<<

Santa Clara University Scholar Commons

Communication College of Arts & Sciences

1999 models, translation, and fidelity Paul A. Soukup Santa Clara University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/comm Part of the Communication Commons

Recommended Citation Soukup, Paul A. (1999). Communication models, translation, and fidelity. In P. A. Soukup, & R. Hodgson (Eds.). Fidelity and translation: Communicating the Bible in new (pp. 219-231). Chicago: Sheed and Ward and New York: American Bible .

Copyright © 1999 Sheed and Ward. Reprinted and reproduced by permission of Rowman & Littlefield. All rights reserved. Please contact the publisher for permission to copy, distribute or reprint

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more , please contact [email protected]. 12 Communication Models, Translation, and Fidelity

Paul A. Soukup, SJ

The fact that people regularly translate from one language to another or-as the American Bible Society (ABS) Translations Project has done-from one medium to another, may seem to make it easier to evaluate those translations. At some point, people can, and do, claim that one translation "works" whi le a nother does not, that one translation has greater aesthetic qualities than another, o r th at one translation is more fa ith­ ful than another. The fact that people make s uch judgments, though, does not necessarily make it easier to explain theoretically how they make them. Among other things, communication study examines both the process of communicating a nd the product. What might it contribute to an under­ standing of fidelity in translati on? Various perspectives on communication, reflected in models of communication, can illuminate the process and , indi­ rectly, the attendant question of fidelity. Without attempting a ny compre­ hensive treatment, I shall present four such perspectives: communicati on as transportation, communicati on as a semioti c system, communication as rit­ ual , and communicati on as . After a brief introduction to each, I shall examine the consequences of each for fidelity in translation. Finally, I shall offer some more general comments drawn from this treatment. Earl y communicati on theory, fo llowin g a kind of transportation model, fosters a view of fidelity th at favors a sense of equivalence-something that can be measured. Later communicati on theory foll ows a more rituali stic view and asks what communicators do with communication; in this view, fi­ delity becomes more functional. Yet another approach sees communication as a manifestati on of semi otic systems; in thi s v iew, fidelity manifests s ur­ face changes in a deeper stru cture (see essays by Hodgson and Stecconi in this volume). Finally, an interactive approach places communicati on as a conversational system; here fidelity takes on a different va lue-more a c har­ acteristic of the a udi ence than of the text.

2 19 220 Paul A. Souku

Communication as Transportation In an influential review article, James Carey ( 1975/1989) proposed a distinction between communication as transportation and communication as ritual. By the former he characterized what had dominated North American through the mid- I 970s: a sense that communication primarily involved the transfer or transportation of a from one per­ son or source to another through some medium or agent. That kind of traditional communication study diagrams the communi­ cation process as a linear process involving a sender (or source), a message, a receiver (or target), a channel (or medium), a context, and various sources of noise. (See Figure I .) Originally designed by C laude Shannon (S hannon & Weaver, 1949) as a tool for measuring the electronic transmi ssion capac­ ity of telephone circuits where one could compare an input signal to an out­ put signal, the model, despite its mechanistic presuppositions, has found application in roughly identifying stages of communication. This model pos­ sesses a certain power since it diagrams various general aspects of commu­ nication and thus holds a certain universal applicability-describin g communication in situations ranging from face-to-face interaction through written texts to electronic transmission. Eugene Nida and William Reyburn ( 1981) have successfully appli ed this model to translation. The elements of the model identify key "places" in communication. The source or sender originates a message. Note that this implies that the source somehow determines or controls the message, thus becoming the "original" or yardstick against which to measure any copy or transported message. The receiver, or end location of the message, makes its version of the message available for measurement. If the message differs, then some distortion has occurred-due to "noise" in the channel through which the message passed or due to a change in context that affects the resulting pro­ cess of understanding. This model works well to hi ghlight what occurs in the transfer of a message from one place, or language, to another. It points out the places in which a message mi ght undergo change due to the system of transportation-exactly what an engineer needs to discover. The model

