SURVEY OF TRANSLATION STUDIES:

From the Perspective of Bible Translation Theory & Practice

Ernst R. Wendland

Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa®

Stellenbosch University

Survey of Translation Studies: From the Perspective of Bible Translation Theory & Practice
© 2015 Ernst Wendland
E-Publication, all rights reserved
Version 4.7 – December 2018

1
 A Few of the Greats in Western Translation History

Cicero
Lefèvre d’Étaples.

Martin Luther

John Dryden

Friedrich Schleiermacher

Samuel Johnson

Catherine Winkworth

Eugene A. Nida

2
 Table of Contents

A Few of the Greats in Western Translation History ................................................................................ 2

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10
1. Translating “Translation”: What/How Do Translators “Translate”? ..................................................... 11
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 11
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2 The problem: Will the real “translation” please stand up? .................................................................. 12
1.3 A selective survey of definitions: Where have we come from? ........................................................... 15
1.4 A mixed-bag of definitions: Why the diversity? ................................................................................. 17
1.5 Restatement: A satisfactory interdisciplinary synthesis? ...................................................................... 20
1.6 “Equivalence” in translation: A crux interpretum? ............................................................................ 26
1.7 On the impact and influence of new media: Quo vadis? .................................................................. 30
1.8 Conclusion: On Metaphoric “translation” or the translation of “metaphor”? ....................................... 32
2. Exploring Translation Theories—A Review from the Perspective of Bible Translation ........................ 35
2.1 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 35
2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 35
2.3 Equivalence ...................................................................................................................................... 36
2.3.1 Natural Equivalence .................................................................................................................. 37
2.3.2 Directional Equivalence ............................................................................................................ 38
2.4 Relevance Theory ............................................................................................................................. 40
2.5 Functionalist Theories ...................................................................................................................... 42
2.6 Descriptive Theory ........................................................................................................................... 45
2.7 Uncertainty Theory........................................................................................................................... 49
2.8 Localization Theory .......................................................................................................................... 52
2.9 Cultural Theory ................................................................................................................................ 54
2.10 Concluding Observations ................................................................................................................ 56
2.11 References....................................................................................................................................... 57
3. Review of Jeremy Munday’s Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications ...................... 60
3.0 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 60
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 60
3.2 Some Major Issues of “Translation Studies” ..................................................................................... 61
3.2 Translation Theory before the 20th Century ..................................................................................... 62
3.3 Equivalence and Equivalent Effect ................................................................................................... 63
3.4 Studying Translation Product and Process ....................................................................................... 65
3.5 Functional Theories of Translation................................................................................................... 67
3.6 Discourse and Register Analysis Approaches ................................................................................... 69
3.7 Systems Theories .............................................................................................................................. 70
3.8 Cultural and Ideological “Turns”...................................................................................................... 72
3.9 The Role of the Translator: Visibility, Ethics, and Sociology ........................................................... 74
3.10 Philosophical Theories of Translation ............................................................................................ 76
3.11 New Directions from the New Media ............................................................................................. 78
3.12 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 79
3.13 References....................................................................................................................................... 81
4. Review of Basil Hatim’s Teaching and Researching Translation ............................................................ 84
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 84
4.2 Overview of the Book ....................................................................................................................... 84
4.3 Chapter Summaries .......................................................................................................................... 86
4.3.1 Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................... 86
4.3.2 Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................... 86
4.3.3 Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................... 86
4.3.4 Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................... 87

3
 4.3.5 Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.6 Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.7 Chapter 7 ................................................................................................................................... 88
4.3.8 Chapter 8 ................................................................................................................................... 88
4.3.9 Chapter 9 ................................................................................................................................... 89
4.3.10 Chapter 10 ............................................................................................................................... 89
4.3.11 Chapter 11 ............................................................................................................................... 89
4.3.12 Chapter 12 ............................................................................................................................... 90
4.3.13 Chapter 13 ............................................................................................................................... 90
4.3.14 Chapter 14 ............................................................................................................................... 91
4.3.15 Chapter 15 ............................................................................................................................... 91
4.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 91
5. The Social Sciences and a “Foreignizing,” Functional Equivalence Bible Translation ....................... 93
5.1 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 93
5.2 Overview of the argument ................................................................................................................ 93
5.3 What is a “biblical translation”? ...................................................................................................... 95
5.4 Can a “foreignizing translation” also be “functionally equivalent”? ............................................... 96
5.5 A final case study—“Covenant” (‫ ) ְבּ ִ ֣רית‬.......................................................................................... 102
5.6 Conclusion: What does it matter? .................................................................................................. 103
5.7 References....................................................................................................................................... 105
6. Review of Translating the English Bible: From Relevance to Deconstruction ............................................. 107
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 107
6.2 “The Holy Marriage” ...................................................................................................................... 107
6.3 Relevance Theory ........................................................................................................................... 108
6.4 Analyzing Luke 1—4 ...................................................................................................................... 111
6.5 Communicative Clues ..................................................................................................................... 113
6.6 On “Literalism” ............................................................................................................................... 115
6.7 An “Experimental Translation” ...................................................................................................... 116
6.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 117
6.9 References....................................................................................................................................... 117
7. Framing the Frames: A Theoretical Framework for the Cognitive Notion of “Frames of
Reference” ......................................................................................................................................... 119
7.1 Introduction—the Conceptual “framework” for this study ............................................................ 119
7.2 Frames and framing in current cognitive linguistic studies ........................................................... 120
The FrameWorks Perspective: Strategic Frame Analysis™ ............................................................... 125
7.3 Translation in terms of conceptual “frames”.................................................................................. 129
7.4 Developing the “frames of reference” model ................................................................................. 131
7.5 Summary—Some principles of applied “framing” in hermeneutics: .............................................. 135
7.6 Applying the frames model to “re-familiarize” a well-known passage of Scripture ...................... 137
7.7 The “Lamb of God” metaphor—powerful blend of a pair of “mental spaces” ............................... 141
7.8 Conclusion: Frames of reference—Windows on the world of Bible translation............................. 148
7.9 Appendix: “Frames of Reference”—A descriptive definition ......................................................... 151
7.10 References..................................................................................................................................... 154
8. Parameters of a Literary-Rhetorical Translation ............................................................................... 158
8.1 The value of a literary-rhetorical translation ................................................................................. 158
8.2 Background: The literary analysis of biblical literature ................................................................. 160
8.3 The crucial question: Can the Bible be classified as literature? ..................................................... 161
8.4 Some theories of literary translation .............................................................................................. 165
8.4.1 Bible translation theorists ....................................................................................................... 165
8.4.2 Secular theorists ...................................................................................................................... 168
8.4.3 Evaluating the various theories............................................................................................... 190
8.5 Ambiguity of the term literary translation ....................................................................................... 190
8.5.1 A social (popular) perspective................................................................................................. 191
8.5.2 A stylistic (technical) perspective ........................................................................................... 192
4
 8.6 Defining literary translation ............................................................................................................. 193
8.7 Translation as a complex “mediated” act of communication .................................................... 193
8.8 A continuum of translation types ................................................................................................... 196
8.9 Where to set the L-R parameters .................................................................................................... 199
8.9.1 Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 201
8.9.2 Gain ......................................................................................................................................... 201
8.10 Guidelines for a literary-rhetorical analysis ................................................................................. 202
8.10.1 Step 1: Study the complete textual, intertextual, and extratextual context.......................... 203
8.10.2 Step 2: Read the entire text and determine its genre and subgenres .................................... 204
8.10.3 Step 3: Plot all occurrences of recursion/repetition in the pericope .................................... 205
8.10.4 Step 4: Find all instances of disjunction within the discourse .............................................. 206
8.10.5 Step 5: Isolate the areas of stylistic concentration ................................................................ 207
8.10.6 Step 6: Identify the major points of discourse demarcation and projection ......................... 207
8.10.7 Step 7: Outline the compositional structure of the entire pericope ...................................... 208
8.10.8 Step 8: Prepare a complete semantic (word/symbol/motif) study ....................................... 209
8.10.9 Step 9: Analyze any remaining linguistic and literary features ............................................ 209
8.10.10 Step 10: Note the major speech functions and their interaction in the discourse .............. 210
8.10.11 Step 11: Do an L-R comparison for possible form-functional matches ............................... 211
8.10.12 Step 12: Prepare a trial translation and test it against other versions ................................ 212
9. Methodologies for Investigating the Oral-Aural Analysis, Translation, and Transmission of
Biblical Texts ..................................................................................................................................... 214
9.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 214
9.2 Investigating Orality ....................................................................................................................... 215
9.2.1 Conversational Analysis .......................................................................................................... 216
9.2.2 Relevance Theory .................................................................................................................... 217
9.2.3 Speech Act Theory................................................................................................................... 218
9.2.4 Argument-Structure Analysis .................................................................................................. 219
9.2.5 Functionalist Strategy.............................................................................................................. 220
9.2.6 Frames of Reference ................................................................................................................ 222
9.2.7 Performance Criticism ............................................................................................................. 224
9.3 Application of Orality-Oriented Methodologies to Bible Translation ............................................ 226
9.4 Bibliography of Translation in relation to Orality and Biblical Studies ......................................... 228
10. “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper”—A Response ............................................................................... 239
10.1 Summary....................................................................................................................................... 239
10.2 What is this “caper” all about? ..................................................................................................... 239
10.3 A twofold problem—formal and functional ................................................................................. 240
10.3.1 With reference to FORM ....................................................................................................... 240
10.3.2 With reference to FUNCTION ............................................................................................... 241
10.4 Background ................................................................................................................................... 244
10.5 Paraphrase with a twist ................................................................................................................ 245
10.6 Instrumental form ......................................................................................................................... 246
10.7 Gnostic Incarnations ..................................................................................................................... 249
10.7 Conclusion: Imperialistic and Capitalistic motivation? ................................................................ 250
10.8 References..................................................................................................................................... 251
11. What is an Oratorical “LiFE” translation and How is it Prepared? ................................................... 254
11.1 Definition: “Literary Functional Equivalence” ............................................................................. 254
11.2 Motivation for a literary (oratorical) translation ......................................................................... 255
11.3 The oral-aural factor and an “oratorical” version ........................................................................ 256
11.4 Further reflections on a LIFE-like “oratorical” translation ........................................................ 259
11.4.1 On the complexities of translation ........................................................................................ 259
11.4.2 Bible translation .................................................................................................................... 260
11.5 Towards an “oratorical” literary-functional-equivalence (LiFE) translation................................ 262
11.6 Literary (oratorical) influence on the Bible interpretation-translation process ........................... 264
11.7 Translation choices: A continuum of possibilities—or “compromises”? ...................................... 265
5
 11.8 A method for discovering the oratory of the vernacular.............................................................. 267
11.9 Organizing and implementing a literary translation project ....................................................... 268
11.9.1 Need for sufficient pre-project planning and research.......................................................... 268
11.9.2 Selecting and training the translation team .......................................................................... 269
11.9.3 Composition-translation procedures ..................................................................................... 269
11.9.4 Evaluating and testing the translation .................................................................................. 270
11.9.5 Encouraging personal/popular involvement......................................................................... 270
11.10 Summary: Four LiFE principles (the 4 “R”s) .............................................................................. 272
11.11 References................................................................................................................................... 272
12. Translating For LiFE: An Exercise in Preparing a Literary Functional-Equivalence Version ............... 274
12.1 A relevant functional-equivalence approach to Bible translating ................................................. 274
12.2 Defining translation more precisely ............................................................................................. 280
12.3 Defining a literary functional-equivalence translation ................................................................. 286
12.4 LiFE translation in relation to other approaches .......................................................................... 290
12.4.1 The translational continuum ................................................................................................. 290
12.4.2 The Song of Songs: a case study ............................................................................................ 294
12.5 Preparing for a poetic LiFE translation ......................................................................................... 300
12.6 A ten-step exegetical methodology .............................................................................................. 303
12.6.1 Step 1: Study the cotext ........................................................................................................ 305
12.6.2 Step 2: Specify the literary genre .......................................................................................... 307
12.6.3 Step 3: Find the points of major disjunction ......................................................................... 308
12.6.4 Step 4: Plot the patterns of formal and conceptual repetition .............................................. 309
12.6.5 Step 5: Discover and evaluate the artistic and rhetorical features ....................................... 311
12.6.6 Step 6: Do a complete discourse analysis .............................................................................. 313
12.6.7 Step 7: Investigate the referential framework ....................................................................... 317
12.6.8 Step 8: Connect the cross-textual correspondences .............................................................. 320
12.6.9 Step 9: Determine the functional and emotive dynamics ..................................................... 322
12.6.10 Step 10: Coordinate form-functional matches .................................................................... 324
12.7 A vernacular case study ................................................................................................................ 325
12.8 From analysis to synthesis in translation ..................................................................................... 329
13. An Overview of In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It Means .................................... 334
13.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 334
13.1 Making Sense in Translation ........................................................................................................ 335
13.2 Anonymous Sources...................................................................................................................... 336
13.3 Fictions of the Foreign .................................................................................................................. 338
13.4 Translation, Ghosts, Metaphors .................................................................................................... 339
13.5 Translation as Scholarship ............................................................................................................ 339
13.6 Biography of an Artform .............................................................................................................. 340
13.7 The Will to Translate .................................................................................................................... 340
13.8 The Great Leap ............................................................................................................................. 341
13.9 Misreading Orhan Pamuk ............................................................................................................. 341
13.10 On Translating a Poem ............................................................................................................... 342
13.11 Are We the Folk in this Lok? ...................................................................................................... 343
13.12 Choosing an English for Hindi.................................................................................................... 343
13.13 The Translator’s Afterword ........................................................................................................ 344
13.14 Haruki Murakami and the Culture of Translation ...................................................................... 344
13.15 Translating Jacopone da Todi .................................................................................................... 345
13.16 “Ensemble Discords” .................................................................................................................. 346
13.17 Translation and the Art of Revision ........................................................................................... 347
13.18 The Art of Losing ........................................................................................................................ 348
14. REVIEW: why translation matters—also for LiFE.................................................................................. 350
14.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 350
14.2 Why does translation matter?—Some cogent reasons .................................................................. 351

6
 14.3 What kind of a translation matters?—One that matches the literary quality of the original
text ............................................................................................................................................ 352
14.4 How does a “literary translation” relate to Scripture?—The example of Psalm 6 ....................... 357
14.4.1 The Microstructure of Psalm 6, with textual, literary, and exegetical notes ........................ 358
14.4.2 Literary-structural summary ................................................................................................. 361
14.4.3 Exemplifying a “direct” literary translation .......................................................................... 364
14.4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 367
15. Insights from The Art of Literary Translation ....................................................................................... 369
15.1 The nature of literary translation ................................................................................................. 369
15.2 Attributes of a literary translator ................................................................................................. 370
15.3 The problem of literal translation ................................................................................................ 372
15.4 Translating poetry ........................................................................................................................ 373
15.5 Fidelity in translation ................................................................................................................... 375
15.6 The importance of form ................................................................................................................ 376
15.7 The sound (oral-aural) dimension ................................................................................................ 377
15.8 Translation teaching and practice ................................................................................................ 378
15.9 Translation theory ........................................................................................................................ 381
15.10 Ethics of translation.................................................................................................................... 382
16. Literary Translation—A Practical Guide ................................................................................................ 385
16.1 Preface .......................................................................................................................................... 386
16.2 Why Literary Translation? ............................................................................................................ 386
16.3 The uniqueness of literary translation.......................................................................................... 387
16.4 Getting Started.............................................................................................................................. 388
16.5 Preparing to translate ................................................................................................................... 388
16.6 Staying on track ............................................................................................................................ 389
16.7 A day in the life of a literary translator ....................................................................................... 390
16.8 Stages of translation ..................................................................................................................... 390
16.9 Decisions at the outset .................................................................................................................. 391
16.10 What literary translators really translate ................................................................................... 394
16.11 The care and feeding of authors ................................................................................................. 395
16.12 Style in translation ..................................................................................................................... 396
16.13 Fiction and footnotes .................................................................................................................. 396
16.14 Some notes on translating poetry ............................................................................................... 397
16.15 Other areas of literary translation .............................................................................................. 398
16.16 Puns and wordplay ..................................................................................................................... 399
16.17 Stalking the treacherous typo (Lapsus calami) .......................................................................... 400
16.18 The dilemma of dialect ............................................................................................................... 400
16.19 Special problems in literary translation ..................................................................................... 401
16.20 Pitfalls and how to avoid them .................................................................................................. 401
16.21 The all-important title ................................................................................................................ 402
16.22 Profanity, prurience, pornography ............................................................................................. 402
16.23 The crucial role of revision ........................................................................................................ 403
17. Poeticizing the Psalter in an African language ................................................................................... 406
17.1 Overview: From a Literary-Structural analysis to a LiFE translation ........................................... 406
17.2 A literary-structural summary of Psalm 13 .................................................................................. 409
17.3 The psalmist’s rhetorical strategy ................................................................................................. 411
17.4 Towards a LiFE-like, musical translation ...................................................................................... 413
17.5 Conclusion: From Poetry to Poetry—What Have We Learned? ..................................................... 420
17.6 References..................................................................................................................................... 421
18. From ‘Death’ to ‘Life’—‘BLOOD’ in the Psalms: A Lexical-Translational Survey................................ 423
18.1 ‫ ָדּם‬in Biblical Hebrew .................................................................................................................. 423
18.2 ‫ ָדּם‬in the Psalter ........................................................................................................................... 426
18.3 “Blood” in English ........................................................................................................................ 429
18.4 “Blood” in Bantu (Chewa) ............................................................................................................ 432
7
 18.5 Strategies for Bridging the Linguistic-Cultural Gap in Translation .............................................. 436
18.6 References..................................................................................................................................... 438
19. Overview—COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND TRANSLATION: Advances in Some Theoretical
Models and Applications ..................................................................................................................... 440
19.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 440
19.1 Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Theory .............................................................................. 441
19.2 Meaning in Translation ................................................................................................................ 442
19.3 Constructions and Translation...................................................................................................... 443
19.4 Culture and Translation ................................................................................................................ 445
19.5 Beyond Translation....................................................................................................................... 446
20. Overview of Translation: A Very Short Introduction ............................................................................. 448
20.1 Crossing languages ....................................................................................................................... 448
20.2 Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 449
20.3 Words, contexts, and purposes ..................................................................................................... 450
20.4 Forms, identities, and interpretations .......................................................................................... 451
20.5 Power, religion, and choice .......................................................................................................... 453
20.6 Words in the world ....................................................................................................................... 455
20.7 Translational literature ................................................................................................................. 457
21. Literary Translation – A Selective Overview ........................................................................................ 460
21.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 460
21.1 Why do we translate? ................................................................................................................... 461
21.1.1 Why do I translate? A personal response .............................................................................. 461
21.1.2 Why do we translate? The humanist response ...................................................................... 462
21.1.3 Why do we translate” Ideological agendas ........................................................................... 463
21.1.4 Why do we translate? Translation as a mode of reading and writing .................................. 466
21.1.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 468
21.2 How do we read translations? ...................................................................................................... 468
21.2.1 Are literary translations special? Are they—should they be—read differently? .................. 469
21.2.2 How do we, or should we, review translations? ................................................................... 469
21.2.3 How do we read a translation for scholarly purposes? ......................................................... 470
21.2.4 How do we assess the success of a literary translation? ....................................................... 471
21.2.5 Exercises ................................................................................................................................ 472
21.3 How do translators read? ............................................................................................................. 472
21.3.1 Reading for translation (1): literature for children and young adults .................................. 473
21.3.2 Reading for translation (2): German exophonic literature ................................................... 474
21.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 476
21.5 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 476
22. LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE: Crucial Qualities of a Consummate Translation.................................... 478
22.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 478
22.2 Historical Introduction ................................................................................................................. 479
22.3 Methodology of a Master.............................................................................................................. 482
22.3.1 Confessional .......................................................................................................................... 483
22.3.2 Communicative ..................................................................................................................... 484
22.3.3 Creative ................................................................................................................................. 488
22.3.4 Comprehensive ...................................................................................................................... 497
22.3.5 Contextual ............................................................................................................................. 500
22.3.6 Collaborative ......................................................................................................................... 505
22.3.7 Continuative .......................................................................................................................... 507
22.3.8 Consequential ........................................................................................................................ 509
22.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 512
23. Psalm One in relation to a Typology of Translation Solution Types .................................................. 517
23.1 Discourse outline with textual and exegetical notes .................................................................... 517
23.2 Literary-structural summary ......................................................................................................... 519
23.3 Examples of a poetic translation—A pair of Bantu versions ........................................................ 522
8
 23.3.1 Psalm 1 in Chitonga .............................................................................................................. 522
23.3.2 Psalm 1 in Chichewa ............................................................................................................. 525
23.4 Applying Anthony Pym’s “Typology of Translation Solution Types” .......................................... 527
24. Review of a “New Old” translation of Genesis 1—11 ........................................................................... 532
24.1 “To the reader” ............................................................................................................................. 532
24.2 “To the persistent reader” ............................................................................................................ 533
24.3 Sampling the translation .............................................................................................................. 535
25. Translation: The Basics – A Summary Review from the Perspective of Bible Translation................... 539
25.1 Basic Issues in the Field of Translation ........................................................................................ 539
25.2 Some Much-Discussed Concepts in Translation Theory ............................................................... 543
25.3 Some Important New Trends in Translation Studies.................................................................... 546
25.4 Translation in the Real World ...................................................................................................... 548
26. Fundamentals of Translation – A summary and review ........................................................................ 552
26.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 552
26.1 Defining “Translation”.................................................................................................................. 552
26.2 Functionalism ............................................................................................................................... 554
26.3 Pragmatic Functions ..................................................................................................................... 555
26.4 Translating “Texts” ....................................................................................................................... 557
26.5 Reading Translations .................................................................................................................... 559
26.6 Translating in Society ................................................................................................................... 560
27.7 Translation Quality ....................................................................................................................... 561
26.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 563
27. On the Importance of Words—Translation Too! ................................................................................ 565
27.1 The Importance of Words ............................................................................................................. 565
27.2 Excerpt from “Why Translation Matters” ..................................................................................... 575
27.3 Ten Ways Translation Shapes Your Life ....................................................................................... 585
27.4 Why Literature in Translation is Super-Super Important ............................................................. 588
27.5 The Importance of Translation Studies for Development Education ........................................... 589
27.6 The Importance of Translation ..................................................................................................... 595
27.7 Why Translation is Important in a World Where English is Everywhere .................................... 596
28. LITERARY FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE TRANSLATION……………………………………...……….599
Index of Subjects ....................................................................................................................................... 608

Front page illustration: Miniature from the prologue of Aristote's Politic, Economics, Ethics in a 1370 translation
of Nicolas Oresme (Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), Department of manuscripts, RC-A-28551)

1st medallion: Charles V of France orders his counsellor to translate the book
2nd medallion: Translation by a Canon (priest)
3rd medallion: Return to the king to present the translation, accompanied by a bailiff and a clerk carrying the
translation
4th medallion: Presentation of the book to Charles V.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACharles_V_ordonnant_la_traduction_d'Aristote_copy.jpg

9
Introduction

This book consists of a collection of studies that I have made over the past decade (plus) that relate, more
or less, to the field of “translation studies,” with special reference to its specific interface with various
activities relating to Bible translation. “Translation studies is an academic interdiscipline dealing with the
systematic study of the theory, description and application of translation, interpreting, and localization”
(Wikipedia). To situate my “perspective” with respect to this book’s title: I am not really much of a
translation “theorist” and simply stand on the shoulders of others in that respect (some depicted above);
but forty years of advisory, consultation, and actual translation work in Africa (Zambia) have helped me
to become a better “practitioner” of this challenging discipline, craft, and art-form.

Over the years, I have not noticed a great deal of interaction between scholars and writers who engage
in secular translation studies (TS) and their correspondents who work in scripture translation, though it is
encouraging to see more frequent references and exchanges in recent times. However, popular works in
the field of TS, such as those of Pym and Munday (see below), are still rather restricted in their theoretical
perspective, being limited largely to (early) Nida. On the other hand, scholarly texts on Bible translating
are often even more constrained as far as the broad discipline of TS is concerned—except for the well-
known works by Eugene A. Nida and Ernst-August Gutt.

However, there is yet another branch of TS that seems to be overlooked or ignored by secular and
scripture scholars and writers alike, namely, that of professional, or “literary,” translators (cf. Translating
the Literature of Scripture 2004:76-79). To give a small sample of the important insights to be gained from
such works, consider the following excerpts from why translation matters (sic) (Edith Grossman, Yale
University Press, 2010:x-xi, 7, 10; cf. ch. 14):
Translation not only plays its important traditional role as the means that allows us access to literature
originally written in one of the countless languages we cannot read, but it also represents a concrete
literary presence with the crucial capacity to ease and make more meaningful our relationships to those
with whom we may not have had a connection before. Translation always helps us to know, to see from
a different angle, to attribute new value to what once may have been unfamiliar…

…The most fundamental description of what we translators do is that we write—or perhaps rewrite—in
language B a work of literature originally composed in language A, hoping that readers of the second
language…will perceive the text, emotionally and artistically, in a manner that parallels and corresponds
to the esthetic experience of its first readers. This is the translator’s grand ambition. Good translations
approach that purpose. Bad translations never leave the starting line. …

The unique factor in the experience of translators is that we not only are listeners to the [SL] text, hearing
the author’s voice in the mind’s ear, but speakers of a second text—the translated work—who repeat what
we have heard, though in another language, a language with its own literary tradition, its own cultural
accretions, its own lexicon and syntax, its own historical experience, all of which must be treated with as
much respect, esteem, and appreciation as we bring to the language of the original writer. Our purpose
is to re-create as far as possible, within the alien system of a second language, all the characteristics,
vagaries, quirks, and stylistic peculiarities [also artistic appeal & rhetorical impact] in the second language.

The preceding was an excellent summary of the aims of a “literary functional equivalent” (LiFE) rendition
(see below). In the chapters that follow I begin with several reviews of well-recognized works that survey
the current field of Translation Studies. Medial chapters present some of my thoughts on a “literary-
structural” and a “frames of reference” approach to ST analysis, coupled with an “oratorical,” LiFE-style
method of TT translating. The final chapters (24-27) are new, and here I interact with the ideas of some
prominent professional literary translators and translation teachers. It is interesting to note the extent to
which the ideas promoted in my studies and reviews either correspond with, or differ from, those of
modern translation theorists. There is a certain amount of reiteration of content in this material—hopefully
not too much! Any comments in response to my diverse explorations of this important subject are welcome
(erwendland@gmail.com).
10
 1. Translating “Translation”: What/How Do Translators
“Translate”?1

Summary

Nowadays in both contemporary scholarly writings and popular discourse the term “translation”
(“translate”) appears to be increasingly employed in a secondary, rather than its primary sense:
“to render a written or spoken text from one language to another.” The current flexibility of
usage has sometimes led to a certain degree of misunderstanding and a lack of clarity with regard
to what is being done when translating, and what is consequently offered as an end-product. This
linguistic-lexicographical phenomenon is first explored by means of a selection of quotations
from theorists who promote a more liberalized understanding of translating, and these notions
are then compared with the standard definitions of several established approaches, such as
Descriptive Translation Studies, Formalist “Skopos” Theory, Relevance Theory, and Functional
(Dynamic) Equivalence. The preceding overview forms the background for the author’s rather
detailed effort to describe the nature and scope of “translating” from a more traditional and
conservative perspective, yet one that also takes into consideration modern cognitive linguistic
(CL) theory and a related conceptual “frames of reference” methodology, with special reference
to the particular field of sacred Scripture translation and interpretation. Finally, several
significant associated topics and issues are briefly discussed in terms of their potential impact
upon the discipline, such as the oral-aurality factor, multimodality, and globalization. The
conclusion of the present study is that definition is important, and it therefore behooves all those
who are in any way engaged in “translation”-related activities to clearly explain what they are
up to and why.

1.1 Introduction

“Translation has become a fecund and frequent metaphor for our contemporary intercultural
world… Translation is poised to become a powerful epistemological instrument for reading and
assessing the transformation and exchange of cultures and identities.”2 The preceding abstruse
assertion is typical of a new “cultural turn” in “Translation Studies,” one that endeavors to
metaphorically magnify the traditional, text-based understanding of “‘real’ translation”3 into “an
epistemological principle applicable to the whole field of humanistic, social, and natural
sciences.”4 For example, “…whatever a writer writes is to some extent a kind of translation, because

1 This particular study has been written in honor of Prof. Basil Hatim (American University of
Sharjah), whose many books and articles on the subject of a discourse-oriented, linguistically-based,
cognitive-cultural approach to translating have greatly helped me to understand what this artful skill (or,
skillful art) is all about and how to do it! The expression “translating ‘translation’” can of course have a
more literal sense, for example: How can the English notion of “translation” or “translate” be expressed in
another language? “It is transferre, in its noun form translatio, that was itself brought across [from Latin]
to become the English word ‘translation’” (Matthew Reynolds, Translation: A Very Short Introduction
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016], 14). In Chewa (a SE Bantu language) we have two options:
kumasulira ‘to untie’ (familiar) and kutanthauzira ‘to express meaning’ (more formal).
2 Stefano Arduini and Siri Nergaard, “Translation: A New Paradigm” in translation (sic, inaugural
issue, 2011), 8-17 [8, 14].
3 Or, as Reynolds precisely put it, “Translation Rigidly Conceived” (Translation, 18).
4 Stefano Arduini and Siri Nergaard, “Translation”, 8, 14.
11
that work will be the product that has emerged out of readings of other people’s writing.”5 But
how useful is such a flexible, expansible notion of translation to those of us who are actually
engaged in the narrower business of text-based interlingual communication? In this survey I
compare some conventional definitions and theories, including my own, with a selection of more
recent perspectives on, and applications of this modern, liberalized translation paradigm.6 How
important is the “labeling” of one’s product, and how serious are the practical issues that arise
from differing viewpoints regarding the meaning of translating “meaning” and related terms, like
the controversial concept of “equivalence”? Is there any advantage in preserving a more
conservative approach, yet one that is also coupled with the holistic frame of reference provided
by modern cognitive linguistics, especially with regard to Bible (sacred text) translation and
related activities?7 In conclusion, brief reference will also be made to the notion of “multimodal”
translation and the vital influence of “orality,” as well as to several of the newer technologies of
Scripture text production and transmission, such as video, the internet, and a musical genre.

1.2 The problem: Will the real “translation” please stand up?

Translation is the performative nature of cultural communication. It is language in actu

(enunciation, positionality) rather than language in situ (énoncé, or propositionality). And
the sign of translation continually tells, or “tolls” the different times and spaces between
cultural authority and its performative practices.8
The preceding quotation seems to reflect a very different understanding or definition of
“translation” that some of us may be familiar with, and yet it goes back to 1994—over twenty
years ago—so where have we been, or what have we been reading in the meantime? This is
typical of approaches and proponents of the so-called “cultural turn” in translation. As part of an
initial overview of such a culture-focused view of translation studies in his popular textbook,9
Jeremy Munday observes that its proponents more or less “dismiss” linguistic approaches to
translation “and focus on the way in which culture impacts and constrains translation”
(2008:125).10 Many of these theorists seek to promote such a cultural turn, for example, as they

5 Susan Bassnett, Reflections on Translation (New York: Multilingual Matters, 2011), 164 (italics added).
What is here referred to as “translation” used to be termed “intertextuality” in literary studies. This
statement is simply a specification of George Steiner’s equally unhelpful, overgeneralized notion that
“human communication equals translation” (1975; cited in Reynolds, Translation, 23).
6 Not all modern translation theorists adopt this new vision for translation, for example, Basil Hatim
and Jeremy Munday, Translation: An Advanced Resource Book, 2nd ed., London & New York: Routledge,
2004 and forthcoming (cf. section A7). From the perspective of “literary translation,” Chantal Wright
defines this practice as “the movement/transfer of a written…text from one language into another, this
transfer being carried out by a human agent or agent, i.e. the translator(s)” (Literary Translation [London
& New York: Routledge, 2016], 171-172, added italics; see also this book, ch. 21).
7 This essay has been written from the specific perspective of written translations of the Christian
Scriptures. However, the issues involved would undoubtedly need to be considered contextually by oral
“interpreters” of Scripture, as well as by scholars engaged either in translating or theorizing about the
Islamic Koran or the Jewish TaNaK.
8 Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London and New York, 1994, pp. 227; reprinted in the
Inaugural Issue of translation 2011, 19-20).
9 Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge.
2008). A 3rd edition of this book was published in 2012, but an online survey revealed the text to be
virtually the same as that of the 2nd edition, except that the focus of the final chapter (11) has been changed
from “New directions from the new media” to “Translation studies as an interdiscipline.” In any case, the
publication of this 3rd edition gives a general indication of the popularity and influence of this book in the
field of translation studies; the text serves well as a frame of reference for my present investigation.
10 As an early instance of this, Munday cites Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies (London & New York:
Routledge, 1980, rev. ed. 2002:136).
12
“move from translation as text to translation as culture and politics” (125).11 But one might
question whether such a metaphorical approach represents rather too great of a “turn,” for is not
translation most explicitly about texts and the messages being transmitted thereby from one
language (SL) and sociocultural setting to another (TL)?12

But that is not how recent theorists are thinking; rather, they seek to broaden the horizons
of “translation” considerably (Arduini and Nergaard 2011: 9-10, 13):
We welcome new concepts that speak about translation and hope to reshape translation
discourse within these new terms and ideas. To achieve this goal, we must go beyond the
traditional borders of the discipline, and even beyond interdisciplinary studies. . . . In an
epistemological sphere it becomes less important to distinguish and define clearly what
translation is and what it is not, what stands inside the borders of translation and what
stands outside. . . . [T]ranslational processes are fundamental for the creation of culture(s)
and identities, for the ongoing life of culture(s), and for the creation of social and economic
values” (italics added).
One begins to wonder, however: within this “new paradigm,” which may be termed
“translationality” (Reynolds 2016:23), does the notion of translation actually “mean” anything—
other than some sort of general sociocultural transformation as viewed from the perspective of a
certain individual’s (or group’s) “rhizomatic” reconceptualization (Arduini and Nergaard 2011:
9)? And what are the reasons for the assertion that “it becomes less important to distinguish and
define clearly what translation is and what it is not”? Is its theory and practice not in danger
then of gratuitously entering the purview of disciplines that are much more experienced and
capable of dealing with the varied ethnographic and sociocultural issues being referred to?

Perhaps we should turn instead to a more philosophical approach for some direction in the
search for a more modern definition and associated application of “translation”:
Good translation…can be defined as that in which the dialectic of impenetrability and
ingress, of intractable alienness and felt “at-homeness” remains unresolved, but
expressive. Out of the tension of resistance and affinity, a tension directly proportional to
the proximity of the two languages and historical communities, grows the elucidative
strangeness of the great translation.13
Unfortunately, there is not much enlightenment available in the preceding opaque observation,
which seems to delight in the “impenetrable” interplay of complicated terminology rather than
in any coherent meaning. In the case of popular “Deconstruction” theory then, we reach the
limits of comprehension (or incomprehension), as we must “[suspend] all that we take for granted
about language, experience, and the ‘normal’ possibilities of communication” (Munday

11 An oft-cited early collection of studies in this area is S. Bassnett and A. Lefevre (eds.), Translation,
History, and Culture (London & New York: Routledge, 1990); e.g., Mary Snell-Hornby, “Linguistic
Transcoding or Cultural Transfer: A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany,” in Bassnett and Lefevre,
eds., 79-86. As one of the reviewers of the present article noted: “these models [of ‘translation’] are often
developed at institutions where the focus is on the analysis of literary texts–not the training of translators.”
12 Furthermore, the implication given by some of the scholars in this camp that they are the ones
who have brought cultural issues to the fore in the field of translation studies, when the reality is that
Bible theorists and translators had been closely engaging with such cultural challenges, beginning some
thirty years earlier in point of time, that is, much earlier than 1990. Many of the articles in early issues of
The Bible Translator deal specifically with cultural issues being confronted in translations of the Scriptures
in various languages, for example: “One of the greatest problems for the missionary or native (sic)
translator is the cultural context in which he (sic) is translating” (Wm. D. Reyburn, “Certain Cameroon
Translations: Analysis and Plans,” BT 9/4, 1958, 171-182 [181]). Many of E. A. Nida’s earlier works also
directly address the cultural dimension of interlingual communication, e.g. Customs and Cultures:
Anthropology for Christian Missions (New York: Harper, 1954).
13 George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (London & Oxford: Oxford UP,
1975/3rd ed., 1998), 413.
13
2008:170).14 “Its leading figure is the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,” who employs
terminology that is “complex and shifting, like the meaning it dismantles” (ibid.:170)—or seeks
to destabilize. Accordingly, there can be no “relevance” in translation “because, in Derrida’s
view, a relevant translation relies on the supposed stability of the signified—signifier
relationship” (ibid.:171).15 Such a philosophical perspective promotes an “abusive fidelity” that
“involves risk-taking and experimentation with the expressive and rhetorical patterns of
language, supplementing the ST, giving it renewed energy…[tampering] with usage” (ibid.:172).
The result is inevitably a new text, one that reflects the image of its creator—and hence cannot
be called a “translation” in the usual sense at all, certainly not where the Scriptures are
concerned. As Munday concludes: “[S]uch a translation strategy demands a certain ‘leap of faith’
from the reader to accept that the translator’s experimentation is not just facile wordplay,”16
which may in fact “be easier if the text in question is philosophical” (ibid.:177).17

The preceding observations illustrate the warning issued by translation theorist Andrew
Chesterman that “translation studies has been importing concepts and methodologies from other
disciplines ‘at a superficial level’ which tends to lead to ‘misunderstandings’ since translation-
oriented researchers often lack expertise in the other field and may even be borrowing outdated
ideas.”18 To give one example: “Robert Young’s lecture at the 2013 Nida Research Symposium
was devoted to how Freud can be considered a theoretician of translation and how his
psychoanalysis can be seen as a form of translation.”19 To be sure, the Freudian practice of “free
association” would probably not result in a very “faithful” rendition of any given source text, but
it might at least transform “translating” into some manner of beneficial therapeutic exercise. In
any case, one of the reasons that Bible translation consultants and practitioners need to keep
abreast with the new developments and debates in translation studies, including a workable
definition of the field itself, is to avoid what Chesterman refers to as superficial or extraneous
“consilience” in their own specialized field (Munday 2008:197). And how might this be done?
One method for establishing a firmer conceptual frame of reference would be to revisit our
translation “roots” in order to reassess some of the older standard definitions along with related

14 C. Norris, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 1991), xi.
15 Jacques Derrida, “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?” in Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The Translation
Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 425 [423-447].
16 “Probably the best known use of ‘translation’ to mean something other than translation between
languages happens in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, where Bottom the weaver is partially
transformed into an ass. His friend Quince exclaims: ‘Bless thee, Bottom, bless thee! Thou art translated’
(Act 3, Scene 1, 118-19). Here, ‘translated’ mainly means ‘physically metamorphosed’. … Bottom is
translated into an ass because the word ‘bottom’ can be translated [intralingually] into ‘arse’” (Reynolds,
Translation, 14-15).
17 “Facile wordplay” indeed—so much so that when attempting to read and comprehend the writings
of these translation philosophers, one requires the assistance of an intralingual “translator” to help
decipher them. Back to Bhabha again for another example: “Cultural difference emerges from the
borderline moments of translation that Benjamin describes as the ‘foreignness’ of languages. Translation
represents only an extreme instance of the figurative fate of writing that repeatedly generates a movement
of equivalence between representation and reference but never gets beyond the equivocation of the sign.
The ‘foreignness’ of language is the nucleus of untranslatable that goes beyond the transparency of subject
matter” (1990:315). Indeed, one wonders if it is possible to translate the preceding quote into any language
by any means—except perhaps by a machine that does not know what it is thinking!
18 Andrew Chesterman, “Towards Consilience?” in Aijmer and Alvstad, New Tendencies, 19-28 (19).
19 For example, from the perspective of “postcolonial studies,” the focus is on “empowerment,” which
“involves a three-stage process that includes the experience of being translated, then of de-translation, and
finally of retranslation of the self” (italics added). From “translation speaks to Robert J. C. Young” in
translation (sic): A transdisciplinary journal, Issue 3 (http://translation.fusp.it/issues/issue-3/translation-
speaks-to-robert-j.c.-young, n.p., accessed on 20/10/2016).
14
principles and practices that some of us may still be familiar with, including a few updates. As
Anthony Pym has recently concluded:20
Contemporary translation theory has very little time for complex typologies of what
translators do. ... Our students are learning about translation, or about thought on
translation, but not in a way that is in close contact with their actual translation practice.
... I am going back to boring old linguistics; I am returning to a field where no empirical
advances have been made; I am suspicious of over-theorization; I am turning my back on
much that others see as new and exciting in translation studies.

1.3 A selective survey of definitions: Where have we come from?

Under “the concept of translation,” Munday defines the “process of translation” rather basically
as “the translator changing an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original verbal
language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or TT) in a different
verbal language (the target language or TL)” (2008:5; cf. Reynolds 2016:18).21 One is led to
speculate, however, as to what all is involved in this act of intertextual “changing.” Hatim and
Mason view “translation” as “an act of communication which attempts to relay, across cultural
and linguistic boundaries, another act of communication (which may have been intended for
different purposes and different readers/hearers)” (1997:1).22 More specifically, translation refers

20 “A Typology of Translation Solution Types” (unpublished paper 2016:15-16; a revision of the

online study at:
https://www.academia.edu/7867875/The_pedagogical_value_of_translation_solution_types).
21 Although there is a deliberate decision “to focus on written translation rather than oral translation
(the latter commonly known as interpreting…)” (ibid.), the issue of orality and the sound of texts is still
relevant. This is because many Bible translators, to name one group (anthropologists and folklorists too)
must, as part of their research, also deal with the translation of oral texts into written versions, and the
meaningful phonological loss which occurs in such cases is a matter of major concern that should be
addressed in any “coursebook” on translation. Furthermore, most Bible translations are at some point or
another read aloud, often in a public place, e.g. during communal worship. Therefore, the text needs to be
fashioned with the eventual medium of communication continually in mind. This vital oral-aural
dimension in written texts is a factor that is not often discussed in the literature of secular contemporary
translation studies. For a survey of the oral-aural dimension in relation to “Bible translation studies,” see
E. Wendland, Finding and Translating the Oral-aural Elements in Written Language: The Case of the New
Testament Epistles (Lewiston, US/Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008), ch. 1.
22 B. Hatim and I. Mason, The Translator as Communicator (London: Routledge, 1997). Indeed, if one were
to classify “translation” according to its longstanding traditional understanding, it would fall under the
more generic concept of “communication,” more specifically, interlingual—intercultural communication.
This notion of translation as “communication” is problematized by Siri Nergaard: “Often, translation
has been apprehended within an implicit framework of the communication model. Just as a verbal
interaction between individuals is typically and schematically construed according to the model of
communication in which a message supposedly travels from a speaker’s consciousness to a listener’s
consciousness, the action of translation is represented in a similar schema of communication in which a
message is transferred from one language to another. … Let us call this particular image or representation
of translation according to the model of communication ‘the modern regime of translation.’ But, the status
of discontinuity or incommensurability that prompts translation is far from self-evident in this
representation of translation between the preestablished unities of languages. … We are thus skeptical of
the model of communication that underlies the view of translation readily accepted in some
translation studies today” (“introduction,” translation (sic): A transdisciplinary journal, volume 4, 2014,
n.p., http://translation.fusp.it/issues/issue-4 accessed 30/10/2-16). Unfortunately, this article itself fails
to communicate effectively due to the jargonization that typifies certain branches of contemporary
translation studies, for example: “Similar to the maneuver of occupation at war, translation
deterritorializes and reterritorializes languages and probable sites of discommunication. It shows most
persuasively the unstable, transformative, and political nature of border, of the differentiation of the inside
from the outside, and of the multiplicity of belonging and nonbelonging” (loc. cit).
15
to “the process of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by a translator, or
translators, in a specific socio-cultural context” (Hatim and Munday 2004:6). Again we note the
questionable restriction to “written” texts and a certain degree of ambiguity inherent in the
process of “transferring.”23 Finally, definitions by two literary translators: “Translation denotes
the attempt to render faithfully into one language (normally, one’s own) the meaning, feeling,
and, so far as possible, the style of the piece written in another language”; “the most fundamental
description of what translators do is that we write—or perhaps rewrite—in language B a work of
literature in language A, hoping that the readers of the second language…will perceive the text,
emotionally and artistically, in a manner that corresponds to the esthetic experience of its first
readers.”24 The emotive-affective and artistic motives of the latter two perspectives are obvious.

Bible translation theorists tend to pay much more attention to the semantic notion of
“meaning” in their definitions, for example, in this expression which many of us have well-nigh
memorized: “Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural
equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of
style” (i.e., formal features of note).25 According to J. Beekman and J. Callow, “the translation
process involves (1) at least two languages and (2) a message—these two essential components
of a translation may be called, respectively, (1) form and (2) meaning…[the] formal linguistic
elements of a language are what is meant by form—the meaning is the message which is
communicated by these features of form.”26 J. de Waard and E. A. Nida describe the translation
process in some detail as follows:
The task of a Bible translator as a secondary source is always a difficult one, since he is
called upon to faithfully reproduce the meaning of the text in a form that will effectively
meet the needs and expectations of receptors whose background and experience are very
different from those who were the original receptors of the biblical documents. The
translator must strive to identify intellectually and emotionally with the intent and
purpose of the original source, but he must also identify with the concerns of his potential
receptors. . . . The translator, however, wants the receptor-language audience to appreciate
fully the relevance and significance of such a culturally and historically “displaced
message.” . . . An expression in any language consists of a set of forms which serve to
signal meaning on various levels: lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical. The translator must
seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible will match
the meaning of the original source-language text.27

23 One might argue that “translation” per se applies to written texts, while “interpretation” relates to
oral texts. But does this mean then that two separate theories are needed to go with the distinctive
practices? (cf. Reynolds, Translation, 15-16). There are also frequent cases of media “mixing” when oral
texts must be rendered in written form, e.g., traditional narrative folktales, or when written texts must be
presented orally, as in certain sermons.
24 The first quote is from Clifford E. Landers, Literary Translation: A Practical Guide (Clevedon UK:
Multilingual Matters, 2001), p. 10; the second comes from Edith Grossman, Why Translation Matters (New
Haven: Yale UP, 2010), p. 7.
25 E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (TAPOT, Leiden: Brill, 1969), p.
12. Dr. Nida liked to emphasize this communicative activity as a process (“translating”) rather than a
product (“translation”). The concept behind the passive term “receptor” is more accurately expressed
actively as “respondent.”
26 Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 19-20, original italics.
27 From One Language To Another (FOLTA, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), pp. 14, 36. “Those
communicative functions which are especially relevant for the understanding of principles of translation
are: expressive, cognitive, interpersonal, informative, imperative, performative, emotive, and aesthetic”
(ibid.:25; these functions are described and exemplified on pp. 25-32).
16
1.4 A mixed-bag of definitions: Why the diversity?

Obviously, one’s definition of “translation,” whether more or less general/specific (as noted
above), will be guided and shaped by a number of factors, not all of which a person may be
immediately aware of. One’s theory of communication, and within that of translation, is naturally
paramount, for it influences not only one’s conceptualization of the activity of translation, but
more importantly, also its actual practice. Several illustrative examples follow:
Gideon Toury, the pioneer of so-called “descriptive translation studies” (DTS), developed the
abstract the polysystem model of Evan-Zohar into a more practical, text-oriented and
comparative approach.28 The aim is to “build up a descriptive profile of translations according to
genre, period, author, etc. In this way, the norms pertaining to each kind of genre can be
identified with the ultimate aim…of stating laws of behaviour for translation in general”
(Munday 2008:111). Toury’s definition of “norms” is crucial in understanding his goal. This
involves “the translation [i.e. transformation] of general values or ideas shared by a community
– as to what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate – into performance instructions
appropriate for and applicable to particular situations” (ibid.:111).29 As far as the translation of
literature is concerned, the aim is to “identify the decision-making processes of the translator”
on the basis of “norm-governed activity” that is identified in “the examination of texts” or those
norms which are explicitly stated by translators and others in works about translation (ibid.:112).

The ambivalence of the DTS approach becomes evident with respect to the fundamental
issue of defining “what is meant by the term ‘translation’” (Pym 2010:76). On the one hand, this
task is seemingly left to the TL users themselves; in other words, “a translation is a translation
only for as long as someone assumes it is one” (ibid.). As Pym observes, “that solution remains
fraught with logical difficulties” (ibid.)—many practical ones too, I might add, for example, in
cases of misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and gross incompetence in actual performance.
On the other hand, Toury himself proposes three well-formulated “postulates” that should help
people to define what a “translation” is, namely, principles that pertain to the “source text,” the
“transfer” process, and the linguistic “relationship” between the SL and TL texts (ibid.:77).30 At
any rate, it is rather surprising to see, for example, the “source text postulate” expressed in terms
that would please any “equivalence” theorist: “There is another text, in another culture
/language, which has both chronological and logical priority over [the translation] and is presumed
to have served as the departure point and basis for it” (Toury 1995:33-34, added emphasis).

A rather different notion of what “translation” is, or should be is represented by Venuti’s

socio-political agenda under the theme “domestication and foreignization.” For Venuti, the
problem of overly “fluent” translations (into English) is due to a policy of domestication, which
involves “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to [Anglo-American] target-language
cultural values” by means of an “invisible style in order to minimize the foreignness of the TT”
(Munday 2008:144). A “foreignizing” approach, on the other hand, which is Venuti’s ideal,
adopts the strategy of “resistancy,” that is, “a non-fluent or estranging translation style designed

28 Polysystem theory views “translated literature as a system operating in the larger social, literary
and historical systems of the target culture” (Munday 2008:107-8). Attention is devoted then towards
determining the relative evaluative “position” of various genres of translated literature in a given language
community. See, for example, I. Even-Zohar, “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary
Polysystem,” in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge,
1989/2004), 199-204.
29 G. Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies—And Beyond. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995), p. 55.
This quote certainly sounds more “prescriptive” than “descriptive” in nature; indeed, such “performance
instructions” would seem to be most appropriately used in settings of translator training and instruction.
30 These three postulates sound strangely similar in terms of their points of reference to the “three
stages” of dynamic equivalence theory, namely, “analysis,” “transfer,” and “restructuring” (TAPOT 33).
17
to make visible the presence of the translator by highlighting the identity of the ST and protecting
it from the ideological dominance of the target culture” (145). However, one might seriously
question whether a “foreignized” version is able to accomplish all the Venuti aspires for it,
especially in a non-Western setting. A far more likely outcome is that the translator would simply
be judged to be technically poor or even incompetent due to the “foreign-sounding” text that
s/he has put forward for publication. As far as Scripture translation is concerned, on the other
hand, the situation is rather more complicated, and the “acceptability” of a translation depends
on other significant factors, such as, the history of translations in the language concerned, the
number of different versions available and their relative popularity, the theological evaluation
of certain translations (usually too “free”) by critical church denominations, the nature and
purpose of the version involved, etc.

For a more specific example, A. Berman, an enthusiastic supporter of “the foreign in

translation,” promotes what he terms “the ‘negative analytic’ of translation,” which embraces
any technique that opposes the “strategy of ‘naturalization’” (Munday 2008:147). Within the
latter procedure, he identifies twelve “deforming tendencies,” including “rationalization” (of
syntactic structures), “clarification” (e.g., explicitation), “expansion” (again, for the sake of
clarity in the TT), and “the destruction of rhythms…underlying networks of
signification…linguistic patternings…idioms” (ibid.:147-148).31 Berman praises the “literal
translation,” which in his opinion “restores the particular signifying process of [SL literary]
works…and, on the other hand, transforms the translating language” (ibid.:288-289). While such
a procedure might work out successfully in English and other languages with a long literary
history (where experienced readers may be used to such stylistic infelicities), it certainly fails in
the various Bantu languages that I am acquainted with, where such a literalistic policy only
“transforms the translating language” for the worse—namely, into the dialect of “translationese”.
Indeed, I have also found “fluency” in the TT, especially an audio version, to be a most desirable
quality, but one that can be achieved only through the perceptive and competent use of the full
linguistic and literary resources of the TL (Wendland 2004, ch. 8).

A third example of the influence of theory on definition, and in this instance also practice,
takes into consideration that fact that the translation type (if not a pure definition) will also
depend on “for whom” the TT is being prepared as well as “by whom.” From this perspective,
Functionalist approaches take pride of place. Thus, Skopos (“purpose”) theory “focuses above all
on the purpose of the translation, which determines the translation methods and strategies that
are to be employed in order to produce a functionally adequate result” (Munday 2008:79). Note
the term “adequate” instead of “equivalent,” for the assessment process now is to be carried out
from the standpoint of the intended TL readership: “The function of a [TT] in its target culture
is not necessarily the same as in the source culture” (ibid.:80). However, “this down-playing (or
‘dethroning’, as Vermeer terms it) of the status of the ST” has caused quite a bit of controversy
in translation circles, certainly in the case of “high-value,” authoritative texts such as any
religious group’s sacred Scriptures. A related criticism is that “Skopos theory does not pay
sufficient attention to the linguistic nature of the ST nor to the reproduction of microlevel
features in the TT” (ibid.:81). In short, one can seemingly re-create a ST in the TL, depending on
the wishes or whims of the project organizer or commissioner, a problem that Christiane Nord
specifically addresses.

The “text analysis” methodology of Christiane Nord,32 “pays more attention to [linguistic
and literary] features of the ST” and this involves “analyzing a complex series of interlinked

31 From A. Berman, “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign,” in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation
Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 276-289 (280).
32 For example, C. Nord (transl. J. Groos), Text Analysis in Translation (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005,
2nd edition); Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome,
1997).
18
extratextual factors and intratextual features in the ST” (Munday 2008:82).33 The former concern
is reflected in the previously noted “translation commission” (brief), which necessitates a
comparative study of the respective ST and TT communication settings (“profiles”), e.g., intended
text functions, the communicators (sender and recipient), medium, and motive (“why the ST was
written and why it is being translated”; ibid.:83). Of course, where a Bible translation is
concerned, such a general comparison will be much less detailed with respect to the ST context.
The “role of the ST analysis” (e.g. content, including connotation and cohesion, presuppositions,
sentence structure, lexis, suprasegmental features, text organization) then is to enable the project
management committee “to decide on functional priorities of the translation strategy” (ibid.:83).
This leads, in turn, to the positing of “the functional hierarchy of translation problems,” including
above all whether a “documentary” (relatively literal) or an “instrumental” (freer, more liberal)
type of translation should be undertaken (ibid.:82-83).

Finally, when we arrive at “Relevance Theory” (RT) there is no doubt about the extent to
which theory influences one’s definition of “translation” and how to carry it out. The definition
is comparatively simple: “[E-A] Gutt defines translation as ‘inter-lingual quotation’” (Goodwin
2013:52).34 The “basic demand” is that “we want to produce a stimulus in the target language
that will communicate to the target audience the full interpretation of the original, that is, that
it will share with the original all implications the original author intended to communicate” (Gutt
1992:65, original italics).35 This leads to “a possible absolute definition of translation,” in fact, a
“direct translation”: “A receptor-language utterance is a direct translation of a source-language
utterance if, and only if, it presumes to interpretively resemble the original completely (in the
context envisaged for the original” (ibid.:66, italics removed). This definition is presumed to be
“independent of the receptor-language context…no matter who the target audience might be”
(ibid.).

The problem that one faces here is immediate: as soon as translators compose their “receptor-
language utterance,” it is automatically dependent upon “the receptor-language context” for its
interpretation, to a greater or lesser degree depending on a number of situational factors, e.g.,
whether paratextual supplementary helps are provided that elucidate critical aspects of the
original text and its sociocultural setting, how “biblically literate” the target group is, how much
time and effort they are prepared to put in to the act of interpreting the translated text, and so
forth. Therefore, I find the notion of “direct translation” in which “the translator attempts to
‘directly’ quote the original communicator” rather misleading.36 Though the terminology is
superficially simple, the laborious argument supporting it (e.g., Goodwin 2013:53) is too obscure
in terms of conceptual and/or procedural application to be usable in practice, especially by
inexperienced translators. To claim that a direct translation is “simply a specialized echoic use

33 Nord also respects the communicative intentions of the original author under the concept of
“loyalty”: “loyalty means that the target-text purpose should be compatible with the original author’s
intentions” (Translating as a Purposeful Activity, 125).
34 Philip Goodwin, Translating the English Bible: From Relevance to Deconstruction (Cambridge: James
Clarke, 2013). Goodwin effectively summarizes Gutt’s RT approach to communication and translation as
set forth in Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1991/2000) and
Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation (Dallas/New York: SIL/UBS, 1992).
35 Related to this is the “minimax strategy” that aims at “minimizing the possible loss while
maximizing the potential gain” (Eva Samaniego Fernández, “The impact of Cognitive Linguistics on
Descriptive Translation Studies,” in Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, eds., Cognitive Linguistics and
Translation: Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications [Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013],
171 [159-198]). In other words, “If a communicator uses a stimulus that manifestly requires more
processing effort than some other stimulus equally available, the hearer can expect the benefits of this
stimulus to outweigh the increase in processing cost…” (Basil Hatim, Teaching and Researching Translation,
2nd ed. [Harlow UK: Pearson Education, 2013], 117).
36 “Gutt, in fact, defines translation as ‘inter-lingual quotation’, and in what he calls ‘direct quotation’,
the secondary communicator attempts ‘the preservation of all linguistic qualities’” (Goodwin 2013:189).
19
of language across linguistic boundaries” (ibid.:53) is disingenuous since such a viewpoint is
contradicted by current cognitive linguistic studies.37 Thus, both theoretically and in practice, all
verbal reconstitution across linguistic-conceptual boundaries can only be an inferential, variously
“indirect” process (cf. Goodwin 2013:55-56) involving a greater or lesser degree (depending on
the project Skopos) of formal, semantic, and pragmatic approximation during textual re-
composition. In addition, an apparent over-emphasis on desired “relevance” in the target
language setting is evidenced by statements such as the following: “The requirement for a faithful
translation is twofold: produce a target text which ‘should resemble the original—only in those
respects that can be expected to make it optimally relevant to the receptor language audience’ and
one which is ‘clear and natural in expression’…” (53, italics added). From this perspective, the
general criterion of “resemblance” is far too broad and subjective to be viable.38

In his survey of some of the main theories and developments in translation studies “since
the 1970s,” Jeremy Munday correctly draws attention to “the interdisciplinarity of recent
research” and writing (2008:14). However, he cites with apparent approval an assertion that I
would take issue with: [T]here has been “a movement away from a prescriptive approach to
translation to studying what translation actually looks like. Within this framework the choice of
theory and methodology becomes important.”39 This quote seems to imply, mistakenly in my
opinion, that the proponents of so-called “prescriptive” approaches (one might also term these,
less pejoratively, as being “pedagogical”) either do not know “what translation actually looks
like,” or their methodology does not take alternative approaches into adequate consideration.
There is also the erroneous implication that “the choice of theory and methodology” was/is not
“important” within the prescriptive perspective—or that such a methodology is irrelevant in the
modern age. However, many translation consultants, advisers, and guides who work in
educationally-disadvantaged areas of the world may still need to depend on this type of practical
pedagogy to make progress during training exercises or to get results in actual text production.

1.5 Restatement: A satisfactory interdisciplinary synthesis?

What is “translation”?—we might ask once again, to recycle the discussion with some further
elaboration. A short answer might be: “Translation is the transfer of a text from language A to
language B.” This is similar to what the Oxford Dictionary states: To translate is “to express the
sense of words or text in another language.” But is that good enough? How can such general
definitions help you? It depends on why you need them. For some purposes they may be
sufficient, for example, if someone asks you about such work in a casual conversation. However,
“what you mean when you call a text a ‘translation’ will depend on several factors…your
historical moment and political situation, the genre of the text you are talking about, its content
and purpose, the features of it that seem to you most important” (Reynolds 2016:18). Thus, for
most serious discussions (e.g., negotiations aimed at establishing a specific translation project),
a more detailed definition, with or without added explanation and exemplification, is needed.

But before we can actually define a translation, let alone deliver one, we need to be very
clear about the object of this creative, yet controlled, compositional activity, especially where a

37 See, for example, Philip D. King, Surrounded by Bitterness: Image Schemas and Metaphors for
Conceptualizing Distress in Classical Hebrew (Eugene: Pickwick, 2012), 360-363.
38 For example, adding the indefinite article “a” in John 1:1 (“…the Word was a god…”) in order to
render the text more “relevant” to a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ readership cannot be condoned, despite the fact
that this translation does closely “resemble” the original Greek text. I would argue that adjectives such as
“resemble” and “similar to” allow far too much leeway in interpretation to be serviceable when describing
the practice of Bible translation. Thus, to say that “this translation is similar to what is stated in the biblical
text” would be unacceptable to many lay respondents and scholarly critics as well.
39 Munday here cites K. Aijmer and C. Alvstad (eds.), New Tendencies in Translation Studies (Göteborg:
Göteborg University, Department of English, 2005), 1.
20
document of considerable social (including spiritual) significance is involved. As actual
practitioners already know from work that they have done, meaningful translation, as opposed to
mechanical translation, is a very specialized, complex, and varied type of verbal communication.
It involves an interpersonal, transformative sharing of the same text—plus the thought-world that
is presupposes—between two different systems of language, cognition, and culture. In other
words, translation necessitates a total re-conceptualization and re-signification of a text that comes
from one linguistic and sociocultural setting so that it is intelligible and perhaps also achievable
in a completely different communication environment. Now the process has become considerably
more complex in nature and a further definition of terms and procedures is necessary.

Translation, as a multilingual, intersemiotic, cross-cultural process of textual, as well as

cognitive, reconstitution, can be defined or described and evaluated (as noted above) in different
ways, depending on a number of important factors. Among these considerations are, from the
perspective of Scripture translating:
 the model of translation that one adopts with respect to theory and practice, e.g., whether source-
text oriented or target-text oriented, concordant, SMR-code, generative text-linguistic, cognitive-
poetic, or relevance based;
 the motive, or goal (Skopos), of the translation in relation to one’s opinion of the original text’s
“authority,” a designated target (consumer) audience, for a particular communicative purpose, and
in one or more preferred settings of use;
 the manner in which the re-composition process is carried out (e.g., formal correspondence versus
functional equivalence), including such methodological variables such as, individual or team-
oriented production, contract- or commitment-based, etc.

Translation may then be briefly defined as the practice of intercultural and interlingual
communication. It is an intricate, at times artful, process of semiotic textual exchange, or verbal
“transubstantiation” (trans-FORM-ation), involving two basic procedures:
1. The intercultural re-ideation or cognitive re-framing of a given SL text, which is a meaningful and
purposeful selection, arrangement, and differentiation of signs, whether oral or written, as it is
conceptually transferred from one worldview domain and value system to another;
2. The semantically accurate, formally appropriate, and pragmatically acceptable interlingual re-
signification of the original text in a specific TL, along with any important paratextual or
extratextual bridge and background material needed to facilitate greater comprehension, in
keeping with the agreed project Skopos.

The first procedure requires the mental processing and conversion of all the salient as well
as “encyclopedic” semantic and pragmatic features of the original text in terms of the target
language and cultural setting, whereas the second, which follows from the first, deals with the
more overt surface-level semantic, structural, and stylistic aspects of verbal composition. These
procedures are both informed (learned) and intuitive (instinctive) in nature – that is, the product
of rigorous systematic training as well as innate ability. At any rate, mistakes that occur during
the first step of the translation process, re-conceptualization, are always reflected in, and hence
distort, the second stage, re-composition. Conversely, once translators can accomplish the first
step in relation to a given SL text and its cognitive/emotive setting, the second, creating a
linguistic re-presentation in the TL, is usually not as difficult, although determining the relevant
level of appropriateness (accuracy, acceptability, etc.) is always a challenge.

So, do we translate texts or do we translate meanings? The simple answer is “Yes!” More
seriously: “Is there a difference?” Consider the following points with reference to your specific
work setting and a typical translation task:

21
1. We translate “texts,” which represent “meanings.”40 This process considers everything: the form,
content, and intent, implicatures along with explicatures (Pym 2010:35-36), as well as the situational
and interpretive settings, of both the source text and the target text. In other words, we always
translate complete “texts-in-cotexts-within-contexts.”

2. We translate the source text (and its represented meaning) to the extent possible – in keeping with the
project’s primary objectives and with the realization that any translation can be only a partial, hence
imperfect, and selective representation of the full communicative value of the original text.

3. The term “text” further implies the importance of linguistic and stylistic form, based on a phonological
foundation (as pointed out by the proponents of cognitive grammar), even in the case of written texts.

4. A careful analysis of literary macro- and micro-structure is necessary in order to determine the (real
or implied) author-intended content and goals of the source text within its likely, but ultimately
hypothetical, initial contextual setting.

5. To a greater or lesser degree, the SL form itself has meaning, that is, communicative significance, with
respect to emotive expressiveness, esthetic appeal, rhetorical impact, and textual organization. Thus
the Italian proverb traduttore – traditore “the translator [is] a traitor!” applies also, perhaps primarily,
to form.

6. A literary/oratorical approach pays special attention to the non-referential, connotative, and evocative
features of discourse associated with all SL forms, from the individual word to the complete discourse
level, including their language-specific phonic “sound effects.”

7. Finally, context is critical—both conceptual and situational. One’s methodology and interpretation
will always be influenced, to a greater or lesser extent, by the culture (world-view and way of life) of
the TL community in relation to that of the original SL text author(s) as well as one’s own
hermeneutical position.41 Operational procedures must also reflect the principal goal(s) of the
translation project within its primary envisaged social setting of use. If these pragmatic aims include,
for example, the desire to achieve naturalness in terms of textual impact and appeal, then TL literary
(including poetic) form is vitally important and needs to be carefully researched and applied
consistently and appropriately in the practice of translation.

The complicated cognitive-based activity of translating may be defined more precisely,

should the need arise, by factoring it into a number of key components:
Translation is (a) the conceptually mediated verbal re-composition of (b) one contextually
framed, inferentially interpreted text (c) within a different cognitive and communicative
setting (d) in the most relevant, (e) functionally equivalent manner possible, (f) that is,

40 As the linguist J. C. Catford reminds us, “When we translate, we don’t transfer something called
meaning out of one language and into another. Rather, we find words that are ‘interchageable in a given
situation’” (Reynolds, Translation, 32, citing Catford). The broad concept of “meaning” thus includes
distinct components with different designations, such as, “propositional,” “prototypical,” “encyclopedic,”
“connotational,” “contextual,” “functional,” “sociological,” and so forth (ibid.: 27-38).
41 This assertion is supported by a recent study that demonstrates the extent to which “translation is
necessarily linked to culture” (Enrique Bernárdez, “A cognitive view on the role of culture in translation,”
in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:313 [313-338]; see also Basil Hatim, Communication Across Cultures:
Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [Exeter UK: University of Exeter Press, 1997], passim.)
22
 stylistically marked, more or less, (g) in keeping with the designated job commission (h)
that has been communally agreed upon for the TL project concerned.42

The sequence of these core constituents can be explained as follows:43

a) The conceptually mediated, inferentially guided re-composition: The translator (or team) acts as a
mental “mediator,” or verbal “foreign-exchange broker,” who must fairly represent all his
“clients,” that is, the original author and his communicative intentions within a specific setting
as well as the needs and desires of the target audience.

b) One contextually framed, inferentially interpreted text: “Context” is the total cognitive emotive-
volitional frame of reference, or “cognitive environment,” that influences and inferentially guides
the perception, interpretation, and application of a given text.44

c) Within a different cognitive and communicative setting: The translator carefully negotiates a re-
formulation, that is, a verbal re-signification, of the original text within a new language, mind-
set, and sociocultural environment.

d) The most relevant: The aim is to achieve the greatest number of beneficial conceptual, emotional,
and volitional effects for readers without their expending excessive or extraneous processing
effort.

e) The most functionally equivalent manner possible: The target text, supplemented by its paratext,
where necessary, should manifest a sufficiently acceptable degree of similarity, or correspondence
to the original in terms of the meaning variables of semantic content, pragmatic intent,
connotative resonance, emotive impact, artistic appeal, auditory effect, and/or rhetorical power
in accord with its literary genre.

f) Stylistically marked, more or less: The degree of stylistic domestication (i.e., reflecting the genius
of the TL) versus the degree of foreignness (reflecting the “otherness” of the SL text) must always
be assessed with respect to the linguistic and literary norms, conventions, and expectations of the
TL audience.45

g) In keeping with the designated job commission: A TL text’s level of accuracy and acceptability is
defined with respect to the translation project’s brief, which includes its general terms of
reference, primary communication goal(s), or Skopos, staff experience and training, available
resources, quality-control procedures, community wishes and requirements, administrative and
management procedures, time-line and desired completion schedule.

h) Agreed upon by the TL community for the project: The communicative framework of the TL social
and religious setting is determinative for establishing the job commission, which needs to be first
carefully researched, then agreed upon by all major sponsors and supporters, and, finally, closely
monitored, evaluated, and, if necessary, revised on a systematic, ongoing basis until the task has
been successfully completed (including the text’s pre-publication audience-readership testing).

42 For a much more detailed Cognitive Linguistic exploration of the diverse challenges of translation,
see the informative essays in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013.
43 Cf. E. Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004), p. 85.
44 For a “frame-semantic approach” applied to the lexical field of translating, see Hans C. Boas,
“Frame Semantics and Translation,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:152-153 [125-158].
45 For a helpful discussion of “foreignization” vis-à-vis “domestication with reference to literary
translation, see Wright 2016:37-53.
23
 It is important to note that translation, in the narrow sense,46 is different from monolingual
communication in that it involves not only two languages, but also at least two different external
settings and interpersonal situations, and often three (e.g., that occasioned by some medial
translation in another language, like English, if the translators cannot access the original text).
The formal and conceptual distance between these two or three contexts is variable, depending
on the languages and cultures concerned. Generally speaking, the greater this distance (i.e., from
the ancient Near Eastern environment), the more difficult the translation task becomes and the
more active, form-oriented mediation on the part of the translator is required if a meaningful,
let alone a literary, version is to be prepared.

We might add the following observations to elaborate upon the eight basic components of
the translating process stated above:

 Translators do not, ideally, work in isolation, but rather as part of a team of mutually supportive co-
translators, editors, reviewers, technical specialists (exegetes, annotators, literary artists, computer
keyboarders, text-formatters)—along with various consultants, coaches, advisers, guides, and at
times mentors (factors [g-h]).

 Each communication setting incorporates interacting levels of extratextual influence that together
affect all aspects of text representation – its paratextual annotation and publication, i.e., text
processing for a medium of transmission (factor [b] above). Thus there are diverse cultural,
institutional (including ecclesiastical), religious (traditional and modern), environmental,
interpersonal, as well as personal (psychological and experiential), factors that affect the overall
communication context either directly or indirectly. These varied and variable frames all merge
to form the respective collective cognitive framework of the SL or TL communities – and the
individual viewpoint of each individual of which the group is composed.47

 The perspective, opinion, and needs of the current “consumer” audience, which needs to be clearly
specified at the outset, is the determinative (factor [h]) in drawing up an organizational brief, or
job commission. This is the defining and guiding document that outlines the primary purpose
(Skopos), principles, procedures, and provisions for a given translation endeavor.

 The translation of a literary version, for example, a “literary functional equivalence” (LiFE)
translation, is one that utilizes the full literary (artistic-rhetorical-oratorical) resources and
structural (genre-based) forms of the target language. It too is carried out according to the general
principle of psychological relevance (factor [d] above, focus on the TL text), which governs the
project-specific practice of functional equivalence (factor [e], focus on the SL text), as
particularized or delimited by the agreed-upon Skopos.48

 The specific LiFE method is applied with respect to the content and intent of the original text, but
also in view of and guided by the genre-determined stylistic features of the host language (factors

46 This narrow perspective would also exclude various types of “re-wording” within the same
language (e.g., dialect adjustment) as well as substantial semantic adaptations (“re-writing”) of the ST in
the TL.
47 To avoid terminological confusion, one might distinguish between the notions of “context” as a
specific, external, perceivable reality and of “frame” as one individual or collective cognitive organization,
or mental representation. The sum total of frames of reference that are relevant to the interpretation of a
given text constitutes its overall conceptual framework.
48 For a CL approach to literary analysis, hence also translation, see Peter Stockwell, Cognitive Poetics:
An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2002).
24
 [f-g]), ranging from the target text’s significant phonological forms to its primary discourse
arrangements.49 Another type of translation – for example, a formal-correspondence version for
liturgical, or worship purposes – may be defined in much the same way, except for specifying a
different qualifier for the term “relevant” (i.e., factor [e]).

 To some degree, whether more or less, stylistic domestication (factor [f]) is always called for. Even
a relatively literal translation needs to be stylistically marked in a discernible and appreciable
manner, at least phonologically, with regard to naturalness, for this is perhaps where a translated
text’s style is most immediately perceptible. How the text reads aloud, how it actually sounds in
the vernacular, is a criterion of utmost importance for “literariness.”

 Finally, it is important to remember that every translation, no matter what kind, will always
involve a determinable communicative loss, or mismatch, with respect to content, intent,
connotation, or some other type of significance (e.g., marking “topic” and “focus” reference or
prominence). This fact, which is supported by the principles of cognitive grammar, argues against
both an overly-free, dynamic-equivalence approach (DE) and an overly-rigid, formal-
correspondence approach (FC).50

With regard to DE, it is not possible to change linguistic forms, even phonological forms, without
altering the original meaning in some way. With regard to FC, if the SL forms are not changed in
the transfer process, the meaning in the TL text is inevitably altered.51 In other words, a literal
rendering changes the intended sense and significance of the message as much as a dynamic-
equivalence rendering, in fact, more so. In either case, as mentioned, certain types of lost
information may (indeed, must!) be supplied para-textually by devices such as footnotes,
introductions, section headings, illustrations, cross-references, or a glossary. Such descriptive or
explanatory information may also be supplied extra-textually by means of supplementary, context-
enriching publications that complement the translation.

49 Regarding the search for “equivalence” with respect to lexical forms and grammatical structures,
also in terms of “preserving semantic content,” see Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano and Luna Filipovic,
“Lexicalisation patterns and translation,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:258, 275-276 [251-281];
cf. also Elzbieta Tabakowska, “(Cognitive) grammar in translation: Form as meaning,” in Rojo and
Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:229-250.
50 Wright (2016:58) discusses this form-oriented balancing act in terms of Christiane Nord’s (1997)
distinction between a “documentary” translation, as distinct from one that is “instrumental” in nature. In
the former case, the translator orients the text “towards documenting a source in metatextual fashion,”
thus “giving the target-language reader an indication of the nature of the (potentially) inaccessible foreign-
language text” (58). An “instrumental” version, on the other hand, aims to fulfill “a function of its own in
the target context,” thereby manifesting the source text’s “characteristics and effects on the reader so
central to the way literature works” (58). In the end, creative, insightful “translators hover between these
two positions, remaining faithful to the source text in the sense of fulfilling a documentary function on the
one hand, while acknowledging the translator as a subject, and thus claiming more status and visibility for
themselves on the other” (Wright 2016:67), presumably by means of a creative use of the linguistic and
literary resources of the TL in their work.
51 The importance of linguistic form in translation is highlighted especially in a “Construction
Grammar” approach to translation, including the effort to achieve “constructional equivalence”: “The
pairing of form and meaning implied in the notion of construction provides a way to explain translation
problems below the level of the text without focusing predominantly on form” (Ana Rojo and Javier
Valenzuela, “Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems,” in
Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013: 286, 289, 304 [283-310]).
25
1.6 “Equivalence” in translation: A crux interpretum?

It is past time perhaps to deal with the proverbial “elephant-in-the-room,” namely, equivalence—
a term that has been freely used in the preceding discussion as if it were well understood or
accepted in translation circles, which is not the case. “The concept of equivalence is one of the
most controversial issues discussed in translation studies, where scholars disagree on its validity
and usefulness” (Munday 2009:185). Wright draws attention to the multifaceted nature of this
concept: “Equivalence describes the nature of the relationship between source and target text
and can be defined in many different ways, from equivalence at the level of lexical units or
grammatical categories to equivalence at the textual level or at the level of a text’s message,
function, or effects” (2016:168; cf. chapter 21 below).

To address this central issue, Anthony Pym devotes the first two chapters of his insightful
survey of translations theories52 to a thorough consideration of the foundational paradigm of
“equivalence,” for which he makes a twofold, albeit artificial distinction into the “natural” and
“directed” sub-categories. Those who are familiar with the field of modern translation studies
might wonder at first: Why would such a noted translation theorist Pym allocate so much space
to such an “outmoded” model,53 one that has been roundly criticized by some prominent secular
scholars and Bible translation specialists alike?54 The difficulty seems to be that although
“equivalence is not a stable concept” (Pym 2010:xi), no widely acceptable alternative notion has
surfaced which is any better.55 Therefore, Pym organizes his presentation according to “the basic
idea…that all the theories respond to the one central problem: translation can be defined by
equivalence” (ibid.:xi), and that “once you have grasped the basic principles of this sub-paradigm
[i.e. natural equivalence], all the other paradigms can be seen as responses to it” (ibid.:23).56 He

52 Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories (London & New York: Routledge, 2010).
53 This negative characterization of “equivalence” is found in the otherwise excellent book on
“translating cultures” by David Katan, Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and
Mediators (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2004), p. 171.
54 Pym cites in particular Snell-Hornby (1988) and Gutt (2000) (2010:6, 35-37). Munday states that
some theorists (e.g., Gentzler 2001) “reject the notion more or less entirely,” whereas others (e.g., Baker
1992—also in the 2nd edition, 2011) “see it as a helpful tool in translation theory and teaching” (2009:185).
A recent Cognitive Linguistic perspective on translation studies recognizes the problems inherent in the
term “equivalence” but freely rehabilitate the concept through careful contextualized redefinition (cf. Ana
Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, “Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Studies: Past, present and
future,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:3-30). For example, “…the translator’s goal is to create an
‘experientially equivalent target-language text…[as] determined by the way the translator construes the
source-language text…[based upon] a cognitive and linguistic analysis…[and] mapping that meaning to
target language terms” (Michele I. Feist, “Experimental lexical semantics at the crossroads between
languages,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:391 [375-394]).
55 Nord helpfully defines “equivalence” as “a relationship of equal communicative value or function
between a source and a target text or, on lower ranks, between words, phrases, sentences, syntactic
structures etc. of a source and a target language (as in comparative linguistics)” (Translating, 138).
56 Robert Young puts the case for equivalence this way: “[T]he epistemological and cultural
differences embedded in the forms of different languages means that translation always involves
transformation, it is not a transparent and exact process. It offers a process of equivalence, but the
equivalent is never fully equivalent. Translation theory focuses on this paradoxical moment when
translation makes the difference into the same, but a ‘same’ which is at the same time different” (“Some
Questions About Translation and the Production of Knowledge,” translation [Inaugural Issue, 59-61], p.
60). Celia Martín de León adds: “Because meaning is not something inherent in the symbol system,
equivalence cannot be absolute; it can only be defined in relation to some aspect of the communication
process: it can be conceived of, for instance, as formal, dynamic, denotative, connotative, pragmatic, or
functional” (“Contributions of cognitive models of meaning to translation,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano
2013:103 [99-117]).
26
justifies this decision in further detail by using an interesting analogy in the Postscript to his
book (ibid.:165):
What do I think of these paradigms? Equivalence, for me, is a social illusion but a
necessary one. People believe in it just as they believe in the value of the money they carry
in their pockets; we believe in these things even when we know there is no linguistic
certainty behind equivalence and not enough gold to back up our money. We thus have
to try to understand the way equivalence beliefs work. From that point, I can accept all the
other paradigms as having valid things to say.
In this sense, equivalence becomes a convenient frame of reference from which we can carry
out a discussion about translation—whether to endorse, criticize, modify, or elaborate upon this
particular perspective on the work. Werner Koller, for example, helpfully distinguishes “five
different types of equivalence”: denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, and formal
(Munday 2008:47-48),57 while Mona Baker identifies equivalence at the word level and above,
as well as with respect to its grammatical, textual (thematic, structural, cohesive), pragmatic,
and ethical dimensions.58 So, until a substitute for this idealistic “gold standard” can be found,59
we (at least those of us who are actually engaged with active Bible translators and projects) may
be stuck with the illusory criterion of “equivalence” for a while longer.60 In the end, it may simply
be true that “equivalence is essential to translation because it is the unique intertextual relation
that only translations, among all conceivable text types, are expected to show.”61

Pym endeavors to distinguish between “natural equivalence” and “directional

equivalence.”62 Thus, “[d]irectional equivalence is an asymmetric relation where the creation of
an equivalent by translating one way does not imply that the same equivalence is created when
translating the other way” (26). On the other hand, “[t]he term ‘natural equivalence’…refers to
theories that assume the possibility of an equally balanced two-way movement” (28). The
methodology associated with natural equivalence typically generates manifold “categories of
translation procedures,” whereas a directional approach tends to favor “only two opposed poles”

57 From Werner Koller, Einführung in die Uebersetzungswissenschaft (Heidelberg-Wiesbaden: Quelle

and Meyer, 1979), 186-191 (cf. Hatim and Munday 2004:169-175).
58 Mona Baker, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2011). Theo
Hermans adopts an extra-textual, performative and “organizational” perspective on the issue:
“Equivalence, which I will continue to interpret as meaning equality in value and status, is not a feature
that can be extrapolated on the basis of textual comparison. Rather than being extracted from texts,
equivalence is imposed on them through an external intervention in a particular institutional context. In
other words, equivalence is imposed, not found” (The Conference of the Tongues, New York & London:
Routledge, 2016:6). This is a typical DTS solution, but at some point in any qualitative evaluation of a
translation, the textual issue will have to be confronted on the basis of some sort of comparative analysis.
59 Even a recent review of book on translation by a professional (secular) translator unashamedly
retains the notion of equivalence: “It will always be possible in a translation to find new relationships
between sound and sense that are equivalently interesting, if not phonetically identical. Style, like a joke,
just needs the talented discovery of equivalents. . . . In a translation, as any art form, the search is for an
equivalent sign” (A. Thirlwell, “The Joyful Side of Translation,” The New York Times—Sunday Book Review
(28 October 2011, p. 22), in review of David Bellos, Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning
of Everything (New York: Faber & Faber, 2011).
60 “Once its moorings to equivalence have been severed, ‘translation’ risks becoming a drunken boat”
(Pym 2010:159)—one (I might add) that is driven to and fro on the seas of meaning by the winds of
personal opinion, caprice, or concerns that may have nothing at all to do with the original ST. For several
examples, see the “Inaugural Issue” of the journal translation (September 2011).
61 Dorothy Kenny, (citing U. Stecconi), “Equivalence,” in Mona Baker, (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia
of Translation Studies (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 80. For a cognitive-based approach that seeks to attain
translational equivalence through metonymy, see Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó, “Translating (by
means of) metonymy,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:206, 212 [199-226].
62 The directive equivalence approach is considered under the heading of “equivalence and
equivalent effect” in Munday 2008:36-54.
27
(25) that are commonly associated with two contrastive “ways of translating,”63 i.e. literal
(formal correspondence) versus free (aiming to achieve semantic and/or functional
equivalence).64
I do not find Pym’s argument to separate the two types of equivalence very convincing. To
me, “natural” equivalence is at best simply a special type of “directional” equivalence since all
true “translation” is directive in some sense, that is, proceeding from a given SL text to a TL text
(though some theorists would argue against this; see below).65 One must always start somewhere,
and that is with an originally composed text (or its translation), which one then wishes to
communicate in another language as the ultimate goal, or finishing point. The fact that two
words or expressions in different languages appear to be formally, semantically, and functionally
interchangeable, e.g. the rendering for “sun” (dzuwa) in Chewa with reference to the bright star
in the daytime sky, is an exception which proves the rule—namely, that such instances of
(relatively) complete equivalence are almost impossible to find, except between closely related
language-cultures.66 And even these seeming equivalents turn out to be deceptive or incomplete
after one researches their respective conceptual “frames” (sociocultural settings, contexts of use,
connotative overlays, etc.), which will always prove to be different in certain respects.67 In short,
exact or total translation is impossible, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on a host of
circumstantial factors.68 In any event, Pym himself seems to come to the same conclusion,

63 Pym qualifies this as follows: “Although there are usually more than two ways of translating, the
reduction to two is very much a part of the way translation has been seen in Western tradition” (26). A
conceptual “frames of reference” approach seeks to break this “tradition” by investigating the various
interacting contexts (cognitive, sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual) that must be
considered when planning, implementing, and assessing a given translation project, whether the Skopos is
focused primarily on form or function (cf. Wendland, Contextual Frames, 2008:1-7).
64 Chesterman (2005, as summarized by Pym 2010:25-27) expresses these relations in terms of
different kinds of “similarity” coupled with differing perspectives: “Divergent similarity” is the viewpoint
of the translator who creates a new TL text that is similar in certain significant respects to an original SL
text (directional equivalence). “Convergent similarity,” on the other hand, adopts the perspective of the
respondents who tend to view the two texts, SL and TL, as being essentially the same for all practical
purposes, i.e., a Bible translation is the Word of God (a significant instance of “natural equivalence”).
65 I find Pym’s further distinction rather difficult to follow: “Theories of directional equivalence allow
that the translator has a choice between several translation strategies, and that those strategies are not
dictated by the source text” (26). In the first place, one may recall all the translation “procedures” (13)
and “strategies” (17) that were summarized in the preceding chapter on natural equivalence. These diverse
options must surely imply that a choice must be made among them in a given situation. Secondly, the
expression “not dictated by the source text” is rather ambiguous if it is true that “directional equivalence
can describe the way a translation represents its source text” (26).
66 Pym proposes “back-translation” as a test for distinguishing between natural and directional
equivalence: “This means taking the translation and rendering it back into the source language, then
comparing the two versions. When natural equivalence prevails, we can go from Friday to viernes then
back to Friday, and it makes no difference which term is the source and which the translation. This is
because the correspondence existed in some way prior to the act of translation” (30). But then Pym also
admits that such “naturalness is certainly an illusion,” a position that all cognitive linguists would support,
and that “one could also argue, historically, that all equivalence is in some way directional” (ibid.).
67 Thus, in contrast to English, the Chewa word for “sun,” dzuwa, can be used in different contexts
to refer to “daytime” (as distinct from the night), to the “time” of day, to a “hot day,” or to a period of
“famine/drought.”
68 This is arguably true even in the “surer examples” of “one-to-one” or “total equivalence” (within
“Kade’s types of equivalence”), such as “technical terms like the names of chemical elements” (Pym
2010:29). These will normally turn out to be “loanwords” or pure transliterations in many languages, for
example, “hydrogen” in Chewa – haidologeni. However, the latter term would be unknown to many more
MT speakers than its apparent equivalent in English, even within a country like Zambia, where English is
a “second language.” This factor of (un)familiarity renders the two expressions non-equivalent in terms of
their comparative natural communicability.
28
namely, that there is really not a significant difference which would separate theories of natural
equivalence from those of directional equivalence (2010:28):
According to the criteria of both directionality and naturalness, you go from one language
to the other, and the result is a translation if and when a relationship of equivalence is
established on some level.
Pym proceeds to point out the “directionality” involved in a number of representative
definitions of equivalence, noting that “the term ‘equivalent’ describes one side only, the target
side … [since] translation goes from one side to the other, but not back again” (27-28). He then
discusses the two “polarities of directional equivalence” as they are manifested in the writings of
many translation theorists, for example, foreignizing—domesticating (Schliermacher), formal—
dynamic (Nida), semantic—communicative (Newmark), overt—covert (House), documentary—
instrumental (Nord), resistant—fluent (Venuti).69 “The strategies they are talking about are not
always the same, and some of the theorists have diametrically opposed preferences, but they are
all talking in twos,” even though many allow for the fact that “there are possible modes between
the two poles” (33). Pym then asks the question why—why “only two categories” (33)? In answer,
he suggests that “there may be something profoundly binary within equivalence-based
translation itself,”70 and more significantly perhaps, “[i]t would certainly seem that the ideology
of ‘one side or the other’ is deeply anchored in Western thought” (34). As a Westerner myself, I
am not the one to evaluate the preceding assertion, but the notion of translation ideology is
certainly worth exploring further from an interlingual, cross-cultural perspective.71

Finally, we might note that Munday identifies what he regards as “perhaps the biggest bone
of contention” connected with “equivalence” theories and approaches, namely, the identification
of a valid “tertium comparationis.72 The latter refers to an ideal conceptual invariant, or mental
model, against which two comparable segments of text—ST and TT—can be measured to gauge
variation (2008:49) when assessing their relative degree of equivalence with respect to different
formal, semantic, and functional parameters. This is not easy to do, especially for inexperienced
translators, but it remains a useful goal to aim for. Thus, Munday correctly, in my opinion,
concludes his evaluation of equivalence by calling attention to its practical relevance (ibid.:50):73

69 The most recent expression of this polarity is presented from the perspective of the target
constituency: “The analytic vis-a-vis synthetic distinction is to emphasize the cognitive process by which
one uses the translation. The analytical translation enables the ‘reader’ to tear the text apart, to get at the
details, to perform word studies, even to hear the underlying original language. Those processes are
unique to intentional analysis. The synthetic translation enables the reader to process the text’s meaning
[e.g. to readily summarize it], to follow the flow of the author’s thought, to engage in the narrative. Any
analysis which is done in these synthetic processes happens subconsciously and automatically. With the
synthetic, it’s like the analytical engine is hardwired in” (Mike Sangrey, “When Summarizing Is Too Hard.”
http://betterbibles.com/2012/03/072012).
70 It would seem that any translation theory (or paradigm)—in any language—that considers a TT in
relation to a ST should involve “binary” thinking to one degree or another.
71 “Clearly, in order to understand the scope of the cluster concept called translation in English,
translation studies scholars must be assiduous in seeking out more of the world’s words for translation, as
well as investigating in detail the connotations, implications, translation practices and actual histories of
translation associated with those terms” (Maria Tymoczko, “Reconceptualizing Translation Theory,”
translation (sic, Inaugural Issue, 2011), 68-69). Perhaps some “thinking through translation with
metaphors” will also be involved in these explorations (James St. André, Thinking Through Translation with
Metaphors (Manchester: St Jerome, 2010; see also below).
72 On the notion of tertium comparationis, see Sarah L. Halverson, “Implications of Cognitive
Linguistics for Translation Theory, in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:53 [33-73], see also Boas
2013:137.
73 Cf. Pym: “Natural equivalence is the basic theory in terms of which all the other paradigms in this
book will be defined” (2010:19).
29
 Translator training courses also, perhaps inevitably, have this focus: errors by the trainee
translators tend to be corrected prescriptively according to a notion of equivalence held
by the trainer. For this reason, equivalence is an issue that will remain central to the
practice of translation, even if it has been marginalized by some translation studies
scholars.

1.7 On the impact and influence of new media: Quo vadis?

Roman Jakobson proposed a fundamental threefold categorization of translation into

“intralingual,” “interlingual,” and “intersemiotic” versions—that is, “rewording,” which might
involve reconceptualizing (within the same language, for example, regarding the notion of
“translation” itself in the present study), “translation proper” occurring between two different
languages, and “transmutation,” the transfer of a text from one medium to another (cf. Munday
2008:5, Pérez-González 2014:120). At any rate, translation always involves similarity or
“equivalence in difference”; in other words, “For the message to be ‘equivalent’ in the ST [source
text] and TT [target text], the code-units will be different since they belong to two different sign
systems (languages) which partition reality differently…” (Munday 2008:37).

In the area of audiovisual translation, most early scholarly efforts in translation studies was
more or less limited to theoretical explorations, with practical applications largely limited to
“screen translation,” that is, textual subtitling and vocal dubbing (Munday 2008:193-194). The
situation is rapidly changing, however, as the helpful survey of intersemiotic translation in Pérez-
González (2014) would indicate. Nowadays a more diversified “multimodal” approach to
communication is being applied—that is, with reference to “the contribution that non-verbal
semiotics makes to written and spoken texts as loci of translation and interpreting activity.”74
Munday, for example, describes the manifold “signifying codes of cinematographic language,”
that is, the linguistic, paralinguistic, musical, sound arrangement, iconographic, photographic,
planning, mobility, graphic, and syntactic codes (2008:188-189).75 Pérez-González observes with
regard to the staging of plays and “performability”: “As adapting for performance ‘demands a
dramaturgical capacity to work in several dimensions at once, incorporating visual, gestural,
aural and linguistic signifiers into the translation’, negotiating the contribution of extra-linguistic
semiotics is crucial during this rewriting stage” (2014:119-120).76 Furthermore, “[t]he shift from
the age of printed culture and mass media towards the era of electronic and, more recently,
digital culture has had a significant impact on the dialectic between verbal and non-verbal
semiotic resources in textualities that coordinate text and image, as well as on the consumption
of and engagement with such texts” (ibid.:124).

It may be expected that these intersemiotic efforts will result in new efforts to define and
describe “translation” as a distinct field of literary, academic, economic, etc. endeavor in
conjunction with the associated theory and practice of “translation studies.” Pérez-González
makes the following suggestion with reference to “hypertextual environments” that “enable

74 Luis Pérez-González, “Multimodality in Translation and Interpreting Studies,” in Sandra Bermann

and Catherine Porter, eds., A Companion to Translation Studies (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014) 119-
131 [119]. “Multimodal theory, a scholarly spin-off of social semiotics and systemic functional linguistics
aims to formalize the socially situated nature of meaning-making practices. In this paradigm, the notion
of mode (or modality) designates each system of meaning-making resources from which communicators
must choose in order to realize their communicative intentions through textual practices ... As syncretic
texts draw on several systems of semiotic resources (including but not limited to language, image, music,
color or perspective), they are often referred to as multimodal texts …” (ibid.:126, original boldface).
75 With reference to F. Chaume, “Film Studies and Translation Studies,” Meta 49/1 (2004), 12-24
(17-22).
76 Citing Terry Hale and Carole-Ann Upton, “Introduction.” in Moving Target: Theatre Translation and
Cultural Relocation, Carole-Ann Upton, ed., 1-13 (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000), 2.
30
multiple textual arrangements” through embedded texts and diverse intertextual connections:
“When mediating hypertextual contents, translation ‘can therefore no longer be conceived of as
the reproduction of an original, but has become subject to reconceptualisation as the re-writing
of an already pluralised ‘original’.”77 In these instances, too, the distinction between “source text”
and “paratext” becomes problematic and increasingly difficult to define. Regardless, it is highly
likely that future experimentation and advancement in the field of multimodally-generated
communication, where “inter-dependent semiotic resources become the norm, new varieties of
multimodal literacy will develop, as will the theoretical frameworks seeking to articulate and
conceptualize their role in social life” (Luis Pérez-González 2014:27). Whether such avant-garde
theory and practice will fit readily into the framework of “Translation Rigidly Conceived”
(Reynolds 2016:18) remains to be seen.

Since the turn of the century, applied research in Bible translation studies appears to have
delved rather broadly and deeply with concrete multimedia experimentation in languages all
over the world. For example, a preliminary review of these developments states:
Multimedia translation begins where print translation leaves off, engaging with issues that
print translation never needs to face or resolve. … [T]hanks to a sociosemiotic approach
to translation…coupled with the power of digital media, it can reproduce more than just
rhetorical, grammatical, and lexical meaning. … for example, the images and sounds,
together with the cultural, historical, aesthetic, and performative information that also
constitutes the meaning of biblical discourse.78
One interesting aspect of these widespread efforts is that their common reference point (ST), the
Old and New Testament Scriptures, makes different types of comparative evaluation possible
with regard to Skopos, methodology, organization, outcomes, and so forth. Such productions also
make the above-mentioned matter of distinguishing text from paratext (or “extratext”) a crucial
issue that requires careful explanation and negotiation with the proposed “target” audience.

