Introduction to
semantics and
translation
by
Global Bible Translators
Katharine Barnwell
Summer Institute of Linguistics
본 교재는 고신대학교 ‘성경번역학’ 강의를 위해 저자의 허락을 얻어 제작된 축약본 입니다
GBT/SIL 조광주
1980 Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This course is based on the theory and principles of Bible translation presented by Beekman and Callow,
in Translating the Word of God and Nida and Taber, in The Theory and Practice of Translation.
It also incorporates insights from Beekman and Callow, The Semantic Structure of Written
Communication (pre-publication edition).
These and other sources are gratefully acknowledged at the relevant places in the text.
Many of the examples are drawn from experience of Bible translation projects in Nigeria. Staff and
students at the British SIL over the past few years, as well as other colleagues, have also contributed
examples in various languages, and these, too, are acknowledged in the text, as far as possible, with much
appreciation to all who have shared their ideas and experience.
I am especially grateful to John Callow and Pam Bender-Samuel for their helpful comments and
suggestions on the text, and to Liz Crozier, Yvonne Stofberg and David Spratt for helping to proofread
the final manuscript.
Katharine G.L. Barnwell
Horsleys Green, 1980
NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations are used to refer to Bible versions:
GNB - Good News Bible – quotations are from the 1976 British usage edition
JB - Jerusalem Bible
JBP - J.B. Phillips' version
KJV - King James Version (Authorized version)
NEB - New English Bible
NIV - New International Version
RSV - Revised Standard Version
원저자에 대하여
Katy Barnwell has served with SIL since 1963 in Nigeria and Africa Area, and from 1989 to 1999 in the
International Translation Department at Dallas. In Nigeria she was seconded to the Nigeria Bible
Translation Trust and was extensively involved in training Nigerian translators and consultants. She
received her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the School of African and Oriental Studies and University College,
London, in 1969.
차 례
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. 2
NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 2
원저자에 대하여 ............................................................................................................. 2
차 례 ............................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS LANGUAGE? ......................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: MEANING AND FORM .......................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 3: MEANING IN CONTEXT AND ‘CONCORDANCE’ ......................... 10
CHAPTER 5: COMPONENTS OF MEANING ............................................................ 14
CHAPTER 6: OTHER LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS ................................................. 17
CHAPTER 9: TRANSFERRING LEXICAL MEANING FROM ONE LANGUAGE
TO ANOTHER ............................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 10: RHETORICAL QUESTIONS .............................................................. 29
CHAPTER 11: FIGURES OF SPEECH: METAPHOR AND SIMILE ........................ 33
CHAPTER 12: OTHER FIGURES OF SPEECH .......................................................... 36
CHAPTER 14: THE CONCEPT .................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 24: BIBLE TRANSLATION PROCEDURES ........................................... 43
2
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS LANGUAGE?
1.1 THE FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE
What is the purpose of language? What do we use language for?
- to give information
- to obtain information
e.g., by asking questions
- to stimulate actions
e.g., by giving commands
or by making suggestions,
or just by saying something
which arouses a response
- to express feelings or emotions
e.g., by exclamations
or by poetry
- to establish a relationship with other people, or to
indicate and attitude
e.g., greetings, such as ‘hello’
In summary, the function of language is to communicate MEANING of various kinds. Words
are powerful tools for giving information and for stimulating reactions in other people
1.2 THE FORM OF LANGUAGE
There are, of course, other ways of communicating meaning:
e.g.,
traffic lights
international traffic signs
factory whistle (indicating the time to start or stop work)
gestures or mime
the dancing of bees which indicates where honey can be found
How is language different from these other systems of communication?
i. The use of VOCAL SOUNDS, i.e., sounds made with the mouth and other speech organs.
(Or of WRITING, which is another way of representing verbal sounds).
ii. The COMPLEXITY of the system—Language involves more than isolated signals, each with its
own fixed meaning. It involves a complex, interacting combination of signals which can be used in a wide
variety of situations. This makes possible the expression of fine distinctions of meaning, and also
discussion and explanation.
iii. Language is CREATIVE—Language is a system which allows for the expression of new ideas; it
is possible to say something which has never been said before, and to be understood. The system itself is
constantly developing and expanding. Thus, language may be described as an ‘open-ended’ system.
1.3 THE RELATION BETWEEN THE MEANING AND THE FORM OF LANGUAGE
Language therefore, is communication which involves:
A. MEANING
a message which is being
communicated
B. VOCAL SOUNDS
the sounds by which that message is
communicated
But sounds alone do not communicate. A language which is unknown to the hearer sounds to him like
a meaningless jumble of noise. The hearer cannot understand the meaning of those sounds unless he is
also familiar with the complex system by which, in that language, the sounds are linked with particular
meanings. Each language has its own distinctive systems for linking sounds with meanings. These
include:
3
a. Vocabulary — Each language has a large number of words, each of which conveys a meaning which
has been (unconsciously) agreed and accepted by speakers of that language. The meaning of each
word will, of course, vary according to the context in which it is used and the other words with which
it occurs. This inventory of words is sometimes referred to as the LEXICON or LEXICAL
INVENTORY of the language.
b. Grammar — Each language also has an accepted set of patterns for making meaningful utterances;
signals such as a certain word order, a particular intonation, or the presence of a “grammatical” word
(such as a preposition or conjunction) all convey particular meanings.
c. Phonology — Each language has a fixed number of phonetic sounds (e.g., a certain number of
vowels and a certain number of consonants). These sounds group together in regular and consistent
patterns to form the phonological units of that language. It is these phonological units which actually
give substance to (or “realise”) the lexicon and grammar of a language.
Thus, the relationship between the meaning and the form of language can, in a simplified way,
be diagrammed as follows:
Meaning
communicated by
LEXICON
GRAMMAR
Sounds
realised by
"FORM"
Thus, language can be viewed, from one perspective, as a complex of interrelated ‘levels’:
lexicon, grammar, and phonology.
1.4 MEANING IS UNIVERSAL, FORM IS DIFFERENT FOR EACH LANGUAGE
With very limited exceptions, it is possible to express the same meaning in any language. But the
particular form by which that meaning is expressed will be different in different languages.
Thus the diagram on the previous page can be summarised:
MEANING
(universal)
expressed by
FORM
(the unique patterns of a specific language)
4
CHAPTER 2: MEANING AND FORM
2.1 EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANING AND FORM IN A LANGUAGE
2.1.1 ONE MEANING MAY BE EXPRESSED BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORMS
Even within one langua ge, it may be possible to express one meaning by several different forms; that is,
by using different grammatical patterns and/or different words.
e.g., (a) “Is this place taken?”
“Is there anyone sitting here?”
“May I sit here?”
2.1.2 ONE FORM MAY EXPRESS SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEANINGS
The meaning of a given form in a language is no t always the same. It may vary according to the context
in which it occurs, depending either on the situation in which the utterance is spoken, or on the linguistic
context, i.e., the other linguistic items with which it co-occurs.
e.g.,
(a)
He put the things on the table.
a mathematical table
a bus timetable
to table a motion
(b)
my car — i.e., the car which belongs to me (possession)
my brother — i.e., the brother to whom I am related (kinship)
my foot — i.e., the foot which is part of my body (part-whole)
my singing — i.e., (what/how) I sing (actor-activity)
my book — i.e., the book which belongs to me (possession)
or the book which I wrote (author creator)
or the book I am talking about now, as in “my book for review:
(item reference)
my village — i.e., the village I come from
my train — i.e., the train I plan to travel on
my route — i.e., the route I intend to follow
my word! — i.e., exclamation of surprise
Thus, WITHIN ONE LANGUAGE
ONE MEANING MAY BE EXPRESSED BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORMS
meaning
ONE FORM MAY EXPRESS SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEANINGS
form
2.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION
The starting point of translation is a message. This message is expressed in a specific language, which is
called the SOURCE LANGUAGE (SL).
In translating, we are aiming to re-express that message in another language. The language into which the
translation is being made is called the RECEPTOR LANGUAGE (RL).
We have already seen that the FORM of each language is unique. Therefore translation will involve some
5
change of form. This does not matter provided that the MEANING of the message is retained unchanged.
Translation, therefore, involves TWO stages:
Stage 1: Analysing the meaning of the source message. In the Biblical context, this is referred to as
EXEGESIS.
Stage 2: Re-expressing the meaning as exactly as possible in the natural form in the receptor
language. This step is sometimes referred to as RESTRUCTURING.
Thus the translation process can be diagrammed as follows:
SOURCE MESSAGE
TRANSLATED MESSAGE
FORM
in the
SOURCE LANGUAGE
FORM
in the
RECEPTOR LANGUAGE
Discovering the
meaning (exegesis)
Restructuring
the meaning
MEANING
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
2.4.1 MEANING HAS PRIORITY OVER FORM
Sometimes translators try to transfer a message without changing the form. The result is often either a
translation which is impossible or difficult to understand, or one which even expresses wrong meaning.
For example, the expression “sons of the bridechamber” in Mark 2:19 (quoted below in section 2.5,
example (1)), was translated word-for-word into one language, and was understood by the hearers to
mean “the children which the bride had borne before her marriage,” a token of her fertility—an
interpretation which accorded with custom in that area.
In another language, the RSV rendering of Luke 2:5 “Mary was with child” was translated word-forword, “Mary kept all these things in her heart,” until it was realised that in Kilba ‘to keep in one’s heart’
is an idiom meaning ‘to bear a grudge’. So the verse had to be re-translated, “Mary kept on thinking about
these things.”
Other examples:
Gird up the loins of your mind KJV 1 Peter 1:13
Put a belt round the waist of your thoughts (early Igbo version)
Put on bowels of mercies KJV Colossians 3:12
(compare J.B. Phillips’ version: Be merciful in action)
In these instances, keeping the FORM of the source message resulted in wrong or obscure meaning being
transferred. If the message is to be communicated correctly, MEANING MUST HAVE PRIORITY
OVER FORM.
6
2.4.2 FORM IS IMPORTANT TOO
This does not mean that form is unimportant. Within each language, it is the form which indicates the
meaning. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to study the form of both the source language message
and the receptor language with the greatest attention to detail.
The smallest differences of form may signal important shades of meaning. If the translation is to be
accurate and faithful, the translator must be aware of these distinctions and must seek to re-express those
shades of meaning exactly in the translation, using the appropriate forms to do this in the receptor
language.
For this reason, the exegesis step of translation is extremely important. A major part of the work of the
Bible translator is careful research into the exact meaning of the source message. It is strongly desirable
that the translator should have a good knowledge of Biblical languages so that he can refer back to the
original form of the message.
2.4.3 QUALITIES OF A GOOD TRANSLATION
The three most important qualities of a good translation are:
1. ACCURACY -- correct exegesis of the source message, and transfer of the
meaning of that message as exactly as possible in the receptor language.
