CRITERIOS PARA LA CONSERVACIÓN DE FRUTAS

a. Kashima’s Model

To investigate the issue more precisely, the following diagrams are used. In Fig. 1-1, the SL has a concept ‘A.’ In other words, Elohim, Theos, Deus or God is a concept with monotheistic characteristics. The RL has another notion ‘B.’ In other words, kami (カミ) is a concept with polytheistic characteristics.

37

I assume that the difficulty of finding a suitable Japanese term which is equivalent to Elohim, Theos, Deus or God in the Bible using DE translation method lies in the presupposition of DE method that there must be an RL notion equivalent to the SL notion. This presumption needs to be investigated in the future.

According to the DE presumption, ‘A’ should have had the same or equivalent characteristics to those of ‘B’. However, the reality is that the characteristics of God and kami (カミ) cannot be totally equivalent, as Kashima (1997;32) showed as in Fig 1-2.

Kashima states that both terms God and kami (カミ) have common attributes. That is, these terms represent invisible existences that relate to people through invisible powers, and therefore are to be worshipped. According to these common attributes, the translators choose the term kami (神) for the

Fig.2-1 Kashima's Model 1

translation of ‘God’. The term kami (神), however, did not express to the recipients connotations like Creator, Only One Existence, Almightiness, eternity, and spiritual unlimitedness. Therefore, there was a risk that the term kami (神) may be interpreted by the recipients to be equal to the term kami (カ ミ) which includes concepts like local existence, spirits of the dead or animals, and mystery in nature. These are the problems DE method holds.

Was the adoption of the term kami (神) therefore a wrong decision? It is not such an easy question to answer.

b. Penetration Model

A translated term can effect a change to the concept of the recipient language (RL). When a source language (SL) is translated to RL, in some cases the notion belonging to SL will start to penetrate into RL, resulting in eroding RL’s properties as seen in Fig 1-3.

Although this view requires further research before it can be validated, Doi (2003; 30-33) argues that by adopting the term kami (神) as a translation of God, connotations of the term God seem to have affected the traditional notion of kami (カミ); more specifically, God’s monotheistic aspect seems to

have been penetrating and taking over kami’s polytheistic aspect.38 The notion of SL paralyzes the notion of RL as seen in Fig 1-4.

In 1854, Japan opened the nation from national seclusion and started contact with Western culture. Many new Western ideas were imported. To define the concepts, translations were made and new words were created.

Nae in her study of translation in Meiji Restoration states:

The Meiji Restoration created the intellectual background against which by means of translations Japan became acquainted with new concepts such as society, individual, freedom, rights, God, nature, beauty, etc. When I say “new” I intended to say that, although the Japanese people were familiar with these notions, their way of seeing them was different from the Western image.39

She continues:

38

S. Ono, 2002. Nihon no Kami, p.190; H. Cieslik, 1999. Kirisitan no Kokoro, p.152; T. Yamaori ed., 1995. Nihon no Kami 2 – Kami no Henyō_{, p.164-168; N.} Suzuki, 2001. Nihon Kirisutokyōshi Monogatari, Kyōbunkan, Tokyo, p.121.

39

N. Nae, 1999. Concept Translation in Meiji Japan. Translation Journal, volume 3, No.3. [Online]. Available: http://accurapid.com/journal/09xcult.htm [May17, 2005]

(‘tree’ and ki) are often regarded as equivalent, due to their shared features. …… However, the case of such abstract nouns as “liberty” jiyuu [sic], “common sense” joushiki [sic], or “god” kami is much more complicated, because their referents cannot be perceived with one’s senses, and do not evoke any image in themselves.

Then, she concludes that:

The translators were confronted with the absence of not only translation equivalents for these concepts, but what is more, they discovered that the Japanese language actually lacks the reality behind these words.

The translators tried to translate new Western concepts but could not find proper terms in Japanese. So they created new Japanese terms but it was not easy for the common readers to accept them because they could not find realities behind these words. Butonce the term or word became familiar to the people, the term began to change people’s thoughts and created new notions in the recipient culture. The term kami (神) seems to have had this effect.

c. Syncretism Model

The intercultural translation may also cause syncretism as characterized in Fig 1-5. In the figure, SLA or the notion of monotheistic God has been taken over by RLB, that is, the notion of polytheistic kami (カミ).

The possibility of syncretism of God with Japanese kami (カミ) was always a concern to Japanese Christians. Strict clarification was sought between what the Bible describes and what it does not, which inclined translators to prefer the Formal Equivalence (FE) method.

6. Chapter Conclusion

In this chapter, we have observed the phenomena generated alongside intercultural translation, referring to “FE and DE methods” and “Penetration and Syncretism models”. The FE method is considered effective for the accuracy of the translation, and DE method is considered effective for plain and accessible translation for non-educated readers.

In Japanese Bible translation, Shinkaiyaku Seisho adopted FE method and Shinkyōdōyaku Seisho inherited Shinyakuseisho Kyōdōyaku’s DE method. If the identical notion of SL does not exist in RL, the translated term becomes unstable, and thus, various terms occur. Regarding the term ‘God’, Suzuki (1977; 301) states that the best possible translation is tianzhu (天主), but in

actual translation, the term kami (神) was adopted. By this adoption, the notion of God penetrated into Japanese culture but with ambiguous boundaries due to the traditional connotations of the term kami (カミ) and the risk of syncretism between God and kami (カミ). However, during 130 years of usage of the term kami (神), the monotheistic notion of the term does seem to have made considerable advances. Further research is necessary to prove this theory.

The debate on Bible translation methods therefore consists of these issues of syncretism and penetration. If the translator goes beyond the border of the original notion of God, hoping for penetration into the recipient society, he may face the risk of syncretism. Thus Christianity may be compromised. And if the translator stays totally within the original notion of God, he may be able to maintain the ‘purity’ of the notion of God, but it cannot be accepted by the recipients as their own term and God will remain understood as a Western god. Thus, the penetration of Christianity will be very limited and it will remain in the position of a Western religion, even though it may contain universal truth that can be applied in most cultures.

CHAPTER III