I admit that I was really dubious when I saw the book itself. Amazon did not have their preview
page up for this book and when I received it, it looked like a textbook for some college class that the
professor wrote the book in the 1960s and has been teaching the same course ever since. However, this
book was written first in 1984, and while it has a somewhat ‘typewriter’ feel to it, after a review of it, I
find it clear why this text by Nida is still regarded so highly in the field. The book itself is only 138 pages
long, and has some unusual structures inherent to it, but it is masterful study of the areas of
metalinguistics and of the signs, sense, and translation that the book is named after. This book, while in
our class under the area of translation theory, is really more of a study of the underlying structures of
languages and how those can be interpreted and related between other languages.
In the first chapter, Nida begins to build the foundation on which languages exist in
commonality. By giving these structures, Nida is able to elaborate on the way people communicate
versus the content which people communicate. He continues to draw in the circumstances of the
communication, which leads him to coding. Coding was most helpful when he drew distinctions
between universally held expressions (of which he says there are very few) and culturally-specific signs.
The highlight point of this chapter is the understanding that meanings of these codes are only possible
through contrast. Just as a red light would not be helpful without the corresponding understanding of
what is a green light, closed coding cannot be effective without a full grasp of the closed system in which
it exists. However, Nida postulates that the language inherent to humans is an open system: which
means that it is open to ambiguity, misunderstanding, obscurity, and most importantly, change!
Languages can change over time by natural evolution or by changed circumstances but are limited by
the idea of semotaxis. Semotaxis is the normal meaningful combination of words. This allows for the
grasping of the open nature of language but limits the construction of the language based on references
that have corresponding referents to the real world. Nida explains three different types of signs as
icons, indices, and symbols being key to these limits being understood. Icons depict something (like the
gesture of drinking for drinking or calling a person who lies and swindles and tattles a rat). Indices are
communicative through association, that is, a fever can be considered an index of a cold or influenza.
The symbol has no real relation to the idea associated with it and must be learned. Hence, the symbol is
the most difficult to share in a language because you must use words (most, Nida says, which are
essentially symbols as well) to explain the symbol. Such a symbol would be the shaking or nodding of
the head, which in the Western World mean no and yes, whereas in South American cultures they can
mean expressly the opposite, yes and no. Nida finishes by explaining that one idea or word is not only in
one category or another, he actually uses a crucifix as an example of one that is all three. By using these
methods, communication functions in four ways, expressive, cognitive, egocentric and informative.
Also, these ways combine into different types of discourse; narration, description, argument, dialogue,
and lists. Finally, Nida lists the levels of discourse in the functions based on formality, that is the manner
in which the language is communicated. In describing the ‘dress’ of a language there is ritual, formal,
informal, casual, and intimate. Each is related, Nida claims, in the environment in which the language is
shared, such as robes or tuxedos at the ritual/formal levels or barefoot and bathrobe at the intimate
level.
Chapter two is really all about context, context, context. By examining words and their
meanings, Nida is able to being his case against literal translation. Regarding theological studies, Nida
warns of the tendency to read into the meaning of a single lexical unit…it’s diverse contexts…where
every conceivable nuance of meaning is applied to any and all contexts, regardless of their apparent
relevance. This can introduce ambiguity, obscurity or simply be a play on words. Only by determining
features of meaning can we hope to clear this up. In his attempt to clear this area up, Nida goes back to
contrasting concepts, indeed he takes 6 pages to describe the linguistic differences inherent to the
words run, walk, hop, skip, dance, and crawl. At this point, Nida converges on metalinguistics, the way
in which we determine the meanings of different linguistic symbols (completely different than chapter
1’s use of symbol). We achieve these meanings by a combination of inductive, deductive and abductive
reasoning, which Nida takes another 5 pages further explaining the way to achieve the meanings of the
word run. One positive in the explanation of how the word run came to be associated with these
meanings is the idea that the lexical unit has a shared meaning within a larger context. Words can occur
in a cluster (such as the run, walk, hop, skip, dance and crawl), a hierarchy (poodles are dogs and dogs
are animals), or overlapping (liking and loving). Nida warns vehemently of the overlapping because of
the distinctions within languages, cultures and the lack of appropriate indices which will relate the
concept adequately. The relating of these concepts relies on basic semantic classes, objects, events and
related states, and abstracts. These in some ways are related to grammatical ideas of nouns,
conjunctions, etc, but are more rooted in a global understanding of language (not all cases mean the
same in all languages). Indeed, Nida points out that there are some linguistic systems that have one
word with many meanings (run) or one concept with many words to describe it (Anuak language of the
Sudan and the concept of cattle). All of these concepts are then divided on the base of combinatory
meanings and the relations that the parts play with each other. Using his first real greek phrasing on
page 81, he finally approaches the point where he is ready to delve into translation.