2. CLARITY -- there may be several different ways of expressing an idea—choose the way
which communicates most clearly; the way which ordinary people will understand.
3. NATURALNESS -- it is important to use the natural form of the receptor language, if the translation
is to be effective and acceptable. A translation should not sound foreign.
The translator is constantly struggling to achieve the ideal in all these three areas—no easy task. When it
seems impossible to reconcile all three, then ACCURACY must have priority.
2.6 KINDS OF TRANSLATION
A “word-for-word” translation, which follows closely the FORM of the source message, is called a
LITERAL translation. Examples of completely literal translations would be the interlinear translations of
Mark 2:19–20 and of Genesis 49:10 given in section 2.5 above..
A MODIFIED LITERAL translation follows the form of the source message as closely as possible,
generally making only those adjustments which are necessary to avoid forms which would be
ungrammatical in the receptor language. This kind of translation is illustrated by the King James Version
and the Revised Standard Version in the examples in section 2.5. Notice that a modified literal translation
usually:
- follows the word order of the source text as closely as possible
- keeps the same parts of speech wherever possible, translating a noun by a noun, and a verb by a verb
- translates idioms in the source text word-for-word (e.g., KJV, children of the bridechamber in Mark
2:19)
- retains discourse features, such as sentence connections or use of pronouns, exactly as in the source
text.
By contrast, a translation which aims to express the MEANING of the source text in the natural form of
the receptor language is referred to by Beekman and Callow as an IDIOMATIC translation. An
idiomatic translation gives priority to the communication of the meaning of the source text.
Nida and Taber use the term DYNAMIC to describe a translation which focuses on meaning. They
emphasize that a translation should not only communicate exactly the information given in the original
message, but should also arouse the same emotional response in the hearers. The Good News Bible is an
example of an idiomatic or dynamic translation.
Thus there is a continuum ranging from extreme literal translation, through modified literal to idiomatic
or dynamic translation. The various English versions could be placed along this continuum at different
7
points. The criterion is how closely does the version follow the form of the original text. A modified
literal translation reproduces the grammatical or lexical form of the source text as closely as possible. The
priority of an idiomatic translation is to communicate the message of the source text as clearly and
naturally as possible; in order to achieve this purpose it is sometimes necessary to use a different
grammatical or lexical form in the receptor language.
There is another continuum along which versions could be measured. This is the scale of accuracy—how
accurately does the translation express the meaning of the source text?
These two dimensions can be charted as follows:.
CLOSENESS TO THE FORM OF THE SOURCE TEXT
LITERAL
MODIFIED
LITERAL
IDIOMATIC/
DYNAMIC
MAXIMUM
ACCURACY
CLOSENESS
TO THE
MEANING
OF THE
SOURCE TEXT
MIMIMUM
ACCURACY
DISCUSSION Consider the various versions of the Bible with which you are familiar.
Where on the above chart do you feel that each version would fit?
When contemplating translation into a new language, it is necessary to consider several questions before
deciding what kind of a translation should be made:
For whom is the translation intended? Is it for “ordinary,” less educated people, or is it for the
educated élite?
For what purpose will the translation be used?
Are there already well-trained preachers and teachers in the area who will be able to explain
the Scriptures?
EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 2
(1) From your own experience of learning a foreign language, or from observation, give two examples of
instances where different forms are used in different languages to express equivalent meaning.
e.g., German:
Er macht den Kurs..
lit.,
He makes the course.
English:
He is taking the course.
Korean:
He is stepping the course. (편집자 추가)
(5) Below is the Greek text of Mark 2:5 with a literal, word-for-word translation in English. In any
language of your choice, give both a modified literal and an idiomatic translation of this text. You may
refer to any versions of the Bible, but please make your own translation; do not just quote another
version.
If you make your translation into a language other than English, then please also provide a word-forword back translation in English.
8
When you have completed the translation, write a brief note identifying three specific points where your
idiomatic translation is more natural or clearer than your modified literal translation.
Mark 2.5
[막 2:5]


having seen the Jesusthe
faith
of-them, he-says



to-the paralyti,
“Child,
are-forgiven
of-you the sins.”

9
CHAPTER 3: MEANING IN CONTEXT AND ‘CONCORDANCE’
Chapters 3 to 9 cover the second module of this course. The focus of this part of the course is LEXICAL
MEANING, mainly the meanings of words.
In this study we shall be concerned primarily with vocabulary-words; that is, words which have some
kind
of referential meaning, which refer to things or events or attributes. Words of this kind are sometimes
called CONTENT words; they should be distinguished from relational words, e.g., prepositions, definite
and indefinite articles or conjunctions, whose function is to signal relationships.
3.1 ONE WORD—MANY SENSES
In any language, there are many words which have a number of different senses.
e.g., English “dressed”
1. He dressed himself quickly as it was cold.
2. The nurse dressed the wound as best she could.
3. He dressed the window in preparation for the January sales.
4. She dressed the chicken in readiness for the meal.
5. She dressed her favourite doll in a pink kimono.
6. The soldiers dressed ranks at the officer’s command.
7. She dressed the salad as usual.
8. They dressed the ship with flags in honor of the President’s visit.
Example from John Callow
3.2 THE CONTEXT OF A WORD INDICATES WHICH SENSE APPLIES
For any particular occurrence of a word, how can one know which sense of that word is intended? It
is the CONTEXT which provides the clue.
Sometimes the clue is in the grammatical context.
In sorting out the different senses of a word, the first step is usually to sort out the different grammatical
usages, and to study these separately. This does not mean that there is no meaning relationship between,
for example, the same word when it is used as a noun and as a verb, but the grammatical differentiation
provides a useful starting point for analysis.
eg.,
I don’t believe the world is round.
The book shop is round the corner.
He fired his last round.
Let’s sing a round.
Round off the figures to the nearest pound.
Adjective
Preposition
Noun
Noun
Verb
3.3 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SENSES
The PRIMARY sense of a word is usually the sense in which that word is most commonly used
in the language. It is the sense which native speakers of the language will think of when they
hear the word in isolation. It is therefore the sense which is least dependent on the context.
It is the primary sense which usually occurs as the first entry for a word in a dictionary.
The other senses are often referred to as SECONDARY senses. Secondary senses may be
considered to be derived from the primary sense.
e.g., The primary sense of ‘fork’ in English refers to a pronged instrument which is used for eating (or
digging). A ‘fork in the road’ would be a secondary sense.
‘Cook’ in English generally refers to the preparation of food. This is the primary
sense. But in certain limited contexts, ‘cook’ can have the secondary sense of adjusting
accounts, usually with some evil intention; e.g., ‘he cooked the books’.
10
3.4 CROSS-LANGUAGE MIS-MATCH
The senses which a word has in one language often do not match all the senses of the
equivalent word in another language. Even when the “primary” senses seem to match,
different words may be used to express the secondary senses.
e.g.,
(a) French ‘marcher’
1. Le bébé ne marche pas encore.
2. Le train est en marche.
3. Les affaires marchent.
4. Est-ce que ça marche?
5. La montre marche.
6. Je ne marche pas dans
cette affaire.
English ‘walk’
‘The baby isn’t walking yet
‘The train is moving’
‘Business is going well’
‘Is that working out?’
‘The watch is working’
‘I have nothing to do with
this matter’
3.5 REFERENCE
One aspect of the meaning of a word is its reference. Each sense of a content word refers to some thing,
or event, or attribute. The reference may be either to the class of things, or events, or attributes, which, in
that language, are included under that word (i.e., are potential
referents of that word), or it may be to a specific example of that item.
e.g.,
English
Mbembe (Nigeria)
red
orange
yellow
okora
green
blue
black
obina
English
Mbembe
animal
fish
corresponds
to
eten
meat
I saw an animal in the bush
He’s eating meat.
He caught a fish in the river
-
Nze eten z'egba.
Ochi eten.
Owa eten z'oraanga.
3.8 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION
In translation into another language, the word which gives the correct sense in each
separate context should be used. This means that it will not always be possible to translate the same
word in the source language by the same word in the receptor language.
e.g.,
‘spirit’ (The English word spirit roughly corresponds to the N.T. Greek word pneuma)
Matthew 8:16 He cast out the spirits with a word
11
Mark 3:30 He has an unclean spirit.
Acts 23:9 Maybe a spirit or an angel has spoken to him.
Acts 2:4 They speake as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Mark 1:12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.
Matthew 26:41 The Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Colossians 2:5 Though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit.
Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened and
supposed that they saw a spirit.
Philippians 1:27 You stand firm in one spirit, with one mind.
Notice that the Greek word pneuma has yet another sense: ‘wind’ as in John 3:8 “The wind blows where
it will.” Nearly all English translations use the word ‘wind’, not ‘spirit’, in order to translate this verse
meaningfully.
Example 2 Study the translation of the Greek word stoma in the following passages. The primary
sense of stoma of ‘mouth’.
Matthew 15:11 Greek: [마 15:11]


not the entering-thing
RSV
NIV
into
the mouth
does not (the)
man
not what goes into the mouth defiles a man
what goes into man’s mouth does not make him unclean.
Matthew 18:16 Greek: [마 18:16]


by
mouth (of)
RSV
GNB
two
witnesses
or three
by the evidence of two or three witnesses
by the testimony of two or more witnesses
Luke 21:15 Greek: [눅 21:15]


I
for
will-give you
KJV
NIV
JBP
mouth
and
wisdom
I will give you a mouth and wisdom
I will give you words and wisdom
I will give you such eloquence and wisdom
Hebrews 11:34 Greek: [히 11:34]

they-escaped mouths
KJV
NEB
of-sword
(they) escaped the edge of the sword
(they) escaped death by the sword
2 John verse 12 Greek: [요2 1:12]


to-come
to
you
and
mouth
to
mouth
12
to-speak
KJV
RSV
GNB
JBP
to come unto you, and speak face to face
to come to see you and talk with you face to face
to visit you and talk with you personally
to come and see you personally, and we will have a heart-to-heart talk together
13
CHAPTER 5: COMPONENTS OF MEANING
5.2 PRINCIPLES OF CONTRAST
Summary: It has been illustrated above that, in order for there to be definable contrast, there must
also be some grounds of comparison. There must be some feature(s) which the items compared share.
It is not very productive to compare, for example, the meaning of ‘mongoose’ with ‘sea’; it is more
illuminating to compare ‘mongoose’ with ‘rat’, ‘dog’, ‘racoon’, etc., with which it shares some
features of meaning.
So, for the purpose of this kind of contrastive study, words need to be grouped into ‘sets’, each set
having one or more shared features of meaning..