In addition to becoming engaged with text production projects involving various new media,
including those made available on the internet and via cell-phones, tablets, etc., for some years
now Bible translation agencies have also been heavily involved in developing some increasingly
sophisticated tools of electronic text processing. Thus, “computers have moved from being simple
word-processors to being resource providers, text manipulators and checkers, and translation
environments (using platforms such as Paratext and Translator’s Workplace), and this progress has
been universally welcomed and celebrated. But the degree to which machines can, or should be
used to actually do translation has been more controversial, e.g., the utility of such internet
features as “Google Translate.”79 On the other hand, in an age which is becoming ever more
dominated by electronic research and communication, it is important in many non-Western
settings not to ignore or downplay the importance of popular traditional media for conveying
the key texts of Scripture, e.g., song texts (using ancient or modern musical accompaniment),
multi-voiced (or characterized) dramatic performances, personal story-telling techniques and

77 Pérez-González, “Multimodality”, 125, citing Karin Littau “Translation in the Age of Postmodern
Production: From Text to Intertext to Hypertext,” Forum for Modern Language Studies 33/1, 1997:81-96,
[81]).
78 Roger Hodgson and Paul A. Soukup (eds.), From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for
Communicating the Scriptures in New Media (New York: American Bible Society, 1997), 8. Of course, the
theory to more fully support such claims developed somewhat later in “cognitive linguistics” (cf. Ernst
Wendland, Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation [Manchester: St. Jerome, 2008], 19-35).
79 Simon Crisp and Brian Harmelink, “Computers as Translators: Translation or Treason?” The Bible
Translator 62/2 (2011), 59-60. The various articles in The Bible Translator (vol. 62:2) debate this issue:
“Computers as Translators: Translation or Treason?” For a short, secular assessment of Google Translate,
see Reynolds, Translation, 96-97.
31
customary public poetic recitals.80 In some cases, such familiar, long-established media will have
their own compositional patterns, norms, and standards of evaluation that must guide the degree
of freedom performers can manifest in their translated re-creations of well-known Bible passages.

Finally, “globalization” is a familiar term that is becoming ever more prominent in the news
with reference to all aspects of human communal endeavor, from commerce to communication.
It commonly denotes the expansion of large multinational businesses and corporations into
markets throughout the world, accompanied by large infusions of capital investment. Such
development obviously calls for “localization,” an intra-lingual form of “translation” (or is this
better termed “adaptation”?) that “involves taking a product and making it linguistically and
culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language) where it will be used
and sold” (Munday 2008:191).81 Many quick and accurate translations are an essential element
in such efforts, which often turn to machine translation (computer software) to provide ready TT
drafts of a basic “internationalized” version in the SL (an “interlingual version”), which is
normally some language of wider communication (ibid.:191). The development of various
computer programs for assisting the translation as well as the production process has also been
going on in Bible translation circles for many years,82 the sophistication and quality of these tools
in many respects matching or even surpassing those available on/for the secular market. Munday
suggests a practical exercise to research this last point (ibid.:196): “How are translation memory
and other computer-assisted translation tools changing the way translators work? How do
theories of equivalence and function, amongst others, need to adapt to this new translation
scenario?” In response to the last question above, we might ask: What definition of “translation”
are you working with? When working with a narrower conception, as I favor in the present
treatment, the degree of text-adaptation needed may not be all that great. However, for broader
delineations of the discipline (if one then still exists), the notion of “equivalence” no longer exists.

1.8 Conclusion: On Metaphoric “translation” or the translation of “metaphor”?

The title above presents something of a false antithesis,83 but the point takes us back to the
Introduction of this study and proposals for broadening the scope of the definition and associated
practice of “translating.” Should the theory and practice of translation be figuratively extended
to include all types of intra- and inter-cultural transformational activities, or is it advisable to
restrict this notion to the bilingual communication of texts and their stylistic techniques, such as

80 See for example, the recent PhD dissertation by June Dickie, “Zulu Song, Oral Art—Performing
the Psalms to Stir the Heart: Applying indigenous form to the translation and performance of some praise
psalms” (University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2016).
81 Cited from LISA (the Localisation Industry Standards Association), www.lisa.org. Note on Wikipedia
entry: “From 1990 to February 2011 the Localization Industry Standards Association or LISA was a Swiss-
based trade body concerning the translation of computer software (and associated materials) into
multiple natural languages. It counted among its members most of the large information
technology companies of the period, including Adobe, Cisco, Hewlett-
Packard, IBM, McAfee, Nokia, Novell and Xerox. … LISA closed on 28 February 2011 and their website
went offline shortly afterwards. In the wake of the closure of LISA, the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute started an Industry Specification Group (ISG) for localization. . . . Another organization
that was formed in response to the closure of LISA is Terminology for Large Organizations (TerminOrgs), a
consortium of terminology professionals who promote terminology management best practices”
(http://www.ask.com/wiki/Localization_Industry_Standards_Association?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doub
leDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com; accessed 16/02/2015).
82 For example, the Biblical Analysis and Research Tool (BART, SIL International), Paratext 7 (United
Bible Societies/SIL International), Logos 8 Bible Software, Adapt-It (Word for the World).
83 I am not referring here to the fascinating study of various metaphoric expressions for “translation”
in different languages in order to gain a more multifaceted perspective on this discipline and its practice,
such as that presented in St. André, Thinking Through Translation with Metaphors.
32
“metaphor” and a host of related literary features that may, or may not “transfer” easily from
one language to another?

Readers are welcome to come to their own conclusion, but my opinion in favor of a stricter
position has undoubtedly become evident during the course of the preceding discussion.84 For
Bible translators it is helpful to preserve a semantic boundary by retaining a strict(er) intra-lingual
translation, or definition, of “translation”85 as the inter-lingual, intercultural process that creates a
TT from a ST within the parameters of a clearly stated and implemented job commission (brief)
and communicative aim (Skopos). In any case, it is clear that theorists and practitioners, sacred
and secular, alike will continue to define and implement “translation” in keeping with their own
understanding, aims, and work setting, as suggested in the preceding survey of diverse attitudes
and approaches. The best that we can hope for perhaps is that every study or text that uses the
term “translate/translation” will begin with the author’s clear explanation of what s/he means
by it. Thus in the end, it seems that definition does make a difference. It matters because of what
we are trying to accomplish (complex, cross-cultural communication), how (in what
way/manner), for whom (involving both commissioner and consumer), and in which specific
sociocultural setting?

I close by summarizing a personal visualized perspective on the translation process: As

illustrated rather simply in the following diagram (next page), this involves the carefully
integrated interaction of several critical components that are posited as operating during the
inferential (inductive and deductive) procedure of translating a high-value Scriptural (this
qualification is important) ST into a TL in order to create a TT. This may or may not be coupled
with the notion of the importance of “authorial intention” and its hypothetical influence on the
text interpretation as well as transmission.

In any event, we thus begin with the principle that gives prominence to the sacred biblical
source text, which motivates, directs, and ultimately authorizes the multifaceted communication
endeavor. The whole process is further carried out within a twofold cognitive frame of reference
model that takes into consideration the mutually interacting influence from the sociocultural,
communicative, organizational, and textual domains that impact upon the ST as well as the
emergent TT. This progressive and cumulative text-transformational activity is guided by the
principle of relevance (cognitive text-processing cost versus gain in conceptual effects) as well as
the pre-determined (and communally agreed-upon!) project job description (brief) and primary
interpersonal goal (Skopos) in view of its intended target constituency. The arrow points towards
the center and indicates the mediating principle of functional equivalence which, for my projects
at least, will also serve to guide translators in their collaborative decision-making process.86 It
does so on the basis of a form-functional profile which identifies the most “significant” (sense-
bearing) formal linguistic as well as meaningful features of the ST that need to be re-presented,
either textually or para-textually, in the TT and/or within their immediately accessible
environment (e.g., via some handy extra-textual, perhaps electronic biblical studies resource).87

84 This narrower perspective on defining translation is strongly supported in ch. 4 of a PhD

dissertation by Milton L. Watt entitled “Re-sculpting a Sacred text: Towards an Acceptable Poetic
Translation of the Psalms, exemplified by Psalms 131 and 150” (Dept. of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch
University, 2015).
85 As already noted, the interlingual, often figurative, rendering of the term “translate/translation”
itself requires a separate study, e.g., kumasulira (Chewa) ‘to untie’; cf. St. Andre 2010, which includes an
extensive annotated bibliography of related works that pertain to metaphoric terms for “translating.”
86 From a “Relevance Theory” perspective, this mediating process might also be termed “interpretive
resemblance” carried out on the basis of the key “communicative clues” identified in the ST (Hatim,
2013:111-119).
87 For some promising exploratory CL experimentation that points towards the development of such
a functional profile, see the essays in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013, e.g., Rojo and Valenzuela.
33
It is hoped that the present investigation might encourage others to carry out similar, critical-
comparative research into the multifaceted subject of “translation,” perhaps from a rather
different, but mutually enriching theoretical viewpoint.

Frames
of
Reference

Source Text RT’s Cost

Priority versus
Gain

Functional Equivalence

Project Brief
& Skopos

34
 2. Exploring Translation Theories—A Review from the
Perspective of Bible Translation

2.1 Summary

This review article is written with reference to the recent influential book by Anthony Pym
entitled Exploring Translation Theories (2010). In my descriptive evaluation, I progressively work
through the text, pointing out areas of special interest and importance along the way, including
occasional critical observations. I have carried out this analysis from the particular perspective
of the theory and practice of Scripture translation, which not surprisingly does not receive a great
deal of attention in Pym’s overview of the field of contemporary translation studies. This is a
significant work and one that undoubtedly will be referenced a great deal in the months to come.
Hence, a more detailed reflection and application from the specific viewpoint of “Bible
88
translation studies” is necessary.

2.2 Introduction

Anthony Pym, a world-recognized translation theorist, critic, and educator, helpfully summarizes
the primary goal and audience for his book at the beginning of its Preface:
This is a course on the main paradigms of Western translation theories since the 1960s. …
The course is not designed to make anyone a better translator;89 it is mainly for academic
work at advanced levels, although it should be accessible to anyone interested in how the
theories invite debate. (xi)
In the first chapter, Pym surveys the various theory-related topics that he will consider in this
book. But first he must answer a crucial question of definition: “What is a translation theory?”
Pym does not explicitly define the key term “theory,” but seems to assume a typical meaning like
“a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something…based on general principles”
(Soanes and Stevenson 2006:1495), or more simply, “a system of beliefs about reality” (Gutt
1992:7). A theory provides the conceptual framework in turn for a specific “generation and
selection process” (1), which, in the case of translation, allows one to either generate a possible
translation or to evaluate and select from among several credible options (“target texts”) in
relation to a given “source text.”90 Translation (or “translating”) then may be defined as “a set of
processes leading from one side (ST) to the other (TT)” (1), which is admittedly a “very spatial
image” suggesting “that translations affect the target culture but not the source” (2). Perhaps this
is literally correct when rendering documents from “dead languages,” as with the Scriptures, but
certainly it is also true to say that modern Bible translation activities, along with related
exegetical and various sociocultural studies, do affect our understanding of the source text and its
context.91

88
This review is thoroughly embedded within the particular frame of reference of Bible translation
and a life devoted to its practice. Such an admittedly narrow perspective must therefore be taken into
account when considering my personal comments and criticisms along the way. Note that there are several
portions of the text from chapter one repeated here in chapter two; the same applies to chapter three.
89
One might suggest here that being aware of different “theories” of translation (and how they work)
would, in fact, make someone a better translator!
90
Note that the terms “source language/text” (SL/T) and “target language/text” (TL/T) still seem to
be current in secular translation studies, and therefore they will be used for convenience here. Unless
otherwise stated, in the following discussion the numbers in parentheses refer to specific pages in Pym’s
book.
91
Furthermore, from the perspective of the translator, the conceptual “motion,” or mental processing
activity, must go in both directions, that is, continually back-and-forth between the ST and TT and their
respective sociocultural settings.
35
 In any case, Pym moves quickly from theory to “paradigm,” that is, a set of principles which
underlies a particular group of theories, including “general ideas, relations, and principles for
which there is internal coherence and a shared point of departure” (3). Pym prefers this broader
perspective rather than to discuss “individual theories, theorists, or schools,” and thus he
provides a “roughly chronological” overview and assessment of selected “paradigms based on
equivalence, purposes, descriptions, uncertainty, localization, and, for want of a better term,
cultural translation” (3). But why should we wish to “study translation theories”—or “paradigms”
(Pym is somewhat equivocal in his usage here)? From the “generative” point of view, “a plurality
of theories can widen the range of potential solutions that translators think of”;92 on the other
hand, from a “selective” perspective, “theories can also provide a range of reasons for choosing
one solution and discarding the rest, as well as defending that solution when necessary” (5).

In my opinion and with reference to the varied challenges of Bible translation, several of the
later theories (or paradigms) that Pym discusses are not very helpful in terms of either
“generation” or “selection.” However, readers are encouraged to work through the entire field
for themselves and come to their own conclusion when evaluating his survey of a particular
translation paradigm, his summary of its noteworthy “virtues,” and finally, some “frequently had
arguments” against it, which is how each of his main chapters is organized. At the end of every
chapter, a number of primary source texts and suggestions for further reading are given, along
with some helpful “suggested projects and activities” to serve as engagement exercises. Pym
proposes that the latter “should probably come at the beginning of a class, rather than be used
as appendages at the end” (5)—the assumption being that his text is functioning as a sourcebook
or lesson guide for a course on modern translation theory. As I attempt to summarize and/or
react to some of the key insights of Pym’s valuable, but rather concentrated theoretical
“exploration,” I will necessarily have to be selective, omitting certain key elements in his
description or argument and focusing in particular on those issues that might be of special
interest to Bible translation consultants, theorists, Scripture exegetes,93 and university-trained
translators.

2.3 Equivalence

Pym devotes his first two content chapters to a thorough consideration of the foundational
paradigm of “equivalence,” for which he makes a twofold distinction into the “natural” and
“directed” sub-categories. But wait—why would Pym allocate so much space to such an
“outmoded” model,94 one that has been roundly criticized by some prominent secular theorists
and Bible translation specialists alike?95 The difficulty seems to be that although “equivalence is
not a stable concept” (xi), no widely acceptable alternative notion has surfaced which is any
better. Therefore, Pym organizes his presentation according to “[t]he basic idea…that all the
theories respond to the one central problem: translation can be defined by equivalence” (xi), and
that “[o]nce you have grasped the basic principles of this sub-paradigm [i.e. natural

92
Exegetes and commentators too can benefit from such a broader perspective, when communicating
their various interpretations of the biblical text to others.
93
Scholars in theology and biblical studies can also benefit from some knowledge of translation studies
since “translation is at the heart of intercultural communication, and…the disciplinary knowledge of
translation studies can challenge other disciplines in new directions” (Israel 2011)—including linguistic
theory, language acquisition, and new multimodal means of communication.
94
This negative characterization of “equivalence” is found in the otherwise excellent book on
“translating cultures” by D. Katan (2004:171).
95
Pym cites in particular Snell-Hornby (1988) and Gutt (2000) (Pym 6, 35-37). According to Jeremy
Munday, “The concept of equivalence is one of the most controversial issues discussed in translation
studies, where scholars disagree on its validity and usefulness” (2009:185). Theorists (several named)
“reject the notion more or less entirely,” whereas practitioners (several named) “see it as a helpful tool in
translation theory and teaching” (ibid.).
36
equivalence], all the other paradigms can be seen as responses to it” (23).96 He justifies this
decision in further detail by using an interesting analogy in the Postscript to his book:
What do I think of these paradigms? Equivalence, for me, is a social illusion but a
necessary one. People believe in it just as they believe in the value of the money they carry
in their pockets; we believe in these things even when we know there is no linguistic
certainty behind equivalence and not enough gold to back up our money. We thus have
to try to understand the way equivalence beliefs work. From that point, I can accept all the
other paradigms as having valid things to say. (165)
In this sense, equivalence becomes a convenient frame of reference from which we can carry
out a discussion about translation—whether to endorse, criticize, modify, or elaborate upon this
particular perspective on the work. So, until a substitute for this idealistic “gold standard” can
be found,97 we (at least those of us who are actually engaged with active Bible translators and
projects) may be stuck with the illusory criterion of “equivalence” for a while longer.98 In the
end, it may simply be true that “[e]quivalence is crucial to translation because it is the unique
intertextual relation that only translations, among all conceivable text types, are expected to
show” (Kenny 1998:80, citing U. Stecconi).

2.3.1 Natural Equivalence

In his chapter on “natural equivalence” (ch. 2),99 Pym first sets about defining this “unpopular”
notion (7), defending it in the process from those who feel that it may (or should) be done away
with in translation studies. This paradigm is based on “the idea that what we say in one language
can have the same value (the same worth or function) when it is translated into another language.
The relation between the source text and the translation is then one of equivalence (‘equal
value’), no matter whether the relation is at the level of form, function, or anything in between”
(6). For example, in English-speaking cultures Friday the 13th is popularly considered to be an
“unlucky day”; in Spanish, on the other hand, the functionally corresponding day is “Tuesday
the 13th” (martes 13). Such equivalence is considered to be “natural” because it simply exists; it
is not the result of any translation from English to Spanish, or vice-versa. In terms of reference
these two expressions are not the same (Friday versus Tuesday); however with regard to function
(i.e., attributed “bad luck”), they are. Pym mentions the familiar application of “naturalness” to
Bible translation by Nida and Taber: “Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language
the closest natural equivalent of the source language message” (9). But he does not note N&T’s
added prioritization, “first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style,” that is, linguistic
form (Nida and Taber 1969:12, emphasis added.)

96
Young puts the case for equivalence this way: “[T]he epistemological and cultural differences
embedded in the forms of different languages means that translation always involves transformation, it is
not a transparent and exact process. It offers a process of equivalence, but the equivalent is never fully
equivalent. Translation theory focuses on this paradoxical moment when translation makes the difference
into the same, but a same which is at the same time different” (2011:60). Munday, too, concludes that
“equivalence is an issue that will remain central to the practice of translation, even if it has been
marginalized by some translation studies scholars” (2008:49).
97
Even a recent review of book on translation by a professional (secular) translator unashamedly
retains the notion of equivalence: “It will always be possible in a translation to find new relationships
between sound and sense that are equivalently interesting, if not phonetically identical. Style, like a joke,
just needs the talented discovery of equivalents. . . . In a translation, as any art form, the search is for an
equivalent sign” (Thirlwell 2011:22, in review of Bellos, 2011).
98
“Once its moorings to equivalence have been severed, ‘translation’ risks becoming a drunken boat”
(Pym 159)—one (I might add) that is driven to and fro on the seas of meaning by the winds of personal
opinion, caprice, or concerns that may have nothing at all to do with the original ST. For several examples,
see the “Inaugural Issue” of the new journal Translation (September 2011).
99
This category is treated implicitly under the “translation shift approach” by Munday 2008:60-62,
66-68.
37
 Equivalence theorists developed a number of linguistic distinctions to show that, while
equivalence could not be demonstrated on the level of world-view, as some early structuralists
claimed (e.g. Humboldt, Sapir, Whorf), this could be done with respect to more delimited
segments of language, for example, within spoken parole as distinct from systemic langue
(Saussure), on specified linguistic “text levels” (Catford), through the “componential analysis” of
lexical items (Nida) (10-11), or with respect to “pragmatic discourse conventions and modes of
text organization” (Hatim & Mason) (19).100 Elaborate lists and procedures for identifying
instances of natural equivalence and for attempting to maintain these in translation were
developed, for example on the lexical level, through the use of a loanword, calque, literal
rendition, transposition, modulation, correspondence (true “equivalence”), or adaptation (13).
On the sentence level then, one could implement standard translation procedures such as
amplification, reduction, explicitation, implicitation, generalization, particularization, or
compensation (14-15).101

But as Pym points out, in the application of many of these techniques, the result is not really
“natural” equivalence, but rather “directional” equivalence, for the corresponding expressions
are not necessarily reversible, e.g. the German rendering eine der englishen Eliteschulen with
reference to the well-known British “Eton.” So despite the “illusory and deceptive” character of
natural equivalence and its detailed modes of analysis, Pym feels that this approach and its
metalinguistic terminology “must be known and understood, even though different theories tend
to use the same terms in slightly different ways” (23). This methodology is especially helpful in
the training of translators at an elementary level (20).102

2.3.2 Directional Equivalence

Pym’s first task in chapter three is to distinguish between “natural equivalence” (as discussed in
chapter two) and “directional equivalence.”103 Thus, “[d]irectional equivalence is an asymmetric
relation where the creation of an equivalent by translating one way does not imply that the same
equivalence is created when translating the other way” (26). On the other hand, “[t]he term
‘natural equivalence’…refers to theories that assume the possibility of an equally balanced two-
way movement” (28). The methodology associated with natural equivalence typically generates
manifold “categories of translation procedures,” whereas a directional approach tends to favor
“only two opposed poles” (25) that are commonly associated with two contrastive “ways of

100
In this connection, Pym asserts that theories of natural equivalence “mostly assume that there is a
piece of reality or thought (a referent, a function, a message) that stands outside of language and to which
two languages can refer. That thing would be a third element of comparison, a tertium comparationis,
available to both sides” (18). This mediating conceptual element seems to reflect the more rudimentary
“transfer stage” of dynamic equivalence theory (Nida and Taber 1969:33).
101
All these procedures are taken from Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1972. In this section Pym also
briefly mentions other equivalence-oriented techniques, such as “reference to a tertium comparationis,”
“deverbalizing” (théorie du sens), and the applied linguistic discourse analysis methodology of Hatim and
Mason (18-19).
102
Arguments against the concept of natural equivalence in translation studies include the
presupposition of a “non-existent symmetry” between languages, its lack of a verifiable “psychological
basis,” an underlying “imperialistic” agenda, and the promotion of “parochialism” that prefers meaning
over form (20-21).
103
The directive equivalence approach is considered under the heading of “equivalence and equivalent
effect” in Munday 2008:36-54.
38
translating,”104 i.e. literal (formal correspondence) versus free (aiming to achieve semantic
and/or functional equivalence).105

I do not find Pym’s argument to separate the two types of equivalence very convincing. To
me, “natural” equivalence is at best simply a special case of “directional” equivalence since all
true “translation” is directive in some sense, that is, proceeding from a given SL text to a TL text
(though some theorists would argue against this; see below).106 One must always start
somewhere, and that is with an originally composed text (or its translation), which one then
wishes to communicate in another language as the ultimate goal, or finishing point. The fact that
two words or expressions in different languages appear to be formally, semantically, and
functionally interchangeable, e.g. the rendering for “sun” (dzuwa) in Chewa with reference to
the bright star in the daytime sky, is an exception which proves the rule—namely, that such
instances of (relatively) complete equivalence are almost impossible to find, except between
closely related language-cultures.107 And even these seeming equivalents turn out to be deceptive
or incomplete after one researches their respective conceptual “frames” (sociocultural settings,
contexts of use, connotative overlays, etc.), which will always prove to be different in certain
respects.108 In short, exact or total translation is impossible, to a greater or lesser degree,
depending on a host of circumstantial factors.109 In any case, Pym himself seems to come to the

104
Pym qualifies this as follows: “Although there are usually more than two ways of translating, the
reduction to two is very much a part of the way translation has been seen in Western tradition” (26). A
conceptual “frames of reference” approach seeks to break this “tradition” by investigating the various
interacting contexts (cognitive, sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual) that must be
considered when planning, implementing, and assessing a given translation project, whether the Skopos is
focused primarily on form or function (cf. Wendland 2008:1-7).
105
Chesterman (2005, as summarized by Pym, 25-27) expresses these relations in terms of different
kinds of “similarity” coupled with differing perspectives: “Divergent similarity” is the viewpoint of the
translator who creates a new TL text that is similar in certain significant respects to an original SL text
(directional equivalence). “Convergent similarity,” on the other hand, adopts the perspective of the
receptors who tend to view the two texts, SL and TL, as being essentially the same for all practical purposes,
i.e., a Bible translation is the Word of God (a significant instance of “natural equivalence”).
106
I find Pym’s further distinction rather difficult to follow: “Theories of directional equivalence allow
that the translator has a choice between several translation strategies, and that those strategies are not
dictated by the source text” (26). In the first place, one may recall all the translation “procedures” (13)
and “strategies” (17) that were summarized in the preceding chapter on natural equivalence. These diverse
options must surely imply that a choice must be made among them in a given situation. Secondly, the
expression “not dictated by the source text” is rather ambiguous if it is true that “[d]irectional equivalence
can describe the way a translation represents its source text” (26).
107
Pym proposes “back-translation” as a test for distinguishing between natural and directional
equivalence: “This means taking the translation and rendering it back into the source language, then
comparing the two versions. When natural equivalence prevails, we can go from Friday to viernes then back
to Friday, and it makes no difference which term is the source and which the translation. This is because
the correspondence existed in some way prior to the act of translation” (30). But then he turns right around
and admits that such “naturalness is certainly an illusion,” a position that all cognitive linguists would
support, and that “one could also argue, historically, that all equivalence is in some way directional”
(ibid.).
108
Thus, in contrast to English, the Chewa (a SE Bantu language) word for “sun,” dzuwa, can be used
in different contexts to refer to “daytime” (as distinct from the night), to the “time” of day, to a “hot day,”
or to a period of “famine/drought.”
109
This is arguably true even in the “surer examples” of “one-to-one” or “total equivalence” (within
“Kade’s types of equivalence”), such as “technical terms like the names of chemical elements” (29). These
will normally turn out to be “loanwords” or pure transliterations in many languages, for example,
“hydrogen” in Chewa – haidologeni. However, the latter term would be unknown to many more MT
speakers than its apparent equivalent in English, even within a country like Zambia, where English is a
“second language.” This factor of (un)familiarity renders the two expressions non-equivalent in terms of
their comparative natural communicability.
39
same conclusion, namely, that there is really not a significant difference which would separate
theories of natural equivalence from those of directional equivalence:
According to the criteria of both directionality and naturalness, you go from one language
to the other, and the result is a translation if and when a relationship of equivalence is
established on some level. (28)
Pym proceeds to point out the “directionality” involved in a number of representative
definitions of equivalence, noting that “the term ‘equivalent’ describes one side only, the target
side … [since] translation goes from one side to the other, but not back again” (27-28). He then
discusses the two “polarities of directional equivalence” as they are manifested in the writings of
many translation theorists, for example, foreignizing—domesticating (Schleiermacher), formal—
dynamic (Nida), semantic—communicative (Newmark), overt—covert (House), documentary—
instrumental (Nord), resistant—fluent (Venuti).110 “The strategies they are talking about are not
always the same, and some of the theorists have diametrically opposed preferences, but they are
all talking in twos,” even though many allow for the fact that “there are possible modes between
the two poles” (33). Pym then asks the question why—why “only two categories” (33)? In answer,
he suggests that “there may be something profoundly binary within equivalence-based
translation itself,”111 and more significantly perhaps, “[i]t would certainly seem that the ideology
of ‘one side or the other’ is deeply anchored in Western thought” (34). As a Westerner myself, I
am not the one to evaluate the preceding assertion, but the notion of translation ideology is
certainly worth exploring further from an interlingual, cross-cultural perspective.112

2.4 Relevance Theory

Pym devotes several pages to the approach of “relevance theory” (RT), in particular, as applied
by E-A Gutt in critique of various theories of equivalence with reference to Bible translation.113
He attempts to summarize Gutt’s key distinction between an “indirect” and a “direct” translation.
The former encompasses “all the kinds of translations that may be done without referring to the
context of the source text”; the latter (direct) denotes “the kind that does refer to that context,”
thus creating “a presumption of complete interpretive resemblance” (35).114 However, this

110
The most recent expression of this polarity is presented from the perspective of the target
constituency: “The analytic vis-a-vis synthetic distinction is to emphasize the cognitive process by which
one uses the translation. The analytical translation enables the ‘reader’ to tear the text apart, to get at the
details, to perform word studies, even to hear the underlying original language. Those processes are
unique to intentional analysis. The synthetic translation enables the reader to process the text’s meaning
[e.g. to readily summarize it], to follow the flow of the author’s thought, to engage in the narrative. Any
analysis which is done in these synthetic processes happens subconsciously and automatically. With the
synthetic, it’s like the analytical engine is hardwired in” (Sangrey 2012).
111
It would seem that any translation theory (or paradigm) that considers a TT in relation to a ST
should involve “binary” thinking to one degree or another.
112
“Clearly, in order to understand the scope of the cluster concept called translation in English,
translation studies scholars must be assiduous in seeking out more of the world’s words for translation, as
well as investigating in detail the connotations, implications, translation practices and actual histories of
translation associated with those terms” (Tymoczko 2011:68-69). Perhaps some “thinking through
translation with metaphors” (St. André 2010) will also be involved in these explorations. However, my
initial reading of such metaphor research leads me to conclude that it often reveals more about the ideas
and perspectives of the theorist than it does about the process of translation per se.
113
See also Munday 2009:60-61; Hatim 1998:182-183.
114
A direct translation allegedly stimulates within receptors the belief that they “understand what
receivers of the original understood, and that belief is not dependent on any comparison of the linguistic
details” (35). A recent workbook prepared for basic Bible translators valiantly seeks to clarify the notion
of “direct translation” by describing it as a Scripture product that “aim[s] at high meaning resemblance,”
that is, “keeping the ideas communicated by the translation as similar to the ideas communicated by the
original as possible,” a process which “requires that the audience learn the intended content to be able to
40
characterization (if Pym has it right) raises certain questions: Can any credible translation “be
done without referring to the context of the source text” at all? And does not every version
presume to represent “complete interpretive resemblance” with respect to the original text? In
any case, Pym’s subsequent conclusion may sound rather surprising:
Here the critique of natural equivalence (too many possible categories) brings us back to
the two familiar categories (“direct” vs. “indirect”). Those two, we can now see, are very
typical of directional equivalence. That alone could justify Gutt as a theorist of equivalence.
(35, italics added)
Relevance theorists might not agree with Pym’s assessment here, but I must leave it to them to
set the record straight in this regard.115

Pym goes on to consider the importance of “implicature” in communication, that is, what is
conveyed directly by the linguistic forms of a text, as distinct from what is conveyed implicitly
by these same words and sentences “interacting with a specific context” (35). Grice’s familiar
four “maxims” are summarized (i.e. quantity, quality, relevance, and manner) along with Sperber
and Wilson’s reduction of them to one, the pragmatic principle of relevance, thus “saying in fact
that all meaning is produced by the relation between language and context” (36). In the case of
a translation, if the receptors are sufficiently familiar with the biblical context, then a more
formally correspondent (i.e. “direct”) rendering can be successful. If not, then a more functional
(i.e. “indirect”) translation will need to be undertaken, one that clarifies the intended
implicatures of the original (e.g. stating certain implicit information explicitly in the text).116 And
what is Pym’s conclusion?
The notion of implicature can thus give us two kinds of equivalence, in keeping with two
kinds of translation. The fundamental dichotomy of directional equivalence persists.117
(36)
Gutt’s abstract theoretical point, however, appears to be valid, that the concept of
equivalence “operates more on the level of beliefs” and therefore “[t]ranslations, when they are
accepted as such, do indeed create a ‘presumption of complete interpretive resemblance’,” that
is, for a given target audience (37).118 “Equivalence is always ‘presumed’ equivalence and nothing
more” (ibid.). The question then is, how important is it to retain this potentially illusionary

understand” (Hill et.al. 2011:125). I suspect that it would also help one’s understanding of such a
“documentary” version (Nord 1997:47-48) to know as much as possible about how to interpret the
linguistic and literary forms of the biblical text as well. For example, this type of rendition might seek “to
recreate the literary structures of the source text where a meaning-based translation had led to a disregard
of literary form and structure” (Mørk 2012:153). On the other hand, it may be noted that a translation is
not really “meaning-based” if it disregards “literary form and structure” (Wendland 2004:ch.3).
115
To begin with, how different is the concept of “interpretive resemblance” (cf. Gutt 1992:65-66)
from that of “equivalence.” In any case, I would refer readers to S Pattemore’s helpful overview of some
of the issues involved concerning RT in relation to current translation theory in UBS circles (2007).
116
The problem of how to handle “implicit information” in translation is actually quite a bit more
complicated than this. It also involves fundamental (“deep-level”) cognitive issues such as primary world-
view orientations and value preferences—not only with reference to the SL/C but also crucial differences
that are reflected by way of comparison with the TL/C (see Matthews et.al. 2011).
117
Gutt has a decided preference for “direct translation” where the Bible is concerned (cf. also Hill
et.al 2011:126). Pym comments: “Gutt insists not only that the original context is the one that counts, but
also that this ‘makes the explicitation of implicatures both unnecessary and undesirable’ (1991:166). In
the end, ‘it is the audience’s responsibility to make up for such differences’ (ibid.). Make the receiver work!”
(37, italics added). There is a formatting problem throughout Pym’s discussion in this section (35-36); the
five example texts that he refers to have not been marked as such, i.e. from (1) to (5).
118
According to Pym then, “The text-user’s ‘belief in interpretive resemblance’ may be seen as a
concept operative within the sub-paradigm of directive equivalence, since it depends heavily on
directionality” (40). This viewpoint approaches that of a “descriptive” translation theorist (see point 5
below).
41
“presumption” in translation theory and, more importantly, as a pedagogical tool in translation
practice as well?

If equivalence is not an “efficient” theoretical concept, then what could replace it? How
about the notion of “similarity”? Chesterman, for example, proposes that “[a]dequate similarity
is enough – adequate for a given purpose, in a given context … anything more would be an
inefficient use of resources” (40).119 Perhaps in many languages it would in fact be easier to say
during the process of comparative examination, for example, that a TL translation is “similar” to
the SL text with respect to form, content, and/or function. That would be the perspective of the
translator(s). For the users of a translation, however, who are probably not able to check on the
degree of similarity involved in any given instance, “equivalence may be a convenient fiction
that allays suspicions of non-similarity”; in other words, they “simply accept the translation as
equivalent, as an act of trust in the translator” (40).120

The “frequently had arguments” against theories of “directional equivalence” are similar to
those posed for “natural equivalence” in the preceding chapter—for example, that they
“presuppose symmetry between languages,” or “are unnecessarily binary,” or “make the source
text superior” (39). On the positive side of things, “the idea of a functional illusion makes the
concept of equivalence compatible with some of the other paradigms” of translation, which “will
actually pick up threads from directional equivalence” (41). Pym concludes:

Theorists working within the equivalence paradigm will probably not win all the debates.
They should nevertheless be able to hold their own, and may even find quite a few blind
spots in the paradigms that came later [and are discussed in subsequent chapters]. (40,
words in brackets added)
Bible translation consultants also need to take into further consideration the criterion of
“relevance” in relation to pedagogy—that is, how easy, efficient, and effective a particular theory
and its associated practice is to teach and for the average translators in their region to learn.121

2.5 Functionalist Theories

In chapter four Pym turns to a sequence of ostensively non-equivalence oriented translation

theories, beginning with a general approach that focuses on the notion of “purposes”: “These
theories all insist that a translation is designed to achieve a purpose” (43) and may therefore be
classified as primarily “functionalist” in nature.122 A minority of theorists in this group (e.g.
Katharina Reiss 2000) still do emphasize that the function(s) of the source text should be
reproduced in a translation, and hence they remain equivalence-based, but for the majority, the
relationship of functional equivalence between SL and TL texts is only a “special case” and one
that is the most difficult to achieve because it normally “requires the most textual shifts” (49).123

119
Pym is citing Chesterman 1996:4 (however, there seems to be some error in this reference when
compared with the entry in the book’s final “References” section).
120
In some African languages (e.g., Chewa), the concept of “similarity” (kufanana) would not suffice
since the local correspondent term could imply a degree of inexactness or imprecision—and hence also a
negative connotation.
121
In this regard, it is important to specify the primary target group, for example, Bible translators
“who have (the equivalent of) secondary school education” (Hill et.al. 2011:xi) versus “students at the
university level” (Wilt and Wendland 2008:1)
122
This consideration of the functionalist approach may be supplemented by the overviews in
Schäffner 1998, Munday 2008:79-86, and Wendland 2004:50-53.
123
But this assertion, which Pym indirectly attributes to Vermeer (49), may be questioned. In fact, it
appears to be contradicted just a few lines later, where the general Skopos principle is summarized: “one
text can be translated in many different ways, to suit many different purposes” (ibid., original boldface).
42
For most functionalists then (e.g. Hans Vermeer 1989), it is the setting of reception that
determines the particular function which a translation should aim to achieve, and this major shift
in focus represents the introduction of a “new paradigm” (43). In other words, the target-side
purpose, or communicative Skopos, becomes the dominant factor in the translation process:
This approach accepts that the one source text can be translated in different ways in order
to carry out different functions. The translator thus needs information about the specific
goals each translation is supposed to achieve, and this requires extra-textual information
of some kind, usually from the client. (43)
Pym identifies the notion of “Skopos” (“aim/goal”) as the key to the functionalist paradigm
and translation enterprise. “The basic idea is that the translator should work in order to achieve
the Skopos, the communicative purpose of the translation, rather than just follow the source text”
(44), as in directional equivalence theory. Thus, translators and their commissioners seek to
determine the possible function(s) to be achieved in a translation project “in relation to their
clients (a dimension wholly absent from the equivalence paradigm)” (45-46). But not so fast—is
the assertion in the preceding parenthesis really true? Certainly not in the case of the mode of
“directional equivalence” promoted by Nida and other Bible translation theorists. In one of the
earlier formulations of the “dynamic equivalence” approach, for example, Nida and Taber clearly
state (1969:14, 24):
In trying to reproduce the style of the original one must beware, however, of producing
something which is not functionally equivalent. … It is functional equivalence which is
required, whether on the level of content or on the level of style. … Communication is not
merely informative. It must also be expressive and imperative if it is to serve the principal
purposes of communication such as those found in the Bible.124
Later formulations of dynamic equivalence in Bible translation were even more strongly focused
on the notion of function in relation to particular audiences:
The translator must strive to identify intellectually and emotionally with the intent and
purpose of the original source, but he (sic) must also identify with the concerns of his potential
receptors. … In order to understand the significance of a number of basic principles of
translation, it is important to know something about the different communicative
functions of language and how languages operate to perform such functions.125
However, it is important to keep in mind that the Skopos of a translation project does not
stand on its own as a guideline for translators. It is just one component (perhaps the most
important one) of what is termed the “brief” (Auftrag) in functionalist theory. A brief is the “job
description,” which includes not only “[t]he instructions the client gives to the translator” (46),
but also “describes the situation for which the target text is needed” (55) and specifies the
pertinent circumstances under which it will be produced, including personnel and roles involved,
a stipulated time frame, review process, pre-publication testing, operational procedures, physical
setting and equipment, remuneration scales, and so forth.126

One of the positive features of a functional approach is its emphasis on coordinated

teamwork and clearly delineating all that needs to be done (tasks) during a particular translation

Presumably, a Skopos aiming for some sort of “adaptation” in the TL translation would require even more
“textual shifts” than one aiming to achieve functional equivalence.
124
And the “clients,” or receptors of a given Bible translation are clearly in view, for its “[c]orrectness
must be determined by the extent to which the average reader for which a translation is intended will be
likely to understand it correctly” (ibid.:1).
125
De Waard and Nida 1986:14, 25; added italics. The entire second chapter of this book is devoted
to a discussion of “functions and roles in Bible translating.” Pym later admits that “Nida’s approach…could
also legitimately be called ‘functionalist’” (48).
126
A sample “complete job description for translators” is given on p. 60.
43
project and who is to do them (roles).127 Translators are thus obliged to operate according to the
principle of “loyalty” when carrying out their work. They must maintain their “ethical obligations
not only to texts (the traditional focus of ‘fidelity’) but more importantly to people: to senders,
clients, and receivers” (55),128 everyone who may be included, whether implicitly or explicitly,
within the province of the project brief. This concern also for the original document is a valuable
corrective to functionalist practitioners who would delink their translation more or less
completely from the source language text.129

In his listing of “some virtues of the purpose paradigm” (56), Pym summarizes the arguments
that have been already discussed above. However, I would take issue with his subsequent listing
of “several strong points that distinguish it from the equivalence paradigm” (ibid.). In my
opinion, none of these are distinctive, certainly not in the case of experienced Bible translators
and consultants who carry out their work according to the approach of “functional equivalence.”
For example, Pym’s first point is that functionalist methodology “recognizes that the translator
works in a professional situation, with complex obligations to people as well as to texts” (ibid.).

But what contemporary (equivalence) Scripture translation project does not recognize this
too and operate accordingly? In Pym’s opinion, the purpose paradigm also “can address ethical
issues in terms of free choice” (ibid.). However, the functional orientation within the
administrative instrument of the translation “brief” with its incorporated Skopos would surely be
a strong factor that would considerably limit such supposed “freedom.” Pym goes on to
summarize a number of “frequently had arguments” against the purpose paradigm, only several
of which are of much significance, such as the alleged “idealism” of Skopos theory, its potential
“unfalsifiable” character, that it is not “cost-effective,” and it cannot deal efficiently with “cases
of conflicting purposes,” and, I might also add, multiple purposes (57-59).

The main claim of functionalist theory, namely, that “a translation need not be equivalent
to its source text” and its corresponding “focus on the target-side purpose which the translation
is supposed to achieve” (61), may have a practical application to Bible translation in the
following ways:
 A functional emphasis can be used to teach translators the importance of carefully
investigating the factor of communicative aims, not only with respect to the biblical text,
but also the translation of this SL document correspondingly in their mother tongue. This
assumes that a thorough investigation of TL functions in relation to all the available local
literary (and/or oral) genres has already been carried out.
 On the other hand, the target-text focus of functionalist theory can also be employed as a
negative teaching device. This would be to demonstrate the complementary principle—that

127
This dimension is developed in an offshoot of functionalism that employs “action theory” to more
explicitly define and monitor the varied aspects of “translatorial action” involved during a specific project
(50-51).
128
“Fidelity is the basic ethical term in translation. Infidelity means a translator’s betrayal of the
original work and its author” (Wechsler 1998:65). This point has been rightly emphasized (from the
perspective of Bible translation practice) by Christiane Nord: “[L]oyalty means that the target-text purpose
should be compatible with the original author’s intentions. … Sometimes a thorough analysis of
intratextual function markers helps the translators to find out about the communicative intentions that
may have guided the author” (1997:125-126). For a much fuller description of the use of Nord’s
functionalist approach to Bible translation, see van der Merwe (forthcoming).
129
For example, “Hans Vermeer saw his Skopos rule effectively ‘dethroning’ the source text” (Pym, p.
54). Dethroning is one thing—complete “banishment” is quite another, ethically illegitimate.
44
 translators of the Scriptures must not ignore or contradict the macro- (genre-based) and
micro- (rhetorical) functions of the biblical text as they carry out their work.
 There are also special purpose translations to consider, such as topical portions, audio-visual
productions, a dramatic version geared to attract a hard-to-reach youth audience or some
other social or ethnic sub-group. Thus, the principal communicative function of the
biblical text may be modified (not eliminated, but reduced in prominence), for example,
from “informative” to “expressive” (and “evocative”), as in the case of a public musical
rendition of a didactic gospel passage, with reference to a parable of Jesus.
 Finally, the prominent concern in functionalism for the TL audience and setting of
communication helps considerably to define the notion of “equivalence” in its practical
application. Thus, Nord distinguishes four different types of “documentary” (more literal)
version and three kinds of “instrumental” (more idiomatic) version (1997:47-52). These
options may be combined in different places and in varying proportions within a given
translation according to its governing project Skopos.130

2.6 Descriptive Theory

For functionalist theorists (except those involved in Bible translation), the notion of equivalence
became a special case, “functional consistency” being “no more than one of many possible skills
a translator has to achieve” (64) on a particular project. Within the “descriptive paradigm,”131
Pym’s next category (ch. 5), equivalence is diluted to the point of non-existence, for it is regarded
as “a feature of all translations” (ibid.). So “[r]ather than prescribe what a good translation
should be like, descriptive approaches try to say what translations are like or could be like” (65).
As part of, or deriving from a descriptive agenda, several important “theoretical concepts” are
discussed by Pym in sequence: “translation shifts, systems and polysystems, ‘assumed
translations,’ a focus on the target side, norms, universals, and some proposed laws of translation”
(65).

The investigation of “translation shifts” is a comparative methodology used to identify,

describe, and categorize the principal structural differences between a given source text and its
translation. Pym summarizes several representative approaches that feature “bottom-up shift
analysis” as distinct from “top down shift analysis.” The former is rather disappointing in that it
allegedly reflects the “equivalence” paradigm (66), it does not always distinguish form from
function (67),132 and tends to “produce much doubt and even more data” (68).

A top-down approach, on the other hand, is explanatory, seeking to provide general reasons
for the major categories of translation shift observed—that is, “theories about the possible causes
(personal, institutional, historical) explaining why people translate differently” (68). We have,

130
For a functionalist-oriented evaluation and illustration of these issues in relation to Chinese Bible
translations, see Peng 2012.
131
See also Munday 2008:107-123; Wendland 2004:54-57. This paradigm of loosely related theories
is often termed “Descriptive Translation Studies” (DTS) after the pioneering study of Toury (1995).
132
In this connection, Pym makes the important observation that “there are many cases where formal
correspondence itself implies some kind of shift” (68). In other words, instead of preserving the source
text, a literal, formally correspondent rendering frequently distorts it, from the level of surface linguistics
(i.e. unnaturalness) to that of deep-level conceptual perception and ideology (e.g. a term like
“democracy”).
45
for example, Holmes’ proposed “model of options for the translation of [secular] verse” (69),
none of which would be unfamiliar to most Bible translators. But “[w]hen asked how any
decision should be made, the descriptivist will always be able to say, ‘it depends on the situation’”
(70). However, that is not very helpful. “Is there any way to model the huge range of variables
covered by phrases like ‘the translator’s situation’?” (ibid.).133 Pym proceeds to answer this by
surveying a number of important descriptivist tools—systems, norms, assumptions, universals,
and laws.

I found the discussion of “systems” to be very difficult to follow and even harder to find in
it much practical relevance for Bible translators.134 Part of the problem lies in the rather confusing
use of terminology. Thus, “the term ‘system’ is used here only in the sense of ‘theoretical
possibilities’ … [which] is quite different from the kind of social or cultural system presented as
the context in which translations function” (71).135 What are we to make then of Pym’s own
query: “Can the levels [of analysis] of ‘should be’ and ‘is’ be properly systemic in any strong
sense?” (ibid.). What could we do with the answer to such a question if we were able to answer
it? Even our familiar term “function” is redefined to mean the social “position” and relative
influence of a certain translation within its corresponding cultural system. For example, “When
we say that, within a given cultural system, a translation is relatively ‘central’ or ‘peripheral,’ we
effectively mean that its function is either to change or to reinforce the receiving language,
culture, or literature” (72).

According to Even-Zohar,136 most translations are more “peripheral” rather than “central” in
their influence, that is, “translations tend to have a conservative, reinforcing effect rather than a
revolutionary, innovative one” (ibid.). In this instance, we do have an interesting and important
factor to investigate from the perspective of Bible translation, especially in situations where
several versions exist within a particular society, but the qualifiers “conservative, reinforcing”
and “revolutionary, innovative” would need to be carefully defined in advance.137

In the case of “norms,” “Toury opens a space for what ‘should be’” (73), but this certainly
sounds “prescriptive” to me, that is, contrary to the general paradigm of DTS. This is clear from
Toury’s definition as well, for norms involve “the translation of general values or ideas shared
by a community…into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular
situations, specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as what is tolerated and permitted
in a certain behavioral dimension” (1995:55). It should be noted that the expression
“performance instructions” is not to be understood in the sense of the “brief” of functionalist
theory, for “the term norm usually operates at a wider, more social level…more like a common
standard practice in terms of which all other types of practice are marked” (ibid.).

133
Pym seems to be unaware of the “frames of reference” model (for example, Wilt and Wendland
2008), which would presumably assist in this descriptivist endeavor—certainly more so than the more
abstract, alternative models that he cites in his overview.
134
This was for me a typical response to much of the theory that Pym discusses in the second half of
his book. It is too obscure, impractical, and/or irrelevant for Bible translation on most levels of application.
135
Pym notes that “[t]he term ‘system’…varies in meaning and importance from theorist to theorist”
(72).
136
1978a. The term “polysystem” refers to culture as a complex interaction of sub-systems, e.g.
linguistic, literary, historical, political, economic, educational, military, artistic, and so forth (Pym, 72).
137
For example, Even-Zohar proposes that “translations play an innovative or central role when…a
polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a literature is ‘young,’ in the process of being
established” (72, citing Even-Zohar 1978b:47). This observation would seem to be true in the case of many
early (“missionary”) Bible translations in East and Southern Africa. However, the linguistic and literary
influence here was generally not very positive in terms of naturalness and creativity of verbal expression
in the vernacular.
46
 Different kinds of norm are distinguished, e.g. “preliminary,” “operational,” “professional,”
“expectancy” norms, and “[i]deally, the different types…reinforce one another, so that
translators tend to do what clients and readers expect of them” (74). Yet surely these norms
cannot operate independently, on their own, that is, without some sort of previously determined
functional Skopos to guide translators during their work.138 Pym points out that there is a
considerable degree of “relativism” involved in the descriptivist paradigm, for “[i]f we apply the
concept of norms seriously, we should probably give up the idea of defining once and for all
what a good translation is supposed to be” (ibid.).139 What can then serve as a practical guide for
a Bible translation team? As long as they are able to persuade the target community to “accept”
their version, no matter what its actual exegetical or stylistic “quality,” it would apparently
qualify as a “good translation.” Paradoxically, however, the socially-defined “norms” of DTS are
sometimes used prescriptively in the “training of translators and interpreters” and even
predictively to suggest “the relative success of one strategy or another” (75). This seems to be a
case of having one’s cake and eating it too, an approach that is too nebulous and equivocal for
use in the practice of Bible translation, except for its obvious “prescriptive” aspects.

The ambivalence of the DTS approach appears also with respect to the fundamental issue of
defining “what is meant by the term ‘translation’” (76). On the one hand, this task is seemingly
left to the TL receptors themselves; in other words, “a translation is a translation only for as long
as someone assumes it is one” (ibid.). As Pym observes, “[t]hat solution remains fraught with
logical difficulties” (ibid.)—many practical ones too, I might add, for example, in cases of
misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and gross incompetence in actual performance. On the
other hand, Toury himself proposes three well-formulated “postulates” that should help people
to define what a “translation” is, namely, principles that pertain to the “source text,” the
“transfer” process, and the linguistic “relationship” between the SL and TL texts (77).140 It is
rather surprising then to see, for example, the “source text postulate” expressed in terms that
would please any “directional equivalence” theorist: “There is another text, in another
culture/language, which has both chronological and logical priority over [the translation] and is
presumed to have served as the departure point and basis for it” (Toury 1995:33-34, added
emphasis).

Since a “fundamental tenet of the descriptive paradigm is that translations can be studied
scientifically,” then “the aim of research is to discover ‘universals’ or ‘laws’ of translation” (78).
These “universals,” first of all, pertain to the “linguistic features [of translations] that can be
actually measured,” but as Pym notes, “The search for universals is not an easy affair” (78-79).
However, in more recent years the process of language comparison and consequent translation
practice has been facilitated by cognitive techniques such as corpus studies analysis, think-aloud
protocols, Translog software for recording key-strokes, as well as screen and electronic eye
tracking for recording translation processes (81).

Pym proposes five basic universals that seem to have widespread acceptance; thus
translations are characterized by “lexical simplification,” “explicitation” (greater redundancy),
“adaptation” (i.e. to the norms of the target language and culture), “equalizing” (of linguistic
qualities on “the oral-literate continuum” during simultaneous oral interpretation), and a
reduced occurrence of “unique items” in translations (79-81). While “universals” pertain to the

138
A good discussion of translation norms is also found in Baker 1998:163-165.
139
In fact, “Toury (1995) explicitly recommends starting analysis from the translation rather than
from the source text; he thus creates space for research that takes no account of the source text at all”
(Pym, 75, original boldface). I would regard such “research” as having nothing to do with “translation”
(in the narrow, commonly accepted sense) at all.
140
These three postulates sound strangely similar in terms of their respective points of reference to
the “three stages” of dynamic equivalence theory, namely, “analysis,” “transfer,” and “restructuring” (Nida
and Taber 1969:33).
47
linguistic features or tendencies that characterize translations, “[t]he quest for laws, on the other
hand, aims to state why such features should be found in translations” as a result of influences
found “in the society, culture, or psychology of the translator” (81-82). Pym describes two
significant “laws of tendency,” first, the “law of growing standardization” where (peripheral)
translations accommodate to “established modes and repertoires” (82). Second, we have the “law
of interference,” where structures in the source text, especially on the macrostructural level, are
duplicated in a translation, even though they are not normal, especially in a less prestigious TL
(83).

Among the “frequently had arguments” against the descriptivist paradigm are several that
concern the training of translators. First, “we need prescriptions (for good translations), not
descriptions (of any old translations)” (84). Second, “[t]he focus on norms promotes conservative
positions” with regard to translational practices (ibid.). However, such arguments do not hold in
the case of training programs that are more flexible, extensive, and broad-minded. Therefore, the
descriptions of published translations, both good ones and poor ones, can be used as positive and
negative models respectively to develop the prescriptive principles of high-quality translations.
The same goes for language- and situation-specific norms, which “may be taught as a series of
viable alternatives…[as] a way to empower translators by enhancing their repertoires of
solutions” (85). Accordingly, translators need to be instructed how to effectively “break” these
norms as well as to maintain them, depending on the social setting and type of translation project
concerned or version desired. Such flexibility would be especially important in situations where
a new, “ecumenical” (e.g., Protestant-Catholic) Bible version is being prepared to complement
several older versions that are already in widespread use. The careful prior comparative
“description” of these earlier versions would be a significant aspect of the project’s preparation
stage.141

Pym makes some interesting comments when concluding his chapter on the paradigm of
“descriptions” in current translation studies:
A great deal of research has been carried out within the descriptive frame. We could
mention countless studies… The worrying thing, though, is that none of these numerous
avenues of investigation seems to have come up with any major new statement on the
level of translation theory. … There is certainly a lot of theorizing, but most of the concepts
come from other disciplines and are applied to translation, making translation theory an
importer rather than exporter of ideas. (86)142
But is that not how it has more or less always happened in the widely interdisciplinary field
of translation studies, for example, in the case of the United Bible Societies, from Nida’s “dynamic
equivalence,” which was based largely on generative linguistics, to more recent explorations in

141
The “frames of reference” model might be a helpful tool in such preliminary research, that is, when
undertaking a detailed analysis of a given version’s sociocultural, organizational, communicational, and
(inter)textual frames in order to determine how these may have influenced the resultant translation in the
case of critical or sensitive theological (e.g. “Messiah”) and technical (e.g. “ark of the covenant”)
terminology and linguistic usage (e.g. dialectal differences) (see Wilt and Wendland 2008). Several recent
doctoral dissertations in the field of “Bible translation” at the University of Stellenbosch have been carried
out using this framework as a guide to critical analysis and comparative assessment by mother-tongue
speakers of African languages.
142
On the other hand, perhaps one might be more sympathetic to this apparent lack of theoretical
success on the part of DTS, if it is indeed true that “[w]ithin contemporary translation studies the
traditional concept of translation is unable to determine what translation actually is or identify all the
different situations in which it occurs. Ironically, the larger contemporary world of scholarship, outside
the disciplines of translation studies, understands translation in a much broader sense” (Arduini and
Nergaard 2011:13). This is most certainly an interdisciplinary irony—if it must be left to non-translation
disciplines to define for translation studies, whether rightly or wrongly, what “translation” is all about.
48
the “frames of reference” approach, which derives from cognitive linguistics?143 Why should
translation theory have to come up with something completely new on its own—is not the
creative, interdisciplinary mix of borrowed theories and practical models just as valuable (if it
works!)?144

2.7 Uncertainty Theory

Thus far we have considered three of the major translation “paradigms” posited by Pym
(considering the two “equivalence” versions as one). There are three that remain, but these will
not take as long to describe because their relevance for Bible translation theory and practice is
not as direct or great.145 The first gives us a suggestion of this reduced level of significance by its
very name—“uncertainty” (ch. 6), and Pym admits that the more loosely linked theories
discussed under this paradigm “can be difficult to understand” (90). Perhaps that is because its
basic premise is so non-committal: “we can never be entirely sure of the meanings that we
translate” (ibid.).146

According to Pym, there are two principal reasons for “the increasing dissatisfaction with
equivalence” (91) and meaning in general. The first concerns the “instability of the source,”
which refers to ancient texts that involved a long period of manuscript transmission and therefore
“were not stable points of departure to which any translation could be considered equivalent”
(ibid). If scholars of this opinion have the Scriptures in mind—the Hebrew Bible and the New
Testament (Pym does not mention them)—then they need to do some reading in the theory and
practice of biblical text criticism, which assures readers that only a relatively small portion of
the source text is in doubt,147 and “most variants make little difference to the (essential) meaning
of any passage” (Wegner 2006:298). This issue turns out to be rather minor as an “uncertainty”
factor, and Pym devotes only a single paragraph to it.

Much more important for the paradigm at hand is his second point—“epistemological
skepticism” (91), where not only the reliability of the textual source is questioned, but meaning
in general: How can we determine the sense and significance of texts at all when different
cultures perceive and different languages express meaning and its relationships so differently?
Such manifold doubt is reflected in the so-called “uncertainty principle” (93):
[A] text never fully determines (causes, explains, justifies, or accounts for) what a reader
understands of it. Each receiver brings a set of conceptual frames to the text, and the
reception process is thus an interaction between the text and those frames. The same

143
In a recent article (2010), I have tried to make the connection between cognitive linguistics and
the frames of reference model more explicit and hopefully stimulating of even more development in terms
of the resulting theory and its practice in Bible translation.
144
Gutt’s application of “relevance theory” to Bible translation is a rare example of one theory being
used as the basis for a single, unified translation approach. That is its strength (theoretically) but, at least
some would argue, also its weakness from a practical, pedagogical perspective—as revealed in a recently
published workbook (Hill et.al. 2011; cf. Wendland forthcoming).
145
This is not to say that these theories/paradigms are less important for translation, or even literary,
studies in general—only from the more limited perspective that I have adopted in this article.
146
Such a translation principle would seem to be the most antithetical to the equivalence paradigm.
Yet Pym goes out of his way at the beginning of this chapter to reassure readers of the latter’s continued
relevance: “The basic tenets of the equivalence paradigm still underlie much of the work done in
translation today. It is still the dominant paradigm in most linguistic approaches, especially when it comes
to terminology and phraseology. … Equivalence is by no means dead, but it has certainly been questioned”
(91).
147
“Approximately 10 percent of the Old Testament and 7 percent of the New Testament” (Wegner
2006:298).
49
 would then hold for translation: no source text fully determines a translation of that text,
if only because translations rely on observations and interpretations.
But obviously, no person is an island to him/herself in the process of interpretation; one is
normally shaped or influenced hermeneutically by the ideas and opinions of one’s social group—
in the case of the Scriptures, by one’s religious community and their collective written and oral
tradition. Thus one’s conceptual frames of reference may be considerably narrowed, enlarged, or
modified, first through a careful exegetical study of the source text and its extralinguistic context.
This individual activity is then aided (molded, modified, etc.) by the input of others, whether
verbally (e.g., by colleagues in conference) or through some formal published media (e.g.,
scholarly commentaries, AV tools, and manifold online resources).

To be sure, we can never be 100% sure of any meaning, and “indeterminacy will never
completely go away” (94). However, through procedures such as those just mentioned (and
others), we can become “sure enough” with regard to understanding a particular text to be able
to think and act in accordance with it with a sufficient degree of certainty that allows us to make
intellectual progress in various endeavors.148 Hence an observation such as “Quine’s principle of
the indeterminacy of translation” is not only exaggerated and unfair, it is also unhelpful from a
practical standpoint:
Manuals for translating one language into another can be set up in divergent ways, all
compatible with the totality of speech disposition, yet incompatible with one another. In
countless places they will diverge in giving, as their respective translations of a sentence
of one language, sentences of the other language which stand to each other in no plausible
sort of equivalence however loose. (95, citing Quine 1960:27)
There are many Bible translation manuals on the market, and though they may differ in
underlying theory and recommended practice, I have not found any one text to be completely
“incompatible” with the others or unusable. Although the proposed translations of the same Bible
passage may differ, the varied renderings can normally be shown to be somehow related to each
other in terms of form, content, and/or function.

Pym then goes on to compare different theories of determinism and indeterminism in

language and translation. “The general idea of indeterminacy may be used to divide translation
theories into those that assume the possibility of exact communication of some kind
(determinist: what X means is what Y understands) and those that do not (indeterminist: we
can never be sure that the two sides share the same meaning)” (95, original boldface). But I get
a little lost in Pym’s line of argumentation as he compares “Cratylistic determinacy” and
“Hermogenic indeterminacy” in relation to translation.149 He concludes that “an indeterminist
theory of naming can produce an equivalence-based theory of translation,” which leads to “the
paradox of a determinist theory of expression underlying an indeterminist theory of translation”
(97). Rather more helpful is a citation from the Italian theorist Benedetto Croce, which Pym
claims makes the point that “translation cannot be governed by equivalence, at least not on any
aesthetic level” (98). Thus we have only:
The relative possibility of translations; not as reproductions of the same original
expressions (which would be vain to attempt), but as productions of similar expressions
more or less nearly resembling the originals. The translation called good is an
approximation which has original value as work of art and can stand by itself. (ibid.;
original italics, added underline)

148
With regard to the thorny issue of authorial “intended meaning” in relation to the ancient texts of
Scripture, I have already stated and defended my position in favor of this more optimistic hermeneutical
position and will therefore not take the space to do so here (cf. 2004:242-243, 262-264, 298).
149
Pym bases his analogy on “two characters [Cratylus and Hermogenes] in the Socratic dialogue of
Plato’s Cratylus who hold opposed views about the way words have meanings” (96).
50
However, this sounds like a tolerable expression of “directional equivalence” to me,150 since no
realistic theory of equivalence in translation would insist upon an exact likeness between the
source and the translation texts—only the closest possible correspondence, or similarity, with
regard to form and/or meaning as specified by the project brief.

Having considered a number of the major theories that would fall under the uncertainty
paradigm, Pym surveys several more that hopefully show us “how to live with uncertainty” (101),
including those promoting “illumination,” “consensus,” “hermeneutics,” “constructivism,” “game
theory,” and “semiosis” (101-108). Just a few selective comments regarding these are necessary.
Under the category of “illumination,” Pym mentions the rather strange trio of Augustine, Martin
Luther, and Ernst-August Gutt, apparently since they all appear to subscribe, more or less, to the
notion that “language is hugely indeterminate” and that “real communication lies in shared
experience” (102), a perspective (not noted by Pym) that is shared by many of the modern
proponents of cognitive linguistics.151 One wonders why the section on “hermeneutics”—the
“idea that texts are not immediately meaningful and need to be actively interpreted” (103)—is
included under “uncertainty,” except in the sense that “great texts will always retain their
untranslatable secrets” (105). Theories of “constructivism”—that “we actively ‘construct’ what
we see and know of the world” (105)—would seem to fit better in the last chapter (8), which
deals with the specificities of “cultural translation.”152 The application of “game theory” would
be especially helpful if developed as an explicit, practice-oriented, problem-solving technique in
translator training programs:153
As translators proceed, they are confronted with numerous points where their rendition
could be one of several possible translations, and the decision to opt for one of the
possibilities depends on more than what is in the source… One decision becomes a
determinant for others. The result is that translating is determined not just by the source
text, but by the patterns of the translator’s own decisions. (106-107)
Teaching new translators to recognize these different options and then to later evaluate their
progression of choices would be a valuable part of the training procedure. Therefore, I do not
think that this overall process needs to be as “uncertain” as Pym’s discussion seems to suggest.
Rather, the principles of “directional equivalence” may be used to significantly reduce
uncertainty and indecision. To be sure, when translators begin, they may not know all (or even
some) of the critical choices that they will have to make along the way, let alone the ultimate
result in the form of a TL text. But they must at least have a general aim (Skopos) and audience
in mind at the outset, a perspective that will serve as a general frame of reference to guide their
sequence of translation choices and subsequent revisions as they proceed.

150
Perhaps more specifically this would apply to “literary functional equivalence” (Wendland
2004:245, 369).
151
For example, “Cognitive Linguistics…embodies the resemanticization of grammar by focusing on
the interplay between languages and conceptualization. … In Cognitive Linguistics, we examine how our
‘glasses’—that is, our physical, cognitive, and social embodiment—ground our linguistic
conceptualizations. … Ideas that were originally formulated by Gestalt play a central role in Cognitive
Linguistics: foremost among these are the Figure/Ground distinction and, more generally, the idea that
meanings do not exist in isolation but have to be understood in a larger context…” (Geearts and Cuyckens
2007:15, 27, 597).
152
Pym notes how the approach of “constructivism” is useful in training translators as well as their
teachers about different translation options and their theoretical as well as practical consequences (105-
106).
153
In a later section that seems somewhat out of place, “So how should we translate?” Pym mentions
Chau’s study of personal characteristics that translators need to develop in response to a “heightened
awareness of uncertainty” in their work: They need to become “more
humble…honest…efficient…confident…[and] responsible” (111). However, this is good advice also for
translators who happen to be more “certain” as they conduct their business.
51
 Finally, “theories of semiosis,” which suggest that meaning continually evolves in
translation, and Derrida’s notion of “deconstruction,” which “sees translation as a form of
transformation”154 (107-110) give the impression of being quite evident on the surface level of
understanding, but they tend to be opaque on the philosophical level, hence of little value, either
for the teaching or the exercise of Bible translation.155 In the end, I must conclude in agreement
with one of the “frequently had arguments” against the uncertainty paradigm and its central
principles, namely, that “theories of indeterminacy offer very few guidelines that might be of
practical use to translators” (113).156

2.8 Localization Theory

Pym’s penultimate paradigm is “localization” (ch. 7), which refers to the contextualized
application of a flexible marketing strategy, sophisticated information technology, and manifold
linguistic manipulation. The aim is to create a text in a local language of wider communication
that has been tailor-made to fit a specific world “locale” (121),157 for example, in terms of time
conventions, numbers, weights/measures, currency, scripts, etc. (122). This process may be
generalized then through “internationalization” to produce a standardized document in terms of
language and cultural background that can be readily adapted for translation into many diverse
“locales” (122).158 These two text-processing techniques may work in tandem as follows:
Internationalization [prepares] the product prior to the moment of translation. This makes
the actual translation processes easier and faster. Once internationalization has taken
place, localization can work directly from the internationalized version, without necessary
reference to the source. (124)
Of course, it depends on what kind of source text one is dealing with. In the case of the Scriptures,
this methodology does not produce accurate and acceptable results. The Good News Translation
(TEV, GNB), for example, provided an “internationalized version” for second language speakers
of English that was often rendered more or less literally into target languages all over the
world.159 The GNT was relatively easy to understand and translate, but as many translators came

154
It is interesting to note that the two key semiosis theorists referred to, Umberto Eco and Roman
Jakobson, both uphold the notion of a “translation proper,” that is, a “sense of translation that remains in
touch with fairly traditional concepts,” including “equivalence” (108).
155
Although “Derrida often uses translation to investigate the plurality of source texts, here in a sense
of revealing their ‘semantic richness’… [he] does not seek to remove the special status of the source text.
… [and] when Derrida comes to the discussion of actual translations, he is remarkably conservative” (109-
110). It is very well then to publish elaborate scholarly studies on various aspects of uncertainty theory,
but when it comes down to actually translating those publications, a much less grandiose type of practice
will have to be adopted, normally, a method that favors one form of directional equivalence or the other.
156
“They would seem to be theories for theorists, or for philosophers, or even for nitpickers” (113).
This is not Pym’s opinion; he does try to find some practical wheat amidst all the theoretical uncertainty
chaff.
157
A “locale” is more technically defined as “a set of linguistic, economic, and cultural parameters for
the end use” of a given textual product (121). This term is intended to “replace expressions like ‘target
language and/or culture’” (122). Would a translation then be called a “locale version”? Pym points out
certain similarities between the approach of localization and Skopos theory (123, 125).
158
Internationalization is “reverse localization,” or “delocalization” (123-124), but Pym’s terminology
is at times confusing, for example, “In localization…we move from a source to a general intermediary
version” (123)—which I would understand rather to be “internationalization.” According to Bassnett,
“International English, which in this sense can be viewed as a bad translation of itself, is a supraterritorial
language that has lost its essential connection to a specific cultural context (2011:37).
159
This was not the recommended practice (e.g. in UBS or SIL), but it often resulted from the “base-
model” method, where translators were instructed to determine the meaning of the biblical text by
comparing a FC version, like RSV (the “source”), with a DE version, like TEV (the “model”), and then
52
to realize, this was not a reliable way to carry out their work, and on occasion it even led to the
complete rejection of a particular “common language” version.160

Pym has a rather long section on the “role of technologies” in the process of localization.
For example, with special reference to translator-training programs:
The training usually involves translation memories, specific tools for the localization of
software or websites, terminology management, and increasingly integrated machine
translation, with perhaps a content-management system, globalization management
system, or project management tool as well. (127)
Such electronic technology has also been playing an ever-increasing role in Bible translation
efforts during this 21st century. In the United Bible Societies (UBS), for example, the “Paratext”
program functions as part of a systematic, computerized text-production procedure, including
publishing, coupled with regular project monitoring, evaluating, and reporting by means of the
internet-based “Translation Management System.”161 Pym helpfully describes some of the typical
tasks that technology can assist with during the localization and/or generalization process (132-
135) and raises a question concerning the nature of equivalence that is involved. His conclusion:
This “internationalized” equivalence is no longer “natural” (contextualized by the
dynamics of social language and culture) or “directional” (with one-off creativity). It has
become fundamentally standardized, artificial, the creation of a purely technical
language and culture, in many cases the language of a particular company. (133, original
boldface)
Naturally, all Bible translation agencies would want to avoid such a result in any of their
various applications of technology aimed at rendering the overall text-conversion process more
efficient and effective. In view of this, a number of the “frequently had arguments” that Pym
cites may be pertinent, in particular: “Localization belittles translators…[and] leads to lower
qualities of texts and communication,…[while reducing] cultural diversity” (137). In concluding
a brief discussion of “the future of localization” (138-140), Pym makes an important observation,
one that has obvious relevance for Bible translation work that is being carried out all over the
world today:
The localization industry [if it is not overshadowed, downplayed neglected, or even
extinguished by the economic motives and generalizing forces of internationalization] has
an active interest in the defense of linguistic and cultural diversity, in the strength of [less
prominent] locales, since that is where markets can be expanded. … Accessibility thus
becomes an issue of democracy and social ethics, and a large part of accessibility is the
availability of information in one’s language. (140, material in brackets added)
How true also in the case of the Scriptures!

encouraged to re-express that derived meaning in their language. However, since the TEV was usually
much easier to understand than the RSV, its text was often simply rendered literally in the TL.
160
One language community in Zambia, for example, rejected their new common language translation
because of a number of “watered-down” renditions of key biblical terms, e.g. “grace,” and due to the use
of modernistic Western illustrations that were simply imported from the TEV. As a result, thousands of
vernacular Bibles had to be transformed into paper pulp in order to reduce the overhead of unsold stock.
161
Pym discusses some of the corresponding tools used in secular translation projects on pp. 128-131,
for example, “management systems,” “XML” (eXtensible Markup Language), and “translation memories”
for use as a glossing tool. See also Munday 2009:106-127.
53
2.9 Cultural Theory

Pym’s final chapter (8) deals with the paradigm of “cultural translation.” But immediately a
question is raised as to whether this chapter belongs in the book at all,162 even from a secular
perspective. This is because a number of diverse approaches are considered here that “do not
refer to translations as finite texts. … Instead translation is seen as a general activity of
communication between cultural groups” (143).163 An even broader, more revealing summary of
this paradigm is stated as follows:

“Cultural translation” may be understood as a process in which there is no source text and
usually no fixed target text. The focus is cultural processes rather than products. The prime
cause of cultural translation is the movement of people (subjects) rather than the
movement of texts (objects). (144)
Why then is the term “translation” used in this connection, one might wonder. Furthermore,
this group of theorists tends to use expressions that defy comprehension, such as, “the language
of the Americas is translation.”164 Typical among these is “Homi Bhabha” and his view of “non-
substantive translation” (ibid.). At the end of a survey of Bhabha’s philosophical notions, “[o]ne
may be tempted to dismiss Bhabha’s contribution as no more than a set of vague opinions
presented in the form of fashionable metaphors” (147). But Pym feels that this paradigm “reveals
some aspects that have been ignored or sidelined by other paradigms,” such as, “the perspective
of the (figurative) translator,” “cultural hybridity,” the “material movements” of peoples, and
“the problem of the two-sided border figured by translators” (147-148). But why do we need
such “translation without translations” at all, and coupled with this a “move beyond a focus on
translations as (written or spoken) texts” (148)? I could see no benefit in this set of perspectives,
at least not from the point of view of translation studies and established terminology that has
been gratuitously hijacked.165

In the apparent attempt to rehabilitate the paradigm of “cultural translation” and give it
some credibility, Pym recycles the idea of “semiosis” (“meaning is constantly created by
interpretation”), which was discussed earlier under the “uncertainty” paradigm (ch. 6; 148-150)

162
It would seem to fit much better in a study of intercultural communication and interethnic social
relationships.
163
The term “translation” is thus being used metonymically here, at the risk of considerable obscurity
and misappropriation. From this figurative standpoint then, the whole field of “translation studies [now
embrace] a broader, transdisciplinary perspective that sees translation as an instantiation of more general
cognitive and cultural processes of the creation, communication, and transformation of meaning, within
and across cultures” (de Vries 2011:79). Along these same lines, Gentzler raises a question of redefinition:
“What if we erase the border completely and rethink translation as an always ongoing process
of every communication. Translation becomes viewed less as a speech-act carried out between languages
and cultures, and instead as a condition underlying the languages and cultures upon which communication
is based” (2012). But does such a broadened vision of translation help us to interlingual, cross-cultural
communication any better, or only confuse the pertinent issues that arise during its performance?
164
Cited by Pym from the program statement of the journal New Centennial Review (142).
165 As already noted, the language used to present this paradigm is often obscurantic, for example:
“Translation is the performative nature of cultural communication. It is language in actu (enunciation,
positionality) rather than language in situ (énoncé, or propositionality). And the sign of translation
continually tells, or ‘tolls’ the different times and spaces between cultural authority and its performative
practices” (Bhabha 1994:227). The fact that this observation (and more) is reproduced in a new journal
on the subject (Translation 2011:19-20) presents the interesting case of where many readers will require
a translation (i.e. intralingual) of an article on translation!
54
and “transfer theory,”166 another aspect of “systems theory” (considered under “description” in
ch. 5; 151-152), but these efforts do not take us very far. Nor does Pym’s own endeavor “to build
a whole view of translations as textual responses to the movements of objects across time and
space” (152), a phenomenon that could be more effectively referred to through the use of some
distinctive expression (e.g., “transfers”). A series of other disciplines that use the term
“translation” figuratively are then described: “ethnographic descriptions” and “the translation of
a culture” (153-154),167 “translation sociology” (154-156),168 and the “psychoanalytics of
translation” (157-158).169 All in all, therefore, I would again have to strongly endorse Pym’s
listing of the “frequently had arguments” against the “cultural translation paradigm”: “These
theories only use translation as a metaphor” (159);170 they are “an excuse for intellectual
wandering” (160);171 they create “a space for weak interdisciplinarity” (160);172 they “can be
studies entirely in English” and are “not in touch with the translation profession” (161).173
Furthermore, I would not agree with Pym’s conclusion, namely, that “the virtues of cultural
translation are significant enough to have been included in this book” (162).174

166
“The term ‘transfer’ here means that a textual model from one system is not just used in another;
it is integrated into the relations of the host system and thereby both undergoes and [also] generates
change” (151).
167
Comprehensive ethnographic studies of course do include genuine translations in the sense of
rendering collected SL texts (usually oral) into the TL language of the scholar, for example: “good
translations [usually literal or interlinear] show the structure and nature of the foreign culture,” primarily
for the benefit of fellow scholars and researchers (153, material in brackets added).
168
In this case, “the ‘translation’ part refers to the method of analysis rather than to the object under
analysis. … Translation becomes the process through which we form social relations” (155).
169
“The general idea is that psychoanalysis concerns the use of language, translation is a use of
language, so in translations we can find traces of the unconscious” (157). The preceding assertion was
seemingly intended to function as a syllogism, but its logic escapes me.
170
“They are drawing ideas from one area of experience (the things translators do) to a number of
other areas (the ways cultures interrelate)” (159). On the other hand, the term “translation” and various
metaphors for translation are already being freely used in other scientific disciplines, such as philosophy,
sociology, anthropology, and even molecular biology (Willson 2011). A recent example of such transferred
usage appears in the Mayo Clinic Health Letter (October 2012): “Translational research describes the cycle
that occurs when a problem is observed in the health care system, researchers study the problem
extensively to see what can be discovered to fix or improve the problem, and then they retool those
discoveries into refined solutions that go back to benefit the patient” (p.1, added boldface). One thus begins
to wonder if the word “translation” can fully retain its rightful technical, interlingual use and can
accordingly continue to be correctly understood again in its narrow original sense.
171
“Antoine Berman’s term ‘vagabondage conceptuel’” … criticizes “the temptation to associate
change with translation…[which] can lead to a view where everything can translate everything else, where
there is ‘universal translatability’” (160).
172
“[T]he various theorists of culture [steal] the notion of translation, without due appreciation of
any of the other paradigms of translation theory” (160).
173
Many of “the people [in the disciplines associated with cultural translation] who theorize do not
actually know how to translate, so they do not really know about translation” (161, material in brackets
added).
174
Of course, this position opens me up to the charge of being an epistemological Luddite as far as
developments in contemporary translation theory goes—that is, according to the new journal Translation.
Here we see the emergence of modern “post-translation studies, where translation is viewed as
fundamentally transdisciplinary, mobile, and open-ended . . . [where] translation has to be considered as
a transformative representation of, in, and among cultures and individuals” (Arduini and Nergaard 2011:8,
12). However, resisting such usage whereby “translation has become a fecund and frequent metaphor for
our contemporary intercultural world” (ibid.:8), I will, for the time being, continue to utilize (and defend)
the more restrained reference to “‘real’ translation” (ibid.:13) as an interlingual, intercultural process of
communication involving verbal texts.
55
2.10 Concluding Observations

In a final “Postscript,” Pym “positions” himself theoretically in relation to the different paradigms
of translation that he has considered in his book and encourages readers also to make the effort
to align themselves. He actually does this twice, the second time from the perspective of “risk
management”: “instead of saying that different translation solutions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ or are
instances of one kind of equivalence or another, I try to assess how much risk they involve. The
work of the translator becomes an exercise in risk management” (165). This may well prove to
be a helpful approach to adopt as a translation training technique, but the instructor would first
have to clarify what constitutes a “risk” and how to evaluate how “risky” it is in relation to the
nature of the text being translated, its intended audience, their desires, expectations, and needs,
as well as the proposed primary setting of use and medium of communication.

In conclusion, I do not hesitate in placing Exploring Translation Theories very high up on a

list of recommended readings for all Bible translation consultants, well-educated Bible
translators, and biblical scholars who work in the original languages. Pym’s study is engaging
and well-written, with very few errors and a readable, well-designed page format (though the
type is rather small). There are no supplementary notes (foot- or end), thus presenting readers
with a bit of a trade-off: they can perhaps move through the book more quickly, but the text does
get rather cluttered at times with detailed information or subordinate discussion that could have
been relegated to the notes. A comprehensive list of References and an informative Index are
included at the back. The book gives a personal, more critical review of modern translation
theory and practice than an equally valuable text, Munday’s Introducing Translation Studies, which
is more descriptive and documentary in nature. Indeed, these two books would complement each
other well in any advanced program of translator-training. The “suggested projects and activities”
at the end of each chapter would be especially useful for this purpose.175

Pym does not have very much to say about Bible translation per se, and he refers only to the
works of (early) Nida and Gutt. That may be understandable in a survey that focuses on
contemporary secular theory, but by doing so he appears to have overlooked several recent
developments which current professional philosophy, paradigms, and praxis might do well to
take cognizance of, namely, the ongoing development of some rather sophisticated electronic
translation tools and platforms, like Paratext,176 the “literary” (artistic, emotive, rhetorical)
dimension of translation,177 the importance of the oral-aural factor in all types of translation,
purely written forms included,178 and the growing influence of cognitive linguistics (frame
semantics) as a theoretical model for translation—and communication in general—for example,

175
Compare Munday’s equally stimulating chapter-ending “Discussion and research points” (2008;
note: the 3rd edition of this popular text, 2012, is very similar to the 2nd, except for the final chapter).
176
A recent issue of The Bible Translator—Practical Papers (62/2, 2011) is devoted to the subject
“Computers as Translators: Translation or Treason?”
177
As one recognized and practicing literary translator and critic puts it: “Readers of the translation
[should] perceive the text, emotionally and artistically, in a manner that parallels and corresponds to the
esthetic experience of its first readers. This is the translator’s grand ambition. Good translations approach
that purpose. Bad translations never leave the starting line” (Grossman 2010:7; cf. Wechsler 1998:13-31,
Landers 2001:49-55, and with reference to Scripture, Wendland 2004:13-14).
178
“The translating process [is] essentially auditory…as opposed to a silent, solitary process”
(Grossman 2010:12; cf. Landers 2001:100). Pym “adopts a view of translation that included interpreting
(spoken translation), but does not give any special attention to the problems of interpreting” (xi). However,
the esthetic quality of a printed/published translation, certainly any version of Scripture, can only be fully
evaluated when it is actually heard aloud.
56
as employed in the “frames of reference” approach.179 Pym also does “not go along with theories
that assume supremacy of the source text” (165), which is a perspective that many Bible
translators and theorists will not agree with. In fact, his theoretical “exploration” reinforced for
me the conclusion that the only translation paradigm which takes the ST seriously is that of
“equivalence.”

These quibbles aside, in my opinion Pym’s Exploring Translation Theories has admirably
accomplished its initially stated aim, which is “to focus more squarely on the main theories, not
the research or applications, and to make those theories engage with each other” (xi).180 Such
critical engagement with modern translation theory, purpose, practice, and prognosis—in
specific reference now to variously communicating the text of Scripture—has also been the
objective of this review.

2.11 References

Arduini, S. and Nergaard, S. 2011. Translation: A New Paradigm. Translation (Inaugural Issue), 8-15.
Baicchi, A. 2010. Embodiment and the Figurative Mind: The Construction of Meaning in Thought and Language.
Unpublished paper presented at the Nida School of Translation Studies, Murcia, Spain—June 2010.

Baker, M. 1998. Norms, in: Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge, 163-165.
Bassnett, S. 2011. Translation in Global News. Translation (Inaugural Issue), 36-37.

Bellos, D. 2011. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New York: Faber & Faber.
Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture London and New York (pages 227-228 reprinted in Translation 2011, 19-20).

Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. 1996. On Similarity. Target 8/1, 159-163.

Chesterman, A. 2005. Where is Similarity? in: Arduini, S. and Hodgson, R. (eds.), Similarity and Difference in Translation.
Rimini: Guaraldi, 63-75.
Even-Zohar, I. 1978a. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem, in: Holmes, J S and van
den Broek (eds.), Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: Acco, 117-127.

Even-Zohar, I. 1978b. Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute.

Geearts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.) 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford, Oxford UP.

Gentzler, E. 2012. Translation Without Borders. http://translation.fusp.it/articles/ translation-without-borders

(accessed 08/04/12).
Grossman, E. 2010. Why Translation Matters. New Haven and London: Yale UP.

Gutt, E-A. 1992. Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics/New York: United Bible Societies.
Gutt, E-A. 2000 (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Hatim, B. 1998. Pragmatics and Translation, in: Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London
and New York: Routledge, 179-183.

179
See, for example, Wendland 2008:160-161, 192-193, 216-217, 308-309. Several papers at the 2010
Nida Institute conference (on “Translation and Cognition”) suggested the use of a “mental space” model
for translation, for example, Baicchi’s “Combined Input Hypothesis.”
180
“This means presenting more criticisms than the overviews do” (xi), which, as I have noted above,
is a valuable aspect of Pym’s approach.
57
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London. Longman.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.
Hill, H., Gutt, E-A., Hill, M., Unger, C., and Floyd, R. 2011. Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a Relevant
Way. Dallas: SIL International.
Israel, H. 2011. Doing Interdisciplinary Research with Disciplined Neighbors: The Multidisciplinarity of Translation
Studies. Abstract from an unpublished paper presented at the Research Models in Translation Studies II conference
(29 April—2 May, 2011, University of Manchester).
Katan, D. 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. 1998. Equivalence, in: Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge, 80.
Landers, C. E. 2001. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Matthews, T. G., Rountree, C., and Nicolle, S. 2011. Implicit Aspects of Culture in Source and Target Language
Contexts. Journal of Translation 7/1, 21–48.
Mørk, H. O. 2012. Hearing the Voice of the Other: Engaging Poets and Writers as Bible Translators, with a Case Study
of Isaiah 7.14. The Bible Translator 63/3, 152–168.

Munday, J. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. 2009. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, London and New York: Routledge.

Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Pattemore, S. 2007. Framing Nida: The Relevance of Translation Theory in the United Bible Societies, in: Noss, P. A.
(ed.), A History of Bible Translation, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Litteratura, 252-262.
Peng, K-W. 2012. Contemplating the Future of Chinese Bible Translation: A Functionalist Approach. The Bible
Translator 63/1, 1-16.

Pym, A. 2010. Exploring Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge.
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reiss, K. (trans. E. F. Rhodes) 1971/2000. Translation Criticism: Potential and Limitations. Categories and Criteria for
Translation Assessment, Manchester: St. Jerome.

Sangrey, M. 2012. When Summarizing Is Too Hard, http://betterbibles.com/2012/03/07.

Schäffner, C. 1998. Skopos Theory, in: Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 235-238.
Snell-Hornby, M. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Soanes, C. and Stevenson, A., eds. 2006. Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

St. André, J., ed. 2010. Thinking Through Translation with Metaphors. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Thirlwell, A. 2011. The Joyful Side of Translation. The New York Times—Sunday Book Review (28 October), 22.
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Tymoczko, M. 2011. Reconceptualizing Translation Theory. Translation (Inaugural Issue), 68-71.

Van der Merwe, C. H. J. Forthcoming. The Bible in Afrikaans: A Direct Translation – A New Type of Church Bible.
Vermeer, H. J. 1989. Skopos und Translationsauftrag. Heidelberg: Institut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen.
Vinay, J-P. and J. Darbelnet, J. 1972 (1958). Stylistique comparatée du francias et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction.
Paris: Didier.

58
de Vries, L. J. 2011. Linguistics as Translation. Translation (Inaugural Issue), 79-82.
de Waard, J. and Nida, E. A. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

Wechsler, R. 1998. Performing Without a Stage: The Art of Literary Translation. North Haven, CT: Catbird Press.
Wegner, P. D., 2006. Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results, Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Wendland, E. 2004. Translating the Literature of Scripture: A Literary-Rhetorical Approach to Bible Translation, Dallas: SIL:
International.
Wendland, E. 2008. Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Wendland, E. 2010. Framing the Frames: A Theoretical Framework for the Cognitive Notion of “Frames of Reference.”
Journal of Translation 6/1, 27-51.
Wendland, E. forthcoming, 2012. Review of Hill, et.al. (2011), Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a
Relevant Way, in The Bible Translator—Technical Papers.

Willson, P. 2011. Translation as a Metaphor in Scientific Discourse. Translation (Inaugural Issue), 82-83.
Wilt, T. and Wendland, E. 2008. Scripture Frames and Framing: A Workbook for Bible Translators. Stellenbosch: African
SUN Media.
Young, R. J. C. 2011. Some Questions About Translation and the Production of Knowledge. Translation (Inaugural
Issue), 59-61.

59
 3. Review of Jeremy Munday’s Introducing Translation Studies:
Theories and Applications181

3.0 Summary

In the review that follows, I present a selective content summary of the sequence of chapters
found in this book, accompanied by my critical comments and additions from the specific
perspective of Bible translating. “Translation Studies” is a growing, interdisciplinary field, and
therefore, it is important for Bible scholars to be aware of the main “theories and applications”
that are popular nowadays. This is because the different viewpoints expressed concern not only
the numerous Bible translations that are available in English and other languages, but they also
relate, in varying degrees, to distinct hermeneutical approaches to the Scriptures.

3.1 Introduction

Jeremy Munday is Senior Lecturer in Spanish studies and translation at the University of Leeds,
UK. He is a freelance translator and also the author of a number of recognized works in the field
of translation studies, including Style and Ideology in Translation (2008), Translation: An Advanced
Resource Book (with B. Hatim, 2004), and The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (editor,
2009).

According to its Introduction:

[This] book is designed to serve as a coursebook for undergraduate and postgraduate
translation, translation studies, and translation theory, and also as a solid theoretical
introduction to students, researchers, instructors, and professional translators. The aim is
to enable the readers to develop their understanding of the issues and associated
metalanguage, and to begin to apply the models themselves (2).182
That is indeed a rather challenging job-description to fulfil, but in the opinion of this
reviewer, Munday has quite satisfactorily accomplished his objectives. Each of the 11 chapters
surveys a major area of theoretical interest within the broad field of “translation studies,” which
is “the academic discipline related to the study of the theory and practice of translation” (1). This
new edition includes an update of all references, new information content in all of the chapters,
and an additional chapter on “new technologies” at the end. The author has attempted to
maintain a rough chronological progression in developing his material—“from pre-twentieth-
century theory in Chapter 2 to linguistic-oriented theories (Chapters 3-6 passim) and to more
recent developments from cultural studies such as postcolonialism (Chapter 8)” (2). However,
there is also a conceptual progression “since some of the earlier theories and concepts, such as
equivalence and universals, are constantly being revisited” (2). All of the chapters follow the
same easy-to-follow format:

 An introductory summary of the central issues along with some key concepts;
 A listing of primary scholarly references;

181
2nd edition. London & New York: Routledge. 2008. xv + 236 pp. Price: US$40.00 (Amazon).
Paperback. ISBN10: 0-415-39693-x. The 3rd edition of this book was recently published (2012), but an
online survey revealed the text to be virtually the same as that of the 2nd edition, except that the focus of
the final chapter (11) has been changed from “New directions from the new media” to “Translation studies
as an interdiscipline.” In any case, the publication of this 3rd edition gives a general indication of the
popularity and influence of this book in the field of translation studies.
182
Unless specified otherwise, all page references are to the book under review (2nd ed.).
60
  An ordered presentation of the main content, namely, the chief theoretical models and
related issues under discussion in the chapter;
 An illustrative case study (or two), which is then evaluated;
 A succinct chapter summary;
 Suggestions for further reading; and finally
 A series of various points for group discussion and future research.

The book includes an Appendix with many useful “internet links” (200-201), a number of mainly
bibliographic endnotes (202-207), an extensive Bibliography proper (208-225), and a simple
topical Index (226-238).

The author calls attention to the “selective” nature of his treatment and the fact that his
book “gives preference to those theorists who have advanced major new ideas and gives less than
sufficient due to the many scholars who work in the field producing detailed case studies or less
high profile work” (2-3).183 However, I found that his treatment of the diverse fields being
considered under translation studies was more than adequate. The examples used for illustration
include a broad range of text-types and a relatively wide range of languages, all accompanied by
literal English translations. My review follows the book’s sequence of chapters and will consist
of a basic summary of the various topics discussed along with a critique that is governed by the
perspective and concerns of biblical studies and more specifically of Bible translation—its
“theory” (or models of conceptualization), principles, and applications. This will inevitably result
in some significant omissions in my treatment of the book, especially its latter chapters, but that
is necessary to keep this review more manageable and focused.

3.2 Some Major Issues of “Translation Studies”

Under “the concept of translation” (1.1), Munday rather basically defines the “process of
translation” as involving “the translator changing an original written text (the source text or ST)
in the original verbal language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or
TT) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL)” (5). Although there is a deliberate
decision “to focus on written translation rather than oral translation (the latter commonly known
as interpreting…)” (5), the issue of orality cannot be dismissed so readily. That is because many
Bible translators, to name one group (anthropologists and folklorists too) must, as part of their
research, also deal with the translation of oral texts into written versions, and the meaningful
phonological loss which occurs in such cases is a matter of major concern that should be
addressed in any “coursebook” on translation. Furthermore, most Bible translations are at some
point or another read aloud, often in a public place, e.g. during communal worship. Therefore,
the text needs to be fashioned with the eventual medium of communication continually in mind.
This vital oral-aural dimension is a factor that is not given the attention it warrants in most
writings in the field of secular contemporary translation studies.184

After a survey sample of some of the main “specialized translating and interpreting courses,”
books, journals, and international organizations that promote the field of translation studies
(1.2), Munday turns to “a brief history of the discipline” (1.3). He traces its rudimentary

183
Munday’s “introduction” to the field of translation studies is nicely complemented by Anthony
Pym’s somewhat more critical and technical Exploring Translation Theories (2010), which I have reviewed
for a forthcoming issue of JNSL (2012).
184
For a survey of the oral-aural dimension in relation to “Bible translation studies,” see E.
Wendland, Finding and Translating the Oral-aural Elements in Written Language: The Case of the New Testament
Epistles (Lewiston, US/Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008), ch. 1.
61
development in the works of Cicero, Horace (both 1st century BCE), and St. Jerome (4th century
CE) and observes that “the study of the field developed into an academic discipline only in the
second half of the twentieth century” (7). A seminal paper that “puts forward an overall
framework, describing what translation studies covers” (9) was published by James Holmes in
1988.185 Holmes’s “map of translation studies” distinguishes among three primary categories—
theoretical, descriptive (as developed by Descriptive Translation Studies, DTS), and applied
(covering translator training, translation aids, and translation criticism) (9-10).186 Munday then
surveys some of the main developments in translation studies “since the 1970s” (1.5), correctly
drawing attention to “the interdisciplinarity of recent research” and writing (14). However, he
cites with apparent approval an assertion that I would take issue with:
[T]here has been “a movement away from a prescriptive approach to translation to
studying what translation actually looks like. Within this framework the choice of theory
and methodology becomes important.”187
This quote seems to imply, mistakenly in my opinion, that the proponents of so-called
“prescriptive” approaches (one might also term these, less pejoratively, as being “pedagogical”)
either do not know “what translation actually looks like,” or their methodology does not take
alternative approaches into adequate consideration. There is also the erroneous implication that
“the choice of theory and methodology” was/is not “important” within the prescriptive
perspective.

The first chapter ends with a statement of the “aim of this book and a guide to chapters”
(1.6). As mentioned above, each chapter concludes with a series of “Discussion and research
points.” These exercises are some of the best that I have seen in any workbook-style text on
translation. To illustrate this point, I will close my discussion of each chapter by citing one of
these (at times it is hard to select only one!), a procedure that has special relevance for Bible
translators as well as their trainers and consultants:
(Q [Question set] 1) How is the practice of translation (and interpreting) structured in
your country? How many universities offer first degrees in the subject? How many
postgraduate courses are there? How do they differ? Is a postgraduate qualification a
prerequisite for working as a professional translator? (17)

3.2 Translation Theory before the 20th Century

This is a very interesting chapter from the point of view of Bible translation because the historical
background that Munday provides clearly reveals how the “literal” versus “free” rendering
dichotomy has been a crucial issue for years—indeed, centuries—before the present day in which
we work. However, the main issues are probably well known to most biblical scholars and
translators, so I can be relatively brief in my description.