Translation is the finale to the lengthy and intellectualized buildup that he has given in the first
90 pages. This chapter centers on translation versus paraphrasing. In order to decide the preference to
a more literal translation rather than trying to ‘capture the idea’ of what the language is originally
saying, Nida uses restructuring of a language as a problem. This can involve simply identifying the words
and how they are used in the material, but by just reconstructing the language based on the cases,
voices, etc. we lose the underlying meanings. To recapture the meaning we should analyze the text.
Nida bites the bullet in the analysis by saying that ideally one should use the entire text as the unit to
analyze, but that would require a complete comparison to all the similar uses of the word (and likewise
the ideas) in the whole text (for us meaning the Bible). By using analysis, Nida states that translation can
move in the direction of the underlying semantic structure in an attempt to relate that in the new
language. A problem with that is that the receptor language may have different categories than those in
the source language. Even if they have the same category, they might treat the related categories in
different ways. The problem is compounded further when viewing religious texts because of the
religious terminology. Primary religious vocabulary is the vocabulary inherent to the historical base of
the primary religious experience, whereas the secondary vocabulary is the type which grows out of the
institutional development of the religion. One of the most dangerous aspects of this vocabulary is what
he calls ‘zero words’, which are borrowed words which have no meaning in the receptor language.
Examples of this are the translations of hoc est enim corpus meum to hocus pocus dominocus, which
goes back to the original religious vocabulary and attempts to ‘secondarize’ it. That is, like the
secondary vocabulary which changes with growth, the same is applied to a primary vocabulary. The
vocabulary is changed from a less ‘acceptable’ to a more ‘acceptable’ model. This is combined into a
reconstruction, which must proceed from the intended audience to the text. One of the most deadly
problems in the translation is the mistake of assuming the opposite direction: it is proper to assume
what is stylistically effective in one language would presumably have something of the same function in
another language. This plays out in many of the translations of the Bible that we have in English now,
according to Nida. In one of his most interesting points, he asks the translators to undergo the ‘cloze
technique’ before accepting a translation as is. That means dropping out every fifth word of a text
(larger than 250 words) and having them fill in the missing words after completing the text. That is a
radical idea, but I think it is just amazing.
This book is horrendously dense for being no longer than Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea.
However, without the use of flowery language, Nida is able to summarize whole concepts of
metalinguistics and underlying semantic structures in just a couple of sentences. While it is in no means
a ‘fun time read’, this book is phenomenal in giving a glimpse into the depth of which one must examine
languages to have a grasp not only on the fundamental ideas and structures, but how and if you can
relate the language appropriately to another language. It may seem at the beginning of the book that
Eugene is down on all the translators out there because they have yet to look at the full scope of the
basic linguistic components that are more coherent to the whole concept of language. However, he
retracts some of the initial disagreement by saying that while they may not have identified the parts as
he has done, much work has been done in the identification of these types of structures, meanings, and
paradigms in specific languages themselves (but it seems like he still feels they are not on a basic
enough level to be incorporated through any linguistic system). Nida seems to be very conscious of the
gravity with which translation is done. Many times he points out specific types of problems in certain
systems that by themselves can fold in on the attempted translation and not only cause it to be a poor
misrepresentation of the original text and source language, but can give exactly the opposite! For
instance, it is possible the cultures where shaking of the head is a good thing to have a related cluster of
meanings, and without proper recognition of those changes, the ‘shaking of the heavens’ or ‘shaking in
terror’ could become positive experiences and something to be strived for. Mere linguistic translation
does not capture the whole capacitance of a text, nor does mere paraphrasing of a text to capture the
underlying meanings effectively encapsulate the correct translation of a text. It is both of these
concepts working in a meaningful way that makes a receptor language able to fully understand the text
as it appears in the source language. This book is a wonderful step in opening up this field and helping
us learn to be more aware of these systems and to appreciate the capacity for language as something to
be respected and well-treated.
Overall grade of Signs, Sense, and Translation: A-