For example, the set of words man, woman, boy, girl, has the shared feature of meaning ‘human’. The
words themselves contrast with each other in respect of the features ‘adult’ in contrast to ‘young’, and
‘male’ in contrast to ‘female’. This can be diagrammed:
‘adult’
‘young’
‘male’
‘female’
man
boy
woman
girl
and may be alternatively represented:
man:
+human
boy:
+human
woman: +human
girl:
+human
+adult
-adult
+adult
-adult
+male
+male
-male
-male
or:
man
+
+
+
‘human’
‘male’
‘adult’
boy
+
+
-
woman
+
+
girl
+
-
or:
man
human
male
adult
boy
human
male
young
woman
human
female
adult
girl
human
female
young
5.3 COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS
Each word is thus viewed as a bundle of features of meaning called ‘components’ and the purpose of
this kind of analysis is to break down the meaning of a word into its underlying components. This
approach is therefore often referred to as componential analysis.
In comparing a set of words, there will be:
a. shared components (sometimes termed ‘generic components’), i.e., features of meaning which all the
words in the set have in common with each other.
e.g.,
for the set man, woman, boy, girl, a shared component of meaning is ‘human’.
14
The same features of meaning may become contrastive if the words are then compared with words
outside the set; e.g., if man is compared with stallion, ‘human’ then becomes a contrastive feature, in
opposition to ‘animal’.
b. contrastive components (sometimes referred to as ‘diagnostic’ or ‘specifying’ components), i.e., those
meaning components by which the meaning of a given word is distinguished from the meaning of other
words in the same set.
c. supplementary components (also termed ‘incidental components’)
There are two kinds of supplementary components:
One type of supplementary components are those meaning associations which are attached to the word
itself, rather than to the thing referred to by the word.
e.g,.
the words ‘policeman’ and ‘cop’ have the same referent,
i.e.,
they both refer to the same thing. But they reflect different attitudes on the part of the speaker,
and would be appropriate in different styles of speech.
See further the discussion of ‘associative meaning’ in Chapter 7.
Another type of supplementary components are those components which may be crucial and contrastive
in certain usages of the word, but not in all. Nida (1975a page 35) gives the example of ‘father’ in such
contexts as:
‘he was like a father to the boy’
where the associated qualities of ‘father’ as ‘one who takes care of his children’, ‘one who is a constant
companion’, become more central to the meaning that the usual contrastive components of the word, e.g.,
male sex, biological progenitor.
There will also be many other aspects of meaning which are associated with a given word, but which are
not necessarily part of its definition. These include all the typical facts about the referent which would
make up an encyclopaedic description, including every aspect of the function of that item within the
particular culture.
5:6 APPLICATION TO BIBLICAL KEY WORDS
The same technique for studying the meaning of a word can be applied to special terminology, such as
Biblical key words. A comparative study of words in a certain area of meaning in the source language can
help the translator to discover the precise meaning of each word and to recognize the significant
differences of meaning. Similarly, a comparative study of available words in a certain area of meaning in
the receptor language may help the translator to discover which term is closest in meaning to the concept
he wishes to translate.
e.g., Consider the words in the set which has the shared component of meaning ‘kinds of shelter used for
religious purposes’. In English, this set includes:
tabernacle, Temple, synagogue, church*
Shared component of meaning “kinds of shelter for religious purposes”
Contrastive components of meaning:
(a)
tabernacle
Temple
synagogue
church
place where
God is present
place where
God is pre-
place where
people meet
place where
people meet
15
and meets with
his people
sent and
meets with
his people
usually for
religious
activity
for religious
activity
(b)
temporary
movable
shelter
permanent
building
permanent
building
permanent
building
(c)
only one
only one
(in
Jerusalem)
many in
different
places
many in
different
places
(d)
used by
Jews
used by
Jews
used by
Jews
used by
Christians
(e)
people went
to make
sacrifices
people went
primarily
to make
sacrifices
people went
for reading
of the law,
teaching,
prayer (not sacrifices)
people go
for worship,
prayer
teaching (not
sacrifices)
EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 5
(1) In any language of your choice, apply steps 5 and 6 for the set of words which has the shared
component ‘object for sitting on’. Limit the number of words in the same class to not more than six.
e.g., English: chair, sofa, stool, bench, pouffe, throne
(2) In any language of your choice, apply steps 5 and 6 for the set of words which has the shared
component ‘kinds of footwear’
e.g., English: boot, shoe, slipper, sandal, galoshes, clog
16
CHAPTER 6: OTHER LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS
Part of the meaning of a word is its relationship to other words in the language. We have already
considered one such relationship between words, that of belonging to the same set through having some
shared component(s) of meaning. But there are also many other relationships which words may have to
each other within the lexical system of the language.
6.1 HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIPS
Sometimes the relationship between two words is such that all the meaning of one of the words is
included within the meaning of the other.
For example, if you compare the two words furniture and chair it will be recognized that the two have
some shared components of meaning. But if you try to draw up a list of the contrastive components, it
becomes clear that there is in fact no contrast between them; everything which is true of ‘furniture’ is also
true of ‘chair’. ‘Chair’, therefore, may be defined as a specific ‘kind of’ furniture.
This relationship is referred to as ‘hierarchical’ relationship. Palmer (1974) calls it ‘inclusion’, and Lyons
(1977) terms it ‘hyponymy’ (from the Greek hupo “under”). The more general term is described as
GENERIC, while the less general term is described as SPECIFIC.
Examples
generic
meat
garment
colour
to sew
to speak
specific
beef, mutton, veal, pork
dress, shirt, vest, coat
red, yellow, green, blue
to hem, to seam, to embroider, to tack
to shout, to whisper, to stutter
Note that the same word may be specific in relation to one word, and generic in relation to another set of
words:
furniture
chair, table, cupboard, bed
chair
arm-chair deck-chair, high-chair, recliner
furniture
‘things for sitting on’
‘things for sleeping on’
sofa
arm-chair
stool
bench
deck-chair
pouffe
specific
generic
chair
throne
high-chair
recliner
CRITERIA FOR CLASSSIFICATION
Notice that each language has its own hierarchical classification. In one language there may be ‘generic’
words for which there is no equivalent in another language.
e.g. Izi (Nigeria): nri approximately equivalent to English 'food', includes all staple foods,
such as yam and cassava, but excludes meant, drink and vegetables.
Mbembe (Nigeria): ewakpo literally “soup things,” includes everything which could
form ingredients for stew, including pepper, bush-mango, tomatoes, green-leaf. It therefore overlaps
with the meaning of the English word 'vegetable' but is by no means identical in its coverage.
17
CHAPTER 9: TRANSFERRING LEXICAL MEANING FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO
ANOTHER
9.1 WHERE THE CONCEPT IS KNOWN IN THE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE CULTURE
Even though the concept which the translator wishes to express is known in the receptor language
culture, this does not mean that it will necessarily be expressed in the same form as in the source
language.
Here are a few examples of some of the changes of form which may occur. All the examples given below
illustrate changes of form which have been necessary in specific languages when there is no form which
corresponds exactly to the form in the source language.
a)
SL
single word
e.g., parents
the heathen
to receive you
he is faithful
bring
fetch
village
kill
grace
RL
----------
phrase in which the meaning
components are separated out
father and mother
people who do not know God
to agree that you stay at his home (Mark6:11)
he will do what he has said (Hebrews 10:23)
take come
go take come
small town
cause to die
loving mercy
It is important to check the meaning of the word in the particular context in which it is being translated:
e.g.,
Acts 8:27
the queen of the Ethiopians --- the woman who ruled the people of Ethiopia
Esther 2:22
Queen Esther
-- Esther, the wife of the king
Mark 14:31
I will not deny you
-- I will not say that I do not know you
Sometimes it may be necessary to use a speech quotation form:
e.g.,
Hebrews 11:21
he blessed them
-- He said, “May God do good to you.”
Mark 14:70
he denied it
b)
SL phrase
(non-Biblical example)
dung of sheep, goats and deer
Hebrews 9:12
the blood of goats and bulls
c)
-- He said, “I am not the one.”
RL
single word
Mundani (Cameroun): asaa
Duka (Nigeria): tgt includes domestic
animals, such animals as would be sacrificed
both in Biblical culture and in Duka culture,
as opposed to nem which includes all wild animals.
SL two or more
synonyms having
the same referent
e.g., N.T. Greek/English
RL
18
only one form available
kakos/poneros
bad /evil
hamartia/adikia/anonima/paraptoma
sin/unrighteousness/lawlessness/trespass
d)
e)
SL
two antonymns available
e.g.,
good and bad
slave and free
Jew and Gentile
-- many languages have only one
word to cover this area of meaning
-- similarly, in some languages it may be
necessary to translate all these words
by the same form (depending, of course,
on the context)
----
RL
only one form available,
plus negative
good and not good
slave and not slave
Jew and non-Jew
SL
RL
only reciprocal available
Sometimes a form can most readily be translated using a reciprocal form in the RL:
e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:23
I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.
If there is no expression for ‘received’ in the RL, this might be rendered:
It was the Lord (himself) who taught/revealed to me that which I have now delivered to
you
Acts 16:9
A vision appeared to Paul in the night.
--- Paul saw a vision/revelation in the night
f) Transfers involving idiomatic forms or figures of speech
i.
ii.
SL
e.g.,
SL
e.g.,
idiomatic or figurative
Acts 7:51
stiff-necked
RL
direct, non-figurative form
--
stubborn
Isaiah 13:18
they will have no mercy
on the fruit of the womb
--
they will have no mercy
on children
Genesis 31:20
lit. Hebrew: he stole his
heart
--
he outwitted him
direct form
be sad
--
he married
hypocrite
---
Mark 5:43
he strictly charged them
--
Mbembe (Nigeria): lit., he pulled
their ears
Acts 18:6
I am not responsible
--
Igede (Nigeria): lit., my hand and
foot are not there
Luke 22:56
19
RL
idiomatic, figurative form
Hausa (West Africa): lit., have
a black heart
Kasem (Ghana): lit., he ate a woman
a man with two hearts
a man with two tongues
she looked straight at
him (GNB)
iii.
SL
e.g.
--
idiomatic, figurative
form
hardness of heart
--
Igede: lit. she bit him with
her eye
RL idiomatic, figurative
but with a different figure
Mbembe (and many West African
languages): lit., hardness of head
g) Transfer involving generic/specific mismatch
As we have seen, words in different languages have different areas of reference. It may sometimes
happen that there is no word in the receptor language at the same level of generality as a certain
source language word. Therefore it is sometimes necessary to use a word in the receptor language
which is either more generic or more specific in the source language.
The basic principle is always to use a word which gives the correct sense, equivalent to the sense
of the original word, in each particular context..
i.
SL
e.g.,
specific
Luke 11:3
Give us each day our
daily bread
RL
Acts 3:6
Silver and gold have
none
ii.