Figure 1: Transportation model of communication. Communication Models, Translation, and Fideli 221 applies to texts somewhat m echani call y, but it does give a degree of insight into the communicati on p rocess. With thi s model, we could d escribe a tra nslati on in one of two ways. First of all , we could regard the translati on as an intermedi ate process. A message source creates a message and transmits it through a medium (the translator) who in turn sends it on t o the receiver. The process of translati on may inj ect n oise into the translati on, though it should adjust the message t o the context of the receiver. That very a djustment, though, makes the different in language and in presuppositions, as Nida points o ut in several pl aces. Second, we could regard the translator as the c reator of a new m es­ sage, whi ch reac hes a receiver th rough some c hannel or other. In thi s in­ stance, a double process of communicati on occurs: from the message source to the translator; from the tra nslator t o a receiver. In each case, one theoreti­ call y could measure the message at each end of the process and compare the two. The preponderance of authority o r p ower remains at the point of ori­ gin- in the o ri ginal, which acts as the yardsti ck for measurement. From the sender-receiver t ransport perspective, fidelity becomes the demonstrated equi valence o f th e message transmitted from source to re­ ceiver. In the s implest (and original) a pplicati on, one would measure the electronic signal at each end of the model and compare the two. Fidelity re­ sults when the recei ved ( or transmitted/translated) signal di verges little from the o ri gin al. In more c omplicated settings-language translati on, for exam­ ple-one would have to determine an appropriate measure (Thomas, 1994a). Nida a nd Reyburn illustrate this move by showing how a w ord-for-word translati on d oes not necessaril y result in a fa ithful translation since it ig­ nores idiomati c usage, cultural conventions, and so forth . They propose in ­ stead the c oncept of functi onal equivalence, preferring that the translation communicate the same function from one language o r culture to another. For example, the biblical phrase, "to beat one's breast," may not communi­ cate sorrow or repentance in all cultures; in some, a different acti on may serve that fun ction. The faithful translati on mu st change the lingui sti c phrase to convey the s ame . In thi s kind of lingui sti c translati on, a bilingual speaker, one who un­ derstand s both th e c ulture of the o ri gin al or source language and the c ulture of the target l anguage, best judges the fidelity of the translated work to the ori gin al. The sense of measurement implicit in the Shannon model applies almost directly since such a s peaker could quantify the degree of d eviation of the target from source. Though difficult in practice, that kind of m easure­ ment remains fairly simple from the theoreti cal perspective of the model. (When applied t o e lectronic c ircuits-the intent of the model-such meas­ urement also re mains fairl y s imple in practi ce.) Multimedia translation poses a s imilar, but a more complex, situati on. A m essage moves not n ecessaril y from one c ulture to another but from one means of expression to another, usually within the same c ulture. The means of expression, though, do not p arallel each other the way that l anguages do. 222 Paul A. Souku