When introducing the section entitled “word-for-word or sense-for-sense” (2.1), Munday

mentions George Steiner’s reference to the “sterile” debate over the “triad” of “literal,” “free,”
and “faithful” translation (19). However, one might question the characterization of “sterile,” for
how fruitless can a discussion or controversy be if it concerns a significant difference in the
ultimate end product, namely, one’s translation? In any case, Munday goes back to reconsider

185
“The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” (1988), in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies
Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 180-192; this publication expanded upon a
paper presented at an applied linguistics conference in 1972.
186
This map is elaborated upon also in G. Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies—And Beyond
(Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995), 10.
187
Munday here cites K. Aijmer and C. Alvstad (eds.), New Tendencies in Translation Studies
(Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of English, 2005), 1.
62
the opinions of Cicero and St. Jerome, but he continues with a helpful overview of several notable
works from “other rich and ancient translation traditions such as in China and the Arab world”
(20). A section on Martin Luther (2.2) then leads to a concise discussion of faithfulness, spirit,
and truth:

It is easy to see how, in the tradition of sacred texts, where “the Word of God” is
paramount, there has been such an interconnection of fidelity (to both the words and the
perceived sense), spirit (the energy of the words and the Holy Spirit) and truth (the
“content”). (25)

A consideration of some “early attempts at systematic translation theory” (2.4) includes

reference to Dryden’s “three categories” of “metaphrase” (word-for-word rendition),
“paraphrase” (sense-for-sense translation), and “imitation” (more or less “adaptation”); Dolet’s
“five principles” (e.g. “The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL…”);
and Tytler’s “three general laws” (e.g. “The translation should have all the ease of the original
composition”) (26-27). “Schleiermacher and the valorization of the foreign” (2.5) highlights the
well-known dictum: “Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and
moves the reader toward him, or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves
the writer toward him” (29). A brief summary of “translation theory of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries in Britain” (2.6) and a view “towards contemporary translation theory” (2.7)
round out the theoretical portion of chapter 2.

In his discussion of “Case study 1: Assessment criteria,” Munday draws attention to the
sometimes confusing relativity with which the key term “literal” is used in many translation
evaluation procedures (31), which is a problem also in most articles dealing with the subject of
Bible translation. On the other hand in “Case study 2,” he points out the value of “the translator’s
preface” (32-33), which is an important feature of all modern Bible translations, as one version
attempts to distinguish or distance itself from the next. The following was a discussion point of
particular interest:

(Q2) Modern translation theory tends to criticize the simplicity of the “literal” vs. “free”
debate. Why, then, do you think that the vocabulary of that earlier period often continues
to be used in reviews of translation, in comments by teachers and examiners, and in
writings by literary translators themselves? (35)

3.3 Equivalence and Equivalent Effect

The discussion of this chapter will be rather familiar to most Bible translation personnel, not only
because it features the approach of Eugene A. Nida,188 but also since it uses terminology that is
associated with his methodology. Munday begins with earlier works by the Russian linguist and
literary theorist Roman Jakobson and his views on “the nature of linguistic meaning and
equivalence” (3.1). Jakobson proposed a fundamental threefold categorization of translation into
“intralingual,” “interlingual,” and “intersemiotic” versions—or “rewording,” “translation
proper,” and “transmutation” respectively (5). Translation always involves “equivalence in
difference”; in other words, “For the message to be ‘equivalent’ in the ST [source text] and TT
[target text], the code-units will be different since they belong to two different sign systems
(languages) which partition reality differently…” (37).

Munday surveys “Nida and ‘the science of translating’” in one of the longest individual
sections of his book (3.2). All of the main ideas of “early” Nida are summarized: “the nature of
meaning: advances in semantics and pragmatics” (3.2.1; referential and emotive meaning,

188
Dr. Nida passed away in Madrid on August 26, 2011; he was 96.
63
hierarchical structuring, componential analysis, semantic structure analysis), “the influence of
Chomsky” (3.2.2; deep/surface structure, kernel sentence analysis, functional word classes—
events, objects, abstracts, relationals), “formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of
equivalent effect,” or “response” (3.2.3). Unfortunately, Munday (like many other secular
theorists) does not seem to consider the works of “later” Nida189 or any of the writers who either
attempted to further develop Nida’s approach or set out from him on a new theoretical tack.190
For example, Munday equates “dynamic” and “functional” equivalence, and although Nida does
himself state that the two concepts are not “essentially different,”191 in fact, the latter
incorporates a much more discriminating approach.192 Accordingly, Munday’s “discussion of the
importance of Nida’s work” (3.2.4), along with the observations of several critics, is somewhat
out-of-date, though his concluding summary is very much on target: “He (Nida) went a long way
to producing a systematic analytical procedure for translators working in all kinds of text, and
he factored into the translation equation the receivers of the TT and their cultural expectations”
(44, cf. 52).

From Nida, Munday turns to P. Newmark and his distinction between “semantic and
communicative translation” (3.3). After claiming that “Newmark departs from Nida’s receptor-
oriented line,” Munday proceeds to cite the former’s crucial definition (44):

Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible

to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as
closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact
contextual meaning of the original.193

In my opinion, Munday fails in his attempt to argue Newmark’s case that his notion of
“communicative translation” and “semantic translation” are significantly different from Nida’s

189
In particular, J. de Waard and E. A. Nida, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence
in Bible Translating (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1986). This deficiency of coverage is revealed also in the
limited suggestions for “further reading” (53).
190
For example, E. Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International,
2004); T. Wilt (ed.), Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2003); and with
reference to Munday’s 3rd ed. (2012): T. Wilt and E. Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook
for Bible Translators (Stellenbosch: SUN Press, 2008).
191
From One Language to Another, vii.
192
For example, “dynamic equivalence” translation was defined “in terms of the degree to which
the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as
the receptors in the source language” and with reference to only three communicative functions:
informative, expressive, and imperative (E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation
[Leiden: Brill, 1969], 24-27). In contrast, in “functional equivalence” translation “the translator must seek
to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible will match the meaning of the
original source-language text” (From One Language to Another, 36) and eight communicative functions are
posited: “expressive, cognitive, interpersonal, informative, imperative, performative, emotive, and
aesthetic” (ibid., 25). To complement this renewed focus on SL text analysis, additional rhetorical features
are distinguished: “To accomplish the rhetorical functions of wholeness, aesthetic appeal, impact,
appropriateness, coherence, progression-cohesion, focus, and emphasis, various rhetorical processes are
employed. The principal ones are: (1) repetition, (2) compactness, (3) connectives, (4) rhythm, (5) shifts
in expectancies…, and (6) the exploitation of similarities and contrasts in the selection and arrangement
of the elements of a discourse” (ibid., 86, chs. 5-6; cf. Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture, 12-
16, 140-154).
193
Munday here cites P. Newmark, Approaches to Translation (Oxford and New York: Pergamon,
1981), 39. Notice that the date of publication is much later than Nida’s The Theory and Practice of
Translation.
64
“dynamic equivalence” and “formal equivalence” respectively (44-45),194 but his summary of
Newmark’s various “parameters” of translation (45) is helpful. Also useful is Koller’s distinction
between “correspondence” and “equivalence” (3.4). The former is concerned with the linguistic
similarities and differences of Saussure’s langue as viewed from the perspective of contrastive
linguistics; the latter “relates to equivalent items in specific ST—TT pairs” and contexts of parole
with reference to the translation of texts (46-47). Koller also distinguishes “five different types
of equivalence”: denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, and formal (47-48).195

In a brief review of “later developments in equivalence” (3.5), Munday makes reference to

several scholars who point out the problems that this notion presents theoretically, including
“perhaps the biggest bone of contention,” namely, the identification of a valid “tertium
comparationis, an invariant against which two segments can be measured to gauge variation” (49)
when assessing the degree of equivalence between texts. However, Munday correctly calls
attention to its practical relevance (49):196

Translator training courses also, perhaps inevitably, have this focus: errors by the trainee
translators tend to be corrected prescriptively according to a notion of equivalence held
by the trainer. For this reason, equivalence is an issue that will remain central to the
practice of translation, even if it has been marginalized by some translation studies
scholars.

Among several valuable “discussion and research points,” Munday proposes the following,
which should provoke some lively interaction among a group of knowledgeable Bible scholars
and translators as well as missiologists:

(Q3) “Nida provides an excellent model for translation which involves a manipulation of
a text to serve the interests of a religious belief, but he fails to provide the groundwork for
what the West in general conceives of as a ‘science’” (Gentzler 2001:59).197 Do you agree
with Gentzler? Is this model tied to religious texts? How well does it work for other genres
(e.g. advertising, scientific texts, literature, etc.?

Indeed, one could critique Gentzler’s views somewhat further: What does he mean by the
“manipulation of a text”—form, content, connotation, function, or everything? Can a
“deconstructionist” like Gentzler (cf. Munday 43) fairly critique anyone else’s notion of
“meaning” and how that may have been “manipulated” to serve one’s personal ends?198

3.4 Studying Translation Product and Process

In this chapter, Munday looks at several prominent “linguistic approaches” that propose “detailed
lists or taxonomies in an effort to categorize the translation process” (56). First, he surveys in

194
On one page, Newmark claims that “the success of equivalent effect is ‘illusory’” (Approaches,
38); on the next, he seeks a provision “that equivalent effect is secured” in a semantic translation (ibid.,
39).
195
From W. Koller, Einführung in die Uebersetzungswissenschaft (Heidelberg-Wiesbaden: Quelle and
Meyer, 1979), 186-191.
196
Munday’s positive views on the notion of “equivalence” in translation studies are generally
supported in Pym’s Exploration of Translation Theories: “[N]atural equivalence is the basic theory in terms
of which all the other paradigms in this book will be defined” (2010:19).
197
E. Gentzler, Contemporary Translation Theories, 2nd edition (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
2001).
198
“[I]n Gentzler’s view, dynamic equivalence serves the purpose of converting the receptors, no
matter what their culture, to the dominant discourse and ideas of Protestant Christianity” (43).
65
some detail “Vinay and Darbelnet’s model” (4.1).199 This involves a pair of general translation
strategies, “direct” (literal) and “oblique” (free) translation,200 which comprise seven translation
“procedures,” three for the direct method (borrowing, calque, and literal rendering), plus another
four for the oblique method (transposition,201 modulation,202 equivalence,203 and adaptation204)
(56-58). V&D recommend a basic five-step procedure, involving obligatory as well as optional
changes, when “moving from ST to TT” (59): a) identify the units of translation, b) thoroughly
analyze the SL text, c) conceptually reconstruct the “metalinguistic context of the message,” d)
evaluate the stylistic effects, and e) produce, study, and then revise the TT. V&D’s comparative
stylistic method is illustrated later in a detailed “case study” (65-68). All of their principles and
procedures, with examples, could be adapted for use in any basic Bible translator-training course.

The term translation “shift” seems to have been introduced into the discipline by J. C.
Catford in his pioneering study A Linguistic Theory of Translation (4.2).205 Catford posited “level
shifts,” as between grammar and lexis, and “category shifts,” for example, “structural”
(grammatical), “class” (one part of speech to another), “unit” (or “rank,” such as morpheme <
word < phrase < clause < sentence), and “intra-system shifts” (e.g. from singular to plural)
(61). Although very linguistically oriented, Catford also recognized that “translation equivalence
depends on communicative features such as function, relevance, situation and culture” (61).
Shortly after Catford, the influential “Prague School” of linguists and literary theorists also
introduced the notion of “translation shifts” in their work (4.3), with special reference to “literary
translation.” Jirí Levy, for example, sought to achieve “equivalent aesthetic effect” in terms of
“denotative meaning, connotation, stylistic arrangement, syntax, sound repetition (rhythm, etc.),
vowel length and articulation” (62).206 F. Miko also made an effort to retain “the expressive style
of the ST,” including features such as “operativity, iconicity, subjectivity, affectation, prominence
and contrast” (62).207

Munday then makes a somewhat unexpected shift in topic to “the cognitive process of
translation” (63), that is, moving from a focus on the “products” of translation to a consideration
of “the cognitive processes of the translators themselves” (64). The first approach is Lederer’s
“interpretive model”—a “three-stage process” involving “reading and understanding” the ST, a

199
J-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet, Stylistique comparée du francais et de l’anglais: Méthode du traduction
(Paris: Didier, 1958, 2nd ed. 1977); translated and edited by J. C. Sager and M-J. Hamel, Comparative
Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 1995).
200
One wonders if this nomenclature may have influenced that of Gutt’s later application of
“relevance theory” to translation and the terms “direct” (relatively literal) and “indirect” (relatively free)
versions (cf. E-A. Gutt, Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context [Manchester: St. Jerome,
1991/2000], 186).
201
“[A] change of one part of speech for another without changing the sense” (57).
202
A semantic and/or syntactic adjustment that is required whenever a more literal rendering,
though grammatical in the TL, “is considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward” (57).
203
“[W]here languages describe the same situation by different stylistic or structural means” (58).
204
“This involves changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not
exist in the target culture” (58).
205
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1965/2000.
206
J. Levy, “Translation as a Decision Process” (1967), in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies
Reader, 1st edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2000), 148-159. It is interesting to note that in this
same article, Levy also introduced an early edition of the “contextual effects” principle of Relevance
Theory: “The translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a maximum of effect
with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves for the so-called MINIMAX STRATEGY”
(ibid., 156; cf. E-A. Gutt, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation [Dallas and
New York: SIL and UBS, 1992], 24, 42).
207
“La théorie de l’expression et la traduction,” in J. S. Holmes (ed.), The Nature of Translation:
Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1970), 61-77 (66).
66
cognitive “deverbalization” process, and “re-expression” of the text in the TL (63).208 Although
Munday downplays it, the correspondence between this proposal and Nida’s three-step
“analysis—transfer—restructuring” process209 seems too close to be merely a coincidence. In any
case, Bell’s “semantic structure analysis” approach presents a more explicit method for dealing
with the “deverbalization” process, that is, by employing the “functional and pragmatic linguistic
categories of clause structure, propositional content, thematic structure, register features,
illocutionary force and speech act” (64).210

Next, Munday briefly considers “relevance theory,” which “posits translation as an example
of a communication based around a cause-and-effect model of inferencing and interpretation”
(63). Thus, various “communicative clues” in the ST allow the necessary inferences to be made
by translators, who must then “decide whether and how it is possible to communicate the
informative intention, whether to translate descriptively or interpretively, what the degree of
resemblance to the ST should be, and so on” (64). Unfortunately, Munday does not proceed to
probe what these rather opaque directions might mean, or how they might be expressed in
common language.211 Finally, in his survey of “translation products and processes,” Munday
makes reference to several empirical methodologies that attempt “to gather observational data
towards the explanation of the decision-making processes of translation,” for example, “think-
aloud protocols” and electronic software that records translator-in-action characteristics such as
computer key-strokes and eye-focus (65).

In line with the chapter’s major “case study,” the following adapted (in brackets) “discussion
point” is most relevant for Bible translators (69):

(Q3) Read Vinay and Darbelnet’s own description of their model and try to apply it to
ST—TT pairs in your own language [with reference to an English text of Galatians 3:1-
14]. Make a list of phenomena and difficult to categorize using their model. Are there any
language combinations for which their taxonomy is problematic? [If so, list these and tell
why they cause difficulties.]

3.5 Functional Theories of Translation

In this chapter Munday reviews a number of translation approaches, largely arising from
Germany, that focus on the structure (text-type) and communicative function(s) of the text to be
transmitted as well as the overall organization of a given translation project. All of these are
highly relevant for those contemporary Bible translators and theorists who continue in the
general tradition of Eugene A. Nida. This association with Nida is very apparent in the “text type”
approach of K. Reiss (5.1), for example, in the three major categories posited—“informative,”
“expressive,” and “operative” (72).212 However, Reiss also adds a supplementary “audiomedial”

208
Based on M. Lederer (transl. N. Larché), Translation: The Interpretive Model (Manchester: St.
Jerome, 1994/2003).
209
Nida and Taber, Theory and Practice, 33.
210
With reference to R. Bell, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice (London & New York:
Longman, 1991), 56.
211
Although the claim is that “translation as communication can be explained using relevance
theoretic concepts alone” (64), one wonders if this interpretive exercise might not itself violate the
principle of not causing “unecessary processing effort” (Gutt, Relevance Theory, 42), when one is confronted
with definitions such as the following: “A receptor-language utterance is a direct translation of a source-
language utterance if, and only if, it presumes to interpretively resemble the original completely (in the
context envisaged for the original)” (ibid., 66).
212
“Text-types, Translation-types, and Translation Assessment” (transl. A. Chesterman), in A.
Chesterman (ed.), Readings in Translation Theory (Helsinki: Finn Lectura, 1977/1989), 105-115 (108-9).
67
function, one that has become increasingly important in today’s multimedia age (72, cf. ch. 11).
Reiss asserts that “the transmission of the predominant function of the ST is the determining
factor by which the TT is judged,” for example, “an informative text should transmit the full
referential or conceptual content of the ST” (73). This is, of course, an important principle of
Bible translation, although it is recognized that most texts of Scripture involve mixed, or
“hybrid,” types (genres). In addition to the “intralinguistic criteria,” that is, “semantic, lexical,
grammatical and stylistic features, by which the adequacy of a TT may be assessed,” Reiss also
draws attention to equally important “extralinguistic criteria” (74). These would include the
translation project’s situation or setting, time, place, receivers, and senders or “commissioners”
(74), factors that are developed much more fully in the “translatorial action” model proposed by
J. Holz-Mänttäri (5.2),213 H. Vermeer’s “Skopos theory” (5.3),214 and the “text analysis” approach
of C. Nord (5.4).

Skopos (“purpose”) theory “focuses above all on the purpose of the translation, which
determines the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed in order to produce a
functionally adequate result” (79). Note the term “adequate” instead of “equivalent,” for the
assessment process in this case is to be carried out from the perspective of the intended TL
readership. Thus, “the function of a [TT] in its target culture is not necessarily the same as in the
source culture” (80). However, “this down-playing (or ‘dethroning’, as Vermeer terms it) of the
status of the ST” has caused quite a bit of controversy in translation circles, certainly in the case
of high-value, authoritative texts such as any religious group’s sacred Scriptures. A related
criticism is that “Skopos theory does not pay sufficient attention to the linguistic nature of the ST
nor to the reproduction of microlevel features in the TT” (81). In short, one can seemingly re-
create a ST in the TL, depending on the wishes or whims of the project organizer or commissioner,
a problem that Nord specifically addresses (see below). On the other hand, it is good to find in
this approach a special concern devoted to properly organizing a translation project so that it
may be efficiently and effectively carried out (81). In this case then, the job commission (or
“brief”) is comprised of a primary communicative objective, which may itself be manifold, plus
a clear specification of all of the requirements according to which that goal (Skopos) may be
achieved, e.g. a deadline/time frame, translator(s)’ conditions of service, work facilities and
essential resources, procedures for text assessment and final production.

Munday rightly, in my opinion, devotes most space to the “text analysis” methodology of
Christiane Nord,215 which “pays more attention to [linguistic and literary] features of the ST” and
thus involves “analyzing a complex series of interlinked extratextual factors and intratextual
features in the ST” (82). The former concern is reflected in the previously noted “translation
commission” (brief), which necessitates a comparative study of the respective ST and TT
communication settings (“profiles”), e.g. intended text functions, the communicators (sender and
recipient), medium, and motive (“why the ST was written and why it is being translated,” 83).
Of course, in the case of a Bible translation, such a comparison will be much less detailed with
respect to the ST context. The “role of the ST analysis” (e.g. content, including connotation and
cohesion, presuppositions, sentence structure, lexis, suprasegmental features, text organization)

These correspond to the informative, expressive, and imperative functions in Nida & Taber, Theory and
Practice, 24-27.
213
Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie and Methode (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1984).
Munday feels that while this approach helps to place translation “within its sociocultural context, including
the interplay between the translator and the initiating institution,” it suffers from “the complexity of its
jargon…which does little to explain practical translation situations for the translator” (79).
214
See, for example, “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action,” in L. Venuti (ed.), The
Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 1989/2004), 227-238.
215
For example, C. Nord (transl. J. Groos), Text Analysis in Translation (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005,
nd
2 edition); Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome,
1997).
68
then is to enable the project management committee “to decide on functional priorities of the
translation strategy” (83). This leads, in turn, to the positing of “the functional hierarchy of
translation problems,” including above all whether a “documentary” (relatively literal) or an
“instrumental” (freer, more liberal) type of translation should be undertaken (82-83). This
overview of Nord’s approach is followed by an illustrative “case study” involving an application
to the translation of a selection from a beginner’s cookbook (84-86).

The following suggested exercise has been adjusted with specific reference to a Bible
translation project (88, suggested modifications in brackets):

(Q7) According to skopos theory, a translation commission must give details of the purpose
and function of the TT in order for adequate translatorial action to take place. Try to find
examples of translation skopoi to see how detailed they are and to see what this reveals
about the translation initiator: For instance, what kind of translation skopos is explicitly
and implicitly stated in [a Bible translation project in your country]? If you have access
to [the primary translators], investigate [to what extent they were involved in negotiating
the skopos for their project].

3.6 Discourse and Register Analysis Approaches

Munday begins by making the following distinction: “[W]hile text analysis normally concentrates
on describing the way in which texts are organized (sentence structure, cohesion, etc.), discourse
analysis looks at the way language communicates meaning and social power relations” (90, italics
added). One might add that in the former there is a focus on semantic structure; in the latter, the
emphasis is on pragmatic structure. Of course, in all approaches to the complexities of Bible
translation there needs to be a careful mixture or combination of the two. This is what we have
in “the Hallidayan model of language and discourse” (6.1), “systemic functional grammar,”
especially in the description or application of three register-oriented “metafunctions,” namely,
“ideational” (pertaining to “field”), “interpersonal” (pertaining to “tenor”), and “textual”
(pertaining to “mode”) (91). However, since “Halliday’s grammar is extremely complex” (91),
translation theorists tend to work only with selected aspects of it.

“House’s model of translation quality assessment” (6.2) “involves a systematic comparison

of the textual ‘profile’ of the ST and TT,” with special reference to “theme-dynamics,” “clausal
linkage,” and “iconic linkage” (structural parallels) (92).216 House also proposes that prominent
register features of field, tenor, and mode be compared between the ST and TT in order to
establish their respective profiles, which serve as the basis for producing “a statement of
‘mismatches’ or errors” that will guide the translation process. Two basic types of version may
then be rendered (or something in between, depending on the job commission)—that is, a more
literal “overt translation…that does not purport to be an original,” and a freer “covert
translation…which enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture” (93). As in
the case of most of the approaches or models in this section, so also House’s methodology is so
complex that it can be practically applied by professional translators and/or linguists only to
relatively small portions of SL text.

A partial exception to the preceding assertion is “Baker’s text and pragmatic level analysis:
a coursebook for translators” (6.3), which examines equivalence relations on various “levels”
within a text.217 Here we have a less obscurely worded manual that was developed specifically

216
See J. House, Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited (Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1997).
217
M. Baker, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (London & New York: Routledge, 1992).
Munday’s book was published before the second updated and expanded edition of Baker’s text appeared
(Routledge, 2011).
69
for training translators, including many simple examples and practical exercises. Baker simplifies
many of Halliday’s concepts and renders them accessible to non-specialists in systemic functional
grammar with regard to, for example, “thematic and information structures” (6.3.1), “cohesion”
(6.3.2), and “pragmatics and translation” (6.3.3), including coherence, presupposition, and
implicature (Grice’s maxims of quality, quantity, relevance, and manner). Baker’s coursebook
would be a welcome supplement and resource text in any Bible translator training course. Two
other, more challenging, but still helpful applications of the Hallidayan model to translation
studies are two works by Hatim and Mason that focus on “the semiotic level of context and
discourse” (6.4).218 Particularly helpful is their distinction between “dynamic” and “stable”
elements in a discourse, where the former refer to features that are non-obligatory and “marked”
or distinctive in some way, as is typical of most literary, especially poetic, works. “Stable”
elements then are the unmarked, normal features—the usual way of saying something in the
genre under consideration. This leads to the following principle:219

[M]ore “stable” STs may require a “fairly literal approach,” while, with more dynamic
STs, “the translator is faced with more interesting challenges, and literal translation may
no longer be an option.”

The main “criticisms of discourse and register analysis approaches to translation” (6.5) zero
in on its Eurocentric linguistic and cultural focus. However, Halliday’s model does offer a useful
methodology for linking “microlevel linguistic choices to the communicative function of a text
and the sociocultural meaning behind it” (104). With regard to the model’s potential weakness,
one might consider this exercise (106):

(Q4) “Grice’s maxims seem to reflect directly notions which are known to be valued in the
English-speaking world, for instance, sincerity, brevity, and relevance” (Baker 1992:237).
Consider Grice’s maxims with relation to the languages in which you work. What examples
can you find of different maxims? How can a translator deal with any differences?

3.7 Systems Theories

The special contribution of “polysystem theory” (7.1) was that it viewed “translated literature as
a system operating in the larger social, literary and historical systems of the target culture” (107-
8). Attention is given then towards determining the relative evaluative “position” of various
genres of translated literature in a given language community. This leads to an interesting
hypothesis, one that may be assessed with reference to various Bible translations within a country
or language community (109):

If it is primary, translators do not feel constrained to follow target literature models and
are more prepared to break conventions. … On the other hand, if translated literature is
secondary, translators tend to use existing target-culture models for the TT and produce
more “non-adequate” [i.e. TL oriented] translations.220

However, this polysystem approach does not seem to take into consideration countries or
languages which do not have much of an inventory in terms of written literature, but which do,
on the other hand, manifest a rich oral tradition (“orature”) consisting of many distinctive genres

218
B. Hatim and I. Mason, Discourse and the Translator (London & New York, Longman, 1990); The
Translator as Communicator (London & New York: Routledge, 1997).
219
Munday, 100, with reference to Hatim & Mason, Translator as Communicator, 30-31.
220
I. Even-Zohar, “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem,” in L.
Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 1989/2004), 199-
204.
70
and subtypes. Many of the language-cultures in Africa, for example, would fall into the latter
category.

“Toury and descriptive translation studies” (DTS, 7.2) develop more fully the polysystem
model in a more text-oriented, comparative approach. The aim is to (111):

build up a descriptive profile of translations according to genre, period, author, etc. In this
way, the norms pertaining to each kind of genre can be identified with the ultimate
aim…of stating laws of behaviour for translation in general.

Toury’s definition of “norms” is crucial in understanding his goal. This involves (111):

the translation [i.e. transformation] of general values or ideas shared by a community –

as to what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate – into performance instructions
appropriate for and applicable to particular situations.221

As far as the translation of literature is concerned, the aim is to “identify the decision-making
processes of the translator” on the basis of “norm-governed activity” that is identified in “the
examination of texts” or those norms which are explicitly stated by translators and others in
works about translation (112). Various norms are posited “of different intensity, ranging from
behaviour that is mandatory…to tendencies that are common but not mandatory and to
behaviour that is tolerated (minimum intensity).”222 The hope is that such norms, if found to be
applicable in many other places in the world, will lead to the positing of “probabilistic ‘laws’ of
translation,” such as the “law of growing standardization” and the “law of interference” (i.e.
features from the ST) in translated literature (114). A corollary of the second is of particular
interest in translations of the Bible (114):

[T]here is greater tolerance when translating from a prestigious language or culture,

especially if the target language or culture is “minor.”

This is another reason that helps explain the literal nature of virtually all of the early missionary
translations in the Bantu-speaking region of Africa (at least). On the other hand, Toury’s approach
cannot assist in the actual qualitative evaluation of these early versions (or any others) simply
because “equivalence is assumed between a TT and a ST” (113).

“Chesterman’s translation norms” (7.3), in contrast to those of Toury, operate under the
clear recognition that they do, in fact, “exert a prescriptive pressure” (117),223 that is, in either
guiding or governing how translators carry out their work. Two basic types are posited: “product
norms,” which “are established by the expectations of readers of a translation (of a given type)
concerning what a translation (of this type) should be like,” and “professional norms,” which
“regulate the translation process itself.”224 The latter include an ethical, or “accountability,”
norm, “dealing with professional standards of integrity and thoroughness,” a social, or
“communication,” norm, which “works to ensure maximum communication between the parties”
of a translation project, and a linguistic, or “relation,” norm, which deals with the relation
between ST and TT.”225 These norms are expressed in very general terms, but they do include
important issues that any Bible translation project too needs to take into serious consideration.

221
Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 55. This quote certainly sounds more “prescriptive” than
“descriptive” in nature; indeed, such “performance instructions” would seem to be most appropriately used
in settings of translator training and instruction.
222
Ibid., 67-69.
223
A. Chesterman, Memes of Translation (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997), 68.
224
Ibid., 64, 67.
225
Ibid., 68-70.
71
 Munday presents several “other models of descriptive translation studies,” in particular,
the perspectives of the so-called “Manipulation School,” which focuses on the norm-governed
nature and social role of the translated literature in a given language.226 In conclusion, my
assessment would be that the types of investigation that DTS theorists engage in would be helpful
to situate Bible translation activities within the broader framework of literature in a specific
language community, but its recommended procedures are rather too abstract or broad to be
applied in an effort “to ‘reconstruct’ the norms at work in the translation process” (122). A
potentially informative exercise along DTS lines would be the following (123, sentence in
brackets added):
(Q2) Consider the position of translation in the polysystem of your own country. Does it
occupy a primary or secondary position? Have there been noticeable changes over the
years? What about translated literature’s own polysystem? Are there variations according
to genre, SL, etc.? [Note in particular the function and assessment of Bible translations
within the polysystem.]227

3.8 Cultural and Ideological “Turns”

In his initial overview of the culture-focused approach to translation studies (8.0), Munday
observes that its proponents more or less “dismiss” linguistic approaches to translation “and focus
on the way in which culture impacts and constrains translation” (125).228 These theorists seek to
promote a so-called “cultural turn” as they “move from translation as text to translation as culture
and politics” (125).229 But one might question whether such a metaphorical approach represents
rather too great of a “turn,” for is not translation most explicitly about texts and the messages
being transmitted thereby from one language (SL) and sociocultural setting to another (TL)?
Furthermore, the implication given by some of the scholars in this camp that they are the ones
who have brought cultural issues to the fore in the field of translation studies, when the reality
is that Bible theorists and translators had been closely engaging with such cultural challenges,
beginning some thirty years earlier in point of time.230

In chapter 8 then, Munday considers “three areas where cultural studies has influenced
translation studies in the course of the 1990s” (125), and I would suggest, right up to the present
day: “translation as rewriting, which is a development of systems theory” (8.1), “translation and
gender” (8.2), “translation and postcolonialism” (8.3). Perhaps it is understandable that those
scholars who promote the “cultural turn” tend to be uncritical of “the ideologies and agendas
that drive their own criticisms,” and yet, as Munday notes, “there is also a strong element of

226
See, for example, T. Hermans, The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation
(Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985).
227
See Winckler and van der Merwe’s (1994) proposal to use Toury’s model as a teaching tool.
228
As an early instance of this, Munday cites (136) S. Bassnett, Translation Studies (London & New
York: Routledge, 1980, rev. ed. 2002).
229
An oft-cited early collection of studies in this area is S. Bassnett and A. Lefevre (eds.),
Translation, History, and Culture (London & New York: Routledge, 1990); e.g. M. Snell-Hornby, “Linguistic
Transcoding or Cultural Transfer: A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany,” in Bassnett and Lefevre
(eds.), 79-86. As one of the reviewers of my article noted: “these models [of ‘translation’] are often
developed at institutions where the focus is on the analysis of literary texts–not the training of translators.”
230
That is, earlier than 1990. Many of the articles in early issues of The Bible Translator deal
specifically with cultural issues being confronted in translations of the Scriptures in various languages, for
example: “One of the greatest problems for the missionary or native (sic) translator is the cultural context
in which he (sic) is translating” (Wm. D. Reyburn, “Certain Cameroon Translations: Analysis and Plans,”
BT 9/4, 1958, 171-182 [181]). Many of E. A. Nida’s earlier works also directly address the cultural
dimension of interlingual communication, e.g. Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions
(New York: Harper, 1954).
72
conflict and competition between them” (136).231 However, since this movement “might also be
described as an attempt by cultural studies to colonize the less established field of translation
studies” through a hermeneutical “manipulation of texts,” STs as well as TTs (136),232 I find much
less in these writings of direct relevance to mainstream Bible translation.233 Of course, such an
opinion may simply be attributed to my own agenda and translation “location” (including a
history that reaches back to the [late] colonial age), and so perhaps the less I say by way of
critical remarks concerning the cultural turn movement, the better. Thus, I will leave this section
with just a few selected quotes and comments.

A consideration of the “ideological” factor in translation (126), can turn out to be very
significant in the case of “interconfessional” projects, where, for example, Catholic and various
Protestant as well as “independent” local denominations must learn to compromise and work
together with respect to such potentially controversial issues as orthography (e.g. “Yesu” or
“Jeso”), key terms (e.g. the name of “God” or “Yahweh/Jehovah”), and style (e.g. where an older
“missionary” version is still popular). In the case of any Bible translation, any agenda-motivated
“re-writing” of the original text in translation would be unwelcome, unless the version is intended
for use in some niche constituency or is being prepared explicitly as an “adaptation” of the
Scriptures, for example:

The feminist translator, affirming her critical difference, her delight in interminable re-
reading and re-writing, flaunts the signs of her manipulation of the text.234

Similarly, the application of modern, largely Western-originated ideologies, such as “queer

theory” (130) in a Bible translation enterprise (for example, to “rewrite” certain controversial
passages) becomes problematic, especially in many corners of Africa.235 In the case of

231
In fact, some theorists in the ideological camp seem to promote the notion of conflict, for
example: “[T]ranslation itself is a highly volatile act. As the displacement, replacement, transfer, and
transformation of the original language, translation is incapable of fixing meanings across languages.
Rather, as with the story of Babel, it consists precisely in the proliferation and confusion of possible
meanings and therefore in the impossibility of arriving at a single one. . . . It is precisely the disordering
effect of war on our notions of space and time that brings it in association with translation that tends to
scatter meaning, displace origins, and expose the radical undecidability of references, names, and
addresses” (Rafael 2011:51-52). Indeed, with such a bleak outlook on the profession and its prospect, who
would wish to translate at all?
232
Some non-Western theorists “criticize translation studies itself for its largely western
orientation” (133), for example, T. Niranjana, Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial
Context (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 48-49.
233
Once the concept of “translation” becomes metaphorical, there is apparently no limit to where
or how it may be applied in “post-translation studies, where translation is viewed as fundamentally
transdisciplinary, mobile, and open-ended. . . . Today, translation has to be considered as a transformative
representation of, in, and among cultures and individuals. . . . Translation is moving away from being
simply a concept based in certain disciplines to being an epistemological principle applicable to the whole
field of humanistic, social, and natural sciences” (S. Arduini and S. Nergaard, “Translation: A New
Paradigm,” Translation [Inaugural Issue], 2011, 8, 12, 14). The problem is, of course, that a concept thus
expanded to encompass and embrace everything from a open-minded transdisciplinary perspective
ultimately communicates nothing; rather, it must be continuously redefined or explained to fit the specific
context in which it is being used. If “[a] whole range of changing human, institutional and cultural
experiences are deemed to fall under the rubric of the translational,” the term translation itself becomes
“in some sense an empty signifier” (R. J. C. Young, 2011, “Some Questions About Translation and the
Production of Knowledge,” Translation [Inaugural Issue], 59).
234
B. Godard, “Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation,” in Bassnett and Lefevre, Translation,
(91) 87-96.
235
“Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There
is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. ‘Queer’ then,
demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative” (D. Halperin, Saint Foucault: Towards
73
“postcolonial” translation theory, the issue of “power relations,” past and present, come to the
fore, with special reference to certain personnel (e.g. Western missionaries) and colonial
languages (e.g. English, French, Spanish, Portuguese). Thus, we read about “examples of the
colonizer’s imposition of ideological values,” such as the “missionaries who ran schools for the
colonized and also performed a role as linguists and translators” (132),236 with these “power
relations being played out in the unequal struggle of various local languages against ‘the one
master-language of our postcolonial world, English’” (133).237 Of course, global languages like
English do present problems for national legislators, educators, language-planners, and Bible
translation strategists alike.238 But it must also be remembered that it is no longer the colonialists
who are making the crucial legislative decisions in these matters, especially in cases where this
means essentially retaining the colonial status quo. Hence, the following queries are important
(140, material in brackets added):

(Q7) How far do you agree with Niranjana that translation studies [and/or Bible
translations in your country] has been overly dominated by western theories [and/or
languages]? If this is true, how can or should the situation be changed?

3.9 The Role of the Translator: Visibility, Ethics, and Sociology

As its heading might suggest, chapter 9 takes up a number of diverse topics, some of which are
only indirectly connected with “the role of the translator.” The main unifying subject would
appear to be the ideas of Lawrence Venuti, which appear in several sections. When considering
“the cultural and political agenda of translation” then (9.1), Munday begins with Venuti’s
concern over “the ‘invisibility’ of the translator,” with particular reference to their work “in
contemporary Anglo-American culture” (9.1.1). But to a great extent, this problem (if actually
genuine and widely recognized) is self-caused, that is, “by the way translators themselves tend
to translate ‘fluently’ into English, thus creating an ‘illusion of transparency’” (144).239 And the
reason for this appears to be pure practicality, for “[a] translated text…is judged acceptable by
most publishers, reviewers and readers when it reads fluently.”240 So why should translators,
whether of secular or scriptural works, change their procedure if it is what their target
constituency wants?

Munday overviews Venuti’s socio-political agenda under the theme “domestication and
foreignization” (9.1.2). The problem of overly “fluent” translations (into English) is due to a
policy of domestication, which involves “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to [Anglo-
American] target-language cultural values” by means of an “invisible style in order to minimize
the foreignness of the TT” (144). A “foreignizing” approach, on the other hand, which is Venuti’s

a Gay Hagiography [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997] 62). The problem here for Bible translators
arises in the case of passages where “the normal, the legitmate, [or] the dominant” happens to be the
undisputable majority interpretion of recognized Scripture scholars and commentators.
236
With reference to Niranjana, Siting Translation, 33-34.
237
Citing S. Bassnett and H. Trivedi, Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice (London & New
York: Routledge, 1999), 13.
238
K. Bennett, for example, calls attention to “the ‘epistemicide’ caused by the dominance of
English scientific and academic style, which effectively eliminates (or at least massively overshadows)
more traditional, discursive…writing” in the vernacular (137, with reference to “Epistemicide: The Tale
of a Predatory Discourse,” The Translator 13/2, 111-128). A similar negative result is obtained, for example,
in the case of a minority language Bible translation project whose translators cannot access the text via
the original languages and must base their renderings on English versions, whether more or less literal
(e.g. ESV) and/or free (e.g. CEV).
239
With reference to L. Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (London & New
York: Routledge, 1995/2008), 1.
240
Ibid., loc.cit.
74
ideal, adopts the strategy of “resistancy,” that is, “a non-fluent or estranging translation style
designed to make visible the presence of the translator by highlighting the identity of the ST and
protecting it from the ideological dominance of the target culture” (145). However, one does
seriously question whether a “foreignized” version is able to accomplish all the Venuti aspires
for it. A far more likely outcome is that the translator would simply be judged to be technically
poor or incompetent due to the “foreign-sounding” text that s/he has put forward for publication.
In the case of Scripture translations, on the other hand, the situation is rather more complicated,
and the “acceptability” of a translation depends on other significant factors, such as, the history
of translations in the language concerned, the number of different versions available and their
relative popularity, the theological evaluation of certain translations (usually too “free”) by
critical church denominations, the nature and purpose of the version involved, and so forth.

Also an enthusiastic supporter of “the foreign in translation,” A. Berman promotes what he

terms “the ‘negative analytic’ of translation” (9.1.3), which embraces any technique that opposes
the “strategy of ‘naturalization’” (147). Within the latter procedure, he identifies twelve
“deforming tendencies,” including “rationalization” (of syntactic structures), “clarification” (e.g.
explicitation), “expansion” (again, for the sake of clarity in the TT), and “the destruction of
rhythms…underlying networks of signification…linguistic patternings…idioms” (147-148).241
Berman praises the “literal translation,” which in his opinion “restores the particular signifying
process of [SL literary] works…and, on the other hand, transforms the translating language.”242
While such a procedure might work out successfully in English and other languages with a long
literary history, it certainly fails in the various Bantu languages that I am acquainted with, where
such a literalistic policy only “transforms the translating language” for the worse. Indeed, I have
also found “fluency” in the TT to be a desirable quality, but one that is achieved through the
perceptive and competent use of the full linguistic and literary resources of the TL.243 Munday
presents a critical summary of Venuti’s approach (and others like it) in section 9.4, basing his
observations largely on the work of Pym.244

Four other, somewhat disconnected topics are also considered in ch. 9, which in the interest
of space, I will simply mention in passing:

 “The position and positionality of the literary translator” (9.2): This issue again deals with
theorists and practitioners who call for a greater “visibility” of translators in their work,
e.g. through the use of “creative” techniques, especially in the case of poetic literature
(150).

 “The power network of the publishing industry” (9.3): This is a significant consideration
also in the production of Bible translations whenever the legibility of the text/readability
of the page is decreased by strict rules of format, such as a relatively small font size, two
columns of print, and worst of all, the practice of “justification,” resulting in much
hyphenization in the case of agglutinative languages like those of the Bantu group.

241
From A. Berman, “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign,” in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation
Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 276-289 (280).
242
Ibid., 288-289.
243
Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture, ch. 8.
244
A. Pym, “Venuti’s Visibility,” Target 8/1 (1996) 165-177.
75
  “The reception and reviewing of translations” (9.5): Here is another vital factor that
concerns Scripture translations as well, indeed, to a much greater extent, since the drafts
of selected books need to be carefully “tested” among the target group before the whole
Bible is published—and periodically thereafter, in preparation for a future revised
edition.245

 “The sociology and historiography of translation” (9.6): “The study of translators” (157)
is not so much in focus where the history of Bible translation is concerned (though
influential individuals are not ignored), but rather the multifaceted history of entire
projects, involving many different contributors over the years until a particular version is
finally published.246

Following up then from the preceding point, one might consider this exercise for possible
research (160, material in brackets added):

(Q10) Many translation theorists speak of the need for more “raw material”…about
translators, their history, and their working practices. What works of translation
historiography have been published concerning your languages? Where might you find
out? What kinds of “raw material” might be available and how might you go about
researching it [with specific reference to the Bible translations available in your country]?

3.10 Philosophical Theories of Translation

I must admit that I had to scratch my head in the search for relevance as I read through this
chapter, which deals with “modern philosophical approaches to translation that have sought out
the essence of (generally literary) translation” (162). To be sure, the several theories discussed
are certainly important in literary studies and comparative literature, but I found little of
significance that I could either apply or meaningfully relate to the specific field of Bible
translation, which is the focus of this review. As a result, I will simply note the various topics
discussed and make a few comments along the way.

Munday begins with “Steiner’s Hermeneutic Motion” approach (10.1), which is delineated
in the “hugely influential” work After Babel:247

The hermeneutic motion which forms the core of Steiner’s description (pp. 312-435)
consists of four parts: (1) initiative trust; (2) aggression (or penetration); (3) incorporation
(or embodiment); and (4) compensation (or restitution). (163)248

245
For a detailed model for translation testing, see E. Wendland, Contextual Frames of Reference in
Bible Translation (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2008), 226-239.
246
See, for example, P. Noss (ed.), A History of Bible Translation (Rome: Edizioni Di Storia E
Letteratura, 2007). “With the publication of this book, the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship at the
American Bible Society (www.nidainstitute.org) launches a comprehensive history of Bible translation”
(xix).
247
G. Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (London & Oxford: Oxford UP,
1975/3rd ed., 1998).
248
Once again we hear echoes of Nida’s three-stage approach to translation: analysis—transfer—
restructuring, at least in Munday’s description of Steiner’s moves (Nida & Taber, Theory and Practice, 33).
76
Unfortunately, Steiner’s explanations of his terms and ideas (as paraphrased or cited by Munday)
are of little help, for example, if one would like to know what constitutes a “good translation”
(166):

Good translation…can be defined as that in which the dialectic of impenetrability and

ingress, of intractable alienness and felt “at-homeness” remains unresolved, but
expressive. Out of the tension of resistance and affinity, a tension directly proportional to
the proximity of the two languages and historical communities, grows the elucidative
strangeness of the great translation.249

Indeed, one wonders how true Munday’s claim is that “Steiner’s work…has introduced many
non-specialists to translation theory” (167)!

We turn next to “Ezra Pound and the energy of language” (10.2), which refers to Pound’s
efforts to search out “the expressive qualities of language, seeking to energize language by clarity,
rhythm, sound and form, rather than sense” (167). In my opinion, however, such an important
goal cannot be easily achieved (if at all) by the “archaizing,” “foreignizing strategy” that he
propounded.250 The same applies to the literalizing methodology that Walter Benjamin saw as
“the task of the translator” (10.3)—in his words, “a ‘literal rendering’ which allows the ‘pure
language’ to shine through” (169).

It is the task of the translator to release in his own language that pure language which is
under the spell of another, to liberate the language imprisoned in a work in his re-creation
of that work.251

The fulsome philosophizing aside, such an approach does not present much of a “task” or
challenge, for all the translator really needs are a TL good grammar and lexicon and s/he is ready
to match words with the ST. Thus, the ultimate, in Benjamin’s opinion, the “ideal” Bible
translation, would be “an interlinear version” (169)!252

In the case of “Deconstruction” (10.4) we reach the limits of comprehension (or

incomprehension), as we must “[suspend] all that we take for granted about language,
experience, and the ‘normal’ possibilities of communication” (170).253 “Its leading figure is the
French philosopher Jacques Derrida,” who employs terminology that is “complex and shifting,
like the meaning it dismantles” (170)—or seeks to destabilize. Accordingly, there can be no
“relevance” in translation “because, in Derrida’s view, a relevant translation relies on the
supposed stability of the signified—signifier relationship” (171).254 Such a philosophical
perspective promotes an “abusive fidelity” that “involves risk-taking and experimentation with
the expressive and rhetorical patterns of language, supplementing the ST, giving it renewed
energy…[tampering] with usage” (172). The result is inevitably a new text, one that reflects the
image of its creator—and hence cannot be called a “translation” in the usual sense at all, certainly
not where the Scriptures are concerned. As Munday himself observes in his “discussion of case
study 2”: “[S]uch a translation strategy demands a certain ‘leap of faith’ from the reader to accept
that the translator’s experimentation is not just facile wordplay,” which may in fact “be easier if

249
Steiner, After Babel, 413.
250
One can judge for oneself by reading the various selections to be found in The Translations of
Ezra Pound (London: Faber & Faber, 1953).
251
With reference to W. Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator” (transl. H. Zohn), in L. Venuti
(ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 75-83 (82).
252
Ibid., 83.
253
C. Norris, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 1991), xi.
254
J. Derrida, “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?”, in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader,
2nd edition (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 423-447 (425).
77
the text in question is philosophical” (177).255 In the case of this chapter (alone), there were no
“discussion and research points” (178) of special interest or importance, that is, from the
viewpoint of Bible translating.256

3.11 New Directions from the New Media

Munday ends his study with a survey of the newest and most dynamic field of translation studies
where we have a semiotic shift from the printed page to diverse “new media,” involving the
audio, visual, audio-visual, and electronic channels of communication. “Although they do not
represent a new theoretical model, the emergence and proliferation of new technologies have
transformed translation practice and are now exerting an impact on research and, as a
consequence, on the theorization of translation” (179). In this chapter, along with “audiovisual
translation” (11.2), Munday also considers the influence of “corpus-based translation studies”
(11.1) and the adaptive strategies necessitated by “localization and globalization” (11.3).

The approach of “corpus linguistics” employs the manifold text-processing capacity of the
computer:

to create an electronic corpus…of naturally occurring texts…that could then be processed

and analyzed with software to investigate the use and patterns of the word forms it
contained…particularly collocations and typical uses of lexical items. (180)

Three different types of corpora are currently being used in translation-oriented research:
“monolingual corpora,” which are analyzed generally for features of “natural” or “normal” usage
in a language, “comparable bilingual corpora,” which investigate selected linguistic features in
similar sets of texts in two different languages, and “parallel corpora, of ST-TT pairs, which,
when aligned (sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph), can allow the strategies
employed by the translator(s) [in the TT] to be investigated” (181). Although such text
comparative and contrastive studies are popular in some circles (mainly in Europe) the results
thus far are not all that earth-shaking (cf. the case study on pp. 192-193) and have not as yet
been applied to an appreciable extent in the field of Bible translation.

Similarly, in the area of “audiovisual translation,” it seems that most scholarly efforts in
translation studies has been more or less limited to theoretical explorations, with practical
applications largely limited to “screen translation,” that is, textual subtitling and vocal dubbing
(11.2.2; cf. the “case study” on pp. 193-194). Applied research in Bible translation studies appear
to have gone much more broadly and deeply with concrete experimentation in languages all over
the world. For example, an early review of these developments states:

255
“Facile wordplay” indeed—so much so that when attempting to read and comprehend the
writings of these translation philosophers, one requires the assistance of an intralingual “translator” to
help decipher them. For example: “Cultural difference emerges from the borderline moments of translation
that Benjamin describes as the ‘foreignness’ of languages. Translation represents only an extreme instance
of the figurative fate of writing that repeatedly generates a movement of equivalence between
representation and reference but never gets beyond the equivocation of the sign. The ‘foreignness’ of
language is the nucleus of untranslatable that goes beyond the transparency of subject matter” (Bhabha
1990:315).
256
In this case, a “suggested project” from Pym’s roughly parallel chapter on “uncertainty theories”
might help. For example, true or false: “Meanings are always context-bound” and more or less stable
“depending on our viewpoint and our circumstances”; hence, “no translation will ever be definite or
universally acceptable, [and] no translation will ever escape ideology or perspectivism” (Pym 2010:119,
citing Arrojo in Chesterman and Arrojo 2000). What are the practical implications of such a perspective?
78
 Multimedia translation begins where print translation leaves off, engaging with issues that
print translation never needs to face or resolve. … [T]hanks to a sociosemiotic approach
to translation…coupled with the power of digital media, it can reproduce more than just
rhetorical, grammatical, and lexical meaning. … for example, the images and sounds,
together with the cultural, historical, aesthetic, and performative information that also
constitutes the meaning of biblical discourse.257

More recently then a “multimodal” approach to communication has also been proposed and
applied in modern translation studies (187), for example, to describe “the signifying codes of
cinematographic language,” that is, the linguistic, paralinguistic, musical, sound arrangement,
iconographic, photographic, planning, mobility, graphic, and syntactic codes (188-189).258

“Globalization” is a term that is becoming ever more prominent in the news with reference
to all aspects of human communal endeavour, from commerce to communication. It commonly
denotes the expansion of large multinational businesses and corporations into markets
throughout the world, accompanied by infusions of capital investment. Such development
obviously calls for “localization,” which “involves taking a product and making it linguistically
and culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language) where it will be
used and sold” (191).259 Many quick and accurate translations are an essential element in such
efforts, which often turn to machine translation (computer software) to provide ready TT drafts
of a basic “internationalized” version in the SL (an “interlingua version”), which is normally
some language of wider communication (191). The development of various computer programs
for assisting the translation as well as the production process has also been going on in Bible
translation circles for many years,260 the sophistication and quality of these tools in many respects
matching or even surpassing those available on/for the secular market. Munday suggests a
practical exercise to research this last point (196):

(Q10) How are translation memory and other computer-assisted translation tools changing
the way translators work? How do theories of equivalence and function, amongst others,
need to adapt to this new translation scenario?

3.12 Concluding Remarks

I found three items of special interest in Munday’s relatively short conclusion—a timely warning,
an interesting case study, and a final word of encouragement. The warning is borrowed from
Chesterman’s concept of “consilience” (197):

He considers that translation studies has been importing concepts and methodologies from
other disciplines “at a superficial level” which tends to lead to “misunderstandings” since
translation-oriented researchers often lack expertise in the other field and may even be
borrowing outdated ideas.261

257
R. Hodgson and P. A. Soukup (eds.), From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating
the Scriptures in New Media (New York: American Bible Society, 1997), 8. Of course, the theory to more
fully support such claims developed somewhat later in “cognitive linguistics” (cf. Wendland, Contextual
Frames, 19-35.
258
With reference to F. Chaume, “Film Studies and Translation Studies,” Meta 49/1 (2004), 12-24
(17-22).
259
Cited from LISA (the Localisation Industry Standards Association), www.lisa.org.
260
For example, the Biblical Analysis and Research Tool (BART, SIL International), Paratext (United
Bible Societies), Logos 4 Bible Software, Adapt-It (Word for the World).
261
A. Chesterman, “Towards Consilience?” in Aijmer and Alvstad, New Tendencies, 19-28 (19). The
problems posed by Chesterman would appear to be magnified and multiplied by a modern prospectus such
as the following: “[T]ranslation has become a fecund and frequent metaphor for our intercultural world…
79
One of the reasons that Bible translation theorists need to keep abreast with the new
developments and debates in translation studies is to avoid such superficial or extraneous
“consilience” in their own specialized field. On the other hand, theorists in translation studies
could learn a thing or two from the field of Bible translation, especially in terms of practical
applications, for example: (a) employing a cognitive perspective in translation assessment, e.g.,
the activity of summarizing to evaluate the ease of text processing;262 (b) paying greater attention
to the oral-aural dimension of texts when preparing a translation;263 (c) making use of the
increasingly sophisticated tools of electronic text processing that are becoming available;264 and
(d) contributing to a fuller scope of the “interdisciplinary” character of modern translation
studies, including its history, theories, methodologies, specific problem areas, organizational
operations, networking facilities, and so forth.265

The final illustrative case refers to “a close study of the strategies employed in King Alfred’s
translation of Boethius’s De consolatione philosophiae from Latin to Old English in late ninth-
century England (198). The author discusses:266

How Alfred’s aim [was] to educate his people through his translations was realized
through a translation strategy of the domestication of lexis and syntax to make the target
text more comprehensible (p. 124). Despite the difference in prestige and resources
available to Latin and English, Alfred used relatively few borrowings and calques (pp. 15-
16) and aimed mainly at using language that was recognizable and acceptable to the target
text audience.

Bravo King Alfred!

In conclusion then (199):

We welcome new concepts that speak about translation and hope to reshape translation discourse within
these new terms and ideas. To achieve this goal, we must go beyond the traditional borders of the
discipline, and even beyond interdisciplinary studies. . . . In an epistemological sphere it becomes less
important to distinguish and define clearly what translation is and what it is not, what stands inside the
borders of translation and what stands outside. . . . [T]ranslational processes are fundamental for the
creation of culture(s) and identities, for the ongoing life of culture(s), and for the creation of social and
economic values” (Arduini and Nergaard, “A New Paradigm,” 8, 9-10, 13). Within this “new paradigm,”
does the notion of translation actually “mean” anything—other than some sort of general sociocultural
transformation as viewed from the perspective of a certain individual’s (or group’s) “rhizomatic”
reconceptualization (ibid., 9)?
262
There are “two types of translations: one which is intended to be analyzed by its user and one
that is to be synthesized. They are roughly equivalent to [Bible] translations for study and translations for
reading, but the similarity is only rough. The analytic vis-a-vis synthetic distinction is to emphasize the
cognitive process by which one uses the translation. . . . I can’t help but think that a good text—that is, a
well written [synthetic] one—enables a reader to summarize” (Sangrey 2012).
263
See, for example, the articles in Maxey and Wendland (forthcoming).
264
“Computers have moved from being simple word-processors to being resource providers, text
manipulators and checkers, and translation environments (using platforms such as Paratext and
Translator’s Workplace), and this progress has been universally welcomed and celebrated. But the degree
to which machines should be used to actually do translation has been more controversal” (Crisp and
Harmelink 2011:59-60). The various articles in The Bible Translator (vol. 62:2) debate this issue:
“Computers as Translators: Translation or Treason?”
265
Indeed, the only new(er) chapter (11) in Munday’s 3rd edition focuses on “translation studies as
an interdiscipline.” The question is, why should a more thorough and comprehensive treatment of the field
of “Bible translation studies” not be included?
266
With reference to N. G. Discenza, The King’s English: Strategies of Translation in the Old English
Boethius (New York: State University of New York Press, 2005).
80
 The wealth of work and the number of scholars worldwide who now locate themselves
within translation studies is a testimony to its growth and popularity. Trends and fashions
change over time, of course, so it is imperative now that those within the field continue
both their specialization, understanding and using new tools and methodologies at their
disposal, and working collaboratively for the better comprehension of the ways in which
translation operates at all levels.

So whether one is working on sacred texts or secular works, it is clear that the potential for
instructive correction as well as conceptual enrichment is mutual, and the possibility of some
collaborative, truly multidisciplinary engagement in translation studies “at large” is perhaps
greater now than it has ever been before.

3.13 References

Aijmer, K. and C. Alvstad, eds. New Tendencies in Translation Studies. Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of
English, 2005.
Arduini, S. and S. Nergaard, “Translation: A New Paradigm,” Translation (Inaugural Issue 2011), 8-15.
Baker, M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London & New York: Routledge, 1992.
Bassnett, S. Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge, 1980, rev. ed. 2002.
__________. and A. Lefevre, eds. Translation, History, and Culture. London & New York: Routledge, 1990.
__________. and H. Trivedi. Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London & New York: Routledge, 1999.
Bell, R. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London & New York: Longman, 1991.
Benjamin, W. (transl. H. Zohn). “The Task of the Translator,” in L. Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd
edition. London & New York: Routledge, 2004, 75-83.
Bennett. K. “Epistemicide: The Tale of a Predatory Discourse.” The Translator 13/2, 111-128.
Berman, A. “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign,” in L. Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition.
London & New York: Routledge, 2004, 276-289.
Bhabha, H. K. “DissemiNation,” in H. K. Bhabha, ed., Nation and Narration, London & New York: Routledge, 1990 (Pp.
314-315 reprinted in Translation [Inaugural Issue 2011], 24-25).
Catford J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965/2000.
Chaume, F. “Film Studies and Translation Studies.” Meta 49/1 (2004), 12-24.
Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997.
__________. “Towards Consilience?” in Aijmer and Alvstad (q.v.), 19-28.
Chesterman, A. and R. Arrojo. “Forum: Shared Ground in Translation Studies.” Target 12/1 (2000), 151-160.
Crisp, S. and B. Harmelink. “Computers as Translators: Translation or Treason?” The Bible Translator 62/2 (2011), 59-
60.
Derrida, J. “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?”, in L. Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition. London &
New York: Routledge, 2004, 423-447.
Discenza, N. G. The King’s English: Strategies of Translation in the Old English Boethius. New York: State University of
New York Press, 2005.
Even-Zohar, I. “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem,” in L. Venuti, ed., The Translation
Studies Reader, 2nd edition. London & New York: Routledge, 1989/2004, 199-204.
Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Theories, 2nd edition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001.
Godard, B. “Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation,” in Bassnett and Lefevre (q.v.), 87-96.
Gutt, E-A. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1991/2000.
__________. Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas and New York: SIL and UBS, 1992.

81
Halperin, D. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hatim B. and I. Mason. Discourse and the Translator. London & New York: Longman, 1990.
__________. The Translator as Communicator. London & New York: Routledge, 1997.
Hermans, T. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985.
Hodgson R. and P. A. Soukup, eds. From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating the Scriptures in New
Media. New York: American Bible Society, 1997.
Holmes, J. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies,” in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition.
London & New York: Routledge, 2004, 180-192.
Holz-Mänttäri, J. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie and Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1984.
House, J. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1997.
Koller, W. Einführung in die Uebersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg-Wiesbaden: Quelle and Meyer, 1979.
Lederer, M. (transl. N. Larché). Translation: The Interpretive Model (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1994/2003.
Levy, J. “Translation as a Decision Process” (1967), in L. Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 1st edition. London
& New York: Routledge, 2000, 148-159.
Maxey, J. and E. Wendland, eds. Translating Sound and Performance of the Bible. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books,
forthcoming.
Miko, F. “La théorie de l’expression et la traduction,” in J. S. Holmes, ed., The Nature of Translation: Essays on the
Theory and Practice of Literary Translation. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1970, 61-77.
Munday, J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd edition. London & New York: Routledge. 2008.
__________. Style and Ideology in Translation. London & New York: Routledge 2008.
__________, ed. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge 2009.
__________ and B. Hatim. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London & New York: Routledge 2004.
Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon, 1981.
Nida, E. A. Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions. New York: Harper, 1954.
__________. and C. R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Niranjana, T. Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1992.
Nord, C. (transl. J. Groos). Text Analysis in Translation, 2nd edition. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005.
__________. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997.
Norris, C. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Noss, P., ed. A History of Bible Translation. Rome: Edizioni Di Storia E Letteratura, 2007.
Pound, E. The Translations of Ezra Pound. London: Faber & Faber, 1953.
Pym, A. “Venuti’s Visibility.” Target 8/1 (1996), 165-177.
Pym, A. Exploring Translation Theories. London & New York: Routledge, 2010.
Rafael, V. L. “Translation, American English, and the National Insecurities of Empire.” Translation (Inaugural Issue)
2011, 51-52 (excerpt reprinted from Social Text 101/27/4, 2009).
Reiss, K. (transl. A. Chesterman). “Text-types, Translation-types, and Translation Assessment,” in A. Chesterman, ed.,
Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Finn Lectura, 1977/1989, 105-115.
Reyburn, Wm. D. “Certain Cameroon Translations: Analysis and Plans.” The Bible Translator 9/4, 1958, 171-182.
Sager J. C. and M-J. Hamel. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.
Sangrey, M. “When Summarizing Is Too Hard.” http://betterbibles.com/2012/03/07.
Snell-Hornby, M. “Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer: A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany,” in
Bassnett and Lefevre, eds. (q.v.), 79-86.

82
Steiner, G. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London & Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975/3rd ed., 1998.
Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies—And Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.
Venuti, L. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London & New York: Routledge, 1995/2008.
Vermeer, H. “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action,” in L. Venuti, ed., The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd
edition. London & New York: Routledge, 1989/2004, 227-238.
Vinay, J-P. and J. Darbelnet. Stylistique comparée du francais et de l’anglais: Méthode du traduction. Paris: Didier, 1958/2nd
ed., 1977.
de Waard, J. and E. A. Nida. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville,
Thomas Nelson, 1986.
Wendland, E. Translating the Literature of Scripture. Dallas: SIL International, 2004.
__________. Finding and Translating the Oral-aural Elements in Written Language: The Case of the New Testament Epistles.
Lewiston, US/Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008.
__________. Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2008.
Wilt, T., ed. Bible Translation: Frames of Reference. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2003.
__________. and E. Wendland. Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for Bible Translators. Stellenbosch: SUN Press, 2008.
Winckler, W. and C. H. J. van der Merwe. “Teaching Tomorrow's Bible Translators in the Light of Today’s Translations.”
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994), 79-109.
Young, R. J. C. 2011, “Some Questions About Translation and the Production of Knowledge,” Translation (Inaugural
Issue), 59-61.

83
 4. Review of Basil Hatim’s Teaching and Researching Translation

(Basil Hatim, 2nd ed. (series: Applied Linguistics in Action). London and New York: Pearson, 2013.
Paperback. 326 pages. Price US$40.00 (Amazon). ISBN 978-1-4082-9763-6.)

4.1 Introduction

Basil Hatim is Professor of Translation and Linguistics at the American University of Sharjah,
UAE. He is a world-recognized theorist in translation studies and an active practitioner in
English/Arabic translation. He lectures widely and has published extensively in the fields of
applied linguistics, text linguistics, translation/interpreting, and teaching English to speakers of
other languages (TESOL). Clearly, Hatim is a theorist who practices what he teaches, and this
book gives abundant evidence of his widespread trans-disciplinary experience and expertise.267

The Applied Linguistics in Action instructional series aims to provide a university-level “map
of the landscape” of a particular area of teaching and research within the wider discipline,
providing an overview of its main ideas and approaches, competing issues, unsolved questions,
pointers toward fruitful research, and principal resources. There is a special focus on research
with the goal of stimulating readers to constructively critique established concepts and methods
as well as to put what is being learned into reflective practice on a variety of suggested projects
that explore new, and sometimes controversial facets of study in the field. In this book, Hatim
selects some of the more helpful approaches in contemporary linguistics—those that may be
more readily and productively “applied” in the study of language communication—and
integrates these into an insightful exploration of the closely related sphere of “translation
studies”. He suggests that “the conceptual map of translation studies could be drawn differently
and perhaps in more helpful ways” (xii)—in particular, from the specialized, utilitarian
perspective of text linguistics, “a discipline…dealing with modern interdisciplinary concerns
relating to text in context and how these issues intimately relate to each other in highly diverse
and systematic ways, and are closely bound up with language in social life” (296).

4.2 Overview of the Book

Teaching and Researching Translation is divided into four major parts. In Section I (chs. 1-6), Hatim
outlines the recent history, fundamental concepts, and key research issues in translation studies
(TS), with special reference to the long-established dichotomy between “literal” and “free”
renditions—that is, “distance from or adherence to the source text” (ST, xiii). Section II (chs. 7-
13) presents a number of research models that stem from the approaches outlined in part I and
provide a helpful framework for further investigation, with special reference to translation
teaching and “three major aspects of how texts function and how they get translated” (i.e., textual
register, interpersonal pragmatics, and social-semiotics) (xiv). Section III (chs. 14-15) offers a
variety of suggestions for developing new communication-oriented methods in the fast-growing
field of translation-based research. Section IV (ch. 16) then provides a number of useful “links
and resources for translators”, which will enable readers to branch out on their own into areas
of special interest. The book concludes with a “Glossary of text linguistics and translation terms”
(one of the best I have seen published), an extensive listing of References, and a complete,
subcategorized Index of topics. This second edition (the first was published in 2001) has provided
various updated material throughout the text and has added several new chapters. However, as
in the case of most scholarly works in the field of modern translation studies, I missed a thorough
discussion of the vibrant phonological factor, that is, the oral-aural dimension of communication

267
I acknowledge with gratitude Prof. Hatim’s comments and suggested corrections to this review.
84
and how this impacts upon especially the practice of translating as well as the critical evaluation
of (written, published) translated texts.

Each chapter follows a similar pattern, consisting of an initial overview of primary goals
(e.g., “This chapter will . . . describe how applied linguistics can contribute to the study of
translating and translations…, page 3), a brief introduction of the subjects to be considered, an
ordered sequence of subsections in which the relevant topics are discussed in greater detail, and
suggestions for “further reading”. Included in each chapter are specially highlighted boxes that
contain important “quotations” (from a sentence to a short paragraph) from experts in the field
as well as similar boxed summaries, definitions, descriptions, or diagrams of key “concepts” that
pertain to the subject being considered in the section at hand. Hatim writes clearly, organizes
well, and regularly defines the more technical terms or concepts that he introduces. The text is
virtually free of errors and is lucidly formatted, with different typefaces, styles, and indents being
used to highlight or distinguish issues of importance or lists of related items.

Before I go on to a somewhat more detailed overview of the many diverse translation topics
that Hatim discusses in his book, readers may wonder: Of what possible relevance is a textbook
on translation studies to specialists in the Old Testament? Four reasons occurred to me upon
reflection after reading Teaching and Researching Translation:

 Translation – Most OT scholars regularly make a personal translation of the Hebrew text as
part of their daily study routine, and they base their research, writing, as well as teaching
activities on academic works that reference and/or specifically render the original text of the
Hebrew Bible.
 Publication – Most OT specialists also apply their skills in the writing of scholarly papers,
articles, books, or even commentaries that examine and make numerous, sometimes extended
references to the Hebrew text and how it has been, or should be translated into the language
of publication.
 Assessment – A lesser number of OT scholars are engaged in the actual translation of the
Hebrew text into their mother tongue, or they are members of a review committee that is
tasked with the evaluation and correction of preliminary draft versions.
 Comparison – At a more popular level, OT experts are often called upon to compare different
versions of the Bible in their language and make a studied recommendation as to which version
they feel is best for a particular church constituency, e.g., youth, middle-aged, new readers,
non-traditionalists, etc.

For all of these reasons, and there may well be more, I would venture to say that most of the
subjects explored in Teaching and Researching Translation will be of great interest and possibly of
considerable importance to all OT scholars. Of course, we do not need to be translation experts
in order to carry out our normal academic activities. However, I suspect that the broad pragmatic
(language-in-use), text-linguistic approach presented by Hatim will enable us to sharpen our
critical awareness and supply additional insights as well as some practical tools to enable us to
function more knowledgably and effectively in new areas of application—especially, as suggested
by the title, with reference to interlingual teaching and communication research.

85
4.3 Chapter Summaries

In partial support of the preceding claims (which can be properly judged only by reading the entire
book), I will survey the various main subjects that are treated in its sequence of chapters,
according to the book’s four principal divisions. In most cases, these topics can only be briefly
described, as items for information, but when appropriate I will include a quotation of special
relevance, or offer a critical observation from a personal perspective.

4.3.1 Chapter 1

Chapter 1 (Translation studies and applied linguistics) seeks to reveal some of the ways in which
“applied linguistics, with its many and varied orientations, [can] inform translation research”
(4). It can do so, according to Hatim, by helping to raise critical awareness of some of the main
problem areas that translation presents for all those who engage in it. These require a certain
informed “reflective practice” that features a “theory-practice cycle” of action research, i.e., “an
initial idea, followed by fact-finding, action plan, implementation, monitoring and revision,
amended plan, and so on” (10). The field of translation studies is “a house of many rooms” (11)
that allows for a variety of perspectives when carrying out the “multi-faceted activity” of
translation (13). In recent years, “critical linguistics”, with its emphasis on revealing the
“ideology” of texts (their tacit assumptions, beliefs, and value systems), has become of increasing
importance with respect to both “translation ideology” and “the ideology of translation” (13).

4.3.2 Chapter 2

Chapter 2 (From linguistic systems to cultures in contact) explores the influence of the “equivalence
paradigm” and its contribution to early translation studies, with special reference to Catford’s
formal linguistic (“translation shift”) model as compared with Nida’s sociolinguistic (“dynamic
equivalence”) approach. Contrary to the views expressed by many contemporary translation
theorists, Hatim (correctly) concludes that “in terms of general relevance, the categories and
techniques proposed by Nida have stood the test of time and proved to be applicable not only to
Bible translation (for which they might have been primarily intended) but also to other text
types. . . . research into other genres can also benefit from the wealth of insights which Nida’s
work has provided over the years” (25). One prominent example of this is Nida’s practice-driven
linguistic “process model”, consisting of the three steps of analysis, transfer, and restructuring (26-
27). Hatim might have gone further in this survey to document Nida’s (and others’) later
refinements from “dynamic” to “functional” equivalence translating.

4.3.3 Chapter 3

Chapter 3 (Equivalence: Pragmatic and textual criteria) deals with the equivalence paradigm in
terms of more detailed textual as well as pragmatic developments. Several important
“equivalence frameworks” are discussed, in particular, the text-based translation models of Koller
and de Beaugrande. This “textuality” turn in translation theory introduced new notions such as
textual “dynamism” (evaluativeness and markedness), communicative contexts, effectiveness and
appropriateness, intertextuality, semiotic macro-structures, and the “genre-text-discourse” socio-
textual triad (39). Included in this chapter (somewhat surprisingly perhaps) is an overview of Gutt’s
cognitive linguistic, inferential approach known as “relevance theory”, with its emphasis on
cognitive “context”, including the pragmatic pairing of conceptual effort and reward (“contextual
effects”), and its distinction between “direct” and “indirect” translation with respect to how a
source text’s “communicative clues” are handled in a given target text (TT). Hatim concludes
that the RT perspective tends to be “too sharply binary” in its categorization and also begs this
fundamental question: “If maximizing relevance for a different audience is held to be the ideal

86
in translation, why exclude from the theory those translation practices defined as descriptive,
whose very purpose is to maximize relevance?” (47).

4.3.4 Chapter 4

Chapter 4 (Cultural studies and translator invisibility) takes up a number of sometimes controversial
issues in translation studies that concern the cultural factor and the degree to which this should
either be either “foreignized” or “domesticated” in the transfer process. On the one hand, some
theorists (e.g., Venuti, Gentzler, Berman) argue that in order to retain the “visibility” of the
translator and the cultural distinctiveness of the original work, certain prominent formal features
ought to be retained via a more correspondent rendition. This issue also comes to the fore in the
case of “sacred and sensitive texts”, such as the Scriptures, where the question is: “should
outward form be preserved, and what are the wider implications of such decisions?” (49). On
the other hand, there are those who prefer to adopt a liberal “deconstructionist” agenda (à la
Derrida) and thus to view ST meaning as “unstable” and translation process as inevitably
involving a “transformation” (rather than a “transfer”) process that must cater for the world view
and value system of the target audience. This concern leads to a discussion of a prominent case
in point, namely, “gendered translation” and “the feminist paradigm”, which may be “thought
of as a practice in visibility [where] the cardinal concepts are: production, subversion,
manipulation, ‘transformance’” of ST meaning and the purging of all “patriarchal language” (57-
58). However, as Hatim points out, “the process of transfer is, after all, not a theorist’s dream. It
is an assumption which all readers of translations make”, whether that happens to be a
convenient illusion or not (57). In any case, the more recent “cultural turn” in translation (49)
has added another option in addition to a TL version being either (relatively) “literal” or “free”
with respect to the ST’s form and content. The alternative is “neither”, and the translator
accordingly assumes an “authorial role” as s/he “subverts” the original text in the process of “re-
writing” it (58-59).

4.3.5 Chapter 5

Chapter 5 (From word to text and beyond) explores several of the primary subjects treated in the
preceding chapter in somewhat greater detail, in particular, “the cultural turn” and “translation
as a re-writing process” (68). There is not a great deal of new material here; for example, Holmes’
notion of “translation as metatext” (writing about another text) might have been included in
chapter 1, while the distinction between “modernizing” and “historicizing” translation could
have been covered in chapter 4. The same goes for Lefevre’s proposals for a “manipulative”
ideological re-writing of the ST, yet one that is based somehow on an “image” of the original
author and his (her) work (68-69). However, Hatim makes this significant observation: “The
general trend in translation studies is clearly towards cultural rather than linguistic transfer”
(67), which makes the issue of the translator’s personal (or institutional) “ideology” in keeping
with current socio-cultural (also –political?) norms and conventions (71) one of increasing
interest and, in some quarters, also growing concern.

4.3.6 Chapter 6

Chapter 6 (Literary and cultural constraints) covers issues relating to two important branches of
translation studies: polysystem theory and Skopos theory. The former (e.g., Even-Zohar) proposes
that all of the recognized varieties (genres, etc.) within a culture’s entire literary system are in a
state of changing interaction, with some text-types or traditions being more prominent and
influential than others. “Translated works usually occupy a peripheral position” (74), especially
in societies having a wealth of published literature, but they can assume much greater
importance, for example in a culture where an indigenous written tradition is young or
considered to be inferior to what is available in some more prestigious language. In any case,
87
translators must always pay careful attention to the literary norms, models, and trends that are
current and well-received in the TL. “Descriptive Translation Studies” (DTS, e.g., Toury) is a non-
evaluative (anti-equivalence) approach that seeks to document these standards, conventions, and
varied literary interactions, as well as to suggest where the society seems to be moving in these
different respects and why. From a DTS perspective, “questions such as the acceptability of a
translation as translation, and whether the translation is central or peripheral within the overall
conceptual map [of a literary system], far outweigh considerations of correspondence and
linguistic or aesthetic compatibility of source and target versions” (77).

The factor of translation purpose then comes to the fore in the functionalist movement best
represented by “Skopos [Greek, ‘goal’] theory” (e.g., Reiss, Vermeer, Nord). “The theory holds
that the way the target text eventually shapes up is determined to a great extent by the function,
or ‘skopos’, intended for it in the target context” (79). The broad parameters of Skopos theory
distinguishes three kinds of “purpose” (communicative, strategic, general), two types of
“coherence” (intratextual, intertextual), and three types of “text” (informative, expressive,
operative) (80-84). Other important features are notions such as “translational action” (e.g.,
Holz-Mänttäri, involving a set of translation “roles and players”, 83), “loyalty” with respect both
ST author and proposed TT audience, and “adequacy” in terms of being “adequate for the job”,
namely, the translation “brief”, or stipulated job commission (83). Almost as an aside, Hatim
observes in this discussion that “at no stage has equivalence been abandoned or text classification
altogether jettisoned” (86), thus upholding these more traditional translation values. Hatim
concludes this chapter, the last of Section I, with a summary of closely-related linguistic
approaches that inform and enrich his view of contemporary translation theory-practice:
contrastive analysis, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, text linguistics, culture
studies, gender studies, and literature at large (87-91).

4.3.7 Chapter 7

Chapter 7 (Register-oriented research models) begins Section II, which revisits many of the
translation topics discussed in Section I, but with a more focused discussion now of some helpful
research models and methods. Hatim begins by summarizing his threefold focus on
“communicative transaction” (register), “pragmatic action” (intentionality, implicature), and
“semiotic interaction” (text, discourse, genre) (96). Translation dichotomies continue to be
relevant in TS, but these constructs have been refined by developments such as Skopos theory
and translation strategy, e.g., Nord’s “documentary” (more formal) versus “instrumental” (freer)
approaches (99), and methods of “quality assessment”, based on functional distinctions with
regard to “text” as well as “language” and “strategies” such as House’s distinction between
“covert” (TT-oriented) and “overt” (ST-oriented) methods. Hatim observes that “a great deal of
Bible translation also falls within this [covert] strategy, and the cultural substance of the biblical
text is often relativized to make the biblical message more accessible” (103). However, such a
more “domesticating” approach does not seem to be as popular in 21st century practice, at least
not in English, and one wonders what the situation is nowadays in other major (national,
“official”, etc.) language settings.

4.3.8 Chapter 8

Chapter 8 (The pragmatics turn in research) essentially reviews translation strategy with reference
to the various pragmatic dimensions of relevance theory, to begin with, the problematic (my
term) distinction between “indirect” and “direct” translation. Hatim poses another critical query
for the proponents of RT: “What if the translator is particularly concerned with the style as well
as the content of the message to be translated (that is, what if a translation situation involves the
translator in dealing not only with what is said but also with how it is said)” (110). This leads to
a discussion of the more important notion of stylistic “communicative clues” in translation—that
88
is, “not just properties of the text, but features built into the text for the purpose of guiding the
audience to the intended interpretation” (112). One wonders, however, just by what means or
on what basis are translators to arrive at such crucial discernment? Surely a considerable
competence, even expertise, in both the SL and the various genres of ST would be required.
Various types of potential communicative clue are then surveyed, including those that pertain to
a text’s phonology, poetics, onomatopoeia (which would seem to be just a sub-category),
semantic representations (pertaining to the “cognitive environment” underlying both the ST and
the TT, 115), formulaic expressions, syntax (including deliberate structural patterns), and
connotation (including issues that pertain to “register, dialect, accent”, 118). In the case of RT’s
preferred type of rendition, a “direct translation”, there is a “need on the part of the target
audience to familiarize themselves with the context assumed by the original communicator”
(118). One major omission from Hatim’s overview of pragmatic strategies is one that has, like
RT, been further developed in the actual practice of Bible translation, namely, the contextualized
“frames of reference” approach, as informed by cognitive linguistics.

4.3.9 Chapter 9

Chapter 9 (Focus on the text) returns to further develop certain translation-related applications of
Hatim’s specialized field of text-linguistics, for example, pragmatic semiotics, the notion of a
hierarchy of textual correspondences, semantic redundancy versus salience, degrees of discourse
dynamism, and how all of these factors interact in the activity of “text processing” (121-126). As
a practicing translation consultant and teacher, I found this overview to be particularly helpful,
including a listing of the principal “standards of textuality” (cohesion, coherence, situationality,
intertextuality, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, 127) and the dynamic feature of “text
hybridization” involving “managing” (argumentation) as distinct from “monitoring” (exposition)
(128). The “genre-text-triad” is explored again in relation to the text-rhetorical conventions of
appropriateness, argument strategies, and deeply embedded social attitudes, or “mentifacts”
(131-133). This leads to a brief consideration of some “pitfalls in researching ideology” (e.g.,
distortions, determinism, over-generalisations) (134-136), which paves the way for the next
chapter.

4.3.10 Chapter 10

Chapter 10 (Translation and ideology) deals with the important distinction between the ideology
of translation versus ideology in translation (or translation of ideology). The latter focuses on
“how ‘ideology’ in the text to be translated is dealt with, and how best to convey this in
translation” (138). The “ideology of translation”, on the other hand, investigates “how
translations are made, or how they sound [perceptually], which shows allegiance to a particular
translation method or tradition” (139). A pronounced ideological bias or bent will influence both
which texts are selected for translation and also how they are rendered. After an exemplifying
case study, or “model for analysis” (141-144), Hatim turns to a summary of “a feminist
perspective” and several important ideologically-based “strategies” that may be manifested
therein. These can be “author-centered” (e.g., commentary, resistancy, framing, annotation, 147-
148) or “translator-centered” (e.g., commentary, parallel texts, collaboration, 148-149). In
conclusion, Hatim makes the astute observation that “in declaring her hand, however, the
feminist translator runs the risk of usurping textual power, an activity in which her male
colleague has arguably been engaged for a long time” (149).

4.3.11 Chapter 11

Chapter 11 (Translation of genre vs translation as genre) parallels the discussion of the preceding
chapter with reference to the subject of literary “genre”, as viewed from the perspective of
applied linguistics as well as cultural studies. The term genre refers to “conventional forms of
89
text associated with particular types of communicative events”, e.g., news reports, editorials,
cooking recipes (287)—even Bible translations! The concept of genre may thus serve as a macro-
sign that provides translators with an overall framework “within which appropriateness is judged
and the various syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and semiotic structures handled” (152); this is the
“translation of genre”, a text-linguistic issue. On the other hand, a particular translation may be
evaluated on the basis of how closely it approximates what translated material in the language
normally looks or sounds like; that is “translation as genre”, a translational issue (152). Both of
these issues are of critical concern in the training of translators as well as in the preparation of
effective training materials for translators. Hatim illustrates this by a consideration of the various
norms (of higher-order) and conventions (a lower parameter) that have been used in translation
studies (e.g., by Toury and Nord), both in translator training programs and also in the scholarly
description and evaluation of published translations. “Professional norms”, for example, pertain
to “the accepted methods and strategies of the translation process” according to conventional
criteria such as accountability (ethical norm), communicability (social norm), and relationship
(intertextual norm) (160). Each of these would be important considerations in drawing up the job
commission (brief) for any Bible translation project.

4.3.12 Chapter 12

Chapter 12 (Empirical research in translation studies) outlines and evaluates the current status of
“corpus research” and “process research”. The former utilizes three main kinds of language
“corpora” (parallel bilingual, multilingual, and comparable) to investigate possible “translation
universals” (163). For example, it is hypothesized that translations tend to exhibit particular
stylistic patterns, to be more explicit, to incorporate more disambiguation, to be more
standardized, and to favor certain common TL usages (164). After a brief appraisal of such corpus
studies and their relevance for translation (165), Hatim makes a similar review and assessment
of “process research”, which seeks to probe the mental activities and strategies involved in
translating (166). Two main types of mental self-examination are used, namely, “Think Aloud
Protocols” (TAP) and “Immediate Retrospection” (IR), and these may have either a
psycholinguistic or a pedagogical orientation (166). The latter, for example, might take the form
of generalized “self-reporting”, step-by-step “self-observation”, or “self-revelation” through free
association (167). Hatim notes that such process research tends to be “incomplete” and suggests
that more “text-type criteria” (e.g., genre, discourse) needs to be included in the total
investigation process (171-172).

4.3.13 Chapter 13

Chapter 13 (Theory and practice in translation teaching) is a more lengthy treatment of topics such
as problem-based learning, translation didactics, error-identification pedagogy, and curriculum
design, which would be of great interest to translation teachers and language instructors alike.
Hatim begins this important unit with a listing of crucial 11 questions, such as, “Are translators
or interpreters [we must not forget this dimension of interlingual communication] born or made?” –
“What should be tested and how should it be tested?” (174). Any serious translator-training
program would need to reference the queries on this list when its curriculum is being established
and evaluated. Hatim then considers the important issue of “directionality” in translation: Should
translators work from their mother-tongue (language A) into a foreign language (B) or vice-
versa—or, does it make no difference at all if one is certifiably “competent” in both A and B?
The central issue may be summarized as follows: The main difficulty in translating into A is one
of comprehending the source text, B, “since it is much easier to handle one’s first language’s
linguistic and textual resources”; on the other hand, when translating into B, the real difficulty
pertains to linguistic composition, since coping with comprehending the source text, A, “poses
little if any difficulty” (178). Would these correlates have any relevant application to advanced level
teachers of biblical Hebrew (despite its being a “dead language”)?
90
 Hatim moves to a consideration of the differences between language teaching and translation
teaching, with special reference to the factor of “translation errors”—their nature (“an error
typology”), evaluation, and research potential (179-181). Several proposed “text typologies” for
use in translation teaching are then evaluated with respect to scope (inclusiveness) and utility
(practicality of use), e.g., Emery (1991), Loh (1958), Chau (1984), Adab (1996), and one
recommended by the author, Hervey-Higgins (1992), which features a “problem-based”
approach that “focuses on the solution of real problems” (191). Finally, Hatim comparatively
describes and assesses his own Practical Guide to English-Arabic-English translation (1997),
which also espouses a discovery-oriented, problem-solving methodology based, not surprisingly,
on text-typology (instruction, argumentation, and exposition). This is a graded didactic approach
that moves from works that are “least to most evaluative” with respect to core issues such as
cohesion, coherence, theme-rheme progression, modality, and text structure in relation to its
function (193).

4.3.14 Chapter 14

Chapter 14 (Action and reflection in practitioner research) begins Section III of Teaching and
Researching Translation. This presents “a conceptual map for doing research in translation studies,
with such areas as register, text, genre, and discourse analysis occupying centre stage” (199). A
nine-step problem-solving method, the “action/practitioner research cycle”, is first summarized
(201-203) and then applied with various emphases to a sequence of suggested topics and research
questions. These engage diverse text-types and sociocultural contexts by means of 14 distinct
study-projects (including aims, procedures, evaluation, and further research), which
conveniently cover the book’s main subject areas and critical issues, such as ideology, textology,
pragmatics, discourse practices, genre norms. Virtually all of the key topics considered in the
preceding chapters helpfully appear for review in applied fashion in this section (203-233), which
could form the basis for any comprehensive course in advanced translation techniques and
research methods.

4.3.15 Chapter 15

Chapter 15 (Setting a teaching and research agenda: The case of style translation) highlights the title
of this book in another practical review of its constituent topics and concerns, but now with
specific reference to the all-important, but often inadequately discussed subject of “style”.
Hatim’s aim is to present a broader, text-linguistic and pragmatic treatment which at the same
time proposes a more adequate “framework for teaching and researching ‘style in translation’”
(234). Three introductory sections that review salient issues pertaining to literal translation,
textual dynamism (markedness), and register theory lead up to a consideration of “the ubiquitous
nature of style” (241) by means of a series of documented “cases studies” (241-258) and
“exemplar research projects” (259-263), all of which are based on well-known published literary
works. This pedagogical perspective is reflected at the outset in Hatim’s functional definition of
style “in terms of how the various ‘non-ordinary’, marked, expectation-defying features of
ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings tend to contribute to the way genres, discourses
or texts evolve (i.e. establish and assert their identity” (244, although the term “evolve” seems to
be misplaced in view of the purpose-dominated focus of this book, i.e., texts do not evolve, but rather
are “created”—or “composed”, for a less theological term—in keeping with a specific author’s subject
area, envisaged audience, and communicative objectives).

4.4 Conclusion

Towards the end of his impressive presentation and exemplification of a concrete, linguistically
grounded approach to the study of translation theory, practice, pedagogy, and research, Hatim
makes the following concluding observations. In the light of much scholarly writing in the field
91
of contemporary translation studies, these opinions are bound to be controversial and perhaps
even roundly disputed, but they are experience-informed conclusions that I would also fully
subscribe to: “As we near the end of this tour through translation studies’ ‘house of many rooms’,
we cannot help but notice how we are conceptually turning full circle back to where we started,
to Catford, Nida and Koller, and to such basic distinctions such as ‘formal’ as opposed to
‘dynamic’ or ‘pragmatic’ equivalence, all revolving around the age-old distinction ‘free’ as
opposed to ‘literal’ translation. . . . Equivalence is that unique intertextual relation that only
translations, among all conceivable text types, are expected to show” (258-259). Like any
national currency or monetary standard, equivalence is that convenient, albeit ill-defined, perhaps
indefinable “standard” that translators and theorists alike must simply accept and reference out
of expediency, if they are to function effectively at all.

92
 5. The Social Sciences and a “Foreignizing,” Functional
Equivalence Bible Translation

5.1 Summary

This review article is written with general reference to a recently published collection of essays
dealing with “the social sciences and biblical translation” (D. Neufeld, ed., 2008) and with special
reference to the introductory essay on “foreignizing translation” by R. L. Rohrbaugh. There is no
doubt that a study of the social sciences is essential as background preparation for any type of
translation of the Scriptures, whether more or less literal/free in nature. However, it is necessary
to correct or to clarify some of the notions of modern translation theory and practice that this
volume seems to propound, Rohrbaugh’s contribution in particular. I also suggest that the latter’s
concept of a “foreignizing” translation might be usefully combined with a “functional
equivalence” approach to produce a version that can satisfy many a contemporary target
audience, no matter what the language and culture concerned. For an Old Testament example, I
briefly refer to the conceptualization and translation of ‫ ְּב ִ רית‬in the Chewa language of Malawi
and Zambia.

5.2 Overview of the argument

Neufeld summarizes his enterprise in this volume and that of fellow SBL members of “The Context
Group: Project on the Bible in its Cultural Environment” (CG) as follows (2008:5-6):

To mitigate the forces of social distance, the CG has set itself the task of first
understanding and describing the social context of the biblical texts by using
Mediterranean anthropology and then, armed with this information, to interpret and
provide new translations of a selection of biblical texts and Dead Sea Scrolls. Each of the
following essays proceeds by a close analysis of particular passages selected from within
the ancient context understood by the use of social-scientific ideas and insights. The
stated aim of each of the essays is to understand what meanings these passages would
have had to their original, ancient audiences.

The agenda of the CG is ostensibly set forth in the first essay, where Rohrbaugh promotes “what
he calls a foreignizing translation—‘a deliberate attempt to stage a culturally alien reading
experience that avoids the prevalent ethnocentrism common in Western translations’” (Neufeld
2008:6). To illustrate this point, eight subsequent essays tackle a variety of lexical-semantic
issues pertaining to “the social systems that the language of the New Testament encodes”
(Neufeld 2008:6). Among the topics included are (in brief): “grace” (χάρις) in relation to
patronage and benefaction, excommunication as a ritualized group response to pollution (1 Cor
5:1-5), sin and forgiveness as representing social release and status reinstatement (Mk 2:1-12),
the socio-economic implications of being “rich” or “poor” (James), “zeal” as distinct from
“jealousy” and “envy” in the Scriptures (OT and NT), a “meaning-response” approach to
interpreting the sickness and healing reports in Matthew, an “anthropologically-informed”
understanding of the Hebrew notion of “heart” (lev), and the use of “anti-language” in Qumranic
legal documents (e.g., Leviticus in 4QMMT).

All of the essays in this monograph are clearly written and well documented. Although I
cannot agree with all of the specific conclusions reached,268 I do accept that valid, at times rather

For example, “Translating πλούσιος as ‘greedy rich person’ and πτωχός as ‘degraded poor person’
268

would better reflect the moral and social connotations of these words” (Batten 2008:76). Neither term
93
important, exegetical and translational issues have been raised,269 which in most cases are fairly
argued, that is, without ideological bias. In addition to demonstrating the importance of a “social-
scientific” approach for Bible translators, the various Scripture examples discussed in the essays
offer a place for translators to begin to test out the suggestions made in relation to the drafts that
they are either preparing or in the process of revising. In either case, this comparative exercise
is well worth the effort and will no doubt change, modify, or sharpen some of the renderings that
they have previously agreed upon.270

In his concluding response to the selection of essays presented in The social sciences and
biblical translation (hereafter, SSBT), Sandys-Wunch raises several important points of a critical
nature:

 “In the case of ancient societies the application of social-scientific theory is limited by the paucity
of data” (2008:141). Therefore, its assumptions and claims cannot always be made as strongly or
categorically as its practitioners are at times wont to do.271 Furthermore, the various conclusions
arrived at by the application of social-scientific criticism need to be carefully tested and confirmed
by other scholarly methods (e.g., cognitive linguistics, lexical semantics, discourse analysis), as is
the case for all ground-breaking (especially novel) text-critical and hermeneutical proposals.

 Second, it is not accurate to imply that social-scientific theory and practice has been around and
active for only the past three decades or so (Rohrbaugh 2008:24). Sandys-Wunch lists a number
of respected older scholars who utilized “the social sciences as a means of understanding the
Bible,” and suggests that “for the sake of their readers” modern critics “should lift their mortar
boards to pay tribute to the admonitions of Ecclesiastes, who claimed that there was nothing new
under the sun, as well as those of Jesus ben Sirach, who advised readers to praise famous men and
our fathers who begat us” (2008:141).

would work out very well in James 2:5-6, for example, even if the intention were to produce a “foreignized”
rendition.
269
For example, “[T]he polysemous nature of such terms as those of the ‫ קנא‬and ζῆλος word
families requires for their understanding close attention to the literary and social contexts in which they
are embedded and employed. … When this is done…it becomes clearer than heretofore when the terms
have the sense of zeal or jealousy or envy. … Distinguishing between biblical instances of jealousy and
envy should be particularly helpful to modern Bible readers who usually equate the terms in everyday
parlance” (Elliott 2008:94).
270
For example, “While contemporary interest tends to focus on the sickness events in these healing
reports [in Matthew], the main point seems to be rather the power (ἐξουσία) of those who can overcome
them. The Greek word can be translated both authority (e.g., Matt 7:29, Jesus teaches with authority) and
power (e.g., Matt 8:8, Jesus has power to heal a paralytic… Most translations consistently translate the
word as authority” (Pilch 2008:106). The old Chewa formal correspondence translation does, in fact, use
“authority” (lit., ‘rulership’ ulamuliro) in Mt 9:8, whereas the new popular language version has “power”
(mphamvu).
271
For example, “The meanings that the writers of the New Testament exchanged with their
contemporary audiences were rooted in the social systems that enveloped them” (Neufeld 2008:1). Yes,
but that was not the sole hermeneutical factor involved; there was at least one other conceptual system
that provided an essential interpretive frame of reference for correcting perceiving and construing NT texts
(then and now), namely, the Old Testament (LXX) Scriptures and other popular Jewish-oriented religious
literature of the age, oral (e.g., the Mishnah) as well as written.
94
  Finally, there is the issue of occasionally over-generalized technical terminology, for example,
“Mediterranean anthropology,” which is “often used in this book”; such “[g]eneralizations can
easily turn into a snare and a delusion, for they give the illusion of knowledge rather than its
substance” (Sandys-Wunch 2008:142). This problem is both geographical, being too restricted as
far as potential cultural influence on the diverse writings of Scripture are concerned, and also
chronological, since considerable culture change was manifested over the period of time during
which the different books of the Hebrew canon, in particular, were composed.272 Furthermore, “to
refer to Israelite culture as one of shame and honor,” is problematic because “[s]hame and honor
exist in many cultures to the point that one would be hard-pressed to find a group devoid of these
very human characteristics” (2008:143). A glossary of key social-scientific classificatory and
analytical terms would have helped to alleviate some of these difficulties.

5.3 What is a “biblical translation”?

In this section I will draw attention to several criticisms that arise in connection with the implicit
claim of SSBT to deal (adequately) with the field of “biblical translation.” In the first place, there
is a problem with the ambiguous nature of this designation in the book’s title: Is the crucial
qualifier “biblical” a comparative term, i.e., a translation like that found within the Bible, or
objective, i.e., a translation of the Bible itself? Or, do the included essays purport to investigate
whether a particular translation is “biblical” in a qualitative sense, that is, acceptable according
to some recognized scriptural norm, standard, or set of criteria? The editor’s “Introduction” (1-
9) would seem to indicate that the second, most general sense is meant, but perhaps the third
possibility (not discussed) is actually closer to what these essays intend to do. This is to expose
the flaws of Bible translations that do not adopt a social-scientific approach, namely, “the role of
anthropological concepts in interpreting the Bible,” and also fail to consider the potential
“relationships of cultural power and dominance and subordination” (Neufeld 2008:2), which are
inevitably involved in the process of translating the Bible in different world settings.