SL
e.g.,
generic
English ‘swim’
more generic
--
Many languages translate this
verse as …. our daily food
--
It may sometimes be appropriate
to translate this verse as: I have no money
RL
more specific
Tlingit (Alaska) has no general word
for ‘swim’ but instead has many more
specific words, depending on the kind of
swimming involved, the participants
involved, and their singularity or
plurality:
di-taach (sing.)
ka-doo-ya-taach (pl.)
ya-x'aak (sing.)
ka-doo-ya-x'aak (pl.)
(of human body)
(of large fish or sea mammal
swimming under water)
ya-heen
(of shoal of fish swimming under
water)
ya-hoo (sing.)
ya-kwaan (pl.)
(of animal or human swimming
on the surface
ji-di-hoo (sing.)
ji-dzi-kwaan (pl.)
(of animal or human swimming
on the surface aimlessly, in
circles)
si-hoo (sing.)
si-kwaan (pl.)
(of bird on the surface)
ya-dzi-aa (sing.)
ya-si-xoon (pl.)
(of bird or fish swimming under
water with head emerging)
20
dli-tsees (sing.)
ka-doo-ya-tsees (pl.)
of something swimming fast and
powerfully, especially sea
mammal)
ya-ya-goo (sing.)
ya-si-goo (pl.)
(of porpoises swimming as a
school)
data from Con Naish
Further e.g., English ‘carry’
jelup'in
nol
chup
chuy
lats
pach
toy
yom
lut'
pet
cats'
lup
lat'
cuch
Tzeltal (Mexico) has no general word
for carry, but many more specific terms:
‘to carry across the shoulders’
‘to carry in the palm of the hand’
‘to carry in a pocket or pouch’
‘to carry in a bag’
‘to carry under the arm’
‘to carry on the head’
‘to carry aloft’
‘to carry different items together’
‘to carry with tongs’
‘to carry in the arms’
‘to carry between one’s teeth’
‘to carry on a spoon’
‘to carry in a container’
‘to carry on the back’ etc.
9.2 WHERE THE CONCEPT TO BE TRANSLATED IS NOT KNOWN IN THE RECEPTOR
LANGUAGE CULTURE
When the concept to be translated refers to something which is not known in the receptor language
culture, then the translator’s task is much harder. In this case it is not just a matter of finding the
appropriate way to refer to something which is already part of the experience of the hearer; instead, a
completely new concept has to be communicated.
In addition to careful verbal translation in the text itself, there are other aids which can be used to achieve
effective communication. These include:
a)
pictures—well-chosen, well-placed, historically accurate pictures can be a real help to the
reader.Pictures are not just ‘decoration’ but can help the reader to understand something which is
referred to in the text.
One edition of the Bible which deliberately uses illustrations to aid the understanding of the
reader in this way is the RSV edition published by Collins for the British and Foreign Bible
Society with illustrations by Horace Knowles. The Introduction to this edition explains:
“Instead of the usual type of story-picture, there are simple little drawings that look more like
up-to-date visual aids than illustrations.… they have been fitted into the text just at the place
where help is needed.” These illustrations include pictures of
- animals and plants referred to in the text which may be unfamiliar to the reader, e.g.,
camel, bear, nard, hyssop, fig tree, vine with grapes, etc.
- aspects of biblical culture which may be unfamiliar, e.g. shepherd with sheep, ploughing
using oxen, a watch-tower in a vineyard, sower sowing seed by casting, etc.
- aspects of the Jewish religious system which may be unfamiliar, e.g. the tabernacle,
priests and Levites in their official regalia, altars, seven-branched candlestick, phylactery;
21
synagogue, Temple, etc.
Pictures used for this purpose must be
i. clear and easy to understand (test them out with the receptor audience)
ii. accurate and true to the biblical culture.
b)
glossary—Some editions of the Bible, such as the Good News Bible, give a glossary at the back
of the book, with an expanded explanation of unknown concepts.
Such a glossary can be useful for explaining such terms as ‘Pharisee’, ‘Sadduccee’, ‘Son of
Man’, and many others. In an edition of the New Testament only, it can also be used to provide
brief background information about the main Old Testament characters who are mentioned in the
New Testament.
But it should be remembered that many readers will not refer to the glossary at the time when
they are reading the text.
c)
footnotes—Footnotes can be useful to provide more background detail or explanation than can
acceptable be included in the text itself. They can also be useful at certain points where, in order
to achieve a meaningful translation, it has been necessary to change the form of the text. The
literal form of the source text can then be given in the footnote, with an explanation, if
appropriate.
But footnotes should be used very sparingly (unless the edition is intended as a study edition).
Too many footnotes distract the attention of the reader from the text and can be confusing rather
than helpful.
Care should be taken, too, to ensure that the footnotes are clearly distinguished from the text, e.g.
by using a different, smaller, typeface and/or by having a line under the text. above the
footnotes. Otherwise there is a danger that readers, especially newly literate readers, will read the
footnotes as if they are part of the text.
d)
introduction—Some editions include a brief introduction to each book. Such introductions
should be limited to factual information ~ avoid interpretation or comment.
Sometimes there is certain factual information which the reader needs to know in order to
understand the message of the book. For example, an understanding of the message of Galatians
depends on an understanding of the function of circumcision in the Jewish culture. A brief
explanation of the function of circumcision in Jewish culture could therefore be profitably
included in an introduction to the book.
e)
Bible background booklet—More detailed information about the way of life in Biblical times
can be given in a separate booklet. For example, see the booklet How the Jews lived, which was
prepared by the Papua New Guinea branch of Wycliffe Bible Translators. Such a booklet needs
to be carefully adapted for the needs of each receptor culture, bearing in mind the particular
points of difference between that culture and the Biblical culture.
ALL OF THE ABOVE SUPPLEMENTARY AIDS CAN BE HELPFUL IN ACHIEVING
COMMUNICATION OF AN UNFAMILIAR CONCEPT. BUT NONE OF THEM IS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR MEANINGFUL TRANSLATION IN THE TEXT ITSELF.
There are three basic possible alternative ways of translating unknown concepts. These are:
1) Use a descriptive phrase.
2) Use a foreign word
3) Substitute a concept which is known in the receptor culture.
Each of these three ways has its advantages, and also its dangers and problems. The translator has to
decide which way, or which combination of these ways, is most appropriate in each particular context.
22
In deciding which way of translating a new concept is most appropriate in each context, two aspects of the
meaning of that concept need to be considered. One is the SURFACE FORM OR APPEARANCE, the
other is its FUNCTION OR SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE CONTEXT AND WITHIN THE CULTURE. It
may well be impossible to communicate all aspects of the form and function of the new concept ~ the
translator needs to focus on what is most relevant in the context, on what the receiver of the translated
message needs to know in order to understand the total message. See the examples below.
The three ways of translating will now be discussed in turn:
1) USE A DESCRIPTIVE PHRASE
The descriptive phrase usually involves a generic term, plus a description which focuses on
that aspect of the surface form, or of the function, of the concept which is most relevant in
the context.
e.g.,
Matthew 21:33
winepress—hole in the rock (surface form, appearance) where they squeeze the fruit
juice (function)”
Acts 27:13
they weighed anchor—“they lifted the heavy iron weight (surface form, appearance)
which they used to keep the boat still (function)”
Matthew 5:23
altar—“a place/platform/table (surface form, appearance) where people make
sacrifices to God (function)”
Matthew 13:33
leaven—thing which makes the bread swell (function)”
angel—messenger of God (function)”
John 10:12
wolf—a fierce wild animal (function)”
Revelation 17:4
jewels and pearls—different kinds of beautiful rocks/stones (surface form, appearance)
which one uses to adorn things (function)
2) USE A FOREIGN WORD
Note The terms foreign word and loan word are sometimes confused.
A loan word is one which has been borrowed from another language and adopted into the
new language. It has become part of that new language, often being modified in its
phonological form to the natural pattern of that language. It is known to all speakers of
the language, including those who speak no other language than their mother tongue.
Loan words may be used freely in the translation since they communicate
meaning. They have become part of the language. However you may sometimes find that
some speakers of the language want to avoid using loan words in order to keep the
language ‘pure’. This question has to be decided by the local translation committee or
other leaders. Apart from adverse reaction of this kind, which may lead to rejection of the
word, there is no theoretical reason why loan words cannot be used freely.
A foreign word, on the other hand, is one which is not known to the speakers of the receptor
language. It therefore does not in itself communicate any meaning to them, (except to those
people who also speak the language from which the word is borrowed). Foreign words carry
zero meaning for most people and should therefore be avoided when possible.
23
Where foreign words are used, the context should be ‘built up’ to communicate as much meaning
as possible. For example, when it is necessary to use a foreign word in order to refer to a specific
variety of animal, plant etc., which is not known in the receptor culture, then the foreign word can
be introduced by the use of a generic term which will give the reader some idea of the meaning of
the foreign word.
e.g.,
camel — “animal called camel”
grape — fruit called grape”
Passover — “festival called Passover”
Focus on that aspect of the meaning of the concept which is relevant in each particular context. this may
be different in different contexts:
e.g.,
myrrh
—
—
Matthew 2:11 “precious oil called myrrh”
Mark 15:23 “medicine called myrrh”
There are other ways, too, in which the context can be carefully phrased in order to communicate as much
as possible of the full meaning. In translating proper names, for example, or other very specific words,
where the translator wishes to retain the name and also to communicate clearly its exact meaning or
reference:
e.g.,
Satan
—
Revelation 1:8
a pha and omega —
Mark 8:29
You are the Christ. —
“Satan, chief of the evil spirits”
The first and the last, alpha and omega”
(In a later reference, Revelation 21:6, both the names and their
meaning are explicitly included in the original Greek text.)
You are (the) Christ, he whom God has chosen/appointed.” (Notice
that in this context the meaning of the title ‘Christ’ is crucial for the
understanding of the statement.)
Remember that the main danger of using a foreign word to translate an unknown concept is that of noncommunication. So every passage in which a foreign word is used should be very carefully tested to find
out whether the meaning of the source message is in fact effectively communicated to the speakers of the
receptor language.
3)
SUBSTITUTE A CONCEPT WHICH IS KNOWN IN THE RECEPTOR CULTURE
which has the same function as the concept in the source culture.
The source message comes from the background of a particular historic culture, and describes events
which happened in a specific historic setting. Clearly it would be wrong to translate in a way which would
‘change’ the historical facts or which would make it appear as if the events happened in the receptor
language culture.
There are, however some contexts in which the focus is the illustration of a teaching point, and in which
there is no reference to something which actually happened historically. In such contexts it is the
communication of the teaching point which seems to be more important than the surface form of what is
referred to. It is in such contexts that the translator may decide to use a ‘cultural substitute’, i.e. something
which has the same function in the receptor language culture as the concept referred to in the source text
had in the original Biblical culture.
e.g.,
Luke 9:58
foxes have holes —“bush rats have holes”
(The main point here is reference to an animal which is known to have its own
hole, not the exact species of the animal.)