What should a measurement of fidelity measure in this case? T hi s s ituati on touches bibli cal work in two ways. On th e one hand, t he process is not com­ pletely new fo r the b iblical m essage, since it has hi stori call y undergone a major media transi tion from oral p erform ance to written t ext. However, that transi ti on characterizes not onl y the Bible, but a w ide range of t exts, and so th e conventi ons of have evolved t o encompass the rhetori cal and oral cues of the spoken word- oft en slav ishl y. When p eopl e heard words read b ack t o them, they could acknowledge the functi onal equi valence of the "translati on" to writing. One could argue that writing became less a translation than an encoding or a means of storage. (See the essay by Scott in thi s volume fo r some examples of thi s.) On the o ther h and, multimedia translati on is new fo r the Bible (or any other texts) since it in volves both restoring the w ritten t ext t o a performati ve form and supplying interpreti ve elements fro m the rh etori cal or oral cues. And so, from the perspecti ve of the transportati on m odel, multimedia trans­ lati on faces at l east fi ve chall enges, whi ch I will li st in increasing o rder of diffic ulty. Throughout thi s, l am presuming that the translati on of a tex t- the biblical text-has been put into a multimedia fo rm . (See Sisley's essay in this volume as well as Rebera, 1994 for m ore o n these things.) First, how should one determine the functi onal equi valence of paralin­ gui stic features? Texts do record r hythm, rh yme, pacing, but an oral per­ forma nce must go beyond th ese a nd in clude tone o f voice, gesture , inflecti on, and so fo rth. Visual interpretati on adds still other parali ng ui sti c featu res, ranging fro m m ovement to interacti on di stances. Second, multimedia translati on, of necessity, mu st in clude extra­ textu al materi al. How can any measure a ppl y to thi s? The receiver ends up with more data th an th e biblical source presents-for example, the multime­ di a translation h as to s pecify a ppearance of actors (body type, clothing), geographical setting, set d ecorati on, and so on. Perhaps o ne s hould measure thi s as noise or as input from a second source (the translator), but the e nd product certainly di ffers fro m the o ri ginal. As such, the received message di ffers fro m the source. At b est, th e multimedi a translati on m erely di sam­ biguates a text-and that d oes change the text. One mi ght ask whether thi s di ffers from what any reader does-but t he role of the reader h as received little a ttention in terms of this model (see Tompki ns, 1980). Third, what should the multimedia translation d o w ith media-specific features? Oral features can b e successfull y e ncoded and decoded in written texts. The written t ext, however, adds its own features: the a ppearance of letters and words o n a page; the addition of sentence, paragraph or chapter markings; the color of inks a nd papers; and the specifi c codes of writi ng. One mu st acknowledge th at th e G utenberg press did something to t he Bible. Should these secondary featu res be ignored or integrated in the translation? Can one separate them out with any degree of confi dence? What of the kinds of oral resonances that a text coul d reproduce by cross-referencing (or a computer by hypertext lin ks)? What happens on the other end-when the Communication Models, Translation, and Fideli 223 multimedia form has ri cher features than the ori gin al? Hypertext, after all, encompasses much more th an oral resonance can. How can we determine fi ­ deli ty of features non-existent in the source? Fourth, how mi ght one measure the fi deli ty of th e multimedia render­ ing of episodes or peri copes? The very division of the text changes the flow of the narrati ve, yet the multimedi a fo rm-at least in the U. S. culture-pre­ sumes an epi sodic structuring. Granted that lecti onary evidence indicates that the Chu rch has long treated th e Scriptu res as epi sodic, the multimedi a form still imposes its own structuring. Fifth, can there be any kind of equi valence of non-narrati ve materi al in a multimedi a fo rmat? For example, how could one (a) translate into mul­ timedia an expository document like the Letter to the Romans and (b) evalu­ ate the equi valence between source and receiver? Typi call y and theoreti call y, fro m thi s perspective, multimedi a transla­ ti on depends on the same model of measuring equi valence between source and receiver as does lingui sti c translation- th e judgment of a bilingual speaker, though in this case, we mi ght say, the judgment of an informed me­ di a user. The key judgment is whether the message content remains func­ ti onall y simil ar.

Communication as Semiotic System A second, related, perspective drawn from communicati on studies, sees communicati on as a semioti c system. Thi s view builds on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure ( 1959/1 9 15), who described meaning-fi rs t in lan­ guage and then more generall y- in terms of the relati on of signifier and sig­ nified , w hi c h ma kes up th e s ig n. Others, in c luding the A me rican philosophers C. S. Peirce ( 1960-1 966) and Charl es W. Morris ( 1970/1 938), also contributed to thi s perspecti ve. That work emphasizes levels of signifi­ cati on as well as the process of reference. Vi rtuall y any meaning (or signifi­ cati on) system breaks down into signs with their component parts. Signs themselves relate to other signs in many ways but parti cul arl y by di fference. That is, onl y signs that differ fro m one anoth er become meaningful within a given system of signs. In typography, fo r example, the sign a differs from the sign b but not from the sign a. In addition sets of codes or rules describe how signs take on meani ng, with different sign systems or codes following analogical rul es-for example, one could descri be a verbal code, a clothing code, a gestu ral code, and so on. Further, the significati on process is recur­ sive, so th at a sign may take the ro le of a signifier to form a more complex sign made up of yet more signifieds. (See Figure 2.) The semioti c system fo rms a descripti ve tool in communicati on study. Scholars have appl ied it as a general theory of signs to lingui stic or verbal systems (its primary applicatio n in de Saussure' s ) but also to graphic, visual, cinematic , cultural, and even culinary systems. Some, in 224 Paul A. Souku

sign

signifier

sign (2) signified

signifier (2) I signified (2)

