M. L. Strauss, "Literal Meaning" Fallacy
6
The slogan "As literal as possible, as free as necessary" should be changed to a
philosophy of translation which places the priority on meaning: "Translate the meaning;
follow the form when it promotes this goal."
I should add that I am not arguing against the production or use of formal equivalent
Bible versions. I use them and encourage my students to use them. These versions have
an important role in Bible study, particularly for those with only a rudimentary
knowledge of the original languages. They are helpful tools for (1) identifying the formal
structure of the original text, (2) examining Hebrew or Greek idioms and formal patterns
of language, (3) tracing recurrent words, (4) identifying ambiguities in the text, and (5)
tracing formal verbal allusions (which might be obscured by idiomatic renderings).
14
In
short, they provide a window on the original text for those with limited skills in studying
it directly.
An examination of the translation process will help to illuminate why formal
equivalence fails as a theory or philosophy of translation.
Translation as Interpretation
Words are arbitrary and conventional symbols used to signify meaning. A word does
not get its meaning from its sound or form, but from the conventional meaning attributed
to it by a particular socio-linguistic group.
15
The English word "gift" commonly means
"something bestowed voluntarily and without compensation." But the same word in
German (das Gift) means "poison" (a very different kind of "gift"!). There is nothing
inherent in the form of the word which determines its meaning. Words are conventional
symbols which point to conceptual meaning.
The words or symbols of one language differ from the words or symbols of another.
This is why translation is necessary. Not only are the words different, but the manner in
which these words interact and relate to one another their syntactical relationships is
also different. Because there is no one-to-one correspondence between words (lexemes)
or their relationships (syntax), translation always involves a two-step process. The
translator must first interpret the meaning of the symbols, and the relationship between
those symbols, in the source language and then determine the best way to reproduce that
meaning in the receptor language. The goal of translation is not the reproduction of
words, but the transfer of meaning.
In a recent book, Leland Ryken disputes this basic translation model. In a chapter
entitled "Seven Fallacies About Translation," he rejects as fallacious that "We should
translate meaning rather than words," and that "All translation is interpretation."
16
He
claims that by focusing on meaning, dynamic equivalent versions are wrongly
"translating what they interpret the meaning of the original to be instead of first of all
preserving the language of the original."
17
But how can you "preserve the language of the original" when the source language is
different than the receptor language? Ryken seems to assume the literalist fallacy that the
words and syntax of one language have exact counterparts in another, so that meaning
14
These points are taken from my book, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation &
Gender Accuracy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 83.
15
The exception is onomatopoeia, where a word (like "whoosh!") is intended to sound like its meaning.
16
Ryken, The Word of God in English, 79-91.
17
Ryken, The Word of God in English, 79, and passim.