24
Mark 9:42
it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck … grinding
stone…. (The main point here is the size and weight of the stone—the difference
in the way in which grinding is done in the Biblical culture and the receptor
culture is not in focus.)
James 3:12
Can a fig tree yield olives, or a grape vine figs?
—If the exact botanical species of ‘fig’, ‘olive’ and ‘grape’ are not known in the
receptor culture, it may be possible to substitute here species which are known,
since the main point is that a tree of one kind cannot bear fruit of another kind.
Revelation 1:14
—white as snow…“white as egret’s feathers”
“white as cotton”
(substituting something which is known for its whiteness in the receptor
culture)
In considering the use of a cultural substitute, note the following principles:
a) Do not ‘change’ historical facts. Where an actual historical event is referred to, the translation must
be historically accurate: e.g., Mark 11:13 It would not be possible to substitute, for example,
‘orange tree’ for ‘fig tree’ in this context since it was not, historically, an orange three that Jesus
cursed.
b) The cultural substitute should not be something which is incompatible with Biblical culture.
Sensitivity is needed in selecting substitutes which are appropriate and acceptable.
c) In choosing substitutes for specific species, e.g., of animal or plant, always choose a substitute
which is as similar as possible to the original referent, bearing in mind both the outward
appearance and the function within the context and culture. e.g., Luke 13:32 ‘go and tell that fox’—
an animal such as ‘hyena’ might be substituted for fox, provided it had the appropriate meaning
associations in the receptor culture, since foxes and hyenas are fairly similar species, but one
might feel uneasy about substituting a totally different species such as ‘spider’.
d) There are certain themes which run through the bible, such as references to the shepherd and his
sheep, to vineyards, to leaven; in those contexts in which there may be some significant meaning
link, be careful to retain consistency in the translation.
SUMMARY OF 9.2 We have seen that there are three possible ways of translating unknown
concepts:
1. Use a descriptive phrase
2. Use a foreign word
3. Substitute a concept which is known in the receptor culture.
Each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. Care needs to be taken to discern which is
appropriate for each particular passage. Sometimes the ways may be combined, e.g. a foreign word
together with a descriptive phrase which gives some idea of the meaning. In all cases it is necessary to
keep in mind both the surface form or appearance of the unknown concept, and also its function within
the biblical culture, to discern which aspects of its meaning are essential for the understanding of the
total passage and to make sure that these are communicated in the translation.
9.3 A NOTE OF WARNING
25
There may be some concepts in the source message which appear on the surface to be similar to concepts
which are known in the receptor culture, but which, on closer examination, prove to be very different in
their function or significance.
The receivers of the translated message will interpret the message in the light of their own culture.
Special care is needed, therefore, to ensure that the function of the concept within the original culture
is communicated, wherever this is necessary for the correct understanding of the message.
e.g., Colossians 4:11
These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers. RSV
Circumcision is known in many cultures. But its function within each culture may be very
different. In some cultures (e.g., U.S.A..) it has no religious significance but is done
purely for medical and hygienic reasons. In some cultures it is done to teenage boys and
is associated with attaining manhood, in others it may be associated with joining a
particular cult, or being recognized as part of a certain family group. But the correct
understanding of Biblical references depends on the fact that, in Biblical culture,
circumcision signified becoming a Jew. For this reason, the Good News Bible translates
Colossians 4:11: ‘These three are the only Jewish converts who work with me …’
Matthew 21:8
Others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.
In one African culture, cutting branches and spreading them on the road was a familiar
concept, but it was associated with action taken to block the road to prevent an unwanted
person or enemy from approaching. In this language the misunderstanding was avoided
by using the more specific word meaning ‘palm branches’. (This information is explicit
in the parallel passage in John 12:13.)
Luke 18:13
the tax collector … beat his breast
In one culture, beating the breast was understood to be an act of defiance. To translate
only the surface form would therefore have resulted in misunderstanding. In this
particular language the solution was to translate using a slightly different surface form,
literally ‘to hug the breast’ which in that culture had the appropriate implication of
humility and repentance.
1 Thessalonians 5:26
Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.
In Biblical culture, the kiss was the normal form of greeting between friends. In some
cultures, a kiss could only refer to an action between a mother and her child, or to love
making (the latter association being sometimes recently developed from watching
European or American films). For this reason, perhaps, J.B. Phillips translates 1
Thessalonians 5:26:
‘Give a handshake all round among the brotherhood’ --- translation with which one can
sympathise even while questioning its appropriateness since it ‘changes’ the cultural
background.
EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 9
(1) Imagine that you are translating into a language which has no one-word lexical equivalent for the
words underlined below. Re-express the meaning of each underlined word as a phrase. Check the Biblical
context where necessary.
a) 2 Timothy 1:5 grandmother.
b) Luke 1:27 virgin
c) John 10:36 you are blaspheming (Note the context.)
d) Acts 3:15 To this we are witnesses.
e) Acts 10:12 in it were all kinds of animals and reptiles
f) Acts 16:39 They apologised
26
g) 1 Corinthians 12:18 God arranged the organs in the body
h) 2 Corinthians 4:11 our mortal flesh
i) 2 Corinthians 4:17 this small and temporary trouble (GNB)
j) Hebrews 2:11 he who sanctifies (Note the context.)
k) Hebrews 6:14 “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.”
l) Hebrews 11:9 he sojourned in the land of promise
(5) This exercise may be done in small groups of two, three or four persons. Each group should
include a native speaker of a language other than English, preferably a non-European language.
Translate Acts 8:26—28 into that language, paying particular attention to the translation of the
following words:
Angel south desert eunuch queen treasure chariot prophet
(7) One problem area is how to translate terms for weights and measurements, and also for amounts of
money, when the system used in the receptor culture is different from the system in the source
culture.
Should the translator,
i. retain the ‘foreign’ terms, possibly adding explanatory footnote?
ii. re-express the amounts and units of measurement using the system which is in current use
in the receptor culture?
iii. use some other method?
Discuss these questions with reference to the various English translations of the passages quoted
below. Comment on the advantages and disadvantages of each rendering:
a) Matthew 20:9
And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius.
(RSV)
Greek: denarion
RSV, NIV: a denarius
GNB: a silver coin
LV: $20.00
KJV: a penny
NEB: the full day’s wage (with footnote: literally, one denarius each)
b) Matthew 14:5
For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii. (RSV)
Greek (lit.):
denarion triakosion
denarii three-hundred
RSV: three hundred denarii
GNB: three hundred silver coins
NIV: for more than a year’s wages (with footnote: literally, three hundred
denarii)
LB: a fortune
KJV three hundred pence
NEB thirty pounds (with footnote: literally, three hundred denarii).
c) John 11:18
Bethany was near Jerusalem about two miles off. (RSV)
27
Greek (lit.):
stadion dekapente
stadia fifteen
KJV: fifteen furlongs
RSV: about two miles (with footnote: literally, fifteen stadia)
NIV: less than two miles (with footnote: literally, fifteen stadia)
GNB: less than three kilometres
d) Acts 1:12
… from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away
Greek (lit.): sabbatou echon hodon
of-sabbath having way/path
RSV, and most other English translations: a sabbath day’s journey
GNB: about a kilometre away
28
CHAPTER 10: RHETORICAL QUESTIONS
10.1 STATEMENT, QUESTION, OR COMMAND?
At the beginning of the course, when the functions of language were discussed (1.1), we saw that three
of the functions of language are:
i. to give information
ii. to obtain information
iii. to stimulate actions in other people
In the most basic form of most languages, these three functions correspond to three major grammatical
classes:
statement (‘indicative’)
question ('interrogative’)
command (‘imperative’)
This correspondence between the function and the grammatical form, however, is by no means
invariable. In English, for example, it is possible to stimulate action (i.e. give a command) by using
any one of the three grammatical forms:
e.g.,
“Shut the window.” (imperative)
“Would you mind shutting the window?” (interrogative)
“I’d be glad if you would shut the window” (indicative)
10.2 QUESTIONS IN THE BIBLE
There are about 1,000 utterances which have question form in the original text of the New
Testament.
It is estimated that about 300 of these are ‘real’ questions, i.e. they are questions which ask for
information and which require an answer.
The remaining 700 ‘questions’ do not ask for information and do not, in most cases, require any
answer. Their function is rather to give information, including information about the speaker’s
attitudes and opinions. Sometimes they aim to stimulate a particular response in the hearer. Such
questions are called ‘rhetorical questions’.
e.g.,
Real question:
Mark 6:38*
And he said to them, “How many loves have you?”
(answered by) …”Five, and two fish.”
Rhetorical question:
Mark 8:36, 37*
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can
a man give in return for his life?” (Notice that no answer is expected.)
10.3 FUNCTIONS OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN THE BIBLE
Some common functions of rhetorical questions in the Bible are:
To emphasize a fact which is obviously true
Matthew 7:22
Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do
mighty works in
your name?
29
Mark 3:23
How can Satan cast out Satan?
1 Samuel 4:8
Woe to us! Who can deliver us from the power of these mighty gods?
1 Samuel 17:8
Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul?
Notice that, in English, negative question form implies a positive statement, while positive question form
implies a negative statement.
To specify a particular condition under which something applies
James 5:13
Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray
Romans 13:3
Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive
his approval.
This type of rhetorical question can often be transformed into an ‘if’ clause without changing the
meaning:
e.g., If any one is suffering, let him pray.
To introduce a new topic, a new aspect of a topic
Psalm 15:1, 2
O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent? Who shall dwell on they holy hill? He who walks
blamelessly, and does what is right…
Notice how the two questions introduce the topic of the psalm, providing the setting for
the answer.
Mark 13:1, 2
…one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful
buildings?” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left
here one stone upon another…”
Here Jesus focuses on the topic of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple by
using a question.
Luke 7:44
Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman?…”
Study the total context of this passage, from 7:36—50, and notice how the question
form
is used to focus again on the woman, who has already been mentioned earlier in the
passage.
Romans 9:30
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it…
Notice how the expression “What shall we say then?” is used to indicate the conclusion
of one phase of the argument and the beginning of a new point. Look for other places in
the letter to the Romans were this expression or a similar form, is used in this way.
To express surprise
Mark 6:2 … and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man
get all this? What is the wisdom given to him?”
To rebuke or exhort someone
Mark 4:40
Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?”
Mark 5:35
“Your daughter is dead, Why trouble the Teacher any further?”
To express uncertainty—
30
this type of question is often self-directed; it might be regarded as a genuine question. But any
question to
which the speaker himself supplies the answer is usually regarded as rhetorical.
