Glossary-f

Faithfulness

Faithfulness refers to how closely a translation preserves the meaning of the original. It is synonymous with fidelity, and essentially synonymous with accuracy, but translation theory sometimes differentiates slightly between faithfulness and accuracy. Faithfulness can, and should, also refer to how closely a translation honors the natural lexical and grammatical patterns of the target language. Faithfulness should look both directions, toward the source and toward the target.

Return to Index

Fidelity

Fidelity refers to the quality of being accurate. It is the same as faithfulness.

Return to Index

Field testing

Field testing is testing a translation to determine if it communicates the meaning of the source text accurately, clearly, and in natural forms of the target language. Field testing is done among a range of speakers if a translation is targeted to be used by a range of speakers, such as speakers of different age, educational, and social groups. Field testing is the same as Community testing.

If I'm testing to determine if the English idiom "Are you pulling my leg?" is understood by a group of ESL (English as a Second Language) students, I would read to them a short paragraph, such as this:

"John went to the mailbox and brought in the mail. He looked at the envelopes. He opened one of them and said to his wife, "Hey, Mary, we just got a leter from the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. We've won $1 millon." Mary laughed and said, "Are you pulling my leg?"

Hypothesis: The ESL students may not yet understand the meaning of the English idiom, "Are you pulling my leg?"

Field test question: "What does it sound like to you that Mary said to John?"

If test subjects simply repeat Mary's actual words, we cannot tell if they understand the idiom, so if they just repeat, then we would follow up with the next question:

"What do you think that means?"

Field testing works for testing how any subject pool understands the meaning of any utterance in any language, including wordings from translations of the Bible.

The last chapter of the book "Meaning-Based Translation," by Mildred Larson, is on field testing and gives good advice for constructing appropriate questions to test a number of different linguistic issues in a text.

Return to Index

Figure of speech

A figure of speech is any of several kinds of non-literal usage of words. Figures of speech are used to achieve an effect beyond the range of ordinary language. Some figures of speech described in this glossary are:

Form

Same as Construction.

Return to Index

Formal equivalence translation (FE)

Same as Form-equivalent translation. This refers to a translation approach which attempts to retain the language forms of the original as much as possible in the translation, regardless of whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning. Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not preserved. Usually, when this happens the translator is not aware of it. Field testing is required to help the translator discover when original meaning has not been preserved in the translation. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they are referring to ones which have been translated with a formal equivalence translation approach.

Formal equivalence translation is essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is a lay term, while formal equivalence translation is a technical term.

Although formal equivalence translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original meaning.

Visit the following webpages on formal equivalence:

Formal Equivalence (Word-for-Word)

Return to Index

Form-equivalent translation

Same as the more commonly used label, formal equivalence translation.

Form-equivalent translation is described in the preface to the God's Word translation (page xi):

The oldest theory of translation is form-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called literal translation. In this type of translation, the translator chooses one of a limited number of meanings assigned to each Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word. The translator fills in the words that belong in the sentence but folows the word arrangement and grammar that is characteristic of the original language. Such a translation is often viewed as accurate. However, it can result in awkward, misleading, incomprehensible, or even amusing sentences. For instance, a form-equivalent translation of 1 Samuel 9:2 could read: 'From his shoulders upward Saul was taller than any of the people.' In English this implies that Saul had a misshapen head and neck. Translations using this theory have made the Bible more difficult to read and understand in English than it was in the original languages.

Return to Index

Free translation

A free translation is one which preserves the meaning of the original but uses natural forms of the target language, including normal word order and syntax, so that the translation can be naturally understood. Free translation is a kind of idiomatic translation. For examples of free translation see the Cheyenne story in the entry Interlinear translation.

Return to Index

Front translation

A specially designed tool to assist a native translator. It is prepared by an advisor for a specific translation project for the mother tongue translators under his supervision. The advisor creates a front translation with the goal of making the meaning explicit and as easy as possible for the mother tongue translator, whose ability in English (or another national language, such as Spanish, French, or Indonesian) is limited, to use. The advisor studies (exegetes) a passage of the Bible, then writes up an accurate front translation based on this exegesis. The front translation contains all the meaning of the original, including implicit information which may need to be made explicit in the translation. The front translation has a structure that takes into consideration the unique vocabulary and grammatical patterns such as word order, phrase and clause structure, and idioms of the receptor language.

Return to Index

Fullness of meaning

A term used by some translators to refer to translation which attempts to preserve all aspects of original meaning, including denotative meaning, connotative meaning, emotive meaning, associative meaning, nuances, and ambiguity.