But there is another misleading aspect about the title of this monograph. All of the essays
deal exclusively with English Bible translations; versions in other languages are not considered at
all, which is a significant limitation that should have been noted somewhere in the Introduction.
Furthermore, there is an apparent edge in the critical evaluation of at least some of the essayists
in that they wish to expose “the prevalent ethnocentrism common in Western translations”
(Rohrbaugh 2008:11) and a “[r]eading [of] the Bible from a North American perspective [which]
has emasculated it of its foreignness” (Neufeld 2008:1). According to L Venuti, such an
adversarial approach “is highly desirable today, a strategic cultural intervention in the current
state of world affairs, pitched against the hegemonic English-language nations and the unequal
cultural exchanges in which they engage their global others” (1995:20, cited by Rohrbaugh
2008:14).273 Is such strong rhetoric, bordering on the political, necessary to make one’s case?274

272
The focus of the monograph under review is clearly the literature of the New Testament, but
over a third of the biblical text references in the Index of Ancient Writings (Neufeld 2008:171-178) is to
Old Testament books as well as to those of the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
273
“Venuti’s brilliant but aggressively anti-Christian treatment leads him apparently to dismiss all
functional-equivalent Bible translations as ‘imposing the English-language valorization of transparent
discourse on every foreign culture’ (The Translator’s Invisibility, 21)” (Ellingworth 2007:322; cf. Rohrbaugh
2008:14).
274
Venuti can be even more acerbic in promoting his translation agenda as a form of “resistance
against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of democratic
geopolitical relations” (1995:20). Translation strategy “is thus made to fit into the framework and context
95
Perhaps, but on the other hand it is strange, to say the least, that this forceful argument is made
with sole reference to Bible translations in English, as if nothing else were going on in the field
of translation in any other major (let alone “minor”) world language, not even French, Spanish,
Portuguese, or Chinese!

This inadequate perspective on Bible translation is further revealed in the overly limited
scope of SSBT’s consideration of contemporary practitioners and their works, whether theoretical
or practical (i.e., “how to…”) in nature. The only Bible translation theorist seriously considered
in this entire volume is E. A. Nida, and a critique of his “dynamic equivalence” approach is
restricted to Rohrbaugh’s essay (see below). Even then, only a handful of Nida’s corpus of “over
40 books and more than 250 articles” (Porter 2005:6) are referred to, let alone meaningfully
engaged with in the critical discussion. In fact, the critics might be surprised to learn that Nida’s
view of the importance of culture in the process of interlingual communication is rather close to
their own perspective, for example:275

It is not accommodation of ideas which is needed, but mutual comprehension. To

accomplish this we must understand the real role of language and appreciate the
significance of anthropological insights in the world views of others. … Words only have
meanings in terms of the culture of which they are a part. Language is a part of culture.
Therefore, we have to understand the culture(s)…is we’re going to understand what the
[biblical] writers were trying to say.

And Nida is just one of a host of more recent Bible translation theorists who have critically
developed his functionalist approach as well as offered some new alternatives, and who might
have therefore been consulted in order to fulfill the promise of this monograph’s title, e.g., Wilt
2003 (“frames of reference”) and Gutt 2000 (“relevance theory”).276 It is indeed disappointing to
observe what little the writers of these essays have done to familiarize themselves with current
developments in the field and to confront or challenge these notions in their various applied
studies of social-scientific theory, for example, with regard to the influential “semantic domain
dictionary of Biblical Hebrew,” currently being produced under the direction of R de Blois (see
Wilt & Wendland 2008: ch. 7).277

5.4 Can a “foreignizing translation” also be “functionally equivalent”?

As we look more specifically then into Rohrbaugh’s essay on “foreignizing translation,” a rather
notable lack of precision becomes immediately apparent. This manifests itself particularly in the
categorical and undiscriminating manner in which the practice of contemporary Bible translation
is described as well as evaluated (2008:11, italics added):

It has become a commonplace in New Testament studies to say that there are two
alternatives when it comes to biblical translation: so-called literal or formal correspondence

of late 20th century ethics, as seen from a specifically Anglo-American perspective” (Snell-Hornby
2006:146). As Stephen Pattemore observes: “[I]t is obvious that the main issues presented by Venuti’s
critique are ethical rather than having to do with translation theory. Whether to produce foreignizing or
domesticating translations is an ethical choice, as is the decision to produce a translation of the Bible at
all” (2007:234, original italics).
275
This citation of Nida is found in Watt 2005:28. A more recent work of Nida that might have
addressed some of the concerns of his critics with regard to sociocultural analysis is Nida 1996.
276
It would have been most informative, for example, for the contributors of SSBT to have first
read the recent encyclopedic anthology giving “a history of Bible translation” edited by P. Noss (2007).
277
For further information on this project, which applies cognitive linguistic theory to biblical
Hebrew lexicography, see the project website at http://www.sdbh.org/; cf. also de Blois (2000).
96
 (between source language and target language) on the one hand, and functional, or
dynamic equivalence on the other…”

Since “neither [of the preceding] addresses the issue of the cultural otherness of the Bible,”
Rohrbaugh has an older alternative to propose, namely, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s (1813)
metaphoric dichotomy representing the conceptual distance between a biblical author and his
readers (citing Venuti 1995:20):

In my opinion there are only two [roads open to the translator]: Either the translator
leaves the author in peace as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he
leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.

Rohrbaugh adds: “In other words, it is simply a question of who is going abroad, the author or
his reader” (2008:14). However, as most Bible translation theorists and practitioners nowadays
know from personal experience, this issue is never “simple” in terms of either planning a new
project or successfully implementing it,278 that is, in view of the main target audience, primary
communicative purpose (Skopos), and guiding job commission (Brief).279 Furthermore, they
recognize that the reality for most project organizers is much more complicated than this
seemingly straightforward either-or scenario. Rather, the challenge is to carefully investigate the
specific nature of the “translation continuum” which presents itself in a given cultural setting
and sociolinguistic set of circumstances and in the light of this to organize one’s program by
means of extensive education and communal “negotiation” (cf. Wendland 2004:88-90; Wilt &
Wendland 2008:ch. 4).

Rohrbaugh rightly draws attention to the difficulties inherent in the expressed aim of Nida
and Taber’s “dynamic equivalence approach” (1969), namely, to generate “a response in the
reader of the translation similar to that produced in a reader of the original language” (2008:12).
The inadequacy of this perspective has been pointed out by Bible translation theorists for many
years already—so much so that it is generally not even referred to anymore (cf. Pattemore
2007:219-222). However, Rohrbaugh does not seem to appreciate the modifications made in
Nida’s later work, for example, the distinction between “dynamic equivalence” and “functional
equivalence” (viz., “functional or dynamic equivalence,” 2008:11, italics added). The latter
method is based upon a more sophisticated and nuanced “sociosemiotic approach to the meaning
of verbal signs [which] always involves the total communication of an event within the social
context” (de Waard and Nida 1986:73, 36):

An expression in any language consists of a set of forms which serve to signal meaning on
various levels: lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical. The translator must seek to employ a
functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible will match the meaning of
the original source language text.280

278
For example, an experienced Bible translator, consultant, and commentator, J Ellington, exposes
the fallacy of “Schleiermacher’s false dilemma” as follows: “Any attempt by translators to take the reader
all the way to the writer is doomed to frustrate and alienate the average reader. Yet any endeavor to take
the writer all the way to the reader risks trivializing the message and creating disinterest” (2003:217; cited
in Ellingworth 2007:310). Ellingworth later illustrates the point with this pair of diverse examples
(2007:322): “…whether to transliterate βαπτίζω or to translate it, and whether to render ἀνάκειμαι as
‘recline’ or ‘sit’ in cultures where one sits at table to eat.”
279
The technical terms Skopos and Brief and their definitions, which I have adopted, come from
the Functionalist School of translation, popularized by C Nord (e.g., 1997; cf. Wendland 2004:50-53).
280
Various “rhetorical processes” (or stylistic techniques), like repetition, compaction, rhythmic
composition, etc., are employed in a given language “[t]o accomplish the rhetorical functions of wholeness,
aesthetic appeal, impact, appropriateness, coherence, progression-cohesion, focus, and emphasis…” (de
Waard and Nida 1986:86).
97
 Thus, not only the affective function of communication is investigated and assessed in
translation, as implied in a dynamic equivalence approach, but all of the “communicative goals”
that may be clearly identified in the source-language message, e.g., informative, expressive,
textual, artistic, etc. (Wilt 2003:60; cf. Wendland 2004:310), or to take this principle to a more
specific level of analysis, all of the pragmatically-motivated “speech acts” (illocution—locution—
perlocution) that are manifested in the biblical document at hand (Wendland 2004:214-224). A
“functionally-equivalent” methodology then, as enriched by a “frames of reference” cognitive
perspective (Wilt 2003:74-80; Wilt & Wendland 2008),281 would seek to reproduce the distinctive
function-marking forms (stylistic signals, “communicative clues”)282 of the original text by using
corresponding forms in the target-language that are linguistically natural and appropriate for the
genre concerned (e.g., narrative, lyric, prophetic, epistolary, etc. discourse).

It should be pointed out that Rohrbaugh’s trenchant critique of contemporary “biblical

translating” is not limited to Nidan “dynamic equivalence” approaches, though that remains the
focus of his attention. It extends also to the practice of “literal or formal correspondence,” which
“may restrain some of the hegemonic tendencies inherent in the drive for English fluency, but it
does nothing to ensure that the translator understands the cultural values implicit in the source
language sufficiently well to make appropriate translation choices” (2008:13). So what is
proposed as an alternative? It is a “foreignizing translation,” which may be characterized as
follows (2008:13, 15-16):

[It is] “a theory and practice of translation that resists dominant target-language cultural
values so as to signify the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text” (Venuti
1995:23). … [F]oreignizing translation, in order to stage an alien reading experience that
sends the reader abroad, is the other option. The author is left in peace (i.e., respected).

But is it really possible to leave the biblical author totally “in peace” through this, or any other
translation strategy? Such would seem to be an impossible dream as long as the English (French,
Spanish, German, etc.) language (and the culture it encodes) is used as a medium of
communication! The lexical signs encoding the text will always evoke, to a greater or lesser
extent, the mental scenario that is culturally most familiar to the person who is reading/hearing
the translation, whether an American, an African, or an American who has lived for most of his
life in Africa.283

Take the extended example (“reading scenario”) of “barrenness” (στεῖρα) with reference to
Luke 1:36 which Rohrbaugh offers to illustrate his point, namely, “…that English-speaking

281
The “frames of reference” model offers a more extensive and Bible translation-specific
conceptual structure than the “scenario theory” proposed by Rohrbaugh (2008:14-15). In this respect too
Bible translation theorists have moved significantly beyond the “propositional model” that he alleges
underlies the methods of dynamic equivalence as well as formal correspondence (2008:14). Thus, five
major overlapping and integrated cognitive frames of reference are posited: sociocultural, organizational,
conversational, textual, and lexical (Wilt & Wendland 2008: chs. 1-7), and these in turn may be further
differentiated, e.g., sociolinguistic frames, or “schemas,” into scripts (dialogue types), scenarios (event
sequences), and sketches (character/object profiles) (Wendland 2006:19-22).
282
Within the framework of “relevance theory,” “[t]he linguistic properties of the source text
functioned as communicative clues from which the original readers could infer the author’s intended
meaning” (Smith 2002:110, italics added).
283
Thus the terms πλούσιος “rich person” and πτωχός as “poor person” would undoubtedly evoke
a different pair of images for the American as distinct from an African speaker of English, also when the
qualifications “greedy” and “degraded” respectively are added, as suggested by Batten (2008:76). The
question (requiring further research) is whether these attributes actually help the reader/hearer to better
understand “the moral and social connotations of these words” in their original Ancient Near Eastern
setting and as used in the book of James. That is very doubtful in either case without the provision some
accompanying descriptive and/or explanatory information.
98
Westerners are unlikely to conjure up the mental pictures or scenarios needed to complete a text
in the same way as would a reader from the ancient Mediterranean world” (2008:20): He
provides an excellent social-scientific study of this concept and concludes (2008:22):

[S]tigmatization and ostracism from the community of other women were all too often
the childless woman’s lot. The worst part of it was the public humiliation, regularly
understood as the action of God. … In an honor-shame society such as ancient Israel, the
consequences of such humiliation could be a heavy burden, frequently affecting an entire
extended family. All would share in the shame visited upon their barren relative.

Now an African audience or readership could understand such a concept and appreciate its deep
social (even religious) implications much more readily than an American one simply because of
cultural proximity, including many (but certainly not all) aspects of the notion of “honor” and
“shame.”284 But the point is: To what extent does any translation per se evoke the desired “reading
scenario,” or conceptual frame of reference? With respect to the term στεῖρα, Rohrbaugh does
not really have much to offer in terms of a “foreignizing translation,” other than the traditional
KJV/RSV’s “barren.” To be sure, the Scholars Version’s rendering “infertile” may be well off the
mark,285 but to label this “an egregiously domesticating translation” (2008:22) seems to be going
too far. It imputes a “disturbing” motive to the Jesus Seminar, who have apparently allied
themselves with E. A. Nida in some sort of conspiracy to “domesticate” the English-speaking
world through the application of a translation technique in which “readability is the ‘final sense
of every sentence’” coupled with the desire to match “the colloquial quality of the original Greek,
capturing if possible the ‘tone and tenor of the original’” (Rohrbaugh 2008:23, citing Funk and
Hoover 1993:xvi).

As suggested above, the major problem that all translators face is that no translation—
whether literal, idiomatic, or foreignized—can in and of itself accomplish the ambitious goal that
Rohrbaugh has set for it, namely, to stage “an alien reading experience as a means of preserving
the cultural otherness of the original text” (2008:14, added italics). All it can do is to draw
attention to the “linguistic otherness” of the biblical text—and at such points to thereby verbally
signal to readers (hearers) that they must turn to other sources in order to access the conceptual
background necessary in order to better understand the setting-specific sociocultural and
religious implications of the author’s intended message. So why is this the case—what’s the great
difficulty here? Rohrbaugh himself puts his finger on the problem, at least in terms of one modern
readership: “[It is] the near total inability of persons in American churches to distinguish between
biblical values and American values” (2008:14).286

284
“Simply stated, honor is public reputation. It is name or place. It is one’s status or standing in
the village together with the public recognition of it. Public recognition is all-important. … [H]onor is at
the center of a wide network of related values: ‘power, wealth, magnanimity, personal loyalty, precedence,
sense of shame, fame or reputation, courage, and excellence’” (Rohrbaugh 2007:32, citing Paul Friedrich).
285
Rohrbaugh regards “infertile” as being “a modern medical term” that conjures up (for the
Western reader) “pictures of medical counseling, infertility clinics, and the like” and “nothing like that
engendered in the minds of ancient women” (2008:22). One wonders in what specific respects this
admittedly erroneous mental scenario would differ from that evoked in the modern mind by “barren.”
Many such issues may well be a function of culture, having little if anything to do with language at all.
286
The same difficulty is true in the traditional as well as modern African churches that I have
researched over the years. With respect to the Tonga people of southern Zambia for example: “Paul’s
reference to ‘the inheritance of the saints’ (Eph. 1:18)…is very likely to be distorted by ambivalent notions
regarding traditional ‘inheritance’ (lukono) customs and beliefs, including their modern-day abuses with
regard to widows, e.g., ritual ‘cleansing’ procedures, ‘levirate’ marriage, and devastating property-grabbing
practices. This lack of an adequate or accurate biblical perspective is probably the greatest barrier that
confronts contemporary receptors in their efforts to comprehend Paul’s various references to the ‘powers’
in Ephesians” (Wendland & Hachibamba 2007:237).
99
 One possible solution for this problem, apparently not perceived by Rohrbaugh or mentioned
by any of the other essayists of SSBH, is proposed by the writer of its concluding response, in the
final sentence of this monograph (Wunch-Sandys 2008:146):

All I can conclude is that it is not possible to render the Bible into modern English in a
way that we as products of our culture can understand without the sort of explanation
that should accompany any honest translation that is willing to admit its inadequacies.

Thus, any text without a context is a pretext; in other words, a Bible translation (of any type)
that fails to provide adequate contextual supplementation in the form of individual book
introductions, sectional headings and/or summaries, explanatory notes, cross-references, maps,
tables, a glossary, and so forth gives readers the all-too-ready “excuse” to interpret the text as it
stands, on the basis of their own limited understanding and from the biased perspective of their
own world-view and value system.287 It is no wonder then that non-understanding and all sorts
of mis-understanding are bound to result. The original message in its overall setting of
communication is, in reality, too “foreignized” to be readily and correctly retrieved by modern
readers. In short, it is too much to expect translators to “choose terminology that will evoke
scenarios in Anglo-American [or African] minds that are something like those that would have
come to the minds of ancient Mediterranean readers” (Rohrbaugh 2008:15).

This is not to say that we must therefore give up on our efforts to provide our diverse target
audiences with the most precise and accurate renderings possible. If a less-than-idiomatic
(“foreignized”) wording is necessary to achieve this on occasion, to lexically signify the intended
meaning in a more satisfactory manner, then that is what must be done. My point is simply that
this would not necessarily contradict the general principle of functional equivalence, which is
concerned not only with semantics, but also with the pragmatics of the biblical text, including
its formal qualities that embrace artistry and rhetoric—beauty, feeling, impact, appeal. Thus, a
carefully balanced, situation-sensitive approach is necessary, for as was just mentioned, one
cannot accomplish everything in the translated text on its own. It all depends on the primary
target group envisaged and the principal use that is intended for the version under preparation
(Wilt & Wendland 2008:ch. 5; Wendland 2006:ch. 7). Pattemore provides an insightful summary
that offers a current theoretical perspective on intercultural communication (missing in SSBT!),
which might in turn serve as a guide when carrying out Bible translation programs, not only in
English, but in any other world language and setting (2008:259; cf. Wendland 2006:68-70):

Gutt’s approach [“relevance theory”] is not really a retreat into ‘literal’ translation, but…in
fact, it requires an essentially functional-equivalent approach to the translated text, since
the requirement of ‘direct translation’ is not that the chosen stimulus should resemble the
source stimulus in its linguistic properties, but…it should have complete interpretive
resemblance; it should produce the same cognitive effects [based on the provision of a
sufficient supply of accurate information] when interpreted within the same context. On
the other hand, Gutt’s direct translation remains conservative about how much of the
context should or can be incorporated into the text itself.288

287
Use of these text-elucidating auxiliary devices of course presupposes a reading target group.
Different techniques would be required for a listening audience, e.g., sound effects to signal a “vocal note.”
288
Smith provides a complementing relevance theoretic summary (2002:110-111; my comment is
in brackets): “[A] translation must retain all the communicative clues of the original. … Their value lies
not in their intrinsic form, but in their communicative function. Due to the structural differences between
languages, it is not possible to reproduce the linguistic properties of one language in another. However, it
is often possible to identify the communicative clues of the source text and formulate receptor language
equivalents that serve the same communicative function. This approach is inherently similar to that of
functional equivalence, which also treats the linguistic components of the source text from a functional
perspective. The emphasis relevance theory places on keeping processing effort to a minimum means the
100
 Rohrbaugh and his colleagues give a number of examples of alternative renderings that may
(some cases are debatable) more accurately express the contextually-colored sense of the biblical
text in the English language. The question is whether these insights require a new translation
method, i.e., a “foreignizing translation,” or whether they can, as suggested above, be
accommodated within a “functional equivalence” approach that is enhanced by the
communicative model involving intertwined “frames of reference” and founded on the cognitive
perspective of “relevance theory.”289 The latter option seems more reasonable and justified by
the data that is provided in SSBT. Why, for example, could Rohrbaugh’s proposed “culturally
accurate translation,” “You judge according to physical appearance” in John 8:15 (ὑµεῖς κατὰ
τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε) (2008:19; cf. New American Bible) not also be considered as the closest
functional equivalent?290

With regard to the translation of µνηστευθείσης in Mat. 1:18, Rohrbaugh (2008:17) objects
to the “ethnocentric violence” that he perceives in the “domesticated” term “engaged,” which is
used in the NRSV and some other modern English versions.291 Realizing that the older verb
“betrothed” (RSV) will not be readily understood by most contemporary English speakers, he
offers “a foreignizing translation instead,” namely, “contractually bound to marry” (2008:18; cf.
2 Sam. 3:14), thus: “Mary and Joseph being contractually bound to marry, yet before they came
together…” (italics added). In this case, one might argue that the NIV’s “pledged to be married”
gets the same idea across in more natural English and is therefore a better rendering in view of
the intended readership.292 The point is that one’s admirable efforts to represent in a given target
language key biblical terms and phrases in a way that more accurately conveys their culturally-
shaped meaning, as “foreign” as this might be to the modern reader, do not necessarily conflict,

reformulated communicative clues [including now any and all ‘foreignizing elements’ necessary] must be
natural to the idiom of the receptor language.”
289
The question also depends on how far Rohrbaugh wishes to take his “foreignizing” procedures.
Dealing with culturally distinctive key terms is one thing, but if he wants to include also the “linguistic
difference” of the biblical text (2008:13), then he has clearly opted for a more or less literal version.
Rohrbaugh does not state whether he has fully adopted Venuti’s campaign to increase the “translator’s
visibility through foreignation (sic), as by using archaic terms or idiosyncratic word-order that preserve
the ‘foreignness’ of the source text (whether this really produces the desired effect is another issue)” (Snell-
Hornby 2006:146).
290
In fact, considering the pragmatic “information structure” of this utterance, a more precise
rendering would be: “It is according to physical appearance that you judge, but…”—which better expresses
the focusing effect of the Greek word order.
291
“[T]hese translators invite us to conjure up American practices of self-initiated romantic
attachment and an agreement between a couple that they will be married at some time in the future. It
sounds like Joseph had given Mary a ring!” (2008:17). Granted, the translators made have made an error
of judgment here, but why accuse them of obliviously doing “violence” to the translated text?
292
In either case, an explanatory footnote would be necessary to provide a cultural frame of
reference for more fully understanding the translation, e.g., “[T]hough the Jews did distinguish
engagement from marriage, the dissolution of an engagement was considered the equivalent of divorce,
and an engaged woman whose husband-to-be had died was regarded as a widow. Consequently, any sexual
relations between an engaged woman and another man was viewed as adultery, and the woman was
punished accordingly” (from the UBS Paratext 6.2 version of the Translator’s Handbook of Matthew). Such
a note would also be required in many African societies, where traditional marriage is also parentally
arranged and viewed as “an arrangement between two extended families that involved the transfer of
property rights, inheritance rights, rights over children, and sexual rights” (Rohrbaugh 2008:17).
However, a “betrothal” (e.g., the idiom kufunsidwa mbeta lit., ‘to be asked [as] an unmarried [young]
woman’, used in Chewa) is not regarded as being equivalent to “marriage,” which is an extended process
that becomes complete only after the full “bridal compensation” has been paid to the woman’s parents and
a child has been born. If a woman became pregnant by another man before the wedding ceremony, a stiff
fine would have to be paid by the male violator and the “betrothal” could be cancelled, but this is not
equivalent to being “divorced,” as in the ANE setting.
101
as a general rule, with the desire to do this in an idiomatic, functionally equivalent manner with
respect to their verbal form of expression.293

5.5 A final case study—“Covenant” (‫) ְבּ ִ ֣רית‬

Reflecting the predominant emphasis in current social-scientific studies relating to Scripture,

most of the essays in SSBT focus on New Testament terms and texts. It might be useful, therefore,
to overview an independent example from the Old (Hebrew) Testament as a way of further
exploring some of the comments and criticisms presented above. Among the more difficult key
terms of the Bible to translate in a Bantu setting (and in many others as well) is the Hebrew term
‫ּב ִ רית‬,
ְ normally rendered in English as “covenant.” The basic reason for this difficulty relates to
fundamental differences between biblical Hebrew and contemporary Chewa, for example, spoken
in much of south central Africa, with respect to their respective cultures, world-views, and
language-systems. How is it possible then to adequately communicate, via translation, such a
significant concept, for example, in chapter 26 of Leviticus, which not only manifests a high
concentration of occurrences of ‫ּב ִ רית‬,
ְ but which “is linked, covenantally, to the preceding
chapter, to the second half of Leviticus, to the Sinai covenant narrative, to the rest of the Old
Testament canon and also to the New Testament” (Foster 2005:177)?

The first step in such an interlinguistic, cross-cultural analysis of course is to study the key
term in its original setting of usage. After a thorough lexical, sociological and worldview-oriented
(i.e., “social-scientific,” though he does not call it that) investigation of ‫ ְּב ִ רית‬in biblical Hebrew,
Foster argues for “a complex definition of ‫ּב ִ רית‬,
ְ ‘covenant’ in its ANE context” as a deliberately
chosen (i.e., not effected by birth) formal relationship involving mutual obligations that are
guaranteed by severe oath sanctions (2005:177). Furthermore, with regard to the many
covenantal concepts in the Old Testament, “[t]he covenant structure highlights relationship with
Yahweh and exclusivity, security, accountability and purpose within that relationship”
(2005:99). The second step in the translation process is to carry out a corresponding ethnographic
and linguistic study of all terms that are somehow related to the concept of “covenant” in the
target language. This must be done with reference to the traditional, pre-Christian understanding
and application of these words (e.g., in the ancient oral “literature” of the people—proverbs,
folktales, songs, etc.) as well as their usage in modern parlance, including Christian religious
literature and settings (public worship, crusades, Bible studies, etc.). Here then is where some
significant cognitive and semantic gaps begin to appear, as in the case of Foster’s research among
the Lomwe of Mozambique, which reveals, for example, that “[t]raditional Lomwe social
structure does not have adequate parallels or analogies to ANE covenant concepts,” and that
“there are significant gaps between worldviews of Leviticus 26 and of Lomwe-speaking
Christians, particularly with regard to the variables of Space and Causality” (2005:144, original
italics).

The final stage in the translation process entails the selection, evaluation, and testing of
possible translation equivalents. The Chewa people of Malawi and Zambia are closely related
linguistically and culturally to the Lomwe, and therefore translators face similar “challenges for
communicating Old Testament covenant concepts” (Foster 2005:144), particularly with respect
to the relative formality of the arrangement and the associated “oath sanctions” that are involved,
whether explicitly or implicitly, in the original cultural-religious setting. Thus, no matter what
Chewa expression is used to render ‫ּב ִ רית‬,
ְ it will always have to be accompanied by an extensive

293
The difficulty of carrying out this process is significantly increased in non-Western language-
cultures that do not have a long tradition of Bible translation or a corpus of versions, commentaries, and
study tools to choose from. In these settings, a greater degree of “domestication” is normally required in
order to communicate on any level, whether in a “liturgical” version suitable for public worship or a
“popular language” edition intended for widespread lay usage (cf. Wendland 2004:ch. 10).
102
explicatory note, or in this case, due to the frequency and importance of the term, a separate
glossary entry. In both the old formal correspondence translation and the recent, popular-
language version, the word chipangano has been used fairly consistently (more so in the former
than the latter version). This noun is based on the verb –pangana to “make a pact, contract, or
agreement with someone (person or group).” Obviously, this term leaves a lot to be desired from
the biblical perspective, especially since God (YHWH) is the principal initiator and “major
partner” of most covenant-making according to both OT and NT (διαθήκη) usage.

In this case, as far as English is concerned, the high-register term “covenant” (most major
translations, as opposed to “agreement,” e.g., CEV) is probably foreignized sufficiently enough
so as to “signify the linguistic and cultural difference” of the biblical text (Rohrbaugh 2008:13).294
It is arguably also the most “functionally equivalent” rendering, that is, for a majority of
“evangelical” church-going folk—but perhaps not for some other target audience, e.g., an inner-
city youth group. However, finding a more appropriate translation in Chewa is more difficult
since most Bible-users have already accepted the traditional term chipangano, which is formally
familiar (i.e., in normal, everyday sociolinguistic usage), but then often misunderstood in typical
settings of Christian religious discourse. So how could we “foreignize” this rendering
appropriately so as to defamiliarize the reading experience somewhat and thereby draw the
reader into a search for contextual “relevance” (Pattemore 2008:252), particularly in passages
that feature an initial occurrence of “covenant” (e.g., Lev 26:9)?295 My preliminary research
indicates that an addition of the qualifier chalumbiro “of an oath/vow” might accomplish this
without violating Chewa stylistic norms. In other words, this verbally “marked” expression would
function as a “contextual clue” for the reader/hearer, suggesting that the phrase “vowed
agreement” requires further elucidation for fuller understanding, such as via an explanation
provided in a marginal note or glossary entry (e.g., what kind of “vow,” why vowed, what
punitive consequences for violators?).

Thus, Rohrbaugh’s recommended procedure of formally “flagging” (or foreignizing) a TL term

in the interest of greater accuracy with respect to the culturally-based sense of a certain biblical
concept is a valid translation procedure. I have simply tried to point out that the overall process
is considerably more complicated than he (or Venuti) seems to appreciate with their trip
metaphor, that is, whom to “send…traveling,” the author or the reader (2008:14).296 Rather, it
depends on a number of other important translation principles (e.g., contextual consistency
versus stability in key word usage) that must be negotiated by all parties concerned in view of
the wider project job commission, sociocultural setting, translation history, and immediate as
well as long-term communicative goals.

5.6 Conclusion: What does it matter?

Apart from his relatively uninformed critique of Bible translation theory and practice,
Rohrbaugh’s objections to overly- or poorly-“domesticated” translations are quite legitimate, as
are the related concerns expressed in many of the other essays contained in SSBT. Certainly we

294
The sociolinguistic register of vocabulary in view of the principal target audience is another
factor of prime importance in functional equivalence translating (cf. Wendland 2004:278, 294, 296), but
one that is not seriously considered in the various essays of SSBT, e.g., the suggested renderings of
“benefaction, beneficence, even favor” for χάρις, e.g., in Gal. 2:9 (Crook 2008:38).
295
Presumably, a biblical concept that is “foreignized” by means of a longer expression in a given
target language would not require its full representation on every occurrence, e.g., “the degraded poor”
and “the greedy rich” in James (Batten 2008:65; assuming that these “foreignized” renderings are
accurate).
296
“For the cross-cultural communication of today, Schleiermacher’s maxim, which was used for
the scholars of the time with reference to translating from Classical Antiquity, is simply inadequate” (Snell-
Hornby 2006:147).
103
do not wish “unwittingly to go on creating biblical messages in our own domestic image”
(2008:24). So if “[t]he question then becomes one of deciding whether this matters” (2008:23),
most, if not all, Bible translators and consultants would answer, Indeed, it does matter! However,
my study has also shown that Rohrbaugh’s proposed solution is rather simplistic and misleadingly
one-sided. It is not merely a matter of deciding “who it is we are going to send abroad: the author
or the reader,” nor is it correct to conclude that “sending the reader abroad would seem to be
the sine qua non of accurate translation” (2008:23). Modern translation practice is much more
refined and discriminating than that, and its practitioners have a broad range of alternatives to
consider nowadays when preparing a translation and its essential paratextual supplementation
for a particular target language community.297 Furthermore, it is a gross overstatement to claim
that “English fluency almost always involves domestication” (2008:23), that is, in the Venutian
sense of “masquerade[ing] as true semantic equivalence” and masking “the very difference that
translation is called on to convey” (Venuti 1998:21).298 Such a sweeping accusation betrays a
lack of awareness of the more nuanced perspective on the nature of Bible translation that many
contemporary practitioners have adopted along with the contextually-determined range of
stylistic options that are available to them nowadays, whether in English or any other language.

The notion of a “foreignizing” type of Bible translation has been shown to be valid in one
sense but invalid in two other respects. It is suitable as a synonym for a “marked,” or
“defamiliarized,” target-language rendering which distinctively, yet also accurately reflects some
special literary form, source-language meaning, and/or pragmatic function that is clearly
manifested in the original text. On the other hand, it is out of place as a label for a completely
new type of translation, especially a stand-alone version which does not utilize any of the
auxiliary helps available for “contextualizing” a TL in order to provide a conceptual framework
that evokes a closer approximation of the intended sense of some important biblical expression
(in its cotext). It is also disingenuous to employ “foreignizing” as a cover term to designate any
sort of translation technique that is exclusively “designed to jar the reader with an alien reading
experience…staged by the translator in order to convey source-language values and perceptions
that readable English cannot” (Rohrbaugh 2008:23). No translation, on its own, can accomplish
such a feat, and it is illusory to claim that it can.

But my issues with the application of an indiscriminate “foreignizing” approach to Bible

translation aside, there is no doubt that readers will benefit in different ways from Neufeld’s
collection of social-scientific case studies. One only wishes that there had been more concrete
discussion (pros and cons) of some of the English translation options available for the various
problem areas considered in this monograph. In any case, these challenging essays provide many
Scripture-based insights and much concrete evidence from the ancient Mediterranean world to
support the following conclusion (Neufeld 2008:3-4):299

Language cannot be isolated from the social context or world in which it is embedded.
Thus, when seeking to transport the meaning of words and sentences from one language

297
Wunch-Sandys offers an important caveat in this regard (2008:145, material in brackets added):
“Essentially what is in play here is the distinction between the limits of translation and the function of a
commentary. Keeping these two different activities clearly distinguished might help to preserve a scholar’s
[and translator’s!] integrity. For example, if one is to take the suggestion that given the cultural background
of the status of the rich, one should render ‘rich’ as ‘greedy rich’ [cf. Batten 2008:76], then it follows that
one should translate Matt 27:57 as ‘Joseph, a greedy rich man from Aramathea…’.”
298
“[D]espite his own theory, Venuti has as it were subjected Schleiermacher’s notions to an
ethnocentric reduction (or cannibalization?) and – as a translator all too visible – ‘domesticated’ them to
suit the Anglo-American planetary consciousness of the outgoing 20th century” (Snell-Hornby 2006:147).
299
Although expressed in terms reflecting the outmoded conduit metaphor of translation (cf. Wilt
2003:7-8, 39), the point being made here is still valid and worthy of note by all contemporary Bible
translators, reviewers, and consultants.
104
 to another, the translator cannot simply search for word equivalents in the target language
to render the meaning of the source. The translator must attend to the cultural and social
context of the ancient Mediterranean world from within which the words and sentences
arise. … Translation then becomes an act of cross-cultural transfer where the translator
must be both bicultural as well as bilingual.

5.7 References

Batten, A. 2008. The degraded poor and the greedy rich: Exploring the language of poverty and wealth, in: Neufeld,
q.v., 65-77.
Crook, Z. A. 2008. Grace as benefaction in Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 3:10, and Romans 12:3; 15:15, in: Neufeld,
q.v., 25-38.
De Blois, R. 2000. “Towards a new dictionary of Biblical Hebrew based on semantic domains.” Doctoral dissertation,
Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam).
Ellington, J. 2003. Schleierrmacher was wrong. Bible Translator (Technical Papers). 301-317.
Ellingworth, P. 2007. Translation techniques in modern Bible translations, in: Noss (ed), q.v., 307-334.
Elliott, J. H. 2008. God—Zealous or jealous but never envious: The theological consequences of linguistic and social
distinction, in: Neufeld, q.v., 79-96.
Foster, S. J. 2005. “An Experiment in Bible Translation as Transcultural Communication: The Translation of ‫בְּ ִרית‬
‘Covenant’ into Lomwe, with a Focus on Leviticus 26.” D Litt dissertation, University of Stellenbosch (South
Africa).
Funk, R. W. and Hoover, R. W. 1993. The five Gospels: The search for the authentic words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan.
Gutt, E. A. 2000 (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St Jerome.
Neufeld, D. 2008. Introduction, in: Neufeld, q.v., 1-9.
Neufeld, D. (ed). 2008. The social sciences and biblical translation (Symposium Series 41). Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Nida, E. A. 1996. The sociolinguistics of interlingual communication. Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard.
Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. 1969. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
Noss, P. A. (ed) 2007. A history of Bible translation (Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship). Roma: Edizioni Di Storia E
Letteratura.
Pattemore, S. 2007. Framing Nida: The relevance of translation theory in the United Bible Societies, in: Noss (ed), q.v.,
217-263.
Porter W. J. 2005. A brief look at the life and works of Eugene Albert Nida. Bible Translator (Technical Papers) 56:1.
1-7.
Porter S. E. 2005. Eugene Nida and translation. Bible Translator (Technical Papers) 56:1. 8-19.
Rohrbaugh, R. L. 2007. The New Testament in cross-cultural perspective. Eugene: Cascade Books.
Rohrbaugh, R. L. 2008. Foreignizing translation, in: Neufeld, q.v., 11-24.
Sandys-Wunch, J. 2008. Comments from someone who once shook hands with S. H. Hooke in: Neufeld, q.v., 139-146.
Smith, K. 2002. Translation as secondary communication: The relevance theory perspective of Ernst-August Gutt, in:
J A Naude and C H J van der Merwe (eds), Contemporary translation studies and Bible translation: A South African
perspective (Acta Theologica Supplementum 2). Bloemfontein: University of the Free State. 107-117.
Snell-Hornby, M. 2006. The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.

105
Statham, N. 2005. Nida and “functional equivalence”: The evolution of a concept, some problems, and some possible
ways forward. Bible Translator (Technical Papers) 56:1. 29-43.
Venuti, L. 1995. The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge.
Venuti, L. 1998. The scandals of translation: Towards and ethic of difference. London: Routledge.
de Waard, J. and Nida, E. A. 1986. From one language to another: Functional equivalence in Bible translation. Nashville:
Nelson.
Watt, J. M. 2005. The contributions of Eugene A. Nida to sociolinguistics. Bible Translator (Technical Papers) 56:1. 19-
29.
Wendland, E. R. 2004. Translating the literature of Scripture: A literary-rhetorical approach to Bible translation
(Publications in Translation and Textlinguistics No. 1). Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, E. R. 2006. LiFE-style translating: A workbook for Bible translators (Publications in Translation and
Textlinguistics No. 2). Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, E. R. and Hachibamba, S. 2007. Galu wamkota: Missiological reflections from south-central Africa. Zomba
(Malawi): Kachere Series Books.
Wilt, T. L. (ed) 2003. Bible translation: Frames of reference. Manchester: St Jerome.
Wilt, T. L. and Wendland, E. R. 2008. Scripture frames and framing: A workbook for Bible translators. Stellenbosch: Sun
MEDIA Press.

106
6. Review of Translating the English Bible: From Relevance to Deconstruction

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I present a rather detailed review of Philip Goodwin’s book, Translating the English
Bible (2013), from the specific perspective of a Bible translator and consultant in Africa. This
critique must be in-depth in order to adequately trace the author’s exposition and application of
Relevance Theory (RT) and the literary theory of deconstruction in selective reference to Bible
translation in English, from the time of the KJV to the present day. While there are many
important insights to be mined in this study, I also note a number of points of concern that relate
to translation theory, E. A. Nida’s “dynamic equivalence” approach in particular, and practice as
well, namely, translating the Scriptures today with reference to a well-defined target language
group of contemporary English speakers.

In this wide-ranging and thought-provoking work, the author, an experienced financial

manager who, interestingly, took time out from the business world to obtain a doctorate in
translation, presents a detailed perspective on what he feels is wrong with contemporary English
Bible translation practice and offers his theoretical and practical solutions for setting things right.
He does this in the space of six conceptually dense, closely argued chapters (essentially his
doctoral dissertation),300 which culminate (though labelled as an “appendix”) in his own
“experimental translation” of Luke Chapters 1-2. The book concludes with a comprehensive,
topically arranged Bibliography and a categorized Index of authors and subjects. In this review,
I will attempt to (fairly) summarize the main points of the author’s elaborate argument and along
the way to point out what I consider its major weak points, including certain errors of fact,
omission, overstatement, and misrepresentation.

6.2 “The Holy Marriage”

In “The Holy Marriage” (ch. 1), Goodwin brings up the problem of “the lost art of translation”
(15; all page references are to the book under review), which he attributes to the ambiguous
“notion of fidelity” (21), on the one hand, and “the curse of the Holy Marriage” (24) on the other.
The latter metaphor refers to the close “union” between a sacred text and the language in which
it is written, in this case the King James Version and English, which produces a stream of
versional offspring that more or less verbally resemble their parents. The result, according to
Goodwin, is that ever since the KJV “what we find are endless revisions of the same basic
translation” (28). This is due to the fact that outside of a “literal” translation approach (30), we
are left essentially with this problematic concept of fidelity and the associated approach of
“dynamic”, or “functional equivalence” (21). The problem is that this methodology cannot
effectively dissolve the bonds of the “holy marriage” that allegedly keeps English Bible
translations captive to traditional wordings – and worse, if the author is to be believed, even
“prevents further acts of interpretation” (40). Thus, we are left with a “history of translation and
re-translation” (32) that can be resolved only “from a theoretical angle” (35), “by moving to a
more hermeneutic model [that will make it] possible to re-interpret the [biblical] text and with
that re-interpretation produce a genuinely new translation” (41). This translation-saving
hermeneutical theory is, as the book’s title would suggest, E-A. Gutt’s “Relevance Theory of
Translation” (RTT) (41; e.g., Gutt 2000).

Although Goodwin’s central notion of the “holy marriage” is an appropriate graphic

reminder of the influence of one established version upon another, it is certainly an exaggeration
to claim that “translation of the Bible into English effectively ceased in 1611” (28). Similar

300
University of Manchester (2010).
107
overstatements and distortions of fact regularly appear to detract from the author’s often
informative survey of Bible translation history. In the first of his periodic criticisms of Nida’s
“dynamic equivalence” approach to translating, he claims that “equivalence is now defined in
terms only of the functions which texts play…[and] therefore, represents a ghost concept – it is
the ghost of the concept of fidelity, which has quietly died…” (23). But the author’s reasoning in
this section is convoluted, and hence unclear;301 as a result, not a few prominent translation
scholars would disagree with the assertion that “the mainstream notion of ‘equivalence’ as it has
been used in biblical translation is at best highly problematic” (23).302 Furthermore, on many
occasions when discussing the work of “equivalence”-influenced translation theorists and
practitioners, Goodwin rather casually imputes either method or motive. For example, when
referring to the UBS Translator’s Helps series, he claims that “what the translator or translator’s
aid is attempting to do is to facilitate the target language’s encounter with our interpretation of the
Bible, not with the original text. … the reference point is always the translator’s favoured version
of hieros gamos, the Holy Marriage” (31, original italics).303 And then there are the occasional
significant exegetical errors that occur in Goodwin’s discussion. For example, he discerns “a
certain self-preoccupation” in Mary’s exultant praise song of Luke 1:46-55, for “her focus is not
on the baby to be born, but on herself, as is clear from the five-fold repetition of the first person
pronoun in vv 46-49” (29). But a more perceptive reading of these verses would reveal that these
pronouns are incidental in import, and the full focus of Mary’s paean is rather on “God my Savior”
(Luke 1:46).

6.3 Relevance Theory

In Chapter 2, Goodwin turns to the revolutionary theory that he promised at the end of the
preceding chapter: “Challenging the Holy Marriage: Relevance Theory and translation (sic)” (42).
His explanatory overview of relevance theory (RT) (42-52) is very instructive,304 but problems
develop when he turns to discuss the “relevance theory of translation” (RTT) (52). I can simply
reiterate two major aspects of my earlier critique of this approach (Wendland 1996-97): I still
believe that the notion of a “direct translation” in which “the translator attempts to ‘directly’
quote the original communicator” is misleading, and the laborious argument supporting it (53)
is too opaque to be usable in practice,305 especially by inexperienced translators. To claim that a
direct translation is “simply a specialized echoic use of language across linguistic boundaries”
(53) is disingenuous since such a viewpoint is contradicted by current cognitive linguistic

301
The crucial notion of “fidelity” (or “faithfulness”) to the source text message is constructively
referred to a number of times in De Waard & Nida (1986), for example, pages 14, 40.
302
See, for example, Baker (2011: passim; Hatim (2013:30-47); Munday (2008:36-54, 199); Pym
(2010:6-42). Certainly “equivalence” as a concept in translation definition and assessment is not any more
obscure or problematic than the author’s preferred “interpretive resemblance” (51).
303
Goodwin takes me to task for my “arrogant” (32), missionary-minded attitude that results in
blinding MT translators with respect to valid exegetical options: “Wendland’s point is that the translator
has to find some way of preventing the Tongans from forming a ‘highly plausible, though mistaken,
interpretation for the receptor language audience’” (31; citing Gutt). But had Goodwin bothered to read
the “Introduction” to Wendland (1987:ix), he might have noted my pointed mention of two highly
competent translation project coordinators, whose prior text comments and corrections formed the basis
for my discussion of the various translation problems presented in this book. Thus, it was Salimo
Hachibamba who alerted me to the possible implication of “witchcraft” in Ruth 1:22 that needed, in his
opinion, to be corrected in our new Tonga (not a “missionary”!) draft-translation.
304
A major error occurs in the key diagram on p. 47, where “Lexical Entry” appears twice; the
bottom right occurrence should be replaced by “Logical Entry”.
305
“Gutt, in fact, defines translation as ‘inter-lingual quotation’, and in what he calls ‘direct
quotation’, the secondary communicator attempts ‘the preservation of all linguistic qualities’” (189).
108
studies.306 Thus, both theoretically and in practice, all verbal reconstitution across linguistic-
conceptual boundaries can only be an inferential, variously “indirect” process (cf. 55-56)
involving a greater or lesser degree (depending on the project Skopos) of formal, semantic, and
pragmatic approximation during textual recomposition. In addition, an over-emphasis on desired
“relevance” in the target language setting is evidenced by statements such as the following: “The
requirement for a faithful translation is twofold: produce a target text which ‘should resemble
the original – only in those respects that can be expected to make it optimally relevant to the receptor
language audience’ and one which is ‘clear and natural in expression…” (53; italics added). From
this perspective, the general criterion of “resemblance” is far too broad and subjective to be
viable,307 certainly no better than the disparaged notion of “equivalence”.

Goodwin later resumes his vigorous, hindsight-aided critique of Nida and associates for their
“technology”-guided approach to translation (61), which he seeks to replace with a RTT strategy
that “returns the interpreter to the stage: a fully human figure whose art cannot be reduced to
machinery” (62). But, having worked with MT translators in Africa for nearly half a century, I
can attest to the fact that the vast majority of them do not have “the requisite language skills to
produce a new utterance which interpretively resembles” the biblical text in the technical RTT
intended sense (61). On the other hand and on the surface of it, if “interpretive resemblance” is
ostensively the only goal, then virtually any rendering will do, depending on the personal
perception and aims of the evaluator. My point is simply that for many unsophisticated
translators, a procedural, “mechanical” methodology, such as that offered by the practitioners of
“functional equivalence” (and related approaches)308 can be very useful in producing an
“acceptable” TL text, that is, in the opinion of some previously defined target constituency. I
reckon that efforts along these lines, though not perfect by any means, will turn out to be more
acceptable to many more people than the author’s apparent Skopos for Luke: “It is another major
objective of the present work to instil such doubt [i.e., with regard to an ‘appropriate translation’],
and in the course of the discussion I will attempt to destabilize [or ‘deconstruct’] the sense of
certainty in the case of a number of very common words found in Luke’s writings” (19; added
italics; cf. 64). Later, we will be able to assess the degree of Goodwin’s success in his iconoclastic
venture by examining several samples of his proposed translation.

In the last third of ch. 2, Goodwin outlines “how RTT will be used in the present work” (64),
with the implication that his method will be novel and different from everything that has
preceded him in the history of Bible translation.309 But the initial description is not innovative
despite his rather tautological claim: “It is a framework… [that] is based on a hermeneutic
approach, and the account for translation to which its gives rise is therefore securely grounded
as hermeneutic rather than the search for ‘equivalents’” (64). This assertion seems to erroneously
contend that all prior translation methodologies were not based on some hermeneutical method
in one form or another. In his effort to explain how RT will be used “as a diagnostic tool” when

306
See, for example, King (2012:360-363); Van Wolde (2009:51-103).
307
For example, adding the indefinite article “a” in John 1:1 (“…the Word was a god…”) in order
to render the text more “relevant” to a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ readership cannot be condoned, despite the
fact that this translation does closely “resemble” the original Greek text. I would argue that adjectives such
as “resemble” and “similar to” allow far too much leeway in interpretation to be serviceable when
describing the practice of Bible translation. Thus, to say that “this translation is similar to what is stated
in the biblical text” would be unacceptable to many lay respondents as well as scholarly critics.
308
Among these would be practical workbooks produced in the tradition of Barnwell (1986) and
Beekman & Callow (1974).
309
Goodwin alleges that his approach will differ markedly from those, such as “[Harriet] Hill and
Wendland”, who employ RT in their work. The problem is that these practitioners are still wedded to “holy
marriage” translation and “are interested in using Relevance Theory to support a certain translation
practice, rather than to challenge it” – that is, in contrast to his own “desire to interpret [biblical texts]
and therefore translate them anew, away so far as possible from the Holy Marriage” (64).
109
interpreting a source text and producing a target text that “interpretively resembles” the former
(66), Goodwin proposes an impressionistic “Relevance Curve” to aid in the process (67). This
depiction aims to more accurately ascertain and assess RT’s two primary variables of “processing
cost” and “contextual implications” during the twofold activity of translational communication.
Alas, there is nothing really new here, except a hypothetical diagnostic diagram (68), and we are
left with the empirically impossible (or completely subjective) task of trying to accurately
determine the precise interrelationships of these intricate cognitive processes in any given
instance, in no other way than by means of a self-analysis of one’s own discernment and rationale.

But Goodwin proceeds to tread upon some very shaky hermeneutical ground (at least from
a standard biblical interpretive perspective) when he asserts that “an accommodation for multi-
valency in texts is, then, integral to Relevance Theory” (69). This refers to a certain conceptual
freedom that is determined, not by the ancient frames of reference of the original text, but rather
by the current communicative intentions and contextual implications “constructed by the hearer
or reader” (70). “Thus for example in the story of the boy Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52),
the young Jesus goes missing, and is only found after three days…” (69). One audience may have
“within its cognitive environment information about the time Jesus spent in the tomb following
his crucifixion, and with just a little more processing effort, can interpret accordingly” (70);310
apparently then, this would be a valid implication (for this audience) of the Lukan account. The
hermeneutical horizon of the biblical text, supported by reliable scholarship, may thus be
“deconstructed” (72; cf. this book’s title) in favour of a “communicative intention [that] is
constructed by the hearer or reader” (70).311 It becomes clear why Goodwin is so dead set against
the provision of “providing copious footnotes and commentary” to supply any “missing context”
for readers:312 Such supplementary hermeneutical resources might risk “‘relaxing’ our reader
precisely at the point when we want him to ‘pay more attention’” (74) and to freely manufacture
more possible meanings in his (her) mind, that is, in accordance with the personal information
available “from his cognitive environment” (71).313

310
This supposed “Hellenistic ‘hero’ story” may thus be interpreted “as a prefiguring of his death
and resurrection” – or even for those readers who devote sufficient “processing effort” to this account, as
a “foreshadowing of the uneasy relationship between the developing early Christian church and its roots
in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem” (188).
311
It is not clear to me whether Goodwin considers such radical interpretations, though “relevant”,
to be “types of misreading” (72; cf. the diagram on p.73). Although they are not regarded as unacceptable
in the discussion, these readings would seem to be instances of what James Barr referred to as “illegitimate
totality transfer” on the propositional or ideational level. Barr applied this “fallacy” to individual words:
It is “the error that arises, when the ‘meaning’ of a word (understood as the total series of relations in
which it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case as its sense and implication there” (204).
312
This is contrary to Gutt’s direct recommendation concerning the use of “explication in the text,
study notes, separate background materials, etc.” as “bridging materials” to deal with “contextual gaps” in
the cognitive environment of a particular target audience (Gutt 1992:71).
313
On the other hand and quite to the contrary: “If I [Goodwin] felt that the echo with Jesus’ time
in the tomb was both very important and very likely to be missed by you, I might do something to nudge
you in the direction of raising the attention you are prepared to offer here. … If I could get you to ‘pay
attention’, you might yourself supply the required assumptions, which are there in your cognitive
environment, but perhaps buried more deeply than those of Luke’s original readership [according to
Goodwin’s interpretation!]. Paradoxically, this might involve me making the passage more difficult to
read, rather than less” (73; cf. “Venuti’s ‘foreignization’ translation strategy,” 73; cf. Venuti 1995).
Comments such as these reveal the author’s lack of actual translation experience or practice, certainly, in
a non-Western interpretive setting. Furthermore, one wonders how much different (less manipulative)
Goodwin’s proposals are from the intrusive, hermeneutically-focused practice that he accuses Harriet Hill
of (69).
110
6.4 Analyzing Luke 1—4

In Chapters 3 and 4, Goodwin applies “relevance theory as a diagnostic tool” (66) to the detailed
analysis of features of Lukan syntax and the lexicon respectively. In large measure, I found these
analyses of the Greek text quite insightful; however, once again I noted a number of problems in
his conclusions or applications of what he had discovered. My unease was sparked by his up-
front declaration that “our main interest … is not in the truth value of such an interpretation as
presented here, but rather in the sort of contextual implications which might follow from such
an interpretation, and in how a translation might attempt to perform such an interpretive
resemblance” (89). However, this would seem to be a classic case of the tail (theory) wagging the
dog (the text), the latter presumably being the ultimate determining factor in the process of
interpretation and translation – indeed, according to Goodwin’s own earlier assertion (66). In
any case, he proceeds to evaluate in terms of his “relevance curve” (67-68) a selection of
translations of Luke’s Preface (1:1-4) and furthermore, “to try to diagnose what the translator’s
communicative intention has been, and to critique that intention” (101). His apparent goal is to
demonstrate in each case the degree to which the lingering “ghost of equivalence” has influenced
the “intuition” that translators have “resorted to” when carrying out their work in “the theoretical
vacuum left behind [due to] the collapse of Nida’s project” (100). Goodwin’s relativistic
“relevance curve” allows him to appraise these different translations pretty much as he wills,
though the comparative data charts that he provides along the way do serve effectively to provide
readers with different formal perspectives on the Lukan text and how it has been variously
rendered for diverse English constituencies. Goodwin’s conclusion is, rather predictably (based
on his argument in the previous chapters), uniform for the lot: “Through all these cases we can
perceive the same uncertainty and confusion about what ‘faithfulness’ in translation might mean”
(113) – obviously because they are not using the same RTT model as he employs to evaluate
them.

Finally, Goodwin assesses his own attempt to provide a relevant “direct translation” (113),
namely, of Luke 1:1-4 in his “experimental” version given in the book’s appendix (216). This
takes the form of what he terms “shape poetry”, whereby “the appearance of the text on the page
is intended to flag the ‘markedness’ of the preface, and to allow the English reader to form the
implication that what follows will pay close attention to aesthetics and style …” (114).314 In his
apparent assumption that most formal features of the Greek text serve as “communicative clues”
of greater or lesser importance,315 Goodwin seeks to mimic the original style with as much
“interpretive relevance” as possible, while (hopefully) retaining an intelligible English text. Here
then is his first sentence (216; added italics): “That which happened, happened; there were those

314
Goodwin might have been surprised to learn that Nida had quite a bit to say about such an
“isomorphic equivalent” translation 25 years before his dissertation and in considerably more detail than
his brief reference (e.g., De Waard & Nida 1986:112-119). In any case, he positively (not surprisingly)
evaluates his effort to employ a formatted “shape that is not fanciful and which is relevant to the thrust of
Luke’s gospel. The use of a cruciform is also evocative of the chiastic structure, which some interpreters
see both in the preface itself and in [Luke’s] work as a whole” (120). No scholarly source is cited in support
of any of these assertions.
315
See, for example, his chart of “formal features”, which are classified in terms of relative
“importance”, hence necessary to retain in translation (or not) – some important ones being: the
preservation of verbal voice, verbal tense/aspect, verbal mood, and register (118). “Such a translation will
seek to produce an utterance which, when compared to the original utterance, will share all its analytic
and contextual implications; and to achieve this it will pay careful attention not only to the semantics of
the utterance but also to the way in which the original speaker used the stylistic value of words, syntax or
other effects as ‘communicative clues’ for how the utterance is intended to achieve relevance” (54).
“Synthetic implications are those which can be formed only by combining the information in this sentence
with another assumption. … A contextual implication is a particular kind of synthetic implication, in which
that other assumption is some assumption already in the hearer’s cognitive environment” (46).
111
who learned at first hand.”316 His lengthy justification for this rendering notwithstanding (115-
118), in my opinion it does not communicate effectively; in other words, due to this version’s
difficult processing cost, it does not convey very many contextual effects at all (although readers
are welcome to come to their own conclusion). Goodwin correctly calls attention to the “aural
quality” of the text and implies that a translation ought to duplicate the impact and appeal of
the original in this respect as well, “especially its readability out loud” (119). He rates his own
version as being acceptable in contrast to the CEV (119) – though many readers might beg to
disagree, concluding that the actual comparative result is a negative draw.

In Chapter 4, “When is a priest not a priest?”, Goodwin discusses lexicography in relation to

Bible translation by zeroing in on “the semantics of hiereus in Luke 1” (121).317 In his desire for
“achieving relevance in context” (123), he presents a useful overview of the distinctions between
a lexicographical “lexical entry”, “logical entry” (123), and “encyclopedic entry” (124), noting
that “sadly for relevance theorists, dictionaries do not neatly divide their entries” in terms of the
last two categories (128). He then pauses to reflect: “In translation terms, then, the question is:
granted that priest is a semantically correct translation for hiereus, is it a sufficiently bouncy
springboard for a modern reader to leap over all the more available notions of priest to get to
the kind of priestly figure we encounter in Luke 1.5?” (129-130). The problem for Goodwin is
that, having rejected explanatory notes as a possible contextually based background-provider, he
is left with the bare translated text itself, which is totally incapable of doing what he wants it to
accomplish, namely, to achieve a satisfactory rendering of hiereus from the inferential-
implicational point of view of RT.

After another section lamenting “the persistence of the hiereus gamos tradition” (131) in
biblical lexicography, Goodwin embarks upon his own search for “alternative translations for
hiereus” (136), exploring the possibility of an “encyclopedic translation” (136), a “lexical
translation” (138), and a “logical translation” (143). After a diagnostic chart of the various
possibilities (148), Goodwin summarizes the results of his search for a “new” translation of
hiereus: “we can attempt an encyclopaedic entry translation (examples: priest; shaman; medicine-
man), or a lexical entry translation (hiereus), or a logical entry translation (Offering-Man;
Ritesman; Assessor)” (149). However, he cannot recommend “which if any of these is to be
preferred”, but can only point readers in the direction of his own rendering as “one possible
solution” (149) – that is, “Assessor” (cf. 216).318

Regrettably (in my opinion), Goodwin pauses to make several more, uninformed, hence
misplaced shots at the (early) Nidan translation tradition during the course of his discussion.
First, he thinks that he has identified “a fundamental contradiction” with reference to the issue
of a “cultural translation” – that is, being “frowned upon” within the TL text itself, but on the
other hand being allowed through “exceptions”, such as “idioms”, “figurative meanings”, and
“classifiers” aimed at “contextual conditioning” (122). However, in the text being referred to,
the latter grouping are not termed “exceptions”, but are clearly distinguished semantically from
legitimate “explanatory notes” and unacceptable textual “explanatory additions and/or
expansions” (Nida & Taber 1969:111). Furthermore, Nida and Taber are referring to primary,
non-Western “first translation” situations, which obviously require a different set of procedures

316
It is a bit unfair to consider a single sentence in isolation; on the other hand, being the first
sentence of the translation (of Luke), it should serve to effectively lead readers (hearers) into the
subsequent text.
317
In the process, Goodwin proposes to discuss from a RT perspective such translation-related
issues as “context problems”, “cultural translation”, “explication”, “implication”, “domestication”, and
“foreignization” (121-122). However, he does not really delve substantially into this list, except for the
first two terms.
318
“Now in those days, when Herod was still ‘King of the Jews’, there was a certain Assessor,
whose name was Zachary, of the Assessor Day Rota ‘Abia’” (216).
112
and have access to a different set of translational options from a major world language like
English with a very long history of Bibles.

Later, when criticizing the UBS Handbook on Acts note on “priest”, Goodwin observes: “It is
taken for granted throughout that what one is seeking is ‘equivalence’, and equivalence moreover
with an English word, not with a Greek one” (136). However, the Preface to the Handbook on
Acts states that “the basic underlying text for this Handbook is the UBS Greek text” (1972:v).
Moreover, if it were not so grounded, why would it recommend “the one who sacrifices”
(1972:90), a possibility that Goodwin himself seriously considers (143-148)?319 When criticizing
the Handbook’s recommendation of the term “priest”, Goodwin asserts that “a translator who
wishes to operate at ‘low risk’ will instinctively reach for such a translation, particularly when it
has institutional and traditional endorsement” (138). But this is a crucial point that he seems to
miss: Translators do not work in a social vacuum, but normally operate within the institutional
framework of some clearly established ecclesiastical community – to which they are accountable
and whose opinions about what is an “acceptable” translation they must take into serious
consideration, especially in the case of key religious terms like “priest” and many others.
Frequently, some manner of compromise will be necessary to keep major constituencies, such as
Catholics and Protestants, happy. As Goodwin himself recognizes, “innovation can be held up to
ridicule … and this is a major obstacle to achieving relevance” (148). Thus one wonders how his
own rendering of “Assessor” (capitalized) for hiereus would fare in the court of public opinion
(or indeed, the use of “Story Teller” for angelos, or “Ya” for kurios in Luke 1:11) (217).320

6.5 Communicative Clues

Goodwin develops RT’s key concept of “communicative clues” in Chapter 5: “A communicative

clue is a feature of an utterance or text which guides the hearer or reader to how the
communicator intends to achieve relevance” (150).321 So far, so good – such a notion also works
well within the framework of a “functional equivalence” approach (perhaps substituting
“meaning”, functionally understood, for the term “relevance”). Even the ideal goal of a “direct
translation”, which “calls for the preservation of all communicative clues” (150) might be viewed
from the latter perspective, that is, preserving as much as possible of the manifold functional
dimension (informative, expressive, directive, relational, rhetorical, artistic, etc.) of the biblical
text in translation. Of course, this goal can be accomplished only if readers have access to “the
contextual assumptions envisaged by the original author”, as provided by paratextual helps such
as expository notes, illustrations, glossary entries, cross references, and so forth (none of which
are deemed “relevant” by Goodwin).

Goodwin follows Gutt in identifying eight major categories of “communicative clues”,

namely, those “arising from”: “semantic representations”, e.g., lexical items (151); “syntactic
properties”, e.g., word order (152); “phonetic properties”, e.g., proper names (154);322 “semantic

319
“Sacrificer” is ultimately rejected due to its potential ambiguity in English: “Is a sacrifice … one
who sacrifices another being, or one who denies himself?” (146).
320
In view of such radical renderings (and many others could be cited – perhaps the most eccentric
being “Scorching Place” for hieron in Luke 2:46), one might turn the author’s complaint about “functional
equivalence” (138) on its head and claim: “This seems to be one of the most pernicious effects of [relevance
theory as practiced by Goodwin] in biblical translation: rather than tempering the urge to [foreignize] the
text, it positively encourages it …”
321
“Any feature of a text may be a communicative clue” (186; original italics).
322
Goodwin devotes considerable attention to the translation of proper names (154-160). Then,
after helpfully summarizing his “treatment of names” in the form of a chart indicating possible “translation
treatments” (159), he offers this disclaimer: “The Relevance Theory of Translation does not admit readily
to rules, because the only firm rule is the principle of relevance itself” (159). That is a most convenient
113
constraints on relevance”,323 e.g., pragmatic particles (160); “formulaic expressions”, e.g., the
greeting chairô (161);324 “onomatopoeia” (165), e.g., “quack” (166; nothing suggested from Luke
1-2); “the stylistic value of words”, e.g., ginomai (167), with special reference to kai egeneto (168);
and finally, “sound-based poetic qualities”, e.g., rhythm and rhyme (170).325 Goodwin answers
his own question: “Are there other clues?” (171) by adding three more: “redundancy”, e.g.,
subject pronouns (172); “noun inflection”, e.g., laos in Luke 1, which “is used four times in each
of the main cases” (173); and “tense morphology” (173), e.g., the use of the imperfect in Luke
2:41-44 (179).326 Finally, Goodwin reflects on the “uses and abuses of communicative clues” in
the endeavour to determine how a text, whether the original or its translation, achieves relevance
(183). He rejects the idea that “the task of the translator is to reproduce ‘equivalent’ clues in the
target language texts”;327 rather, it is “to produce a new text whose interpretation in the same
context resembles that of the source” (183; my italics). How is the latter task to be accomplished?
“The translator will of course use her or his own communicative clues, which may or may not be
the same as those used by the original communicator” (183; original italics). Personally, I do not
see a big difference between these two allegedly antithetical objectives.

In Chapter 6, Goodwin considers one more communicative clue, “repetitive texture”, which
is so widespread and important in biblical discourse that it requires special attention (185-186).
“Repetitive texture is the pattern of the tapestry considered overall, and is formed by threads of
different colour, which are constituted by the repetitions of certain words, phrases, or larger
textual units” (187). Goodwin concludes: “When [a word] is not translated concordantly, a
certain set of possible contextual implications are lost, and although the loss in the case of an
individual word may be almost imperceptibly small, when it is repeated across a large proportion
of word-stock in a given text, the loss becomes very palatable” (191). Goodwin’s own example
illustrates the problem here: “The NRSV renders µακάριος as ‘blessed’ in Luke 1.45, and as
‘fortunate’ in Acts 26.2” (191) – “I [Paul] consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King
Agrippa, I am to make my defence today …” Indeed, there is a loss of concordance and its stylistic
“colour” here (191), but to render makarios as “blessed” in this context would result in a
significant loss or distortion of meaning, hence presumably also “relevance” as well. In the end,
Goodwin himself is forced to admit that “it is not possible to determine which [instances of
repetition] to reproduce on objective grounds” (192).

procedure to go by – but after trying out such a method in the actual training of translators, even veterans,
most experienced trainers will quickly resort to the “rules, guidelines, and models” approach.
323
This is an oddly named category, for example: “Discourse markers are important in relevance
terms because they often rather explicitly point to how a portion of text achieves relevance” (160).
324
In seeking a “relevant direct translation” to bring out the nuance of the wordplay between chairô
and charis in Luke 1:30, Goodwin suggests (among other similarly arresting renderings): “‘Greetings
gorgeous girl’… ‘It’s the Lord who finds you gorgeous’” (164). Readers can readily come to their own
conclusion as to how “relevant” a rendering like that would turn out to be in their current English speech
(and church) setting.
325
Goodwin feels that “examples of rhythm and rhyme from our text are meagre and questionable”
(171). But surely the following (Luke 2:32) would qualify, at least in rhythmic terms (9 syllables per line):
φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν
καὶ δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ.
326
“There are distributive, morphological and semantic differences amongst the tenses, and …
these can serve to establish planes of discourse in a text [that] is well established” (176). This point is
well-taken, and Goodwin’s examples from Luke are instructive.
327
In fact, in Goodwin’s considered opinion, “there is a long-standing practice in biblical translation
of attending to only some of the clues to relevance, and this arises because the translator’s mind is clouded
by the idea of ‘equivalence’” (187). But what empirical evidence leads him to this dubious conclusion; is
he able to profile the minds of Bible translators (and their advisers) in order to determine their basic
motives and methods?
114
6.6 On “Literalism”

The core of Chapter 6 is devoted to a detailed consideration of “four motivations for literalism”,
which result in “producing four rather different kinds of literalism” (193). While the four distinct
“motivations” can be justified, I do not think that Goodwin demonstrates his claim about four
“different kinds” of literal rendering: “Neo-Platonic literalism” seeks, through repetition, to
reproduce the “soul”, or “spiritual essence”, of the source text in the target language (194).
“Gametic literalism” (197)328 is based on the “assumption that the KJV does represent a series of
‘agreed’ correspondences between source and translation texts, and establishes a set of tests
which all subsequent translations must pass” (198). “Neo-Cabbalistic literalism” (198) apparently
results from a translation methodology based on the establishment of “Leitwörter, ‘leading words’
… a word or word-complex that the translator must translate consistently in all its recurrences”
(201). Goodwin explains the difference between this and the first category: “Whereas in the
patristic [Neo-Platonic] tradition the target language is seen as the aggressor, in this rabbinic
[Neo-Cabbalistic] metaphor, it is the target language which is captured and altered by the
altogether more powerful source language” (199). Finally, “Christian neo-Cabbalism” is simply
a variant of the preceding category, except that it is practiced by Christians (instead of Jews),
who present “the scriptures in a kind of circumscribed English”, e.g., the NASB. Goodwin then
seeks to defend (in my opinion, unconvincingly) these “four motivations for literalism” from
assault by “James Barr’s machine gun” of biblical etymological fallacies (203-204), and
speculates that “English biblical translation might have progressed [quite differently, but
presumably in a ‘more relevant’ direction] had there been no Barr (1961) and no Nida (1969)”
(205).

“Deconstructive literalism” is the antithesis of the preceding four “motivations”, for it views
“re-writing as a form of translation” (207). In fact, not only is the form of the original text
demolished, but worse, so is its meaning, that is, in the work of George Aichele (e.g., 2001).
Before he proceeds to critique the often capricious, ideologically-driven theory of
“deconstruction” as applied to Bible translation, Goodwin turns once again to attack his favourite
straw man, Nida: “The problem with a dynamic equivalence translation … is that it does not
permit deconstruction of the source text” (208) – apparently because its practitioners assume
that the biblical text has a relatively stable, determinable “meaning” (as defined by reliable
scholarship), which translators must seek to re-express in their language, whether more, or less,
literally/idiomatically. In contrast, Goodwin’s notion of a “perfect translation”, which he admits
“is not to be achieved in this world” (209), seems to be a rather strange synthesis (dare we term
this a “marriage”?) between a literalistic Leitwörter formal procedure (à la Buber and Rosenzweig;
200-201, 209-210) and a “deconstructive” hermeneutical method: “The perfect translation, then,
is one which does not attempt to produce a target text with a ‘meaning’, but one which produces
a text with a range of possible interpretations, including those which cut against the grain of the
text [whatever that means!] and therefore require a higher level of reader attention” (209).329
But I would venture to say that any translation which, by targeting such a goal, turns out to be
overly ambiguous, abstruse, or avant-garde for its target audience (assuming that there is one)
will be quickly rejected.

At the end of this chapter, Goodwin digresses somewhat to apply his novel theory of
translation to speculate concerning the theological issue of the development of the “canon” of

328
Goodwin does not explain the term “gametic”, but associating this with the KJV tradition and
the notion of a “Holy Marriage” (25-27) leads me to speculate that it relates to the Greek verb gameô “I
marry.”
329
Such a translation derives from a “relevant interpretation”, which turns out “to be not a stable,
single interpretation, but a series of possible interpretations corresponding to different levels of reader
attention and forming a curve” (209; cf. 67-68).
115
Scripture. His views are similarly subversive and, to my mind, unsustainable: “A canon is created
only by translation, and comes into existence to the extent that a translator (or community of
translators) decides to perform the translation using the same Leitwörter across the works in
question” (211). Accordingly, he concludes that “‘the Hebrew scriptures’ became canon only at
the point at which they are translated as a body into Greek, and only to the extent that this is
done according to common Leitwörter” (212).330 It becomes clear then why Goodwin is so hostile
towards “Nida’s focus on idiomatic translation. Once the Leitwörter are lost, those thousands of
threads which bind the canon together, giving it its own distinctive repetitive texture, break, and
the canon seems no longer ‘sacred’” (213).

6.7 An “Experimental Translation”

In his “Final remarks”, Goodwin introduces his “experimental translation” of Luke 1-2: “It is an
experiment to see whether and to what extent a ‘perfect’ translation of any text is possible, if
perfection is defined … as that which permits both construction of the relevant interpretation,
and its deconstruction” (214). To be more specific, his aim is “to pay very careful attention to
each of the ‘communicative clues’ we have identified, in order to allow the reader to form (my,
the translator’s, conception of) the relevant interpretation of this text, as well as allowing him or
her to see the contradictions and problems in that interpretation” (214). But why, to begin with,
if the translator is following a “deconstructive” semantic methodology should “the reader” be
tied in any way to “the translator’s” interpretation of the text? After all, this approach encourages
the reader to conceptually “deconstruct” and then “re-write” the text in his/her own image, that
is, in a manner that seems to “make sense” in terms of her/his idiosyncratic cognitive
environment (cf. 207-209). In this respect, the translator simply translates for oneself. While
Goodwin refers to “the reader” in his description of method, nowhere in the book is this reader-
group specified, as demanded by most translation approaches, most explicitly within the
framework of Skopos functionalist theory and practice (e.g., Nord 1997). I cannot imagine any
significant contemporary English-speaking constituency that would comprehend, let alone
appreciate, on the whole,331 a translation that aims to simultaneously “construct” and
“deconstruct” itself in relation to Scripture, as suggested above.332 Certainly, any audience,
whether biblically literate or not will be left scratching their heads in the search for relevance
when hearing a crucial passage such as this (Luke 2:13-14; 223; italics added):

330
On the contrary, it could be argued that the Mosaic Torah, whether in oral or written form, was
recognized as divinely inspired and “canonical” by the Jewish community at a very early date in their
history, centuries before its translation into Greek. For a thorough refutation of Goodwin’s speculative
views on the canon, see OT: Steinmann (1999) and NT: Kruger (2012).
331
This is not to say that Goodwin’s version has no redeeming features at all. There are segments
of his translation that are easy enough to follow, for example, Luke 1:21-22 (218): “And there was the
crowd, expecting Zachary to come out, and wondering at how much time he was spending in the sanctuary.
When he did come out finally, he couldn’t speak to them – and they realized he had seen – he must have
seen – a vision in the sanctuary. There he was, gesticulating at them but remaining dumb.”
The problem is that that these coherent patches are interrupted by too many potholes of the
opposite kind, for example, the preceding verse, Luke 1:20 (218):
“You don’t trust my words?
Well look, in return
I will teach you the meaning of silence:
No power to speak
Until the days come
When ‘then’ becomes ‘now’.
And time delivers my Story.”
332
One possibility might be a group of non-Christian “deconstructionists”, or alternatively,
Christian “non-traditionalists”, who might enjoy playfully reading a/the sacred text in order to evaluate
and/or be entertained by its level of revolutionary theological expression and literary creativity.
116
Now then, from the sky beyond, quite unexpected, a vast army, praising God, saying:
Whoever’s honor’s highest up, higher still is his;
On the ground, God grants you peace;
He seems to like folks here.

6.8 Conclusion

Unfortunately, an unusually large number of errors mar the presentation of Goodwin’s published
text: problems pertaining to page formatting and font usage; many punctuation and periodic
spelling mistakes, in both English and the cited Greek text; misplaced or unlabeled diagrams;
unattributed quotations, and so forth. However, the author’s exposition is legible enough to
follow and benefit from. The criticisms noted above notwithstanding, this work is well worth a
read for its thorough, albeit complex exposition of Relevance Theory, its appraisal of selected
translations and approaches to the task, as well as for its source-text oriented documentation of
some of the critical challenges involved in Bible translation, e.g., via the different
“communicative clues” that are noted and illustrated. One might not fully follow, or agree with,
the author’s particular application of RTT to Luke 1-2, but then again, no translation is perfect,
and he has made a sustained effort to explain his objectives, despite the fact that no specific
target audience for his experimental rendition was identified. While I cannot recommend this
book to ordinary translators (it is potentially too perplexing), there is no doubt that graduate
students in the field of translation studies, biblical studies, professional translation consultants,
sacred as well as secular, and all those interested in the theory and practice of contemporary
Scripture translation would benefit from working through Goodwin’s exposition with an
analytical eye – not only for the abundant interdisciplinary information to be gained but,
perhaps, also to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of the present reviewer’s lengthy critique.

6.9 References

Aichele, G. 2001, The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as Semiotic Mechanism Harrisburg: Trinity Press.
Baker, M. 2011, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge.

Barnwell, K. 1986. Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles. Dallas: SIL International.
Barr, J. 1961. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beekman J. & Callow, J. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
DeWaard, J. & Nida, E. A. 1986. From One Language To Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Goodwin, P. 2013. Translating the English Bible: From Relevance to Deconstruction. Cambridge: James Clarke.
Gutt, E-A. 1992. Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas / New York: SIL /
UBS.
Gutt, E-A. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Hatim, B. 2013. Teaching and Researching Translation. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
King, P. D. 2012. Surrounded by Bitterness: Image Schemas and Metaphors for Conceptualizing Distress in Classical
Hebrew. Eugene: Pickwick.
Kruger, M. J. 2012. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton:
Crossway Books.
Munday, J. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge.

117
Nida E. A. & Taber, C. R. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nord C. 1997. Translating as Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Pym, A. 2010. Exploring Translation Theories. London / New York: Routledge.
Steinmann, A. E., 1999. The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon. St. Louis: Concordia.

Van Wolde, E. 2009. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Languages and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Venuti, L. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London / New York: Routledge.

Wendland, E. R. 1987. The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation. New York: United Bible Societies.
Wendland, E. R. 1996. A Review of “Relevance Theory” in Relation to Bible Translation in South-Central Africa. JNSL
22/1, 91-106.

Wendland, E. R. 1997. A Review of “Relevance Theory” in Relation to Bible Translation in South-Central Africa. Part
II. JNSL 23/1, 83-108.

118
 7. Framing the Frames: A Theoretical Framework for the
Cognitive Notion of “Frames of Reference”333

7.1 Introduction—the Conceptual “framework” for this study

Several recently published works on the subject of cognitive “frames” and “framing” (e.g., Bible
translation—Frames of reference, Scripture frames & framing, Contextual frames of reference in
translation)334 have largely presupposed the theoretical validity of these terms when employing
the conceptual metaphor of “construction” to the field of Bible translation. In the rush perhaps
to move on to some concrete applications of this all-inclusive mental model, its scholarly
legitimacy may have been largely taken for granted. This crucial issue must therefore be
addressed: How firm of an academic foundation does the common expression “frames of
reference” have? In other words, how strongly do current linguistic (semantic) and cognitive
studies support the application of frames and framing to the complex communication process of
Bible translation, whether in theoretical or practical terms? Some additional conceptual framing,
or “topical contextualizing,” of these key designative representations is needed then to establish
and/or reinforce their validity and utility as heuristic tools for the translation trade—that is, for
teaching/learning about the subject, or when actually composing and evaluating vernacular
translations.

In part one of this study I will overview, mainly by direct quotation, some of the relevant
literature from various fields that is presently available, simply to demonstrate that the notion
of conceptual frames and framing is well established in the thinking of a significant group of
contemporary cognitive-linguists and also a growing number of literary scholars. This
information serves as a background for part two and my own limited elaboration of some of these
seminal ideas with respect to Bible translation, namely, as a follow-up to works such as those
cited above that utilize the “frames of reference” metaphor.335 This takes the form of a somewhat
expanded functional methodology that aims to provide some useful insights regarding the task
of exegesis and translation, especially in a setting of teaching and learning about translating the
Scriptures. In part three then I apply certain aspects of this model to a small speech segment of a
seemingly simple narrative passage (“Behold—the Lamb of God…!” – John 1:29) in order to
reveal how a “frames approach” helps us to conceptualize both the process of textual
interpretation, on the one hand, and interlingual communication on the other.

333
This is a revised edition of a paper prepared for the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship
Conference: “Translation and Cognition” – June 3-5, 2010, University of Murcia (Murcia, Spain).
334
These are, respectively: Wilt (ed.), 2003; Wilt and Wendland, 2008; Wendland, 2008.
335
The expression “frames of reference” derives from the conceptual metaphor PERCEPTION IS
CONSTRUCTION – i.e., human perception involves (among other things) composing, prioritizing, and
interrelating cognitive mini- and macro-structures with respect to distinct aspects of what we experience,
think about, and then attempt to communicate to others via verbal and non-verbal signs (cf. Lakoff 2006).
For two recent studies based on the theory of conceptual metaphor as applied to the process of translation
and theorizing about translation, see Martin de León (2010) and Monti (2010). “I see attention to cognitive
and conceptual metaphors as an important key to the future growth of the field of translation studies”
(Tymoczko 2010:139). The “frames/framework” metaphor is not considered among the inventory of those
that have been used in translation-related studies according to the essays contained in St. André (ed.) 2010.
And speaking of metaphor in this context, it has been noted that “Metaphor is rather the result of textual
interpenetration of two or more frames of reference. Metaphor is grasped in a reader’s processing of a text
(not a linguistic unit, which is too limiting a concept). It is more than an inherent quality of a text – and
its occurrence is not a linear process. Metaphor occurs with an interactive feedback loop. A text projects
characters, settings, and ‘worlds,’ the reader (re-) constructs on that basis; in that context, semantic
integration occurs across multiple frames of references” (Hobbins 2011, np).
119
7.2 Frames and framing in current cognitive linguistic studies

In this opening section I present a selection of definitions, examples, and applications that have
been gleaned from a number of different sources to serve as an introductory survey of the field
of frames and framing and, at the same time, to suggest how these important concepts undergird
the “frames of reference” approach, as used in the works cited above.

A “frame,” generally speaking, may be defined as a psychological construct, or mental model,

which furnishes one with a prevailing point of view that manipulates prominence and relevance
to influence thinking and, if need be, subsequent judgment as well.336 A frame is an interrelated
set of concepts, including associated cultural attitudes, expectations, values, and assumptions,
that forms the hermeneutical background for perceiving and understanding any individual
concept within it. In other words, a frame is a cognitive schema involving a grouping, or “file,”
of interrelated “signs” (in a semiotic sense) that guides a strategy of perception and interpretation
which people rely on to understand and respond to the world around them.337 They thus mentally
project into/onto their experiences and circumstances the interpretive macro-frames that allow
them to make sense of their surroundings (“reality”) in relation to themselves. They then
normally shift current frames only when some contradiction, conundrum, incongruity, or a
change in the context of discourse calls for it. People only become aware of the frames that they
regularly use when some necessity forces them to replace or integrate one frame with another.
By inviting others (observers, listeners, readers, etc.) to conceptualize a certain topic from a
predetermined point of view, a text “framer” not only supplies an initial orienting mental
scenario, but frequently s/he is also able to control their cognitive and emotive alignment as well
as their positive or negative response to that particular subject or issue.

In the visual field of a picture, for example, some objects are typically portrayed as being
especially important, while others are allowed (or deliberately made) to recede into the
background (i.e., so-called “figure-ground” effect, or Gestalt dynamics).338 By implying a distinct

336
An early development of frame theory and its application is found in Goffman 1974. The present
paragraph is based on information obtained from the definition of “cognitive framing” found at
http://world-information.org/trd/06 -- accessed on 28/12/2009. I am using frame to refer to the static
conceptual representation, or mental model, that results from an instance of framing, or “projection,” i.e.,
the dynamic cognitive activity involved. “Humans posit or identify social and physical ‘frames’ as they
interact with other persons or objects. These ‘frames’ are mental projections that are shaped by a person’s
understanding of the world and those things that inhabit or structure it. ‘Frames’ comprise the context
within which all forms of interaction take place” (Matthews 2008:166)—including all human perception,
interpretation, and communication.
337
Frames are cognitive “clues that tell everyone how to understand what has occurred … a
structure of expectation …. A body of knowledge that is evoked in order to provide an inferential base for
the understanding of an utterance” (Lakoff 2001:24, 47)—a paragraph, or indeed, a complete discourse.
In this sense, the notion of “frames of reference” serves also in other disciplines, for example, as a synonym
for clinical “case studies” in psychosocial counseling (Bruce and Borg 2002: “Introduction”). Another useful
definition is as follows: “Frames are cognitive shortcuts that people use to help make sense of complex
information. Frames help us to interpret the world around us and represent that world to others. They help
us organize complex phenomena into coherent, understandable categories. When we label a phenomenon,
we give meaning to some aspects of what is observed, while discounting other aspects because they appear
irrelevant or counter-intuitive. Thus, frames provide meaning through selective simplification, by filtering
people's perceptions and providing them with a field of vision for a problem” (Kaufman, et. al. 2003:np).
338
The concept of “frames of reference” derives from Gestalt theory and is used to designate the
coordinated systems that compute and specify the various possible spatial relationships from a certain
perspective between an entity to be located (referent or figure) and an orienting landmark (or ground)
(Huang, Pragmatics, 149). So also, by metaphoric extension, a complete text, or some element within it,
may be cognitively “located” or specified in terms of a particular perspective with reference to one or more
of the distinct dimensions of its wider contextual setting.
120
organization (“perspective”) for the optical information at hand, such a pictographic frame serves
to delineate the imagery and influences how it is to be construed and reacted to. By directing the
viewer to consider certain prominent features and to ignore others, this dominant frame thus
organizes one’s perception and may itself be resized or reshaped to fit within the constraints of
some even larger conceptual framework. There is, then, an indispensable connection between
semiotic framing and reasoning. When applying problem-solving techniques, as in political
negotiations, diverse notional frames may be introduced to influence how a particular issue is
perceived; these can in turn lead to radically different solutions, for instance, with respect to the
territorial integrity of the “nation” of Israel and a viable Palestinian “homeland.”

A dominant framing effect (“bias”) is normally present also in the terminology of public and
private media. News broadcasts, for example, may try to follow the rules for “objective” reporting
and yet inadvertently (or deliberately, in countries with a “muzzled press”) convey a particularly
“framed” presentation of events that prevents some (perhaps a majority) of the
audience/readership from making a balanced assessment of the persons, activities, or situations
being reported on, e.g., concerning the notion of “free elections” in nations as diverse as
Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. Similarly, political as well as public-relations (PR) firms typically
use carefully chosen terminology to help “frame” a given issue, structuring the prevailing
discussion and shaping the substantive questions which then subsequently emerge, e.g.,
“maintaining economic superiority” versus “preserving energy independence” in relation to the
sensitive subject of offshore drilling for oil. Such “bridging language” employs a strategy of
responding to issues with specific words or concepts that shift the discourse from taboo or
controversial topics to more acceptable ones, e.g., concerning one’s sexual orientation as it affects
his/her qualifications for a particular public position, elected office, or civic role. Frames, on
various levels, thus perform the necessary function of directing, even limiting, debate by putting
into verbal play selected key terms, examples, comparisons, and conceptual metaphors through
which participants can comprehend and discuss an issue—“global warming” and “carbon
footprints,” for example, in relation to the GNP and what constitutes a “developing” as opposed
to a “developed” (industrialized) nation with respect to their attributed responsibilities for
dealing with the world’s acknowledged environmental problems.

The well-known cognitive linguist, George Lakoff, gives the following elementary illustration
of “framing,” along with several derived principles that it illustrates:339 During a conversation,
for example, if someone suddenly tells you, “Don’t think of an elephant!”—you will discover that
the command is impossible to carry out. Why? Because in order to deliberately not think of an
elephant, you will automatically have to think of one. This demonstrates some important things

“Many translation theorists are now convinced of the importance of frames and of a gestalt
approach to translation. … [A] good translator reads the text, and in so doing accesses grouped linguistic
and textual knowledge. At the text level, translation theorists have assigned this ‘grouped’ knowledge
various names, which include ‘text type’ and ‘genre’ … [F]rames are a combination of prior knowledge,
generalizations and expectations regarding the text. As the text is read so it is checked against expectations
and degrees of fit with other similar known or possible texts. As this process unfolds, a meaningful, but
still virtual, text begins to unfold in the mind of the translator… From the meaningful but wordless text,
the translator then sketches a pattern of words in the target language” (Katan 2004:169). This intermediate
“virtual text” in the translator’s mind replaces the “transfer” stage of Nida and Taber’s three-stage
translation model (1969:33). Simultaneously then, the translator must cognitively mediate and manage
(interrelate) the frames of meaning generated by the SL text with the frames of meaning made available
in context of culture (including world-view) by the linguistic system of the TL in order to produce the
closest possible conceptually equivalent text (for a simple illustration of this cognitive process, see Katan
2004:170).
339
This paragraph is based on G. Lakoff’s “An introduction to framing and its uses in politics”
(posted on 14/2/2006) accessed from the website of the Rockridge Institute (www.rockridgeinstitute.org).
121
about lexical-semantic frames, the simplest types that form the basis for the more complex and
inclusive frames mentioned above.

In the first place, every visualizable word in a language (in English, a noun or a verb, and
sometimes even a qualifier) evokes a certain frame—a conceptual contextualizing structure used
in all thought and discourse. “Elephant,” for example, evokes the familiar image of an elephant
plus a variable number of features associated with this large mammal, depending on the verbal
and non-verbal context (e.g., large floppy ears, a long trunk-like nose/hand, four stout stumpy
legs, a dull grayish color, etc.). Depending on one’s cultural background and experience, other
sensory impressions may be evoked as well, especially those based on sound or smell (e.g., a
circus elephant). As already indicated, negating a specific frame also serves to elicit it. Related
words used within an “active” conceptual frame and a particular setting of discourse further
develop that frame and generate associated implications. For example, the sentence “Dumbo was
a circus star” continues the elephant frame and richly expands it by evoking (for those who
remember!) the classic Walt Disney animated movie by the name of “Dumbo.” Finally, reiterating
a given frame reinforces it upon one’s perception and memory, thus helping to prevent possible
cases of ambiguity or unclarity of reference. For example, if somewhat later in a conversation
about the 1941 film someone said, “His ears saved the day and Walt Disney too,” informed
listeners would apply the combined elephant-Dumbo frame to the fact that the pachyderm’s
enormous ears enabled him to fly, making him a hero, while the popular movie helped Disney
studios to survive a severe wartime financial downturn.

In the following quotation, Lakoff applies the notion of “frames and framing” to the political
scene in order to illustrate how it explains some of our fundamental thought processes and deeply
felt ideals, which are then evoked and argued in public debate (added italics):340

Expressing progressive political ideas and values effectively begins with understanding
frames. Frames are the mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality — and
sometimes to create what we take to be reality. Contemporary research on the brain and the
mind has shown that most thought — most of what the brain does — is below the level of
consciousness, and these unconscious thoughts frame conscious thought in ways that are
not obvious. These mental structures, or frames, appear in and operate through the words we
use to discuss the world around us, including politics. … Frames simultaneously shape our
thinking and language at multiple levels — the level of moral values, the level of political
principles, the level of issue areas (e.g., the environment), the level of a single issue (e.g.,
the climate crisis), and the level of specific policy (e.g., cap-and-auction). Successful
political arguments depend as much on a well-articulated moral frame as they do on policy
details — often more. The most effective political messages are those that clearly and
coherently link an issue area, single issue, or specific policy to fundamental moral values
and political principle frames. …341

Frames matter. Our fundamental moral frame, our worldview, determines how we experience
and think about every aspect of our lives, from child rearing to healthcare, from public
transportation to national security, from religion to love of country. Yet, people are typically
unconscious of how their fundamental moral frames shape their political positions. [We

340
Posted on the website of the Rockridge Institute (www.rockridgeinstitute.org) under the title
“frames and framing” on 26/7/2007. This quote is used for illustrative purposes only; the political views
expressed are not at issue. For another illustration of “framing” in political discourse, see Macgilchrist
2007.
341
Cognitive “framing” is thus an active perceptual (constitutive) and a conceptual (compositional)
cognitive strategy for interpreting and representing the world of reality and experience to others (and to
oneself!) via verbal texts as well as other semiotic signal systems.
122
 all must together] work to make that thinking more explicit in order to improve political
debate.

The preceding discussion helps to introduce and orient us to a helpful theoretical perspective
for the “frames of reference” model, namely, the cognitive linguistic approach of “frame
semantics,” which was developed in the 1980s by Charles Fillmore. Fillmore defines the key term
frame as “any system of concepts related in such a way that to understand any one of them you
have to understand the whole structure in which it fits…a system of categories structured in
accordance with some motivating context” (2006:371, 381; Geerarts 2010:223; Cienki 2007:170-
173).342 The motivating context, in turn, refers to “some body of understandings, some pattern
of practices, or some history of social institutions, against which we find intelligible the creation
of a particular category in the history of the language community” (Fillmore:381).

Thus, one cannot fully comprehend the meaning of a single word (a lexical “sign”) without
access to all the essential “background knowledge” which relates to that word. For example, one
would not be able to understand the word “buy” (in English or its equivalent in another language)
without knowing anything about the general situation of the commercial transaction in mind,
which also involves, in addition to a “buyer,” a seller, something offered for sale, the value of
the goods, money, the setting, the particular interpersonal and sociocultural relationships that
link the buyer and the seller, and so forth. A certain perspective, or focus, is also adopted; in the
case of “buy,” it would be that of the buyer, not the seller (Geeraerts 2010:226). Frames are thus
based on learned information as well as recurring informal experiences in life, which store in
one’s memory bank a “commercial transaction” frame that would be evoked by the word “buy”
in an appropriate context. Frame semantic research seeks to discover and delineate the various
reasons that a speech community has for creating the conceptual category (“sense”) represented
(or “indexed”) by a given word in each of the different cultural settings in which it is used (or
not used), for such usage is viewed as part of the word’s overall “meaning.” From the preceding
discussion, it is obvious that frame theory does not attempt to distinguish between so-called
“referential (denotative) meaning” and “encyclopedic,” including “connotative” (ideological,
emotional, value-based, etc.), meaning as was done in the old componential semantic
approach.343 Furthermore, because it is a pragmatically-oriented, cognitive representation of
meaning and communication, frame theory clearly indicates why translation—of any type—is
ultimately impossible, that is, if complete conceptual and emotive (semantic and pragmatic)
“equivalence” (or cognitive “parity”) is the envisioned goal.

Some additional developments of the basic frame model in conceptual linguistic studies
emerge in the examples given in the following citation (Petruck 1996:3):

A number of important concepts figure into the Frame Semantics approach to linguistic
description and analysis. One such concept is that of a prototype, understood as a fairly
large slice of the surrounding culture against which the meaning of a word is defined and
understood. For example, to understand the meaning of the word “breakfast,” it is
necessary to understand the institutions and practices of the culture in which the category

342
“[T]he notion of ‘frame’ is largely synonymous with that of Idealized Cognitive Model [Lakoff
1987], referring in general to the knowledge structures that embody our thinking about the world”
(Geerarts 2010:223). More specifically, such cognitive models are “structured sets of beliefs and
expectations that direct cognitive processing, including the use of language” (ibid.:224). We might add that
cognitive models, or mental frames, include visual images as well as other sensory impressions that happen
to be evoked by a particular mental frame (e.g., buying and selling fish at a seaside setting) and also any
associated emotive reactions and evaluative attitudes.
343
“One should not assign to the semantic structure of the lexicon all the culturally relevant
encyclopedic information existing in the culture, but include in the meaning only those components
marked by lexical and distribution contrasts” (Nida 1975:137).
123
 exists. In this case, it is necessary to understand the practice of eating three meals a day
at more or less fixed times and that the meal eaten in the early part of the day after a
period of sleep has a special menu; for this meal we use the word “breakfast.” The
conditions which define the prototype need not all be present in order for native speakers
to use the word appropriately. …344

Much of the Frame Semantics literature covers frames and individual words (or sets of
words) and expressions.345 In addition to its utility in lexical semantics, the frame is also
considered a useful tool in text semantics and the semantics of grammar. The interpreter
of a text invokes a frame when assigning an interpretation to a piece of text by placing its
contents in a pattern known independently of the text. A text evokes a frame when a
linguistic form or pattern is conventionally associated with that particular frame. … For
example, consider the sentence “Julia will open her presents after blowing out the candles
and eating some cake.” Although there is no mention of a birthday party, interpreters
sharing the requisite cultural background invoke a birthday party scene.

