will invari sch (1993: 1) puts it,

‘culture ...is always in the background, right from day one, ready to unsettle the good language learners when they expect it least, making evident the limitations of their hard won communicative competence, challenging their ability to make sense of the world around them.’

Raimes (1998: 11) provides a very clear example of how culture can unsettle a language learner from her own experience in learning Japanese:

“After I'd laboriously learned to count to 20, I found out that Japanese has ... different words for counting flat objects ... or cylindrical objects.”

Secondly, translation as a teaching tool needs to take into account a number of different aspects, such as grammar (e.g. transitivity of verbs), syntax, collocation and connotation. Uncritical use of translation may give learners insufficient, confusing or even inaccurate information about the target language.

Here’s another example, but from biblical issues, this from a fellow named T. Johnson Chakkuvarackal:

“The meaning of words from the source language to the receptor language makes another problem in translation. In the Early Eastern and Western versions as well as the English versions of the New Testament, the meaning of most of the terms have not given the implied meaning of the original language text. The use of the Indian term avatara for the Biblical concept incarnation (The Almighty God who walked among us in the flesh- Jesus) creates some kind of complications in meaning. Appasamy and Chakkarai are in favor of using the term avatara for incarnation. But Keshub Chandra Sen and Upadhyaya felt that to call Jesus an avatara was to reduce him to the level of one of many avatars of popular Hinduism. Upadhyaya, from his standpoint on the side of Sankara, rejected the use of the word avatara for Christ. Sen, standing within the Brahmo Samaj tradition was vehemently opposed to the custom of referring to Jesus an Avatara.

Another term which makes the complications is Isvara for Christ. In Hinduism, Isvara, a lower manifestation of the Supreme Brahman, the personal God. We cannot equate the Biblical Father-Son relationship with the Hindu Brahman-Isvara relation, because of the differences in concepts.

Most of the Indian Christian theologians pay more attention to equate biblical terms and concepts with the Indian. These attempts are reflected in many of the Indian translations. But Peter Cotterell and Max Turner comments, "One of Barr’s most important emphases was that it is not words which provide the basic unit of the meaning, but the larger elements of discourse, sentences and paragraphs". The attempt of using terminology and concepts without analyzing the text as a whole, will bring the literal translation of the text. This is the problem with most of the Indian translations as in the case of early Eastern and Western versions.” (End quote)

All this really only scratches the surface of the issues of translation. But Mr. Chakkuvarackal brings up another point I’d like to address here. It has to do with the very shallow communication of words. Yes, words are good, and they are the best we have to communicate some things, but they cannot really convey the essence of life. Words are, at best, like a one dimensional; one color, sketch of life. To really know life, you have to experience it.

The world was shocked when after the fall of communism in Romania. The country was full of understaffed state orphanages. Here were hundreds of children who were given only enough nourishment to keep them alive. They received little attention otherwise; and almost no affection. Many of these children were developmentally disabled. In many cases, the experts could not tell whether they became disabled, because they were born that way, or because of their living conditions."