Luke 12:17
… and he thought to himself, “What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?”
Luke 16:3
And the steward said to himself, “What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship
away from me?”
This list of functions is not exhaustive, nor is each function exclusive of the others. One question
may have more than one function at the same time. So each question must be studied carefully in
its context in order to discover its function(s).
Notice that real questions may also carry overtones of associative meaning (e.g.
surprise, rebuke), communicating the attitude of the speaker and sometimes suggesting
what he expects the response to be.
10.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION
Having analysed the actual meaning of each rhetorical question in its context, the translator then has
to consider how best to transfer that meaning into the receptor language.
Different languages use rhetorical questions in different ways. Most languages do have rhetorical
questions, but these do not always have the same functions as those we have seen illustrated above. Some
languages use rhetorical questions much more frequently than other languages.
Therefore it is not possible to assume that a rhetorical question in the source text will necessarily be
best translated by a rhetorical question in the receptor language. The question form may not always
be appropriate.
Note how a dynamic translation such as the GNB quite often recasts rhetorical questions in another way
in order to bring out the actual meaning in the context more clearly.
e.g.,
1 Samuel 6:6
RSV (following the form of the Hebrew text)
After (God) had made sport of them, did not they let the people go, and they departed?
GNB Don’t forget how God made fools of them until they let the Israelites leave Egypt.
SUMMARY NOTE ON TRANSLATING RHETORICAL QUESTIONS
i. KEEP ALERT to recognize when a question form in the source text is rhetorical.
FOR EACH RHETORICAL QUESTION, CONSIDER WHAT IS THE MEANING OR
FUNCTION OF THAT QUESTION IN THAT CONTEXT IN THE SOURCE TEXT.
ii. THEN CONSIDER HOW THAT MEANING CAN BEST BE ACCURATELY,
CLEARLY AND NATURALLY EXPRESSED IN THE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE.
EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 10
You are encouraged to look up the context of each passage, but you are not asked to recast
anything except the portions quoted below.
a) Matthew 11:16 “But to what shall I compare
this generation? It is like children
31
sitting in the market places . . .” ___________________
b) John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law?
Yet none of you keeps the law. ___________________
c) John 8:53 Are you greater than our
father Abraham, who died? ___________________
d) John 13:6 Peter said to him, “Lord,
do you wash my feet?” ___________________
e) Luke 9:41 Jesus answered, “O faithless
and perverse generation, how long am I
to be with you and bear with you? ___________________
f) Romans 13:3, 4 Do you want to be free
from fear of the one in authority? Then
do what is right and he will commend you. ____________________
(NIV)
g) Romans 8:31 If God is for us, who is
against us? ____________________
h) 1 Corinthians 7:18 Was anyone at the time
of his call already circumcised? Let him
not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. ____________________
i) 1 Corinthians 12:17 If the whole body were
an eye, where would be the hearing? _____________________
j) Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who
hindered you from obeying the truth? _____________________
32
CHAPTER 11: FIGURES OF SPEECH: METAPHOR AND SIMILE
11.1 INTRODUCING METAPHOR AND SIMILE
A SIMILE is a figure of speech which involves a comparison.
e.g.,
The baby’s skin is as smooth as silk
He ran like the wind.
I’m as hungry as a hunter.
My feet are colder than ice.
His car rattles like a sack of tin cans.
Sugar is sweet, and so are you.
A METAPHOR is also a comparison. The only difference between a simile and a metaphor is that in a
simile the comparison is explicitly stated, usually by a word such as ‘like’ or ‘as’, while in a metaphor the
comparison is just implied.
e.g.,
METAPHOR:
Benjamin is a ravenous wolf. (Genesis 49:27)
SIMILE:
Benjamin is like a ravenous wolf.
11.2 ANALYSING METAPHORS AND SIMILIES
Both metaphor and simile involve three parts:
the TOPIC, i.e., the actual thing which is being talked about
the ILLUSTRATION, i.e., the thing to which the topic is compared
the POINT(S) OF SIMILARITY, i.e., the components of meaning which the topic and the
illustration have in common when compared.
Examples:
a)
For the simile, “the baby’s skin is a smooth as silk”,
the TOPIC is the baby’s skin
the ILLUSTRATION is silk
the POINT OF SIMILARITY is smooth
b)
For the simile, “like an arrow from a bow the child darted into the house”,
the TOPIC is the way that the child moved
the ILLUSTRATION is an arrow coming from a bow
the POINT OF SIMILARITY is (speed, directness)
c)
For the metaphor, “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf”,
the TOPIC is Benjamin
The ILLUSTRATION is a ravenous wolf
the POINT OF SIMILARITY is (dangerous, likely to attack, greedy)
You may find it helpful to use a sentence formula in identifying the three parts of a
metaphor or simile:
TOPIC is like ILLUSTRATION because POINT OF SIMILARITY
e.g.,
Benjamin is like a ravenous wolf because (he is dangerous and likely to attack.)
The way the child moved is like an arrow coming from a bow because (he moved quickly and
purposefully.)
11.4 TRANSLATING METAPHORS AND SIMILIES
As we have already seen the Point of Similarity between the Topic and the Illustration is quite often
left implicit. The clues to correct interpretation are found
33
(a) in the immediate context, or
(b) in the shared background knowledge of the speaker and the hearer.
When the message is translated, however, it is then being received by people whose cultural
background is different from that of the original giver of the message. There are some background
facts which the receivers of the original message knew (because they came from the same cultural
background as the giver of the message) but which the receivers of the translated message do not
know.
e.g.,
Micah 1:16 Make yourselves bald and cut off your hair,
for the children of your delight;
make yourselves as bald as the eagle,
for they shall go from you into exile.
An understanding of this passage depends on the knowledge that, in Hebrew culture,
shaving the head was a sign of mourning and sorrow. To many Europeans this custom is
unfamiliar, and so they miss the point of this verse. Forth is reason, the NIV renders this
verse as follows:
Shave your heads in mourning for the children in whom you delight;
make yourselves as bald as the vulture,
for they will go from you into exile.
Acts 26:14 “It hurts you to kick against the goads.”
Understanding here depends on familiarity with the custom of driving animals using a
stick with a sharp point at the end, so that any animal which resisted its owner’s guidance
caused itself pain and trouble. The GNB translates this verse:
You are hurting yourself by hitting back, like
an ox kicking against its owner’s stick.
EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 11
(1) For each of the following metaphors and similes, identify the TOPIC, ILLUSTRATION, and POINT
OF SIMILARITY. State your answers in the form of a sentence, as follows:
TOPIC is like ILLUSTRATION because POINT OF SIMILARITY
e.g., James 4:14 You are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.
--> You are like a mist because you will vanish after a short time.
If any of the three parts is implicit in the source text, state it explicitly in your answer, but
indicate that you have made it explicit by putting brackets ( ) round that part.
(a) Genesis 49:4 Reuben is … unstable as water
(b) Psalm 18:2 The Lord is my rock … in whom I take refuge
(c) Isaiah 51:6 the heavens will vanish like smoke.
d) Isaiah 56:10 His watchmen … are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark
e) John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.”
f) Hebrews 11:12 descendants as many as the stars of heaven
(2) Instructions as for Exercise (1).
If any of the three parts is not explicit in the source text, state it explicitly in your answer,
but indicate that you have made it explicit by putting brackets ( ) round that part.
Look up the context in your Bible wherever necessary.
a) Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
b) Proverbs 11:22 Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman without
discretion.
34
c) Proverbs 25:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.
d) Proverbs 25:25 Like cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.
e) Isaiah 44:22 I have swept away … your sins like mist
f) Matthew 17:20 if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed ….
g) Mark 1:17 I will make you become fishers of men
h) James 3:6 the tongue is a fire
i) 1 Peter 1:24 All flesh is like grass
j) 1 Peter 5:8 Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking
some one to devour.
35
CHAPTER 12: OTHER FIGURES OF SPEECH
Each language has its own individual patterns of figures of speech; the forms vary widely from language
to language. Some of the most common types of figures of speech which occur in the bible are discussed
and illustrated below.
Each type is introduced with its technical name. For the encouragement of those who find these
technical terms difficult to remember, however, note that, for the translator, it is not in fact
important whether or not he can apply the right technical name to a certain figure of speech.
Rather, what matters is
i. to recognize that a figure of speech is being used, and
ii. to discern the purpose for which it is being used.
Some of the purposes for which figures of speech are used are:
a. for emphasis (e.g., hyperbole and litotes)
b. to indicate a certain attitude in the speaker (e.g., sarcasm)
c. to arouse a certain response in the hearer (e.g., apostrophe)
d. for stylistic variation (e.g., chiasmus, metonymy, synecdoche)
e. for some other reason.
12.1 EUPHEMISM
A EUPHEMISM is the use of an expression which has a meaning quite different from its apparent
surface meaning. It is an indirect way of saying something, usually used in order to avoid being
offensive.
e.g.,
Acts 13:36 David … fell asleep and was laid with his fathers
‘fell asleep’ is an indirect way of saying ‘died’
Each language has its own euphemisms, the meanings of which are quite clear to a native speaker of the
language. But someone who is learning the language may be very puzzled, especially if he does not
recognize that a figure of speech is being used. And if euphemisms are translated word-for-word into
another language, they may be quite meaningless, or may communicate a wrong meaning.
Different cultures have their own conventions about what can be acceptably mentioned directly, and what
can only be mentioned indirectly. Some cultures use euphemisms to refer to things which other cultures
speak about directly, and vice versa.
For example, in Jewish culture, the name of God was considered so holy that people tended to avoid
mentioning it. this was especially so in contexts where it was appropriate to give special reverence and
honour to God. In such contexts, descriptive phrases focussing on attributes of God where often used.
Matthew 26:64 you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power
Mark 14:61 Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Luke 1:76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High
Luke 15:18 Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you
Notice also the use of the expression Kingdom of heaven as an alternative to Kingdom of God.
Also in Jewish culture, as in many other cultures, sexual relations are referred to by euphemisms. The
following examples are quoted from the RSV, which follows closely the form of the original text:
Genesis 4:1 Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain
Genesis 16:4 and he went in to Hagar, and she conceived
Matthew 1:25 Joseph … took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son
1Corinthians 7:1 It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
12.2 HYPERBOLE
12.2 HYPERBOLE
36
A HYPERBOLE is a deliberate exaggeration, used for emphasis and dramatic effect.
e.g.,
I’m starving!.
I’m frozen to death!
He must be mad!
