Ji-Youn Cho
The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine how the non-honorific language of the Greek New Testament could be translated into the proper AH of the multileveled honorific systems of some languages. In order to find a solution, we first examined the phenomena, function and social factors of Korean AH as the sample language (Ch. 1). Second, we established criteria and a framework for the evaluation of politeness and the selection of AH in chapter 2 and, in chapter 3, criteria and a framework for translating into AH. Next, we observed the AH phenomena of Mark 14:58-65 in Korean translations (Ch. 4), and finally evaluated the politeness of the dialogues in Mark 14:58-65 and suggested the possible AH for the church Bible translation through the analysis of the proposed criteria and framework (Ch.5).
In chapter 1, we elaborated the complex system of modern Korean AH along the synchronic survey of honorific systems and the diachronic overview of modern honorific phenomena. The classification of the honorifics systems depends on the linguists, but the modern uses of AH express formality, respect and intimacy rather than difference in social class. Among the social factors influencing the choice of AH—relative age, relative status, relative-gender, degree of familiarity and formality of situation—the former three factors are the decisive factors in traditional society while the latter two factors have become the principal factors for the choice of AH in modern society. The formality of the situation has especially become a crucial factor in modern honorifics. Through the analyses of the function of the Korean honorific second person pronoun (HSPP) and honorific verb ending (HVE) and its co-occurrence relationship rule, a new system has been proposed as follows: (1) the formal deferential forms (yeoreobun, tangsin, keudae + -pnita [P]), (2) the formal limited non deferential forms (tangsin, keudae + -o [O]), (3) the formal general nondeferential forms (noh + -ta [T]), (4) the informal deferential forms (tangsin, keudae + -yo [Y]), (5) the informal limited non-deferential forms (keudae, chane + -ne [N]), and (6) the informal general non-deferential forms (noh + -e [E]).
The deferential forms are generally used toward +respect addressee(s) and the non-deferential forms toward –respect addressee(s) with the exception of stranger(s) and formal situations. On the other hand, the use of the deferential forms toward –respect addressee(s) is implicitly awkward,mocking, flattery, insincere, or sarcastic except toward younger/lower or same age/status addressee(s) of higher, opposite gender, or strangers or in a formal situation. In contrast, the use of non-deferential forms toward +respect addressee(s) is considered as rude except in cases of intimate relationships between interlocutors in informal situations. The choice of AH is always flexible and the proposed classification would change the AH systems as described in grammars of Korean because of the diachronic processes of change. Accordingly, translator must be not only aware of the grammatical paradigm of the honorifics but also the relevant syntacticsemantic and pragmatic explanations.
In terms of the pragmatic usage of AH, chapter 2 examined the politeness concepts and parameters of R. Brown and A. Gilman, R. T. Lakoff, P. Brown and S. C. Levinson and G. N. Leech—all of which are representative models of the politeness theories. Brown and Gilman claim that two fundamental dimensions behind the use of the pronominal T-V variants in some European languages are power and solidarity. They provide useful concepts for social variables, i.e. power and distance, not only to evaluate the politeness of dialogues but also to determine its honorifics. The politeness rules of Lakoff, the strategies of Brown and Levinson, and the maxims of Leech also provide the parameters for the evaluation of politeness in dialogues. Particularly, the speaker’s assumption toward addressee(s) as a criterion for the evaluation of politeness and the selection of AH are formulated by the power and solidarity of Brown and Gilman, the distance of Lakoff’s rules, and the variables of FTAs Brown and Levinson suggested.
By examining the above politeness theories and recent studies, we have proposed the following set of criteria as common denominators for the variety of politeness concepts and parameters for the evaluation of politeness in dialogues and the selection of AH: (1) situations of dialogue; (2) social factors of the interlocutors; (3) cultural expectations; (4) the speaker’s assumption toward the addressee(s); and (5) paralinguistic politeness. Based on the criteria, we have established the framework for the evaluation of politeness in dialogue and the selection of AH. However, we also extended it to the translation framework for appropriately rendering the source text of non-honorific language into the target text of honorific language because translating into the AH requires multilateral points of sociolinguistic and pragmatic connections between the source and target texts.
To establish the theoretical framework for translating the biblical text into the proper AH, chapter 3 dealt with the existing translation theories, i.e. literal translation, dynamic equivalence approach, functional equivalence approach, literary functional equivalence, and the skopos theory. Since the selection of AH cannot be determined by the lexical and grammatical data, syntax, or semantics of the source text, the literal translation approach or theequivalence approach is not appropriate to establish the framework for translating into the proper AH. If translator follows the strict literal translation approach the target text would consist of one single uniform AH which makes the sentence awkward and flat and it would lose the sparkle, variety and charm of the original text. The model of dynamic equivalence also presents problems: (1) the translation elements - the source, message and receptor - are not enough to determine the proper AH of honorific languages; (2) the translator alone cannot take total responsibility of determining the AH without specific information and the requirements of the ‘final receptor’; and (3) the source text of non-honorific language cannot be the theoretical starting point for the translation. Nevertheless, it provides the significant three stages—analysis, transfer, and restructuring—for translating into AH. The functional equivalence approach influenced by socio-semiotics extends syntax and semantics to sociolinguistics in the field of Bible translation and emphasizes the rhetorical structure of text. It is useful in being aware of the overall structure of the discourse in terms of the sociolinguistics. However, since de Waard and Nida simply classify the linguistic problem related to the honorifics into formal and informal levels, their approach does not provide the sufficient framework for translating into the proper AH. Along the lines of the previous equivalence approaches, a literary functional equivalence approach integrates form, content and function, and furthermore relies on various modern translation theories.