The following illustrative discussion further grounds the frame semantic approach within the
general field of cognitive linguistics (Shead 2007:45, 47, original emphasis):

The heart of a frame-based approach to semantics, then, is relationships between

concepts—particularly that between a profile and its base. The profile is “the concept
symbolized by the word in question,” and its base is “that knowledge or conceptual
structure that is presupposed by the profiled concept” (Croft and Cruse 2004:15). For
example, HYPOTENUSE is based on, or presupposes, the RIGHT-ANGLED TRIANGLE
frame, with its conception of three sides spatially coordinated in a particular way.
Similarly, to understand the concept RADIUS (and hence the word radius) requires prior
knowledge of the CIRCLE concept. In fact, both hypotenuse and radius profile nothing more
than a straight line; the difference lies in the bases against which they are profiled. …
Croft defines “frame” in terms of this profile–base relationship: a frame is “A SEMANTIC
STRUCTURE THAT FUNCTIONS AS THE BASE FOR AT LEAST ONE CONCEPT PROFILE
(typically, many profiles)” (Croft and Cruse 2004:15, emphasis original). These two
conceptual entities—a profile and its frame—are simultaneously evoked, for either the
addresser or the addressee, when a word is used.

344
Ellen van Wolde has recently (2009) developed the notion of “frames” and broader “scripts or
prototypical scenarios” in order to present an integrated cognitive approach to biblical studies and studies
of the written and material culture of the ancient Near East (“Reframing Biblical Studies” – note pp. 59-60).
Similarly, Robbins has applied “frame and prototype criticism” with reference to his detailed
investigation of “[early] Christian discourse,” based on the following general and specific assumptions:
“[A]t its foundations human cognition is metaphorical [and/or metonymic, i.e., analogical and/or
associative]. Humans continually use reasoning in one domain to sort through cognitive items in another
domain. This means that throughout the millennia humans have continually used forms, which cognitive
scientists call ‘frames,’ in one conceptual domain to understand and interpret forms in another domain. …
[T]he six early Christian rhetorolects investigated and interpreted in this volume [i.e., wisdom, prophetic,
apocalyptic, precreation, priestly, miracle]…are cultural-religious frames that introduce multiple networks
of thinking, reasoning, and acting that were alive and dynamic in early Christian thought, language, and
practice” (2009:99-100, 118; material in brackets added).
345
For example, in a recent study Bosman demonstrates “that love and affection between humans
or humans and God in the HB [Hebrew Bible] are structured and presented in different frames, namely,
the Kinship, Romance, Friendship, Political, Adultery, Human-God, Idolatry, Conduct, Inanimate Object
and Wisdom Frames. … ‫ אהב‬can only be understood properly if the conceptual frames in which it occurs
are considered. These frames contain all the background information that is needed to understand [and
translate] a word within its specific context and time” (Bosman 2010: 112-113,121-122, original
emphasis).
124
David Katan (2004:51-52) adds the notion of hierarchy, inclusion, and connotation to the basic
frames model:346

To summarize, every message contains another message: the meta-message. The meta-
message is located at a higher level and frames the message, and hence houses
connotations. The frame itself is an internal mental representation, which can also contain
an idealized example or prototype of what we should expect. Many of these frames
together make up our map of the world.

The concept of frames and the process of framing has even been turned into a media-based,
public-issue centered business by the web-based company known as Frame Works, which has
developed the patented procedure of “Strategic Frame Analysis” to carry out their various
analyses, assessments, and advice on behalf of paid clients. Their professional methodology is
described (in part) below in order to more fully illustrate how cognitive frames/framing operate
in actual practice during the process of persuasive human communication (i.e., rhetorically—in a
certain strategic direction, to accomplish a particular goal):347

The FrameWorks Perspective: Strategic Frame Analysis™

Put simply, framing refers to the construct of a communication — its language, visuals and
messengers — and the way it signals to the listener or observer how to interpret and classify
new information. By framing, we mean how messages are encoded with meaning so that
they can be efficiently interpreted in relationship to existing beliefs or ideas. Frames trigger
meaning.

This approach is strategic in that it not only deconstructs the dominant frames of reference
that drive reasoning on public issues, but it also identifies those alternative frames most
likely to stimulate public reconsideration and enumerates their elements (reframing). We
use the term reframe to mean changing "the context of the message exchange" so that
different interpretations and probable outcomes become visible to the public (Dearing &
Rogers 1994:98). Strategic frame analysis™ offers policy advocates a way to work
systematically through the challenges that are likely to confront the introduction of new
legislation or social policies, to anticipate attitudinal barriers to support, and to develop
research-based strategies to overcome public misunderstanding.

… In his seminal book Public Opinion (1921:16), Walter Lippmann was perhaps the first to
connect mass communications to public attitudes and policy preferences by recognizing
that the "the way in which the world is imagined determines at any particular moment what
men will do." The modern extension of Lippmann's observation is based on the concept of
"frames."

346
Thus, every conceptual frame that is evoked in a particular textual cotext and sociocultural
setting is normally included within, and/or associated with contextually related frames to which certain
emotions and attitudes may be attached, along with a specific point of focus or emphasis. Katan divides
his insightful book into four major sections (2004:1, added italics): 1. “Framing cultures: The culture-bound
mental map of the world”; 2. “Shifting frames: Translation and mediation in theory and practice”; 3. “The
array of frames: Communication orientations”; and 4. “Intercultural competence” (or, following the
preceding pattern of headings, “Training in frames”): “On becoming a cultural interpreter and mediator.”
347
Accessed from the FrameWorks website http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/; italics added.
125
 People use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. Since most people are looking to
process incoming information quickly and efficiently, they rely upon cues within that new
information to signal to them how to connect it with their stored images of the world. The
"pictures in our heads," as Lippmann called them, might better be thought of as vividly
labeled storage boxes - filled with pictures, images, and stories from our past encounters
with the world and labeled youth, marriage, poverty, fairness, etc. The incoming
information provides cues about which is the right container for that idea or experience.
The efficient thinker makes the connection, a process called "indexing," and moves on.

Put another way, how an issue is framed is a trigger to these shared and durable cultural
models that help us make sense of our world. When a frame ignites a cultural model, or
calls it into play in the interpretation, the whole model is operative. This allows people to
reason about an issue, to make inferences, to fill in the blanks for missing information by
referring to the robustness of the model, not the sketchy frame.

As Lippmann observed, "We define first, and then see." The cognitive cultural models that
are sparked by the frame allow us to forget certain information and to invent other details,
because the frame is now in effect.348

Several recent books by prominent cognitive linguists and literary critics have also promoted
and popularized the concept of frames and framing as a vital aspect of human perception,
reasoning, and communication via various modes and media of transmission. A few sample
citations follow (italics added):

 Contextual frame theory was developed in order to understand how readers track
references to characters and events through the process of reading. The basic notion
involves the idea of a contextual frame, a mental representation of the circumstances
containing the current context. This is built up from the text itself as well as from
inferences drawn directly from the text. …. A reader must thus keep track of which
information applies in any particular context, and this knowledge is arranged in terms of
contextual frames. These are not simply ‘snapshots’ of successive moments across the
narrative, however, but are a series of ongoing and shifting mental representations of the
world of the literary work. … Though readers need to hold several contextual frames in
mind, the current point of reading forms the main frame in focus. …. As the narrative
moves on, different contexts move into the primary focus: the current frame that is being
monitored is said to be primed. Characters, objects and the location of the main context
currently being monitored are all bound to that frame and primed too. When the reader’s
attention is taken elsewhere, that frame and all its contents become unprimed. (Stockwell
2002:155-156)

348
The elements that typically serve to signal meaning in news reports, for example, include
familiar metaphors, personages, anecdotes, historical events, visuals (photos, pictures, graphs, charts, etc.),
and key terms (both words and phrases).
126
 Placing nonfocal information in [the] clause-initial position has the effect of establishing
an explicit frame of reference for the clause that follows. It does not result in emphasis.
By definition, emphasis refers to taking what was already most important in a clause and
placing it in [syntactic position two] at the beginning of the clause. Frames of reference
are used to highlight the introduction of a new topic or center of interest in the discourse.
They are also used to attract attention to a discontinuity in the discourse in order to help
the reader/hearer properly process it. Contrast is not created by the use of frames of
reference, though it may increase it. (Runge 2010:224-225)

 …de Pizan’s analogies can be taken as blends with narrative frames attached. Frames such
as analogies like these surface from time to time in the text to help us make sense of it,
just as they must have helped de Pizan’s readers make sense of it so many years ago. The
cognitive narratologist Manfred Jahn has identified frames to “denote the cognitive model
that is selected and used (and sometimes discarded) in the process of reading a narrative
text”… As remembered frameworks engaged to interpret new situations…, these models
might be in constant use when we read. The Sicambrians, for example, are defined for us
in the text as the French (163). By knowing who the French are we use a known frame
(the “French”) to understand the unknown group (the Sicambrians). … “how readers and
listeners process a narrative […] depends on the nature and scope of the world knowledge
to which it is indexed”… In extremely subtle ways, our “French” frame would be indexed
to the Sicambrians, and we would then continue reading unproblematically after coming
across the previously unknown entity. (Semino & Culpepper 2002:12-13)

 To this point, our taxonomies of integration networks have emphasized the role of frames.
Simplex, mirror, single scope, and double scope networks were all defined, as main types,
by the relations of the organizing frames of the inputs and their relation to the frames in
the generic space and the blended space. But identity and character are an equally
important aspect of the way we think. We can think of frames as transporting across
different characters (the buy-sell frame stays the same regardless of who is buying and
selling), or we can think of character as transporting across different frames: Odysseus
remains who he is regardless of his situation. (Fauconnier & Turner 2002:251)

 Metaphor allows the mind to use a few basic ideas—substance, location, force, goal—to
understand more abstract domains. Combinatorics allows a finite set of simple ideas to
give rise to an infinite set of complex ones. Another fallout of the metaphor metaphor is
the phenomenon of framing. Many disagreements in human affairs turn not on differences
in data or logic but on how a problem is framed. We see this when adversaries “talk past
each other” or when understanding something requires a “paradigm shift.” …. But isn’t it
undeniable that beliefs and decisions are affected by how the facts are framed? Yes, but
that is not necessarily irrational. Different ways of framing a situation may be equally

127
 consistent with the facts being described in that very sentence, but they make different
commitments about other facts which are not being described. As such, rival framings can
be examined and evaluated, not just spread by allure or imposed by force. (Pinker
2007:243, 260-261, original emphasis)

Finally, I must call attention to a much more sophisticated and extensive application of the
notion of frames and framing that has been recently applied to Bible translation by Richard Hoyle
under the term “scenario theory.” The following are several pertinent excerpts to orient readers
with regard to this perceptive and productive approach, which is well worth studying in its
entirety (the following quotes are from Hoyle 2008, re-paragraphed and slightly edited):

Minsky (1975), calling scenarios “frames”, defines them as mental structures representing
stereotyped situations, by which we understand new situations, and which we constantly
update in the light of experience. Stereotypical elements function as “defaults” within
these frames unless contradicted. Since understanding and interpretation is based on
comparison between the “remembered framework” and the actual situation, it is vital in
communication that the audience access the appropriate “frame”. However, … experience,
and thus “remembered frameworks” are affected by culture. So translations, which
normally involve transfer of meaning not just across language but also across culture, will
be interpreted in the light of different frames from those of the original author and
audience. This means that a translation must do more than duplicate words, it must
duplicate the situational frames those words originally referred to. Minsky acknowledges
that people’s mental frames can be modified in the light of new experience. This means
that translated Scriptures can modify people’s scenarios, e.g., connecting God with love
and forgiveness. (p.7)

Sanford and Garrod … also stress the contractual nature of communication: The basis on
which discourse is produced is essentially contractual. A writer wishes to convey an idea
to his readers. In essence, this means that he must establish in the mind of his reader a
situational model which is the same (or closely similar to) the one in his own mind. He
can then refer to this model as his discourse unfolds and be reasonably certain that what
he says will be intelligible. Their work is important for translation, because they show not
only that texts are understood by the reader’s interlinking the text with existing mental
scenarios, but also that the writer has the responsibility to make the appropriate scenario
clear to the reader. The implicit/explicit issue then, concerns not simply translation, but
communication. Translators, as communicators to a new target audience, must reevaluate
the level of implicit information in accordance with their new audience’s mental scenarios,
so that essential links missing in the hearers’ scenarios are supplied explicitly in the text.
(9-10)

Although [Sperber and Wilson] speak of “cognitive environment”, which also includes the
real life situation at the time of communication, the “memorized information”, which
makes up the bulk of an individual’s “cognitive environment” and which facilitates
perception and inference, is of course the organized body of information categorized and
stored in the individual’s mental scenarios. For [S&W], the communicator’s role is to
express the message in the most “relevant” way, in the light of assumptions about the
audience’s cognitive environment. This includes communicating in the most efficient way,
omitting what can be easily inferred, but making explicit anything whose omission would
make the text harder to process. If translation is to be “relevant” it must communicate in
this same manner, saying neither too much nor too little to efficiently communicate the
author’s intended message. Thus in translation, the decision whether to make part of the
message explicit should not be decided simply by what was explicit in the source language

128
 text, but rather be based on whether the target audience, in the light of their preexisting
mental scenarios, will understand the original message easily and accurately. (10)

[C]ommunication relies on the communicator and audience having similar mental

scenarios. These shared scenarios are the “given” in communication, on the basis of which
the communicator chooses how explicit or implicit to be, so that the audience is able to
accurately guess the fuller picture of what the communicator is trying to say, by “filling
in” what is left unsaid from their existing knowledge stored in their mental scenarios.
However, these scenarios are not universally the same, but are culture- and language-
specific. So to understand any text, we must not rely on our own mental scenarios, but
identify the mental scenarios in the mind of the original author. Thus knowledge of New
Testament Greek scenarios is vital for exegesis of the New Testament texts. Similarly, to
translate, we must also know the mental scenarios of the new target audience, since our
message must be framed in such a way that they can accurately fill in what the author
intended as implicit information, rather than make incorrect assumptions on the basis of
their own cultural presuppositions. But how can we possibly know what other people’s
scenarios are? Fortunately, there are lexical and grammatical clues. Because concepts are
grouped mentally in scenarios, the grouping of vocabulary in a text indicates which
concepts were grouped in the writer’s mind. Also, as Schank and Abelson … point out
with respect to scripts, the presence of scenarios may be linked to certain grammatical
markers such as the definite article. (15)

7.3 Translation in terms of conceptual “frames”

Virtually all types of translation-related activity can be conceptualized, discussed, taught,

practiced, and assessed in terms of the conceptual metaphor of “framing” (the active cognitive
means of organizing experience) and “frames” (the stative cognitive result in terms of knowledge
structures). The following, for example, are some key concepts in this model as they might relate
to the process of Bible translation:349

 “re-framing”: composing a target language (TL) text with careful reference to the
semantic sense and pragmatic significance of a biblical source language (SL) text
(the various components of the original, from its sounds to levels of discourse
structure), thus generating different, but hopefully sufficiently similar conceptual
(including emotive-attitudinal connotative) frames in the TL, depending on the
specific language, culture, project job description (brief), and Skopos;

 “de-framing”: either rendering the biblical text overly periphrastically and thus
favoring an interpretation influenced by the cognitive-emotive frames of the TL
language-culture (i.e., hyper-“domestication”)—or—adopting an overly literal
approach, producing a linguistically unnatural text in the TL, such that the

349
The expression “conceptual frames of reference” covers a range of alternative terminology in the literature
of cognitive linguistics, with each option tending to have a more specific area of application, e.g., “scripts”
(conversational/speech frames), “scenarios” (narrative and descriptive frames), “schema-ta” (expository and
hortatory frames, or standardized inductive and deductive models) (cf. Wendland 2008:1-18; Hoyle 2008:13).
129
 intended audience cannot readily understand, or misunderstands, the intended
sense of the original message (i.e., hyper-“foreignization”);

 “para-framing”: expanding or correcting the conceptual framework of the TL

readership through various supplementary (paratextual) means, e.g., explanatory
footnotes, introductions, illustrations, cross-references, glossary entries, etc., so
that their understanding more closely matches the cognitive frames that (most
scholars agree) were most likely evoked for hearers of the biblical SL text;

 “co-framing”: complementing the various para-framing techniques noted above

by means of other, target-audience oriented applications, for example, the
publication of study guides dealing with different aspects of Bible background
(flora, fauna, geography, related nations, etc.) and implementing educational and
engagement activities aimed at enriching the current hermeneutical “frames of
reference” of the target consumer group (cf. Hill et.al. 2011; Wendland
2008:ch.12).

Thus, starting out with a primary SL (biblical) text orientation, translators aim to construe its
intended meaning by correctly “framing” that text within its presumed situational setting
according to the inferential principle of “relevance,” i.e., weighing mental processing “cost” in
relation to conceptual “gain” (Gutt 1992:24-25; cf. Pattemore 2007:259). The goal is to create a
more compatible cognitive context for understanding its author-intended explicit and implicit
meaning (implicatures). Various discourse analysis procedures are also applied with reference to
the source text in order to deepen and sharpen this progressive, interactive (implied original
author-audience) hermeneutical process.

Moving then to a TL orientation, translators aim to re-constitute the essential sense and
significance of the Scripture portion at hand through the text-mediated construction of similar
mental frames within the overall “cognitive environment” (Gutt ibid.:22) of the local language
and culture. These translation-based frames normally need to be supplemented (augmented,
modified, corrected, etc.), as noted above, through the use of auxiliary resources to evoke an
adequate (necessary and sufficient) conceptual background for the target audience to interpret
and relate the biblical message accurately within their own sociocultural context and primary
setting of use.

It is important to reiterate in this discussion that in the effort to “re-frame” the resident
(indigenous) “mental scenarios” of the TL audience so that they more closely approximate those
of the biblical author and his original audience, translators today must make use of the translated
text as well as the various features of its supplementary paratext—typography, format,
illustrations, section headings, footnotes, etc. In addition, the implicit connotative-emotive
values, including rhetorical impact and aesthetic appeal, originally attached to these interrelated
generic and specific scenarios also need to be factored into the analytical process. The
implications for Bible translation of the preceding theoretical and illustrative data regarding
frames and framing should be quite clear, at least in a general way. In the next two sections, I
will attempt to make the application somewhat more concrete and hopefully also “user-friendly”

130
in terms of teaching and learning this approach as an aid in the challenging task of re-presenting
(or “re-framing”) a passage of Scripture in a designated target language and cultural setting.

7.4 Developing the “frames of reference” model

In Contextual frames of reference in translation (2008),350 I treat the subject in terms of a set of
interrelated conceptual macro-constructs, moving (hypothetically) from the most general, i.e.,
cognitive (worldview) frames,351 down through sociocultural, organizational, conversational,
intertextual, and textual—to the most specific, utterance and lexical frames.352 This over-simplified
(i.e., for teaching purposes), top-down perspective and approach could, of course, be reversed.
In any case, it is important to point out the provisional character of these posited categories and
their assumed interaction in the construction of meaning. Thus, in the workbook referred to
above, which seeks to apply basic frames theory and methodology to the practice of Bible
translation, the approach is presented in a manner that might be deemed rather too static and
rigid.

In reality, however, conceptual frames manifest fuzzy and fluid boundaries that relate to one
another in manifold ways (e.g., salience, relevance, appropriateness) during perception and
cognition, depending on the prevailing interpersonal social setting and physical or environmental
circumstances. They are dynamic, fluctuating mental constructs that are readily modified or
adapted during any given communication process—formal or informal, oral or written, public or
private, etc.—under the influence of a host of factors that vary according to who is speaking to
whom and how, when, where, or why.353 Such modification may occur more or less automatically

350
The qualifier “contextual” is deliberate: The frames of reference model essentially involves a
“hypercontextualized” approach to translation. In other words, it offers a heuristic method for investigating
all of the diverse, but interrelated “contexts” that inform and/or influence the interlingual interpretation
and transmission of “meaning” during the multifaceted process of communicating an original source
language text to a clearly-defined audience group in a given consumer language and sociocultural setting.
So it is that meaning must be “negotiated,” that is, continually discerned and interpreted from diverse
perspectives as it is textually recomposed in a different language and worldview-influenced context.
351
A person/people’s “world-view” is itself a very complex mental construct, or cognitive
framework that defines one’s ultimate context for interpreting life. A worldview governs not only what we
see in the world (“reality”), but more importantly, how we see it, our way or manner of viewing it. In
general, one’s worldview may be factored into an integrated set of basic assumptions and values pertaining
to macro-issues such as origin, reality, identity, meaning, morality, spirituality, destiny, and truth—or,
more dynamically, into a number of interacting, mutually influencing “variables,” or conceptual “frames,”
depending on the culture and contextual setting concerned, e.g., causality, classification, time, space, self-
others, and relationship (van Steenbergen 2007:38). A world-view, or macro-“cognitive environment,”
naturally influences, in some respects even pre-determines a people’s way of life and value system. These
features must be carefully analyzed by translators in a comparative manner with respect to both the source
(biblical) and also the target cultures in order to “bring out clearly where the differences between the cultures
are at a conceptual level. The analysis will then show which encyclopedic information is relevant for the reader in
order to have access to the full semantic contents of the text” (ibid.:39).
352
On the macro-structure of cognition, cognitive frames (sociocultural, conversational, textual,
etc.) are interrelated by analogy (metaphor) and/or association (metonymy). Each incorporated micro-
structural frame then is comprised of a generic > specific set of conceptual collocates, normally including
a prototypical instance (the sign [ > ] signifies “encompasses”). Frames as well as collocates are organized
in relation to one another according to a governing perspective (focus) and the prioritizing principle of
relevance within the current cultural setting of use and genre of verbal discourse. Katan proposes a
hierarchy of macroframes “that all biological or social systems operate within,” namely: Identity/Role >
Values/Beliefs > Capabilities/Strategies > Behavior(s) > Environment (2004:53).
353
Robert Bascom points out that “[o]nce frames (or roles…) are seen as dynamic processes within
the larger context of human interaction, all frame typologies and their interrelations (e.g., [Wendland
2008:6]) can be seen as the description of particular examples, or possible frozen moments in time. Which
131
by intuition or as part of an active communicative strategy of “negotiation,” whereby one party
seeks to persuasively present (or impose) his/her point of view to (upon) another in order to
accomplish certain pragmatic objectives.

Temporal

Generic Spatial

Inter-Texual
Locutionary

Attributive
Social

Logical Substantive

Eventive

A kaleidoscope of frames that constitute and contextualize meaning

The preceding schematic diagram adds a visual dimension (for didactic purposes) to depict
the flexible process of framing. It serves to summarize ten common generic cognitive notions that
may be evoked lexically in variable, interconnected sets during the production and interpretation
of any literary (including biblical!) discourse. They (among other possibilities) are viewed as
being components (mini-frames) of the “textual” macro-frame, which functions as one of the
more general contextualizing constructs noted above. Together, in changeable, kaleidoscopic
fashion according to one’s current interest and concerns, they provide the overall conceptual

frame will encompass the other cannot be determined beforehand in more than a general or superficial
way” (2010:51). However, as Mona Baker has observed in this connection: “The idea, then, in not to throw
lists of apparently static components out altogether but to use them merely as starting points for analysis,
to acknowledge that they are not all necessarily relevant in every context and, more importantly, that
every element is open to negotiation in the course of a given interaction” (2006:328).
132
framework that may be associated with, or evoked by, a given text when heard or read in a
particular situational context.354

The summary designations applied to the basic frames depicted in this diagram are briefly
defined below;355 these cognitive constructs are then further described and illustrated with
reference to conceptualizing and translating the passage John 1:29. From an interpreter’s
perspective, these distinct but overlapping and interactive frames, or “schemata,”356 are evoked
and construed on the basis of textual “signs” (phonological /graphological, lexical, syntactic)
within the discourse at hand and in relation to a given cotext and context. They are then
intuitively combined and prioritized according to the principle of perceived salience (or
“relevance”) to form an interpretive mental framework for deriving the overall “intended
meaning” from the verbal passage currently being examined (e.g., John 1:29).357 Each mental
frame, or perceptual “window” on the world of the text in its situational setting contains a “file”
of related information, thus attaching various associated ideas, connotations, collocations,
emotions, values, etc. to the focal cognitive construct. These “frame-fillers” are normally very
culture-, society-, area-, group-, and even individual-specific. This creates a complex hierarchy
of concepts as well as a progression from lesser to more particular notions, which thus constitutes
an overall communication setting that is rather difficult for others (who come from an alien
sociocultural framework) to perceive and analyze correctly.358 For example, in a narrative text,
typically:

354
As noted in Scripture Frames & Framing (Wilt & Wendland, ch.1), cognitive frames not only
influence perception and provide focus and perspective, but they are also conceptually malleable (they
may be expanded or reshaped) and interactive with other frames in a given communication setting (e.g.,
through embedding, overlapping and juxtaposing). “The transitory and ever-shifting nature of the frame,
therefore, requires a continuous cognitive process that encompasses reevaluation of the makeup of the
frame situation in which the observer views these occurrences” (Matthews 2008:76).
355
Another proposed grid for classifying the various metonymic relationships between mental
spaces, or more specifically, the “conceptual relations that connect elements in mental spaces” is found in
Fauconnier and Turner (2006:336-337): Change, Identity, Time, Space, Cause-effect, Representation, Part-
whole, Role-value, Analogy, Disanalogy, Property, Similarity, Category, Intentionality, Uniqueness.
356
Robert Koops makes this comment on such frames (2000:3; italics added): “Another class of
mapping is “schema mapping” which has been developed extensively by Ronald Langacker. A general
schema, frame, or model is used to structure a situation in context. Such schemas are activated by certain
grammatical constructions and vocabulary. When a sentence like ‘Sally bought a cake for five dollars’ is
created, a ‘frame’ (idealized cognitive model, or prototypical human experience) is accessed, and the
participants in the textual narrative are mapped onto the roles that are characteristic of the cognitive
model. Other writers have used words like ‘script,’ and ‘scenario,’ to describe similar phenomena.”
I would just add that the conceptual “activation” process for such interpretive frames undoubtedly
involves the situational context of the extralinguistic communicative event as well as the verbal text. One’s
perception and comprehension would also be guided by relevance principles—i.e., activating the particular
frame and cognitive constituents which: (a) furnish important contextual information (assumptions) that
the subject does not know; (b) guide her/him to source-intended implications; (c) eliminate extraneous or
erroneous assumptions; (d) reinforce correct and necessary assumptions; and (e) do not result in too much
cognitive processing effort (thus outweighing the derived gain in contextual effects; cf. Gutt 1992).
357
This description of the dynamic interaction of frames during cognition and communication
parallels that developed in the radial network model of prototype theory, where the semantic structure of
cognitive categories which are evoked by a given oral or written text “takes the form of a radial set of
clustered and overlapping meanings” (Geeraerts 2006:146). These radiate out in a flexible network
construction from the focal, or central, category, as established by the verbal cotext and extralinguistic,
sociocultural context.
358
“The choice of metaphor we use (which is cultural) determines our understanding. Other
cultures use other metaphors and develop other cognitive schema to understand illness” – for example:
Faithfulness TASTES good, so don’t let AIDS EAT you! (Nepalese) versus Faithfulness will DEFEAT AIDS
in the BATTLE for life! (English/Western cultural setting) (Beine 2009:3, 6).
133
8. One time frame is added to the next, normally in chronological sequence, but
occasionally flashbacks or flash-forwards are employed in order to achieve a
particular dramatic purpose.

9. One place frame (scene) leads to the next, though within the same spatial setting
minor “moves” may be significant in the account. A shift in the time as well as the
place frame normally signals a major break—a new “scene” in a dramatic
performance or “episode” in a narrative account.

10. One substantive frame (person, object, entity) may be related either to another
substantive by means of a “genitival” attributive relationship (e.g., kinship,
descriptive, subjective) and/or to an event by a system of “cases,” or role relationships
(e.g., agent, object, patient, experiencer).

11. One event frame (finite verb) is added to the next to form the “backbone” of the
narrative, while additional event frames are related to this mainline in subsidiary
fashion through various backgrounding devices, e.g., non-finite verb forms,
dependent clauses (including negatives and conditionals), nominalized “event”
words.

12. One or more frames that pertain to quality (attribute, characteristic, feature, property,
etc., including any propositional “state”) may be related to a particular entity (e.g.,
person, object).

13. One social frame (involving one or more persons or a group) is related to another by
means of ethnic, cultural (e.g., age-group), class-based, organizational, economic,
religious, or some other similarity and/or distinction (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees,
Zealots in first century CE Palestine).

14. One logical frame (normally a “proposition” or “kernel” clause) is related to another
by some manner of “cause-effect” linkage, e.g., means-purpose, reason-result,
condition-consequence, exhortation-grounds, etc. +/- associated relationships, e.g.,
part-whole, base-contrast.

15. One speech-act (SA), or a closely conjoined cluster of them (a “speech event” or “text
act”), is related to another by various means, e.g., simple addition, elaboration,
contradiction, affirmation, embedding, etc.

16. One prior text (pre-text) is related to another, the current text, by means of varying
degrees of verbal similarity (citation, allusion, echo); the oral or written pre-text may
exist within the same text (intratextuality) or external to it (intertextuality).359

17. One genre or sub-type of discourse, along with the structural, stylistic, and
sociolinguistic features associated with it in a given speech community and
literary/oral tradition, may be included in, followed by, or combined (merged) with
another major or minor genre within the current text unit.

359
The book of Job is a classic example of intertextual as well as intratextual framing that performs
a variety of literary functions—structural (e.g., the narrative text frame of chs. 1-2/42) and rhetorical (e.g.,
ironic reposte in Eliphaz’s speech of ch. 15, cf.Job’s words in ch. 7) (Habel 1985:52-53).
134
 There are probably a number of other important frame categories that need to be considered
during the analysis of a given discourse,360 but the preceding are some of the most common and
helpful for use when analyzing biblical texts and re-textualizing them in another linguistic and
cultural framework. While exploring any one of the preceding ten types, other relevant frames
may come to mind, which can then be evaluated and integrated with reference to those already
identified in the context of a specific passage.

7.5 Summary—Some principles of applied “framing” in hermeneutics:

 The complex corpus and integrated system of conceptual frames that are characteristic of
an individual, community, society, or nation are always informed and influenced by
her/his/their governing sociocultural framework (cognitive environment: world-view,
belief system, set of values, social institutions, history, oral/written traditions, etc.).

 Any given concept in a language, as “triggered” by a specific lexical item (word or

phrase), operates together with grammatically related distinctions to evoke a prioritized
set of basic cognitive frames that sociologically contextualize it to a greater or lesser
degree.361 To use a “Windows” analogy: one (comparatively larger or smaller) window of

360
These generic frames (schemata) are evoked, or expanded upon, by those that occur on the
“microlevel” of conceptual organization, i.e., temporal, spatial, hypothetical, contrafactual, metaphorical,
etc. “Cognitive Linguistics attempts to display what is actually happening in our brains when linguistic
expressions are used. CL claims that linguistic expressions do not correspond directly to objects and events
in the real world, but rather trigger complex mental configurations, which ‘map’ in various ways and are
interlinked like telephone networks. … One job of cognitive construction is to partition information into
domains and ‘mental spaces.’ … As discourse proceeds, the configuration of participants in a space may
be changed by the addition of new elements (often marked by an indefinite article). New spaces are set
up relative to (and dependent upon) the previous ones. At any point there will be a ‘base’ space and a
‘focus’ space. The function of tense, aspect and modal markers is to indicate which of several windows the
speaker is ‘in’. … A point cognitivists stress is that the text itself gives us a bare minimum of signals. These
interact with stored frames and schemas to produce elaborate configurations of interlinked images” (Koops
2000:1-3). With reference to conflict management negotiations, for example, the frames listed in the
following quote have been shown to be relevant: “Many factors influence frames and their formation.
Intractable disputes are usually associated with a complex and reinforcing set of frames about oneself, the
‘others,’ risks, what information should apply to the situation, and how decisions should be made. The
frames of most importance to intractability usually include identity, characterization, power, conflict
management/process, risk/information, and loss versus gain” (Kaufman, et.al. 2003:np).
For a helpful overview of cognitive linguistics and its implications for exegesis, dictionary making,
and biblical studies generally, see the study of van Wolde (2009), the subtitle of which well summarizes
both the hermeneutical and also the communicational challenge that we face: “When language and text
meet culture, cognition, and context.” A further challenge is to find a way to effectively present the
manifold insights of cognitive linguistics in a form that is pedagogically accessible to ordinary Bible
translators.
361
In the terminology of “frame semantics”: “[W]e have here not just a group of individual words,
but a ‘domain’ of vocabulary whose elements somehow presuppose a schematization of human judgment
and behavior involving notions of worth, responsibility, judgment, etc., such that one would want to say
that nobody can really understand the meaning of the words in that domain who does not understand the
social institutions or the structures of experience which they presuppose. … [W]e can see that the process
of understanding a text involves retrieving or perceiving the frames evoked by the text’s lexical content
and assembling this kind of schematic knowledge (in some way which cannot be easily formalized [but
note the schemata employed by ‘mental space’ theorists—e.g., Fauconnier & Turner 2006]) into some sort
135
 the brain/screen opens within, or alongside, another to expand the cognitive horizon both
paradigmatically (i.e. “vertically” through the process of analogy/metaphor) and
syntagmatically (“horizontally” by means of association/juxtaposition/metonymy).362

 Communication always involves a “hypertext” of interconnected cognitive frames (mental

windows, available files, or tabs on the “toolbar” of the mind) that are evoked by a
particular text. These are sorted, arranged, organized, evaluated, prioritized, etc.
according to the principle of relevance, managing “processing effort” in relation to
“cognitive effects” (Gutt 1992:74-75)—i.e., addition to, subtraction from, reinforcement or
modification of a current or active, “resident” frame of reference.363

 The translation process may be delineated and described (see further below) with respect
to the original “donor” (SL) setting as well as the “consumer” (TL) setting by a set of
intertwined conceptual frames (as above) that is specific to each context. One situational
set of frames may differ considerably from the another in terms of content,
interrelationships, prominence, etc.—a situation which thus has the potential to
complicate, impede, or even block the cross-cultural communication process.

 These conceptual differences may be discovered, analyzed, assessed, and strategically

resolved (in the TL translation)—to a greater or lesser extent—by means of various types
of macro- and micro-oriented, comparative-contrastive “frame analysis” and cotextual
supplementation techniques (e.g., Harriet Hill 2003; Wendland 2008:226-239).

 The translation process is perhaps better viewed as an instance of interlingual

intertextuality, that is, as manifesting varying degrees of conceptual correspondence and
formal similarity between the respective SL and TL texts, rather than as being analogous
to “direct/indirect speech,” which is inherently impossible between languages due to the
different frames of reference that are inevitably evoked by the corresponding lexical
signs/sets within the SL and TL.364

of ‘envisionment’ of the ‘world’ of the text” (Fillmore 2006:378, 383). For a summary of a comprehensive
and systematic “cognitive method of analysis,” see van Wolde 2009:204-205).
362
Like the Microsoft Windows program, one window (frame) opens within and over/under/aside
another, depending on the point of reference (+/- any graphic enhancement), as determined by relevance
to the viewer. Would the image of computer “windows” be a more effective metaphor than “frames” to
teach—and to learn—the cognitive processes being referred to, plus their application to Bible translation?
Further field-testing is needed to determine this, in different sociocultural settings.
363
For a sample of a study that applies the insights of relevance theory to “the framing effect”
when evaluating the decision-making process of different individuals, see Gonzalez et.al. 2004.
364
Thus in terms of translation practice, a “direct quotation” would turn out to be the most formally
correspondent, hence linguistically unnatural type of interlinear rendition, while all “normal” types of
136
  The TL text of Scripture is also “framed” with respect to form, content, and function by a
specific type/style/method of Bible translation as well as by the use/non-use of various
kinds of paratextual supplements (footnotes, introductions, section headings, etc.).

 A particular Bible translation project should be specifically and systematically framed (by
means of its official, communally agreed “job commission,” or brief) in view of its
intended target audience, communicative purpose (Skopos), medium of transmission, and
primary setting of envisaged use.

 The concept of framing applies also to the choice of a medium of message transmission
and its implementation, e.g., when visually formatting in print the published text of
Scripture: How can this best be done to promote increased legibility as well as greater
audibility—i.e., to better articulate the written Word aloud to a listening audience?

The various concepts, categories, and recommendations summarized above may be further
developed within the framework of the so-called “mental space” theory of text perception
(decoding) and interpretation, as illustrated, in part, by means of the following practical example
of biblical text interpretation and translation.

7.6 Applying the frames model to “re-familiarize” a well-known passage of

Scripture

John 1:29 (NIV) – The next day John saw Jesus Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόµενον
coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ λέγει, Ἴδε ὁ ἀµνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ
God, who takes away the sin of the world!” ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁµαρτίαν τοῦ κόσµου.

The ten frames, or cognitive “windows,” that provide a hermeneutical framework for more fully
exploring the sense and significance of a translation (i.e., to contextually “familiarize” the
vernacular text, rather than to leave it “de-familiarized”) are applied below in summary form to
the passage recorded in John 1:29. I will first overview the frames having the greatest relevance
for the passage as a whole, as set within its present cotext, and then zero in specifically on the
metaphor of Jesus, “the Lamb of God”:

1. Temporal: Verse 29 begins with a new time frame, “the next day” (Τῇ ἐπαύριον), which
immediately raises the question: Day after what—which was “the day before”? This matter
is actually more complicated than it first appears; thus, the Evangelist is developing a
temporal framework that extends throughout the discourse unit that spans John 1:19-2:11.

translation, from the most literal to the most idiomatic, would be instances of “indirect quotation.” On the
other hand, in terms of translation perception from the point of view of the TL community, any vernacular
version is generally assumed to be a “direct quotation” of the biblical text.
137
 The present frame must therefore be fit and interpreted within the sequence: day one = 1:19-
28; “the next (2nd) day” = 1:29-34; “the next (3rd) day” = 1:35-42; “the next (4th) day” =
1:43-50; “on the third day (3 days later)” = 2:1-10. In this case, each temporal margin marks
the onset of a new discourse unit within the larger passage.

2. Spatial: The spatial frame for Jn. 1:29 is not specified; however, it may be assumed that it
remains the same as that last mentioned. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the
earlier locative frame is prominently recorded in in the preceding verse, which seems to
indicate that the setting does not change. This is “at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan
(ἐν Βηθανίᾳ…πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου), where John was baptizing” (1:28). There are two places
designated as “Bethany” in the Gospels—one near Jerusalem, where Mary, Martha, and
Lazarus lived, and the one noted here, namely, on the eastern side of the Jordan River,
probably, with respect to John’s ministry, in some more remote, “wilderness” area (a frame
supplied by Mk. 1:4; the exact site is unknown).

3. Substantive: There are four nominals in this passage: John, Lamb (= Jesus), God, and world
(= all people). The cognitive scenarios that each noun evokes will be more fully described
in the discussion of the following frame categories. The referents of the first three are quite
clear, but theological controversy surrounds the fourth: Does the metonym “world” include
believers as well as unbelievers, or only the former group? How wide is the window of
semantic reference? I understand it as being universal, but that interpretation would be
disputed by some theologians. There are, of course, translational implications, especially if
the original figure of speech needs to be made explicit for the primary target audience. In
that case, perhaps simply “sinners/sinful people” would be neutral enough.

4. Eventive: This passage constitutes a narrative report consisting of three surface actions: see
– come – say, and two actions enclosed within direct speech: take away and sin. These event
predicates may be represented together with their associated, case-related nominals
(“arguments”) as follows: John sees [Jesus comes] + John says {Jesus/Lamb-of-God removes
[people sin]}. The focus particle “Look!” (Ἴδε) might also be interpreted as another action
embedded in the quotation, i.e., {(you people) see/look at! Jesus/Lamb-of-God + (he)
removes/forgives…}.365

365
As is typical of Johannine discourse, the theology underlying the relatively simple textual
surface is very dense, and this may elaborated in several ways. Thus, the singular form “sin” (ἁμαρτίαν)
could be construed as an attributive, i.e., the “sinful condition” of people. The semantics of the
verbal/participle “[who] takes away/lifts up/removes/” (ὁ αἴρων) is also complex in this particular
context. In this case, it is a matter of perspective—whose: John the Baptist’s (Jewish apocalyptic) or John
the Evangelist’s (as represented throughout his Gospel)? I take the latter as being more likely—hence the
138
5. Attributive: Hopefully, by this point in the current discourse of John ch. 1, all the
“attributives” (characteristics, properties, qualities, etc.) associated with the substantives
specified in the text have already been sufficiently “framed” in the listener’s mind. There
remains the attributive relationships that are encoded within the two genitive constructions
in the text’s surface structure: “Lamb of God”; “sins of the world”. The second is easier—a
“subjective genitive”: people sin (or are sinful). The first genitive is also subjective, but in
addition involves an implicit verb/action as well as an unstated attributive concept: God
[sends/provides/offers] Lamb/his own Son {as a [redemptive/propitiatory/expiatory]
sacrifice}.

6. Social: The personal substantives of any predication always evoke one or more sociocultural
(including religious) frames into which the designated persons, individuals or groups, must
be situated by means of the appropriate interpersonal role relationships. God, of course,
occupies a unique, “superordinate” frame in terms of his divine attributes, but he has chosen
in revelation to “relate” to human beings metaphorically as “Father” through the agency of
his “Son,” who is, by virtue of the incarnation, also truly “man” (see further below). The role
of John the Baptist in relation to Jesus of Nazareth has already sparked a controversy in
John’s Gospel: Thus, the Baptist has refused to identify himself with “the Christ” (1:20),
“Elijah” (1:21a), and “the Prophet” (1:21b), but instead refers to himself and his role as being
just that of a humble “voice…[who is] to prepare the way for the Lord” (1:23; cf. Isa. 40:3).
John has also alluded to his lowly servant status in relation to the coming Messiah (1:27),
whom he now explicitly identifies in 1:29. John’s self-depreciation also creates a crisis of
allegiance for his disciples, who must now decide whom to “follow”—their present prophetic
figure, or the one to whom he is now designating as “the Lamb of God” (cf. 1:35-37).

7. Locutionary: The quotation in John 1:29 (“Behold—the Lamb of God…!”) begins a sequence
of “speech acts” that together form a “speech event” which extends through another quote
margin in 1:32a to the end of 1:34. The purpose of this entire “locutionary framework” in
this first chapter of John’s Gospel is to present an authoritative, “prophetic” perspective (or
“voice”) regarding the nature and work of the person to whom these words are being applied,
namely, the (apparent) itinerant rabbi named “Jesus.” The speech event as a whole is thus,
like v. 29 itself, a “testimony” (ἐμαρτύρησεν -- v. 32a; cf. v. 34) to the truth about who Jesus
really is—and how John relates in his ministry to this “Lamb of God.” Questions of origin,

notion of “forgiveness” being pronounced by God on the basis of the sacrificial death of his Son, the Lamb.
See further below.
139
 status, and authority were crucial in that day and age of many prophetic pretenders (cf. Jn.
1:19-25). In addition to the speech acts of “assertion” and “certification,” that of “description”
is also merged into the complex locutionary frame of v. 29.366

8. Logical: The semantic organization (logical frame) of this passage may be represented in
the form of a propositional display (“semantic structure analysis”) as follows (cf. Wendland
2002:ch. 3):

The next day John saw [something]__ a = BASE + CONTENT (object)

Jesus (is) coming toward him_______|-a--
and (John) said, ____________________|-b-
“(You people) Look at,_____________________
(Jesus is) the Lamb of God,______________ |-d----
who takes away [something]___________ |-e-
the sin of the world!” (i.e., all people sin)__|-f-
b = BASE + ADDITION
c = BASE + CONTENT (quotation)
| d = BASE + CONTENT (object)
|-c e = BASE + ATTRIBUTIVE (or: means + result)
f = BASE + CONTENT (object)

9. Textual: The interrelated concepts of “Lamb of God” and “take away the sin of the world”
resonate within John’s Gospel itself (i.e., intratextually)—cf. Jn. 1:36 + 16:8; cf. 1:9; 3:16;
6:51, but the former term (ἀμνὸς) is especially prominent in the book of Revelation (i.e.,
intertextually)—cf. Rev. 5:6, 12; 6:1, 16; 7:9-10, 14; 12:11; 13:8; 14:4; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9;
21:9, 22-23; 22:1, 3. Important intertextual frames that enrich the understanding and
interpretation of this verse are also elicited from other Old Testament books, not only those
dealing with the ceremonial sacrificial system (e.g., Exo. 29:39-40; Lev. 4:32, 14:21, 23:12;
Num. 6:14; Isa. 1:11), but more significantly, those pre-texts with more overt Messianic
implications, e.g., Gen. 22:1-14 (offering of Isaac); Exo. 12:1-36 (Passover); Isa. 53:7 (cf. Acts
8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19).

10. Generic: Verse 29 does not constitute a “genre” on its own, but it is incorporated within the
narrative (time-governed), more specifically “gospel” (person-oriented, speech-centered, cf.
20:30-31, 21:24-25), framework of John’s composition as a whole. A dramatic utterance
beginning with an initial “behold!” (Ἴδε/ἰδοὺ) could be classified as a discourse sub-type
termed a “prophetic declaration” used to proclaim some important fact involving an

366
Analysis of the locutionary frames of an extended discourse must also take into consideration
such socio-linguistic features regarding “how or whether the ‘turn-taking’ of speakers is oriented toward
each other’s words, their comparative social status, their respective gender, or the audience before which
they are speaking” (Matthews 2008:75). Furthermore, from the perspective of the wider narrative frame,
“[a]s characters interact, their words are understood within the context of their social position, identity,
and location within the story and are further illustrated or magnified by socially recognized acts or
gestures” (ibid.:107).
140
 identification, recognition, revelation, naming, classification, and so forth—as is common in
the Gospels, e.g., Jn. 1:29, 36, 47; 4:35; 12:15; 16:32; Mt. 1:23; 10:16; Lk. 1:20, 31, 36; 7:27;
13:30; 23:29; 24:49; cf. Dan. 4:10, 13; 7:2, 5, 7, 8, 13 (but that is not the only function of
this pragmatic particle).

7.7 The “Lamb of God” metaphor—powerful blend of a pair of “mental spaces”

It is necessary to further examine the “substantive” frame (#3 above) in order to unpack the
comparative figure that is involved: Any metaphor involves a case of two primary attributive
frames, one surrounding the “topic,” the other filling out the “image.” There are, in addition,
many other secondary frames which form the rest of the hypertext that is associated with the
figurative text (and cotext) being interpreted. The combination of these two windows/frames
produces a cognitive “blend” that constitutes the central “meaning” of the metaphor (+/- any
secondary frames which manifest “weaker implicatures”).

The cognitive theory of conceptual blending is based on the insight that true creativity of any
type essentially involves bringing together elements from different semantic domains. In the
words of Fauconnier and Turner (hereafter F&T), two prominent researchers in the field:367

Conceptual blending operates largely behind the scenes. We are not consciously aware of its
hidden complexities. … Almost invisibly to consciousness, conceptual blending
choreographs vast networks of conceptual meaning, yielding cognitive products that, at the
conscious level, appear simple… The products of conceptual blending are ubiquitous (1).

Conceptual blending is the less technical reference to what F&T term the “network model of
conceptual integration,” which involves the figurative heuristic notion of “mental spaces” (40).
These immediate psychological constructs (or “sub-frames”) may be temporal, spatial, eventive,
personal, objective, circumstantial, modal, or hypothetical in nature, whether the reference is to
actual or fictional settings and situations; they are “activated” in the mind as any perceptual,
rational being moves mentally from (or combines) one cognitive-connotative “frame of
reference” to (with) another. In summary:

Mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for the
purposes of local understanding and action. … Mental spaces are connected to long-term
schematic knowledge called “frames,” such as the frame of walking along a path, and to long-
term specific knowledge, such as a memory of the time you climbed Mount Rainier in 2001.
… Mental spaces are very partial. They contain [cognitive] elements and are typically
structured by frames. They are interconnected, and can be modified as thought and discourse
unfold. Mental spaces can be used generally to model dynamic mappings in thought and
language (loc.cit.).368

367
All the references to Fauconnier & Turner in this section come from their 2002 volume, chapter
three in particular. Similarly, all the Stockwell citations come from chapter seven of his book (2002).
Koops comments as follows (2000:4): “Once you see how mental spaces work and how they are connected
to each other, it is not difficult to see how content from two mental spaces can combine to yield a third
space. This is called ‘conceptual blending.’ The third space inherits partial structure from the input spaces
and has emergent structure of its own. …. There are also non-linguistic examples of blending, like the
computer ‘Desktop’ interface, constructed on the basis of two conceptual units, the input of traditional
computer commands, and the input of ordinary work in an office. Cross-space mapping matches computer
files to paper files, directories to folders, etc., right down to the dustbin.”
368
This may be compared with the more literary-oriented perspective of Coulson 2001:21-25:
“Mental space theory…is a theory of referential structure…mental spaces can be thought of as temporary
141
 I wish to apply, admittedly in a rather superficial and cursory manner, certain aspects of the
theory of mental spaces and conceptual blending simply to suggest something of the dynamic
cognitive (and frequently also emotive and evaluative) activity that takes place when a skillful
narrator is telling his tale for an attentive and informed local audience. I will further narrow my
consideration to the metaphoric process of visualization that presumably occurs when
contextually aware listeners interpret and apply the short, but semantically multifaceted segment
of text, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).

Stockwell sums up the operation of conceptual blending as follows (97-98):369

This involves a [cognitive] mapping between two [mental] spaces, and common general
nodes and relationships across the spaces are abstracted into a generic space. Specific
features which emerge from this mapping then form a new space, the blend. Conceptual
blends are the mechanism by which we can hold the properties of two spaces together, such
as in metaphorical or allegorical thinking, scientific or political analogy, comparisons and
imaginary domains involving characters from disparate areas…

In the evocation and elaboration of new ideas then, including metaphor, four mental spaces are
hypothetically involved, two input spaces and another pair of consequent composite spaces:370

 Target (base) space (1): the verbal or textual starting point for the construction
of a conceptual network; this is the “tenor” or “topic,” which is the familiar, “real-
world” oriented, or “literal” element of a metaphor—what is being directly spoken
about or referred to in terms of semantic sense and pragmatic significance.371

containers for relevant information about a particular domain. A mental space contains a partial
representation of the entities and relations of a particular scenario as perceived, imagined, remembered,
or otherwise understood by a speaker. … Spaces represent such diverse things as hypothetical scenarios,
beliefs, quantified domains, thematically defined domains, fictional scenarios, and situations located in
time and space. As discourse unfolds, the language user extends existing spaces by adding new elements
and relations to the cognitive models already evoked.…A new space is also set up when utterances concern
objects or events that require different background assumptions from those of the current space.… Meaning
construction thus consists of mapping cognitive models from space to space while keeping track of the
links between spaces and between elements and their counterparts.…[M]eaning always emerges from
understanding in a particular context.” Missing, however, from this cognitive view of perception,
understanding, and “meaning” construction is any substantial consideration of emotions, attitudes, values,
and other connotative elements that characterize most communication events, certainly those found in
most artistically composed literary works. Mental spaces may thus be analyzed in terms of a conceptual
“base,” or starting point, a “focus” of attention, and a particular “viewpoint,” or perspective, one that
includes personal attitudes and emotions (cf. Matthews 2008:36).
369
This may be compared to the summary in Geerarts (2010:210-211): “The descriptive model of
conceptual integration (or blending…) involves four [mental] spaces instead of the two conceptual
domains of standard Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Two of the four spaces, the input spaces, correspond
to the source and target domain of Conceptual Metaphor Theory. The crucial addition of blending theory
is the blend space, which represents the interaction of the input spaces: in the blended space, knowledge
of source and target inputs combines into a coherent information structure that is temporarily activated in
the mind of the language user. The fourth space…is the generic space, which contains schematic material
shared by the two input spaces.”
370
I have somewhat modified the standard definitions of these (cf. Stockwell 96-98; F&T 41-44).
371
The referential “target” may also embrace some complex and/or abstract concept(s), e.g., “the
kingdom of God” > God’s sovereign rule on behalf of his people, a notion which obviously involves various
degrees of anthropomorphism as well.
142
  Source (image) space (2): the figurative concept that is used to expand and/or
develop the initial conceptual space (1) by presenting a novel, non-literal
perspective; this is the “vehicle” or “image” of a metaphor—what is being
employed to illuminate or illustrate the Target in the particular verbal cotext in
which it is being used.

 Generic (abstract) space (3): created from selective “cross-space mapping” as

specific counterparts or correspondences between the two input spaces (Target +
Source, 1 + 2) are initially brought together in one’s mind; these are the crucial
cognitive elements (semantic and pragmatic “components”) which the Target and
Source have in common, or which form an innovative and insightful “bond”
within the current predication (i.e., the comparative “ground” of a metaphor).

 Blended (metaphoric) space (4): selected features of the generic space (3) become
further cognitively “activated” as implicatures by the discourse context, that is,
according to the principle of relevance in conjunction with the wider
extralinguistic, intertextual, situational and circumstantial setting; these in turn
form a virtual “emergent structure” (4) in which new relations and aspects of
meaning are evoked by inference and/or intuition, often with additional
connotative (emotive, attitudinal, aesthetic, etc.) overtones and rhetorical
impact.372

My brief application of the theoretical notions presented above is focused upon the
multifaceted metaphor, Jesus is the lamb – (the unique, specific one) of God, which in a literary
sense represents a perspectival “blend,” namely, that of the (implied) narrator, John the
Evangelist, together with that of the focal character at this juncture in the account, John the
Baptist, who utters the picturesque phrase under consideration. The visualization process, which
is depicted in the following chart, depends of course on a common mental perspective: Both
“Johns” ostensibly assume that their listeners (the implied audience) share the cognitive
background spaces that allow this dramatic identificational metaphor to operate, thus
stimulating their imagination in the direction of several new areas of thought, being enriched by
the intertextual framework of the Hebrew (or Greek) Scriptures. However, assuming the point of
view of the likely target audience of this Gospel, the much wider perspective of John the
Evangelist will be adopted here in order to guide the process of construing the intended sense of
the focal figure, which is intended to evoke the epitome of submissive sacrifice.

372
“The generic space consists of the intersection of the input spaces, that is, the conceptual
structure that they share, while the blend space consists of the combination of the input spaces, where
elements from each interact with each other. The result of this interaction, according to mental space
theory, is that the blend space will have an ‘emergent structure’ with inferences not predictable from the
individual source frames” (Shead 2007:55-56).
143
 According to my understanding then, the cognitive theory of “mental spaces” (interrelated
conceptual complexes, or semantic “mini-frames”) may be described (in a very simplified
manner) with reference to the example of “Jesus = the Lamb of God” as follows (cf. Stockwell
2002:97-98; Fauconnier & Turner 2006:301-315): At the heart of the communicative event is a
“conceptual blending” process, which, as noted above, is a “cross-space mapping” activity that
brings together the ideational counterparts of two distinct mental spaces, each of which has its
own larger cognitive frame of reference (“schema”). In the case at hand, there is a “base (target)
space” that is elicited through John’s discourse (and the incorporated, cited speech of John the
Baptist) by means of the surface relationship and imagery connected with Jesus the promised
Messiah and his ministry.

Being guided by the broader interpretive context of Scripture then, the hearers and readers
of John’s Gospel have access to a richer hermeneutical frame of reference (see the chart below).
Accordingly, the initial figurative “Lamb of God” utterance would stimulate them to project on
another, “hypothetical (source) space” (2) upon the original base space (1), namely, one that
highlights the relationship between Christ and his messianic mission to/in this world. Selected
common features derived from these two input spaces, the base and the hypothetical, are
conceptually linked and integrated within a “generic space” (3), e.g., two very distinct personal
parties/entities are variously associated (e.g., by metonymy) in the biblical religious setting of
blood sacrifice. From this generic space a new “emergent structure” is mentally generated, one
that is not the same as the base or the hypothetical space, but which combines analogical
elements from both to form a new, theologically provocative “blended space” (4), as shown
below:

Target Space (1) Source Space (2)

Jesus of Nazareth is the person being
ostensibly referred to by John (“Behold…!”).
Jesus has begun his teaching and preaching
ministry, perhaps even performing several
“mighty works.”
The Evangelist has already given this “Jesus”
an elaborate introduction: He is the Son of
God the Father (1:18, i.e., wholly divine), who
was also fully human (1:14), a being who
abundantly manifested God’s “glory” (1:14)
as well as godly love and Covenant
faithfulness (i.e., “grace and truth”—1:14, 17;
cf. Exo. 33:18-19, 34:5-7) in order to give all
people who “received him (by faith) the right
to become the children of God” (1:7, 12), that
is, to have eternal “life” (1:4). Jesus is the
eternal “Word” (1:1), the Creator (1:3, 10),
the “Light” (1:5, 7-10; cf. 3:19), the “begotten
from the Father” (1:14, 18; 3:16), and “the
LORD” (1:23, by implication). John the
Evangelist then identifies Jesus as being the
unique, promised Messiah (Savior-Deliverer-
Redeemer) of the Hebrew Scriptures through
the explicit testimony of John the Baptist
(1:6-8, 19-28; 3:17). The messianic
intertextual setting of Isaiah would have been
The lamb (when fully grown, i.e., a “sheep”)
was perhaps the most valuable domestic
animal in the economic and religious setting
of Israel/the Jews in ANE times. Virtually
every part of the animal was used, from its
horns to its fleshy tail. As in the case of goats,
sheep provided for all the necessities of life,
both physical (food, clothing) and religious.
Thus, sheep and lambs were prescribed
“clean” animals in many of the sacrificial
rituals stipulated in the Mosaic Law,
including the daily burnt offering (e.g., Exo.
29:38-46; Lev. 1:4)—but specifically an
“unblemished lamb” in the central “feast” of
the Passover (Exo. 12:1-13). Although,
technically speaking, the Passover lamb was
not regarded as a “sacrifice,” in popular
thought it is very likely that it was viewed as
such since, by the first century CE, the
Temple priests had taken over the
responsibility of killing these lambs selected
for the Passover celebration (formerly the
responsibility of the heads of
households/clans). Thus, by conceptual
association with the sheep sacrificed in the
routine Temple rituals, there may well have

144
 evoked by John’s reference to his own been strong redemptive symbolism associated
prophetic ministry on behalf of “the Lord” with these Passover lambs of life.
(Jn. 1:23b—cf. Isa. 40:3).

Generic Space (3)373 Blended Space (4)

Note: The underlined semantic features are
the ones most likely to be mentally associated
according to pragmatic relevance in the
utterance of John 1:29; they are then
cognitively enriched in the “blended space”
through inter- and intra-textual association as
well as by the experiences (personal and
recounted) of those who heard these words,
whether from the “inner” textual perspective
of John the Baptist or those who heard this
record of the “outer” Gospel perspective of
John the Evangelist.
Jesus:
 human being—a Jew
 divine being—the Son of God
 sent by his Father to give “light/life” to all
people
 essentially unique (cf. Jn. 3:16)
Lamb:
 valuable (life-giving) domestic animal (son of
a sheep)
 source of food (milk, meat)
 source of clothes (hide, wool)
 source of implements (horn for oil, musical
instruments)
 source of appropriate sacrifices in the daily
Temple ritual
 central visual symbol of the Passover
ceremony
Jesus is directly identified by John as being
associated via “the (def.) lamb” figure with
“God” (1:29). This creates a crucial intimation
based on the Generic Space and the narrative
context: Jesus is the supreme sacrifice supplied
God himself to remove the polluting
wickedness and damning guilt of sinners.
There is also the suggestion that Jesus’ role as
a sacrificial lamb will actually require and
ultimately result in his death at some point in
the future (cf. Jn. 11:50-51; 12:24, 33; 18:32;
cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:19—Jesus as the
“Passover Lamb,” “sacrificed” on behalf of
sinners). The “Passover connection” appears
to be especially strong in this Gospel since
John takes pains to point out that Jesus was
crucified during the time of the annual
Passover celebration (Jn. 18:28; 19:14, 31; cf.
1 Cor. 5:7) and even fulfilled a (typological)
prophecy in that redemptive event, i.e., when
he died without a bone of his body being
broken (Jn. 19:36; cf. Exo. 12:46; Num. 9:12).
The identification of Jesus the Christ with a
sacrificial lamb would have naturally been
strengthened through the prophetic allusion
created by Isaiah 53:6-7, and perhaps even in
the minds of some (Jewish rabbis at least)
with the earlier “lamb” provided by God in
place of Isaac (Gen. 22:8; cf. v. 13).374 The
notion of redemptive sacrifice is brought out
too by the cotext of the metaphor “lamb of
God,” which “takes away sin” (cf. 1 Jn. 3:5;
Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24). Thus, “to bear sin”
(airew) may involve some form of expiation
(e.g., Lev. 10:17; 1 Sam. 15:25; 25:28) and/or
the forgiveness of sin’s guilt by bearing the

373
During a given text analysis this “generic space” could be readily filled out by the data provided
by a good “semantic domain” dictionary, like that of the Semantic domain dictionary of Biblical Hebrew
(SDBH) of Reinier de Blois, which is available on-line at http://www.sdbh.org/vocabula/index.html. A
worthwhile project would be for Louw & Nida’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on
semantic domains (1988) to be reworked into the format of the SDBH, for both theoretical and well as
practical reasons, i.e., to facilitate electronic inter-textual lexical comparison (yet including also pertinent
rabbinic sources, e.g., the Mishnah). An alternative approach to lexicography would be a “frame-net” style
dictionary of Biblical Hebrew/Greek based on a combination of “frame semantics” and “corpus linguistics,”
as described in Petruck et.al., 2006 (cf. Shead 2007).
374
“…early Judaism attached the nuances of sacrifice to the Passover” (Keener 2003:454).
145
  not unique, so possibly eliciting a search for penalty attached to it on behalf of others
contextual “relevance” within the OT (e.g., Num. 14:33-34; Isa. 53:4-12; Eze.
18:19-20).375
Scriptures, e.g., the “scape-goat” of Lev. 16
(totally “rejected” by the people—cf. Jn. 1:11
> Lev. 16:21-22 > Isa. 53:2-6)

The entire cognitive process depicted above serves to stimulate a fresh way of thinking about
the significance of the conjoined common constituents within the current (religious, evangelistic)
setting of communication and all relevant background knowledge available to the participants
(the original, and all subsequent audiences). Within the hermeneutical context of received
Scripture (cross-referentiality with the Levitical code of the Torah and Isaianic messianic
symbolism in particular), this would most likely be a sacrificial scenario analogous to the ritual
system specified in the OT (LXX). The amazing (shocking?) thing, however, is that John’s
“Messiah” is not depicted as a mighty Warrior-King as most Jews of that day expected (cf. Isa.
9:6-7; 11:2-5, 10-11; 32:1) but as a lowly loving Shepherd (cf. Isa. 40:11), who ironically is also
identified with the Passover Lamb of sacrifice, and perhaps also the vicariously banished
scapegoat (cf. Isa. 52:13-53:12).376

The purpose of the preceding analytical exercise is simply to illustrate how the respective
“mental spaces” for the metaphor of the “Lamb of God” as applied to Christ in John 1:29 might
be inferentially filled out, at least as fully as a translation team’s time and expertise allows.
Certainly the task can be carried out intuitively by competent, well-informed translators;
however, the “mental space” methodology illustrated above could act as a helpful heuristic
procedure to carry out in the case of individual semantically more complex passages, especially
where more complicated metaphoric (or novel metonymic) language is involved.

In any case, if the translators are preparing a meaning-centered version, they might come to
the conclusion that the notion of “sacrifice” needs to be built into the vernacular text, not only
to promote the understanding of the principal TL audience (e.g., Chewa: Mwanawankhosa
wodzipereka wa Mulungu “the Lamb of God who offers himself”), but also to prevent possible mis-
understanding, e.g., the “child of a sheep” (mwanaambelele), which is regarded as an exotic (and
rather stupid!) European domestic animal among the cattle-rearing Tonga people of Zambia.
Some of the additional information recorded in the four quadrants above could also be used in

375
According to some scholars, the apocalyptic “Lamb” identified with Christ in Revelation (ch.
5:6) evokes a different set of intertextual frames via Greek intertestamental literature—namely, that of a
great messianic deliverer of God’s people, who is depicted as a ram which leads the flock (1 Enoch 90; cf.
Testament of Joseph 19:8-11; Testament of Benjamin 3:8) (Green & McKnight 1992:433; Keener
2003:452). Other commentators, however, still view the Passover sacrificial symbolism as being
paramount in Revelation 5—“…the lamb whose blood delivers God’s people from the coming plagues
(7:3)…” (Keener 2003:454).
Much more speculative and improbable is this interpretation: “There is but a single lamb in all
creation that merits the title ‘lamb of God,’ and that is the constellation labeled Aries by the Latins. In the
book of Revelation, this constellation is directly identified as ‘the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of
David’ (Rev 5:5), that is, the Messiah of Israel. The same is true here in John’s Gospel, where John the
prophet identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God (1:29, 36), and his disciples conclude he is Israel’s Messiah
(1:40). … Ancient Israel likewise recognized the prominence of Aries in its original New Year celebration
connected with its foundational event, the Exodus (Exod. 12:2…). And the ritual marking the Exodus
involved a male lamb, replicating the springtime Aries itself” (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:50-51). What a
difference a dissimilar hermeneutical frame of reference makes!
376
An allusion to young Isaac (Genesis 22) may also have been active: “The Jewish scholar [Geza]
Vermes says that the sacrifice of Isaac was a prominent image in the early Passover celebration, much
more in Jesus’ time than today” (Spangler and Tverberg 2009:243).
146
the composition of a study note on this passage or as part of a glossary entry attached to the title
“Lamb (of God).” Thus, the time and effort expended to systematically explicate these figurative
semantic relationships would not be wasted.377
To conclude this overview of mental space theory, we might apply the notion metaphorically
to the general process of translation itself (cf. St. Andre 2010). From this figurative perspective:

 The “Target space” corresponds to the original SL text and everything that the
original (implied) author intended that it would “signify” to his intended (implied)
target audience (readership), including all presupposed and implied information.

 The “Source space” corresponds to everything that the current translator (or
translation team) intends to communicate to some identified receptor group,
based upon his prior interpretation of the Target space, coupled with his
assumptions concerning their current mental frames of reference (background
knowledge, concerns, interests, perceptions of him, etc.).

 The “Generic space” is activated as the translator (or team) carries out the
“transfer” process of mentally re-conceptualizing the source text within the
cognitive framework of the target language and its associated sociocultural
setting. The “Blended space” is what results when the formally or functionally
translated text (together with all of its implied content and projected import) is
conveyed via a particular medium of message transmission and then
“downloaded” inferentially by a specific person (or group) in their current
situational context. This blended space is therefore a highly flexible cognitive
construct which varies from one communication setting and set of participants to
the next.

 The hypothetical “Working space” in the middle is activated by a translator as

s/he readily shifts in conceptual focus from one of the primary spaces to another
when working, with instances of spatial overlapping and interaction regularly
occurring in varying degrees as the process transpires, from beginning to end. The

377
“Rhetorical figures are realized on the basis of conceptual domains [i.e., “frames of reference”],
creating categories. We thus have access to a kind of reality that would otherwise be indeterminate [or
unexplainable in human terms, i.e., spiritual/theological realities]. In other words, we can say that human
beings have the cognitive ability to [perceive and] organize the world [whether seen, unseen, or imagined]
in figurative terms. This ability allows them to categorize reality, providing it with structure. In this sense
figurative activity is the ability to construct world images employed in reality” (Arduini 2009:1, added
material italicized in brackets). As illustrated in the preceding passage from John, the Scriptures are packed
with such imagery and rhetorical figures. The analytical tools of cognitive linguistics, frame semantics in
particular, allows us to understand, interrelate, teach, apply, and communicate (also via translation) these
spiritual realities in an efficient and effective manner.
147
 following diagram visually illustrates this provisional metaphoric conception of
mental space theory as applied to translational communication.

The central, perspective-defining, personal “Working space,” conceptually-activated when translating

||

Generic
space

Target Source
space space

Blended
space

7.8 Conclusion: Frames of reference—Windows on the world of Bible translation

Frames are the conceptual bedrock for understanding anything. People are only able to
interpret words, images, actions, or text of any kind because their brains fit those texts
into a conceptual system that gives them order and meaning. Just a few cues — a word,
an image — trigger whole frames that determine meaning. That’s why the choice of words
becomes important (The Praxis Project 2005:6, added italics).

If the preceding set of assertions is true for thinking and communicating within the same
language and cultural setting (and I assume that they are), then what are the implications for
Bible translation? Not only must translators correctly interpret the conceptual, contextualized
“frames of reference” that the various Hebrew and Greek words, expressions, grammatical
constructions, discourse structures, and stylistic devices suggest in terms of the original text, but
they must also seek to evoke corresponding cognitive, emotive, and evaluative frames in the
minds of their intended audience, using appropriate, idiomatic TL textual forms along with
whatever auxiliary helps and hermeneutical aids are available. In short, the closest possible

148
literary (artistic-rhetorical) as well as pragmatic “functional equivalence” is the primary goal
(Wendland 2006).378

Has the frames of reference approach helped us to “behold” the biblical text and its
translation any more clearly? Such “frames” (each consisting of a “profile,” or concept in focus,
and a “base,” or background, that is, all associated denotative plus connotative information
necessary for full understanding) are conceptual lenses that help us perceive and interpret the
world. These culturally informed and influenced perspectives are selected, prioritized, combined,
embedded, and interpreted according to the intuitive principle of relevance (mental processing
cost versus the potential gain in conceptual enrichment) with regard to a particular text in
conjunction with its linguistic as well as extralinguistic context. The utility of this model as a
teaching tool can only be evaluated of course by how well it works out in practice with actual
student-translators in comparison (or in combination) with alternative pedagogical approaches.

Some translation consultants have reported that the concept “frames of reference” is rather
difficult to translate and teach in their language-culture.379 Perhaps the widespread notion of
“windows” in connection with computer use would be an easier way to understand this cognitive-
inferential approach and to apply it in turn to text analysis and its synthesis in another linguistic
and cultural setting.380 Certainly, any translators who are using the Paratext program (including

378
On the notion of “equivalence” in relation to “frames of reference” in contemporary translation
studies, S. Arduini makes the following pertinent comments (2009:2): “Even the problem of equivalence
can be completely reformulated and rejuvenated, even though TS [ew: Translation Studies] declared it,
often obtusely, old fashioned. Sometimes the non-equivalence between languages depends on the type and
amount of information specified in the cognitive frame. [Relevance theory is particularly ‘relevant’ here
since it studies the role that implied information plays in human communication.] The Italian word ‘casa’
(house) presumes a frame that specifies some important structural characteristics. In English the word
‘house’ has a different meaning from ‘home’. Both ‘house’ and ‘home’ when translated in Italian are
translated into ‘casa’. But this translation is a false equivalence; it is only a partial equivalence that is
limited to the profile. The presupposed dominions of the two terms are very different. ‘House’ is outlined
by physical objects while ‘home’ belongs to the affective sphere. It is assumed that abstract dominions
from these two various types of conceptualization are related to two various spheres of cognition: the
material one and that emotional one. …
“When analyzing the nature of the meanings of the words in different languages we often don’t
consider the differences at the level of frame/dominion that in many cases are culturally determined. Take
for example the illustration of Croft and Cruse (2004:21). They point to the verb ‘to genuflect’, which is a
movement of the body, more or less the same as the concept of kneeling down. But ‘genuflect’ belongs to
a much more specific frame, which is Catholic liturgical use. One can actually dig even deeper since
‘genuflect’ is really an ecclesiastical Latin word ‘domesticating’ and translating the Greek verb ‘proskunein’
which had the widest of usage in pagan cultic, administrative, and royal frameworks. Often the frames
are very culturally specific, and the idea that translating necessarily implies a loss simply means that there
is a non-equivalence of frames.”
379
As was noted above, the term “frames” might give the impression of something solid and
immovable (and for some folks, e.g., “fundamentalists,” they may be just that rigid!), but the frames of
reference that I have in mind are quite different. Thus, for most people they are very flexible, fluid, and
contextually shaped; furthermore, they frequently merge and overlap with each other during the discussion
of a more complex or abstract topic, e.g., during a religious discussion on the person and nature of Christ.
380
I discovered that some time ago Rob Koops anticipated this vital application of the “windows”
metaphor: “For those who have used the Windows computer program, a good way to think about ‘mental
spaces’ is to think of opening a new ‘window.’ The old one may still be there, accessible but hidden behind
the more recent one. You can be ‘in’ a new window for so long that you have forgotten that the old one
is there. But something may trigger your mind to access that old window, so you bring it into full view
once again” (2000:2).
I find that in the Chewa language of south-central Africa the concept of different “windows”
(mawindo—a loanword) on the world works to conceptualize “frames” in the case of younger, computer-
literate and more educated translators. However, “entrance way/s” (chi-/zipata, as distinct from more rigid
149
the UBS Translator’s Handbook commentaries) plus Source Language Tools would be familiar with
the operation of such flexible “windows,” which offer a “hypertextual,” easy-access technology
to facilitate the translation task. Each text window of Paratext 7, for example, could be “filled in”
by the contents of one or another of the ten “cognitive frames of discourse organization”
discussed earlier. Perhaps this marriage of ideas—frames and windows—is worth further testing
and possible refinement, not only with respect to the practice of Bible translating, but also when
contemplating the organization and operation of entire translation programs (i.e., the so-called
“organizational frame” of Bible Translation: Frames of Reference; see Wilt, ed. 2003:46-55; Wilt &
Wendland 2008:ch. 4).

In any case, whether we choose to call the varied, yet closely integrated conceptual
dimensions of a certain biblical text “cognitive frames,” “mental models,” “schemas,” “scenarios,”
“windows,” or something else, these considerations are a vital aspect of any exegetical study. A
combined cognitive-linguistic/literary framework serves to reveal and help organize the salient
features of semantic as well as pragmatic importance—all those aspects of “meaning” (in the
wider, encyclopedic sense) that need to be re-presented or made accessible in one way or another,
either as part of, or alongside a given translation of Scripture. In particular (since this implicit
aspect of meaning is often ignored), such a multi-frame, multidimensional investigation helps
one to identify structural boundaries and points of special thematic and/or hortatory significance
(i.e., “peak” and “climax”) in the original text so that they may be marked appropriately in the
TL translation.

A contrastive frame analysis is also frequently necessary to locate and help resolve “potential
problem points” in the process of translation. This refers to those areas in the original text that
are likely to cause some type of difficulty when reconceptualizing and re-expressing these
concepts in another language system and cultural framework. Occasionally (given translators
with the necessary expertise and experience), it will be possible to effect the necessary conceptual
enrichment and/or frame reconstruction (e.g., modifying, deleting, or strengthening certain
crucial cognitive assumptions and textual implications) within the translated text itself. But more
often, such conceptual-connotative enrichment must be accomplished by means of a creative
utilization of the supplementary paratext (e.g., footnotes, cross-references, sectional headings,
summaries, index, glossary, etc.) or through extratextual helps (e.g., commentaries, study Bibles,
dictionaries, and other text-focused reference works).381

My conclusion is that “framing” and “frames” are handy conceptual metaphors to use when
discussing, teaching, or actually implementing the interlocking cognitive “context-building” and
text-compositional phases of interlingual, cross-cultural communication. As this interdisciplinary
investigation has sought to demonstrate, frame analysis (and synthesis) is a tool well-grounded
in current scholarly research and writing that is intended to render the translation process more
transparent, systematic, accurate, complete, and hence also successful.382

“door/s,” chi-zitseko), which also provide a certain view-point into a particular area, is more helpful for
older, more traditional translators. The notion of “eyeglasses” or “spectacles” is also worth exploring (in
Chewa: the loanword magalasi or an older term based on metonymy, mandala).
The notion of a “map” and “mapping” can also be used. “A map is designed to cover a specific
area. It tells us what to expect and it also orients us inside that area. A map also has very definite borders,
in the same way as our understanding of an event has a culture-bound frame” (Katan 2004:51). When a
map is in use, it also has a central focus, or perspective (profile), that must be interpreted in the light of
the map as a whole (base), in particular where one is presently located, from where one has come, and
where one intends to go.
381
This “extratextual setting” would include the important teaching-preaching ministry of the
wider local church community and para-church organizations, such as the national Bible Society.
382
On completing an earlier draft of this article (07/03/2008), I received the following e-notice
regarding a conference on the theme: “Translation frames: Gateways and gatekeeping” that was held at
150
7.9 Appendix: “Frames of Reference”—A descriptive definition

Frames of reference (FoR) is a cognitive-linguistic based method of translation program analysis

that seeks to identify the various integrated conceptual and situational factors that are presumed
to influence the overall production of a translated or spontaneously interpreted text in a typically
multifaceted setting of communication.
In the case of sacred Scripture, the ability to effectively and efficiently translate is influenced
to a large degree by a diverse assortment of contextual variables such as (1) the translators’
understanding of the source text and its assumed ancient conceptual world; (2) their
understanding of the target language and its contemporary conceptual world; (3) the project’s
available human, financial, and scholarly resources; (4) a translation team’s ability to work
together cohesively as a unit; and (5) the degree of ongoing technical, logistical, and management
support from organizations sponsoring the publication of the work. These and many other factors
establish a broad hermeneutical and organizational grid for translators and their sponsors—a
conceptual and perceptual framework that influences a project’s translation approach,
management structure, support system, and publication strategy.

The nature of frames. The impact of such conceptually and contextually influenced frames may
be either to constrain translators during the decision-making process, or to encourage and
empower them, with each influence potentially giving rise to significant formal and/or semantic
differences between the ST and the TT. All these interrelated factors may be classified and
analyzed in terms of four dimensions: sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual frames
of reference. However, such mental constructs are highly artificial and idealized; thus, they
overlap and merge during any specific analysis or application as a result of their constant
interaction in practice, and due to the fluid or “fuzzy” nature of their hypothetical boundaries.
Rather than rigid windows, frames are more like a convergence of clouds, the nebulous
constituents moving nearer or farther from the center of one’s field of vision as they sweep across
one’s mental skyscape; alternatively, frames may be likened to a kaleidoscope, the plastic
constituents of which move in and out of focus as one’s attention or interest shifts.
In any case, the FoR model presents just one possible methodological framework that enables
the analyst to more accurately discern and describe significant performance errors or potential
problem points along with their causes—and then to identify various means of preventing or
solving them.
In summary, the individual frames of reference are culturally-determined mental models that
constitute different aspects of the worldview, value system, experiential setting, and primary sets
of goals of an individual, a project, a social group, or society at large. From a relevance theory
perspective, these factors seek to specify diverse facets and dimensions of the respective
“cognitive environments” of ST and TT participants. FoR considerations also help to identify
more precisely what determines “relevance” with regard to assumed processing cost versus
conceptual gain in any given instance of text interpretation.

Sociocultural frames. The broadest, most influential frames are sociological in nature and
pertain first of all to primary ideological and/or religious beliefs and related practices as well as

the University of Manchester on 30/06-01/07/2008

(http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/ctis/activities/conferences/ translationframes/): “However
translation is defined or understood, whether in Eurocentric and modern Arabic ideas of ‘transferring
across’, or in terms such as the Hindi anuvad (speaking after, following) and rupantar (change in form), the
Igbo tapia and kowa (to break up and tell or narrate differently), [the Chewa kumasulira (to untie)], or the
Chinese fanyi (turning over and interpreting /exchanging), the notion of some kind of transformative act
seems to be unavoidable. One way of conceptualising these transformative acts is to employ the notion of
framing, which has been defined as ‘strategic moves that are consciously initiated in order to present...a particular
position within a certain perspective.’ Yet, framing is a broad concept used in many disciplines, and might also be
thought of in other ways” (italics added).
151
a community’s internalization of them. They are normally implicit, but highly influential
perceptual and interpretive grids, passed down formally or informally as “tradition” from one
generation to the next. From a cognitive-linguistic point of view, sociocultural frames may also
be described as interconnected nexuses and networks of knowledge—organized and stored in the
mind as the result of enculturation, formal learning, and everyday experiences. They represent
the inventory of so-called “encyclopedic knowledge” that constitutes the basis of an individual’s
or society’s worldview.
Worldview, in turn, can be defined as the fundamental cognitive orientation regarding
origin, knowledge/meaning, personal being, existence, morality, and destiny as held by an
individual, a social subgroup, or society as a whole. The sociocultural frame includes distinct but
interrelated conceptual components such as (a) natural philosophy, traditional knowledge,
norms, values, and ethics; (b) cognitive models of persons, spirits, animate beings and their
associated objects, events, actions, and qualities; (c) social behavioral scenarios and their values,
contingencies, feelings, and states; (d) metaphorical and metonymical structuring of human
thought; and (e) all the subconscious assumptions or unstated premises of a culture.

Organizational frames occur as distinct facets within established sociocultural structures. From
the perspective of Bible translation, they are manifested in the major and minor, overt and covert
influences from, and interactions among different stakeholder institutions (referred to as “clients”
in functionalist terms). They often involve complex intercultural relations and entities having
unequal authority or power within established organizational structures and subgroups. Such
variables would include the translators’ (or team’s) perception of their obligations in relation to
the job description and the external management oversight of their work, as well as their sense
of loyalty and job satisfaction regarding their daily working environment. These diverse
perceptions and attitudes constitute the rights and responsibilities of corporate “allegiance”
which are part and parcel of every social institution.
Organizational frames may seem impersonal, even unchangeable, but they are cognitively
created and modified in the same way that sociocultural frames are. They are thus influenced by
various situational factors, for example, important annual customs and traditions, or the regular
as well as unexpected communal life experiences within the society.
A Bible translation project “framework” (including its “brief,” or job commission) includes
a diverse church community’s conceptions concerning the Scriptures, its own Scripture
translation and how this relates to other versions, an appropriate methodology, chief individual
and corporate uses of the Bible, the role and status of translators, their remuneration, and certain
ethical factors (e.g., how much “borrowing” may be done from existing versions). Ecclesiastical
institutions exhibit divergent subcultures (e.g., Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) that embody their
distinctive histories, traditions, religious terminology, objectives, prejudices, norms, ways of
organizing and managing a translation team, establishing their conditions of service, and so forth.
All these diversities must be harmonized within a workable structure of organization and
operation for a project to succeed.

Situational (communication/conversational) frames pertain to the immediate physical and

temporal performance setting of a specific act of message transmission (exchange), including the
medium, codes, roles, and objectives of all participants in that communication event. Such frames
also incorporate significant variables that arise from the respective communication contexts of
the ST communicators (hypothetical) and of the TT translators (real). For example, separate
situational frames may be posited internally for the various speech settings that are specified
within the biblical ST itself, such as God – prophet, prophet – king, king – people (all of which,
by way of example, can be found in the book of Jonah). On the other hand, any translation
session today will be seriously compromised if members of the translation team cannot work
together in harmony.

The sociolinguistic acrostic S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G is often used to summarize different aspects of the
situational framework of a particular communication event (Wendland 2008a, 92–93):
152
Setting—the physical situation, including time, place, environment, weather, and other factors
that could either facilitate and enhance, or on the other hand, disturb, distort, or even destroy
message composition and transmission.

Participants—speaker(s) and hearer(s) and their respective mental models, especially any
contrastive or antithetical features in their world-view (e.g., their social and psychological
background in relation to each other and the particular groups that they represent).

Ends—the primary and secondary communication aims of the message senders, hopefully
reflecting the views and wishes of the intended audience or readership.

Activity—the selection, arrangement, and prioritizing of discourse segments (especially speech

acts), along with any accompanying non-verbal aspects of communication.

Key—the overall psychological tone, manner, attitude, or emotional state of the participants that
characterizes the prevailing social atmosphere in which an act of communication occurs (e.g.,
accommodating, adversarial, neutral).

Instrumentality—the sensory channel (medium) of message transmission that is activated during

the communication event, especially in cases of oral, signed, or written messages, along with any
accompanying supportive media like musical background, print formatting devices, stage props,
or illustrations.

Norms—customs of interpersonal interaction and interpretation as determined by the preceding

factors as well as conventional speech styles, special codes, registers, linguistic subtypes (dialect,
sociolect), and other socially-based influences.

Genre—recognized patterns of natural, informal, or formal spoken and written discourse, along
with their typically associated stylistic qualities (e.g., the distinctive structural or oratorical
features of a poem, folktale, ballad, proverb, riddle, sermon, or political speech).
This model clearly has a strong sociolinguistic focus and seeks to discover the initial cognitive
context that presumably governed a given text’s original conception, intention, representation,
and transmission. The functional notion of speech (or text) acts is crucial for gaining a deeper
understanding of communication-situation frames. The S-A approach arises from the recognition
that when a person speaks, s/he usually intends his/her speech to perform one of several different
pragmatic, interpersonal actions such as asserting, evaluating, opining, stipulating, requesting,
suggesting, authorizing, committing, repudiating, and many more.

Textual frames constitute the specific formal, semiotic, emotive, and cognitive structures that
are embedded respectively within the ST and TT. Ideally, these correspond in large measure; if
not, a communication lapse or failure occurs. Texts normally consist of various combinations of
verbal and nonverbal signs such as music, illustrations, tables, and the format of print in written
texts, or intonation and pitch, gestures, facial and body movements in interpersonal oral
communication.
In short, language encodes and externalizes our thoughts by means of diverse conventional
symbols, which may be spoken, inscribed, or otherwise signified. The most common signs of
biblical texts are written linguistic categories and their markers, that is, the orthographic, lexical,
morphological, syntactic, and discourse signals that translators must discover, analyze, interpret,
translate, and transmit to (or share with) others.
On the other hand, significant signs can also be non-linguistic—that is, visual, aural, even
olfactory in nature. Examples of such non-verbal signs involved in scripture communication are
audio (e.g., audio Bibles), video (e.g., The JESUS Film), electronic (e.g., translation websites),
traditional and modern dramatic productions, photographs, art sculptures, and paintings.
153
The textual frame of reference includes the external influence from all significant intertextual
connections and metonymic memory links that relate to a specific text, on the one hand, and its
manifold internal semantic networks and associations of lexically signaled frames, on the other.
It also embodies the literary or oratorical (artistic and rhetorical) dimension of written and oral
texts.

Conclusion. The comprehensive, multidimensional FoR model may be applied analytically from
top-down at the beginning of a project, to help it to get foundationally off to a good start—and/or
from bottom-up, that is, at any stage of the translation process to evaluate relative progress, and
at the end of the project to assess degrees of success or failure and the apparent reasons for these
results. A rather different set of contextually-influenced cognitive frames will need to be
described when considering the related, but distinct practice of simultaneous or sequential text
“interpreting,” which normally occurs “live” in a setting of public worship (Karlik 2013).
Additional reading: Berman 2014; Wendland 2008, 2010; Wilt 2003; Wilt and Wendland 2008.

7.10 References

Arduini, S. 2009. “Presentation of the general theme” for the Translation and Cognition conference (June
3-5, 2010 – Murcia, Italy). http://www.nidainstitute.org/Conferences/TranslationandCognition.dsp.
Baker, Mona. 2006. “Contextualization in translator- and interpreter-related events.” Journal of pragmatics.
38. 321-337.
Bascom, Robert. 2010. Review of E. Wendland, Contextual frames of reference in translation [2008]. The
Bible Translator (Technical Series) 61:1. 51-53.
Beine, David. 2009. “Eating Aids: Using indigenous cognitive illness schemata (cognitive metaphors) in
HIV/AIDs prevention messages in Nepal.” SIL Electronic Working Papers 2009-001. Dallas: SIL
International.
Berman, Sidney. 2014. “Analysing the Frames of a Bible: The Case of the Setswana Translations of the
Book of Ruth.” PhD Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.
Bosman, Tiana. 2010. “Biblical Hebrew lexicology and cognitive semantics: A study of lexemes of
affection.” Ph.D. Dissertation – University of Stellenbosch (C. H. J. van der Merwe, Promoter).
Bruce, M. A. G. and B. Borg. 2002. Psychosocial frames of reference: Core for occupation-based practice (3rd
ed.). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Books.
Cienki, Alan. 2007. “Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains.” In The Oxford Handbook of cognitive
linguistics. Oxforf; Oxford UP, 170-187.
Coulson, Seana. 2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction.
Cambridge: CUP.
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dearing, J. and E. Rogers. 1996. Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden
complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2006. “Conceptual integration networks.” In D. Geeraerts (ed.), q.v.,
303-371.
Fillmore, Charles. 2006. “Frame semantics.” In D. Geeraerts (ed.), q.v., 371-400.
Geeraerts, Dirk, ed. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

154
Geerarts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Gonzalez, Cleotilde, Jason Dana, Hideya Koshino, and Marcel Just. 2005. “The framing effect and risky
decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI.” Journal of Economic Psychology 26. 1-20
Green, Joel and Scot McKnight, eds. 1992. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1992. Relevance theory: A guide to successful communication in translation. Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Habel, Norman C. 1985. The Book of Job (OTL). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Benjamin Harshav, 2007. “Metaphor and frames of reference: With examples from Eliot, Rilke,
Mayakovsky, Mandelshtam, Pound, Creeley, Amichai, and the New York Times.” In idem, Explorations
in poetics. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 34-75.
Hill, Harriet. 2003. “Communicating context in Bible translation.” Word & Deed 2:2, 1-31.
Hobbins, John. 2011. Cited in the blog by David Frank, “What is your translation metaphor?”
http://betterbibles.com/2011/07/09/whats-your-metaphor/#comments (with reference to Harshav
2007, q.v.).
Hoyle, Richard A. 2008. Scenarios, discourse, and translation: The scenario theory of cognitive linguistics,
its relevance for analysing New Testament Greek and modern Parkari texts, and its implications for
translation theory (SIL e-Books 10). Dallas: SIL International.
Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Karlik, Jillian N. 2013. “Interpreter-mediated Bible Readings from English into Manjaku in a Group of
Gambian Churches.” PhD Dissertation, University of Leeds Centre for Translation Studies.
Katan, David. 2004. Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators (2nd ed.).
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kaufman, Sanda, Michael Elliott and Deborah Shmueli. 2003. “Frames, Framing and Reframing.” In G.
Burgess and H. Burgess (eds.), Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of
Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing/
Keener, Craig. 2003. The Gospel of John: A commentary (Volume One). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Koops, Rob. 2000. “Mapping, mental spaces, and blending in Scripture.” Unpublished paper presented at
the United Bible Societies’ Triennial Translation Workshop (TTW) in Malaga, Spain. 1-15.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, George. 2006. “Conceptual metaphor.” In D. Geeraerts (ed.), q.v., 185-238.
Lakoff, Robin T. 2001. The language war. Berkeley: University of California.
Lippmann, Walter. 1921. Public opinion. New York: The Free Press.
Macgilchrist, Felicitas. 2007. “Positive analysis: Contexting dominant discourses by reframing the issues.”
Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1 (1): 74-94.
Malina, Bruce and Richard Rohrbaugh. 1998. Social-science commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
Martin de León, Celia. 2010. “Metaphorical models of translation: Transfer vs imitation and action.” In J.
St. André (ed.), q.v., 75-108.

155
Matthews, Victor H. 2008. More than meets the ear: Discovering the hidden contexts of Old Testament
conversations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Monti, Enrico. 2010. “Metaphors for metaphor translation.” In J. St. André (ed.), q.v., 192-210.
Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componetial analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. The Hague:
Mouton.
Nida, E.A. and Charles Taber. 1969. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
Pattemore, Stephen. 2007. “Framing Nida: The relevance of translation theory in the United Bible
Societies.” In Philip A. Noss (ed.): A history of Bible translation. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. “Frame Semantics.” In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert,
and Chris Bulcaen (eds.): Handbook of Pragmatics 1996. Philadelphia: John Benjamins (downloaded
from the website of FrameNet, http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/ , pp. 1-8).
Petruck, Miriam R. L., Charles J. Fillmore, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth, and Josef Ruppenhofer.
2006. “Reframing FrameNet data.” (http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet, pp. 1-11).
Pinker, Steven. 2007. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking
(Penguin).
Robbins, Vernon K. 2009. The Invention of Christian Discourse, vol. 1. Dorset UK: Blandford Forum (Deo).
Runge, Steven E. 2010. Discourse grammar of the Greek New Testament: A practical introduction for teaching
and exegesis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Ryan, C. 1991. Prime time activism: Media strategies for grass roots organizing. Boston: South End Press.
Semino, Elena and Jonathan Culpeper (eds.) 2002. Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schank, R. 1990. Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Shead, Stephen L. 2007. “Radical frame semantics and biblical Hebrew: Exploring lexical semantics.”
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the University of Sidney.
Spangler, Ann and Lois Tverberg. 2009. Sitting at the feet of Rabbi Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
St. André, James. 2010. Thinking through translation with metaphors. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
The Praxis Project. 2005. “Meta messaging: Framing your case and reinforcing your allies.”
www.thepraxisproject.org. 1-15.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2010. “Western metaphorical discourses implicit in translation studies. In J. St. André
(ed.), q.v., 109-143.
van Steenbergen, Gerrit. 2007. “Worldview analysis: An exegetical tool for Bible translators.” The Bible
Translator 58:1. 30-40.
Van Wolde, Ellen. 2009. Reframing biblical studies: When language and text meet culture, cognition, and
context. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Wendland, Ernst. 2002. Analyzing the Psalms (2nd edition). Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, Ernst. 2011. LiFE-style translating: A workbook for Bible translators (second, revised edition; SIL
Publications in Translation and Textlinguistics 2). Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, Ernst. 2010. “Scripture Frames & Framing.” Journal of Translation 6:1.
Wendland, Ernst. 2008. Contextual frames of reference in translation: A coursebook for translators and teachers.
Manchester: St. Jerome.

156
Wilt, Timothy, ed. 2003. Bible translation: Frames of reference. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Wilt, Timothy and Ernst Wendland. 2008. Scripture frames and framing: A textbook for Bible translators.
Stellenbosch: SUN Media Press.

157
 8. Parameters of a Literary-Rhetorical Translation

What do the following passages have in common? What can these words tell us about the
compositional quality of the Scriptures that we study, learn, live by, testify to, and translate?
Indeed, the nature of God’s message is often characterized in the Scriptures by pointed and potent
descriptive expressions such as ‘beautiful’, ‘sweet’, ‘powerful’, ‘active’ (energetic), ‘sharp’.

‫ספר ָמ ִ ֽהיר׃‬
ֵ ‫ׁשני ֵע ט׀‬
 ִ ‫נִ י ַמע ֲַׂשי ְל ֶמלֶ  ְל‬$ ָ‫ָ (ר ַחׁש ִל ִ*ּבי׀ ָ (ּד ָבר טב א ֵֹמ ר א‬

Beautiful words stir in my mind,

as I compose a piece for the king.
 Like the pen of a skillful scribe,
my tongue is ready with a poem.
(Ps. 45.1 [v. 2 in Hebrew]—GNB, modified)
-----------------------------------------
‫ַמה־נִּ ְמ ְל ֣צוּ ְ ֭ל ִח ִכּי ִא ְמ ָר ֶ֗תָך ִמ ְדּ ַ ֥בשׁ ְל ִ ֽפי׃‬
  How sweet to my taste are your words,
  sweeter they are than honey to my mouth!
(Ps. 119:103—NIV, modified)
-----------------------------------------
The question is: Do these attributes, whether expressed directly or in figurative terms, refer
only to the content of this Word of the Lord, or can they also be applied to the literary forms of
the original text? And if the latter, what all is included, how can we determine this, and what
are the implications for Bible translation? These are some of the issues that we will be exploring
in this chapter.