Return to Index

Function

In terms of language study, function refers to the purpose for which a language form or phenomenon exists. More broadly, function refers to the purpose for which any utterance is made. An utterance can be any length of speech that communicates some meaning. Function refers not only to individual words and how they relate to each other, but also to how words are used. For instance, in some languages it is possible to repeat something for some effect. A translator needs to know what that effect is, that is, what is the function of repetition in the language under study. It is the function itself which must be translated, not necessarily the way (form) that function is encoded in a language. For example, some languages do not permit repetition, as did New Testament Greek with its frequent occurrences of what is translated as "Verily, verily," in English (for example, John 3.3; 3.11; 5.19 . But if we know what the function of repetition in the source language is, we can look for an equivalent structure (or process) in the target language which has the same function. This approach is referred to as functional equivalence translation.

The translator should constantly ask, "What is the function of this particular language phenomenon in the language from which I am translating?" He then matches the same functions between languages, regardless of what forms are used to carry out those functions. Forms communicate meaning through various functions required of language. If functions are not the same, then meanings will not be the same. And the purpose of translation is to transfer meaning.

Language must perform a wide range of functions. Some of the most important functions that we call upon our speech to perform are:

1. To inform
2. To question
3. To command
4. To deny
5. To emphasize
6. To sequence narration of events
7. To indicate logical relationships, such as causality
8. To indicate continuity of participants
9. To indicate continuity of actions
10. To contrast

Linguists who regard discovery of language function as a primary task of linguistics are called functionalists. Their approach to language study is called functional linguistics and functionalism.

Return to Index

Functional equivalence

Functional equivalence translation is a subcategory of what many call idiomatic translation. Bible translation consultants de Waard and Nida updated Nida's previous term, Dynamic Equivalence, to Functional Equivalence in their book, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.

The translators of the God's Word (GW) English version describe this philosophy of translating (which they call function-equivalent translation) as follows (their Preface, page xii):

A newer theory of translation is function-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called paraphrasing). In this type of translation, the translator tries to make the English function the same way the original language functioned for the original readers.

The preface continues with statements that I am not sure I can agree with, but they do reflect opinions about this translation philosophy which are held by an important percentage of those who evaluate Bible versions:

However, in trying to make the translation easy to read, the translator can omit concepts from the original text that don't seem to have corresponding modern English equivalents. Such a translation can produce a readable text, but that text can convey the wrong meaning or not enough meaning. Furthermore, function-equivalent translations attempt to make some books readable on levels at which they were not intended. For instance, Song of Songs was not written for children. Paul's letter to the Ephesians is very sophisticated and not intended for novices.

This preface does not identify which versions its authors regard as function-equivalent translation, but by process of elimination with the two other philosophies described in the preface, form-equivalent translation and closest natural equivalent translation (used in GW), we can guess that the GW translators are referring to versions such as LB, TEV, CEV, and NCV. We also do not know which translation approach the GW translators would regard as underlying more literal translations such as NIV, ISV, NET, and NLT, which are not precisely form-equivalent translations, yet they do not seem to fit into the function-equivalent category, as described in the GW preface. The GW translators contrast their approach, closest natural equivalent translation, with function-equivalent translation, but we do not know if they view GW as the only closest natural equivalent translation. It seems clear that not all who critique Bible versions use the same terms to describe translation philosophies, nor do they use all the terms in exactly the same way. The editor of this glossary is more comfortable with the terms formal equivalence and idiomatic translation, approaches to translation which appear on opposing ends of an idiomaticity scale. Some English translations cluster near either end of this scale while others are best described as being somewhere in between. Creating new terms such as closest natural equivalent translation may be helpful, but those who use them should describe them well enough so that it can be better understood how they relate to terms already in use such as idiomatic, dynamic, and meaning-based translation.

Return to Index

Functional linguistics

Functional linguistics (also known as functionalism) attempts to find explanations for language phenomena outside of these phenomena themselves. The explanations typically have to do with cognitive processes, memory limitations, sensory perception, conservation of energy via retention of morphological paradigms, the human capacity (and need) for design and patterning, etc. The work of functionalists contrasts with those who pursue formal linguistics, which typically (a la Chomsky) defines linguistics (especially syntax) as a self-contained field of study, and finds "explanations" in formal notations. Functional linguists pursue a variety of theoretical approaches to language but are united in viewing language function of primal importance. Linguists who have approached language functionally include Wallace Chafe, Simon Dik, William Foley, Talmy Giv�n, John Haiman, Michael Halliday, George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker, Ellen Prince, Sandra Thompson, Teun van Dijk, and Robert Van Valin. Functional linguistics and Relevance Theory are two areas of linguistics today which have great value for translation theory.

The following books focus on functional linguistics:

Return to Index