Figure 2: Parts of a sign according to de Saussure's model, illustrating the recursive nature of signification, where a sign (2) becomes a signi­ fier of another sign. parti cul ar R oland Barthes ( l 972/1 957), show great skill in d escribing o ne set of semi oti c relations in terms of another (usually verbal) o r in untangling the overl aid codes within a complex stru cture like the novel ( l 974/1 970). Others, including Claude Levi-Strauss ( I 969a/l 967 & I 969b/l 964) a nd Um­ berto Eco (1976), have fo und semi oti cs valu abl e to describe c ultural and lin­ gui sti c systems. (See the essays by Hodgson and Stecconi in thi s volume fo r additional di scussion of the a pplication of semi oti cs to communication stu dy and tra nslati on. ) In this perspecti ve translation mi ght be described as a c hange of signi­ fier. The resulting s igns mai ntain reference to the same signi fieds, bu t ex­ press those signifieds in different fo rm s. If Barthes is correct, fo r example, clothing expresses cultural relati ons that could be translated in to verbal d e­ scriptions. Levi-S trauss attempts the same thing in terms o f kinship relations (1 969a/1 967) and food preparati on (1969b/1 964). The resulting verbal de­ scription communicates the same in fo rmati on but in a different code. In a di fferent, but somewhat related context, Ong (1997) points o ut that informa­ ti on (the code) is not communicati on. Informati on r emains mechani cal; peo­ pl e communicate o nl y w hen they use the code to facilitate a n interacti on, to exchange meaning ( p. 3), to influence another (p. 5). From a theoretical p er­ specti ve, the translator, then, engages the semioti c code a nd moves it in to communicati on. We can also describe this process in term s of layers of structure and the codes (rules, conventi ons, norms) that give meaning to th ose structures. The translator d etermines a s ub-surface structure of relati ons and expresses it in terms of a di fferent set of relati ons. In semioti c terms, the signifieds and their relati ons (s ub-structure) stay constant while the s ignifiers and t heir relations (s urface structure) change, resulting in a different set of signs. The meanin g a nd the reference stay the same. For example, one coul d e ncode the verbal reference, "I am angry," with a facial ex pression. Here fi delity in translation r efers to the identity of sub-surface struc­ tu res and the codes that give them m eaning. The decoding/encoding process Communication Models, Translation, and Fideli 225 needs to follow particular norms so that the surface structures in the two sign systems are equivalent. Theoretically, the process involves more work than that implied in the transport model, but remains essentially simple in description. (See Figure 3). Note, too, that the process of evaluation in this in stance does not differ markedly from that involved in the transportation model. The test of fidelity is the recognition of equivalence of the sub­ surface signifieds. Just as with the transportation model , the semiotic model presents a number of challenges to multimedia translation, mostly because of what that translation attempts to do. Multimedia translation of the Bible moves from a verbal sign system to a more complex verbal and nonverbal one. This dif­ fers from other uses of in translation. Linguistic translation stays within at least analogously similar sign systems. Barthes's or Levi-Strauss's translation work across differing systems takes a verbal system as its target. By moving in the other direction, multimedia work faces many of the same challenges identified above, but some others as well. First, how do different sign systems work together to create complex systems of signification? While all of us negotiate such complexes in face­ to-face interaction (verbal signs, nonverbal signs, tactile ones, and so forth), we do so unconsciously. In a multimedia translation, such decisions become conscious: should we value the visual over the verbal? What paralinguistic signs do we invoke? How does one sign system interact with another? Second, multimedia translation must, in effect, create a new system of signification; one made up of visual, auditory, and interactive elements. Com­ puter CD-ROM products have led the way here, but have not addressed the level of complexity required by the biblical text. This challenge, though, car­ ries with it a very real benefit: the possibility of a much deeper understanding of the source material since a semjotic translation requires close analysis of the source and an understanding of the semiotic relations it contains. Third, multimedia translation must discover and use readily accessible conventional signs. While sign systems can be (and indeed are) created, they need ready and wide acceptance in order to be effective. Is there a con­ ventional multimedia "language," one that does not require a skilled reader like a , a , or an Umberto Eco? The

sign 1 sign 2

signifier >> signifier signified signified 1 2 (=)

Figure 3: Conversion of one sign system to another, retaining the same signified but altering signifiers and, consequently, signs. 226 Paul A. Souku avail ability of such a s ign system would fac ilitate s uccessful understanding of the translation, fo r if people cannot understand the "language" of multi­ media, the translation will do them no good. There is little precedent for measuring the e qui valence of semi oti c sys­ tems. But, if we regard translation as a kind of transport of meaning or transport of signification, from one language to another or from one medium to another, we can specify key elements in the process. The source (or source text) must in some way control the process; thus, part of the transla­ tor's task includes determining which elements contribute to the meaning, which elements constitute the core of th e text. Both E.-A. Gutt ( 1992) and Patrick Cattrysse ( 1997) suggest ways to do thi s by examining key sign rela­ tions. Once one has identified such elements a nd created a target "text," one could devise a method of measuring the degree of success or degree of fi­ delity of the target.