8.1 The value of a literary-rhetorical translation

Why aim to produce a “beautiful” translation of the Bible?383 Is it a stretch to claim that that the
Word is “powerful,” not only in spiritual terms (e.g., Heb. 4:12) but with regard to its rhetorical
forms as well? While biblical support does need to be explicitly demonstrated (see Wendland
2004, 2011, 2013),384 for the present I will simply assume that this premise is true—namely, that
in the Scriptures we find many different texts that manifest both beauty and power in their
presentation of their intended message. The issue at hand is this: Taking the artistic and rhetorical
attributes of the Bible as a given, what implications does such a position have for its translators?
“Information” transmission is what most contemporary Bible communicators, including
translators, see as their primary objective. We have to get the content of Scripture across to our

383
I derive the quality of “beautiful” from Ps. 45:1 and also from the figurative reference to God’s
Word in Ps. 119:103 (‘sweet honey’ => beautiful message). Note that in Ps. 45:1 the terms“speaking” and
“my tongue” also highlight the crucial oral-aural aspect of the biblical message that we read (in the
original) and translate.
384
Many recent scholars have come to the same conclusion. But the strongest, most credible
support for this perspective comes from one’s own individual study of the Scriptures. Indeed, the more we
carefully investigate diverse passages of the Bible such as Ezra 4:15, John 5:39, and 1 Pet. 1:11 in a
thorough, systematic fashion, the more the text itself convinces us. The content as well as the forms that
represent and convey it in human language are divinely given, which is of course what the Bible also
claims for itself. My point here is simply that a knowledge of the “creation”—the canon of Scripture as it
has been received—also points invariably in the same direction, to the same Source.
158
constituency, they say. Certainly that task is daunting enough. But as we have already noted,
“Beauty [too] is information.” Now if our challenge is to include the original text’s artistic beauty
and rhetorical power, how can we even consider, let alone realize, success in this venture? The
answer, of course, is, We cannot. As when dealing only with the “pure content” of the Bible, we
are not able to succeed, either fully or completely. Something of the source-language (SL) text
will always get altered—added, lost, distorted—in the process. Therefore, a deliberate choice has
to be made: What aspect, area, or element of the original text do we wish to focus on—its forms
(the ordinary as well as the exceptional ones), content, intent, impact, and/or appeal? Because
it is a sure thing that we cannot expect to represent them all in a single rendition—not even in a
well-annotated version, or one that includes all sorts of “supplementary helps.” My argument is
simply that we need to take also the artistry and the rhetoric of the Scriptures seriously, so much
so that even if we decide not to make any attempt at all to represent these features in our
translation, then we clearly recognize the implications of what we have (not) done and the loss
that is thereby involved.
But another crucial question arises in this discussion. Do we not have enough translation types
to choose from already, especially in the major languages of the world? As for the so-called minor
languages, would a literary version not be an unnecessary luxury that cannot be seriously
defended, or even proposed as a possibility? Consider the cost: A literary version would
undoubtedly turn out to be very difficult and demanding in terms of time, finances, and human
resources. In short, it would probably be too hard either to accomplish or to justify.
While these concerns are all valid, they are not necessarily determinative in every case. It
really depends on the total translation setting concerned—that is, for whom, by whom, for what
purpose, and in which situation. In today’s world of extended and diversified communication
options, the trend is for greater variety rather than less, based on the prevailing target-audience
opinion (their desires, needs, and expectations) as determined by sufficient pre-project market
research. More about this vital factor will be said later in the book.
For now, I return to the basic premise: If—or better, since—verbal beauty and power were and
are an integral part of the message of Scriptures, these dimensions must be dealt with in an
appropriate, locally determined way in every Bible translation. Even if it is finally decided that
such features cannot be handled due to inadequate resources, the issue still needs to be addressed.
To do any less would render the translators liable to the charge of either incompetence or
unfaithfulness. Indeed, one could argue that it is a matter of essential honesty with regard to the
original text of the Scriptures. Whatever significance has been left out needs to be documented
and the reasons for this decision clearly delineated. Usually, however, this subject is simply
ignored, either out of ignorance or due to the lack of any suitable strategy for dealing with artistic
verbal communication. Ironically, the argument here, as in the case of past debates in Bible
translation studies, also concerns the form of the original text. In this instance, however, it is its
literary, not linguistic, forms that are in focus—and with special reference to how their
significance might be at least partially reproduced by capitalizing on some of the literary forms
available in a given target language (TL). Furthermore, it is not form for its own sake that we are
concerned about—but distinctive form that also designates some definite aspects of “meaning”
in the wider sense, whether informative, expressive, directive, esthetic, or commemorative in
nature.
The translation task in this regard is extremely complex and demanding. The quality of beauty
involves artistic structure and style on all levels of textual organization, while the attribute of
power relates to patterns of argumentation and rhetorical effects that aim to enhance the
persuasive appeal and overall communicative impact of the text. This dimension of meaning is a
given where outstanding literature is concerned, prose as well as poetry. As one teacher of
professional translators has observed:
Approaching the complexities of translation from a literary theoretical angle makes sense when
one keeps in mind that literature is regarded as the most complex form of language usage

159
 incorporating much more than semiotic meaning or signification. In poetic language all the
aspects and possibilities of language are deliberately exploited to concentrate meaning, to
achieve that density of meaning which Jurij Lotman … saw as the essence of the artistic text…”
(du Plooy 2002:267).
So if it is a literary document that we have as a source to work with, surely one viable option
as far as translational possibilities are concerned is to translate it as a literary text—a “value
added” translation (Joubert 2002:34), as it were. Of course, the primarily theological nature and
value of the Scriptures should never be lost sight of.385 But even a cursory reading of the Psalter,
or any other poetic pericope, soon impresses one of the fact that these religious compositions
were intended not merely (or even mostly) to inform the minds, but to move the hearts of their
hearers—not by means of a silent reading to oneself, but by means of a public oral proclamation,
or even a recital, of the text.
The aim of this chapter is to define the parameters of a literary-rhetorical (L-R) method of
translating the Bible.386 This approach offers not only another option for rendering the Scriptures
in another language, should circumstances allow, but it also makes a potential contribution to
contemporary translation theory and practice. It may well be of interest and significance to the
field of secular translation studies simply because of the great diversity of genres, text types,
styles, and literary features that must be dealt with in translating the Bible. Certainly the
scholarly exchange is fruitful from both standpoints, as the present chapter will show by
surveying a number of prominent theories that relate to the subject of literary translation.
This is, however, a very limited treatment of a rather large topic. That is to say, although the
field of literary study has expanded greatly in several directions over the past several decades, I
will discuss in detail only those aspects that are of appreciable relevance to Bible translators or
those engaged in teaching translators how to carry out their task. This selectivity accords with
the book’s ultimate aim: to encourage a formally more dynamic rendering of the dynamic Word
in keeping with both accuracy of content representation and also an awareness of target audience
preference—that is, a modern speech community who would appreciate hearing some or all of
the Scriptures resound idiomatically in their mother tongue.

8.2 Background: The literary analysis of biblical literature

In the latter half of the twentieth century, there has been what Ryken terms a “quiet revolution”
taking place in biblical studies as an increasing number of scholars—along with ordinary students
of the Word—come to an ever greater awareness that the Bible is fundamentally literary in
character. This has important implications for both interpretation and application. As Ryken
states, “the methods of literary scholarship are a necessary part of any complete study of the
Bible” (1984:11). A problem exists, however, in the application of this insight to biblical studies.
The difficulty, Wiklander observes, is that although “few scholars—if any—would seriously deny
this basic premise ... the extent to which it is allowed to shape exegetical work varies quite
considerably” (1984:2). The present survey is intended to describe and illustrate several

385
In this regard, the late Douglas Bush, a well-known professor of literature at Harvard for many
years, makes the following interesting observation: “[T]he Bible is the grand proof in English that in the
greatest writing literary beauty is not a main object but a by-product” (quoted in Linton 1986:25). My own
comment is simply this: the preceding assertion applies also in large measure to the original text of
Scripture; furthermore, there exists the grand potential for it to be fulfilled in any world language.
386
This compound term incorporates two distinct, but integrated perspectives on any literary text
(not only the Bible), namely: (a) the artistic, which focuses upon the distinctive (marked) macro- and
microfeatures of discourse (i.e., its structural and stylistic dimensions respectively); and (b) the rhetorical,
which focuses upon the persuasive effect of discourse (i.e., the affective and imperative dimensions) and/or
its structure of argumentation (see chap. 6).
160
important applications of a literary scholarship to a study of the Scriptures, whether in their
entirety or in terms of a single book or a given pericope.
The discussion will further demonstrate the practical value of a literary-critical method in
Bible translation. It also emphasizes the importance of carrying out a thorough examination of
verbal art in the target language as a means of identifying possible functional “matches” that will
prove useful in the transfer process. It is hoped that a careful consideration of this subject will
serve as a springboard for further discussion and development of some of these preliminary ideas.
The modern scholarly movement promoting the analysis of Scripture as literature is frequently
dated from 1969, when James Muilenburg’s seminal essay “Form Criticism and Beyond” was first
published. (It has since been reprinted in P. House 1992:49–69.) Muilenburg advocated the use
of past and present literary methods, which he termed “rhetorical criticism” but perhaps better
designated in his own words as “stylistics or aesthetic criticism” (ibid.:56–57), as a means to
understand the various units and relations, structures and patterns, techniques and devices that
effectively communicate the sense and significance of a complete biblical text. At the time, this
approach involved a primary shift in focus from atomistic historical and genetic issues to holistic,
artistic, and rhetorical concerns. In other words, the center of scholarly interest moved from a
desire to learn how a text came to be composed to how it conveys meaning and purpose as it
stands already composed, or simply, “how Scripture means what it says” (P. House 1992:9).
Petersen (1978:26) said of this perspective, “In literary studies the critic … became concerned
with the things of which a text was ‘made,’ with how they ‘worked’ to make the text what it was
or appeared to be, and with what literary works essentially ‘were,’ that is ontologically.” The
diverse methodologies whose primary aim is like this are generally referred to as “literary
criticism.” This is not to be confused with the earlier and very misleading use of this expression
with reference to the historically focused but quite speculative study of the Scriptures known as
“source criticism” (ibid.:10). Other terms often used to designate the whole or aspects of the
practice of literary criticism are “stylistics” and “poetics,” the latter referring to how literature is
constituted, from the Greek verb poiein ‘to make’ (see Preminger and Brogan 1993:928). The field
of literary analysis now includes a wide range of specific methodologies, most of which may be
applied to complement one another in providing a more accurate picture of the artistic richness
and rhetorical depth of most biblical texts. I have selected a number of these approaches, those
that seemed most profitable for Bible translators, in my overview of the subject that follows.

8.3 The crucial question: Can the Bible be classified as literature?

Many theologians, scholars, and commentators—especially those who come from a more
conservative background—have a problem with calling the Bible literature.387 This is largely due
to their limited definition of literature, which always includes the components “fictional” and/or
“creative,” either of which in their opinion denies the additional and preeminent quality of divine
inspiration.388 As we shall see, however, the broader definition of literature employed in this
book neither entails nor implies such a denial. In short, there is no essential opposition between
the concepts of “scripture” and “literature.” As P. House says, “Studying the literary nature of
the Bible no more negates the binding nature of the Bible as holy scripture than does examining

387
This matter was already considered in chapter 1, but due to its importance in terms of the
rationale and the motivation for an L-R translation, it is taken up again as preparation for my overview of
various theoretical approaches to the subject.
388
The special literary character of the Scriptures, whether Hebrew or Greek, is also denied by
those of a more liberal theological persuasion who consider it to be essentially an ethnic Jewish sacred
mythology or a disparate early Christian sourcebook or compendium like any other held sacred by one or
another of the world’s major religions. Such critics have probably not taken the time (or do not possess
the expertise) to carry out a thorough, unbiased stylistic and structural analysis and evaluation of the
Bible’s constituent writings.
161
its historical components” (1988:18). In fact, it should be noted, a literary approach to the
analysis and interpretation of the Bible is not really new; renowned theologians in the past have
practiced it (in some cases wrongly, by modern standards), for example, Augustine, Jerome, and
Martin Luther (ibid.:5). The great theologian Augustine writes:
I could … show those men who cry up their own form of language as superior to that of our
authors [of Scripture] … that all those powers [i.e., rhetoric] and beauties [i.e., artistry] of
eloquence which they make their boast, are to be found in the sacred writings which God in
his goodness has provided to mold our characters, and to guide us from this world of
wickedness to the blessed world above (cited in Ryken 1984:17).
Could anyone ask for a clearer affirmation of the functional importance of literary form? The
later Reformer, Luther, is also worth quoting on this issue:
I am persuaded that without knowledge of literature, pure theology cannot at all endure.…
Certainly it is my desire that there shall be as many poets and rhetoricians as possible, because
I see that by these studies, as by no other means, people are wonderfully fitted for the grasping
of sacred truth and for handling it skillfully and happily. … (cited in P. House 1992:25).
Here we have a fervent plea for a prominent literary perspective and procedure to be included
not only in the study of systematic theology, but also within the scope of practical theology,
which includes Bible translation in all of its stages of application.389 It is in this spirit then that
we confidently, if not always so skillfully, forge ahead with our consideration of how a literary
approach can render assistance in the specific and complex task of an interlingual and cross-
cultural message transmission of the Holy Scriptures.
One’s understanding of the concept of literature will, to some extent, determine the nature
and scope of one’s investigation. For some, “literature” is restricted to “something written (as the
Bible is basically a ‘book’)” (Maier and Tollers 1979:3). Sharlemann (1987:7) defines it similarly:
“a [literary] text is a written work, in contrast to an oral performance.” However, more recent
studies draw attention to the “oral overlay” (Achtemeier 1990:3) or “auditory aura” (Silberman
1987:3) of ancient written documents and suggest that the distinction between the two modes of
communication in these texts is not at all easy to maintain. This is because “in practice,
interaction between oral and written forms is extremely common” (Finnegan 1977:160) in
classical as well as contemporary literature (see also Finnegan 1970:18). Other scholars would
limit the notion of literature to purely “imaginative” discourse “in contrast to expository writing,”
and by this definition “some parts of the Bible are more literary and other parts are less literary”
(Ryken 1984:12).
But for many investigators there is no doubt that “[T]he Bible is literature, the kind of writing
that attends to beauty, power, and memorability as well as to exposition” (Linton 1986:16). The
case has been well put in general terms by the noted author and literary critic C. S. Lewis, who
says, “There is a ... sense in which the Bible, since it is after all literature, cannot be properly
read except as literature; and the different parts of it as the different sorts of literature that they
are” (1989:71).
But what does it mean to read the Scriptures as literature? How does the notion of literature
per se affect reading and interpretation? In short, reading the Scriptures as literature means that
one approaches it with a conscious awareness of the expressive, affective (including the emotive
and aesthetic), and directive dimensions of semantically significant and stylistically shaped verbal
discourse. That is in addition to being aware of the cognitively oriented “information” being
conveyed (i.e., theology).

389
As a specific instance of this translational implication, Luther once observed in a 1520 letter to
a friend that “figures of speech and the liveliness of sentences and arguments [i.e., literary artistry and
rhetoric] can be rendered in a free translation only” (cited in Hargreaves 1993:2).
162
 Of course, when dealing with the “Word of God,” one does not wish to place too much of a
central emphasis on the imaginative or creative element of the human author.390 But Ryken draws
attention to a valid application on the part of all perceptive listeners/readers: “[Literature]
constantly appeals to our imagination (the image-making and image-perceiving capacity within
us). Literature images forth some aspect of reality” (1984:14).
While this notion can certainly be taken too far (as frequently happens in the case of many
frivolous postmodern brands of criticism), it is important for interpreters to consider those
stylistic devices, such as metaphor, sarcasm, irony, or hyperbole, which strongly stimulate or
appeal to one’s perceptions, feelings, moods, and attitudes. By such devices, verbal artists,
including now the various biblical authors, frequently exploit the creative potential of language
in order to present what Paul Ricoeur calls a “re-description” of reality—albeit from a divine
perspective—one in which the world is not replicated but transfigured in the vision that poet and
audience come to share. Such imagistic, highly expressive discourse is frequently coupled with
and complemented by various forms of phonic pointing and highlighting (e.g., rhythm, rhyme,
alliteration, assonance, word-/sound-plays) that attract and attune the ear to pay attention to
particular areas and aspects of a given text. These devices are normally bound up with the key
components of an author’s theme and/or communicative purpose.
Many other more detailed definitions and descriptions of literature are, of course, available
in standard textbooks on the subject. But for now it is enough simply to point out the most
important characteristic of literature from the standpoint of discourse analysis, namely, the
predominant focus upon linguistic form (verbal shape or tectonic construction) that is typical of
a superior literary composition. This, as already suggested, may be aural as well as visual in
nature and effect. In particular, there is a special emphasis upon the artistic dimension of
discourse—or what Roman Jakobson termed the poetic function of the text. According to this
principle, “the two basic modes of arrangement used in verbal behavior, selection and
combination,” as they operate within both the paradigmatic and also the syntagmatic planes of
textual organization (Jakobson 1972:95), are maximized through multiple application. The aim
is to formally foreground and enrich salient elements of message content, thereby also
heightening its interest value, emotive impact, and persuasive appeal.
The result of this artistic-rhetorical process, which may be realized in prose as well as in
poetry, is normally a verbal text that is heavily figured (i.e., with many diverse rhetorical tropes
represented), artfully patterned, permeated by a pervasive intertextuality, and provided with a
manifold cohesion by many recursive syntagmatic and paradigmatic structures of various kinds
(i.e., lexical, phonological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic). This is manifested on all levels of
discourse organization, from the word on up to the composition as a whole. Literature thus
maximizes the “how” (or style) of the text in order to highlight the “what” (i.e., content) and the
“why” (i.e., intent or purpose). This is done by means of such stylistic features as “pattern or
design, theme or central focus, organic unity (also called unity in variety, or theme and
variation), coherence, balance contrast, symmetry, repetition or recurrence, variation, and
unified progression” (Ryken 1984:23–24). In the process of analysis then, one seeks to
demonstrate how diverse artistic forms and rhetorical strategies are utilized in order to
persistently, progressively, and impressively shape the expectations of the readers/listeners. They
are thus enticed and encouraged to direct their individual interpretive activities, whether
implicitly or explicitly applied, in a specific direction with reference to a particular biblical theme
or life-situation.

390
One needs to recognize the possibility (even likelihood?) that there are differences in literary
quality among the various biblical books (e.g., 1 and 2 Samuel in comparison with 1 and 2 Chronicles;
Mark with Luke; 1 Peter with 2 Peter). Often, however, I have discovered that the books regarded to be
“less honorable” stylistically on the overt surface of discourse composition (including those just mentioned)
reveal certain underlying features of thematic development, structural organization, and/or rhetorical
arrangement which are highly literary in nature.
163
 Every art, trade, science, or technology has its own standards and criteria of excellence as well
as modes of evaluation. So does the study of literature. Literary excellence thus calls for “a
developed awareness of the conventions and workings of a given literary corpus and a consequent
ability to discern what kinds of claims a given text within that corpus may be making” (V. P.
Long 1997:89). A particular body of literature (whether the collection is that of an individual
author, genre, or an entire people) may be viewed as having a distinct, analyzable discourse
“lexicon” and “grammar” (Berlin [1983] 1994:15). According to poetics (the science of
literature), any literary composition consists of a specifiable set of literary units (e.g., themes,
motifs, topics, figures), arrangements (preferred or typical ways of combining the units), and rules
(the principles and conventions by which the units and arrangements operate within a given text
or corpus). These different aspects of analysis may be usefully joined in the notion of text type,
or genre, each variety of which manifests a particular combination (selection, arrangement, and
distribution) of elements.
If we aim to understand and translate the individual passages of a foreign literature such as
the Old Testament or New Testament, which originated within the context of a time, place, and
culture far removed from our own, it makes sense to learn as much as we can (limited though
this may be) of its distinctive constitution, usage, and contextual setting. The effort to develop
such competence is justified by the simple fact that “an increased appreciation of the literary
mechanisms of a particular text—how a story is told—often becomes the avenue of greater insight
into the theological, religious and even historical significance of the text—what the story means”
(V. P. Long 1997:90).391
There are also some significant exegetical implications here. Paying attention to a biblical
text’s literary features, both structural and stylistic, often sheds considerable light on the meaning
of a particular passage, especially an ambiguous or otherwise problematic one. Thus a literary
perspective and the additional textual evidence that it marshals can shift the balance of
interpretation regarding a controversial issue from one side to the other. In such cases, the
supposedly optional embellishments of the original text are shown to be vital stylistic signals that
point towards its author-intended meaning, whether this happens to be semantic or pragmatic
(i.e., interpersonal) in nature. As one analyst notes in this regard:

While keeping in mind the open-ended character of language by accepting that no

interpretation can be absolutely correct, the interpreter-translator is in the first instance
confronted by the inevitable textual aspects of a text, the phonetic, semantic, syntactic and
narrative structures, the specific metaphoric style and a specific linguistic register which cannot
be denied. These aspects of a text have to be recognized as meaningful in themselves so that
interpretation is not completely arbitrary but permanently and irrevocably guided by the
determinants of the original text. Whereas interpretations in classrooms and in literary essays
and papers at conferences attempt to impress people with their creativity in producing
exceptionally original or radical readings of texts, the translator does not enjoy that much
freedom. He does not have ownership of the text, he has to respect the limitations imposed
upon him by the text itself. Umberto Eco … describes his view as follows: “A text is a place

391
To this, we might add the following provocative observation: “Though this [literary] approach
was used for all types of texts in the twentieth century, the attitudes expressed in these theories derive
from the philosophical position of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who is primarily associated with the idea
of artistic autonomy. Whether his ideas about purposiveness without purpose (Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck)
are really compatible with the functions of mythological or religious texts, is a question which theologians
will have to answer, but the close relation between artistic and religious texts is an issue which will have
to be addressed in the argument. For Kant beauty and the experience of beauty (and I wonder whether
one could here in very careful way, for argument’s sake, substitute faith for beauty), cannot be limited to
conceptual thought, because the indeterminate experience of beauty cannot adequately be contained in
thought or expressed in language….” (Du Plooy 2002:268-269).
164
 where the irreducible polysemy of symbols is in fact reduced because in a text symbols are
anchored to their context.... thus many modern theories are unable to recognize that symbols
are paradigmatically open to infinite meanings but syntagmatically, that is, textually, open to
the indefinite, but by no means infinite, interpretations allowed by the context” (du Plooy
2002:274).
The authors of commentaries, study Bibles, and translator helps need to pay greater attention
to this vital dimension of hermeneutics, which is so often ignored or passed over for lack of time
or expertise. Translators too must take the artistry of the original text into serious consideration,
to the limits of their ability, no matter what type of version they happen to be preparing in their
mother tongue. This is not an optional exercise. As Linton (1986:16) points out with regard to
one prominent literary feature, “[T]he style [of a Bible translation] must communicate (re-
present) the emotional environment of the original, for though content informs us, feeling
involves us and moves us.”

8.4 Some theories of literary translation

It must be asked to what extent a manifestly excellent literary work is fully translatable. Is the
outstanding literature of one language really representable or re-creatable in an alien idiom? Can
there even be a credible theory of literary translation? Then, if one adopts a positive approach
to this issue, how does one go about actually preparing a satisfactory translation of this nature?
In what way(s) may the products of translation be evaluated and their acceptability by the target
audience be assessed?
In the following sections I will give an overview of the opinions of others on the subject of a
literary translation, beginning with some well-known Bible translators and moving from there to
more secular translational studies. My treatment here is admittedly selective; certain theorists
may have been left out simply because I am unacquainted with them and others perhaps because
I do not adequately understand or appreciate what they have written on the subject. I have
restricted my consideration largely to book-length studies since these are most accessible and
actually used by ordinary field translators and their teachers around the world of Bible
translation. In any case, this survey is intended to provoke some serious thought concerning the
issues involved and also to lay the foundation for my own delineation of the aim of a literary
rendition.

8.4.1 Bible translation theorists

Quite understandably perhaps, the pioneers of meaning-based Bible translation studies did not
say a great deal, if anything, about a specifically literary rendition during the halcyon decades
of the sixties and seventies. Their emphasis was apparently focused so much upon conveying the
basic content of the Scriptures in a natural, idiomatic way (in contrast to the prevailing formal
correspondence, “missionary” method) that not much attention could be devoted to the
refinements of this procedure. The aim was to break translators, who were increasingly mother-
tongue practitioners, of their typical preference for a literal approach, opening them up to a freer
methodology that directed their energies towards conveying the sense of the original by means
of an appropriate style in the target language. Although many specific literary features of the
biblical text are considered in the texts by Nida (1964, 1975),392 Nida and Taber (1969), Beekman
and Callow (1974), Callow (1974), and Larson (1984), their emphasis is on determining the

392
In this early study, Nida notes that “[t]he influence of literary forms is found in two principal
areas: (1) the occurrence of sound effects, e.g., puns, acrostic series, and rhyming and alliterative
sequences, and (2) rhythmic speech utterances, whether rhymed or not” (1964:176). Indeed, this is where
literary influence is first and most obviously manifested, and this is a good place to begin—but it goes
much deeper than that.
165
meaning of these forms, primarily with reference to the microstructure of source-language
discourse and with the goal of finding suitable equivalents in a given target language.393
William Wonderly was one of the first of the early Bible translation theorists to say much
about a literary translation. He broadly defines such a rendition as follows—that is, in a context
of comparing literary versions to common-language and popular-language versions:394
These [literary translations] are fully contemporary, are oriented to the general public (not just
the Christian in-group), and vary from regular to formal in their [sociolinguistic] functional
variety. They make free use of all the resources of the language at all levels which are
considered acceptable for published materials, and are thereby not intended to be fully
accessible to the uneducated reader (Wonderly1968:30).
Obviously a literary version so defined can be produced only in a linguistic community with a
relatively long tradition of written literature. Its envisioned target group would be people who
are comparatively well educated, widely read, and who enjoy the challenge of wrestling with the
full range of lexical, grammatical, stylistic, and rhetorical usage in the particular language
concerned (see Nida and Taber 1969:31).395
Wonderly’s definition of a literary translation may be compared with Nida and Taber’s
definition of literary language (1969:205):
that form of language, sometimes but not always written, in which texts are composed and
transmitted which are intended to be esthetically pleasing; characterized by careful, often
elaborate use of words and grammatical and stylistic devices; in unwritten languages, most
closely resembles the FORMAL LEVEL of spoken language; often not understood by uneducated
persons.
Such a definition appears to be rather narrow, in effect limiting literary language to the purely
aesthetic function of communication and apparently linking understanding to educational level
(see also de Waard and Nida 1986:50).396

393
It may be observed that most recent studies that attempt to evaluate contemporary Bible
translations also largely ignore the subject of literary translation. For example, in the essays edited by
Porter and Hess (1999) I found the term only once, and that with little exposition. A standout exception
in this regard is Hargreaves’s discussion (1993) comparing the language of modern English Bibles.
394
A common language (CL) translation is a version that restricts itself more or less to “that part
of the total resources of a given language common to the usage of both educated and uneducated”
(Wonderly 1968:3). A popular language (PL) translation is more appropriate to a situation where the
language in question is “spoken by people with little specialization along social, occupational, and literary
lines” (ibid.), that is, in an oral-aural society; in other words, it aims to reflect “the contemporary language
in a form that is shared by the entire population that speaks it” (ibid.). However, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to find such relatively uncomplicated sociolinguistic settings in today’s world; thus it may be
helpful to qualify a PL translation as one that is oriented towards the younger generation (ages fifteen to
twenty-five) with a style of language that tends to be the spoken style, “regular-casual,” whereas a CL
version would be more mainstream in terms of a regularized written style. (This is a modification of
Wonderly’s definition on pp. 14, 28–29, 41–46.) In short, a PL version is one that uses the full linguistic
and literary resources of a language, with the exception of youthful slang on the one end of the continuum
and the archaic speech of court elders on the other. The central characteristic of both a CL and a PL version
is “dynamic equivalence,” which is the receptor-oriented approach to Bible translation supported by the
influential early manuals by Nida and Taber (1969) and Beekman and Callow (1974).
395
A literary version is not necessarily the same as a liturgical version, although the two types are
sometimes confused. A liturgical Bible is often quite traditional and literal in nature, hence not literary at
all according to natural TL verbal norms. However, it may be regarded as literary as a result of long usage
and official promotion by the user churches.
396
Therefore, the linguistic and extralinguistic scope or range of my vision is much larger. That is,
it includes the efforts to achieve genre-for-genre translational equivalence, where possible, and for an
audience that is not restricted to the literate, well-educated strata of a particular society.
166
 My particular emphasis on the importance of stylistic and rhetorical features in the analysis
and translation of the Scriptures is not really a new development in the history of modern
translation theory and practice. Indeed, the seeds for such a perspective were planted already in
The Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida and Taber 1969). For example, as part of a
consideration of the process of “restructuring” in a given receptor language, it presents a
“functional approach to style” (ibid.:145-150). This consists of a listing and description of sets of
formal (grammatical) as well as lexical features that are designed to achieve either “efficiency”
in verbal communication or certain “special effects.” The latter category is of particular relevance
to the topic of this chapter. It includes those stylistic devices that are “effective for enhancing
interest, creating impact, and embellishing the message” (ibid.:146). The results, however, are
somewhat disappointing since the viewpoint is rather too linguistically oriented and limited to
forms that are non-usual in nature, as the following listing of features illustrates: grammatical:
lack of discourse markers … transition markers, nonparallel constructions, failure to mark
participants, formal confusion; lexical: little-known words, infrequent words, unusual
combinations of words, dated words (ibid.:148, 150). Nevertheless, an important beginning was
made here and an initial foundation laid for the future. This perception was developed further
in subsequent studies that took greater cognizance of both the presence and the influence of
varieties of discourse types and the diversity of literary-rhetorical devices also on the macrolevel
of textual organization.
Considerations of “rhetoric,” including issues of a literary-stylistic nature, play a much more
significant role in de Waard and Nida’s From One Language To Another (1986), where two central
chapters (chaps. 5–6) are devoted to the subject. Here “rhetorical meaning” is very broadly
defined as that which “is signaled by patterns of selection and arrangement” on the larger, “less
rigidly rule-governed” levels of discourse organization (ibid.:78). Six principal “rhetorical
processes” are described and illustrated in chapter 6, namely: repetition, compactness,
connectives, rhythm, shifts in expectancies, and the exploitation of similarities and contrasts.
These prominent literary forms are viewed as accomplishing “the rhetorical functions of
wholeness, aesthetic appeal, impact, appropriateness, coherence, progression-cohesion, focus,
and emphasis (ibid.:86).
A wide variety of stylistic devices that would fall under my classification as being literary-
rhetorical in terms of form and function are exemplified by de Waard and Nida (1986). In the
category of “shifts of expectancy,” for example, are included word order variations, anacolutha,
play on meanings, paradoxes, irony, and different types of figurative language (ibid.:102–112).
Larger discourse patterns of parallelism and chiasm are treated as instances of rhetoric involving
the “exploitation of isomorphic features” (ibid.:112–119). The practical text-focused discussion
of these chapters leads to a classic formulation of the principle of functional equivalence in Bible
translation:
In treating rhetorical features it is often useless, and generally unwise, to attempt to match
form for form. What one must try to do therefore, is to match function for function, in other
words, to attempt to discover in the receptor language the closest functional equivalent of the
rhetorical structure in the source text. The particular set of forms used for different rhetorical
functions is largely language specific, but the functions, as already indicated, are universals,
and it is for this reason that one can aim at functional equivalence (ibid.:119).
While de Waard and Nida (1986) present many helpful instances suggesting how this may be
done in relation to specific passages of Scripture, the bigger picture is for the most part missing.
Translators are not given much guidance as to how the complete texts of different literary genres
may be meaningfully analyzed as wholes, either in terms of the original SL text or their own
language.397 One of the aims of Wendland 2004 and 2011 is to offer several such sets of discourse-

397
In a more recent short comparative study aimed at evaluating the relative amount of “creativity
in [Bible] translating,” E.A. Nida makes the following observations: “(1) the number and length of
167
oriented investigative guidelines and heuristic procedures. Certain other studies that are helpful
in giving similar direction and advice are also referred to along the way so that translators may
try out these different L-R approaches and hopefully develop a field methodology which will
work out effectively for them (see, for starters, de Regt, de Waard, and Fokkelman 1996; cf. also
my earlier formulation in Wendland 2002a).

8.4.2 Secular theorists

In this section I will survey a variety of recent approaches that have been proposed, primarily by
secular theorists, on the subject of literary translation (more specifically, a “literary-rhetorical”
version).398 My aim here is to determine how these diverse viewpoints might serve to inform and
enrich the theory and practice of Bible translation. This is admittedly just a representative
sample, but I do mention a number of recognized leaders in the field. I will comment only on
what a particular specialist contributes specifically to our understanding of a literary rendition
(however defined), not everything he or she has written on the broad subject of translation.
Despite the limitations of space, I have tried, through direct quotations, to allow these theorists
to speak largely for themselves concerning the different methods that they propose. Included
here are the names of several scholars who have more recently become involved in Bible
translating, for example, Alter and Nord. They work independently, however, not as members of
some corporate translation agency. Furthermore, they come from a university or professional
background of literary analysis and criticism that is not limited to Scripture and can, therefore,
provide a helpfully different perspective on the task at hand.399

8.4.2.1 Literalist approach

The practitioner of a literalist approach makes a serious attempt to reflect the recognized literary
style of the original text in the language of translation—that is, “in English dress but with a
Hebraic voice” (Fox 1995:ix).400 The word voice in this quotation is important because it

sentences or clauses is not as important as the manner in which they relate to one another, (2) … what
counts [in a translation] is the lexical effectiveness in impact and attractiveness, (3) monotony of sentence
structure can be tiring, (4) unusual word order can highlight important features, (5) … a translator should
not hesitate to improve the stylistic awkwardness of the original” (2000:165)—if that is actually how the
text would sound also in the TL if rendered more or less literally.
398
Mine is only a very selective survey of what is becoming a vast field of study (see also ch. 2 of
Wilt 2002). For a more thorough examination and critique of the various approaches treated below, readers
would do well to consult works such as Baker (1998), Fawcett (1997), Munday (2001), Naude and van der
Merwe (2002), and Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997).
399
I am almost ashamed to admit that before 2001 I knew very little about most of the different
translation theorists that are mentioned in this section (and many others in the secular field as well). The
entire first draft of this monograph (2004) was written with minimal reference to their critical and
exploratory thinking. The present chapter, and this section in particular, is an attempt to indicate what a
great oversight this was and how fruitful a mutual exchange of ideas can be in an effort to refine a
contemporary approach to the theory and practice of Bible translation, including also its teaching to
mother-tongue translators around the world.
400
I take Everett Fox as the primary illustration of a literalist approach. (For a comparison with a
capable colleague in this sort of SL-centered endeavor, see Alter 1996.) Another practitioner of this type
is Peter Levy, whose translation of the Psalms, according to Hargreaves (1993:33–34, 86), “has tried to
catch the spirit and idiom of the Hebrew Psalter.… [F]or Levy the important idiomatic patterns of Hebrew
poetry to be reflected in any translation are not only those to do with parallelism and with the skillful
echoing and balancing of one clause by another, but particularly to do with rhythm and balance.… [H]e
implies that an English translation has to aim to achieve some terseness or economy.… By far the
commonest criticism leveled at the modern translations … comes from those who say that they miss the
beauty and rhythm of language that the AV possesses.” These same phonological qualities, along with the
168
emphasizes the spoken word, both in its assumed original setting of communication and also in
the corresponding contemporary context. As Fox (1995:ix–x) notes:
This translation is guided by the principle that the Hebrew Bible, like much of the literature of
antiquity, was meant to be read aloud, and that consequently it must be translated with careful
attention to rhythm and sound. The translation therefore tries to mimic the particular rhetoric
of the Hebrew whenever possible, preserving such devices as repetition, allusion, alliteration,
and wordplay. It is intended to echo the Hebrew, and to lead the reader back to the sound
structure and form of the original.
Thus Fox, “translating with an ear to the sound and [discourse] structure” of the original text
(1995:xiii), tends to be very Hebrew oriented, which frequently results in a noticeably
foreignized rendering in English. In effect, his is more a “translated literature” than a “literary
translation” (Lefevre 1981:55).401 He engages the biblical text primarily on the level of its
distinctive language—the biblical form—and is not so much concerned about content:
Rather than carrying across (“translating”) the content of the text from one linguistic realm to
another, I have tried to involve the reader [actually the listener!] in the experience of giving it
back (“rendering”), of returning to the source and recreating some of its richness (Fox
1995:xxv).
In order to effect an emphasis upon the oral-aurality of the original, Fox (1995) gives
particular attention to three major translation techniques: setting the text out lineally in cola
(basic utterance units), in lines that resemble free verse;402 transliterating and explaining Hebrew
names within the translation itself; and a strict reproduction of key thematic words, no matter
how awkward this may sound in English. He also highlights a trio of minor devices that serve to
accent “the Bible’s spokenness,” namely, wordplay, allusion, and repetition that is more restricted
in scope to certain passages (xviii–xix). In this manner he seeks “to preserve not only the message
of the text but also its open-endedness” (xx).
While the goal of message-preservation is undoubtedly out of reach by virtue of his literal
methodology, in the latter effort he has surely succeeded. Thus a certain “open-endedness” of
ambiguity is created due to the unnaturalness of the English that results from this formalistic
approach. Furthermore, there is very little “literariness” that may be seen in the TL text, which
has been foreignized at times to the point of unintelligibility for all but those who are already
familiar with the Hebrew original. This is best demonstrated by an actual example from Fox’s
translation, Gen. 32:21–22 (reproduced below in its published format, but without verse
numbers):
You shall say: Also—here, your servant Yaakov is behind us.
For he said to himself:

skillful selection and combination of words, would seem to be the minimum to aim for in any literary
translation of the Psalms.
401
The translation that results from such a literalistic practice may also be described as a
“neoliteral” or “interliminal” text, which is “an attempt at colonizing the space in between two cultures”
and languages, resulting in “an invented language where Hebrew structures in [English] show [English]
as a transformation of Hebrew” (Klaus Reichert, cited in Gaddis-Rose 1997:88).
402
While this may have been Fox’s intention, in keeping with his personal “hearing of the text”
(guided by the Masoretic accents, Aliviero Niccacci says in an online review of the Shocken Bible published
at the SBL website, 11/1/01), it was not fully realized in actual publication, where the competing concern
of presenting the text in a larger, more legible type size produces some unfortunate overlaps. We see this,
for example, at Genesis 17:5c:
… for I will make you Av Hamon Goyyim / Father of a Throng of
Nations!
For a discussion of this important issue of printed line formatting, see Wendland and Louw
1993:78–82.
169
 I will wipe (the anger from) his face
with the gift that goes ahead of my face;
afterward, when I see his face,
perhaps he will lift up my face!
The gift crossed over ahead of his face,
but he spent the night on that night in the camp.
Commenting on this particular rendering, Fox (1995:xi) asks, “What does the reader gain by
hearing the literalness of the Hebrew? And what is lost by the use of its idiomatic meaning? As
mirrored in [my] translation [i.e., in contrast to the NEB], it is clear that our text is signaling
something of significance.”
I would ask in reply, What is of greater importance to the present-day hearer/reader during this
extremely overt (and awkward) signaling process—the form or the meaning of the SL text? And
what is really conveyed by it? To my mind, the marked repetition of face in English in fact distorts
the intention of the original by focusing the audience’s attention upon that particular lexical item
at the expense of the message at large. Due to all this reiteration the hearer is indeed led to
expect something “significant” to come out of it in terms of message content. But this expectation
is frustrated, simply because face is not really that important to the dramatic account at this
juncture, not in comparison with everything else that is taking place on the narrative stage. Thus
the final clause beginning with but sounds rather anticlimactic after the many uses of face
preceding it, the latter apparently but not actually building up to something big. In fact, I find
the penultimate utterance almost unintelligible within this sequence (“The gift crossed over…),
as is the rather strange linkage of “idiomatic meaning” with Hebrew “literalness” in Fox’s own
comment on this passage.
A greater recognition of the importance—and potential literariness—of explicit recursion in
the biblical text is indeed very necessary, and the prominence that it generates must surely be
accommodated within an L-R approach to translation. However, there are certain limits that must
also be respected, including some definite boundaries that need to be set with regard to the truly
relevant formal possibilities in keeping with the artistic standards and rhetorical conventions of
the TL. If the author-intended content and intent of the original are paramount, then these aspects
of his message will have to be afforded a greater measure of consideration during the overall
process of literary communication, and this includes the various features of meaningful sound
that Fox and others call our attention to.403

8.4.2.2 Functionalist approach

It is interesting to observe that a fully functional approach to translation was being promoted
and applied in the field for some years before the appearance of de Waard and Nida’s 1986
popularization of this method for Bible translators (see also Wendland 1987a). This was a
prominent aspect of the Skopostheorie school of translation pioneered by K. Reiss and H. Vermeer
in the early 1980s—and further developed more recently in the writings of C. Nord (1997 being
one informative example).

403
To this point, Landers adds: “A literal rendering of any world-class writer invariably makes that
individual sound tongue-tied, as if he or she were speaking a foreign language, and poorly at that … [thus
distorting] the TL reader’s perception of the author. Why bother with a masterpiece from another language
if it reads like a trot?” (2001:53). In 1680 John Dryden, the great English writer, made the following
critical comment on this sort of a translation: “’Tis much like dancing on ropes with fettered legs … and
when we have said the best of it, ’tis but a foolish task…” (cited in Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997:104).
170
 Functionalist writers naturally stress the purpose (normally referred to only in the singular)
that a particular translation is designed to perform for its primary target audience within a given
sociocultural setting. There appears to be a notable difference in focus, however, between this
perspective and that of functional equivalence (FE) in the practice of Bible translation. For FE,
the translators’ goal is to “seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far
as possible will match the meaning [i.e., functions] of the original source-language text” (de
Waard and Nida 1986:36). Thus in Bible translation it is the communication functions (plural!)
of the SL text which are preeminent and determinative, whereas in Skopostheorie the particular
goal of the text within the TL setting will largely determine the manner and style of translating
in accordance with the governing framework for the translation project as a whole. Nord terms
this the translation job commission, or brief, which is a programmatic document that explicitly
sets forth all the relevant details as to how, when, why, and for whom a specific translation
project is being undertaken.
The two perspectives just referred to are not mutually exclusive, however. They may be
harmonized, when so stipulated by the translation brief, by means of a coordinated effort to
convey the main functional priorities and implications of the biblical text through the appropriate
formal means in the TL. That is easier said than done of course, and a great many details relating
to further principles and procedures need to be specified in a systematic manner within the scope
of this broad framework of purpose.
Nord presents one of the clearest discussions to be found in recent literature on the subject of
a literary translation (1997, chap. 5). She defines the notion of “literariness” in texts as follows
(ibid.:82):

Whether literariness is seen as a particular choice of subject matter, as use of a literary code,
or as a relationship with language conventions (originality vs. conventionality), there is little
doubt that a literary text can produce a particular aesthetic or poetic effect on its readers .…
[L]iterariness is first and foremost a pragmatic quality assigned to a particular text in the
communicative situation by its users. Intratextual features are not marked ‘literary’ as such …
but they do function as signals indicating the sender’s literary intention to the readers.
Receivers then interpret these features as literary in connection with their own culture-specific
expectations, which are activated by certain extra-textual signals.
I would simply add that another important marker of “literariness” is the use of marked linguistic
features in conjunction with each other, that is, in particular combinations and distinctive textual
arrangements.
In contrast to the attempt to achieve a complete equivalence with respect to interpretation
(the original sender’s communicative intention), text function, understanding, and effect in the
target culture, Nord offers four “suggestions for a purpose-oriented approach to literary
translation” (1997:92–93):
The translator interprets the source text not only with regard to the sender’s intention but also
with regard to its compatibility with the target situation
The target text should be composed in such a way that it fulfills functions in the target situation
that are compatible with the sender’s intention.
The text world of the translation should be selected according to the intended target-text
function.
The code elements should be selected in such a way that the target text-effect corresponds to
the intended target text functions.
These functions may be fulfilled by either a literal or a more idiomatic translation (a
“documentary” or an “instrumental” version in Nord’s terms) depending on the particular
circumstances of communication at hand. As noted, the principal intentions of the original author
are not ignored in this operation; however, in view of the impossibility of satisfying them all,
171
they are evaluated for relevance in the light of the TL setting and then prioritized for application
in the translation itself.404 The crucial requirement in preparing a literary version is that the
producers “justify their decisions in order to make others (translators, readers, publishers)
understand what was done and why” (1997:91). Presumably, an explanatory statement of this
nature could be adapted from the project Skopos and made part of an introduction to the
translation or published as a separate document.405
Nord also tackles the troublesome issue of authorial intention (the so-called intentional
fallacy) that often arises in criticism of a functionalist approach with regard to interpretation as
well as translation. She refers to this as “loyalty” (a nice alternative to the usual term “fidelity”),
which “means that the target-text purpose should be compatible with the original author’s
intentions” (1997:125; my emphasis). This is a more defensible position than the non-
demonstrable criterion of being the “same as” what the original author intended. But how can
even this less rigorous objective be accomplished when we have no direct access either to the
author or his times? In fact, there are quite a selection of discourse features that can be used as
“evidence” in such a quest, for example, the broad “conventional intentions linked with certain
text types”; an analysis of extratextual factors pertaining to the original communicative setting
that may be derived from intertextual and sociohistorical studies; and above all (in my opinion)
“a thorough analysis of intratextual function markers … to find out about the communicative
intentions that may have guided the author” (1997:125–126). Included in this last group would
be detailed systematic and integrated studies that explore the structural arrangement (tectonics)
and rhetorical argumentation (forensics) of the source language document.
On the other hand, a specification of the primary functions of the SL text is only part of the
translator’s task. Another challenge is to determine which of these communicative intentions are
to be conveyed in the TL and how this is to be done, that is, by means of which stylistic devices
and rhetorical strategies among those available in the TL according to the literary conventions
that would apply to the genre and setting concerned.406 We now recognize the impossibility of a
goal that seeks to convey the full semantic and pragmatic value of the original text via any
translation. Therefore, a choice must always be made between those aspects of the message which
the translators will at least attempt to convey and those they concede will probably be lost during
the transmission process. Issues such as these will have to be thoroughly discussed and then
spelled out within the project administrative brief and its central Skopos statement. It was
interesting to observe that the translation principles and procedures which Nord and others have
developed within a functionalist framework correspond quite well with my own ideas as
presented in this work, especially those having to do with a literary rendition of the Scriptures.407

404
In most Bible translations, “the reader’s presumed ‘interest in an exotic world’ … [might be]
best satisfied by leaving the text world as it is and explaining strange details either in the text or in
footnotes, glossaries and so on” (Nord 1997:93).
405
Writing from the perspective of the secular literary translation profession, Wechsler calls
attention to this same need for explanation on the part of translators: “What is rare is giving the reader
background material and a context from which to better appreciate the translation, or discussing
alternative ways the translation might have been done” (1998:283).
406
Nord also notes the translational implications of this last-mentioned variable: “As a rule, literary
codes include not only stylistic features such as rhythm, prosody, syntax, macrostructure, metaphors and
symbols but also characters, ideas, expressiveness and atmosphere.… [T]he relative familiarity of the text
world plays an important role in achieving text effect.… In literary texts … the author decides which
elements of the literary code should go into the text. Further, since stylistic devices are culture-bound they
are not the same for the source and target cultures, although there may well be a common ground in
classical rhetorical devices [an important area for pre-translation research and evaluation]. Even so,
traditional stylistic features often acquire new connotations and meanings when transferred to another
literary environment” (1997:88). Indeed, the more distinct the two language-cultures are linguistically and
culturally, the greater is the potential for novelty and/or mismatch in these crucial respects.
407
In recent years Christiane Nord and her husband, Klaus Berger, have been engaged in a project
to prepare a new translation of the New Testament in German. Their well-defined translation Skopos
172
8.4.2.3 Descriptive approach

A school of thought called “descriptive translation studies” (DTS) developed in the early 1970s
more or less in opposition to what its originators viewed as the prevailing “prescriptive” approach
to translation. They rejected “the idea that the study of translation should be geared primarily to
formulating rules, norms or guidelines for the practice or evaluation of translation or to
developing didactic instruments for translator training” (Hermans 1999:7). DTS theorists attempt
to be “diagnostic rather than hortatory” in their treatment with respect to two major objectives,
namely, “to describe the relevant phenomena [that are manifested during the translation of
texts], and establish general principles to explain and predict their occurrence” (ibid.:29). They
are “product,” rather than “process,” oriented in their perspective (Gaddis-Rose 1997:9).
Accordingly, the focus is upon pure research, which has a threefold emphasis—the description,
explanation, and prediction of all sorts of translation-related phenomena, including the actual
activity itself (i.e., how translators think and work). A major goal is to describe how translations
operate in the wider context of society and more narrowly within a certain literary system.
Hermans (1999:32) offers a handy programmatic summary of the DTS approach:
What they [DTS theorists] have in common is, briefly, a view of literature as a complex and
dynamic system; a conviction that there should be a continual interplay between theoretical
models and practical case studies; an approach to literary translation which is descriptive,
target-oriented, functional and systemic; and an interest in the norms and constraints that
govern the production and reception of translations, in the relation between translation and
other types of text processing, and in the place and role of translations both within a given
literature and in the interaction between literatures.
While this is important and certainly needs to be included as part of a comprehensive
methodology of literary translating, we can observe that, due to their fear of being prescriptive,
DTS theorists tend to produce studies that are not as helpful as they might be to Bible translators,
except with regard to the essential follow-up research and testing needed once a translation has
finally been published and distributed. But less capable translators who do not know the biblical
languages require more guidance than DST studies offer in the “how to” of carrying out their
work efficiently and effectively. We might also add that in actual practice many “descriptions”
that the DTS group produces turn out to be just as prescriptive as others since the various
translation strategies that they draw attention to become in effect models of preferred
performance or implicit goals to be achieved.408
One representative statement of a DTS approach to literary translation is found in the writings
of Gideon Toury (e.g., 1995). Toury notes the fundamental ambiguity that the term literary

focuses upon two principal aims: (1) “[T]o present a strange culture in a way that allows readers from a
culture distant in time and space to understand and respect its otherness,” (a referential function); and (2)
“to show where these texts—in spite of their strangeness and ancientness—have something to say to people
living in a modern culture” (an appellative, or affective, function). Nord refers to their goal as “otherness
understood” since “it strives to make explicit what was left implicit in the [biblical] text because it was
supposed to be part of the world and culture knowledge of the original addressees, without leveling the
strangeness of the other culture, and at the same time to bridge the culture gap in order to allow modern
readers to find analogies with their own world (where this is possible)” (from the abstract of an
unpublished conference paper presented at the Similarity and Translation Conference, May 31–June 1,
2001, Bible House, New York City). Experienced Bible translators and consultants will be able to appreciate
the magnitude, and perhaps also the impossibility, of this objective.
408
This is evident, for example, in the list of strategies provided by Naude (2000:18–19) in his
summary of the descriptive approach: transference, indigenization/domestication, cultural substitute,
generalization, specification (explication), mutation (deletion, addition), transposition, and a combination
of any two or more of these. These techniques are of course standard fare in all of the basic Bible translation
handbooks and manuals.
173
translation presents: Does it refer to the translation of a text that is “regarded as literary in the
source culture” or a TL product that is “acceptable as literary to the recipient culture” (1995:168)?
In the case of the former, the translated product may not be regarded as literary in the TL; in the
case of the latter, any SL text, literary or not, is transformed into a literary piece in the TL. My
concept of an L-R translation combines both of these perspectives: a literary SL text (Scripture)
is rendered in a distinctively artistic and rhetorical manner in the TL.
Toury appears to adopt a context-based, or “social,” method (see below) in his definition of
both literature and a literary translation: “[L]iterature is first and foremost a cultural institution.
Thus, in every culture (including different phases in the evolution of one culture), certain
features, models, techniques (including modes of translation!), and—by extension—texts
utilizing them, are regarded as, rather than are literary, in any ‘essentialistic’ sense” (ibid.:170).
This “essentialistic” sense undoubtedly refers to any sort of text-based (or stylistic) definition and
assessment of what is more or less literary in stylistic terms. In other words, literature is what
society says it is; and any text, no matter how clumsy or substandard in technique, may be
declared to be literary if enough people say so. However, I would not like to generalize the notion
of literariness solely in terms of such extrinsic (as distinct from intrinsic, text-based) factors, or
seek to identify art merely on the basis of a popular vote, formal or otherwise. There would seem
to be more to its essential origin, nature, and purpose than that.
Toury goes on to describe a literary translation in the following terms:
[I]t involves the imposition of ‘conformity conditions’ beyond the linguistic and/or general-
textual ones, namely, to models and norms which are deemed literary at the target end. It thus
yields more or less well-formed texts from the point of view of the literary requirements of the
recipient culture, at various possible costs in terms of the reconstruction of features of the
source text (1995:171).
It is not at all clear to me, however, how one can so easily divorce the “literary requirements”
of a given language from “the linguistic and/or general-textual ones” (e.g., individual stylistic
techniques or typical genre forms). Surely the latter are indispensable ingredients in any
evaluation (even that carried out intuitively by a non-specialist) concerning what constitutes
literature (or indeed, orature) in the culture concerned. I would therefore suggest that the models
and norms referred to above are not merely deemed literary by society—they are literary in the
sense that they are constituted and hence characterized by sets of specific, popularly recognized
linguistic and textual features, namely, those that happen to be associated with one particular
(sub)genre or another. If this were not the case, then how could the following translational
activity occur?
Subjugation to target literary models and norms may thus involve the suppression of some of
the source-text’s features, on occasion even those which marked it as ‘literary’, or as a proper
representative of a specific literary model in the first place [e.g., the acrostic pattern of certain
Hebrew poetry].… It may also entail the reshuffling of certain features, not to mention the
addition of new ones in an attempt to enhance the acceptability of the translation as a target
literary text, or even as a target literary text of a particular type.… [T]he added features may
occupy central positions within the translation (when looked upon as a text in its own right),
even serving as markers of its own literariness, despite their having no basis in the original.
(ibid.)
This is, in fact, a very good description of what may well take place during the preparation of
a full literary translation. The “suppression,” “reshuffling,” or “addition” referred to is not,
however, an arbitrary, ad hoc exercise. Rather, it is carried out more strictly, for example, by
means of a functional, speech-act approach (see below). The aim is to attain communicative
equivalence in both general terms and also in specific respects to the extent that time and
expertise will allow. Several examples of a poetic rendition of Scripture in the Chichewa language
are given in Wendland 2013. These illustrate the truth of Toury’s observation that “the potential
gap between what translation of literary texts [SL text focus] and literary translation proper [TL
174
text focus] gains in significance [is] in direct proportion to the distance between the source and
target traditions” (ibid.:175). Such traditions, whether similar or different, are firmly founded
upon genre-related linguistic and literary features in both SL and TL.
Over the years, DTS literature, including more recent translator “protocol” and “corpus-based”
approaches, has performed a valuable service by calling attention to the importance of explicit
as well as implicit social conventions and norms in translation practice (e.g., Hermans 1999,
chap. 6; see also. Nord 1997:53–59).409 For example, product norms embody “the expectations
of readers of a translation (of a given type) concerning what a translation (of this type) should
be like” (Chesterman 1997:64). Process norms, on the other hand, “operate to regulate the actual
work of translation in terms of accountability to the original author’s intentions, a sufficient
degree of intertextual similarity, and overall communication effectiveness” (ibid.:67–70; see also
Hermans 1999:78). Such popularly recognized ideals and standards serve to guide translators in
their work as they interact with their own culture and community—not only with respect to
contemporary relevance (i.e., communicative efficiency and effectiveness), but also in terms of
excellence and acceptability. The latter concerns would be especially important, of course, where
a literary-type translation is being either undertaken or evaluated.

8.4.2.4 Text-linguistic approach

The text-linguistic approach is represented by Hatim and Mason, whose theoretical studies (1990,
1997) provide many examples of how this methodology can assist translators in their text-
transformation efforts. At a number of points their discussion is of particular relevance to those
who are seeking to prepare some type of literary version. For example, they call attention to the
difficulties that translators face when dealing with texts that are stylistically more dynamic, or
“turbulent,” in nature, as is characteristic of the literary texts my study focuses on. Such dynamic
oral or written discourse consists of a higher incidence of novel or unexpected and unpredictable,
“rhetorically marked,” forms and “the use of language that essentially involves a motivated
deviation from some norm” (1997:216).
The notion of “markedness” in literature can be defined from two interrelated perspectives:
frequency and focus. The less frequent a phonological, lexical, syntactic, or textual form is, the
more significance it has to the message; infrequent forms are less predictable or normal, hence
more “informative” in their co-text of occurrence (see Hatim and Mason 1997:12). Such
expressions may also manifest a more restricted or concentrated distribution within a given text,
thereby often creating special discourse patterns or arrangements of elements. From a more
literary perspective, Jakobson says, “[m]arkedness entails the fact that in two choices, one is the
more focused, the more narrowly constrained, the more concentrated than the other” (cited by
Pomorska and Rudy 1985:160), as is so often the case in the second (B) line of Hebrew poetic
parallelism.
Such verbal creativity (a more favorable designation than “deviation”), whether effected by
intention or intuition, is of course the essence of artistic as well as argumentative (or
“evaluative”) composition.410 The two compositional functions of artistry and argumentation are
often rhetorically combined in serious ideological literature (ibid.:181–183), which is what the

409
Kenny (2001) makes a detailed application of a corpus-based approach to “lexis and creativity
in translation.” Unfortunately, this book came to my attention when I was in the final stages of preparing
my overview here. Therefore, I can only call attention to it as a potentially rewarding study. Kenny also
provides a good summary of the DTS perspective (ibid.:49-50).
410
Hatim and Mason’s (1997, chap. 6) discussion of literary discourse is rather disappointing in
that they limit their consideration to a study of specific register-related features such as tenor (level of
formality), idiolect, and macrogenre. Similarly, no literary text is included in their grid display of “varying
degrees of markedness” (ibid.:182–183), where only exposition, argumentation, and instruction are
discussed. In their earlier book (1990), even less mention is made of the register of artistic literature.
175
Scriptures by and large embody. This sort of interactive discourse contrasts with that which is
mainly “expository,” the latter being characterized by a more impersonal style that is less marked
and more stable, usual, or expected in terms of the language that is used. The Bible includes texts
that may be either more, or less, evaluative or expository in nature.
Hatim and Mason (1990:187) offer a rule of thumb that summarizes the translational
implications of this relative linguistic-literary polarity:
The less evaluative [i.e., stylistically/rhetorically marked] the text is, the less need there will
be for its structure to be modified in translation. Conversely, the more evaluative the text is,
the more scope there may be for modification.
In their later work on applying a text-linguistic methodology, they say (Hatim and Mason
1997):
… while an approach which tends towards the “literal” is likely to be appropriate and indeed
sufficient for straightforward expository forms of texts (such as news reports [or simple
narrative]), greater latitude may be needed in handling argumentation [or dramatic narrative]
effectively (pp. 181–182).
… where the text displays considerable degrees of dynamism, the translator is faced with more
interesting challenges and literal translation may no longer be an option (pp. 30–31).
I would express it even more strongly: When preparing a correspondingly dynamic (rhetorical)
and/or attractive (artistic) rendition of a literary text, a strictly literal approach cannot be an
option.411 The compositional procedure must be suitably loosened up, at least phonologically, in
order to allow gifted translators the freedom to more fully access and creatively utilize the
stylistic and expressive resources of the TL.412
As to the unavoidable all-pervasive factor of culture and its influence on a translation, there is
an important principle that must be remembered: “The less culture-bound a text is, the less need
there will be for its structure to be modified. Conversely, the more culture-bound a text is, the
more scope there may be for modification” (Hatim and Mason 1990:188).
What more culture-bound discourse could there be than the various genres and subtypes that
we find in the ancient Hebrew and Greek Scriptures? Obviously, a considerable amount of
formally innovative, but semantically controlled modification may need to be introduced in order
to duplicate in another linguistic and ethnic setting the artistic beauty, the depth of connotative

411
A more literal approach to translation may cause difficulties even in the case of narrative or
expository discourse. The problems that can arise are not merely stylistic, but are often ideational as well.
Thus a literal rendering of the biblical text into a Bantu language typically results in a version that is not
only difficult to understand, but all too often is misunderstood; that is, a different meaning (e.g., Yehova
= the God of the white European colonialists) or zero meaning may be conveyed. Moreover, a more literal,
foreignizing version cannot always prevent a transformative accommodation to the TL culture since
virtually any formally correspondent expression within the text can unpredictably evoke within receptors
an ethnocentric, uncomplimentary stereotypes of the SL culture (on this possibility, see Katan 1999:156).
412
For a discussion of hearing the “translator’s voice” in a translation, see Hermans 1996. This
subject is gaining importance in secular translation studies. Charlotte Bosseaux (2001:73) points this out:
“[I]t is possible to identify the ‘other voice’ of translation and the style of an individual literary translation
and that in addition to the translators’ strategies it is even possible to identify the kind of world that each
translation has decided to recreate.” (In the case of Bible translation, we might say “kind of theology” in
place of “kind of world.”) Wechsler adds: “The translator’s ability to read and write at a professional level
[in the TL] is what reviewers should be looking for…” (1998:270). Proponents of a literalist method would
like to diminish if not completely eliminate the translator’s (or translation team’s) voice in the TL text; but
while this may be an admirable ethical objective, it cannot succeed in practice. To ordinary hearers/readers
of a literal version, the translator’s voice is still very much audible. The problem for them is that this
translator—or the prophets and apostles being translated—simply do(es) not speak the TL properly; the
text lisps and has a strange, at times unintelligible, foreign accent.
176
feeling, and/or the rhetorical impact of these texts. At the same time, of course, translators must
seek to accurately represent the essential theological content of the original author while
preserving the measure of verbal decorum that may be needed in keeping with the primary
setting of use in the TL setting.
In an early application of a text-linguistic approach to the translation of poetry, Robert de
Beaugrande identifies and illustrates a number of “critical factors” that come into play during
the analysis of the SL text and its subsequent transformation in a target language. He includes a
number of helpful observations on the complicated nature of this twofold process:
[A]ll great poetry is in some manner innovative, whether it derives from a native or a foreign
source. But at the same time, innovation is only possible in some areas, not all at once. We
conclude that a text is translatable [i.e., acceptably so] into a given language only if the
resulting translated text fulfills at least some of the reader expectations in that language
concerning the constitution and transmission of discourse [hence the crucial need for an explicit
project Brief and Skopos]. The non-fulfillment of this stipulation can depend on the text itself,
the foreign culture, or both (1978:28; the material in brackets is my interpolation).
[N]on-ordinariness and non-expectedness are significant stylistic qualities in poetic texts (and
in many others). The degree of these two aspects which is manifested in a given alternative
therefore serves as a standard for making appropriate choices and hence for reflecting the style
of the work. The very nature and function of [the] poetic use of language demand that the
translator seek non-ordinary and non-expected alternatives.… The dense structuration typical
of poetic texts [certainly in typical Hebrew parallelistic construction] leads me to believe that
at least some equivalences and oppositions are recorded unconsciously and hence produce
profound effects without the reader’s [or hearer’s] knowing just why (ibid.:92).
A translator, however skilled, cannot focus upon all such [problematic] aspects of translating
at one time and produce a first version that fully represents the original text. If one focuses on
only one or a few aspects each time, little progress can be made without a subsuming
framework of priorities and procedures.… In all cases where the total meaning of a passage
was observed to be non-equivalent [i.e., from the specific perspective of a poetic use of
language in the SL text, such as polyvalence or polyfunctionality, dense structuration, an
expansion of ordinary grammar and lexicon, or the non-fulfillment of reader expectations,
whether of an inter- or intratextual nature], large numbers of additions, deletions, substitutions,
and permutations were performed [i.e., in an effort to correct or compensate for these
inequivalences in the TL text].… If we view translating as a progression, we can readily see
that a poetic text characterized by [a] poetic use of language—language [densely structured
and] inherently capable of multiple [or a manifold interrelated] interpretation—cannot be
assigned a single “correct” translation.… Due to the language-specific nature of many such
options and expansions of options, the perceptive [or communicative] potential of a poetic [or
indeed a highly rhetorical paraenetic] text cannot be exhaustively rendered into another
language. It follows that a commentary should accompany the text in order to account for losses
and shifts [in terms of form and content] which cannot be averted (ibid.:135–136).
If we had read and taken seriously advice such as this some twenty-five years ago, the study
Bible movement in minority languages around the world might have been motivated much
sooner than it was. Even now, however, as the preceding comment suggests, there is the need
for at least some explanatory annotation also with regard to artistic and rhetorical matters in any
translation. This is because the form of the text inevitably affects—in fact, constitutes—a
significant aspect of meaning with respect to the original document as well as its representation
in another language and culture.413

413
De Beaugrande also comments on the dilemma that faces translators when dealing with a
literary text: “[F]orm-based procedures [in translation] have a certain appeal … [but] [t]he resulting text
is usually not a very acceptable sample of the goal language.… [These procedures] were generally applied
177
8.4.2.5 Relevance approach

The insights of Relevance Theory (see, for example, the work of Gutt 1991, 1992) are important
to Bible translation, as has been pointed out by quite a few contemporary commentators and
critics.414 Its foundation may be summarized as follows:
The central claim of relevance theory is that human communication crucially creates an
expectation of optimal relevance, that is, an expectation on the part of the hearer that his attempt
at interpretation will yield adequate contextual effects at minimal processing cost (Gutt 1991:20).
This principle, which is common sense, really, offers a good general heuristic with regard to
effective verbal communication. Normally, serious speakers try to convey what they have to say
in a way that is easiest for their hearers to understand (requiring low processing effort), yet also
with a certain amount of communicative impact and appeal (resulting in high
cognitive/emotive/volitional effects). Whether this is always true or not is debatable. In any case,
this interactive strategy applies also to communication via translation, whether on the general
level of policy (e.g., formulating a project Skopos) or more specifically with regard to actual
translation principles and procedures (e.g., how to handle a particular metaphor in a given
passage). In such instances, however, in order to make the necessary decisions and evaluations
concerning communicative effectiveness, one also needs to adopt a functional perspective, as
described earlier. In other words, one needs to determine which communicative functions
operate in a given case to make the transmission process most relevant for the audience (e.g.,
more informative vs. more affective discourse).
Here we will consider how Relevance Theory would deal with the translation of literature and
literary effects, based on the recent study of Pilkington. It will be helpful to begin then with a
definition of literariness from this perspective:
[L]iterariness should be defined in terms of cognitive events triggered in minds/brains by
linguistic stimuli. It can be characterized in terms of a distinctive kind of mental process
involving extensive guided exploration of encyclopaedic entries, which results in the
marginally increased salience of a wide range of assumptions (and possibly original ad hoc
concepts) … together with the evocation of intense subtly discriminated and precise qualitative
states (Pilkington 2000:189, 191).
This definition may be a precise and accurate description of what literature is or does in cognitive
terms; however, it leaves us with the crucial problem of demonstration and assessment. How can
we objectively determine or measure what goes on in an individual’s brain in response to a given
text, let alone the collective perception that leads to a certain work’s meeting with a positive
popular estimation and another with an adverse reaction? While it is reasonable to assume that
excellent literary form stimulates a positive response (but only to a “marginally increased”
degree), the question is, How does this knowledge help us to explain, evaluate, and/or apply the
notion of literariness (or “poetics”) any better than more overt structuralist, semiotic, and
sociolinguistic methods?

to texts which enjoyed an especially prestigious status, such as religious and poetic texts. Translators
hesitated to diverge from the most obvious features of the [SL] text, that is, the forms, in fear of being
disrespectful. Content-based equivalence is much more difficult to measure and more accessible to
intersubjective dispute. The more the unit of translation is enlarged from the word toward the entire
context of communication, the greater are the possibilities for two translators to disagree about the ‘best’
rendering of a text. In addition, the widening of the unit demands much more complex and informed work
habits than those used in word-for-word translating” (1978:96–97). Can there be any doubt that a literary
type of translation, no matter what its scope and particular focus, demands the very best TL verbal artists
available?
414
Some significant theoretical criticism of this psycholinguistic approach is found in Levinson
2000, chap. 1, and Werth 2000, chap. 5.
178
 Furthermore, why should we be interested at all in what goes on in the brain as it is processing
a particular literary device, a metaphor for example? Here is one possible practical explanation:
If the nature of the conceptual and emotive effect that is stimulated by a certain literary feature
can be satisfactorily specified, in more or less general terms, then translators would be
encouraged to make an attempt at least to reproduce that same aesthetic experience and/or
rhetorical impact via their rendering in the TL. On this issue Pilkington is quite helpful (using
the case of metaphor by way of illustration):
In the case of creative metaphors … the new concept is not derived from a subset of the
properties of an existing concept, but it is constructed on the basis of an interaction between
assumptions derived from two or more encyclopedic entries … the connection between which
is neither well-established nor easy to achieve.… A greater amount of processing effort is
required: but the rewards in terms of contextual effects are correspondingly higher.… The
considerable processing effort involved in the search for relevant contextual assumptions is
offset by the subsequently large range of implicatures weakly communicated.… It is the range
an indeterminacy of the implicatures which gives the metaphor it poetic force.… Contextual
assumptions made accessible [in the text] prior to the metaphorical utterance itself help direct
the search for relevant contextual assumptions from the encyclopedic entries of the concepts
brought together in the metaphorical phrase or utterance. In this way, a good poem, by
activating a wide network of contextual assumptions prior to the metaphorical utterance itself,
may give greater direction to the interpretation of metaphors, enabling them to be read in a
richer, more creative way than would be otherwise possible. The success of a poetic metaphor
depends not only (if at all) on its originality, but in the creation of a [textual] context which
encourages and guides the exploration of the encyclopedic entries of the concepts involved
[ideally, as these are directly or indirectly related to the major theme or subthemes of the work
as a whole] (ibid.:100–103).
The problem here of course is that just as in the case of the semantic fields and associations of
individual lexical items or figures of speech, so also these “contextual assumptions” and their
conventional “networks” do not correspond between languages. This means that a translator has
to create or evoke them either within the TL text itself (e.g., by means of some qualifying word
or phrase) or, if that would be too difficult or semantically expansive, then by means of an
appropriate footnote or some other supplementary device such as an illustration, a sectional
heading, or some pointed cross-references.
A good example of the potential benefits of a Relevance Theory approach to biblical
interpretation, and Bible translation in particular, is Stephen Pattemore’s application of this
interpretive framework to a study of the literary technique of intertextuality as manifested in the
Book of Revelation.415 Pattemore (forthcoming) calls attention to the deliberate, artistic use of
intertextuality in the rhetorical figure known as metalepsis, whereby some definite “literary echo
links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, … [and] the explicit point of contact between
[these] two texts can thus be a nexus for an implicit [but no less significant] flow of meaning
between [them].” Defining intertextuality as a sort of communicative “relevance found within
textually defined cognitive environments” (individual or communal conceptual perspectives),
Pattemore then makes the following twofold distinction:
An OT (or other source) text is contextually evoked if the audience needs to access the original
context of the text, and add it to their cognitive environment, in order to optimise the relevance
[as defined above] of the author’s statement in their contemporary context. An OT (or other

415
Pattemore, as well as the editor of The Bible Translator Technical Papers, in which his study will
appear, have kindly given me permission to include the citations of the present section from a pre-
publication version of this most helpful literary-translational study. The use of intertextuality in the New
Testament is not of course merely a literary device; it is an essential exegetical, apologetic, expository tool
in the overall rhetorical strategy of virtually all of the authors of the New Testament. This approach should
find fuller treatment in Pattemore 2003, a copy of which I have not yet been able to obtain.
179
 source text) is used conventionally if the audience can optimise relevance within the mutual
cognitive environment of author and audience, without access to the original context of the
embedded text.
An Old Testament text that is either “quoted” (more or less exactly), directly “alluded to,” or
merely “echoed” in a given New Testament passage (i.e., three degrees of perspicuity in
intertextuality) will of course evoke its original context. It is therefore up to the current audience,
whether those intended by the initial communicative event or all subsequent readers and hearers,
to determine “optimal [hermeneutical] relevance” with respect to the two texts and contexts
concerned by applying the cost versus gain principle of relevance to the situation. In other words,
which interpretation provides the greatest number of salient contextual effects (life- and
theology-related meanings) for a minimum of processing effort? Pattemore applies this
inferential methodology to several illustrative passages in Revelation on both the micro- and also
the macrostructure of discourse, and comes to this important translation-related conclusion:
Part of the task of translation must therefore be to pass on not merely lexical and semantic
information, but also such information as will best help the audience to establish a mutual
cognitive environment with the author.… For a new audience to come anywhere near the
understanding of the original audience, they must be able to optimise relevance by accessing
the same prior scriptures.… First, the prior texts must be available to them.… [S]econd, new
audiences will probably not have the same “cognitive geography” as the original audience and
will need to be given maps and sign-posts [such as explanatory footnotes and selected key
cross-references] to direct them to the prior texts which are required to optimise relevance.
But this hermeneutical development needs to be taken a step further. In his 2000 study of
poetic effects, Pilkington has shown that prior Relevance Theory accounts of literary features
and effects have been too restrictive by limiting its consideration to “what is communicated
propositionally” (p. 141). What is one to do then with other key aspects of literary criticism,
namely, those that deal with such affective notions as emphasis, emotion, and feeling? Pilkington
views emotions “as complex states possessing cognitive, physiological, behavioral and qualitative
properties” (p. 143). The cognitive properties of emotions may be analyzed “in terms of particular
types of sets of beliefs and desires” (p. 143), while the other three categories may be studied as
various “phenomenal” states which pertain to the human senses (p. 154). An overview of such
an approach, which would apply also to the process of translating, is as follows:
Affective states are communicated by setting up the belief/desire sets that correspond to the
cognitive properties for a particular emotion. These states are heightened in the communication
of poetic effects by contextual exploration which makes more of the appropriate conditions
available and makes them more highly salient.… [A]ttitudes as phenomenal state memories
are triggered or evoked by rhetorical figures and verse features.… It is the communication (or
evocation/arousal) of such phenomenal [i.e., sensory] states that is central to poetic effects.
Poetic effects are not relevant insofar as they communicate new information, but insofar as
they communicate phenomenal aspects of experience.… The point of poetic effects, and
literariness more generally … is to broaden context, and make both thoughts and feelings
richer, more complex and more precise with regard to actual situations or states of affairs
(ibid.:160–161).
The extent to which translators are able to take such phenomena into consideration during
their work depends on their level of expertise and experience, the type of translation, the
intended audience, and the relative size of the text portion concerned. The important thing to
keep in mind is that meaning involves more than propositional content. Diverse feelings,
emotions, attitudes, values, and other connotations are also present, more so in literary,
especially poetic, discourse. Such communicative significance must therefore be factored into the
equation—either by means of an explicit procedure or through an intuitive exercise of verbal
creativity aimed at attaining message equivalence—if justice is to be done to the author’s original
intentions.

180
8.4.2.6 Interpretive approach

In a concise comparative overview of an interpretive approach to translation, John Delisle

provides a helpful summary of “the characteristics of literary texts” (1988:14–17):
 The expressive (emotive) function of language is predominant.
 Correspondingly, connotation—the power to evoke—plays a major role in the text.
 Literary form is important in and of itself; it manifests aesthetic qualities that enrich its
referential content.
 Accordingly, the text is not limited to a single interpretation.
 Its message features a certain timelessness that needs to find periodic re-expression through
translation in order to preserve its content and give new life to its form.
 The work reflects universal values and gives contemporary expression to ancient themes.

Serious Bible translators must, before they begin their work, consider to what extent the Holy
Scriptures manifest literary qualities such as the above (or others), and what, if anything, can be
done about this when translating.
The interpretive method is not often mentioned in recent overviews and anthologies that
pertain to the field of translating. Indeed, Jan Sterk (2001:3, fn. 4) asks, “Has this school and its
insightful approach to translation been overlooked by the English-speaking linguistic translation
community?”416 In essence, the approach may be summarized as follows:
The interpretative theory, … holds that the process [of translation] consists in understanding
the original text by deverbalising its linguistic form, and in re-expressing in another language
the ideas that were understood and the feelings that were felt.… Crucial in the ESIT approach,
therefore, is the finding that at a certain point in the understanding process [i.e., prior to
translating], contact with the physical wording of the source text is abandoned and ideas take
over. In text-to-text translation, the ideas (or the intent of the author…) that were abstracted
from the words of the source text through the deverbalisation process, are re-expressed through
the words of the target language (ibid.:3–4).
It is interesting to observe how close this conception of translation is to Nida and Taber’s:417
The second system of translation [i.e., a deep-structure as opposed to a surface-structure
method] consists of a more elaborate procedure comprising three stages: (1) analysis, in which
the surface structure (i.e., the message as given in language A) is analyzed in terms of (a) the
grammatical relationships and (b) the meanings of the words and combinations of words, (2)
transfer, in which the analyzed material is transferred in the mind of the translator from
language A to language B, and (3) restructuring, in which the transferred [conceptual] material
is restructured in order to make the final message fully acceptable in the receptor language
(Nida and Taber 1969:33).
Much more is involved, of course, in analyzing a SL text and restructuring it in a given TL (e.g.,
with regard to many different discourse-based, genre-related, and rhetorically motivated
features), and various translational strategies can be devised to account for these operations.
However, it is the essential medial “transfer” stage that remains the focus of all the cognitively
based methodologies. The question then is, What is to guide and control the elusive mental

416
The interpretive, or interpretative, method was first developed in conjunction with the teaching
of live (simultaneous, oral-aural) translation. Later it was extended to written translation by the Ecole
Superieure d’Interpretes et de Traducteurs (ESIT, Paris, France).
417
Compare also Di Jin’s fourfold “artistic integrity approach”: penetration, acquisition, transition,
and presentation (2003:ch. 3).
181
process of transfer, especially where the aim is to produce a literary rendition of a recognized
literary SL text?
While the approach I propose, namely a combined relevance-functional approach (see below),
is somewhat different from the interpretive method, it similarly recognizes the importance of this
fact: The degree of success in translation ultimately depends on the quality of the mind in which
the conceptual transfer takes place. In other words, all other things being equal (SL/TL skills,
practical experience, additional training), it comes down to this: the literary translator, like any
artist, is born, not made. A translator has to be born with the gift or faculty of interlingual
communication; it cannot subsequently be created in an individual—only discovered,
encouraged, and promoted where actually present.
Sterk, himself a practitioner of the interpretive approach to translation, points out the derived
nature of this creative communicative competence:
[T]he deverbalised ideas we filter out from a text, even an ancient one, will, under normal
circumstances, not be our own. An objective, honest analysis of the source text, inspired by
determined research and guided by common sense, will lead us onto the discovery of what the
first author tried to impart through his/her words. If hard work is often needed, intuition will
play its role too.… The task of a re-expressor will not be a diluted one where everything is
allowed, but it will need to be seen as the challenge of performing a creative act, fully
comparable to the original one in its creative effort, but highly constrained in content. The
ideas that should inspire the re-expressor should indeed not be his/her own, but those of the
author. The re-expressor’s goal is that of being relevant and meaningful to his/her audience …
by re-creating the original process faithfully and respectfully, while keeping his/her own
audience in view (2001:7, 14).
Thus the production of a literary functionally equivalent version of any passage of Scripture
requires translators who can empathetically immerse themselves in the text and sociocultural
context of the biblical world, then allow the essence of the message to cross over to a
contemporary setting and finally to emerge by an intuitively creative act of compositional
transfer in the form of a linguistic representation that is a valid, relevant equivalent of the
original text.418 As Delisle (1988:110) says, “The most distinctive trait of human translation is
its creativity, for translation involves choices that are not determined by pre-set rules.” In short,
Bible translation involves the skill of textual interpretation, based on a thorough knowledge of
both the SL and also the TL literary and cognitive environments, coupled with the art of re-
expression that derives from a generous innate ability to communicate effectively.419
As to the process of translation, it is not just matching similar words (“transcoding”).
According to Delisle, “translation is communicating an equivalent message” (Delisle 1988:55).
He identifies “three stages in the development of … translation equivalence: comprehension,
reformulation, and verification” (ibid.:53). This is a constant interactive technique between the
SL and the TL text. He goes on to define the three as follows (ibid.:53):
 Comprehension is based on decoding linguistic [and literary] signs and grasping
meaning.
 Reformulation is a matter of reasoning by analogy and rewording concepts.

418
This is essentially what Walter Bodine, in an article in Notes on Translation (2000:43), says as
he calls for “research that explores the Bible in pursuit of meanings that have been lost because of the vast
distance in time and culture between ourselves and the peoples of the biblical world.… Such research calls
for prolonged and profound immersion in the biblical text in its original languages and in its historical
context.” Any artist-translator who hopes to produce an acceptable literary-equivalence version must have
first had such a total text-context immersion experience.
419
In a new book on the subject of literary translation, Prof. Di Jin refers to this process as
“empathetic re-creation” (2003:ch. 5).
182
  Verification involves back-[translation] and choosing [the most appropriate solution in
the TL].
Of special relevance for a literary approach is the notion of “analogy,” which is a key aspect of
the reformulation process, is based upon an accurate interpretation of the SL text. A thorough
analysis of the original text, one that is both culturally contextualized and discourse-based, “sets
off a chain of analogical reasoning in the translator’s mind,” according to Delisle, who goes on
to describe this creative process in the following terms (ibid.:60–66):
[I]n reformulating ideas, the translator continually shuttles between the de-verbalized meaning
seeking expression and the linguistic forms through which it could be verbalized (in the TL).…
[T]he translator reasons by analogy, probing the expressive [and rhetorical] resources of the
target language through a series of associations and deductions, or inferences.… Analogical
reasoning is a process by which the imagination establishes similarities [in the search for
translation equivalents].… Aspiring translators should therefore possess imagination and a
sensitivity to parallels and connections between concepts in order to transfer the concepts
contained in a text to another text.… [They] explore, by analogy, the resources of the target
language in search of linguistic signs capable of rendering those ideas.… Sometimes an
equivalent is discovered quite spontaneously. Inspiration strikes, and concepts are instantly
matched.… [T]he richer the translator’s palette, the more colorful will be his rendition of the
original. In other cases, however, reformulation is a more laborious process. Sometimes the
mind has to be coaxed into producing an acceptable equivalent: analogies have to be “induced”
and trains of thought more consciously followed.
Delisle’s description resonates with my own experience of what actually goes on in the
translator’s mind during innovative, meaning-centered interlingual text transfer.420 Can this
method be taught? To a certain extent, yes, that is by learning to recognize and to operate “the
principles of language manipulation” as they may be applied both during an analysis of the
original text and also during its re-expression in another language. Delisle calls attention to “four
different levels of language manipulation” (ibid.:83; my insertions are again in brackets):
1. observing conventions of form [including those that pertain to literary genre];
2. performing interpretive analysis:
a) transfer of monosemous terms [i.e., those having only a single sense];
b) retrieval of standard equivalents from the [TL] linguistic system;
c) re-creation in context;421
3. interpreting [and rendering] style;422

420
“Paradoxically, it is a model of unilingual communication that best explains the translation
process, because translation is in fact a particular form of interpersonal communication. In using language
to communicate, one associates words with ideas, which are precisely what the translator does in
translating” (Delisle 1988:78). In other words, it is by the process of analogical and associative reasoning,
which is basically metaphoric and metonymic in nature (see Jakobson 1971; see also the Relevance Theory
approach of “direct and indirect quotation across languages” of Gutt 1992:64–67).
421
“To recreate a concept in context, the translator must attribute values to two unknowns: first
he must establish the meaning of the expression in its original context, then he must explore the
possibilities of the target language in order to construct an expression that semantically and stylistically
balances the first one” (Delisle 1988:93–94).
422
Delisle notes that “[a] measure of intuition and subjectivity inevitably enters into this type of
stylistic adaptation.… Translators do not all have the same linguistic sensibility, and opinions often differ
as to the best way of conveying the spirit of a message. Their perceptions of the communicative aspect of
a text vary” (1988:98). The best stylist is a verbal artist in the TL, yet someone who can also analyze the
SL text sufficiently to determine its essential content and thus more fully taste the particular flavor of its
literary style and rhetorical power.
183
 4. preserving textual organicity [i.e., cohesion and coherence].423
To be sure, many such strategies of translational practice can be precisely formulated, taught,
and put into practice. In the end, however, it all comes down to a matter of skill—of being a
master of comprehension and communication in two different languages and cultures. The more
literary the original text and/or the translation being undertaken, the more necessary such
mastery becomes in order to achieve success.

8.4.2.7 Comparative approach

The comparative approach to literary translation is less systematic in theoretical terms and
correspondingly more ad hoc in its practical application than the other approaches that have
been described. It differs from the DTS method (see above) in that along with being comparative
(using the standard techniques of literary criticism) it tends to be more evaluative in nature. Also
it devotes considerable attention to intercultural issues (similarities and differences) as reflected
in the creative activity of translating.424
According to Gaddis-Rose (1997:88, 90), the general aim of a comparative approach is a
“stereoscopic reading” that utilizes “both the original language text and one (or more)
translations,” whether literal or free in style, so as to assess the latter from an “interliminal”
perspective. This refers to the initial adoption of an ideologically neutral point of view that
hypothetically exists between two different languages and cultures. Thus, “[i]f we do not
juxtapose a work and the translations it elicits, we risk missing many a [hermeneutical as well
as affective] gift inside the [respective textual] borders” (ibid.:7). The desired goal of this
relational process from the secular viewpoint of comparative literature is “to show how
translating and translations make the reading of literary texts richer” (ibid.:75), that is, more
complex, problematic, challenging, and thought provoking.425
In biblical studies, on the other hand, this critical effort is usually channeled towards the
pragmatic end of judging one translation of the Scriptures to be more or less correct or
appropriate than another in terms of fidelity, accuracy, clarity, naturalness, and relevance. There

423
Delisle suggests the following methods of helping to preserve textual “organicity” in a
translation: redistributing the elements of information, concentration [condensing the textual form],
implicitation or explicitation, and the use of transitions to link utterances (1988:104–106). Obviously,
other linguistic techniques could be added to this short list, such as the use of repetition/synonymy,
demonstratives/deictics, and formal typographical devices such as text formatting, including section
headings/titles, and a topical reference/index system (for a more detailed listing of such optional and
obligatory “textual strategies,” see Chesterman and Wagner 2002:60-63).
424
I attempt to apply the critical method in a more proactive and productive sense during the
actual practice of translation as a method of helping compensate for translators’ inability to access the
original text of Scripture in carrying out their work (Wendland 2000). For a detailed description of a
functionalist approach to the comparative criticism of various translations, including those of Scripture,
see Reiss 2000.
425
Thus “reading literature with a translation will always ensure our collaboration with the author,
and it will always add more to our experience of the work. A critical reading of literature entails a
theoretical—analytical—approach to translation” (Gaddis-Rose 1997:73). The same experience will
presumably also be gained if the literature in question happens to be found in the Bible. Further, “[t]he
enhancement of literary experience by translation comes not only from what the author genially wrote
and what the translator felicitously found but also from other words or ways they—or we—might have
used instead” (ibid.:1–2). Indeed, this could be a provocative, yet also profitable way of conducting a
group-oriented, interactive Bible study. Gaddis-Rose describes a literary translation quite broadly as one
that involves “a transfer of distinctive features of a literary work into a language other than that of the
work’s first composition,” pointing out (more helpfully) that “literary translation is also a form of literary
criticism … [which] helps us get inside literature” (ibid.:13). How many Bible translators would conceive
of their task in that light?
184
are many books on the market that attempt to carry out such an evaluation. Most of them are
written from a conservative theological position and view with considerable concern any
contemporary translation that renders the text in a more idiomatic style.426 Very few of them
delve into the diverse literary aspects of Bible translation.
Of the few critical-comparative studies of Bible translation that do consider the artistic,
rhetorical features of literary translation, one of the best in my opinion is that of Hargreaves
(1993). His book focuses on “a translator’s freedom” and is filled with many insightful comments
that highlight both the excellent literary characteristics of the biblical text and also the
corresponding qualities of various English versions, ancient and modern, that have tried to
duplicate these features.
The value of Hargreaves’s perceptive study can be demonstrated by citing a selection of his
more salient observations concerning the artistic-aesthetic quality of the translations he
compares. But first we should read what he says on the fundamental issue of the literariness of
the Scripture. He is unequivocal:
The Bible is literature, that kind of writing which attends to beauty, power and memorability
as well as to exposition. It is like a rich chord compared to a single note.… The Bible requires
profound attention to style when it is translated.… [W]hen the original is beautiful, its beauty
must shine through the translation; when it is stylistically ordinary, this must be apparent
(ibid.:137–138).
Any translator who agrees with that assessment is immediately faced with a dilemma: What am
I going to do about it in my own work? The fact is that in most cases relatively little time and
attention is devoted to this aspect of the original text during the normal translation process—
whether in preparing a formal correspondence or a functional equivalence translation.
Hargreaves continues:
“‘[F]unctional beauty’ … means that there must be an element of realism [i.e., according to the
principal communicative functions expressed by the SL text] in the beauty of language
fashioned for use in translation.… Religion and beauty, religion and poetry, belong together”
(ibid.:147, 152).
In order to carry out his method of assessment in the most effective way, Hargreaves, like Fox
(see above), stresses the importance of the oral-aural medium:
Has there been much imaginative poetic freedom in style? And, in the combination of dignity
and clarity that most of the modern versions have aimed at, has there, in fact, been much
dignity? … Perhaps I may recommend that the translations be read aloud, to test the
effectiveness of the translation as spoken as well as written word (ibid.:127).
[The older English translations] eventually were recognized as having great beauty, being a
merging not only of a biblical pattern of language but also a merging of the translators’ lively
use of contemporary English idiom and poetic nuance with existing features of English literary
style (ibid.:133).
Such a mixed style of verbal expression would seem to be highly appropriate for every language
that has an established literary tradition coupled with a long history of Bible translation. As
Hargreaves says, “[I]t is sensitivity to one’s own language, not scholarly knowledge of the

426
Often this concern is so great that it harshly criticizes any nonliteral version and assesses
“accuracy [solely] in terms of formal equivalence” (Martin 1989:68). Even the moderately literal NIV fails
the test and is thus deemed “not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world”
(ibid.:70). A much more thorough, balanced, and helpful recent evaluation of past and present English
translations of the Bible is that of Wegner 1999. For a perceptive treatment of the subject of faithfulness
in translation from the viewpoint of a secular editor and critic, see the chapter entitled “The Romance of
Infidelity” in Wechsler (1998:65-104; also Di Jin 2003:ch.2).
185
original, that makes a translation permanent [due to its excellence]” (ibid.:135). This has
certainly been my experience with many Bible translators.
Hargreaves addresses the reasons why contemporary translations of the Bible in English often
fail to accomplish their objectives, let alone achieve a high literary standard. With respect to the
poetic quality of imagery, for example, he says:
It seems to be true, in relation to biblical translation for the modern cosmopolitan English-
speaking world, that the more traditionalist translators stick too often to the precise and literal
old, while more innovative translators, in moving on to something new, too often tend to
discard any related imagery [i.e., the closest, natural figurative possibilities in the TL], and fall
too easily into a generalized and paraphrased mode of expression.… The difficulty here is to
get English phrases that are both resonant and more than merely decorative, and also that
capture the breadth of meaning [of the original text].… [This challenge] requires a poet to
condense metaphor and meaning into a more dramatic compass (ibid.:162–164).
[T]he task of translating some biblical imagery in a way that takes the retention of metaphor
and the communication of meaning seriously is a task still to be completed (ibid.:173).
How can translators—in any language now—overcome this problem, if their goal is to produce
a rendition that will be recognized, by scholars and ordinary readers alike, as being more, rather
than less, literary in terms of form, function, and effect? It certainly will not be easy, nor is it the
safe way to translate:
[T]he translator’s work involve[s] the taking of risks.… It goes without saying that dangers
cannot be avoided in any risk taking or imaginative moving along frontiers. The innovators’
risk-taking, in the interests of clarity and directness of speech, can all too easily lead them into
the sort of arrogant brashness of language that treads clumsily across intricate and sensitive
areas of meaning. The traditionalists’ type of risk-taking, in the interest of spiritual and poetic
resonance [an unusual combination of aims!], can too easily lead them into the sort of literary
snobbishness that ignores the requirements of wide communication (ibid.:191).
Thus both the literalist and the “colloquialist” must take care, and indeed can learn from each
other, when they put their diverse principles into practice during this “risky” endeavor:
By and large, the aim in much modern translation has undoubtedly been to achieve living and
lively equivalents of the original, rather than to achieve, through exaggerated colloquialisms,
a superficial sense of modernity. And since idiom, and that which is idiomatic, is a main creator
of vitality in language (it has been described as the sap of language), it is good idiom that one
surely looks for in any translation and not primarily good colloquialism: the colloquial may be
part of the idiomatic, and may overlap with it, but it is idiomatic vitality that is entirely central
(ibid.:38).
This means that there must be, as Hargreaves says, “an emphasis on freedom from all that is
merely pedestrian and pedantic, and an emphasis positively on the use of poetic imagination in
the use of language” (ibid.:103). How can this be accomplished? One helpful guideline is this:
Capitalize on the inevitable constraints to achieve a greater measure of creativity.427 It has always
been recognized that translators, like original writers, must operate under a number of limiting
conditions or “frames of reference”:428 sociocultural, political, literary (e.g., persistent traditions),
linguistic (e.g., lexical inventory), media-related (audio, visual), and philosophical (e.g., Western
vs. Eastern modes of thought).429

427
This is the theme of the insightful introductory essay to the edited by Boase-Beier and Holman
(1999).
428
On the notion of “frames of reference” in Bible translation theory and practice, see Wilt 2002b.
429
Scripture translators must also labor under the significant constraint of an authoritative, often
revered religious text that serves as the touchstone against which their work will always be critically
186
 What is not often realized, however, is that some of these constraints actually open the door
for certain creative impulses to be realized—for example, in terms of the various possibilities
that a certain poetic genre makes available for use, whether adopted as is or in some creatively
modified form.430 Some genres by their very nature stimulate creativity, for example, the
condensed linguistic style or ambiguous expression of many poetic forms, which “invites readers
to fill gaps with their own knowledge” (Boase-Beier and Holman 1999:6). At times it may be the
very fact of working in a box that spurs literary artists on. As they work “within the system” they
can still manipulate the text at hand stylistically, enabling their audience to experience what lies
beyond the givens. This has not been the normal procedure for Bible translators; they tend to
limit their attention to either the bare form or the simple content of the original text; but I would
like to raise this issue for discussion and trial, where possible, in order to open up some new
possibilities of indigenous expression—and understanding—for the Word.431

8.4.2.8 Professional approach

Since I originally wrote this chapter, another important, rather distinct perspective on literary
translation has come to my attention, namely, that of some hands-on practitioners, those who
actually translate, edit, and critique translations of secular literature. It is helpful to read what
they have to say on the subject since they are both author- and audience-centered in their
approach; after all, they must produce “faithful” translations that sell, or are at least received
well by critics. “The goal of literary translation is publication” (Landers 2001:ix). How does this
strongly goal-oriented viewpoint and purpose affect their translation practice in terms of
principles and procedures? I have selected as more or less representative a number of pertinent
observations and exhortations from Clifford Landers, a professional translator. With a minimum
of intervention on my part I will present his ideas here, along with several comments (in the
footnotes below) by a literary critic and editor.432. What they have to say is most insightful and
has great relevance to any team that intends to produce a more or less literary rendition of the
Scriptures, either as a whole or only as selected portions of the sacred text.
Clifford Landers is a professor of political science and a widely published translator of various
novels and a number of shorter pieces of fiction from Brazilian Portuguese into American English.
In a recent guide to the everyday work of a literary translator, Landers suggests the following

compared and evaluated. Sometimes this is accompanied by a superimposed “tradition” of Bible translation
that further constrains the window of possibility as far as any formal (let alone semantic!) innovation goes.
For this reason, the translators of Scripture cannot accept the position that “[t]here will always be
compromise between faithfulness and freedom, between the need to be true to one’s own and the author’s
voice” (Boase-Beier and Holman 1999:10), or that they may “presume to alter the content of the original
in order to avoid causing offense to potential readers” (ibid.:16). It is not just any “author’s voice” that
Bible translators must reckon with; it is the voice of the One whom they revere as their God. The only
“compromise” allowable, then, is the one forced upon them by the gap forged by an original text from a
different time and place, language and culture.
430
Boase-Beier and Holman also point out that a more literal, foreignized translation can produce
a certain “creative stretching” of the target language and culture by introducing people to novel literary
forms and significant new ideas. Since that has been more or less the norm in Bible translation, we would
like to encourage such a “stretching” also at the other end of the communication continuum—that is, in
terms of the full stylistic inventory and rhetorical resources of the TL, resulting in a text characterized by
formal “glory” as well as semantic “clarity.”
431
“Clarity and glory [of style] have always belonged together, and do so today. It is becoming
ever clearer that where there is true clarity, glory is never far away, and vice versa. The task of holding
them together in biblical translation is an ongoing and unfinished task” (Hargreaves 1993:195). An
exciting challenge is posed here for all those individuals and teams that would undertake a more or less
literary (clear and glorious) translation of the Scriptures in their mother tongue.
432
“[A] translator has to be able to read as well as a critic and write as well as a writer” (Wechsler
1998:9).
187
steps for producing an acceptable rendering of a given selection of prose. His preferred principles
of translation are implicit in this sequential listing of practical guidelines (2001:45-46; my
emphasis added):
 Read the entire work at least twice. For those who might contend that this is not actually a
step in the translation process, I argue that no translation can succeed without a thorough
grounding in the SL text. An unaware translation is ipso facto a bad translation; and ‘unaware’
means failing to have a firm grasp on the meaning of the work, both at the surface level
(words, phrases, idioms, culture) and at the underlying level of deeper significance
(…Subtext).
 Determine the authorial voice. This will affect virtually every choice in the thousands of words
to be translated. Note any shifts of tone from one part of the text to another.433
 Do the first draft, marking troublesome areas in square brackets and/or bold face for further
attention. At this stage there is relatively less emphasis on smoothness and fluency and
more on capturing the semantic gist of the text.
 Consult with an educated native speaker to clarify points that are still vague. Foe especially
vexing items, consult the author.434
 Revise the manuscript, with emphasis on phraseology, fluency, and naturalness. At this stage
it should come as close as possible to reading as if it had been written originally in English.
 Have a highly literate native speaker of English, preferably one with no knowledge of the SL, go
over the manuscript and indicate any rough spots—i.e., parts that are awkward, stilted,
‘translationese,’ or that make no sense. Make any necessary changes.
 Go over the manuscript line by line with a native speaker of the SL who is also fluent in
English. Read it aloud while the other person follows in the SL text. This catches mistranslations
as well as inadvertent omissions … and it focuses your attention on questions of sonority.
Unwitting homonyms, undesirable connotations, puerile constructions (‘I see the sea’),
unintentional repetitions of a word, and other infelicities are more likely to make their
presence felt here than at any other stage in the process.…435
 Make the final changes, run it through a spell check, and let it rest for a few days. Then give
it one last reading (typos may have been introduced in the revision stage) and send it off.
As far as poetry is concerned, Landers (citing Clement Wood) is of the opinion that “[p]oetry
cannot be translated; it can only be recreated in the new language” (2001:97). Furthermore, “[i]t
must be recreated by a poet of like emotional power in the other language, if it is to survive as
poetry” (ibid.:98). As to what this means in practical, personal terms:
I am convinced that the translator must possess a poetic sensitivity, even if he or she had never
written a line of original poetry. A poetic sensitivity encompasses, but is not limited to, an

433
The importance of the original author is emphasized by most literary translators and critics.
Wechsler feels that in order “[t]o determine an author’s thought processes, where they go beyond the
conventions of his language, a translator must also determine the author’s intent.… Suzanne Levine has
written, ‘An awareness of a book’s intended effect on its original reader is obviously necessary in order for
us to understand the difficulties of repeating that effect. The author’s intentions, overdetermined by his or
her own context, may or may not be verifiable, or even relevant, but the translator—like all interpreters—
has to decide, within a given context, what function he or she is trying to fulfill’” (Wechsler 1998:139).
434
Neither of these two recommendations (see point 7) is possible of course when the Bible is the
original text. However, in place of an “educated native speaker” one could substitute a qualified fellow
translator; instead of the author, one could consult recommended commentaries on the text at hand.
435
“In translation, this ability is known as ‘having a good ear.’ … [I]t’s having good instincts for
what sounds or seems appropriate in a certain context … having a wide range of alternatives at one’s
fingertips … knowing the many ways in which words, sounds, and concepts interact: grammar, rhythm,
and logic.… Does this sound as right in the same way as the original …” (Wechsler 1998:129).
188
 appreciate for nuance, sonority, metaphor and simile, allusion; the ability to read between and
above the lines; flexibility; and ultimately, humility (ibid.: 99).436
Landers states his guiding principle for literary translation in familiar terms (that is, familiar
to most Bible translators) as follows: “all facets of the work, ideally, are reproduced in such a
manner as to create in the TL reader the same emotional and psychological effect experienced
by the original SL reader” (2001:27).437 He claims that this is “[t]he prevailing view among most,
though not all, literary translators” and further that “[m]ost translators judge the success of a
translation largely on the degree to which it ‘doesn’t read like a translation.’ The object is to
render Language A into Language B in a way that leaves as little evidence as possible of the
process” (ibid.:49). Such an opinion differs from that of many translation theorists and critics,
who “work a different side of the street” (ibid.:49). After all, “who other than scholars would
want to read prose [or poetry] that bears the heavy imprint of foreign grammar, idiom, or style?”
(ibid.:50).438 In short, most professional literary translators would claim that one must be an
artist in order to “perform” as an artist when carrying out their work.
But not only is expertise and excellence required. There is, in addition, an intellectual or
professional price to pay:
The translator’s problem is that he is a performer without a stage, an artist whose performance
[ideally] looks just like the original. … Like a musician, a literary translator takes someone
else’s composition and performs it in his own special way (Wechsler 1998:7).
Bible translators do not normally go solo like this, for they work as part of a team and within the
framework of a particular project Skopos. But he or she is, or must be, a genuine performing artist
in order to do full, or even partial, justice to the literature of the Scriptures if an L-R version is
the ultimate goal. There is much to learn about this subject from the practitioners themselves,
and it is profitable for Bible translators who happen to be engaged in a similar, but at the same
time more controlled, endeavor to read about their various experiences along with their helpful
words of encouragement and advice.439

436
On this crucial dimension of “sonority” in poetry, Wechsler adds: “Rhythm and other aspects
of sound, such as alliteration, assonance, and rhyme, are central to poetry. Often a translator has to give
up exact meaning to preserve a sound component.… [A] translator may also pick up vocal tones,
intensities, rhythms, and pauses that will reveal how the poet heard a word, a phrase, a line, a passage….
what translating comes down to is listening—listening now to what the poet’s voice said, now to one’s
own voice as it finds what to say’” (Wechsler 1998:131, 133). What a difference in technique if translators
would approach the Psalms in this same attentively aural manner!
437
One needs to add here that the translated text in and of itself will probably not be sufficient to
provide a given target audience, no matter how educated, with enough of a frame of reference to
contextualize and understand such culturally specific texts as those found in the literature of Scripture.
This applies to the content of the original and even more so to its connotation (“the same emotional and
psychological effect”). The hermeneutical background and perspective of receptors will therefore have to
be expanded in certain relevant respects, for example, by means of appropriate descriptive and explanatory
footnotes, in order to allow the process of interpretation to continue in a communicatively efficient and
effective way.
438
“[O]verly zealous applications of theoretical guides can wreak havoc with a translation,” for
example, “the doctrine known as ‘resistance,’ whose best known advocate is Lawrence Venuti” (Landers
2001:50). “I … have yet to meet a working translator who places theory above experience, flexibility, a
sense of style, and an appreciation for nuance” (ibid.:49–50).
439
A humorous example of such encouragement (with special relevance for Bible translators) and
a good illustration of the literary craft of translation is Lander’s own rendering (from Brazilian Portuguese)
of the poem by Millôr Fernandes, entitled La Dernière Translation (see on p. 184):

189
8.4.3 Evaluating the various theories

As a first step in evaluating the diverse translation methodologies of preceding section, we should
note the shift in focus that characterizes them. They range from the primarily author-focused
ones (e.g., interpretive) to those with a target-audience focus (relevance theory, functionalist).
Then there are the approaches that concern themselves primarily with the text, whether the SL
text (e.g., literalist), the TL text (text-linguistic), or somewhere between or back and forth (e.g.,
critical-comparative, professional). These different perspectives are accompanied by varying
emphases on certain communicative functions to the exclusion or neglect of others, for example,
a literalistic focus (=> ritual function) versus an artistic focus (=> poetic function). While the
Bible translation theorist and practitioner can learn something from them all, from some more
than others perhaps, depending on the particular project Skopos that is being followed, the text-
linguistic, functionalist, and interpretive methods appear to offer the most insights and
assistance. This will become apparent as I discuss my proposed literary approach further.