However, this approach focuses on the literary characteristics of translation and is thus limited in providing a sufficient framework for translation. The skopos theory, which emphasizes the pragmatic aspect, suggests a suitable framework for translating into AH.
Based on the skopos theory, we formulated the following translation elements: (1) requirements of reader, (2) role of commissioner, (3) function of translator, (4) analysis of source text, and (5) function of target text. The translator must get as much information as possible about the requirements and needs of the readers and establish translation principles with the commissioner. In addition, the translator pragmatically analyzes the social situation, the relationship of the interlocutors and the cultural expectations of the biblical text by the framework for the evaluation of politeness and the selection of AH. The result of the analysis helps the translator perceive the speaker’s assumption and intention toward the addressee(s) and select the appropriate AH in the target text.
Chapter 4 assessed—from a skopos perspective—the extent to which each Korean translation was appropriate, acceptable and understandable given the linguistic changes that took place in the use of AH in the sample text, Mark 14:58-65.
We have observed that, since the first Korean version of 1882, old language versions have mostly used the lowest form, i.e. the formal general non-deferential forms. We have analyzed that the early Korean translation followed the literal translation approach and the specific AH system for the translations was not yet established in the early 20th century. However, the archaic uniform styles of the KB (1911) became the typical Korean “Biblical style” which has been read in a solemn tone for worship in the Korean church. Even the KRV (1961) and the NKRV (1998) almost uniformly render all the dialogues in Mark 14:58-65 into the formal general non-deferential forms except for the high priest’s speech to the rest of the Sanhedrin. On the other hand, the KNTNT (1967), the first modern language translation, is not only colloquial but also excellently polished at the same time and uses the HSPP and HVE to a broader extent. Still, Jesus’ speech is uniformly translated with the formal general non-deferential T form. The AH of the CTHB (1977/1999), published through interconfessional cooperation, is more vivid and natural than the ones of the KNTNT but the CTHB still has some awkward honorific expressions in the dialogues that mix the formal deferential P form and the formal limited non-deferential O form and break the consistency of AH. Furthermore, Jesus’ speech style when he answers the queries of the high priest is rendered into the formal general non-deferential noh and T form thereby implying extreme rudeness. The NKSV (1993) and the RNKSV (2001), which followed the optimal equivalence approach, use more developed honorific phenomena than any other Korean version. In contrast with the previous versions, Jesus’ speech style in Mark 14:58-65 is in balance with those of the high priest. The flexibility of Jesus’ speech style in the RNKSV allows people to overcome their preconception that Jesus must speak to every person in the non-deferential form. However, there is no theoretical framework or specific elements for translating into the proper AH even in the modern translations and the adoption of modern honorific systems for Jesus’ speech is an issue that still remains unresolved in Korean translations. Future translations must not retain the archaic mood and ought to keep up with the changes of contemporary Korean society. Even if the old language translation must be revised, the AH should be translated according to the theoretical framework.
Chapter 5 thus applied the proposed criteria and theoretical framework for translating into AH to the dialogues of Mark 14:58-65 and suggested possible selections of AH for a new Korean translation.
We first discussed the contradictions and improbabilities of the social situation, and, second, analyzed the social relationship of the interlocutors, cultural expectations concerning the communicative event and the speaker’s assumption and intention toward the addressee(s). The translator can determine the speaker’s assumption and intention toward the addressee(s) through exegesis and further evaluate the politeness in the dialogue. However, translating into AH is not only determined by exegesis but also by considering the readers’ community, i.e. translation skopos, insofar as it is consistent with the analysis of the source text. Among the various AH, the translator must select one AH as the common point that matches most closely with the result of the analysis of source text and the requirement of the intended readers.
If the translation skopos is to intensify the extreme target-oriented translation or the naturalness in the target context, all the dialogues of this pericope would consist of speech styles used in a real court situation such as the formal deferential tangsin pronoun or yeoreobun pronoun and P verb ending forms, omitting the pronoun altogether or using the noun instead of the pronoun and deferential P verb ending forms. All participants of real Korean court are obligated to use these forms. However, the translation inevitably loses some information of the source text, i.e. the high priest’s hostility toward Jesus, Jesus’ powerful declaration, his tragic suffering by his mockers, all of which reflects the tension of the trial.
If the translation skopos is to stress the extreme source-oriented translation, or the literal translation approach, the translation would match the non-honorific expressions of Greek with a single honorific form, i.e. usually the formal general non-deferential noh pronoun and T verb ending forms. However, this selection makes the adversarial relationship of the interlocutors and the serious social situation awkward, flat and monotone.
For the church Bible, the translator must therefore mediate between the target-oriented translation and the source-oriented translation and find a fitting compromise between the trial situation of the biblical text and a real court situation of the target context. The translator must avoid both extremes and introduce the readers’ community to the message of the source text as accurately as possible, expressing the naturalness of the target text. Thus, the AH in the dialogues of this pericope must be super-elaborated to show the adversarial dynamics between Jesus and his hostile interlocutors in the trial situation where Jesus’ accusers, the high priest, the members of Sanhedrin and Jesus’ mockers may win in the present trial but ultimately lose when the situation reverses in the future and the highest religious authorities are disempowered by the power of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man.
The appropriate AH can reveal all these varying levels of power and makes the translation dynamic, fascinating and real to the readers. As a result, the importance of the theoretical framework for translating into the proper AH, which is valid for analyzing the dialogues of biblical text and selecting the proper AH, cannot be overlooked.
No comments:
Post a Comment