Communication as Ritual

The second part of Carey's di stinction describes communication as rit­ ual. Communication, in this view, consists of something we do-a regular performance. Communication is less th e transportation of information than the "construction and maintenance of an ordered, meaningful cultural world that can serve as a control a nd container for human acti on" (Carey, 1989/1975, pp. 18-19). Carey notes that such a v iew, though n ew to Ameri­ can communication study, actuall y predates the transport model, being li sted in dictionaries as an "archaic" usage that links the definition of communica­ tion to "commonness," "community," or "sharing." He continues: A ritual view of communication is directed not toward the extension of messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting in formati on but the representation of shared b eli efs. If the archetypal case of communication under a transmi ssion view is the extension of messages across geography for the purpose of control, the archetypal case under a r itual view is the sacred ceremony that draws persons together in fellowshi p a nd commonality. (p. I 8)

Ritual focuses attention on the uses of communication and the kinds of things th at such u ses accompli sh. Carey's example of the newspaper under thi s v iew provides wonderful clarity: the ritual view "will, for example, view a newspaper l ess as sending or gaining information and more as attending a mass, a si tuation in which nothing new is learn ed but in which a particular view of the world is portrayed and confirmed" (p. 20). Following thi s model, contemporary communication study e nvi sions the e ntire process as a kind of participation or activity of communicators, with the receiver or audience holding significant power. The meaning of a given communication results from the process, with message creator and message receiver together evoking the meaning. Ong's clarifying distinction Communication Models, Translation, and Fidelity 227 of informati on and communicati on works here, too. Communicati on, "the exchange of meanings .. . thro ugh a common system of signs" ( 1996, p. 3, quoti ng the Encyclopedia Britanica), or the influence ex_erted by one mind on another (p. 5), depends on ritual (the exchange) as much as on informa­ tion (the encoded message). In other words, in fo rmati on fo rms a necessary, but not sufficient, condition fo r communicati on, as does ritual. And so, here too, the source message retain s a measure of authority-wi thin the ritual in­ terpl ay of communicators, one cannot make a text mean whate ve r one wishes. The task of the translator consists in providing th e occasion fo r "por­ traying and confi rming" a view of the world. The ritual ex perience of par­ ticipating in the Bible follows fro m th e translator' s work. While such an assertion may beg the questi on of how translati on works, it can clari fy the goal of translation. Fidelity becomes the creati on of simil ar use, of similar views of the world. Lingui stic or semantic identity gives way to community identity and to a kind of incultura ti on. Ong again offers a helpful note when he remarks that thinking is an event stimulated by communicati on ( 1996, p. 5). The transportati on or decoding of information is not communicati on, but only the occasion for it. Similarl y, we could argue that the Bible is an event in the life of the beli eving community. The test of fidelity becomes the real­ ity of that event. Therefore, if we regard communicati on as a ritual, we must attend more closely to the role of the audience. How do they use the text? What role does it play in their li ves? Their study? Their worship? From thi s per­ specti ve we have to recognize that th e source text itself, while still main­ taining authority, loses the centrality th at it holds in the oth er two models. Instead the text takes on a vari ety of roles-and from those roles emerge the pl aces th at we could determine fidelity. Here a change in medi a could well have important consequences fo r fi delity. Audience recognition-community adoption- pl ays a role here. Audi­ ences and cri tics already make di stincti ons among translati ons; these form yet another focal point for an examination of th e audience-source-fidelity interplay. For example, peopl e seldom refer to a film or television work as a "translati on"; instead they speak of a re-telling, a re-creati on, an adaptati on, an abridgement, a version, and so on. What di fferenti ates these in the mind of an audience? How much do those terms indicate "adequacy" or fidelity? They do, however, indicate the audience' s use of the experi ence provided by the encounter with the materi al. And so, here too, multimedi a translati on faces some chall enges posed by the communication model. The first, as I have just indicated, ari ses in the necessity to understand the audience (or the community) as it understands the source. How do individuals and communities understand when they par­ ticipate in communicati on settings? Second, how can we determine the ritual uses of thi s parti cul ar com­ municati on source materi al? Do they differ fro m one Christi an community 228 Paul A. Souku or denominati on to another? Is the translati on limited to Bible study or can it equally serve worship and prayer? Does it become a kind of spiritual sup­ port to something else? One mi ght take a lead here by looking at other com­ municati on rituals-reading the newspaper, watching television, going to movi es, and so on. Are these the same or merely analogous uses? Third, a ritual view in vites refl ecti on on creating community as well as on the nature of th at community. In asking what defines a Chri stian com­ munity, one should take care to avoid a para-social illusion of community, a situati on where indi viduals mi stake a pseudo-community for a real one, as happens fo r example in television talk shows or soap operas, where audi­ ence members feel as th ough they are part of a (ficti onal, though regul arl y meeting) group. James Beni ger characteri zes these as "superfic iall y interper­ sonal relati ons th at confuse personal with mass messages and increasingly include interacti ons with machines th at write, speak, and even ' think' with success steadily approaching that of humans" ( 1987, p. 354 ). Only a true be­ li eving community could be the measure of ritual use of biblical materi al. In some ways thi s chall enge is not new- it goes back to apostolic times, as both James 2.1 7 and I John 3. 17 warn that fa ith must be accompani ed by action lest one fa ll into the illusion of beli ef or o f community. Fourth, a ritual vi ew demands another look at the nature of the source materi al. What statu s does the Bible hold fo r the C hurch? How are the two related? What best characteri zes the ritual of the Bible? Clearl y, these ques­ ti ons touching on ecclesiologies involve more than translati on. But th at is the nature of ritual. This approach to communicati on study dramati call y refocuses atten­ ti on away from info rmati on towards activity. In thi s vi ew communicati on maintains community and always takes pl ace in the present, even if it should utili ze older materi als. In doing so, it recall s the status and the value of communication in an oral culture. As we more and more participate in what Ong terms "secondary orality" the chall enge of the ritual view holds greater promise.