8.5 Ambiguity of the term literary translation

At this point, we need to recall the rather widespread problem that was referred to earlier,
namely, the fundamental ambiguity connected with the term literary translation. This term may
be understood as having at least four distinct senses: (1) a mechanically literal translation of a
recognized literary SL text; (2) a literary rendering in the TL of a nonliterary SL original; (3) a
fully literary translation (functionally equivalent) of a literary SL document; and (4) a selective
literary rendering of certain marked literary features (structural and stylistic) of a SL text, such
as balanced lineation, symmetrical syntactic parallelism, pleasing lexical collocations,
condensation, imagery, figuration, rhetorical heightening, and intertextual allusion. I am here
using literary translation with particular reference to a version of the third or fourth type.
Perhaps it would help if we recognize a distinction between two perspectives in the evaluation
of the translational quality or relative compositional excellence of literature: a “social”
perspective versus a “stylistic” perspective.440 In the figure that follows, these two perspectives
are roughly schematized in terms of form, content, and function:

When an old translator dies Definitive communication, without words?

Does his soul, alma, anima, Once again the first word?
Free now of its wearisome craft Will he learn, finally!,
Of rendering Whether HE speaks Hebrew
Go straight to heaven, ao céu, Or Latin?
al cielo, au ciel, zum Himmel, Or will he remain infinitely
Or to the hell—Hölle—of the great In the infinite
traditori? Until he hears the Voice, Voz, Voix, Voce,
Or will a translator be considered Stimme, Vox,
In the minute hierarchy of the divine Of the Supreme Majesty
(himmlisch) Coming from beyond
Neither fish, nor water, ni poisson ni l’eau Flying like a bird pássarouccelopájarovogel
Nem água, nem peixe, nichts, assolutamente Addressing him in …
niente? And giving at last
What of the essential will this The translation of Amen?
mere intermediary of semantics, broker
of the universal Babel, discover?
440
Some time after completing this study, I discovered that my twofold distinction with regard to
“literary translation” had been anticipated many years earlier by E. A. Nida (not in so many words, but
clearly enough): “The literary critic … restricts his interests to written texts regarded as belonging to a
category of literature, either because these texts have stood the test of time (having attracted widespread
190
 synchronic
FORM
diachronic development ||
FORM ======= CONTENT ======== FUNCTION
||
CONTENT
synthesis

8.5.1 A social (popular) perspective

“Of course it’s a work of art. It’s in an art gallery,” some say.441 That’s one way of defining art.
Another is the passage of time. The aging process alone can put a mediocre piece of writing from
the past in a much more positive, aesthetic light. Like an aged wine, it becomes tastier with age!
Duthie recognized this: “Literary translations of the Bible include … most older translations
because of the connection between literature and the past in respect of language” (1985:68).
Such a favorable characterization, whether unsophisticated or scholarly in origin, is usually based
on widespread use, supported perhaps by a particular attraction for a more antiquated and
familiar expression, in accordance with the whims of popular opinion. This is largely an emotive
evaluation motivated to a large extent by the ritual and performative functions of language, which
tend to be activated in or by certain settings of sociocultural, including religious, significance,
especially the formal liturgy of public worship.442
Nida and Taber point out another aspect of this progressive and cumulative diachronic
development of a version’s acceptance: “In many languages that have been reduced to writing
within the last two or three generations there is a kind of ‘literary’ capstone … which may be
regarded by many literate persons in the language as the only appropriate form to write the
language” (1969:124). Thus, the designation literary translation is often closely associated with
the relatively high educational standard of those who are able to read and who actually enjoy
reading their own “sophisticated” version—that is, with special reference to its level of
vocabulary and diction.443 Not only is a certain period of time generally required for such a

and continuing interest) [i.e., a social perspective], or, in contemporary texts, have certain features of form
regarded as aesthetically superior [i.e., a stylistic perspective]” (1975:25).
441
Pilkington (2000:3) attributes the quotation here to Damien Hirst (May 1994). This is how some
people judge literature too; a certain text qualifies as literature if it happens to be found on the same
bookshelf with recognized literary works. But what does certify a verbal message as being a literary work
of art? I will be exploring answers to this question in the sections that follow. For many people, of course,
the matter of whether the Bible is literature is a negative non-issue, since for them literature is by definition
a human creation and hence could not apply to the Scriptures.
442
It is possible therefore that an older, literal translation will become popularly regarded as
“literary” in a given language and by a particular constituency as a result of a long liturgical use that
creates an exotic, but valued compositional style within the tradition. More commonly, however, a strictly
literal rendering (one that lacks, for example, the minimum of a euphonious manner of expression,
attractive lexical collocations, or any phonological and rhythmic shaping) will turn out to be very
unnatural according to TL norms (e.g., NASB). This is not to say that such a version will be rejected by its
intended audience group, for the relative acceptability of a given translation is determined by a number
of interacting sociolinguistic as well as religious influences. In addition, one must also consider the factor
of relative quality; not every so-called literary version of the Bible is a good example of this translation
type. The NEB is a possible case in point—it manifests occasional flashes of stylistic brilliance, yet these
do not occur often or consistently enough and with enough duration for the translation as a whole to be
rated very highly.
443
In this respect we call attention again to the NEB “whose vocabulary includes ‘purgation, ague,
effulgence, miscreant, descry, bedizened, contumely, ministrant’ ” (Duthie 1985:68).
191
favorable professional and/or public assessment to grow with regard to a particular written work,
but important and sometimes extremely complex sociolinguistic factors may be involved as well
(e.g., extensive publicity, celebrity endorsement, political propaganda, large-church
sponsorship). There are a number of examples of this type of popularly defined literary
translation in Africa and other parts of the world. They are the long-serving “missionary”
versions.
This, however, is not what I have in mind in the present study. My notion of literary is not
associated with age and long usage or with a particular “educated” dialect of a given language.
I define it objectively and from a stylistic, technical perspective, as described below.

8.5.2 A stylistic (technical) perspective

A technical definition of literature, by which the relative literary quality of a certain written text
can be assessed, is usually based upon a synchronic study that involves an analytical description
and evaluation of a given work’s harmonious integration of form, content, and function within
an appropriate contextual setting. Experts in the field examine the text in question, whether an
original composition or a translation, according to recognized universal (or in some cases,
regional) literary features such as elaborately patterned repetition, rich thematic symbolism,
novel figurative language, culturally resonant key terms, subtle phonic artistry, or the skilled use
of ideophones and expressive exclamations (features of Bantu orality). They proceed to judge it
with reference to these criteria along with traditional or locally favored aesthetic standards,
codes of formality, and prevailing social conventions. They attempt to do so objectively, not
influenced by the work’s acceptance by the population at large. However, it may be expected
that a creatively composed literary translation will, sooner or later, come to be regarded as
literary in a popular, diachronic sense.
Thiselton refers to the “rich reading” that a genuinely literary text encourages due to its
“multilayered coding”: it is thus “open” or “productive” in terms of form and meaning and
therefore either conveys or evokes varied “resonances, intertextual allusions, new perspectives,
[and] transformed horizons” (1999:169–171). To a great extent such a stylistically marked text
or semantically enriched translation is promoted by an emphasis upon what Roman Jakobson
termed the “poetic function” of language, which activates additional metaphorical and other
associative relationships to augment the conceptual density of the discourse. According to
Jakobson, this is effected by “[t]he verbal material [which] displays overall a hierarchical
structure of symmetries, based on repetitions, regularities, and systematizations of various kinds”
(cited in Pomorska and Rudy 1985:150). The result is a more intricate linguistic network or
layering (i.e., than that normally found in “prosaic” texts) of formal parallels and verbal
correspondences—contrasts as well as similarities—involving sound, sense, syntax, and text
structure.444 Such poetic structuration and stylistic embellishment are not gratuitous or self-
serving, however. In literature of great cultural (including religious) significance, the artistry—
including the requisite use of various rhetorical devices along with figurative and other image
provoking language—is always utilized to enhance the intended message. Normally this would
be manifested in some manner of thematic and emotive foregrounding or in the cohesive
integration of various topical elements of the discourse at large.
Assuming then that we are beginning with an acknowledged instance of literature in the SL,
it may be analyzed with special attention to either its form or its function. In the case of form, a
stylistic study is undertaken, investigating the compositional organization and aesthetic features
of the text on the macro- and/or microstructure of the discourse as a whole, usually in relation
to its intended (source) or perceived (target) meaning. In the case of function, a rhetorical analysis

444
On the continuing influence of Jakobson’s structuralist-poetic approach to literary analysis, see
Green’s detailed study of the Beatitudes (2001:21).
192
is undertaken, focusing upon the argumentational dynamics and affective dimension of the
discourse—that is, how the author shaped the text in order to move or persuade the intended
audience to adopt a certain conclusion, opinion, perspective, conviction, or motivation (purpose)
in relation to the message, whether as a whole or concerning selected portions. Both types of
literary study are required to lay the proper foundation for a rendering of the same overall
communicative effect in terms of both quality and quantity. This process must be repeated with
respect to literature in the TL—first in general to determine the genre-based inventory and artistic
resources that are available to choose from, and then with specific translational application to
the text at hand.

8.6 Defining literary translation

I wish to propose a systematic global technique to go along with the usual ad hoc selective artistic
procedure applied in a literary rendering of biblical texts. The ultimate and ideal goal, where the
circumstances allow, is to effect a genre-for-genre, holistic transmission of the Scriptures, in terms
of the Bible as a whole or of individual books and pericopes. This contextually conditioned
methodology follows from the different approaches presented above, variously combining
elements of most of them.
As we might expect, to produce a literary translation requires a highly skilled, artistic,
experienced, and biblically educated translation team. They must first apply all their knowledge
and skill to a careful and thorough analysis of the SL text. They then endeavor to represent the
original text in the TL, whether selectively or as a whole. In other words, they work either on a
complete utterance-for-utterance or a paragraph-for-paragraph basis, being always guided by the
style of the TL genre that is the nearest functional equivalent to that of the SL text. The act of
translation is automatically followed by a process of comparative text examination and
evaluation, as proposed by the “critical school” of translation studies (see above). Such
examination is with reference to the exegetical and literary features of the text, and the current
draft is refined accordingly.
In order to achieve the objective, some type of “transformation-and-transfer” process is
obviously necessary: The message originally conceived by a biblical author must be conceptually
transported, as it were, across the formidable boundaries of time, space, language, thought, and
culture, then verbally reconstituted and re-presented within a very different situational setting.
The challenge is to carry out this cognitive activity in the most reliable (accurate) and relevant
(efficient + effective) way possible.

8.7 Translation as a complex “mediated” act of communication

Meaningful translation, as opposed to mechanical translation, is a very specialized, complex, and

manifold type of verbal communication. It involves an interpersonal sharing of the same text (an
integrated arrangement of significant signs) between two different systems of language, thought,
and culture. In other words, translation requires the re-signification and re-conceptualization of a
text in one linguistic and sociocultural setting so that it is meaningful in another one.445 This
multilingual, intersemiotic, cross-cultural process of textual representation and cognitive
reference may be variously defined and described, depending on a number of important factors
such as the underlying theoretical model that one adopts; the designated purpose or Skopos of

445
A translation of the Scriptures imposes a greater constraint and responsibility upon translators
to preserve the meaning (however defined) of the original text due to its perceived divinely generated,
hence determinative and authoritative, nature for a particular religious community as well as for individual
users. The religious nature or constitution of the biblical text thus greatly affects the expectations that a
given target audience has about its translation into their language, including the level of verbal creativity
that they would like to see or are willing to allow in “their” version of the Word of God.
193
the translation in relation to the target audience; and the style or manner in which the re-
composition is carried out (e.g., relatively literal vs. idiomatic).
In the following definition of literary translation (in italics on the left with further explanation
in brackets), the process as a whole is broken down into a number of key components.446 It is:
a) the mediated re-composition of
[the translator acting as a conceptual bridge between two texts and contexts]
b) one contextually framed text
[context-sensitive: linguistically, socioculturally, institutionally, situationally]
c) within a different communication setting
[the negotiated exchange of a verbal message in a new language + mind-set]
d) in the most relevant,
[the most cognitive-emotive-volitional effects with the least processing effort]
e) functionally equivalent manner possible,
[an acceptable, appropriate, and appreciable degree of similarity in terms of the meaning
variables of pragmatic intent and semantic content—as well as textual-stylistic form]
f) that is, stylistically marked, more or less,
g) in keeping with the designated brief
[specific Skopos aims, available resources, target audience, medium, etc.]
h) of the TL project concerned.
[the overall communicative framework of the TL setting being determinative]

It is important to note that verbal translation of any sort is different from monolingual
communication in that at least two different external settings and interpersonal situations are
involved, and often three, if the translators cannot access the original text directly. “Translation
is a type of communication which points, often explicitly, to a previous communication in
another language…” (Lambert 1998:132).447 The formal and conceptual distance between these
two (or three) contexts is variable, depending on the languages and cultures concerned. Generally
speaking, the greater this distance, the more difficult the translation task and the more proactive
mediation on the part of the translator is required if a meaningful, let alone a literary, version is
being prepared.448
Each distinct communication setting incorporates several interacting levels of extratextual
influence that together affect all aspects of text representation—its production, transmission, and
processing (factor b in the above definition). Thus there are cultural, institutional, religious,
physical or environmental, interpersonal (sociolinguistic), and personal (psychological/
experiential) factors that affect the communication context either directly or indirectly. These
variables all merge to form the respective collective cognitive frameworks of the SL or TL
communities—and the individual viewpoint of each individual of which the group is

446
A later formulation of this layered definition is presented in chapter one of this book.
447
“A translation is a type of [TL] metatext which serves as a substitute for another text…and is
the result of ‘imitative continuity’ with the [SL] prototext” (Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997:105).
448
A more SL-form-oriented, foreignized translation of the Scriptures may be desired for various
reasons, depending on the specific communicative situation (e.g., to facilitate the tradition-based ritual
function of communication or to expand the literary categories and features of the TL) and/or the
interpersonal setting concerned (e.g., the formal similarity of the translation to some familiar existing
version in the TL or another accessible language). I also emphasize form in my study, namely the principal
literary forms of the original text as well as those TL forms that are capitalized upon during the production
of a similar poetic or rhetorical rendering. The degree of textual domestication is therefore considerable,
but so are the potential positive contextual effects that an artistically aware and appreciative audience
may derive from such an idiomatic expression of the Word of God in their mother tongue.
194
composed.449 The perspective and opinion of the current audience is then determinative (factor
h) in drawing up an organizational Brief that defines the overall purpose (Skopos), principles, and
procedures of a given Bible translation project (g).450 In terms of my definition, the translation of
a literary version is carried out according to the general principle of psychological relevance (d),
coupled with the Skopos-specific practice of functional equivalence (e), which is applied with
respect to the content and intent of the original text, but also in keeping with the genre-
determined stylistic forms of the TL (f).451 Another type of translation—for example, a literal
version for liturgical purposes—may be defined in much the same way, except for the qualifier
of “relevant” (i.e., functionally equivalent as in e above). But the translation would still need to
be stylistically marked (f) in some discernible and appreciable manner, at least phonologically,
for this is perhaps where a translation’s style is most immediately perceptible. How the text reads
aloud, and how it actually sounds, is a criterion of utmost importance for literariness.
Thus I have as my primary point of reference a translation that is literary throughout, one
that manifests definite artistic qualities on all levels of linguistic structure in the TL.452 This is
normally produced within the framework of a TL genre that is a functional equivalent of the SL
discourse being rendered, but with its own distinctive stylistic features that operate in concert to
effect the principal communicative purpose(s) of the original text. However, I recognize that
varied degrees of application are possible, depending on the intended audience and the Skopos
that has been agreed upon for them. Thus a literary technique may be applied in a more
restrained manner, that is, with respect to only selected features or portions of the biblical text.
It would appear, for example, that the sound structure would need to be modified as a first
step in a literary direction. In other words, a literary translation would manifest a discourse that
is aurally enhanced with respect to one or more phonic features such as balanced lineation,
rhythm, rhyme, alliteration, assonance, and/or various kinds of word play (paronomasia). In
order to produce this sort of euphony and rhythmic symmetry in utterance progression, certain
preferred types of parallelistic syntactic construction, interclausal linkage, and lexical selection
(diction) or collocation are often required. A more limited style of literary rendering would also
seek to retain most of the evoked visual component of the original text—that is, its major images
and metaphoric language. This would be modified only as needed to incorporate certain lexical

449
I distinguish between the notion of “context” as an external, perceivable reality and “frame,”
which is one particular cognitive organization or representation of that reality. The sum total of frames that
are relevant to the interpretation of a given text constitutes its conceptual framework. (This perspective
stems from Gregory Bateson, as explained in Katan 1999:34.)
450
I use the terms Brief and Skopos more or less as defined according to functionalist Skopostheorie
(see Nord 1997:137, 140, chap. 3; Fawcett 1997, chap. 9).
451
For a handy survey of “relevance theory” as applied to Bible translation, see Gutt 1992; the
theory of “functional equivalence” (FE) is described and applied in de Waard and Nida 1986. I view
Relevance Theory as being a useful way of conceptualizing the process of communication in general, but
inadequate (rather too abstract, esoteric, and subjectively applied) when it comes to teaching mother-
tongue translators the basic principles and specific procedures of Bible translation. For the latter, an FE
approach, or some recent modification of this (e.g., Wilt 2002a:ch. 1; Maier 2000) is much more helpful
in pedagogical terms (see also Nord 1997; Hatim and Mason 1997, chap. 11).
452
Nord would probably classify the ideal, or complete, sort of literary version on the continuum
that I am proposing as a “homologous” translation. She defines this as a rendering in which “the tertium
comparationis between the source and the target text is a certain status within a corpus or system, mostly
with respect to literary or poetic texts” (1997:52). This translation technique, the ultimate in linguistic
“domestication,” is also known in secular circles as “semiotic transformation” (Ludskanov) or “creative
transposition” (Jakobson) (ibid.). It produces a translation which, like its original, should manifest a
particular “aura” about it—that “ineffable affect emanating from any work of art that is sensed or felt but
cannot be empirically described except by its effect upon … listeners, readers, etc.” (Gaddis-Rose 1997:85).
195
cues or semantic clues to guide the reader/hearer’s interpretation in the case of the more difficult
or foreign figures of speech.453
This possibility for allowing degrees of application with regard to a literary methodology
results in a variable range of translational choices, choices which would be determined by the
project brief. This flexibility would, in turn, be reflected by a number of distinct translation types.

8.8 A continuum of translation types

Obviously, there are many ways of doing a translation. The different styles of translation are
frequently classified on the basis of how closely or loosely they retain the formal features of the
SL text in the target language—how “literal” or “idiomatic” they are in linguistic-stylistic terms.
An idiomatic version has the primary aim of reproducing as much as possible of the semantic
content of the original message in the TL. But as noted above, recent secular and Bible-related
theory has pointed out another, at times even more important, factor that needs to be seriously
considered, namely, the intended major and minor communication functions of the various form-
content units represented in the SL text.
A functional approach of this kind may be applied to a translation as a whole, that is, taking
into consideration the intended purpose or prospective use of the entire text within the TL
community. This larger aim needs to be specified and guided by two distinct and not always
congruent perspectives: that of the producers of the translation and that of the designated
consumers (see the example in de Vries 2001). Of course, no translation can reproduce all of the
original document’s elements of form, content, and function.454 There is, rather, a variable
continuum of possibilities in terms of selection, focus, and emphasis, ranging from versions that
concentrate on the SL forms to those that seek to duplicate the principal communication (text-
act) functions of the base document, but using forms that are natural and appropriate in the TL.
The following figure represents this hypothetical continuum, giving English versions that are
examples of each type-stage. Also represented is the relative degree of mediation (linguistic
intervention in the form of TL textual adjustment) that is required to produce a particular
translation style. The figure is not intended to be a qualitative depiction, saying that type A is
better than B, but is merely a rough reflection of the amount of translational modification
involved.

453
Thus I would agree with Linton’s conclusion that the minimum features required to sufficiently
distinguish a literary translation are “rhythm and figurativeness,” for these elemental features of a poetic
style “seem to be innate in the human sensibility, ready to respond when stimulated” by a text and
therefore “mark the most ancient writings of mankind and … endure unabated today” (1986:30). Linton
adds that “these features are peculiarly susceptible to preservation in oral transmissions of culture over
the centuries and are, indeed, important mnemonic devices” (ibid.).
454
The SL message cannot be exactly reproduced or completely conveyed in a given TL because
there will always be an appreciable loss or gain of semantic and pragmatic significance that occurs in the
process of interlingual representation. Translators must therefore be selective, aiming to achieve the
highest possible degree of parity. But this—whether the focus pertains to form, content, or function—can
be done only with respect to certain aspects of the initial communication event or smaller portions of the
SL text. Thus communication via translation is invariably only partial and imperfect at best: “a stewed
strawberry” (Harry de Forest Smith), a “broken vessel” (Walter Benjamin), or the “wrong side of a Persian
rug” (James Howell). At worst—and here is the real danger—it can also be distortive, misstating, or
misrepresenting the message intended by the SL author.
196
 Mediation:
least………………………………...much…………………………………………most
SL TL
Focus on: FORM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONTENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FUNCTION
[ literal = conservative = medial = common/popular language = paraphrase = literary ]
| | | | | | |
Examples: (NASB) (RSV – NRSV) (NIV) (TEV) (CEV) (The Message) (??)

I do not know of a single completely literary translation of the entire Scriptures composed in
contemporary English.455 Such an ideal version, whatever the language, would be one that
generally succeeds in proximately matching the sequence of changing major and minor
communicative (text-act >> speech-act) functions of the biblical text by the use of suitable
microforms (stylistic) and macroforms (genres) in the TL. Thus, while a literary rendering, like
a literal version, also stresses the importance of verbal form in translation, it is not SL form, but
TL form that is primary. This difference is considerable, but it is not always fully appreciated or
acted upon. Therefore, certain translations officially designated or popularly regarded as being
literary may, in actual fact, not be so (e.g., NEB, JB)—at least not formally and not with reference
to the text as a whole. Such an evaluation would need to be determined on the basis of recognized
stylistic criteria of excellence with respect to a wide range of phonological, lexical, syntactic, and
textual features of artistry and rhetoric in the TL. Furthermore, it is clear that such a critical
assessment would have to be supported by practiced literary experts or experienced artists—not
merely theologians, biblical scholars, or even a multitude of pious proponents of a familiar
version revered by a certain religious denomination.
The easiest way to satisfy the preceding form-functional criterion, if the goal is a literary
translation, is by means of a globally applied, genre-for-genre rendition of a complete book, text,
or pericope. In other words, the translators move from a specific biblical text type (e.g., a lament
psalm) into the nearest functionally equivalent vernacular genre (e.g., Chichewa ndakatulo lyric
poetry; see chap. 3 of Wendland 1993). It is possible then for the stylistic and rhetorical quality
of such a literary translation to be composed, perceived, and assessed as a whole according to the
objective as well as subjective criteria that have been established for that particular TL genre.456
Such a holistic, creative-compositional approach would seek to attain communicative
correspondence (or sufficient similarity) at a much higher discourse level, rather than in terms of

455
That is, literary in a technical, structural-stylistic sense. This conclusion is partially supported
by Norton’s (2000) detailed, but selectively limited study. I grant that other translation types, including a
literal version (if composed by a master wordsmith), might also manifest certain artistically marked or
literary features from the TL. However, such qualities would normally not be realized to the same degree
on all levels of linguistic structure (for a recent attempt, see Alter 1996). In the figure above, I show a
literary version (i.e., a completely “trans-formed” version) as more functionally oriented than a
“paraphrase” due to its emphasis on genre-equivalence in the TL and the desire to achieve a
correspondence with regard to artistic, as well as rhetorical, attributes, while maintaining an essential
semantic equivalence with the original text. The key representative translation types along the continuum
roughly correspond to those proposed by Holmes in 1968 from a secular perspective. According to
Hermans (1999:27), Holmes’s types are those translations characterized by “mimetic form” = literal (e.g.,
rendering ancient Greek hexameter verse by corresponding hexameters), “analogical form” = literary (e.g.,
rendering Greek epic poems in English heroic couplets), and “organic form” = popular language (e.g.,
rendering the classical epics in a TL semi-poetic form with an emphasis upon conveying the content of the
original text)
456
The exegetical quality of the translation in question would have to be evaluated independently
according to more semantically oriented analytical methods. It should be noted that I am using the term
literary here in a broad sense to cover both oral and written texts of a distinctly artistic character, coupled
also with a definite rhetorical motivation.
197
an attempt to match form-functional features on a one-to-one basis with regard to the microtext.
Thus competent translators would seek to immerse themselves in the original message by
thoroughly studying the SL text and its context. They would then with similar intensity search
out the communicative resources available in the target language and cultural setting. The final
step would be that act of creative synthesis whereby the biblical message is transformed in
translation to reformulate it in the most relevant way for a particular contemporary audience.
Thus the measure of literariness or rhetoric manifested in a translation depends very much on
the manner of text representation that was used to prepare it. Simply put, the more concordantly
(woodenly) literal the rendering, the less artistic or rhetorical the TL version will normally be in
terms of persuasive impact and/or aesthetic appeal. The less mechanically literal in style—that
is, the more idiomatic and stylistically accommodative the translation approach is—the more
rhetorical the TL text should turn out to be in terms of TL artistic norms and conventions, all
other things being equal (e.g., given the same skill and experience of the translators). It also
follows that a greater amount of mediation (creative hermeneutical and compositional action) is
generally required on the part of its translators. In other words, it is necessary for them first to
carefully analyze the SL document so that they can understand and interpret its rhetorical
processes as well as its primary content (themes, subthemes, key concepts, etc.). As many as
possible of these essential elements of original textual significance or contextual relevance would
then be represented in the translation through the skillful exercise of personal intuitive artistry,
both textually (in terms of TL structural and stylistic features) and extratextually (through
footnotes, introductions, titles, glossary entries, illustrations, etc.).
However, as has been emphasized, a local translation Skopos may specify a version that is not
so dynamic or idiomatic in nature. It may require a higher level of formal correspondence with
respect to key structural and stylistic features of the biblical text: its metaphoric imagery,
parallelistic patterns, lexical combinations, instances of repetition, and consistency in key-term
usage. Nevertheless, it would still be possible to render other aspects of the text in a pleasing
literary manner, especially on the phonological level. From this perspective, then, every
translation of Scripture can—and probably should—reflect a certain measure of the artistic style
that is recognized in the TL as being appropriate for the genre being conveyed. In this case, the
translation continuum in the preceding figure would manifest a [+ literary] component at each
and every stage along the way, with the differences among the respective versions being only a
matter of degree, not completely different types of translation. That is the expanded vision of a
“literary version” that I would like to see realized in all Bible translation work.
The question then would not be if a particular version is to be literary—only how much so,
that is, to what extent and in which respect(s) and where in the text. How much TL literary style
or rhetoric can or should be reflected in a given translation, and which are the crucial
determining factors in the local setting? What are the principal hermeneutical implications of
this decision? These are important issues for any project to consider before actual translation
work begins and the translators are selected. If the agreed-upon goal is to achieve a significant
level of functional parity in the translation, the answer depends on the nature of the SL text being
rendered: The more persuasive and vigorous the rhetoric and/or artistry displayed in the original
document (i.e., with special emphasis on the expressive affective, and poetic functions of
communication), the more argumentative, evaluative, and evocative its rendition ought to sound
in the TL.457

457
The first two terms are from Hatim and Mason (1997:182–183). Such texts, they say, tend to
be characterized by a higher incidence of marked linguistic forms (i.e., usages and expressions that are less
expected or somehow extraordinary in terms of frequency, distribution, collocation, novelty, or impact). I
have used the word sound in this sentence deliberately: The techniques of rhetoric are most obvious and
effective when the discourse is either oral to begin with or composed to be presented orally (as in the case
of most biblical texts). Rhetoric simply does not carry the same impact when it is read silently to oneself—
or when composed in the idioms of the SL text (see Fox 1995). I have added the qualifier “evocative” to
198
 However, the preceding considerations will be influenced and modified by still another vital
aspect of the translation event, namely the composite human setting of communication. This
interpersonal context encompasses the various sociocultural, ecclesiastical, institutional, and
individual situations in which the translation will be transmitted, responded to, and utilized. All
of these factors must be carefully investigated in conjunction with one another before a
translation project gets underway because they will, or should, determine the type of version
that is most suitable for the target constituency.458

8.9 Where to set the L-R parameters

My major premise is that a well-prepared, fully functionally equivalent translation of the Bible
will normally turn out to be recognized as a literary text in the target language. This, in short, is
literary equivalence, manifested on all linguistic levels, from indigenous text genres to significant
local patterns of sound. In this respect, a literary-equivalent text might be characterized as being
a stylistically “extended” and/or a rhetorically “enhanced” popular-language version (see
Wonderly 1968:3). Therefore, if the original has been determined to be literature (and different
degrees of artistic and oratorical distinction may be recognized with respect to the various books
of the Bible), then its corresponding interlingual reproduction should be similarly regarded, in
accordance with recognized standards of verbal excellence in the vernacular. A great deal of dead
(i.e., nonfunctional in the TL) formal correspondence with the original text will inevitably be lost
in this effort. But the goal is to gain pragmatic resemblance—“a [perceptible] similarity of
communicative functions” (de Beaugrande 1968:94)—with respect to individual passages as well
as the translation as a whole. Live formal correspondence in the TL will of course be retained
wherever possible as a matter of policy. What are some of the practical implications of the
decision to produce a more literary translation of the Bible?
As has been emphasized and supported also by the different translation approaches surveyed
earlier, the degree to which a more dynamic, domesticating approach to textual restructuring is

cater for stylistically beautiful, artistic texts, a dimension that Hatim and Mason largely ignore. In any
case, as already suggested, the relative value of a recent translation may be assessed from two different
viewpoints—that of the person or team who prepared it, for whom the minimum standard is “adequacy,”
and that of the community who will use it, for whom it is “acceptability” (see Hermans 1999:76, 162).
458
I follow Hatim and Mason (1997:12) in defining relevance as communicative efficiency in
relation to effectiveness, that is, relative ease of message interpretation in comparison with the degree of
accomplishment of its pragmatic goals (see also John Searle 1969 and de Beaugrande and Dressler
1981:11). This value has more recently been popularized in different terminology within a psycholinguistic
framework by the proponents of relevance theory (e.g., Gutt 1991:23–44; Pilkington 2000:58–83). The
problem with using the “principle of relevance” as the sole criterion in the evaluative assessment of a given
translation, as distinct from an original literary composition, is that it is often stated in terms that appear
to give precedence to the text and context of the TL. For example, Gutt says (1991:42), “[I]f we ask in
what respects the intended interpretation of the translation should resemble the original, the answer is: in
respects that make it adequately relevant to the audience—that is, that offer adequate contextual effects.
If we ask how the translation should be expressed, the answer is: in such a manner that it yields the
intended interpretation without causing the audience unnecessary processing effort.” How to balance these
two potentially conflicting concerns in practice would indeed seem to be a subjective, even arbitrary,
exercise. In any case, the principle of relevance needs to be supplemented and employed in close
conjunction with what may be termed the principle of reliability: the relevance criteria should be strictly
applied also with respect to the original SL text-context so that there is in effect a fourfold set of limiting
factors involved. In this interlingual communication effort, the notion of functional equivalence or “parity”
(perhaps better than the visually oriented term “resemblance”) in terms of semantic content and pragmatic
intent, including the discourse-determined features of impact and appeal, continues to be useful, despite
some rather strong criticism (e.g., Hermans 1999, chap. 4). Thus, the concerns of both relevance and
reliability, whether complementary or competing in their operation or manifestation within a given
translation setting, would have to be considered in the establishment and application of the project Skopos.
199
generally applied will depend on the predetermined organizational Skopos for the project as a
whole. To this end, it is hoped that a high degree of situational and personal relevance for the
intended audience will be achieved as a result of this disciplined exercise in artful text
reconstruction.459
A word of caution is in order here: Literary translators, seeking to produce a lyric version of
a selection of psalms for example, certainly do not have the poetic liberty (or license) to distort
either the original essential meaning or its particular areas of thematic and socioreligious focus.
A clear measure of overall functional equivalence, including exegetical fidelity, must be
maintained to the degree that this may be determined on the basis of all available reliable
evidence.460 Critics and reviewers are free to debate this or that specific usage as to whether the
literary version has gone too far in its artistry in an attempt to create rhetorical impact and
aesthetic appeal, but it should always be remembered that the basis for such a comparative
evaluation must be a careful examination and analysis of the Hebrew or Greek original, not some
translation.
On the other hand, one ought not to get tangled up in minor details of form or interpretation
when conducting an assessment of this nature. The exegete’s tendency to do so can easily muffle
the poetic muse. In the case of biblical poetry, for example, the Song of Songs (see Wendland
1995a), it is often not the mere individual image or utterance that is important, but the total
conceptual, emotional, and sensory impression created by the use of literary/oratorical language.
This may well be the primary intention of the original author, namely, to activate the expressive,
affective, and aesthetic functions of communication to an equal or even greater extent than the
cognitive function that so many people mistakenly identify as being invariably paramount in the
literature of the Holy Scriptures.461 In any case, the point is that there is a range of options.
Degrees of application are possible, with respect to both extension (quantitative—how many
devices are included and how widely they are utilized) and also excellence (qualitative—how
skillfully and creatively these features are handled). The appropriate proportion to be adopted
will depend on the Skopos of the project concerned.
Literary translation also presents some major implications in terms of its overall relevance to
a given TL community. This will topic be developed more fully in chapters 10 and 11, but the
basic guiding principle, as expressed by Gutt (1992:25), is this: “[W]henever a person engages
in ostensive communication, she creates the tacit presumption that what she has to communicate
will be optimally relevant to the audience: that it will yield adequate contextual effects, without
requiring unnecessary processing effort.” As to how these relevance principles apply to a
translation project, it is a matter of weighing “cost” (sec. 2.9.1) against “gain” (sec. 2.9.2), in
other words, evaluating the amount of processing effort that a literary translation project may
require in relation to the communicated benefits to the intended audience.

459
As already noted, relevance refers to a bi-directional (SL  TL), situationally determined
appropriateness with respect to efficiency (the least conceptual processing effort) on the one hand and
effectiveness (the greatest cognitive gain or communicative impact) on the other. The principle of relevance
is variously treated in different theories of translation. For some (e.g., Gutt 1992:24–25), it is the only
concept and guideline that is necessary; for others (e.g., Hatim and Mason 1990:93–95), it forms just part
of a much wider text and context-based, sociolinguistic and semiotic model of interlingual communication.
(For more on this well-known “minimax concept,” see de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981:11; Fawcett
1997:12; Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997:106-107; Pilkington 2000:73–75.)
460
Nord (1997) devotes an entire chapter to this crucial issue (chap. 8, “Function plus Loyalty”).
She explains: “The loyalty principle … induces the translator to respect the sender’s individual
communicative intentions, as far as they can be elicited.… [It] limits the range of justifiable target-text
functions for one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation assignment
between translators and their clients” (ibid.:126).
461
Nord would designate the primary function in operation here as the “appellative,” which is
manifested in language that is specially crafted or designed to appeal “to the reader’s aesthetic sensitivity”
(1997:42–43).
200
8.9.1 Cost

In Gutt’s definition of relevance, his focus is on the audience’s conceptual processing of the text,
but it is also true that there is a considerable cost to producing an acceptable literary version.
Other types of translation would be much less demanding of the translation team. In fact, to
prepare even a minimally literary version requires such great resources that at the very outset the
prospect may be overwhelming to a TL community. Such a possibility, even the mere vision, may
be rejected out of hand. It is necessary therefore for the project’s planning committee to “first sit
down and estimate the cost” (Luke 14:28).
We begin with the sine qua non—namely, those communication and media experts who will
make up the staff of the translation and review team. Are all sponsoring churches thoroughly
committed to support (financially, educationally, spiritually) persons of such high intellectual
and innovative caliber? The team nature of the endeavor needs to be stressed. It may be harder
for individually gifted, artistically inventive staff to get along harmoniously. Yoke a creative
artist together with a conservative exegete, and it is likely that the authoritative voice, with
arguments based on the Hebrew and Greek of the original text, will always be able to drown out
the opinions or protests of the more stylistically sensitive individuals. An additional cost is the
larger committee needed: more than one team member of similar competence is needed to
constructively criticize another’s work, whether from an exegetical or a stylistic perspective. It
takes one (an expert) to know—and correct—one!
The next question is whether the receptor community is willing to pay the higher price of
interacting with a literary rendition. It might be difficult, at least initially, for them to process a
text that has been composed in a popular TL poetic genre. It will not be presented in the familiar,
though often misunderstood words of the more literal version they may have had. Nor will the
text be expressed in the simplified, perhaps restricted, linguistic forms of a common-language
rendering.
A literary translation, in its full manifestation, will certainly require considerable effort for
the translators to prepare an artistically poetic, yet also exegetically accurate text, then also for
the intended audience to understand, appreciate, and apply it, at least to start with, as they get
used to its novel stylistic forms or perhaps more elaborate discourse structures. Thus the project
management team may face a certain amount of resistance and promotional difficulty when
beginning their attempt to sell the constituency at large on the merits of an unconventional
translation. A great amount of proactive but gentle education—and persuasion—may be
necessary to overcome the negative reactions that a dynamic literary version in the vernacular
might provoke among certain groups within the wider Christian community. The aim is not to
force this type of translation upon the receptor constituency, but simply to make them aware of
more possibilities in the area of style and format. They can then choose the sorts of versions that
they prefer from a wider range of options according to different targeted subgroups and their
envisioned setting of use.

8.9.2 Gain

The costs of communication must of course be balanced against the potential gains. The various
difficulties may well be offset by the actual (not merely prospective) benefits of a literary-
rhetorical translation. But a practical assessment of this sort may take some time to complete, as
people gradually grow in their understanding of the positive features of an artistically composed
poetic or prosaic text and how to make use of such a version to increase the various personal and
communal “contextual effects” (Gutt 1992:22–23) to be derived from it.
As noted earlier, a literary translation may not be acceptable, at least initially, for general
liturgical purposes in a public worship service. However, it will certainly possess some significant
communication possibilities for particular audience subgroups in specific situations or special

201
settings—that is, in accordance with the guiding Skopos statement that was prepared as an
essential part of the initial project Brief. For example, an oral-aurally attuned literary translation
may be very appropriate for use as part of a varied strategy of youth ministry or as an
unconventional outreach tool designed to appeal to groups that normally tend to be resistant or
unresponsive to the Christian message: members of minority ethnic-pride groups, anti-Western
traditionalists, popular entertainers, artists, and public performers, painters, sculptors, musicians,
dramatic players, actors, TV personalities, or well-known sports figures. A literary translation
may turn out to be especially attractive to or welcomed by those of different socioeconomic
circumstances: street kids, the destitute, members of the drug culture, or other outcasts (today’s
“publicans and sinners”). A literary translation may also be found to be highly suitable for use in
certain non-print media such as audiocassette or CD, especially when accompanied by
background music or composed in a popular-song style), and in mass-media broadcasting,
audience-specific radio programs in particular.
There is one special gain in communicative effects that is more or less certain to be realized.
This has to do with the increased emotive, aesthetic, and memory-enhancing benefits for all who
regularly make use of a literary translation, especially in close comparative conjunction with a
more traditional literal or liturgical version. A poetic rendition could serve, for example, as a
valuable devotional resource and a helpful means of renewing or expanding one’s perspective as
well as enhancing one’s theological understanding by stimulating a greater awareness of and
appreciation for the artistic, rhetorical, emotional, and connotative riches to be mined from the
ancient texts of the Word of God. These passages would now sound more like genuine,
contemporary literature in the local language—and in many more places than might formerly
have been thought possible.

8.10 Guidelines for a literary-rhetorical analysis

In this concluding section, I will present a step-by-step methodology for preparing a text-oriented,
literary-rhetorical (L-R) analysis of a biblical pericope in preparation for translation. Certainly,
many other helpful methods are available, some of which may be found in the literature listed
in the bibliography at the end of this book. The purpose of presenting these techniques is to
enable translators and their instructors or advisers to compare them with their own analytical
procedures (or any others available) and apply them, in greater or lesser degree, with
modifications as preferred, to any type of biblical text, whether poetic or prosaic in nature.462
The twelve techniques listed below are especially helpful when dealing with a nonnarrative
text (e.g., poetic, prophetic, epistolary discourse). These steps are intended to be applied to
complete textual units, whether an entire biblical book or a clearly defined portion of one.
Although the same steps could easily be adapted for use with narrative discourse, the
nonnarrative focus here is adopted because it is not as frequently discussed as a specific method
of analysis in preparation for translation, especially as this relates to the prophetic and epistolary
writings.

462
For a specific application of these guidelines to the Psalms, see Wendland 2002a:204-209,
2011:ch.3, 2013:ch.9. My guidelines may also be compared with Davis’s recommendations (1999:55–60)
for analyzing literary structure according to the principles of “oral biblical criticism.” It will be noted that
mine do not include a proposition (“kernel-sentence”) or semantic-structure level of analysis. While such
a method may usefully supplement an L-R approach, it is not essential to it. The same applies to various
aspects of “discourse analysis” as outlined by Dooley and Levinsohn—the charting of text constituents,
thematic groupings, and patterns of participant reference, for example (2001:44-47, 128-134)—or to a
text’s nominal and verbal systems, interclausal relations, information types and their sequence, and
highlighting devices (e.g., substitution, stress placement, left/right dislocation, addition or deletion
(Wiesemann n.d., passim).
202
8.10.1 Step 1: Study the complete textual, intertextual, and extratextual context

By context is meant all information that affects the interpretation of a given passage or pericope
in terms of form, content, or any other related information. The pertinent passages and/or
complete pericopes that come immediately before and after the passage in focus are the textual
context (or “co-text”). These can generally be determined by comparing the textual arrangement
of several standard versions, especially those that pay more attention to the larger features of
organization (e.g., TEV, CEV, NIV). Look for similarities—or significant contrasts—in content
and discourse type between the passage under study and its textual context in terms of specific
wording or general content. If there are any, does this shed light upon the interpretation of the
passage as a whole or even a key term within it?463
A careful study of the total context often helps to reveal the various types of implicit meaning
in the biblical text. Any semantically or pragmatically crucial content (necessary for a correct
understanding of the discourse) that is directly implied may, depending on the project Skopos,
need to be expressed explicitly in a translation in order to achieve a functional equivalence with
respect to certain desired aspects of the intended message.464 This would include information of
a structural, connotative, artistic, or rhetorical nature, as has been shown in the preceding
chapters.
Assuming for the moment (to be checked again in the next step) that the pericope being
studied is clearly demarcated with respect to its outer borders, one must determine the larger
discourse unit of which it is a part (unless it happens to constitute a complete book or a principal
section on its own). It may help to compare the standard versions, looking for a major section
heading or paragraph break on either side of the focal section and observing the flow of thoughts,
feelings, and intentions across these larger compositional boundaries. What governs or
characterizes the movement of one text segment to and from another, and how do the adjacent
units seem to be related to each other in terms of form, content, and purpose? What then appears
to give the section under consideration its discrete unity?
Next, the wider textual context of the focal pericope must be investigated: Carefully investigate
all cross-references to related passages in an annotated Bible, a study edition, or some similar
reference work. Most of these citations will turn out to be only loosely connected with the section
at hand, but it is usually worth the effort to carry out this exercise in any case. Are there any
passages found elsewhere in the Bible that are noticeably similar to the one being analyzed,
especially in their use of key theological or technical terms and expressions? Scripture is its own
best interpreter, and therefore major correspondences of form, content, or function in other texts
can help us to understand a difficult passage. Is it possible that another text (e.g., in the Old
Testament) may have influenced the section under study in some way? If so, how? In this process
of intertextual comparison it is important to pay attention to significant differences as well as
similarities between the two passages and what they mean for interpretation.

463
Use of “you” in these guidelines (implied also in the imperative forms) may be taken as singular
or plural—that is, directed either to an individual draft translator or to a team working on the text together.
464
Ellis Deibler’s Index of Implicit Information in Acts—Revelation (1999) is a manual designed to
assist translators in the difficult area of implicit versus explicit information It includes a brief but helpful
introduction to the subject as well as an appendix that summarizes the different types of implicit  explicit
procedure often needed during Bible translation, for example: the author-reader communication situation
information (“implicatures”), author-reader information (“assumed information”), TL requirements
(“explication”), plus various types of semantic management with regard to deictic reference, ellipsis, event-
based “arguments,” and other information associated with “events,” figures of speech, and argument
structure. While the operation of implicit => explicit tends to be more common, it may also be necessary
for certain material that was explicit in the biblical text to be implicit in the TL, for example, redundant
information that would make the translation sound unnatural or even obscure due to all the detail. This is
especially true in poetic discourse, in which brevity of expression often produces greater impact.
203
 Finally, there are reference works (commentaries, study Bibles, Bible dictionaries or
encyclopedias, and other specialized helps) that are helpful in connection with the extratextual
context or conceptual background of the pericope being studied.465 These resources can shed light
on the situational setting: the total historical, political, ecological, economic, sociocultural,
literary, philosophical, and religious environment of the time when the passage was most likely
written—or on specific topics such as personal names, places, peoples, parties, geography,
flora/fauna, customs, worldview, way-of-life, nonbiblical beliefs, and worship rites.466 In recent
years, the hermeneutical school of social-scientific criticism has contributed a great deal to this
effort to reveal the overall environment in which the biblical books were composed, transmitted,
and understood in relation to the postulated cultural perspective and practices of the originally
intended audience (see, for example, Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992 and 1998; Walton, Matthews,
and Chavalas 2000; Keener 1993).
The importance of this first step of a holistic process of literary interpretation—conceptual
contextualization—cannot be overemphasized. Sadly, it is often ignored in the rush to get to the
words of the text itself. But shortcuts only make for incomplete and inadequate exegeses.

8.10.2 Step 2: Read the entire text and determine its genre and subgenres

A repeated reading of the text is vital to analysis. This is often taken for granted, but not often
done. It is very important to do it aloud (even if one is alone!) and in the original language, if
possible. Visualize a familiar setting and a typical audience sitting before you and for whom you
are orally reciting the passage on a specific occasion. Do this several times for variety, with a
different mood, perspective, or emphasis each time. Listen to the text. Allow it to stimulate the
ears as well as the eyes. Certain prominent oral-aural stylistic and structural devices (especially
those based upon sound) will become apparent through this attentive listening exercise.467 This
will give a general idea of what the portion is about and what type of a Scripture text it is. Make
a tentative summary in a sentence or two of the main thoughts of the section as they occur as
well as the main theme or themes. This may change after you have analyzed the pericope in
more detail, but at least you will have a topical framework for your study as you continue to
develop it in different ways.
It is important to specify the particular genre, or functional type, of text that you are dealing
with, for this basic literary impression will guide you in further analysis of its form and content.
Is it a prosaic or a poetic discourse, and what particular category or subtype of either one—for
example, for prose: narrative, prophetic, epistolary, genealogical; and for poetry: lyric (lament,
hymn), apocalyptic, hortatory, didactic? Where do instances of “type mixing” occur, and for what
apparent purpose? On a more specific level, for example in the case of a prophetic discourse,
should it be classified as an oracle of judgment, of salvation, of assurance, of admonition, of

465
Secular translators and theorists too recognize the importance of reading the text to be
translated and anything related to it, as well as the translation itself as it is being produced: “An essential
preparation for the translation will be careful reading and re-reading and accompanying research of source
text and other work by the author. … [A]ny translation is ultimately the product of multiple reading and
drafts which precede and determine the shape of the final draft delivered to the publishers. … Repeated
reading and research enable the translator to identify such [rhythmic, lexical, figurative, structural,
symbolic] patterns [in a source text]” (Baker 1998:129).
466
“The cultural context is … a world vision that links together the members of a social group and
distinguishes them from others. In other words, it is a set of cultural predispositions (conventions, beliefs,
values and assumptions) internalized in the mind of the individual but socially determined. The
interpretation of a text therefore becomes the product of a social (or inter-subjective) practice” (Megrab
1999:61).
467
The important structural implications of ancient oral “typesetting” by means of transitional
formulas, repetition, parallel patterning, etc. are set forth in detail in the works of Davis (1999) and Harvey
(1998).
204
divine self-disclosure, of “woe,” or as a judicial speech or an apocalyptic-eschatological
prediction (see Aune 1991, chaps. 4–5)? Within a Gospel narrative, does the text at hand appear
to be a miracle story, a pronouncement passage, a biographical account, a parable, prophecy,
disputation, or a homiletic midrash (see Aune 1987:50–54)?
The wider genre classification determines both the hermeneutical expectations that one brings
to a text in terms of form, content, and function as well as the method of analysis and
interpretation that is most appropriate for that particular type of discourse.468 Once the nature of
the whole has been thoroughly investigated by means of a study of its larger structural
arrangement and communicative purpose, it will be easier to understand the individual verses—
the constituent parts. Decisions as to genre and subgenre will affect how one treats the pericope
in the process of translating it, especially if a corresponding genre or text type is not part of the
TL oral inventory or literary corpus.

8.10.3 Step 3: Plot all occurrences of recursion/repetition in the pericope

A thorough analysis of the various types of verbal recursion present in a text is necessary, whether
one’s interest is primarily linguistic or literary. This is especially true in the case of the Scriptures
due to the sheer abundance and variety of phonological, lexical, syntactic, and semantic
reiteration—it is present in virtually every passage. Thus it is necessary to make a detailed
examination of any kind of repetition that appears, whether of content or form.469 To do this,
first note the sameness of any feature within the section or distinct subsection, for example, a
continuance of time, place, participants and props, action line, topic, or genre/subgenre. Then
examine the actual words or phrases and their order, placement, or arrangement within the
section. Is any particular idea, expression, or syntactic construction repeated, and is such
repetition exact, synonymous, or contrastive in nature? If possible, it is best to do this using the
original Hebrew or Greek text or an interlinear version, since that is the only way in which the
same or similar sounds—as in alliteration, assonance, or punning—can be detected. If that is not
possible, a literal translation like the English RSV or NASB will have to do.
After noting all the instances of lower-level repetition, search for any patterns of recursion that
are developed in the larger discourse, whether local or global in size and scope. In a poetic text,
identify the different types of parallelism. (Such parallelisms—coupled lines—may also occur in
prose, especially in direct speech.) These parallel utterances may be found right next to each
other (adjacent) or at some distance away (separated) as in inclusio, exclusio, anaphora, or epiphora
(see definitions below). When the second member of a parallelism is distant from the first, the B
line often appears at a strategic compositional point such as at a structural boundary or a
thematic peak. Lexical recursion also contributes to the cohesion (referential connectivity) of the
text as a whole as well as of the distinct portions (“spans”) that are included within it, creating,
for example, participant chains, event sequences, temporal-spatial extensions, and topical
threads. All deictic forms (pronouns, pro-verbs, demonstratives) are important in this regard,
whether forward or backward directed (i.e., cataphoric or anaphoric), as is the significant
continuity that is manifested by any other formal feature of the discourse (e.g., tense-aspect,
mood-tone, person-number, speaker-addressee, text type).
Once the whole text has been examined with respect to all occurrences of exact, synonymous,
contrastive, or associative (e.g., cause-effect) reiteration and it has been determined whether or
not these are instances of random repetition or patterned recursion, observe how they all fit

468
From a linguistic perspective, Wiesemann (n.d.:94–104) notes the importance of employing
different analytical techniques for different types of discourse; for example, to narrative (procedural) she
adds also “expository” and “behavioral” texts.
469
I sometimes distinguish the reiteration of form and content on the microstructure of discourse
(repetition) from that on the macrostructure (recursion). An analysis of the former gives one a picture of the
latter.
205
together to support the author’s intended message. Can any explanation be given for the
variations that appear? For example. are they due to a different co-text, one that is revealed by
a shift in subject or style (see step 4 below)? It may be helpful as part of this general exercise to
join any obvious or probable correspondences by means of arrows or to mark prominent parallels
by underlining or highlighting them with felt markers of the same color. Then see if you can fit
the similar instances and related thoughts together under a general topic such as blessing, punish-
ment, righteousness, wickedness, good works, God’s nature, promises, commands, and warnings.
Key concepts of this kind may be also written down as they occur individually or in combination
on a separate piece of paper. Then after re-reading the text, you may decide to rearrange the
listed categories, adding to them, or deleting, conjoining, separating, or renaming them. Perhaps
it will turn out that a certain idea that is highlighted by repetition in the pericope under study
has been important also in other portions of the larger document (or will turn out to be so later
as the discourse is developed).

8.10.4 Step 4: Find all instances of disjunction within the discourse

In step 3 we saw how the various types of repetition effected textual continuity (i.e., cohesion and
coherence) within a pericope. In contrast, the technique of disjunction highlights the obvious
points of discontinuity, meaning some sort of a new beginning in discourse. These points are
usually created at the beginning of larger compositional units, especially of paragraphs or their
equivalents (in poetry, “strophes”). Disjunction is effected by a noticeable shift in the linguistic
form (e.g., changing from past to present tense, from narrative report to direct speech, from third
person to first person point of view) and/or content (e.g., moving from one scene, time setting,
cast of characters, sequence of events, topical focus, or argument line to another).
Changes of this nature are sometimes seen combined with an appropriate formula that either
opens or closes a distinct discourse unit to signal either “aperture” or “closure” respectively.
Examples are “Then the word of the LORD came to me saying…”; “And it came to pass in those
days…”; The time is surely coming, says the LORD, when …”; “So the land had rest X years”;
“While he was saying this …”; “Now concerning …”; “Come now, you who say …”; “Next I saw
…”; and “Praise the LORD!” A formula of this kind, which is especially common at the beginning
of a section, often occurs in conjunction with the syntactic operations of topicalization (i.e.,
introducing a new topic into the discourse) and focalization (i.e., marking certain information as
being of special salience within the clause/sentence). In oral texts, intonation and pause are
normally utilized in this process, while in written texts the marker is often a full noun phrase
+/– some form of dislocation in the word order (i.e., a “front shift” or “back shift” of the topical
information).470
However, modifications in form, arrangement, content, tone, or perspective and the use of
transitional expressions are not the only indicators of disjunction. These devices may be
accompanied by a discourse marker of another kind, which increases the disjunctive effect. These
other types include vocatives, imperatives, redundant demonstrative indicators, information
concerning the interpersonal setting (e.g., Ezek. 14:1), and explicit references to time, place, or
circumstance (e.g., in Ezek. 8:1, 7, and 9:1 “In the sixth year …”; “And he brought me to …”;
“Then he cried in my hearing …”). A more literary type of disjunction may be incorporated into
the discourse by means of special forms that involve an overt or covert shift in expectancy, or
some other variation from the conventional norm such as a change in some sequence of
parallelism or a prevailing metrical pattern; an elliptical, inserted, interrupted, or broken
syntactic construction (anacoluthon); a rhetorical, deliberative, or leading question; the use of
hyperbole, irony, sarcasm, or an unusual figure of speech; and the use of a parenthesis, a dramatic
antithesis, or a striking instance of paronomasia (punning).

470
For some helpful comments on topic and focus in Hebrew narrative, see Heimerdinger 1999,
passim. See Levinsohn 1992, chaps. 1 and 6, for a discussion of topic and focus in New Testament discourse.
206
8.10.5 Step 5: Isolate the areas of stylistic concentration

Another marker of disjunction besides those mentioned in section 8.10.4 is an unexpected or

unusual concentration of literary devices. It is useful, however, to consider this feature as a
separate step in L-R discourse analysis; this is because such a stylistic concentration, whether
“pure” or “mixed” in character, may also serve to mark a peak point in the text, in addition to a
compositional boundary.471 Examples of a pure concentration are a cluster of related figures,
especially simile-metaphor, or a passage of extended imagery that functions to foreground a
certain segment or subject within the pericope as a whole. A mixed concentration may be
composed of any number of different features, for example, an initial rhetorical question encoded
as direct speech that repeats some important element mentioned earlier in the text and includes
a play on words, a hyperbole, or some other type of emphatic, idiomatic, or colorful language.
Poetry, being a form of discourse that is compact and condensed, is characterized by an extra
measure of stylistic concentration. It is frequently marked (in Hebrew at any rate) by such
features as rhythmic and balanced line-coupling, ellipsis (e.g., omission of the verb in the B line
of a parallel couplet), conjunctive asyndeton, a reduction in the number of prose particles
(definite article, sign of a direct object, prepositional prefixes, relative pronoun), predication
through the use of nominalized verbals (gerunds or infinitives), and gnomic, proverbial, or
conventional utterances of a religious nature. Conceptually concentrated passages appear in the
Epistles on occasion in order to highlight a particular theological thought or communicative
purpose (e.g., in 1 Tim. 3:16 to focus upon the saving mystery about Jesus Christ; in Heb. 4:12
to accent the power of his Word; in 1 John 2:12–14 to encourage the faithful; and in Jude 12–
13 to warn readers of the grave danger of false teachers). In narrative discourse, we sometimes
see a “crowded stage” (many participants) or a beehive of activity (many events in close
succession) signaling the peak of the account (e.g., in Exod. 14:19–29 Israel’s crossing of the Red
Sea in advance of the Egyptian army; in Isa. 66:15–24 the eschatological last judgment to close
the book of prophecy; in Luke 23:44–49 the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; in Acts 27 the storm that
almost ended Paul’s sea journey to Rome; and in Rev. 19:17–21 the final defeat of the Beast and
his armies at the end of time).
After the presence of such a concentration of features has been identified and analyzed, its
particular placement and purpose within the text must be contextually evaluated. Some examples
of a carefully positioned concentration of stylistic devices can be seen in the following passages
from Daniel: the doxology of Darius, which ends the narrative and begins the prophetic half of
the book (6:26–27); Daniel’s intense prayer of confession and intercession (9:1–19), which
divides the apocalyptic portion in two; and the awesome vision of a universal world tribulation
followed by a resurrection and day of final judgment, which highlights the prophecy’s concluding
portion (12:1–4).

8.10.6 Step 6: Identify the major points of discourse demarcation and projection

Based on the results of steps 1–5, step 6 can now be carried out. The aim here is to provide an
overview of the discourse organization of the pericope or book being analyzed. This is done first
of all with regard to the text’s external and internal boundaries (its “demarcation”) and then any
areas of additional emphasis (“projection”). The latter may be either major or minor points of
importance (above or below the paragraph level) in relation to the development of message
content and the realization of its primary pragmatic intent.

471
Another purpose for a general stylistic analysis of a text to be translated may be summarized
as follows: “[A] stylistic analysis can help the translator establish priorities in the decision-making process
on the micro-level. Such an analysis is often carried out unconsciously or intuitively by experienced
translators and sensitive readers” (Baker 1998:173). It is helpful, however, to make this an explicit step in
the set of procedures that Bible translators regularly put into practice.
207
 Obvious occurrences of separated recursion (see sec. 8.10.3) often indicate a structural break
in the textual movement from one poetic paragraph (strophe or stanza) to another. In other
words, they may signal a compositional border either within or at the extremities of the text. The
more frequent the incidence of recursion and the greater its quality (degree of formal
correspondence), the more diagnostic it is as an architectonic marker. Some of the most common
discourse-framing techniques are inclusio (a parallel beginning and ending of a unit), anaphora
(parallel unit beginnings), epiphora (parallel unit endings), and anadiplosis (unit overlapping or
transitional parallelism).
Sometimes separated recursion of form or content, instead of signaling a break, signals a place
of special significance within the composition as a whole. In most cases this sort of projection
occurs somewhere near the close of a pericope, though in poetry it may be sometimes be found
near the textual midpoint. Separated recursion may signal a point of prominence or culmination
in other genres as well, for example, in relation to either the central action of a narrative account
(“climax”), the main theme of an exposition or exhortation (“peak”), or in the development of
the author’s feelings and intensity of emotive expression (“apex”). However, lexical recursion on
its own, unless it happens to be very exact and/or extensive, is not sufficient evidence to postulate
a major discourse break or peak. Therefore, the case for a break or peak is strengthened if lexical
recursion is found to occur in conjunction with a significant shift (see sec. 8.10.4) in time, place,
speaker, or topic (+/– focus marking) and/or an unusual concentration of poetic features (e.g.,
figurative language, rhetorical question, direct speech, hyperbole). The more literary evidence
that can be marshaled in support of a given structural hypothesis, the more credible it is and the
easier it is to defend it in the face of alternatives.
Thus, with these signals in mind, the analyst should, as step 6, record all posited breaks and
potential peaks in the original text. This could be done using different marking colors to indicate
the points of closest semantic correspondence. Then the breaks and peaks can be related to one
another in terms of their topical content and major or minor importance. This forms the basis for
step 7.

8.10.7 Step 7: Outline the compositional structure of the entire pericope

After a thorough consideration of the structure-related information derived from step 6, the
analyst will be able to discern the larger textual contours of the entire pericope, including all of
its internal segments. The material now needs to be outlined and topicalized (given summary
subject headings) according to the various form-content divisions, fitting them together into a
hierarchical framework of discourse organization. During this exercise it is helpful to consult
some other structural outlines such as those proposed in study Bibles and translation handbooks,
but this should not be done before one’s own analysis and outline have been completed. The
models of the TEV, CEV, and NIV are also useful with respect to larger discourse patterns and
arrangements (i.e., in their major and minor section headings). Finally, time permitting, the
outlines given in recognized exegetical commentaries may be examined and evaluated by the
translation team.
Next, consider the smaller groupings (paragraphs or strophes) into which the various
published versions divide the text under study. You may later decide to disagree with some of
their postulated sectional divisions, but at least they give you a basis for comparison with your
own results.
More experienced translators can then go on to carry out a propositional analysis of the
complete pericope, or perhaps only certain complex portions of it, in order to arrive at a more
precise indication of how the discourse is organized.472 A structural-thematic outline of the kind

472
For a recent overview of discourse analysis procedures, see the various chapters in Dooley and
Levinsohn 2001; for a simplified presentation based on the Psalms, see Wendland 2002a, chap. 3.
208
prepared in this step provides a necessary conceptual framework that permits one to make a
more accurate assessment of the full artistic beauty and rhetorical power of all the literary devices
that the text at hand incorporates. Artistry and rhetoric must always be viewed in terms of the
salience and significance of the larger compositional whole as well as the major functional aim(s)
that the original author wanted to achieve in relation to his intended audience (based on a study
of their most probable setting of communication, sec. 8.10.1).

8.10.8 Step 8: Prepare a complete semantic (word/symbol/motif) study

Having established the overall segmentation and internal structure of the passage under study,
one is ready to give some attention to the details of its semantic texture and cognitive
construction. Begin by underlining, or marking in some other way, all the primary theological
concepts and other repeated expressions in the discourse. These key terms and thematic motifs
(the latter being derived from the larger document or from the Scripture at large) will consist of
nouns, verbs, and sometimes adjectives—or in semantic terms, entities, events, and attributes
(e.g., ‘holiness/sanctify/holy’). In the case of poetry, any prominent word pairs should also be
noted (e.g., ‘love-mercy’, ‘rock-fortress’, ‘cry-call out’, clean-pure’). You may already be well
acquainted with these significant words and phrases, but a review of their distinct senses and
range of meanings is necessary so that they are correctly understood as used specifically in the
text under consideration and according to their individual literary contexts. For a basic
understanding of such terms the notes and cross-references of a good study Bible or the pertinent
book in the UBS Translator’s Handbook or the SIL Exegetical Summary series may suffice, but more
difficult expressions and concepts require the additional use of Bible dictionaries, topical
encyclopedias, analytical commentaries, and if possible, biblical language lexicons (especially
those based on semantic domains, e.g., Louw and Nida 1989, de Blois 2000).
Such a detailed analysis of essential vocabulary, including all figurative or symbolic language,
will enable you to reconsider the structural-thematic outline you formulated in step 7. Some
revisions may now be necessary. The main thing is to recognize the larger unity of the
composition—how all of its parts fit together and all of its L-R devices operate in harmony to
convey the essential theological or moral content and communicative purpose of the whole. Of
course, exceptions and anomalies do occur, and these should not be ignored or smoothed over.
Review any apparent conceptual gaps, conflicts, and other outstanding points of difficulty or
opacity to see if your plan for the complete discourse can assist in the interpretation of the
remaining problem areas. It may well be that these are features of deliberate disjunction (see
step 4) intended to signal some key juncture or idea of special importance within the larger
pericope.

8.10.9 Step 9: Analyze any remaining linguistic and literary features

This step in the analysis process takes care of the “leftovers.” All of the stylistic devices and
compositional techniques that were not fully considered during the preceding structural and
thematic studies are now to be analyzed in relation to what has already been discovered. For
example, the various significant literary forms that occur in the pericope might now be studied
in terms of their quality, quantity, distribution, location, and semantic interaction. In addition,
some unusual or heretofore unexplained linguistic usages or arrangements may turn out, on
closer examination, to be clearly “rhetorical” in terms of their particular communicative purpose.
Again, the emphasis should be upon discovering form-functional unity within diversity. The point
is not to simply provide neat literary labels for each of the different devices that are present, but
rather to determine the extent to which they have been effectively utilized in order to enhance
their individual and cumulative effect in the discourse at large. It may be possible then to show
how style serves to reinforce the central message being conveyed by the complete pericope as

209
well as by its constituent parts—that is, in accordance with the text’s organizational outline (step
7, which may or may not require further revision at this stage).
This would also be the time to carry out any special investigation that relates to the structure,
style, and (proposed) pragmatic operation of different types of discourse, such as poetic,
predictive, narrative, or hortatory/paraenetic texts. With regard to this last category, the
prophetic or apostolic writings, for example, one could apply the argument-structure model
described in section 9.2.4. In the case of narrative discourse, one would want to pay closer
attention to such important features as plot structure and development, character depiction,
dramatic dialogic interaction, point of view, and the influence of the contextual setting on the
account (see further below). Poetry, of course, requires a different set of investigative methods
in terms of type and focus (e.g., procedures pertaining to parallelism, condensation, concentrated
imagery, sound plays, liturgical language, and rhythmic diction). Other discourse types and
subtypes—from complete apocalypses (e.g., Ezekiel 38–39) to individual parables and proverbs
(as in the Gospels)—would each call for its own specific literary perspective and analytical
approach to supplement the more general guidelines described here.

8.10.10 Step 10: Note the major speech functions and their interaction in the discourse

The total meaning package of a biblical text includes not only its content (information), but also
its expressions of emotion, attitude, preference (value), and purpose. The original writer carefully
chose his structure and style—the “artistry” of discourse—in order to communicate these vital
aspects of a life-related message. They must not be ignored in any exegetical or literary study,
whether or not a translation is the ultimate aim.
For example, although it is a psalm’s principal religious function that determines its genre
(see step 2), the principal communicative aim of some of the included strophes (stanzas) may be
different. This is because the successive structural units of poetic discourse often refer to different
situations (“speech events,” each composed of a sequence of interrelated “speech acts”) as far as
the interaction of the psalmist with his (implied) audience is concerned. Consequently they
express different aspects of his involvement with them, hence also of his message to them. The
individual speech acts are best analyzed in terms of rhetorical purpose, what the speaker/writer
intended to accomplish by means of his words (i.e., the utterance illocution as discussed in sec.
9.2.3). One frequently finds passages of encouragement, promise, warning, rebuke, commitment,
consolation, and condemnation in the psalms, and these motives are frequently accompanied by
expressions of the appropriate emotion, such as joy, sorrow, fear, pain, trust, despair, and hope.
The same sort of intentional, volitional, and connotative diversity occurs in other types of biblical
discourse, particularly where direct discourse (as in narrative) or its equivalent (as in the Epistles)
is involved. Oftentimes various combinations, mixtures, or degrees of overlapping may be
discerned in terms of communicative function as the discourse progresses from one context to
another.473
All of these functions and feelings, whether major or minor in scope and importance, are an
important part of the author’s assumed intention as he composed the original message. Thus they
need to be identified at their point of occurrence in the text. These connotative features must be
noted along with the various literary and rhetorical devices (e.g., rhetorical questions,
exclamations, intensifiers, repetition, syntactic displacement, phonological embellishment) that
help to reveal and highlight them. In particular, the analyst needs to record any special
concentration of such devices, for this may serve to mark an emotional apex within the
development of a discourse or one of its integral constituents. This sort of emotive-attitudinal

473
Fawcett’s warning applies to any functional analysis: “This is one of the most frequent criticisms
of function-based translation taxonomies: they assume a monolith where there is really multifunctionality.
Although the overall aim of a text is important, we still have to concentrate on the mosaic of subtextual
functions” (1997:108).
210
mapping is important: it ensures that the apparent interlocutionary dynamics and argument
arrangement of the pericope under study will be functionally reproduced, to the extent possible,
during the translation process.474
To help in determining the personal interaction that underlies the discourse of a particular
psalm, it may viewed as a dramatic dialogue in some cases or as a prayer-conversation between
the psalmist and God. Sometimes other participants enter this sacred speech event, either as
speakers or addressees (e.g., the psalmist’s enemies, detractors, or his fellow worshipers in the
house of God). How do these different groups interact with one another in terms of their speech
patterns as the psalm progresses? Who is speaking to whom, under what circumstances, for what
purpose, and with what sort of mood, emotion, viewpoint, or bias? An even greater challenge in
this respect is presented by the prophetic writings, which are notorious for their various levels
and diverse combinations of speaker-addressee engagement.
Another question is whether an overall plan, or pattern of speech acts or illocutions, is
manifested in the complete discourse (the “text act”). There may be a distinct structure of this
kind that either dominates or complements the organization of a text’s thematic content.475 The
more fully that you the translator (or consultant) can imagine yourself engaging as an active
partner in the dialogue of the larger discourse, the more accurately you will be able to understand
the writer’s communicative situation and then dynamically convey his intentions in the TL—or
be able to advise other translators how to do so. Interactive role-playing (for instance, modeling
that between Christ and his disciples, Christ and the Pharisees, Christ and the surrounding crowd,
or between the key participants of a parable) can also help a creative team analyze these various
text-internal speech acts and their illocutionary interrelationships.

8.10.11 Step 11: Do an L-R comparison for possible form-functional matches

To this point in the analytical process, the focus of attention has been upon the SL and the original
biblical text. Now translators must turn to their own language, the TL and its literature, both
secular and religious, oral and written. The same kind of “mining” investigation that was done
with respect to the original text will now be done within the TL in order to discover, assemble,
categorize, and evaluate the verbal resources available for rendering the Scriptures as poetically
or rhetorically as possible. The goal, as always, is to accomplish this task in a functionally
equivalent manner in selected relevant respects, including now literary artistry as well as primary
semantic content and communicative intent. Indigenous poetry and prose will have its own
inventory of texts, contexts, and linguistic features (phonological, lexical, syntactic, and
discourse-related) to be explored, and there can be no shortcuts when seeking to discover and
document these for use in translation.
The TL features that must be investigated include the distinct genres and subtypes, traditional
as well as modern; discourse structures, markers, and arrangements; stylistic devices in terms of
their form and function, denotation and connotation; rhetorical techniques and their application
within complete texts and included portions; typical vocabulary, formulas, and figurative
language; shifts in “register” (i.e., typical speech variations according to language medium, user,

474
“[A]s part of their understanding of how a text is constructed and functions, translators should
be able to recognize not just the specific functions of cause, reason, time, etc., but also the more general
functions of elaboration (restating or clarifying), extension (adding to or modifying) and enhancement
(extending by specification)” (Fawcett 1997:97).
475
See Dooley and Levinsohn 2001:4-6, 97-101 for an overview of this sort of “conversational
analysis” intended to reveal the structure of dialogic discourse, for example in terms of speech “turns” and
“moves.”
211
and use);476 and finally, all of these features in relation to specific settings of oral performance
and social distribution or use.
These disparate aspects of poetic and prosaic composition will each have to be carefully tested
for its suitability or appropriateness for translating the Scriptures. If people are not accustomed
to dynamic literary language in the Bible (perhaps due to the strong influence of an existing
literal version), then some preliminary explanation and language-specific illustration will be
necessary. This will at least shed light on how, or if, a literary rendering will be received. But
once it is understood that the original biblical books are artistic and rhetorical as well as
theological in nature, receptors will usually respond positively to skillful, yet sensitive, attempts
to make them sound that way also in their mother tongue. Thus the stage is set for the final,
indeed the climactic, step in this whole set of heuristic procedures, namely, the actual translation
process itself.

8.10.12 Step 12: Prepare a trial translation and test it against other versions

Once a biblical pericope or book has been analyzed according to the previous steps (or some
modification of them), a translation in the TL may now be composed. (This assumes that some
preliminary interlingual transfer of ideas and experimentation with literary forms has been done
along the way.) First, prepare a literal rendering of the piece, unless such a version already exists
in the language. Base it on the SL text or an interlinear version of the SL text with English or
some other language of wider communication. This will give you a general sense of the text’s
original form and essential content (i.e., its fundamental lexical and conceptual inventory). Then
if there are any well-done meaning-oriented translations in the major lingua franca of your
region, assess their potential value as “models.” Also look at the vernacular versions that exist in
a language related to your own, whether good or bad. They too can be helpful for comparative
purposes. 477
These model versions, considered together with the SL-to-TL analysis that was completed
during steps 1–11, will enable you (as an individual or a team) to move on from this to then
produce an idiomatic, oral-aurally sensitive rendering of the biblical text in your own language.
The careful comparative process is intended to provide you with an understanding of the essential
meaning of the original message and suggest some possible ways of expressing this in your
language. As you work, remember the important communication principles of efficiency (current
ease and economy of expression), accuracy (with regard to original content and purpose),
effectiveness (immediate discourse impact and appeal), and relevance (in terms of the
contemporary sociocultural, literary, and ecclesiastical setting). The goal is to represent in the
TL the closest literary-functional equivalent and a fully natural and contextualized correspondent
of what you have determined to be the heart of the message conveyed by the biblical text.
The preceding outline would suggest that Bible translation must be a rigorously analytical and
a systematically comparative text-based exercise.478 A close parallel examination of a number of

476
“[A]ll translators should be able to perform a register analysis … in order to have an
understanding of the text they are translating which goes beyond the simple level of denotation and allows
them to choose the appropriate register in the target language …” (Fawcett 1997:83). Note that Fawcett
provides a helpful summary of some of the principal sociolinguistic aspects of register as these relate to
translation (ibid.:74–84).
477
If linguistically competent, bilingual staff are available, have them prepare a back-translation
into the TL of a good vernacular version in a closely related language, if one is available. This would
provide another excellent model, one that might be even more helpful than a version in one of the LWCs
that the translators “know” but are not really very competent in. If the vernacular model is too literal and
not “literary” enough, its text could be modified in the TL as the translators proceed.
478
In Wendland 2000a I present some explanatory notes as well as an illustration of this sort of a
practical text-comparative exercise.
212
versions, especially those in related languages, shows you how others have understood and
expressed the aspects of meaning presented by the same text that you are dealing with. It is
particularly important to pay special attention to the differences, both large and small (the latter
quickly add up to make a great disparity), that appear among the several versions consulted. Be
able to specify what these differences are in terms of linguistic form and what stylistic or
functional effect they have on the respective texts. In many cases, the diversity is simply a
reflection of the diverse languages involved or of different methods of translation, whether literal
or idiomatic. But at times the variants will be more significant. One or another may represent a
failure to convey the intended meaning (content + intent) or even an obvious error such as an
addition, modification, or omission.
Finally, it is important to extend this comparative method to the TL constituency, using
various formal and informal testing methods. In many settings, this will require the development
of oral-aural assessment procedures, not only written ones. The purpose is to gain enough
feedback—both corrective and suggestive—so that when the translation is published, whether as
portions or in its entirety, it will be met with the widest possible acceptance.
A careful comparative examination of texts, together with the insights gained in testing the
early drafts with TL speakers in various settings of use, will surely reveal problems. All of the
exegetical and translational difficulties that come to a translator’s attention during this process
need to be discussed, corrected if necessary, and perhaps also evaluated in terms of how they
originated. This is also a good time to consider the medium of communication with regard to
producing a more readable (legible) or hearable (intelligible) translation in terms of its intended
format of presentation.
(The References for both chapters 8 and 9 are found at the end of chapter 9.)

213
 9. Methodologies for Investigating the Oral-Aural Analysis,
Translation, and Transmission of Biblical Texts

9.1 Overview

Why is research in orality (and associated fields) becoming such an increasingly influential issue
in contemporary hermeneutics and the discourse analysis of biblical literature?479 There are
probably a number of reasons for this development, ranging from the elementary (as when print-
oriented scholars simply failed to consider the spoken word) to the more theoretical (when past
students of Scripture were too absorbed in documentary text-centered approaches, like source,
redaction, and form criticism). In the latter part of the twentieth century, however, when
scholarship began to pay more attention to the reception side of the communication cycle,480 the
phonic factor of discourse began to be investigated much more seriously. In conjunction with this
development, researchers discovered that the dimension of orality also figured prominently in
the initial composition of the biblical texts, which, as it turns out, were actually articulated aloud
while they were being verbally created.481

However, these studies then gave rise to an important methodological problem: What can
the exegete do about the critical loss of sonic significance in the original text, that is, the
unrecorded (and un-recordable) pragmatic meaning that was transmitted via the suprasegmental
prosodic features of sound, such as stress, volume, tempo, pause, intonation, and vocal quality?
The classic case to illustrate the relevance of this point is Pontius Pilate, who in response to
Christ’s self-testimony enigmatically responds: “What is truth?” (John 18:37–38). So was this, in
fact, a genuine question expressing the governor’s desire for some needed information from
Christ? Its intonation would have undoubtedly revealed whether or not it was. Furthermore,
when recording this passage in script, the Evangelist would have had the apposite sounds in mind
as he uttered and (he or a scribe) simultaneously penned the text. Or was this, as most scholars
assume, a rhetorical question indicating Pilate’s personal doubt that “truth” (whatever that was)
could be determined at all? If so, this query would have additionally conveyed the speaker’s
associated emotions and attitude towards his addressee and the current crisis situation that
brought them together (e.g., frustration, doubt, anger, hostility, harshness versus eagerness,
longing, reflection, or regret).482 Such vocal overtones thus constitute a crucial aspect of

479
At the 2011 SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco, for example, at least a dozen proposed
“program units” featured or involved different aspects of orality studies in relation to Scripture
interpretation and presentation. Theories and models of biblical discourse analysis may be found, for
example, in Porter and Reed 1999 and Wendland 2011:chs. 5–6. The great surprise (to me) is that the subject
of orality and its influence on literary texts does not seem to be one of great interest, importance, or influence in
the field of contemporary (secular) translation studies. One rarely sees this topic being mentioned at all in the
literature.
480
For example, Fowler 1991. More recently, it has been asserted that “[t]he modern audience
also bears the responsibility of hearing between the lines, of creating the story with the ancient author. In
our particular context as the people of God reading the Scriptures, we are all the more likely to be
persuaded by the argument we help complete, astonished by the pictures we help draw, and formed by
the story we help create” (Maxwell 2010:xiii-xiv; cf. 178). However, I would argue that such a perspective
gives far too much “responsibility” (or “liberty”) to today’s audiences (or readers). Our task is not to freely
“create” meaning together with the biblical author, but first and foremost rather to strictly “interpret” the
contextually intended sense and significance that was inscribed by the original author in the canonical text
(reading even “between the lines” of text) that has come down to us through the ages.
481
For a classic study of this subject, see Achtemeier 1990.
482
Often such intonational features are necessary to contrast one part of a discourse with another,
as for example, when Christ shifts from condemning “teachers of the law” for “devouring widows’ houses”
(Luke 20:46–47) to praising a poor widow for her total, self-consuming offering in the temple treasury
214
significance that we can only guess at today, using the information available from the immediate
context and the author’s characteristic discourse style.

This type of evaluation with respect to any potential implicit meaning has to be made when
rendering the biblical text in translation.483 At the most basic level, in Chewa for example, Pilate’s
query must be explicitly marked as being either real or rhetorical through the use of an
introductory question particle and the proper word order. In addition, an attitudinal overlay can
be conveyed by means of short intensifiers as well as exclamatory and emotive particles. But
what is to guide translators in making these decisions? Commentaries and the appropriate
Translator’s Handbook can help to a certain extent, but perhaps the greatest assistance may be
afforded by the translators themselves adopting a “performative approach” to the biblical
documents, especially where dialogue or dialogic texts (like the psalms, prophets, and epistles)
are concerned. This means that they try to “imagine” themselves as being in the current social
and communicative context described in Scripture passage at hand and then actually vocalize
how the different speakers might orally express themselves in that particular interpersonal
situation within the local culture. Such a sound- and setting-responsive translation strategy will
be discussed in further detail with reference to the selected texts that are considered in sections
II and III to follow.

9.2 Investigating Orality

The intertwined dimensions of orality and scribality (writing) in relation to the contextualizing
ANE milieu and the various compositions of Scripture have been investigated by an increasing

(21:3–4). Obviously, a chapter break (ch. 21) has been misplaced here, thus separating two interconnected
passages.
483
My position is that the “meaning” of any text is to be determined from the perspective of
presumed authorial intention, including any subsequent “editorial intention,” to the extent that such activity
was involved in the case of those texts that came to be regarded by the community of faith, Jewish and
early Christian, as being divinely “inspired” (cf. Wendland 2004b:52–53; Osborn 2006:495–99). I thus
distinguish a text’s so-called “sense,” or inscribed content, from its “significance,” the latter referring to
meaning as perceived, understood, and expounded by subsequent hearers, readers, interpreters, and
transmitters. How do we determine authorial intention when dealing with the biblical literature (sacred
tradition and sacred Scripture)? The SL text itself, its literary macro- and micro-structures, situated in its
presumed compositional context provides many hermeneutical clues, and so does the long line of recorded
scholarly and ecclesiastical interpretation over the years (a text’s hermeneutical “tradition”). How have
reliable exegetes and serious students of Scripture understood what the biblical author wrote, as recorded
after any editorial and scribal modifications in the final canonical document? (cf. Frank 2009). Of course,
in some cases a range of credible interpretations are available, but the possibilities are then limited by
recognized text-critical, literary and discourse analysis procedures, hermeneutical methods, published
exegetical studies, and for some, at least, the theological, superintending and unifying principal of divine
verbal “inspiration” (see, for example, Osborne 2006; Vanhoozer 1998; Thiselton 1992).
In those cases where the author of the text is either unknown (e.g., Judges) or disputed (e.g.,
Hebrews), perhaps it would be advisable to refer to what literary critics term “the implied author.” I define
this notion as the hypothetical “person” (“God” for inspirationists) who is posited as being the single
unifying mind (conception) and voice (producer) behind the compositional-editorial process (e.g., Psalms,
Luke-Acts) which has resulted in the document that exists in the canonical collection of the OT/NT. From
a secular perspective, “[t]he implied author is the image of the author projected by the text itself as the
creator of its art and meaning and norms. . . ; the implied author forms a construct embodying the overall
structure and may vary even from one work to another by the same writer. . . . The author/narrator exists
only as a construct, which the reader infers and fills out to make sense of the work as an ordered design
of meaning and effect” (Sternberg 1987:74–75, with reference to Wayne Booth’s The Rhetoric of Fiction).
The issue of authorial intention resulting in an authoritative “canon” of written texts (each arising from,
or leading to a sacred oral tradition) is an important hermeneutical perspective and a principle that will
resurface periodically in the various chapters of the present volume.
215
number of scholars in recent years.484 As noted above, some of the more helpful of these studies
have adopted the discipline of “performance criticism,” which “embraces many methods as
means to reframe the biblical materials in the context of traditional oral cultures, construct
scenarios of ancient performances, learn from contemporary performances of these materials,
and reinterpret biblical writings accordingly.”485 Several recent publications that give
prominence to the oral-aural factor have gone on to apply these findings to the practice of Bible
translation.486 In addition to the preceding works, there is a range of other communication-based
methodologies that encourage a serious consideration of the presence and influence of orality in
the Scriptures and which, in turn, assist exegetes and translators alike to probe this vital acoustic
facet of meaning as it is manifested in diverse biblical texts, prose as well as poetry. These
approaches are briefly summarized below along with several key references that expand upon
and further develop each distinct field of study.487

9.2.1 Conversational Analysis

Conversational analysis is a methodology that is derived from the broader discipline of

sociolinguistics.488 It investigates what people do when they converse with one another
(pragmatics)—over and above what they say (semantics). The emphasis here is upon implicatures
in discourse, that is, implicit information which is conveyed by the communicative context, or
social setting of speech, in conjunction with the words that are actually uttered. An implicature
results when one of the so-called “Gricean maxims” of conversation is deliberately deviated from
or exploited during the text-transmission process (Grice 1975:45–47). Thus, the varied
sociolinguistic, contextually determined “felicity conditions” (Grice’s term) that are associated
with this so-called “cooperative principle” involve the four basic “maxims” of quality (concerning
truthfulness), quantity (amount of information), relevance (utility, appropriateness), and manner
(clarity, brevity, and/or orderliness).489

Take Job 3:3, for example, where we hear the suffering Job say: “Let the day perish wherein
I was born, and the night which said, ‘A man-child is conceived’” (RSV). It would seem from this
formally-correspondent rendition that Job has indeed violated all of Grice’s felicity conditions
mentioned above. How can a “day,” let alone one’s own birthday, be done away with – or one’s
conception precede the day of one’s birth? Why would a person, no matter how much s/he is in
anguish, want to pronounce such a “curse” (v. 1)? And why all the apparent repetition in this
imprecatory utterance? The problem becomes even worse in other translations. A literal
rendering of the old Chewa Bible, for example, reads nearly unintelligibly as follows: “May the

484
We have, for the NT: Dewey 1994; Loubser 2007; Thatcher 2008; for the OT: Schniedewind
2004; Ben Zvi and Floyd 2000; Edelman and Ben Zvi 2009.
485
David Rhoads, from the introduction to the “Biblical Performance Criticism” series (Hearon and
Ruge-Jones 2009:i).
486
Maxey 2009; Wendland 2011; Rhoads forthcoming.
487
There is a certain amount of overlapping here with ch. 8; see also Rhoads 2006a-b, passim;
Maxey 2009:ch. 5.
488
“Sociolinguistics is the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including
cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on
society. . . . Sociolinguistics overlaps to a considerable degree with pragmatics. . . . It also studies how
language varieties differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion,
status, gender, level of education, age, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to
categorize individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to
place, language usage also varies among social classes, and it is these sociolects that sociolinguistics studies”
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Sociolinguistics; cf. for application in Bible translation, see Wendland
2004b:277–280, 299–300; 2008d:92–95).
489
For an elaboration of these concepts, see Hatim and Mason 1990:62–63; Hatim and Munday
2004:176.
216
day on which I was born be thrown away, and that night spoke, ‘It has stood still [i.e., become
pregnant] with him, a boy-child.” When one has access to a printed text, it is possible to go back
over the words in the effort to derive some sense from them. Simply hearing this passage
(certainly the Chewa version) read aloud, however, leaves the audience mystified; it is no wonder
to them that none of Job’s three friends wanted to “say a word to him” (Job 2:13b)!

The extent to which such maxims are evidenced in non-Western language-cultures has been
questioned, but this methodology can, after the necessary research in local modes and patterns
of conversation, be locally adapted and usefully applied in oral-aural translation testing
procedures. These methodologies would help to determine which particular factors cause
observed failures and miscues during interpersonal communication in different settings. For
example, does the TL version violate felicity conditions in terms of quality by conveying to
listeners wrong implicatures in their sociocultural context; of quantity by not building enough
redundancy into the text, hence making it too difficult to understand (thus crossing the threshold
of frustration); or of manner by a literalistic rendering that sounds unnatural in relation to normal
patterns of speech usage in the current situation being depicted in the biblical text?