Matthew 11:18 John came neither eating nor drinking
(compare Mark 1:6 John ate locusts and wild honey)
EXERCISE for section 12.2
Identify the hyperboles in the following passages. Try to re-express each passage avoiding the use of
hyperbole, but retaining the emphasis of the original.
a) Numbers 13:27 the land flows with milk and honey
b) Matthew 25:29 but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away
c) Mark 6:5 he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a
few sick people and healed them
d) Luke 15:24 this my son was dead, and is alive again
e) John 3:32 no one receives his testimony; he who receives his testimony sets his
seal to this, that God is true
f) John 1:11–12 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who
received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.
g) John 12:19 the world has gone after him
h) Acts 19:27 Artemis … she whom all Asia and the world worship
12.3 LITOTES
A LITOTES is an emphatic statement made by saying that the opposite idea is not true.
e.g.,
Acts 20:12
they were not a little comforted
In some languages it may be necessary to translate such expressions by emphatic, positive forms, rather
than by the use of a negatikve. Acts 20:12, for example, might be translated in the form, "they were very
much/greatly comforted."
EXERCISE for section 12:3
Re-express each of the following passages avoiding the use of litotes but retaining the emphasis of
the original.
a) Jeremiah 30:19 I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will make them
honoured, and they shall not be small.
b) Mark 12:34 You are not far from the kingdom of God.
c) Luke 1:37 For with God nothing will be impossible.
d) Acts 14:28 and they remained no little time with the disciples
e) Acts 19;23 there arose no little stir concerning the Way
f) Acts 21:39 a citizen of no mean city
g) Acts 26;19 I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision
h) Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel
i) Galatians 4:17 they make much of you, but for no good purpose
j) Ephesians 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you
12.4 SARCASM AND IRONY
SARCASM involves the expression of strong feeling on the part of the speaker, often in a biting or
taunting way. It may sometimes also involve saying one thing, but meaning the opposite. It is usually
used for the purpose of rebuke or ridicule.
e.g.,
Mark 7:9 You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to
keep your tradition!
37
IRONY is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: “Expression of one’s meaning by
language of opposite or different tendency, especially simulated adoption of another’s point of view for
purposes of ridicule, … use of language that has an inner meaning for a privileged audience and an
outer meaning for the persons addressed or concerned”.
12.5 PERSONIFICATION
PERSONIFICATION is a figure of speech in which an abstract idea, or something which is not alive,
is treated as though it were a person.
Personification is not a natural form in all languages, or in all contexts, so it may sometimes be
necessary to adjust the form.
e.g.,
Mark 5:34 “Your faith has made you well”
might be expressed: “You have been made well because you had faith”
Luke 7:35 “Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”
Compare GNB: “God’s wisdom, however, is shown to be true by all who accept it.”
Luke 11:49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said …
might be expressed: Therefore also God wisely said …
12.6 APOSTROPHE
Fowler’s Modern English Usage defines APOSTROPHE as ‘a turning away’, an interruption of the
flow of a discourse. In Biblical language this commonly involves a term of direct address, with
personification.
e.g.,
Psalm 24:7
Lift up your heads, O gates:
and be lifted up, O ancient doors!
Jeremiah 46:9
Advance, O horses,
and rage, O chariots
!
Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who
are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children
together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would
not.
1 Corinthians 15:55 O death, where is thy victory?
O death, where is thy sting?
12.7 CHIASMUS
CHIASMUS is a ‘crossing over’, the name being derived from the Greek letter chi (X).
e.g,
1Corinthians 1:19
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.
Colossians 1:16
for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible.
38
Luke 16:3 (KJV translation only; the figure is not used in this passage in the Greek text)
I cannot dig,
to beg I am ashamed.
Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
Notice the GNB version of this verse: Do not give what is holy to dogs - they will only turn and
attack you; do not throw your pearls in front of pigs—they will only trample them underfoot.
Philemon v. 5
I hear of your love and of the faith which you have
toward the Lord Jesus Christ and all the saints.
GNB I hear of your love for all God’s people and the faith you have in the Lord Jesus
12.8 METONOMY AND SYNECDOCHE
METONYMY is the substitution of a word to stand in place of another, closely related,
idea:
e.g.,
The kettle is boiling.
kettle stands in place of water
Town and gown were constantly in conflict.
town i.e., the local citizens
gown i.e., the members of the university
the witness for the crown
crown i.e., the government of the country
The pen is mightier than the sword.
i.e., more can be achieved by writing about something than by fighting about it
SYNECDOCHE is very similar to metonymy. The difference is that the word which is
substituted has a more direct relationship to the idea it represents, either a part standing for a whole,
or a whole for a part.
e.g.,
England lost the match by three runs,
England
i.e., the team representing England
Acts 2:26 my tongue rejoiced
i.e., I rejoiced (and spoke about my joy).
All hands on deck.
i.e., everybody on deck
The farmer has sixty head of cattle.
i.e., sixty cattle
Metonymy and synecdoche differ from metaphor in that no comparison is implied. There is no ‘point of
similarity’ between the word used and the idea it represents.
In many instances of metonymy and synecdoche, a word-for-word translation would result in complete
nonsense in the receptor language. In this case, the translation may either:
a) keep the word, but make the implicit meaning explicit
39
e.g., The water in the kettle is boiling.
b) replace the word by a word which expresses the actual meaning
e.g., The water is boiling.
12.9 A NOTE ON TRANSLATING FIGURES OF SPEECH
It is important that the translator should be able to recognize a figure of speech. If he fails to recognize a
figure, and translates it word-for-word, the meaning will probably be obscure or even totally wrong.
First identify the meaning of the figure of speech. Remember that ‘meaning’ includes not only
(a) the referential meaning, i.e., the actual facts, but also
(b) the associative meaning, i.e., what the form signals of the attitude of the
speaker and the response which is aroused in the hearer, and.
(c) the textual meaning, i.e., the prominence which the use of a figure of speech
may bring to a certain idea within the whole discourse.
Remember that the purpose for which figures of speech are used varies greatly (see the introduction to
this chapter)
Then consider how all these aspects of the meaning can best be communicated in the receptor
language. Aim to achieve in the translation the same effect as the original message had for its hearers.
The translator should study natural texts and listen to conversation in the receptor language in order to
observe what figures of speech are natural in that language, and with what frequency they are used. There
may be some figures of speech in that language which are not used in English or Hebrew or Greek but
which could be used effectively in the translation to achieve a natural, varied and interesting style.
Sometimes a figure may be appropriate in a certain place in the translation even though there was no
figure in this place in the original text. Keep alert and sensitive to the usage of the receptor language.
EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 12
(2) Each of the following passages includes an example of either metonymy or synecdoche. For each
example:
i. underline the word which is being used figuratively, and
ii. recast as much of the example as is necessary to express the actual meaning in a non-figurative
way.
You are encouraged to look up the Biblical context where necessary, but you are not asked to recast
more than the portion quoted below.
e.g.,
Luke 1:32
God will give him the throne of his father David
-->
God will make him a king as his ancestor David was
(following GNB)
a) Habbakuk 2:12 Woe to him who builds a town with blood
b) Matthew 3:5, 6 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the
Jordan, and they were baptized by him
c) Matthew 15:8 this people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me
d) Matthew 27:4 I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.
e) Luke 1:27 Joseph, of the house of David
f) Luke 3:6 all flesh shall see the salvation of God
40
g) Luke 21:15 I will give you a mouth and wisdom
SUMMARY OF FIGURES OF SPEECH
which have been introduced in Chapters 10, 11 and 12
RHETORICAL QUESTION—a question which does not require an answer; the purpose of a rhetorical
question is usually to communicate a particular attitude on the part of the speaker, or to arouse a
certain emotional response in the hearer.
METAPHOR and SIMILE—involves a comparison; study the Topic, the Illustration, and the Point of
Similarity between them.
EUPHEMISM—an indirect way of referring something, used to avoid using a direct form which would
be
offensive in that culture.
HYPERBOLE—deliberate exaggeration, used for emphasis and dramatic effect.
LITOTES—deliberate understatement, using the negative of the opposite idea; like hyperbole, litotes is
used for emphasis.
SARCASM and IRONY—often involves saying the opposite of what is meant, usually with strong, biting
overtones; usually used for rebuke or ridicule.
PERSONIFICATION—an abstract idea, or something which is not alive, is referred to as if it were a
person; personification may be used for stylistic variation, or to make a condensed, attention-catching
statement.
APOSTROPHE—the use of an interjection, usually direct address to a non-personal entity; used to catch
the attention and to heighten the emotional impact.
CHIASMUS—a 'crossing-over' of ideas; used for stylistic variation.
METONYMY and SYNECHDOCHE—the use of a word to stand in place of another, closely related,
concept; may be used for stylistic variation and dramatic effect, or sometimes just as an idiomatic
form in the language which no special overtones of meaning.
41
CHAPTER 14: THE CONCEPT
14.1 FACTS ABOUT CONCEPTS
The smallest semantic unit has been termed the CONCEPT. A concept is a recognizable unit of
meaning in any given language, which may be broken down into a number of components of meaning.
(Components of meaning are discussed in Chapter 5) A concept is therefore a bundle of components
of meaning. Beekman and Callow, in The Semantic Structure of Written Communication, suggest that
most concepts consist of from three to nine components.
Each language has its own unique inventory of concepts, because each language community observes
the world in a different way, and so isolates the things they want to talk about in a different way (See
section 3.5) How, then, can concepts be identified?
In a given language, the concept unit usually, but by no means always, is represented by a word; it
may also be represented by a morpheme, or by an idiomatic expression, or by tone, or by word order.
Concepts are identified in a given language on the principle of contrast and comparison within the
system of that language. Each concept is associated with a particular area of meaning which is
distinct from that of other concepts in the language; its function is to refer to some specific area of
meaning. This area of reference is identified precisely by listing the components of meaning of the
concept, as has been discussed in Chapter 5.
For a fuller discussion of the theory concerning the concept, see Beekman and Callow, The Semantic
Structure of Written Communication.
14.2 FOUR CLASSES OF CONCEPTS
It has been suggested that all concepts can be analysed as belonging to one of four classes. The four
classes are:
THINGS—This class includes all things or objects, whether tangible or intangible, which exist in the
universe, or which exist in any imaginary world.
e.g.,
house, tree, man, dog, fire, air, angel, soul, unicorn, fairy, dragon
(This classification makes no judgement on 1reality’ or ‘truth’. It is nothing more than a
conceptual classification.)
EVENTS—This class includes all actions, processes and happenings, including all movements,
whether voluntary or involuntary, and also mental processes.
e.g.,
run, jump, fall, break, write, melt, freeze, know, think, rejoice,
ATTRIBUTES—This class includes qualities or quantities or degree, of Things, or of Events, or of
other Attributes.
e.g.,
red, white, long, cold, quickly, suddenly, twice, two, very, too,
RELATIONS—Relations are rather different from the other three semantic classes. Things, Events and
Attributes all have referential meaning; the Relation class includes all sets of meaningful
relationships between Things, Events and Attributes, and also between larger semantic units.