Communication as Conversation

A final model of communicati on takes the face-to-face interaction of people as its starting point. As the semi oti c model qualified the transporta­ ti on model, thi s conversati on model specifies and clarifies the ri tual ap­ proach to communication. Because it specifies things and because it li es closer to our day-to-day experience, most peopl e find this model more ac­ cessible. Conversati on consists of ritual behav ior: the turn-taking that em­ bodies a back-and-forth movement in which communicators create, sustai n, and inhabit a world. It is a pl ace of presence, of mutual disclosure, of inter­ acti on, and of a "fu sion of hori zons" (Gadamer, 1975/1 960). We can repre­ sent the process itself as a circle through which the conversati onal partners Communication Models, Translation, and Fideli 229

Figure 4: A conversational model of communication. interact, the communicatio n ta king pl ace not at any one mo ment, but throughout th e ongoing conversati on. (See Figure 4.) From thi s perspecti ve the translator becomes a conversati onal parti ci­ pant. Instead of the conversati on occurring between two parti es, th ree act to­ geth er. Ideally the translator's ro le appears transparent, but the translator does mediate the source's part of the conversati on. Textu al translati on (in ­ cluding biblical translati on) poses an unusual situati on for thi s model in that the translator medi ates onl y one half th e conversati on. The situation also hi ghli ghts the questi on of a "conversati on" with a text, though Gadamer and others have explicated th at somewhat analogous use of the term. In terms of th e Bible, possibl e acti vities descriptive of such conversati on include Bible study, preaching, prayer, and medi tati on. Fi delity becomes an attribute of the conversati on, of the act of ex­ change. Because, to use Gadamer's term, a fu sion of hori zons takes place, conversati ona l partne rs must represent themselves honestl y. Neither the (tra nslati onal) source nor the "receiver" can claim absolute power over the interacti on; nor can either disregard the other. Much of the work in reader­ response criticism bears this truth out (Tompkins, 1980). In multimedia translati on th e role of the translator takes on greater sig­ nificance than th at of the inter-lingui sti c translator. The multimedia group's ro le is larger and medi ates di fferent aspects of the Bible. The conversation more explicitl y includes the translator; in other words, the very act of trans­ lation becomes opaque. One test of fid elity results from the extent of engagement in th e inter­ action. If the "receivers" interact in such a way as to recreate the biblical re­ sul t (faith in the ri sen Lord , fo r example), th en the trans lati on manifests a degree of fidelity. Anoth er measure of fid elity ari ses from the community and its fo rmati on around the Bible. Much like with the case of the ritual model, the measure of fide lity is the measure of "audience" acceptance. If 230 Paul A. Souku people judge that the translation i s a good one-if they accept it-then it is a good t ranslation. Different Christian denominations will have their own mechani sms fo r such judgments- along a continuum from fo rmal offices of doctrine to indi vidual local church assemblies. Like the other models, this one a lso identifies some challenges to mul­ timedi a translation. First, how can the multimedi a material m ove the users, the participants towards conversation, to a heightened level of interacti vi ty? Given the nature of the medium, multimedia users mi ght be reduced to the role of a s pectator or a passive receiver. This result, which can, of course, occur with written materials as well, may be mitigated by certain kinds of interactive designs. Second, as multimedia translators include s upporting materi a ls, they face the temptation of allowing the receptor t o lose sight of the priority of the biblical materials. Since th e conversation includes the translator, the danger of confusin g sources remain s a possibility. (Thi s was a criti cism of the pre-Reformation Church where the c lergy fun cti oned as medi ators of the Word.) Third, a ny conversation must bal ance the interaction among the part­ ners. How will a multimedia translation accomplish this? Should there be some kind of training in the use of multimedia translations beyond what mi ght occur for Bible study? The conversational approach h eightens our appreciation of the inter­ acti ve quality of communication and pl aces the translator within that inter­ action. The measure of translati on becomes a bit less certain since it is judged b y community acceptance and use, by the quality of the interaction, or by personal conversation . This perspecti ve clearl y differs from the oth­ ers in that communication scholars tend to focus on descriptive rather than prescriptive approaches.

