Strategies of Achieving Pragmatic Equivalence in Interpreter-mediated Sermons: Insights from a Group of Churches in Busia County, Kenya
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This paper examines the linguistic strategies employed by interpreters in dealing with the absence of pragmatic equivalence when interpreting church sermons from English into selected Luhya varieties. The effective delivery of church sermons relies so much on careful application of communication strategies for proper interaction with the target audience. The Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson (1986) provided the background for the discussion of the data. Data was collected through key-informant interviews of interpreters, Focus Group Discussions by the congregants, and the researcher’s non-participant observation during church services. Audio recording was used to collect corpus for analysis. The following strategies were revealed: compensation, calquing, paraphrasing, borrowing, ellipsis and adaptation. The findings further established that although church interpreters played a significant role in interpreting the preachers’ utterances from the SL to the TL, there was a discrepancy between what the preachers said and what the interpreters relayed to the TL speakers. It was therefore imperative for the interpreters to come up with strategies that would enable them to communicate the SL message to the TL speakers so that the pragmatic equivalence of the message is achieved.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.displayStats.downloads##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
References
Altarabin, M. (2015). Problems in Translating Five Days in Paris into Arabic: Linguistic Analysis. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 3(2), 01-09. https://academia.edu>problems
Angelelli, C. (2000). Interpretation as a Communicative Event; a Look through Hymes’ Lenses’Meta XLV, 4, 580-592. https://researchgate.net
Baker, M. (2000).The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
Baker, M. (2011). In Other Words. A Course Book on Translation. London and New York:
Routledge.
Chishiba, G. (2018). The Translator’s Challenges to Achieving Equivalence in Translation. Conference on African Linguistics, University of Georgia.
Cintas, d. & Ramael, J. (2007). Concepts and Practices. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and Language. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Ghazala, H. (2004). Essays in Translation and Stylistics. Dar El-Ilm Lilmalayin: Beirut
Blackwell.
Gutt, E.-A. (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Gutt, E.-A. (2000) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 2nd. ed.
Manchester : St. Jerome.
Halverson, S. (1997). The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies. International Journal of Translation, vol. 9 (2), 207-233, https://doi.org/10.1075/target.9.2hal
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Herman, T. (1999). Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systematic ApproachesExplained. Manchester: St. Jerome
Hervey, S. & Higgins (1992). Thinking French translation: A course in translation method. New York: Routledge.
Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.). Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Kirimi, H. et al (2012). Misinterpretations in English-Kimuthambi Church Sermons. English Linguistics Research, vol. 1 (2), 88-101, http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n2p88
Kirlik, N. (2013). Interpreter-mediated Bible Readings from English to Manjaku in a Group of Gambian Churches. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leeds.
Leonardi, V. (2000). Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality. Translation Journal, 4(4), 38-4. https://glocat.geneseo.edu
Li, X. (2013). Are interpreting strategies teachable? Correlating trainees’ strategy use with trainers’ training in the consecutive interpreting classroom. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 18 (1), 105-128. https://researchgate.net/publication/269168803
Molina, L., & Albir, A. H. (2002). Translation Technique Revisited: A Dynamic and functionalist Approach. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma da Barcelona.
Mudogo, B. (2018). Baker’s Strategies in Translation: A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of Four Luhya Dialects; Lukabras, Lwisukha, Luwanga and Lukhayo in Informative Texts. The African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, vol.3, 71-85, https://ajess.kibu.ac.ke
Musyoka, E. & Karanja, P. (2014). Problems of Interpreting as a Means of Communication: A Study on Interpretation of Kamba to English Pentecostal Church Sermon in Machakos Town, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. (5), 196-207, https://ir.library.ku.ac.ke
Newmark, P. (1988). Translation theory: General remarks: Meaning and significance. Hertford Shine: Prentice Hall International.
Newmark, P. (1991) A Textbook of Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Odero, E. (2017). Problems of Finding Linguistic Equivalence When Translating & Interpreting for Special Purposes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 7, (7), 388-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i7/3110
Robinson, D. (2003). What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical
Interventions. Kent: Kent Study Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell: Oxford.
Stacey R. (2016). Translating Religious Terms and Culture in ‘The Sealed Nectar’: A model for quality. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leeds.
Venuti, L. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Vinay, P. & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a Methodology for Translation. John Benjamins: Amsterdam /Philadelphia.