Relations may be signaled by a word (e.g., a preposition or a conjunction), or by a morpheme (e.g.,
English possessive suffix 's), or by other linguistic signals, such as intonation, tone, word order, or by
zero.
Examples of Relations:
position: in, on, under, behind
direction: towards, away from
time: present, future, past
logical relations: because, if, in order that, etc.
42
CHAPTER 24: BIBLE TRANSLATION PROCEDURES
Every Bible translation project is unique. Each local situation is different. The gifts and
abilities of those involved vary. There is therefore no ‘blueprint’ for a Bible translation
project. This chapter simply attempts to outline some of the general principles which need to
be applied and adapted to each specific situation.
24.1 A TRANSLATION TEAM
Every translation team (i.e. those who are carrying the major responsibility for the actual
work of the translation) includes:
a. at least one mother tongue speaker of the receptor language
b. a person with ability to exegete the source language text (i.e. to discover the meaning of the source text
accurately)
c. a person with a knowledge of linguistics and of Bible translation principles.
In some situations, all these qualifications may be combined in one person; e.g. in the case of a highly
qualified mother tongue speaker of the receptor language who has received training in Biblical studies,
linguistics and Bible translation principles.
In other situations, two or three (or more) people are needed to work closely together, each contributing
their different skills to make up the whole.
Note: Where b. and c. are not the same person as a., they must be able to communicate freely
with a. Usually this means that they must have a fluent control of the receptor language.
All the members of the team should be encouraged and given the opportunity to develop
all the relevant skills as much as is possible in the situation.
In addition to this team, there is also a wider team which includes:
reviewers (who help to check the translation)
testers (who test the translation with other mother tongue speakers to see if it communicates
effectively)
consultant (who gives advice and training, and helps to check the translation)
supporters and prayer partners etc.
24.2 PREREQUISITES (i.e., things which must happen before translation work begins)
a. There needs to be investigation of the linguistic situation, of the dialects of the language
and its relationship to other languages. In some cases, considerable research may be
necessary to establish which dialect should be used for the translation.
b. In areas where a church already exists, there must be thorough discussion of the project
amongst church leaders and others. The local church should be very much involved in the
project from the beginning and will take a major part in decision making.
c. Mother tongue translator(s) and other mother tongue co-workers need to be trained in
translation principles and other skills, to the maximum that the situation permits. This
training will continue throughout the project.
d. There needs to be analytical study of the receptor language, especially an awareness of its
discourse structure.
e. There needs to be study of the receptor language culture, a deep awareness of the
situation and current beliefs of those for whom the translation is being made.
Both d. and e. will continue throughout the project.
f. There needs to be an orthography established for the language, at least tentatively. This
may involve communication and cooperation with both local and national agencies and
authorities.
g. There needs to be spiritual preparation for the task; a weighing up of all that will be
involved and a recognition that the task can only be achieved through constant
dependence on God.
24.3 STAGES IN TRANSLATING
43
Translating involves three basic stages:
1. Preparation thorough studying the meaning of the source text;
2. Transfer of the message into the receptor language;
3. Revision through checking and testing
Stage 1 PREPARATION--- studying the meaning of the source text
Before beginning to translate any book of the Bible, first read the whole book right through. Study the
overall pattern of the book. If an LSA is available, study the OVERVIEW. Become aware of the larger
communication units of the book, and the way that they are related to each other.
The translation itself should be done in sections. The section divisions of the GNB are a good guide to
follow, although you may want to modify them at times. Focus on whole sections, not just on individual
verses.
1. Read the whole section through several times. Read it in several versions.
2. Study the meaning in detail, using all the aids available to you, e.g.
different versions of the text; the translator should study in depth
at least two versions. If the source language is English, then a
good choice would be the RSV or NIV (i.e. a version which
follows the form of the original text fairly closely) and the GNB.
Other versions which are useful for reference are:
New English Bible
Jerusalem Bible
Translator’s New Testament
J. B. Phillips
Living Bible (but be careful, this is a very free version and sometimes
inaccurate)
original source text; constant reference should be made to the form of the
original Biblical text wherever possible.
Bible commentaries and reference books, including:
a. Literary-Semantic Analysis, if available for the book
b. United Bible Society Translator’s handbooks, if available for the book
c. Commentaries, especially commentaries by William Hendriksen and F. F. Bruce
d. WBT Exegetical helps series.
e. Bible Dictionaries (e.g., the New Bible Dictionary) for background
cultural information
f. Lexicons
Exegetical techniques i.e., apply the techniques for discovering the meaning of
the source language text
Stage 2 TRANSFER into the receptor language
IMPORTANT NOTE: The actual transfer of the message into the receptor language should be
made by a mother tongue speaker of the receptor language, wherever possible. If the preparation
stage has been done by someone other than the mother tongue speaker team member, then there
needs to be a process of communication of the relevant information about the meaning of the
source text message to the mother tongue member.
1. Before beginning to write down the translation, THINK THROUGH the translation of the whole
paragraph or section. This will help to get the continuity of the passage.
Some translators find it helpful to record onto a tape-recorder an ORAL TRANSLATION of the
passage. Although this may not be accurate in detail, it will often provide a good basis which can then
be polished and refined in detail.
2. WRITE DOWN the translation. Continue to use your reference aids as necessary. (Sometimes an
44
unforeseen question arises in the process of translation which involves further research.)
keep the people for whom you are translating constantly in mind; express the message in a
way which they will understand.
After you have translated the section, also draft the SECTION HEADING.
3. After you have made this first draft of the section READ THE SECTION THROUGH ALOUD
4. Then CHECK BACK to your source text. Check for omissions, additions or distortions of the source
message, and make any necessary corrections.
What you have prepared at this stage is a FIRST DRAFT. But however good a first draft is, it
always needs considerable further working. Inevitably it will retain some traces of the source
language form which are not natural in the receptor language. A lot of further checking and
testing
with other mother tongue speakers of the receptor language needs to be done.
Stage 3 TESTING AND CHECKING This includes:
a. In areas where a local church exists, there should be checking by REVIEWERS. Reviewers are
people appointed by the local churches for the task of commenting on the translation. They should
include:
representatives of all local denominations
representatives of all dialect areas
a cross section of people, as far as possible, old and young, men and women, etc.
Copies of the draft translation are sent to these reviewers for them to make their comments.
Sometimes this is done in writing. Sometimes reviewers meet in small groups to discuss the
translation together.
b. TESTING WITH OTHER MOTHER TONGUE SPEAKERS
The reviewers mentioned in a. above usually represent the more educated group in the receptor language
society. Testing also needs to be done with ‘ordinary’, less educated people, to discover whether the
translation is communicating effectively to them.
This kind of testing involves the translator, or someone else who is trained in translation principles, taking
the translation out and reading it with mother tongue speakers. The aim is to find out:
whether people understand it,
whether what they understand is the correct meaning (i.e., is the meaning of the original
message)
whether the language used in the translation is natural and clear
Again, this testing should be done with a wide cross-section of people, including, wherever possible, both
Christians and non-Christians.
Testing will involve a number of different processes, including, discussion, asking people to re-tell what
they have heard, asking people to read aloud, asking questions about what has been read. The aim is to
discover errors, inaccuracies, confusions and unnaturalness in the translation and to correct them.
c. Some people have gifts as STYLISTS; i.e., they can take a passage and re-express it clearly,
powerfully and naturally. Look for people with this gift and use their abilities.
d. CONSULTANT CHECKING will also be done with the help of a trained translation consultant.
Consultant checking session are an important factor in the training of the translation team in the early
stages of the work.
e. EDITING will also be needed as the translation is prepared for publication. This includes checking
such details as spelling, punctuation, verse numbering, consistency in the use of key terms and in the
45
translation of parallel passages;—a tedious and exacting part of the work, but also necessary.
Do not underestimate the amount of work which is involved in the checking and testing stage of the task.
This is a major part of the translation process.
24.4 FURTHER PREPARATION FOR BIBLE TRANSLATION WORK
1. FURTHER READING
The bibliography in Appendix 2 (page 269 of this textbook) gives some suggestions for
further reading. Top priority should be:
Beekman and Callow. Translating the Word of God. Volume 1.
Callow, K. Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God.
Nida and Taber. Theory and Practice of Translation.
2. STUDY BIBLICAL LANGUAGES
A thorough knowledge of New Testament Greek, and also of Hebrew, are an
invaluable asset in Bible translation work.
3. TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF TRAINING IN EXEGETICAL PRINCIPLES
Take all the courses in exegetical principles that are available to you, especially
those which involve study of the original text
4. COME BACK OF FURTHER S.I.L. COURSES!
46
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This is not an exhaustive bibliography on the topics introduced in this textbook, but rather a list of
suggested starting points for further reading on these subjects. Almost all the books mentioned below
include extensive bibliographies.
Books marked with an asterisk * would form a useful basis for a Bible translator’s library.
1. THEORY OF SEMANTICS
Austin, J. 1962. How to do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.
*Beekman, J., and J. Callow. 1979. The Semantic Structure of Written Communication. Prepublication draft. SIL.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. [Chicago]: University of Chicago Press.
*Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Penguin. Paperback.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press. 2 volumes
Nida, E. A. 1975a. Componential Analysis of Meaning. Mouton.
Nida, E. A. 1975b. Exploring Semantic Structures. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Palmer, F. R. 1976. Semantics. Oxford University Press. Paperback.
Steinberg, and Jakobovits (editors). 1971. Semantics. Collected articles. Cambridge University Press.
2. DICTIONARY MAKING
Kilham, C. 1971. "Bilingual Dictionaries." In Journal of the Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea.
April 1971.
Robinson, D. F. 1969. A Manual for Bilingual Dictionaries. SIL. Volume 1: Textbook, Volumes 2 and 3: Spanish
wordlist.
Zgusta, L. 1971. A Manual of Lexicography. Mouton.
3. APPLIED SEMANTICS
*Brewster, T., and E. Brewster. 1976. Language Acquisition Made Practical (LAMP).
Cotterell, P. 1978. Language and the Christian. Bagster.
4. ON ANALYSING THE STRUCTURE OF A DISCOURSE
van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context. Longman.
Grimes, J. E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. Janua Linguarum Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata, Series
Minor
207. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English.English Language Series. Longman.
See also Beekman and Callow in section 1 above, and K. Callow in section 5 below.
5. BIBLE TRANSLATION PRINCIPLES
*Beekman, J., and J. Callow. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Volume I. Zondervan.
*Callow, K. 1974. Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God. Volume II. Zondervan.
*Nida, E. A. 1961. Bible Translating. 2nd edition. United Bible Societies. This earlier work by Nida is to some extent
replaced by his later work, but it includes some useful practical material, especially notes on Biblical terms,
which is not included elsewhere.
47