Concluding Thoughts

Communication study provides a framework in whi ch we can ap­ proach th e question of fidelity; further, it helps to identify some of the key issues in vo lved, though it may not in itself resolve them. Many of the chal­ lenges I h ave li sted here point up those issues and, despite my attaching them t o o ne or other perspecti ve, describe problems that cut across all the approaches. Each perspective on communicati on suggests a perspective o n the Bi­ ble. The transportation or transmission model regards the Bible as valued in ­ formation that must be deli vered from one location to another. The semi oti c model also regards the Bible as information, but as encoded information that exists in relation to other codes. Here we become aware of the Bible as part of a larger structure of relations. The ritual model sees the Bible as a con­ tainer of shared b eliefs, as an opportunity for sharing beli ef, and as a means Communication Models, Translation, and Fide!i 231 of maintaining the beli evin g community. The Bible does not exist apart from the community and any use of the Bible presumes the role of the com­ munity. Finall y, the conversati on model situates the Bible as a partner of th e believer or community. It takes life onl y in the interacti on; the Bible mani ­ fests the power of the Spirit who acts upon the beli ever. The various perspecti ves also raise questi ons about translation and the ro le of the translator. Certainly, the transportation and th e semi otic models treat multimedi a or on the analogy of language. But, can we regard visual communication as a language? Is there a language of fi lm ? A language of television? Or a language of radi o? Treating them as semiotic systems all ows for a level of similarity in analysis, but does it suf­ fice for a precise kind of translati on? Is it enough fo r the translator to seek a semiotic equi va lence? Fina ll y, what does a multimedi a or "trans-media" translator do in terms of fidelity? Does the questi on of fidelity occur in compari son with an original or in terms of the use of the Bible? In other words, should we pl ace the problem of fi delity at the beginning of the process or at th e end? The former becomes an issue of preparati on and the development of some norms or procedures. The latter suggests assessment, the development of some method to measure reception. After considerin g the communication models, it seems to me that the questi on of fidelity ul ti mately becomes one of accep­ tance by the beli evin g community: an assessment issue. But to work to­ wards th is, we have to do an analysis of the procedures at th e front end. Multimedi a translati on focuses our attenti on not onl y on the questi on of fidelity but on the nature of the Bible itself. Does what translators do change the natu re of the translated text? Hi stori cal studies show that the use of the Bible has changed over the centuries, as has the nature of the Bi­ bl e-the manu script Bible functi oned differentl y from the oral tradition. The advent of the Gutenberg Bible (or, more generall y, the printed Bible) simi­ larly changed how people regarded the Bible and how peopl e used the Bi­ ble. But these changes do not affect the Bible onl y; they are part of a larger sweep of cultural change marked out in communicati on pattern s. Multime­ dia work has identi fied another ph ase change and can tell us much about the Bibl e and the Church in our own day, as well as about fide li ty.