9.2.2 Relevance Theory

Relevance theory (RT) focuses a single Gricean maxim (see above) and considers all inferential
communication, oral or written, to be governed by the twofold “principle of relevance.”
Accordingly, a specific text is deemed “optimally relevant” (conceptually satisfying and sufficient
to listeners) if it does two things. First, the speaker’s words must provide “adequate contextual
effects” for the audience with respect to their current “cognitive environment,” that is, the set of
pertinent assumptions which are activated by a given text in its cultural context. On the other
hand, the utterance must accomplish this “without requiring unnecessary processing effort,” that
is, without being too hard to understand (Gutt 1992:24–25). Hatim and Mason use effectiveness
and efficiency to describe this same mental process, which is also called the “minimax” principle
(“maximum effect for minimal effort”) (1990:91).490

The term “contextual effects” refers to information that serves to (a) provide important facts
(generating implications) that the listening community needs to know (and use); (b) guide them
in perceiving and interpreting speaker/author-intended implications; (c) eliminate extraneous or
erroneous assumptions; and/or (d) reinforce correct and necessary assumptions.491 However, in
keeping with the cognitive principle of relevance noted above, an internal default regulatory, or
balancing mechanism is always operative. Thus, any mental interpretive exercise must not result
in too much conceptual processing effort, thus outweighing the potential gain in contextual
effects. Relevance theory underscores the fact that a particular utterance (or discourse) always
requires its hearers to infer considerably more information than is furnished by the linguistic
forms of the text itself. They accomplish such understanding by selecting, more or less
automatically, the most helpful (relevant) inputs available at the moment—textual, contextual,
and memory-based (including one’s basic beliefs, presuppositions, cultural values, personal
recollections, and so forth) (Brown 2007:35).

Relevance is, therefore, an essential criterion not only during the interpretation of a text,
but also when assessing the acceptability of a given translation (Wendland 2008d:226–28). This
relates to a particular target group’s expectations of what the TL version should sound (read) like
in terms of style (linguistic form) and content, as well as their intentions with regard to how they
propose to use or apply it (that is, what its primary intended function is). In public
communication settings, especially where non-literates are concerned, the only way to determine

490
See also Hatim and Munday 2004:60.
491
Information derived from H. Hill 2009; cf. H. Hill et.al. 2011:25–28.
217
whether a certain translated text manifests the desired contextual effects, coupled with a suitable
level of communicative efficiency, is through a range of extensive and comprehensive oral-aural
testing techniques (e.g., Wendland 2004b:319–66). With reference to Job 3:3 mentioned above,
for example, one way to aid an audience, at least one listening in Chewa, to perceive the intended
purpose and relevance of such a passage would be to audibly signal the nature of Job’s words—
that is, to a way that fits the situational context more appropriately, e.g., with an intonation that
resounds with deep sorrow and mourning. Further clarity might be gained by subtly shifting the
focus somewhat from the past to the present—changing “cursing” the day of his birth (which
sounds either foolish or impossible) to “bewailing” the current circumstances that he was in (e.g.,
using an introductory speech margin such as, “He lamented saying…,” to indicate the discourse
genre).

9.2.3 Speech Act Theory

As its very designation implies, speech-act theory is of great significance when issues of orality
are considered with respect to the Scriptures. It is often used in conjunction with conversation
analysis (see above). The term “speech act” denotes the interactive purpose for which a segment
of discourse is expressed, whether the text is complete or partial, oral or written.492 Every speech-
act is commonly described as consisting of three components: (a) the locution, which is the overt
act of verbal representation (utterance/sentence, i.e., its form + content); (b) the illocution,
which refers to the focal functional force or communicative aim of the speaker/writer’s words
(e.g., to promise, warn, console, instruct); and (c) the perlocution, which denotes the actual effect
or perceived outcome of the utterance (e.g., persuasion, surprise, offense, confirmation). In short,
the locution is what is said; the illocution is what happens pragmatically when the locution is
uttered; the perlocution is the response of the hearer to what was said (Brown 2007:33).493

Speech acts (their illocutions in particular) may be described with varying degrees of
specificity. Various classificatory inventories have been proposed. I, for example, have proposed
describing speech acts with reference to the literature of Scripture as being: informative,
directive, expressive, evaluative, aesthetic, commissive, performative, and interactive in nature
(2004b:215–17).494 These disparate speech acts usually occur in combination, both sequentially
and simultaneously, to form complex “speech events.” Any utterance (spoken) or sentence
(written) may therefore be analyzed on several levels and to different degrees of detail. The
theory of speech acts highlights the interpersonal character of verbal communication, stressing
the initial intention of the speech source (speaker/writer) as a point of beginning any analysis.
On the other hand, the methodology also gives considerable attention to the responsive activity
of message consumers (hearers/readers) in the process.

The amount of correspondence between illocution and perlocution in the communicative

cycle is an area of interest when evaluating its relative quality, and no less so when translated
texts (written locutions) are involved. Obviously, it is important for translators to be aware of
this often implicit, pragmatic feature of biblical discourse in their initial analysis of a text of
Scripture. They must then endeavor to duplicate in their translation the main speech acts, or

492
Speech-act theory originated with Austin’s How to Do Things with Words (1975). When applied
to written discourse, communicative acts would probably be a better term than speech acts. Thiselton calls
attention to the theological significance of such communicative acts: “According to the central traditions
of the Old and New Testaments, communicative acts of declaration, proclamation, call, appointment, command,
worship, and most especially promise are constitutive of what it is for the word of God to become operative and
effective” (Thiselton 1999:151; original italics).
493
“[I]llocutionary acts are intended by the speaker, while perlocutionary effects are not always
intended” (Huang 2007:103–104).
494
In his generic “typology of speech acts,” Searle includes: representatives (assertives), directives,
commissives, expressives, and declaratives (Huang 2007:106–108).
218
functional aims of the passage. This would include its intended effects, such as rhetorical force
and oral-aural dynamics, which would be especially important when transmitting the text via
audio (-visual) media. As already noted, it is important to clearly signal the nature of the speech
act found in Job 3:3 in order to avoid possible misunderstanding in the TL. In many languages
this will be a “lament” or “[formal] complaint” (Chewa: -dandaula), for example, rather than a
“curse” (-temberera), which carries a rather serious negative connotation in the sociocultural
setting concerned (relating to traditional religious beliefs). In this case, the Chewa verb can also
be used reflexively, not simply directively, thus giving poignant vocal expression to the great
personal agony and grief that one is experiencing, whether or not anyone else happens to be
listening.

9.2.4 Argument-Structure Analysis

Argument structure analysis extends the notion of speech acts to encompass a broader,
rhetorically based system of analysis that situates a certain text within a specific setting of
communication.495 The key structural and pragmatic elements either explicitly or implicitly
involved in the formal presentation of an argument are displayed on the diagram below, as they
are assumed to exist in dynamic interrelationship with each other.496 The central constituent of
the entire argument strategy is posited as being the principal “speech act” of making a problem-
initiated, goal-oriented appeal, whether an exhortation to adopt a particular thought or action or
a prohibition of the same:497

495
This is not a simple task, and the manifold nature of communicating theological as well as
literary, rhetorically-fashioned texts in complex, or “multiple social, cultural, and ideological contexts”
(Robbins 2006:11) must be recognized and factored into the overall analysis process. The model presented
here is an adaptation of S. Toulmin’s proposed argument structure (Uses of Argument), where the “datum”
(corresponding to “motivation” in the diagram) “is the evidence presented as the basis for the claim,”
(corresponding to the “goal”), which “is the conclusion the argument seeks to establish,” and the “warrant”
(corresponding to the “appeal”) is the rational link between the two (Clark 1993:136). In addition, one
may need to note a “qualifier” (corresponding to “potency”) “to indicate the degree of strength conferred
by” the datum on the claim, and one may also “want to spell out some of the reasons a conclusion might
not follow”—the “rebuttal” (“exceptions”) (ibid.:138).
496
These components are presented in more detail and illustrated with reference to the epistle to
Philemon in Wendland 2004b:219–24.
497
This framework for text analysis must first be carefully “contextualized” with reference to the
worldview and value system of the Ancient Near East, as is done in the approach known as “social-scientific
criticism.” This would include such basic sociocultural perspectives and distinctions as honor-shame,
freedom-slavery, in group-out group, challenge-riposte, fictive kinship, imperial politics, polytheism,
corporate personality, reciprocity, and patronage (see Pilch and Malina 1993, especially as such issues
pertain to the practice of Bible translation (for some examples and case studies, see Neufeld 2008).
219
 SETTING (physical) CO-TEXT POTENCY498
| | |
| illocution | locution | perlocution
PROBLEM ========> MOTIVATION ========> APPEAL =======> GOAL
| | |
SITUATION (social) ASSUMPTIONS EXCEPTIONS

The motivation for the appeal consists of the different deductive and inductive types of
reasoning that the author/speaker employs in support of his argument. This cause-effect sequence
of [problem + motivation + (verbal) appeal  goal], along with its various textual extensions
or transformations, constitutes the essential backbone of any Old Testament or New Testament
hortatory (paraenetic) discourse, including segments of direct speech attributed to Christ (e.g.,
the “bread of life” teaching in John 6:25–59). The surrounding contextual factors give substance
to the pivotal hortatory appeal (exhortation to or prohibition from) in terms of related
presuppositions, assumptions, implications, implicatures, and other necessary background
information.

Translators need to keep these distinct, but interrelated interactive variables in mind, especially
when analyzing any argument-constituted text of Scripture, in order to transmit it both
meaningfully and also with equivalent impact and appeal in their language. A good way of
accomplishing this is by actually uttering the TL composition aloud in a public setting of
performance, giving it the appropriate setting-sensitive intonation and paralinguistic
modification, that is, in keeping with the overt content and implied sentiments being expressed.
Much pertinent material concerning the original environment and circumstances may well have
to be relegated to marginal notes or to the explanatory introduction of a given book, chapter, or
section—with corresponding oral devices being utilized for an audio Scripture production (e.g.,
informative “asides” marked by a separate speaking voice, a drum/gong/bell/etc., or a readily
recognized, repeated musical motif). Job’s plaintive lament of 3:3, for example, can be clearly
identified by prosodic and paralinguistic means in most languages (e.g., Chewa) through the apt
use of the correct oral intonation, pause, stress, tempo (slow), nasalization, and so forth. It is
important in the case of such expressive speech that the correct personal emotions and/or
attitudes get communicated along with the semantic content. In a printed text, on the other hand,
such pragmatic implications would obviously need to be conveyed in writing, either within the
text itself (e.g., by a verbal specifier such as “mourned” or “spoke sadly” in the speech margin of
v. 2)499 or indicated in the paratext (e.g., with an explanatory footnote).

9.2.5 Functionalist Strategy

A detailed functional approach to translation was being promoted and applied in the field for
several years before the appearance of de Waard and Nida’s popularization of this method for
Bible translators (de Waard and Nida 1986). Thus, the notion of “function” was a prominent

498
The variable “potency,” or verbal strength of an utterance (ranging from overt commands to
implicit prescriptions/prohibitions), includes the relative authority of the speaker, that is, explicit or
implicit references to his perceived ethos or ascribed status, prestige, and/or power to command the
addressees.
499
In a publication that features the creative use of format, certain prosodic features can be
conveyed by changes in the font style, for example, boldface for loudness, italics for emphasis, small
capitals for stress. Of course, such interpretive devices would need to be carefully explained in an
introduction so that readers know in advance how to interpret them, ideally when actually reading the
text aloud.
220
aspect of the Skopostheorie (‘purpose-theory’) school of translation pioneered by Reiss and
Vermeer and further developed more recently in the scholarly research of Christiane Nord.500
Functionalist writers stress the need for specifying, at the outset, the main communicative
objective that a particular translation is designed to perform for its target (“client”) audience
within a specific sociocultural situation and organizational structure.

The importance of developing an explicit, generally approved operational framework for a

translation project is also emphasized in functionalist studies. This is known as the translation
brief, which explicitly sets forth a “job description” with reference to the total communication
context. Such a description would include, for example, the major expectations of the TL
addressee(s), the medium via which the message will be transmitted, organizational matters,
available facilities and resources, the required qualifications of personnel, the proposed time
frame, and, if necessary, also the motivation for the text’s production and/or reception (Nord
1997:137). The chief component of a brief, then, makes explicit the precise purpose, or Skopos,
for which the translation is being made, with due regard for its primary audience and context of
use, and in keeping with the prevailing social and translational norms in the community. The
whole preparatory stage of research and planning must therefore be fully interactive and freely
“negotiated” between the proposed producer and consumer groups. A more complex brief and
Skopos are normally called for when a sacred, manifold-use text, such as the “Holy Scriptures,”
is to be translated.

A specification of the communicative functions of the source language (SL) text according
to its principal genre is the first part of the translator’s task. This must be followed by a
corresponding analysis of the target language (TL) in order to determine how to convey these
inscribed intentions of the source document through suitable vernacular stylistic devices and
rhetorical strategies in conjunction with the conventions that would apply to the designated text-
type and setting. My own “literary functional equivalence” (LiFE) methodology, which is a
development of de Waard and Nida’s functional approach to translation (Wendland 2004b:ch.
11), is one particular application of an oral-aural focused Skopos.501 The term “literary” (or
“oratorical”) conveys a twofold emphasis with reference to the artistry (forms) and the rhetoric
(functions) of the biblical text as well as its translation (Wendland 2004b: ch. 8). Special attention
is therefore accorded the TL and the search for oral and written (or mixed) genres that may serve
as functional equivalents to those found in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.502

500
Reiss and Vermeer 1984; Nord 1997; see also Wendland 2004b:50–53.
501
LiFE is not really a new method of translation, let alone a new theory—but simply proposes a
new application and option, an “extended range” model as it were, of the Nidan functional equivalence
approach (e.g., de Waard and Nida 1986). Thus a “literary” (or “oratorical”) version is one that in some
significant way capitalizes on available TL linguistic resources in order to duplicate or match general as well
as particular artistic devices and rhetorical techniques that are found in a given biblical text, whether that
be a selected pericope or a complete book. These features may range from the purely phonological (e.g.,
rhythmic, rhymed, euphonic style) to a complete genre-for-genre functional equivalence replacement. Such
“special effects” may be applied to any type of translation, whether basically literal or idiomatic in
nature—or somewhere in-between (depending on the project Skopos, primary audience, and principal
setting of use). This is not a matter of “adding” a more dynamic dimension to one’s translation; it is the
effort to more adequately reproduce or recreate what is already there—that is, clearly manifest within the
literature of Scripture.
Furthermore, as Carr rightly observes, the application of “literary studies” to the analysis of
Scripture has “helped focus the attention of scholars on the present form of the text, including concentric
and other patterns that may have played a prominent role in their memorization and performance . . .
Insofar as a literary approach aims to uncover literary dimensions that would have been recognizable to
ancient writers, performers, or hearers, it must be attentive to the oral-written dimension of such texts and
the aesthetics peculiar to such literature” (2005:292–93).
502
Pym defines equivalence as “a relation of ‘equal value’ between a source-text segment and a
target-text segment” (2010:7). Employed as a “paradigm” of translation, the notion of equivalence is
221
 Different degrees of LiFE application are possible, depending on considerations of
“relevance” (see above) in relation to a given project’s “translation commission” (brief), including
the major communicative goals (Skopos) of the envisaged version, the primary setting in which
it will be used, the medium of text transmission, and the working competence of the translators.
In the case of a longer passage like Job chapter 3, this may vary from a complete genre-for-genre
transposition (e.g., from poetry [SL] to rhetorical prose [TL]), to a much more limited treatment,
involving primarily the phonological structures (e.g., rhythmic lines) of a relatively literal,
linguistically conservative “liturgical” version. A rather close oratorical equivalent of Job’s
lament in Chewa, for example, is found in the ndakatulo genre of expressive lyric poetry, which
may be used on sad occasions as well as for joyful public celebration.

9.2.6 Frames of Reference

This approach offers a multifaceted, cognitive-based methodology for “contextualizing” a

translation project,503 not only the text per se, but also the entire supportive and enabling
infrastructure, including the preceding methods of communication-centered analysis. In Scripture
Frames and Framing, Wilt and Wendland posit a range of conceptual macro-constructs, moving
from the most general, i.e., cognitive (world-view) frames, down through sociocultural,
organizational, conversational, intertextual, and textual frames—to the most specific, i.e., utterance
and lexical frames.504 This simplified pedagogical, top-down perspective and strategy could, of
course, be reversed. In any case, it is important to point out the hypothetical character of these
posited categories and their assumed manifold interaction in the construction of meaning.

In past applications of basic frames theory and methodology to the practice of Bible
translation, the approach tended to be presented in a manner that was rather static and rigid. In
reality, however, hierarchically organized conceptual frames manifest fuzzy, flexible boundaries
that typically relate to one another in many different ways (e.g., analogy/metaphor,
association/metonymy) and are prioritized according to salience, relevance, appropriateness, etc.
during perception and cognition, depending on the social setting and physical circumstances.
They are dynamic, fluid mental constructs that are easily modified during any communication
activity, especially live performance events, under the influence of a host of factors that vary

foundational, but problematic in various respects, which Pym clearly documents (ibid.:20–21, 38–40).
However, various paradigmatic alternatives are either integrally related to equivalence, for example,
relevance theory and Skopos theory (ibid.:35–37, 44, 61), or they present even more problems in terms of
practical application when translating (e.g., descriptions, uncertainty, localization).
503
The concept of “frames of reference” derives from Gestalt psychological theory and is used to
designate the coordinated systems that compute and specify the various possible spatial relationships from
a certain perspective between an entity to be located (referent or figure) and an orienting landmark (or
ground) (Huang 2007:149; Katan 2004:169). So also, by metaphoric extension, a complete text, or some
element within it, may be cognitively “located” or specified in terms of a particular perspective with
reference to one or more of the distinct dimensions of its wider contextual setting, including the prominent
characteristics of its oral-aural environment.
504
See also Wendland 2008d:passim. On the “macro-structure” of cognition, then, co-occurring
syntagmatic (sociocultural, conversational, and textual) cognitive “frames” consist of paradigmatic
“categories” of “collocates” which are “filled” by general/specific “instances,” that is, with reference to
some governing (“prototypical”) frame in view and the prioritizing principle of “relevance” within a given
setting of use and the current instance of verbal discourse. The frames of reference model derives from
cognitive linguistic theory and essentially involves a “hyper-contextualized” approach to translation. In
other words, it offers a heuristic method for investigating all of the diverse, but interrelated situational
factors that inform and/or influence the interlingual interpretation and transmission of “meaning” during
the multifarious process of communicating a source language text with a clearly-defined audience group
in a given consumer language and sociocultural setting.
222
according to who is speaking to whom and how, when, where, or why.505 Such modification may
occur more or less automatically by intuition or as part of an active communicative strategy of
“negotiation” whereby one party seeks to persuasively present (or impose) his/her point of view
to (upon) another in order to accomplish certain pragmatic objectives.

One might further refine the framing model so as to render it more discerning, in particular
as a tool for analyzing oral-aural communication. To this end, one might posit ten, more precise
cognitive concepts (“micro”-frames) that may be verbally evoked, in multiple interrelated sets,
during the production and interpretation of any literary (also biblical) discourse.506 These include
mutually-interactive relationships that may be temporal, spatial, substantive (involving entities),
eventive, attributive (qualities, characteristics), social (interpersonal), logical (propositional),
locutionary (dialogic speech-acts), textual (or intertextual), and literary/oratorical (genre based)
in nature.507 Such notions (among others possible) may be viewed as different aspects of the
textual macro-frame, which functions as a constituent of the wider contextualizing sociocultural
frames noted above. Together, in flowing, changeable, kaleidoscopic fashion and ordered
according to one’s current interest and concerns, they serve as the overall conceptual framework
that may be associated with, or evoked by, a specific text when heard (or read) in a well-defined
circumstantial setting.508

From an interpreter’s perspective in relation to an explicit cotext and context, these distinct
but overlapping and interactive frames, or “schemata,”509 are evoked and construed semiotically
on the basis of textual “signs” (phonological/graphological, lexical, syntactic) within the

505
The “why” question would subsume issues of ideology, that is, one’s basic interpretation of
reality, including one’s fundamental beliefs, values, fears, goals, and philosophy of life—in short, one’s
“worldview.” Thus, the activity of Bible translation is inevitably ideologically motivated, managed, and
unfortunately at times manipulated by those in a position of social and/or religious “power” in relation to
their collaborators, for example, with respect to the selection of translators (perhaps favoring a certain
denomination or dialect), the specific type/style of translation being made (literal  idiomatic), the
medium of transmission (favoring literacy over orality), the inclusion of supplementary helps (which ones,
if any, and how many), etc. (cf. Maxey 2009:3).
Furthermore, Robert Bascom points out that “Once frames (or roles . . .) are seen as dynamic
processes within the larger context of human interaction, all frame typologies and their interrelations (e.g.,
Wendland, Contextual Frames, 6) can be seen as the description of particular examples, or possible frozen
moments in time. Which frame will encompass the other cannot be determined beforehand in more than
a general or superficial way” (2010:51). However, as Mona Baker has observed in this connection: “The
idea, then, is not to throw lists of apparently static components out altogether but to use them merely as
starting points for analysis, to acknowledge that they are not all necessarily relevant in every context and,
more importantly, that every element is open to negotiation in the course of a given interaction”
(2006:328).
506
As Robbins notes, “throughout the millennia humans have continually used forms, which
cognitive scientists now call ‘frames,’ in one conceptual domain to understand and interpret forms in
another domain” (2009:99). In a recent study V. Matthews employs “frame analysis” as a hermeneutical
tool in analyzing the conversations of Hebrew discourse (2008:74–99).
507
See Wendland, “Framing the Frames” (2010). Another proposed grid for classifying the various
metonymic relationships between cognitive frames, or more specifically, the “conceptual relations that
connect elements in mental spaces” is found in Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner: Change, Identity, Time,
Space, Cause-effect, Part-whole, Representation, Role-value, Analogy, Disanalogy, Property, Similarity,
Category, Intentionality, Uniqueness (2006:336–37).
508
As noted in Wilt and Wendland 2008:ch.1, cognitive frames not only influence perception and
provide focus and perspective, but they are also conceptually malleable (they may be expanded or
reshaped) and interactive with other frames in a given communication setting (e.g., through embedding,
overlapping and juxtaposing).
509
The conceptual “activation” process for such interpretive frames undoubtedly involves the
situational context of the extralinguistic communicative event as well as the verbal text. One’s perception
and comprehension is also guided by the cognitive inferential principle of relevance, as outlined above.
223
discourse at hand. They are then combined, prioritized, and “negotiated” in context according to
the principle of salience (or “relevance”) to form an interpretive mental framework—a “virtual
text” (Katan 2004:169)—for deriving the overall “intended meaning” from the verbal passage
being examined. Each mental frame, or perceptual “window” on the world of the text in its
situational location, attaches various associated ideas, images, connotations, collocations,
emotions, values, etc. to the frame. These “frame-fillers” are normally very culture- (> society-
> area- > group-) and individual-specific. A progression is thus formed, moving from less to
more particular, with the latter perspectives becoming increasingly difficult for others (who view
life from outside a given sociocultural frame) to perceive, analyze, and evaluate precisely and/or
correctly.

A flexible frames-of-reference approach, coupled with one or more of those already

mentioned, e.g., specifying a descriptive, relevance, or functionalist perspective, can assist Bible
translation planners and implementers in giving more nuanced attention to the issue of orality
when carrying out the interconnected phases of their project. This would comprise practical
measures such as selecting community-recognized vernacular text composers who are familiar
with, or even experts in, the oral-aural and musical art forms of their language (e.g., the
traditional musician-storyteller, griot, of W. Africa, or the imbongi praise poet of S. Africa). The
selection process should include reviewers who are capable of evaluating draft translations for
their phonological qualities (euphony, resonance, rhyme) and can propose improvements to
render the text easier to articulate aloud and more “hearable” to a listening audience. Such
qualities would be needed, for example, if the project brief stipulated a “lyric lament” as the
genre to be adopted, or at least mimicked, when rendering Job’s bitter elegy-like poem of chapter
3 into a cadenced TL oral, or even musical equivalent.510

9.2.7 Performance Criticism

The crucial dimension of “performance” has already been touched on above, but in this section,
I will briefly note several important applications of the discipline of “performance criticism” to
Bible translation.511 First of all, with regard to the “art” of translation and the consequent need
to have verbal, especially oral, “artists” on a Bible translation team, the case could not be stated
more clearly than in the following quote from David Rhoads:

Translation is an art, because the act of rendering biblical works into contemporary
languages is more than a purely technical process. It is an artistic achievement. Translation
involves, first, understanding the profound content, the significant artistry, and the
powerful impact of the original languages of the writings in the Bible in their context.
Second, translation involves finding contemporary ways to express the meanings, the
power, the vibrancy, the passion, and the potential impacts of the original compositions
in modern tongues. (Rhoads forthcoming)

510
As Dan Fitzgerald cautions, however, “musical genres, like discourse genres, cannot be ‘adopted’
or ‘mimicked’ as relevantly or easily as one might presume” (personal correspondence). Competent and
experienced staff (in terms of training, research, etc.) must be available to guide and evaluate the choices
made in terms of genre, musical style, appropriateness, and so forth.
511
“Performance criticism is a critical methodology used to analyze the way in which repeatable
and socially recognizable events [featuring some public oral composition] use specific techniques to
powerfully express social values and themes. . . . Performance criticism is concerned with identifying,
describing and analyzing a performative event in which there is the presentation of character and event
by actors using formal patterns that might include gesture, costume and speech in order to create a shared
imaginative reality between actor and spectator” (Giles 2012:578, material in brackets added). Mathews
provides a helpful “introduction to performance studies” in terms of a set of “performance themes” and a
selection of “performance features” (2012: ch. 2).
224
 Since the diverse writings to be found in the Scriptures arguably are literature—artfully
fashioned literature—a literary-rhetorical approach must be correspondingly applied to analyze
and translate them, and this requires that adequate attention be given to the sound as well as the
shape of the text.512 Consequently, translation must be practiced with an artistic eye, as it were,
and an ear on the source language document as well as the draft being rendered in the local
vernacular. The paratext, descriptive footnotes for example, might include references to text-
complementing gestures, facial expressions, body stances and movements, perhaps even
appropriate indigenous musical accompaniments. Such creativity is especially relevant in the
case of the poetic works of the Bible that give evidence of a mode of verbal communication in
which the form, including the phonology, of the original message (the Hebrew/Greek text) is
undeniably a part of the meaning. This functional import is not always specifically semantic in
nature, but it is certainly pragmatic (having interpersonal implications) in terms of its aesthetic,
affective, as well as imperative impact and appeal. Lyric texts, such as the Psalms, the Song of
Songs, and many portions of Revelation, if not actually composed to be sung, were undoubtedly
fashioned to have an melodic oral-aural effect that would be stimulated by a distinctive manner
of public elocution, e.g., chanting, recitation, cantillation, or some type of creative musical
expression.513

Of course, the oral-and-aural factor is not the only, or even the preeminent feature to keep
in mind when translating the Bible, but it has so often and for so long been ignored or neglected,
that it is important to underscore, perhaps even to over-emphasize its significance when
selecting, training, guiding, and monitoring teams today. In fact, a “performance-oriented”
approach can even be employed as a hermeneutical and also a translational technique in the
extended compositional process. As one eminent scholar and practitioner suggests, from
extensive personal experience:

Translation is a demanding and exacting discipline, even while being significantly artful.
I have found that the act of translating for performances I have done is one of the most

512
Although in the introductory chapter of his book on “the Bible’s aesthetic secrets,” Mazor argues
that “the Bible is neither art nor literature, and following, there is no biblical literature” (2009:22), his
subsequent detailed text analyses paradoxically demonstrate just the opposite. Even his closing chapter
summaries express such a contradictory perspective, for example: “Thus, the biblical text creates an
aesthetic intersection where two aesthetic devices (compositional and rhetorical) conjoin, not only for
poetic purposes, but more importantly, as an enhancement of the ideological message that they corroborate
and amplify” (ibid.:134). “In the biblical portion discussed [Hosea 5:1-3], the artistic virtue of the text is
embodied in the dialectic interplay between structure and rhetoric . . . Structure is not just an indifferent
container into which one pours rhetorical thought; it is a framework that shapes rhetoric to achieve a
particular effect. Therefore, one may speak in the same breath of structural rhetoric (a rhetorical concept
that lends itself to a particular framework) and rhetorical structure (a particular framework that lends
itself to a rhetorical concept). There is nothing between them but the artist’s genius” (ibid.:158). I seek to
demonstrate the same intertwined artistically enacted structural principles and rhetorical purposes with
respect to several smaller biblical books in Prophetic Rhetoric.
513
With regard to the additional communicative dimension of biblical songs, we note that “[t]hey
make the unfamiliar familiar, aid in memory, help create feelings of belonging, preserve and pass traditions
from one generation to the next, and communicate on multiple levels through rhythm, melody, and
harmony, all in addition to the lyrics . . . The songs are used to reconstruct the past in such a way as to
assist in forming a concrete social identity among the reading and listening audience with the goal of creating
a commitment or obligation to a specific ideal, value, or belief” (Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 2–3, 10;
original italics). In the Scriptures then we have abundant evidence of this practical communicative
principle in application: “Orality and writing technology are joint means for accomplishing a common
goal: accurate recall of the treasured tradition” (Carr, Writing, 7)—indeed, the very words of God and his
spokesmen. The Apostle Paul refers to this vital trans-generational mnemonic function of the songs of the
saints in Colossians 3:16, and adds the pastoral functions of “teaching and admonishing” (διδάσκοντες καὶ
νουθετοῦντες).
225
 significant means for understanding a biblical text. Translating for performance leads one
to grasp in fresh ways the potential meanings of the composition, the oral arts evident in
the text, the significance of sound as a medium for communicating the Bible, and the
experience of the rhetorical impact on an audience. I believe that translating for orality
can enhance the exegetical process such that exegetes become (oral) translators and that
translators become (oral) exegetes—and that both try their hand at performing! (Rhoads
forthcoming)

How should a performer of Job’s lament (ch. 3), for example, orally articulate and visually
display the translated text (assuming that an appropriate TL genre had already been selected and
prepared for this public purpose)? Who would he envisage his primary audience to be—God,
Job’s three friends, the entire Joban community, himself (this is not specified by the text; any
contemporary audience would be secondary). As already noted, in the case of any communal
performance, it is not only a vocalization of this pericope that is involved (e.g., intonational
shading and emphasis) but also overt modes of dramatic expression such as the orator’s
interpretive facial features, hand-arm gestures, as well as dynamic body movements and
suggestive positioning (e.g., mournfully bowed low to the ground or facing up to God, as deemed
appropriate in the culture concerned).

A performance-based methodology can also serve another vital function, namely, to get the
translation’s “host community” more actively involved in the project from the very beginning,
while the first texts are being drafted, rather than at the very end, as happens all too often.
Widespread public “acceptability” (transferred then to actual use) is the ultimate goal of any
translation, and the sooner that the primary client audience can become meaningfully “engaged”
in the process of evaluating and improving the team’s drafts, the more effective the project will
be in terms of accomplishing its communicative intentions (Skopos). This is because
“[u]ltimately, the value of understanding Bible Translation as contextualization and performance
must be measured by host communities who are the agents for translation and contextualization”
(Maxey 2009:196). Thus from one language, culture, and community to another the task goes on—
the Word being contextualized and enriched by every human setting, sense, and sound in which
it is verbally embodied and orally proclaimed.

9.3 Application of Orality-Oriented Methodologies to Bible Translation

To summarize this chapter, I might draw attention to three major aspects of the application of
orality research to the practice of Bible translation, with special reference to the seven
methodologies that were outlined above:

 Analysis of the written text: A full discourse analysis, comprising form (structure plus style), content
(denotation, including implication, plus connotation), and function (major and minor pragmatic
goals), is the foundation for any serious exegetical study. This necessarily incorporates an examination
of the various oral-aural and/or performative dynamics that hypothetically underlie and are reflected
in the biblical text (as recorded in the canon), whether expressed explicitly or implicitly. These facets
of orality are especially evident—and important—in narrative dialogue portions and the proclamatory
discourses of prophetic and epistolary literature (note, in particular, conversational, speech-act, and
argument-structure analysis).

 Translation of the analyzed text: Corresponding oral-aural features must be carefully selected from
the literary (oratorical) inventory of the target language so that the translation matches as closely as
possible not only the semantic content (both expressed and implied), but also the communicative
functions and speech acts that were identified in the source text. In this effort, it is crucial for translators
to capitalize on specific structural and stylistic devices that are not only available in the vernacular

226
 but also natural in relation to the primary medium of message transmission as well as the literary or
oral genre being rendered (note the functionalist, frames of reference, and relevance approaches).

 Articulation of the translated text: The translation should be periodically tested and systematically
evaluated with regard to the relative quality of its sound dimension. Such assessment is carried out
both orally in terms of its relative ease of enunciation, and also aurally, that is, reviewing how the
text “resounds” when it is publicly expressed aloud. Ideally, the text in question would be an
“oratorical” version which is articulated by a practiced (experienced, recognized) performer who can
dramatically proclaim, recite, chant, sing, or otherwise vocalize and display the target language
version, including a judicious use of non-verbal performance features. This would be in keeping with
its indigenous genre or sub-genre, the type of biblical content being expressed, and the preferred or
designated audience-setting of communication (note the discipline and practice of performance
criticism).

Each of the seven methodologies may be applied at any of the three phases of interlingual
communication process, but they seem especially pertinent at the particular stages described
above. It is clear then that considerations of orality and its influence on written compositions
appreciably affect the foundational interpretation as well as the subsequent exposition and
transmission of the assorted literary documents that comprise the Scriptures. Such attention
would be most obvious in the production of audio (-visual) versions, but as has been suggested,
this concern is relevant also in the case of published Bibles—perhaps more so, in view of the fact
that the significance of the phonic dimension is not as apparent in a text that is normally read
from the printed page, either in public or silently to oneself. The translation program outlined
above highlights the communicative capacity as well as the necessity of an oral-aural approach,
the goal of which is to inject vibrant living sound, analogous to the original, back into the
Scriptures as they are dynamically re-textualized in a contemporary vernacular version.

Various aspects of the current debate concern differing theories about orality, scribality, and
the transmission of the text of Scripture in ancient times, in relation to both the Old and the New
Testaments of the Christian Bible. These areas of controversy do raise a number of important
hermeneutical questions that concern all biblical text analysts and interpreters, including those
who are somehow involved in the interlingual, cross-cultural, oral-aural oriented communication
of the Scriptures today. One’s perspective on the quality, reliability, and indeed, the authority of
the original text will inevitably affect how one handles it in translation.514

In chapter 3 of Orality and Scripture (2013), I overview selected aspects of the current debate
that has arisen with respect to various theories involving orality, scribality, and the transmission
of the text of Scripture in ancient times—that is, in relation to both the Old and the New
Testaments of the Christian Bible. These areas of controversy do raise a number of important
hermeneutical questions that concern all biblical text analysts and interpreters, including those
who are somehow involved in the interlingual, cross-cultural, oral-aural oriented communication

514
Indeed, if the New Testament is essentially a “forged” document, as Bart Ehrman claims (2011),
then why should disillusioned believers want to translate the text at all? However, as B. Witherington
counters with reference to obvious scribal modifications (e.g., in the Western text of Acts): “The bottom
line is I do not see any evidence of a conspiracy theory – that is an attempt to cover-up original texts. I see
plenty of evidence of attempts to amplify, clarify and rephrase what the original texts said in ways that
are helpful to the 2nd and 3rd Century church. Some of this is just pastoral. They are assuming that the
literate persons who would read this or hear this might not would understand it without clarification.
Because the church of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries is very different from the very largely Jewish church of
the 1st Century, the readers and listeners needed some help” (2012a; see also Witherington’s refutation of
Ehrman’s allegations, 2012b).
227
of the Scriptures today. One’s perspective on the quality, reliability, and indeed, the authority of
the original text will inevitably affect how one handles it in translation.515

9.4 Bibliography of Translation in relation to Orality and Biblical Studies

Achtemeier, P. 1990. “Omni verbum sonat: The New Testament and the environment of Late Western Antiquity.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 109:3–27.
Agourides, S. 1968. “The ‘High Priestly Prayer’ of Jesus.” Studia Evangelia 4:137–45.
Allison, D. C. 2010. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Amzallag, N. and M. Avriel. 2011. “The canonic responsa reading of Psalm 114 and its theological significance.” Old
Testament Essays 24/2: 303–323.
Arrojo, R. 2011. “Writing, interpreting, and the struggle for control of meaning.” Translation [Inaugural Issue]: 34–
35.
Assmann, J. 2006. “Memory as a mnemonic device: Cultural texts and cultural memory.” In Horsley, et. al., 67–82.
Arduini, S. and S. Nergaard. 2011. “Translation: A new paradigm.” Translation (inaugural edition), 9–15.
Aune, D. E. “Jesus tradition and the Pauline letters.” In Kelber and Byrskog, 63–86.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Bailey, K.E. 2011. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Downers Grove: IVP
Academic.
Baker, M. 2011. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
__________. 2006. “Contextualization in translator– and interpreter–related events.” Journal of Pragmatics 38:325–28.
__________., and G. Saldanha, eds. 2008. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London & New York:
Routledge.
Banker, J. 1997. A Semantic and Structural Analysis of Philippians. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Banti, G. and F. Giannattasio. 2004. “Poetry.” In A. Duranti, ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden,
MA: Blackwell, 290–319.
Barnett, P. 2005. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bartholomew, G. L. 1987. “Feed my lambs: John 21:15–19 as oral gospel.” Semeia 39:69–96.
Bascom, R. 2010. “Review of E. Wendland, Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation.” The Bible Translator
61/1:51–53.
Basevi C., and J. Chapa. “Philippians 2:6–11: The rhetorical function of a Pauline ‘hymn’.” In Porter and Olbricht,
338–356.
BasisBibel. 2010. http://www.basisbibel.de/basisbibel-nt/bibeltext/basisbibel/ bibeltext/ lesen/stelle/76/50001/
59999/, accessed on September 1, 2010.
Bassnett, S. 2011. “The translation turn in cultural studies” (excerpt from the article in S. Bassnett and A. Lefevre,
eds., Constructing Cultures: Essays in Literary Translation, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998). Translation
(inaugural issue), 78–79.
Bauckham, R. 2006. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids and
Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Bauman, R. 1992. “Performance.” In R. Bauman (ed.). Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments:
A Communication-Centered Handbook. New York: Oxford UP, 41–49.
___________. 1984. Verbal Art as Performance. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. 1987. John. Waco: Word Books.
Bellos, D. 2011. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New York: Faber and Faber.
Ben Zvi E., and M. H. Floyd, eds. 2000. Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature.

515
Indeed, if the New Testament is essentially a “forged” document, as Bart Ehrman claims (2011),
then why should disillusioned believers want to translate the text at all? However, as B. Witherington
counters with reference to obvious scribal modifications (e.g., in the Western text of Acts): “The bottom
line is I do not see any evidence of a conspiracy theory – that is an attempt to cover-up original texts. I see
plenty of evidence of attempts to amplify, clarify and rephrase what the original texts said in ways that
are helpful to the 2nd and 3rd Century church. Some of this is just pastoral. They are assuming that the
literate persons who would read this or hear this might not would understand it without clarification.
Because the church of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries is very different from the very largelyJewish church of
the 1st Century, the readers and listeners needed some help” (2012a; see also Witherington’s refutation of
Ehrman’s allegations, 2012b).
228
Berg, T. F. 1989. “Reading in/to Mark.” Semeia 48:187–206.
“Biblesocieties.” 2010 http://intranet2.biblesocieties.org/intranet/news/view.php?id=1253, accessed February 6,
2010.
Biven, D. 2007. New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context. Holland: En-Gedi
Resource Center.
Black, D. A. 1985. “Paul and Christian unity: A formal analysis of Philippians 2:1–4.” Journal of Evangelical
Theological Society 28:299–308.
Blass, R. 2011. “How orality affects the use of pragmatic particles, and how it is relevant for translation.” In S. E.
Runge (ed.). Discourse Studies and Biblical Interpretation: A Festscrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn.
Bellingham, WA: Logos Software version, 57–66.
Boda, M. J. and J. G. McConville, eds. 2012. Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Downers Grove: IVP
Academic.
Booth, W. 1961. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Botha, P. J. J. 1990. “Mute manuscripts: Analyzing a neglected aspect of ancient communication.” Theologia
Evangelica 23:35–47.
Boswell, F. 2010. “Update.” http://www.sil.org/sil/annualreport/2010-sil-update.pdf, accessed on July 30, 2011.
Brant, J. A. 2004. Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.
Breck, J. 1994. The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Brickle, J. E. 2011. “Seeing, hearing, declaring, writing: Media dynamics in the letters of John. In Le Donne and
Thatcher, 11–28.
Briggs, R. S. 2008. “Speech-Act Theory.” In Firth and Grant, 75–110.
Brown, J. K. 2007. Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Bulkeley, T. 2010. “Oral/ aural qualities of the KJV/AV.” http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/bible/auraloral-qualities-
of-the-kjvav/, accessed on June 10, 2011.
Byrskog, S. 2009. “Introduction.” In Kelber and Byrskog, 1–20.
Campbell, A. F. 1989. “The reported story.” Semeia 46:77–85.
__________. 2002. Story as History: History as Story. Leiden: Brill.
Carlson, M. 2003. Performance: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Carattini, J. 2011. “In defense of listening.”
http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/10799/cbmoduleid/1133/default.aspx.
Carson, D. A. 1991. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Carr, D. M. 2010. “Torah on the heart: Literary Jewish textuality within Its ancient Near Eastern context.” Oral
Tradition 25/1:17–40.
__________. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Carter, W. 2006. John: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Chiaro. D. 2009. “Issues in Audiovisual Translation.” In Munday, 141–65.
Childs, B. 2001. Isaiah (OTL). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Clark, D. K. 1993. Dialogical Apologetics: A Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Coleman, J. 1992. Ancient and Medieval Memories: Studies in Reconstruction of the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP.
Cowan, N. 2001. “The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity.”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:97–185.
Culley, R. C. 2000. “Orality and Writtenness in the Prophetic Texts.” In Ben Zvi and Floyd, 45–64.
Davies, P. 1998. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox.
Davis, C. W. 1999. Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of
Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Dempster, S.G. 2006. “The prophets, the canon and a canonical approach: No empty word. In C. Bartholomew, S.
Hahn, R. Parry, C. Seitz, and A. Wolters, eds., Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
293–329.
De Regt, L. J., J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman, eds. 1996. Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the
Hebrew Bible. Assen: Van Gorcum.
DeSilva, D. A. 2009. Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox.
De Vries, L. 2008. “Bible translation and primary orality.” In Wendland 2008d:297–310.

229
De Waard J., and E. A. Nida. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Dewey, J., ed. 1994. Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature (Semeia 65). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Doane, A. N. 1994. “The ethnography of scribal writing and Anglo Saxon poetry: Scribe as performer.” Oral
Tradition 9:420–439.
Doan, Wm. J., and T. Giles. 2005. Prophets, Performance, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
New York: T&T Clark.
Dudrey, R. 2003. “1 John and the Public Reading of Scripture.” Stone Campbell Journal 6:235–255.
Dunn, J. D. G. 2011. “John’s gospel and the oral gospel tradition.” In Le Donne and Thatcher, 157–185.
__________. 2003. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Edelman, D. V., and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds. 2009. The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in
Yehud. Oakville, CT: Equinox.
Ehrman, B. 2011. Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.
New York: HarperCollins.
Engle, D. 2010. “Review of David Rosenberg, A Literary Bible: An Original Translation.”
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7446_8120.pdf, accessed April 11, 2010.
Erickson, R. J. 2005. A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Exegesis: Taking the Fear out of the Critical Method.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Eshleman, P. 2010. “The state of the unfinished task.” Mission Frontiers 32/4:11–12.
Fauconnier G., and M. Turner. 2006. “Conceptual integration networks.” In D. Geeraerts (ed.). Cognitive Linguistics:
Basic Readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 303–371.
Fee, G. D. 1995. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
__________. 1997. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Firth, D. G., and J. A. Grant, eds. 2008. Words & the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation & Literary Theory.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Fishbane, M. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Fitzgerald, D. 2011. Why Kùnda sings: Narrative discourse and the multifunctionality of Baka song in Baka story.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Floyd, M. H. 2000. “‘Write the revelation!’ (Hab 2:2): Re-imagining the cultural history of prophecy.” In Ben Zvi and
Floyd, 103–43.
Foley, J. M. 1991. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Folger, T. 2008. “Science’s alternative to an intelligent Creator: The multiverse theory.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator, accessed June 29,
2012.
Fowl, S. E. 2005. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Fowler, R. 2009. “Why everything we know about the Bible is wrong.” In Hearon and Ruge-Jones, 3–18.
__________. 1991. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Frank, D. 2009. “Do we translate the original author’s intended meaning?” Paper presented at the Bible Translation
Conference, Dallas, October 2009.
Frendo, J. 2011. Pre-exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact. New York: T&T
Clark.
Friedman, M. D. 2002. “In defense of authenticity.” Studies in Philology 99/1:33-56.
Gamble, H. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven and
London: Yale UP.
Garland, D. E. “Philippians.” In T. Longman and D. E. Garland (eds.). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 175–261.
Gentry, P. J. 2012. "The Septuagint." In W. Grudem, C. J. Collins, and T. R. Schreiner (eds.). Understanding
Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning. Wheaton: Crossway, 157–165.
Gerhardsson, B. 2005. “The secret of the transmission of the unwritten Jesus tradition.” New Testament Studies
51:1–18.
__________. 2001. The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
__________. 1998. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early
Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
__________. 1964. Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Lund: Gleerup.
__________. 1961. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early
Christianity, with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (ASNU 22). Lund: Gleerup.
Giles, T. 2012. “Performance criticism.” In Boda and McConville. 578–583.

230
Giles, T., and William J. Doan. 2009. Twice Used Songs: Performance Criticism of the Songs of Ancient Israel.
Peabody MA: Hendrikson.
Gitay, Y. 2009. “History, literature and memory.” Journal of Semitics 18/2:275–300.
Gitay, Y. 1991. Isaiah and His Audience: The Structure and meaning of Isaiah 1–12. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Goethals, G. 1997. “Multimedia images: Plato’s cave revisited.” In Hodgson and Soukup, 229–248.
Gordon, T. D. 2010. “A literate ministry.” Tabletalk May:75–76.
Graham, Wm. A. 2010. “Summation.” Oral Tradition 25/1: 231–238.
__________. 1987. Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.
Greenlee, J. H. 1992. An Exegetical Summary of Philippians. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Grice, P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New
York: Academic Press, 41–58.
Grudem, W., L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter. 2005. Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially
Literal Bible Translation. Wheaton: Crossway.
Guthrie, G. H. 1995. “Cohesion shifts and stitches in Philippians.” In Porter and Carson, 36–59.
Gutt, E-A. 1992. Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas: SIL International.
Habel, N. 1985. The Book of Job. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
Haenchen, E. 1984. John 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Haines-Eitzen, K. 2000. Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hansford, K. L. 1992. “The underlying poetic structure of 1 John.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics
5/2:126–174.
Hatim, B., and I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Hatim B., and J. Munday. 2004. Translation: Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.
Harvey, J. D. 1998. Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Hawkins, R. K. 2012. Review of Anthony J. Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating
Text and Artefact, Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org, accessed on February 10, 2012.
Hawthorne, G. F. 1983. Philippians. Waco: Word Books.
Hayes, J. H., ed. 1999. Dictionary of Biblical Criticism (two volumes). Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Hearon, H. E. 2010. “The interplay between written and spoken word in the Second Testament as background to the
emergence of written Gospels.” Oral Tradition 25/1:57-74
Hearon, H. E., and P. Ruge-Jones, eds. 2009. The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media: Story and Performance.
Eugene OR: Cascade Books.
Heil, J. P. Philippians: 2010. Let Us Rejoice in Being Conformed to Christ. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Heim, K. M. 2010. “Solving the riddle of ’Amon: Wordplay in Proverbs 8:30.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, November 2010, 1–16.
Herington, C. J. 1993. “Greek Poetry—The Hellenistic Age.” In A. Preminger and T.V.F. Brogan (eds.), The New
Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 486–488.
Hess, R. S. 2008. “Scribes.” In T. Longman III and P. Enns (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry &
Writings. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 717–720.
Hezser, C. 2010. “Oral and written communication and transmission of knowledge in ancient Judaism and
Christianity.” Oral Tradition 25/1:75-92.
Hill, H. 2009. “Adjusting contextual mismatches: Do study Bibles provide a good model?” Paper presented at the
Bible Translation Conference, Dallas, October 2009.
Hill, H., E-A. Gutt, M. Hill, C. Unger, and R. Floyd. 2011. Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a
Relevant Way. Dallas: SIL International.
Hirsch, E. D, Jr. 1976. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hobbins, J. 2010 “Retaining and transcending the classical description of ancient Hebrew verse.”
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_ poetry/2005/04/retaining_the_s.html, accessed on
July 3, 2010.
Hock, R. F. and E. N. O’Neill. 1986. The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, vol. 1: The Progymnasmata. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
Hodgson, R. 1997. “An urgent need: God’s Word in a post-literate world.” In Hodgson and Soukup, 3–13.
Hodgson, R., and P. A. Soukup, eds. 1997. From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating the
Scriptures in New Media. New York: American Bible Society.
Holland, G. S. 2007. “Playing to the groundlings: Shakespeare performance criticism and performance criticism of
the biblical texts.” Neotestamentica 41/2:317–340.

231
Hooker, M. D. 2000. “The Letter to the Philippians.” In L. E. Keck (ed.). The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. XI.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 469–549.
Horsley, R. A. 2010. “Oral and written aspects of the emergence of the Gospel of Mark as Scripture.” Oral Tradition
25/1:93–114.
__________. 2006. “Introduction.” In Horsley, et. al., vii–xvi.
__________, J. A. Draper, and J. M. Foley, eds. 2006. Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
House, P. R. 1989. Zephaniah: A Prophetic Drama. Sheffield: Almond Press.
Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huttar, G. 2010. “Review of Introduction to Cognition and Communication by K. Stenning, A. Lascarides, and Jo
Calder (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).” http://www.sil.org:8090/silebr/2010/silebr2010-011, accessed
March 3, 2010.
Jaffee, M. 2001. Torah of the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE—400 CE. Oxford:
Oxford UP.
Jakobson, R. 1960. “Linguistics and poetics.” In T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 18–51.
Jenny, H. 1967. Kymatik – Wellen und Schwingungen mit ihrer Struktur und Dynamik
[Cymatics – The structure and dynamics of waves and vibrations]. Basel: Basilius Press.
Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. 2010. http://www.jerusalemschool.org/Methodology/index.htm, accessed
January 8, 2010.
Karlik, J. 2010. “Interpreter-mediated Scriptures: Expectation and performance.” Interpreting 12/2, 160–185.
Katan, D. 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators (2nd ed.).
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Katz, M., and G, Schwartz. 1998. Swimming in the Sea of Talmud. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Keener, C. S. 2003. The Gospel of John, vol. 2. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Keesmaat, S. C. 2006. “In the face of the empire: Paul’s use of Scripture in the shorter epistles.” In S. E. Porter (ed.).
Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 182–212.
Kelber, W. 2010. “The history of the closure of biblical texts.” Oral Tradition, 25/1: 115–140.
__________. 2009. “The work of Birger Gerhardsson in perspective.” In Kelber and Byrskog, 173–206.
__________. 2008. “The oral-scribal memorial arts of communication in early Christianity.” In Thatcher, 235–62.
__________. 2007. “Orality and biblical studies: A review essay.” In J. G. van der Watt (ed.). 1–24. 2007 Review of
Biblical Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
__________. “Jesus and Tradition: Words in Time, Words in Space.” In Orality and Textuality in Early Christian
Literature, edited by J. Dewey, 139–67. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
__________. 1987. “Biblical hermeneutics and the ancient art of communication: A response.” Semeia 39:107–133.
__________. 1983. The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Kelber, W., and S. Byrskog, eds. 2009. Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives. Waco: Baylor
University Press.
Kelly, D. A. 2005. Handbook for Translator Trainers. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kennedy, G. A. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Ker, D. 2011. “Reading speed of Scripture.” http://futurebible.org/2011/reading-speed-of-scripture/, accessed
August 21, 2011.
Kessler, M. 1982. “A methodological setting for rhetorical criticism.” In D. Clines, D. Gunn, and A. Hauser (eds.). Art
and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1–19.
Köstenberger, A. J., and R. D. Patterson. 2011. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical
Triad of History, Literature, and Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel.
King James Bible Trust. 2011. http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/, accessed March 4, 2011.
Kirk, A. 2009. “Memory.” In Kelber and Byrskog, 155–172.
Kirk, A. 2008. “Manuscript tradition as a tertium quid: Orality and memory in scribal practices.” In Thatcher, 215–
234.
Kitchen, K. A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Kotze, P. P. 1985. “John and reader’s response.” Neotestamentica 19:50–63.
Labahn, M. 2011. “Scripture talks because Jesus talks: The narrative rhetoric of persuading in John’s use of
Scripture.” In Le Donne and Thatcher, 133–156.
Landers, C.E. 2001. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon and Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Le Donne, A., and T. Thatcher, eds. 2011a. The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture. New York:T&T Clark.

232
Le Donne, A., and T. Thatcher. 2011b. “Introducing media culture to Johannine studies: Orality, performance and
memory.” In Le Donne and Thatcher, 1–8.
Lee, M. E., and B. B. Scott. 2009. Sound Mapping the New Testament. Salem OR: Polebridge Press.
Levý, Jiří (Z. Jettmarová, ed.; P. Corness, trans.). 2011 [1963]. The Art of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1974 [1955]. “The structural study of myth.” In T. A. Sebeok (ed.). Myth: A Symposium.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 81–106.
Loh, I-Jin., and E. A. Nida. 1977. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. New York: United
Bible Societies.
Lohmeyer, E. 1928. Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2,5–11. Heidelberg: Winter.
Loubser, J. A. 2007. Oral & Manuscript Culture in the Bible: Studies on the Media Texture of the New Testament.
Stellenbosch: SUN Press.
__________. 2004. “How do you report something that was said with a smile?—Can we overcome the loss of meaning
when oral-manuscript texts of the Bible are represented in modern print media?” Scriptura 87:296–314.
Luter A. B., and M. V. Lee. 1995. “Philippians as chiasmus: Key to the structure, unity and theme questions.” New
Testament Studies 41:89–101.
Luz, S., S. Malmatidou, and S. Marshall. 2010. Corpus building with TEC tools: Tutorial.
http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/ctis/research/english-corpus/, accessed June 10, 2010.
Malatesta, E. 1971. “The literary structure of John 17.” Biblica 52:190–214.
Malina, B. J. 1981. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox.
Malina, B. J., and J. H. Neyrey. 1991. “First-century personality: Dyadic, not individual.” In Neyrey, 67–96.
Malina, B. J., and J. J. Pilch. 2006. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Malina B. J., and R. L. Rohrbaugh. 1998. Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.
Marshall, J. W. 1993. “Paul’s ethical appeal in Philippians.” In Porter and Olbricht, 357–74.
Martin, G. D. 2010. Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Mathews, J. 2012. Performing Habakkuk: Faithful Re-enactment in the Midst of Crisis. Eugene: Pickwick
Publications.
Matthews, V. 2008. More than Meets the Ear: Discovering the Hidden Contexts of Old Testament Conversations.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Maxey, J. A. 2009. From Orality to Orality: A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation of the Bible. Eugene:
Cascade Books.
Maxwell, K. 2010. Hearing Between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and Its Literary Milieu.
New York: T&T Clark International.
Mazor, Y. 2009. Who Wrought the Bible? Unveiling the Bible’s Aesthetic Secrets. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Metzger, B. M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second edition. Stuttgart: German Bible
Society.
Millard, A. R. 2000. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. New York: New York UP.
Millard, A. R. 2012a. “Writing and prophecy.” In Boda and McConville. 883–885.
Millard, A. R. 2012b. “Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel”—A Review.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/writing-and-literacy-in-the-world-of-ancient-israel/, accessed on
July 22, 2012.
Miller, G. A. 1956. “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing
information.” Psychological Review 63:81–97.
Miller, R. D. II. 2011. Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Mitternacht, D. 2007. “A structure of persuasion in Galatians: Epistolary and rhetorical appeal in an aural setting.”
In D. F. Tolmie (ed.). Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians. Bloemfontein: University of the Free
State, 53–98.
Morris, L. 1995. The Gospel According to John, revised ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Morrison, C. D. 1965. “Mission and ethic: An interpretation of John 17.” Interpretation 19:259–273.
Mossop, B. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Motyer, A. 1999. Isaiah. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Mournet, T. C. 2009. “The Jesus tradition as oral tradition.” In Kelber and Byrskog, 39–61.
Munday, J., ed. 2009a. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge.
__________. 2009b. “Key concepts.” In Munday, 166–240.
Murphy, N. C. 1994. Reasoning & Rhetoric in Religion. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International.

233
Naudé, J. A., and C. H. J. van der Merwe, eds. 2002. Contemporary Translation Studies: A South African Perspective
(Acta Theologica, Supplementum 2). Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
Neufeld, D., ed. 2008. The Social Sciences and Bible Translation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
__________. 1994. Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John. Leiden: Brill.
Neyrey, J. H. 2009. The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
__________. 1991a. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
__________. 1991b. “The symbolic universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They turn the world upside down’.” In Neyrey, 271–304.
Nida, E. A., and C. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Niditch, S. 1996. Oral World and Written Word. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK: St.
Jerome.
Norton D., 2011. The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Noss, P. A. 2001. “Ideas, phones, and Gbaya verbal art.” In F. K. Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (ed.).
Ideophones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 259–270.
O’Brien, P. T. 1991. Commentary on Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Oesterreicher, W. 1997. “Types of orality in text.” In E. Bakker and A. Kahane (eds.). Written Voices, Spoken Signs.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 190–214
Omanson, R. A. 2006. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Ong, W. J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York: Methuen.
Osborne, G. R. 2006. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed.
Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Parry, R. 2006. “Prolegomena to Christian theological interpretations of Lamentations.” In C. Bartholomew, S. Hahn,
R. Parry, C. Seitz, and A. Wolters, eds., Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 393–418.
Parunak, H. Van Dyke. 1981. “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure.” Biblia 62: 153–168.
Patte, D. 1988. “Speech act theory and biblical exegesis.” Semeia 41:85–102.
Patterson, R. D. 1993. “Old Testament prophecy.” In L. Ryken and T. Longman III (eds.). A Complete Literary Guide
to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 296–309.
Persen, R. F. Jr. 2010. The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Petersen, N. R. 1984. “The reader in the Gospel.” Neotestamentica 18:38–51.
Phillips, P. 2008. “Rhetoric.” In Firth and Grant, 226–65.
Pieper A. Isaiah II (E. E. Kowalke, trans.). 1979. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House.
Pilch J. J., and B. J. Malina, eds. 1993. Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Polak, F. H. 1998. “The oral and the written: Syntax, stylistics and the development of
biblical prose narrative.” JANES 26, 59–105.
Porter, S. E. 1993. “The theoretical justification for application of rhetorical categories to Pauline epistolary
literature.” In Porter and Olbricht, 100–122.
__________, and D. A. Carson, eds. 1995. Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
__________, and T. H. Olbricht, eds. 1993. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg
Conference. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
__________, and J. T. Reed, eds. 1999. Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Pratt, M. L. 1977. Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Pretorius, M. 2011. “Sound: Conceivably the creative language of God, holding all of creation in concert.” Verbum et
Ecclesia 32(1), Art. #485, 7 pages. http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/ve.v32i1.485, accessed on 17/07/2012.
Pym, A. 2010. Exploring Translation Theories. London & New York: Routledge.
Rainey, A. F. 2010. “Queries & Comments.” Biblical Archaeology Review 36/3:79–80.
Reed, J. T. 1997. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
__________. 1995. “Identifying theme in the New Testament: Insights from discourse analysis.” In In Porter and Carson,
75–101.
__________. 1993. “Using ancient rhetorical categories to interpret Paul’s letters: A question of genre.” In Porter and
Olbricht, 292–324.
Reiss K., and H. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.
Rhoads, D. 2010. “Biblical performance criticism: Performance as research.” Oral Tradition 25/1:157–198.
__________. 2006a. “Performance criticism: An emerging methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part I.” Biblical
Theology Bulletin 36:1–16.

234
__________. 2006b. “Performance criticism: An emerging methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part II.” Biblical
Theology Bulletin 36:164–184.
__________. Forthcoming. “The art of translating for oral performance.” In J. Maxey and E. Wendland (eds.). Translating
Sound and Performance of the Bible. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, ch. 2.
__________. “The memory arts of the letter of James.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature, New Orleans, November 2009.
Richards, E. R. 2004. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Robbins, V. K. 2009. The Invention of Christian Discourse, vol. 1. Dorset UK: Blandford Forum, Deo.
__________. 2006. “Interfaces of orality and literature in the Gospel of Mark.” In Horslet, et. al., 125–146.
__________. 1996. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity
Press.
Rollston, C. 2010. Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Roschke, R. W. 1997. “From one medium to another.” In Hodgson and Soukup, 337–344.
Rosenberg, D. 2009. A Literary Bible: An Original Translation. Berkeley: Counterpoint.
Rothenberg, J., and D. Rothenberg. 1983. Symposium of the Whole: A Range of Discourse toward an Ethnopoetics.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ruge-Jones, P. 2010. “Performance criticism as critical pedagogy.” Currents in Theology and Mission 37/4:288-295.
Runge, S. 2010. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Ryken, L. 1992. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Ryken, L. 2012. “Reading the Bible as Literature.” In W. Grudem, C. J. Collins, and T. R. Schreiner (eds.).
Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning. Wheaton: Crossway, 37–
43.
Safrai, S. 1976. “Education and the study of Torah.” In S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.). The Jewish People in the First
Century. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 945–970.
__________. “The value of rabbinic literature as an historical source.”
http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1969, accessed October 3, 2009.
Sanders, J. A. 2011. “Review of S. Talmon, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible” (q.v.), Research in Biblical
Literature 2011. http://www.bookreviews.org, accessed February 2, 2012.
Sangrey, M. 2012. When Summarizing Is Too Hard, http://betterbibles.com/2012/03/07, accessed 11/03/2012.
Schafer, R. M. 1994. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Rochester, VT: Destiny
Books.
Schart, A. 2010. “Deathly silence and apocalyptic noise: Observations on the soundscape of the Book of the Twelve.”
Verbum et Ecclesia 31/1:1–5.
Schneidau, H. 1987. “Let the reader understand.” Semeia 39:135–145.
Schniedewind, Wm. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Schrag, B. E. 2007. “Why local arts are central to mission.” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 24/4:199–
202.
__________. 1992. “Translating song texts as oral compositions.” Notes on Translation 6/1:44–62.
Schröter, J. 2006. “Jesus and the canon: The early Jesus traditions in the context of the origins of the New
Testament canon.” In Horsley, et. al., 104–122.
Scott, B. B., and M. Dean. 1993. “A sound map of the Sermon on the Mount.” In E. H. Lovering (ed.). SBL Seminar
Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 672–725.
Seow, C. L. 2011. “Orthography, textual criticism, and the poetry of Job.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130/1:63–
85.
Shils, E. 1971. “Tradition.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 13:122–159.
Shiner, W. 2006. “Memory technology and the composition of Mark.” In Horsley, et. al., 147–165.
__________. 2003. Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
international.
Shklovsky, V. 1965. “Art as technique.” In L. T. Lemon and M. J. Reis (eds.). Russian Formalist Criticism. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 3–57.
Silberman, L. 1987. “Introduction: Reflections on orality, aurality, and perhaps more.” Semeia 39:1–6.
Silva, D. 2005. Philippians, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Simon, H. 1983. Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Soanes, C., and A. Stevenson, eds. 2006. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Soulen R. N., and R. K. Soulen. 2001. Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd ed. Louisville & London: Westminster John
Knox.

235
Snyman, A. H. 1993. “Persuasion in Philippians 4:1–20.” In Porter and Olbricht, 325–337.
Sparks, K. L. 2008. God’s Word in Human Words. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Stenning, K., A. Lascarides, and J. Calder. 2006. Introduction to Cognition and Communication. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Sternberg, M. 1987. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading.
Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Sterner, R. H. 1998. A Semantic and Structural Analysis of 1 Thessalonians. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Swanson, R. W. 2010. “Truth, method, and multiplicity: Performance as a mode of interpretation. Currents in
Theology and Mission 37/4:312-319.
Talmon, S. 2010. Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Tate, W. R. 1991. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
Terry, J. O. 2009a. “Scripture passage to story.” http://www.churchstarting.net/biblestorying/scriptostory.htm,
accessed April 11, 2009.
__________. 2009b. “Oralizing Bible stories for telling.” http://www.churchstarting.net/biblestorying/oralizing.htm,
accessed April 11, 2009.
Thatcher, T. ed. 2008. Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and Written Gospel. Waco: Baylor UP.
Thatcher, T. 2011a. “The riddle of the Baptist and the genesis of the prologue: John 1.1–18 in oral/aural media
culture.” In Le Donne and Thatcher, 29–48.
Thatcher, T. 2011b. “John’s memory theatre: A study of composition in performance.” In Le Donne and Thatcher,
73–91.
Thiselton, A. C. 1992. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Bible Reading.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
__________. 1999. “Communicative action and promise in hermeneutics.” In R. Lundin, C. Walhout, and A. Thiselton
(eds.). The Promise of Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 133–239.
__________. 2006. “Canon, community, and theological construction.” In C. Bartholomew, S. Hahn, R. Parry, C. Seitz,
and A. Wolters, eds., Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1–30.
Thomas, K. 1990. “Seeking a methodology for exegetical checking of audio Scriptures.” The Bible Translator
41/3:301–311.
Thomas K. J., and M. O. Thomas. 2006. Structure and Orality in 1 Peter: A Guide for Translators. New York: United
Bible Societies.
Thompson, I. H. 1995. Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Thuren, L. 1993. “On studying ethical argumentation and persuasion in the New Testament.” In Porter and Olbricht,
464–478.
Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tov, E. 2008. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert.
http://www.emanueltov.info, accessed July 10, 2008.
__________. 1992. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
“Translating Multimodalities.” http://www.port.ac.uk/translationconference, accessed March 3, 2010.
Tuckett, C. 2009. “Form criticism.” In Kelber and Byrskog, 21–38.
Ukpong, J. S. 1989. “Jesus’ prayer for his followers (Jn. 17) in mission perspective.” Africa Theological Journal
18:49–60.
Ulrich, E. 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Van der Merwe, C. 2009. “Another look at the Hebrew focus particle ‫גַּם‬.” Journal of Semitic Studies LIVI2:313–32.
Van der Toorn, K. 2007. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press.
Van Wolde, E. 2009. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Vanhoozer, K. J. 1986. “The semantics of biblical literature.” In D. A. Carson and J. T. Woodbridge (eds.).
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 49–104.
Vanhoozer, K. J. 1998. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary
Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Verheyden, J. 2008. “Oral performance, popular tradition, and hidden transcripts in Q.” In J. G. van der Watt (ed.).
2008 Review of Biblical Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 349-351.
Wallace, D. B. 2012. “The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts.” In W. Grudem, C. J. Collins, and T. R.
Schreiner (eds.). Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning.
Wheaton: Crossway, 111–117.

236
__________. 2011. “Lost in Transmission: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament Text.” In D. B. Wallace
(ed.). Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 19–55.
Ward, R. F. 1994. “Pauline voice and presence and strategic communication.” In J. Dewey (ed.). Orality and
Textuality in Early Christian Literature (Semeia 65). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 95–107.
Weissenberg, H. von, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila, eds. 2011. Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting
Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 419). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Watson, D. F. 1997. “The integration of epistolary and rhetorical analysis of Philippians.” In Porter and Olbricht,
398–426.
__________. 1992. “Chreia/Aphorism.” In J. B. Green and S. McKnight (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 104–106.
__________. 1988. “A rhetorical analysis of Philippians and its implications for the unity question.” Novum
Testamentum 30:57–88.
Watson, D. F., and A. J. Hauser. 1994. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes
on History and Method. Leiden: Brill.
Watts, J. D. W. 1987. Isaiah 34–66. Waco: Word Books.
Webb, B. 1996. The Message of Isaiah. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
Wegner, P. D. 2012. “The Reliability of the Old Testament Manuscripts.” In W. Grudem, C. J. Collins, and T. R.
Schreiner (eds.). Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning.
Wheaton: Crossway, 101–109.
__________. 2006. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results. Downers Grove:
IVP Academic.
__________. 1999. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Baker.
Wendland, E. R. Forthcoming. Lovely, Lively Lyrics: Selected Studies in Biblical Hebrew Verse. Dallas: SIL
International.
__________. 2011. LiFE-Style Translating: A Workbook for Bible Translators, 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International.
__________. 2010 (published in 2011). “Framing the frames: A theoretical framework for the cognitive notion of ‘frames
of reference’.” Journal of Translation 6/1:27–51.
__________. 2009a. Prophetic Rhetoric: Case Studies in Text Analysis and Translation. Longwood: Xulon Press, 2009
(second, revised and expanded edition in press, Dallas: SIL International).
__________. 2009b. “Prompting the poetic muse: The computer-assisted translation of biblical poetry.” Scriptura 101:
352–371.
__________. 2008a. “Performance criticism: A summary of assumptions, applications, assessments, and implications for
Bible translation.” Tic Talk 65:1–9 (see also http://www.ubs-translations.org/tt/past_issues/tic_talk_65_2008/).
__________. 2008b. Finding and Translating the Oral-Aural Elements of Written Language: The Case of the New
Testament Epistles. Lewiston, NY/Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press.
__________. 2008c. “Modeling the message: The Christological core of Philippians (2:5–11) and Its communicative
implications.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19:350–378.
__________. 2008d. Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation: A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
__________. 2005. Sewero! Christian Drama and the Drama of Christianity in Africa. Zomba, Malawi: Kachere Series.
__________.2004a. Poceza m’Madzulo: Some Chinyanja Radio Plays of Julius Chongo, with English Translations. Lusaka:
University of Zambia Press.
__________. 2004b. Translating the Literature of Scripture: A Literary-Rhetorical Approach to Bible Translation. Dallas:
SIL International.
__________. 2003. “Responses to Colin Yallop lectures. The Bible Translator 54/2:225–228.
__________. 2002a. “Aspects of rhetorical analysis applied to New Testament texts.” In A. J. Blasi, J. Duhaime, P. A.
Turcotte (eds.). Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 169–
195.
__________. 2002b. Analyzing the Psalms: With Exercises for Bible Students and Translators, 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL
International.
__________.1998. Buku Loyera: An Introduction to the New Chichewa Bible Translation. Blantyre, Malawi: CLAIM.
__________. 1994. “Oral-aural dynamics of the Word with special reference to John 17.” Notes on Translation 8/1:19–
43.
__________. 1993. Comparative Discourse Analysis and the Translation of Psalm 22 in Chichewa. Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press.

237
__________. 1992. “Rhetoric of the Word: An interactional discourse analysis of the Lord’s Prayer of John 17 and Its
communicative implications.” Neotestamentica 26/1:59–88.
__________. 1990. “What Is truth? Semantic density and the language of the Johannine Epistles, with special reference
to 2 John.” Neotestamentica 24:301–333.
__________. 1979. Stylistic form and communicative function in the Nyanja radio narratives of Julius Chongo. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
__________. 1976. Nthano za kwa Kawaza (“Folktales from Kawaza-land”). Lusaka: Zambia Language Group and
UNESCO.
__________., and S. Hachibamba. 2007. Galu Wamkota: Missiological Reflections from South-Central Africa. Zomba,
Malawi: Kachere Series.
__________., and J. P. Louw. 1993. Graphic Design and Bible Reading. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa.
Westenholtz, J. G. 2010. “Historical events and the process of their transformation in Akkadian heroic traditions.’ In
D. Konstan and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.). The Ancient World: Comparative Histories 4. Chichester, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell, 26–50.
Williams, J and A. Chesterman. 2002. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Williams, P. “Old Testament History—Is the Playing Field Level.” 2010. http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-
studies/getting-stuck-in/old-testament-history--is-the-playing-field-level.htm, accessed March 15, 2010.
Wilson, J. R. 2008. “Canon and Theology: What Is at Stake?” In C. A. Evans and E. Tov (eds.). Exploring the Origins
of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
241–253.
Wilt, T. L., ed. 2003. Bible Translation: Frames of Reference. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Wilt, T. L., and E. R. Wendland. 2008. Scripture Frames and Framing: A Workbook for Bible Translators.
Stellenbosch, South Africa: SUN Media Press.
Wire, A. C. 2011. The Case for Mark Composed in Performance. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Witherington, B. III. 2012a. “Did scribes doctor the manuscripts?” http://ehrmanproject.com/misquoting-jesus,
accessed on July 19, 2012.
__________. 2012b. “Review of Forged.” https://bitly.com/bundles/ehrmanproject/4, accessed on July 19, 2012.
__________. 2009a. What’s in the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament. Waco: Baylor
UP.
__________. 2009b. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New
Testament. Eugene: Cascade Books.
Young, I. 2012. Review of Hanne Von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila, eds., Changes in Scripture:
Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Review of Biblical Literature.
http://www.bookreviews.org, accessed June 29, 2012.
Zogbo, L., and E. Wendland. 2000. Hebrew Poetry in the Bible: A Guide for Understanding and for Translating. New
York: United Bible Societies.

238
 10. “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper”—A Response516

10.1 Summary

This chapter overviews and responds to Roland Boer’s recent wide-ranging critique of Eugene A
Nida’s theory and practice of “dynamic equivalence” in Bible translating.517 Boer’s narrowly-
focused, rather insufficiently-researched evaluation of Nida’s work suffers from both a lack of
historical perspective and a current awareness of what many, more recent translation scholars
and practitioners have been writing for the past several decades. Our rejoinder discusses some
of the major misperceptions and misleading assertions that appear sequentially in the various
sections of Boer’s article with the aim of setting the record straight, or at least of framing the
assessment of modern Bible translation endeavors and goals in a more positive and accurate light.

10.2 What is this “caper” all about?

Why does Boer classify the dynamic equivalence (DE) approach as a “caper”? According to the
Oxford Dictionary, a “caper” refers to 1. “a playful skipping movement,” or 2. “an illicit or
ridiculous activity or escapade.”518 So does Boer take “dynamic equivalence” seriously or not?
Indeed, it would seem that he does, based on his extended critique of this methodology, as he
perceives it, and its central author, the late Eugene A Nida.519

The problem is that what Boer objects to, in fact sharply attacks in this article is Nida’s thought
(and that of Bible translation in general) as formulated over 40 years ago and stated in The Theory
and Practice of Translation (TAPOT).520 So what we have here is not really a “caper,” but a
“chimera”—a rather distorted vision of what should have been the subject of a serious
contemporary overview of Bible translation.521 The result is all too often a vigorous verbal
jousting with an imaginary enemy, unfortunately contrived from an out-of-date conception. How
then can this discussion be transformed into a more perceptive and productive encounter with
some of the main issues and concerns that confront serious Bible translators today—indeed, many

516
This chapter was written in collaboration with Dr. Stephen Pattemore (United Bible Societies).
517
Roland Boer, “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper,” in Ideology, Culture, and Translation (eds. Scott
S. Elliott and Roland Boer; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 13-23. Boer’s article introduces
and possibly negatively colors the collection of essays in which it appears, most of which derive from
several meetings of the “Ideology, Culture, and Translation” group of the SBL, from 2005 to the present
(Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 1, 4). After a short introduction by the editors, two larger sections follow—
the first more theoretical (“Exploring the intersection of translation studies and critical theory in biblical
studies”), the second dealing with a number of case studies (“Sites in translation”). There are several
especially noteworthy contributions, for example from Part 1: Raj Nadella, “Postcolonialism, Translation,
and Colonial Mimicry”; from Part 2: Virginia Burrus, “Augustine’s Bible,” Flemming Nielsen, “The Earliest
Greenlandic Bible,” and Esteban Voth, “Masculinidad en la Traducción de la Biblia.” See respectively in
Elliot and Boer, Ideology, 49-57, 69-82, 113-137, and 169-186). However, many of the authors of this
volume seem to be unaware of 21st century publications in the field of what we might term “biblical
translation studies.”
518
Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 207.
519
Dr. Nida passed away in Madrid on August 25, 2011 at the age of 96.
520
Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969).
521
For an overview of secular translation studies from the perspective of issues that pertain to
Bible translation theory and practice, see Ernst Wendland, “Review Article: Jeremy Munday, Introducing
Translation Studies: Theories and Applications,” Old Testament Essays 25/2 (2012a) and “Exploring Translation
Theories—A Review from the Perspective of Bible Translation,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Studies 38/2
(2012b).
239
of which Eugene Nida anticipated and foreshadowed in some of his later works? That is the
primary aim of the present chapter.

10.3 A twofold problem—formal and functional

Apparently “haunted” by “the ghost of Nida” and an “unfinished critique” of the theory and
practice of dynamic equivalence (2012:13), Boer returns after some years to complete his
mission.522 He immediately states his premise, as follows:

Dynamic (or functional) equivalence, as is well known, focuses on the message. Everything
may be sacrificed—words, syntax, grammar—as long as the essential content of the
original text is rendered in an acceptable way in the target language.523

There are two major problems with this assertion—with respect to form and also to function. In
the first place, to say “everything may be sacrificed” misrepresents Nida’s position. On the
contrary, the original form is not completely or arbitrarily disregarded in TAPOT, as implied; one
must read TAPOT, for example, more carefully.

10.3.1 With reference to FORM

The following are several representative quotes that indicate the crucial concern that Nida, even
from early on, had for the varied forms of the biblical text, as subsequently rendered into some
modern target language (TL) [our brief clarifications are italicized within brackets]:

The extent to which the forms must be changed in order to preserve the meaning will
depend on the linguistic and cultural distance between languages.524
Though style [i.e. form] is secondary to content, it is nevertheless important. One should
not translate poetry as though it were prose, nor expository material as though it were
straight narrative.525

Dynamic equivalence has priority over formal correspondence [not that the latter is
excluded from consideration]. . . . It is functional equivalence which is required, whether
on the level of content or on the level of style.526

Within the Christian community of any language group having a relatively long literary
tradition…there are a number of special features which must be carefully considered in
determining precisely what style or level of language [i.e. formal criteria!] one should
follow in the production of a translation.527

In translating the Bible one must recognize certain quite different styles and attempt to
produce something which will be a satisfactory dynamic [in this case also a stylistic/formal]
equivalent.528

522
Boer refers to a paper of “a decade ago,” presumably completed in a revised paper presented at
the SBL seminar of 2008 and published now as “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper.” See Elliott and Boer,
Ideology, 2.
523
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 13.
524
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 5.
525
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 13.
526
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 14.
527
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 120.
528
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 129; cf. also 182.
240
 This functional approach to style [form] is dictated by our concern to understand
something of the purpose of style. Primarily, these purposes (or functions) can be divided
into two categories: (1) those which serve to increase efficiency and (2) those which are
designed for special effects, that is to say, those which enhance interest, increase impact,
or embellish the form of the message. . . . Good style must also have certain features for
special effects.529

In a translation for the more educated constituencies and especially in the more
rhetorically elaborate portions of the Bible, one must inevitably do everything possible to
employ in the receptor languages features…which will be functionally equivalent to what
occurs in the Biblical text.530

10.3.2 With reference to FUNCTION

The second problem with Boer’s stated perspective on Nida’s approach to Bible translation is
related to the first. This is immediately evident in the apparent identification of “dynamic” with
“functional” equivalence.531 It is true that this may have been the case in TAPOT, as the preceding
quotes would indicate. But we need to recall again that this text was published back in 1969.
Nida clearly moved on from there, and this is most evident in another influential book that he
co-authored, now with Jan de Waard, some two decades later, which was subtitled Functional
Equivalence in Bible Translating (FOLTA).532 Boer is either unaware of this text or has chosen to
ignore it in his present assessment of Nida.

To be sure, there is still some equivocation in FOLTA’s terminology, but the problem is
clearly recognized:

Unfortunately, the expression “dynamic equivalence” has been misunderstood as referring

to anything which may have special effect and appeal for receptors. . . . It is hoped,
therefore, that the use of the expression “functional equivalence” may serve to highlight
the communicative functions of translation and to avoid misunderstanding.”533

But there is also an evident shift in focus—namely, to a multi-functional approach based on

linguistic and literary forms in the analysis of the biblical text on the one hand, and its translation
on the other:

It is not right to speak of the Greek or Hebrew text (or a literal translation of such) as
being merely “the form” and a freer idiomatic translation as being “the meaning.” An
expression in any language [whether the Bible or any TL today] consists of a set of forms
which serve to signal meaning on various levels: lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical. The

529
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 145, 147.
530
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 151.
531
Later, again in the same article: “Dynamic equivalence (or ‘functional equivalence’ as it is
sometimes called) sets out to convey the basic content of the source text, and if it is necessary to sacrifice
the structure of the original, then so be it.” See Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 17.
532
Jan de Waard and Eugene A. Nida, From One Language To Another: Functional Equivalence in
Bible Translating (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986). “The differences of functional equivalence from
dynamic equivalence represent theoretical advances that are significant enough to throw into question the
common practice of using the terms interchangeably” See Nigel Statham, “Dynamic Equivalence and
Functional Equivalence: How Do They Differ? The Bible Translator 54/1 (2003): 111.
533
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 7.
241
 translator must seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as
possible will match the meaning of the original source-language text.534

Reflecting this more precise and decided focus on the “communicative functions” of written texts,
the original three of TAPOT (informative, expressive, imperative)535 are increased in number and
specificity to nine in FOLTA: metalingual, expressive, cognitive, interpersonal, informative,
imperative, performative, emotive, and aesthetic.536 These functions are applied from a
“sociosemiotic” perspective that “focuses on the linguistic structures and codes which provide a
key to meaning,” as contextualized within a sociolinguistic approach that “looks to the social
structure of the user of the language for keys to the significance of any elements in a
discourse”537—namely, the diverse, significant forms of a given text and the assorted meanings
which they may express.

The new emphasis on literary forms on the macro- and micro-structure of discourse that is
enunciated in FOLTA is set forth in greater detail under the so-called “aesthetic” (or “poetic”)
function of language.538 Two entire chapters are then devoted to elucidating the various
dimensions of this concern and its application to analyzing and translating biblical texts. In ch.
6, six prominent “rhetorical [formal] processes” are delineated: repetition, compactness,
connectives, rhythm, shifts in expectancies (e.g. syntactic shifts), and the manipulation of
similarities and contrasts in discourse organization.539 These literary-rhetorical forms, whether
employed individually or in combination, are described in ch. 6 as expressing or embodying one
or more communicative objectives, such as wholeness, aesthetic appeal, impact, appropriateness,
coherence, cohesion, focus, and emphasis.540 Subsequently, in chapters 7 and 8, various common
biblical forms and functions are considered with reference to syntax and the lexicon

534
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 36. The translator’s task is further specified as being “essentially
exegetical, in that a translation should faithfully reflect who said what to whom under what circumstances
and for what purpose and should be in a form of the receptor language which does not distort the content
or misrepresent the rhetorical impact or appeal” that is evoked by the literary forms of the biblical text.
See de Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 40.
535
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 24.
536
De Waard and Nida, From One Language, 25. Statham considers such a listing to be “somewhat
restrictive and schematic… It might be better to think of ‘functional’…less in terms of a strict number of
universal functions of language as in FOLTA and more in terms of an unlimited number of culturally specific
functions of linguistic entities, as Nida and Taber did themselves in TAPOT.” See Nigel Statham, “Nida and
‘Functional Equivalence’: The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward,”
The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005): 40, original emphasis). On the other hand, it is helpful for pedagogical
reasons at least to start somewhere, in particular, with “[t]hose communicative functions which are
especially relevant for the understanding of principles of translation.” See de Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 25.
537
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 77.
538
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 31.
539
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 86.
540
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 80.
242
respectively.541 This leads to a suggested number of translation and publication “procedures,”542
a helpful overview that highlights the need for a careful mutual consultation of all interested
parties during the process—it is not simply a matter, as Boer suggests, of translators’ rendering
“the essential content of the original text…in an acceptable way in the target language”:543

A number of principles can be derived from a careful study of what is needed by and
acceptable to the constituency for whom the translation is being prepared, but the actual
formulation of principles [and procedures] must be worked out by the team of translators
in close cooperation with consultants and representatives of the sponsoring organization
[and the wider community that they represent].544

Clearly, Bible translation for Nida (and colleagues), even 25 years ago, involved considerably
more than “content” alone545 and was much more of a complex, sophisticated, audience-engaging
enterprise546 than what is often portrayed by contemporary critics living many years after-the-
fact (and Boer is not the only one).547

541
Statham feels that the introduction of FOLTA has led to “the creation of a vacuum in the area
of a simple, teachable technique for arriving at natural syntactic equivalents.” See Statham, “Dynamic
Equivalence,” 41, emphasis added. As a result, “a great deal of effort will need to be expended on thinking
out practical ways of helping those who are not trained linguists or rhetoricians to ‘follow’ the teachings
of a top-down approach to translation within the extremely limited time-frames of translation workshops
and field teaching sessions.” See Statham, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 42. However, here it is important to
point out that FOLTA presupposes and builds upon the principles discussed in TAPOT: “The three basic
phases in the translation process are analysis, transfer, and restructuring, as described in considerable
detail in Theory and Practice of Translation.” See de Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 195; cf. 194-199.
Furthermore, since the appearance of FOLTA several practical methodologies have been developed
on the basis of field testing to serve as models for adaptation by others, for example: (a) “a form-functional,
text-comparative method,” (b) a “literary-rhetorical analysis technique,” and (c) “a ten-step exegetical
methodology” leading “from analysis to synthesis in translation.” See respectively: Ernst Wendland, “A
Form-Functional, Text-Comparative Method of Translating, Teaching, and Checking,” Notes on Translation
14/1 (2000); Ernst Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture: A Literary-Rhetorical Approach to Bible
Translation, Dallas: SIL International (2004): 229-264; Ernst Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating: A Workbook
for Bible Translators, 2nd ed., Dallas: SIL International (2011a): 126-158.
542
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, Appendix B.
543
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 13.
544
De Waard and Nida, FOLTA, 190; words in brackets added from the context.
545
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that “while the theory represented here [in FOLTA] grapples
with the connection between text and context, it still locates meaning within the text, and does not
represent a paradigm shift in translation theory within the Bible Society movement.” See Stephen
Pattemore, “Framing Nida: The Relevance of Translation Theory in the United Bible Societies,” in A History
of Bible Translation (ed. Philip A. Noss; Rome: American Bible Society/Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura,
2007), 228.
546
“Too often translators work in isolation from a believing community and without sufficient
regard for what receptors want or expect in a translation. . . . Evangelical concerns to make the text more
readable have often arisen from underestimating the capacities of receptors. As a result, receptor-language
persons who have acquired some education have frequently come to repudiate the intentions of the
translators as being nothing less than pernicious paternalism.” See Eugene A. Nida and Wm. D. Reyburn,
Meaning Across Cultures (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981), 61.
547
See, for example, Wayne Grudem, “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God,”
in W. Grudem, et. al, Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 2005), 50-55; Stephen Prickett, Word and The Word (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986), 10-36; Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York:
Routledge, 1995), 116-118.
243
10.4 Background

In a brief overview of Nida’s professional life and influence, Boer draws attention to the former’s
“strictly technical works on linguistic theory and a very evangelical stream of publications.”548
Unfortunately, Boer again restricts himself to a mere mention of some of Nida’s earlier works549
and concludes that “the single great idea of Nida’s life work…[was] dynamic equivalence as the
key to the ‘science of translating’.”550 He was so successful in his seemingly singular mission that
“by and large it [DE] has become translation orthodoxy.”551 While that assertion may have been
largely true in the 1970s and perhaps 1980s as well, this methodological pre-eminence certainly
did not last, as Boer might have discovered had he done a little more reading in the history of
Bible translation studies. Furthermore, Nida was no mono-dimensional scholar with just a single
“great idea” to his credit. In fact, for “over the course of his career he [exhibited] a breadth of
scholarship in several disciplines that few scholars can match…in linguistics, biblical studies,
missiology, semiotics, lexicography, and translation studies, to name the major areas.”552
There are several inaccuracies that further becloud Boer’s overview of the “background” to
Nida’s notion of dynamic equivalence theory and practice.553 First of all, he seems to associate
Nida more with “a handful of characters from the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)/Wycliffe
Bible Translators,”554 rather than with the American Bible Society, which Nida served on a part-
time basis (along with SIL) from 1943 and then full-time as Secretary for Translations from 1953
until his retirement nearly thirty years later.555

Next, there is Boer’s over-simplification of the DE methodology, which he feels is

“disarmingly simple”; thus, “what the translator needs to do is to seek equivalence between the
experience of current receptors and those of original receptors.”556 Again, a fairer reading of
TAPOT alone and its three-stage approach to translating, analysis—transfer—restructuring,557
should have dispelled that notion. Boer accuses Nida of promoting an inaccurate “container”

548
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 14-15.
549
For a more accurate perspective, see Wendy Porter, “A Brief Look at the Life and Works of
Eugene Albert Nida,” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005); J. M. Watt, “The Contributions of Eugene A. Nida
to Sociolinguistics,” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005). Note also the six-plus page “Selective Bibliography”
in Eugene A. Nida, Fascinated by Languages (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003) 145-151.
For an extensive review of Nida’s work and the influence of TAPOT in relation to Bible translation as well
as translation studies in general, see Pattemore, Framing Nida,” 2007. Earlier, less detailed surveys are
found in Aloo Mojola and Ernst Wendland, “Scripture Translation in the Era of Translation Studies,” in
Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (ed. Timothy Wilt; Manchester: St Jerome, 2003), 1-25; also Stanley
E. Porter, “Eugene Nida and Translation,” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005): 8-19.
550
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 15.
551
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 15.
552
Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2004), 180. Furthermore, “It is quite remarkable, for example, for someone to be
honored by both the Linguistic Society of America and the Society of Biblical Literature.” See Stine, Let the
Words Be Written, 180. See also a listing of eight of Nida’s major accomplishments in Bible translation as
noted by the UBS historian, E. H. Robertson, Taking the Word to the World: Fifty Years of the United Bible
Societies (Nashville: Nelson, 1996), 59-60.
553
The term “theory” is used merely for convenience. Strictly speaking, “the foundational works
of Nida and colleagues…are based on a wide array of theoretical foundations largely in the area of
linguistics and communication theory…” See Pattemore, “Framing Nida,” 220.
554
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 14. The same mistaken impression is given in the book’s
“Introduction.” See Scott Elliott and Roland Boer, “Introduction,” in Ideology, Culture, and Translation (eds.
S. Elliott and R. Boer; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 2.
555
Stine, Let the Words Be Written, 29-30.
556
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 15.
557
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, chs. 3-7.
244
model of language and translation,558 and while that may have been true of some of his followers
on an introductory level,559 that was never the case with Nida himself. This “is too reductionistic
a view of [early] Nida’s approach” which does not recognize or fully appreciate TAPOT’s
presentation of how “interpersonal communication takes place in a sociolinguistic and
institutional context that shapes the meaning of the message and the response of the receptors.”560

Finally, Boer makes the claim that DE as described in TAPOT “by and large…has become
translation orthodoxy”:561

To my knowledge, dynamic equivalence is the dominant method used by both the various
Bible Societies and Wycliffe Bible Translators, especially with translations into indigenous
languages.562

However, Pattemore’s lengthy historical survey of UBS translation approaches clearly shows that
this is not the case, citing “voices” both within and without the UBS.563 Boer has apparently
missed the whole “frames of reference” and “literary functional equivalence” movements within
the UBS.564 Thus, “[t]here is no doubt that the emergence of translation studies as an autonomous
discipline has helped to move us [i.e. those involved in Bible translation] far beyond the
understanding of translation as conceived for example in TAPOT.”565 And the notion of what
constitutes “translation” in terms of theory and practice has moved further in the direction of a
new paradigm by those who have adopted the perspective of the cognitive-inferential approach
of “relevance theory.”566 Boer does not seem to be aware of (at least he does not cite) any such
non-Nidan, post-TAPOT studies in his discussion of “the dynamic equivalence caper.”

10.5 Paraphrase with a twist

In the section with the above heading, Boer hits at Nida and DE translation using a slightly
different tack. He feels that this approach became popular simply because of “sustained
promotion,” the “problem” being that “dynamic equivalence is not a particularly new idea”:

Nida has merely given new names—dynamic versus formal equivalence—to an old Greek
distinction between metaphrase and paraphrase.567

558
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 16.
559
Boer cites the entry-level text of C. A. Kilham, Translation Time: An Introductory Course in
Translation, Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1991.
560
Stine, Let the Words Be Written, 156.
561
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 15.
562
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 13. This mistaken assertion is echoed in the chapter following
Boer’s: “The theory of dynamic equivalence certainly dominates the field.” See K. Jason Coker, “Translating
From This Place: Social Location and Translation,” in Ideology, Culture, and Translation (eds. S. Elliott and
R. Boer; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 30.
563
Pattemore, “Framing Nida,” 228-250.
564
See for example: Timothy Wilt, ed., Bible Translation: Frames of Reference. (Manchester: St
Jerome, 2003); Ernst Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture: A Literary-Rhetorical Approach to Bible
Translation (Dallas: SIL International, 2004).
565
Mojola and Wendland, “Scripture Translation,” 25.
566
See for example: E-A. Gutt, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation
(Dallas and New York: Summer Institute of Linguistics and United Bible Societies, 1992); Stephen
Pattemore, Souls Under the Altar: Relevance Theory and the Discourse Structure of Revelation (New York:
United Bible Societies, 2003); H. Hill, et. al., Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a Relevant
Way (Dallas: SIL International, 2011).
567
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 16.
245
While his little historical survey of translation terminology is useful, Boer seeks to imply motive
to Nida and the development of DE “in this potted history”:

He seeks to recover an older practice of paraphrase from the nineteenth century and
earlier. He favors paraphrase over metaphrase, transparency over fidelity…568

The problem with Boer’s implication is that it crucially depends on one’s definition or
evaluation of “fidelity”: Should this criterion be based on the visible linguistic forms of the
biblical text or on their ascribed functions, including that of conveying the basic semantic content
of the original (the “informative” function)? Boer does not clarify this distinction, but goes on to
suggest, rather disingenuously so, that Nida’s supreme evangelically-motivated innovation
consisted in this, namely, that he was able to convince (many) Bible translators and their
supporters that fidelity must be defined in relation to content, not form, as was the case in pre-
Nidan days: “The twist was to shift the values of the terms themselves: a faithful translation is in
fact paraphrase, reader-directed, and free.”569 By means of this deft of argument then “[w]hat
everyone in Nida’s own context thought was faithful is not so.”570 It is not difficult to discern the
speciousness of Boer’s own argument here, as he subtly privileges his own, preferred definition
of “fidelity” in translating. As many practicing translation consultants have discovered when
checking through some vernacular draft version, fidelity to the linguistic form of the biblical text
frequently results in gross infidelity to its communicative purpose and function.

To be sure, the issue of clear definition is a vital aspect of any methodology, and terminology
should be chosen that best supports and elucidates both. Indeed, if the term “functional
equivalence” is confusing or misleading, it can and should be replaced. As Statham suggests:

Many writers on Bible translation get along very well without using the term “functional
equivalent,” simply using “natural equivalent,” “closest natural equivalent,” or even
“meaning-based.” These terms are more generic than “functional equivalent” and less
liable to hermeneutical misunderstanding.571

10.6 Instrumental form

In this section, Boer enlists a number of Nida’s critics in an attempt to bolster his own arguments
against a DE approach to translation:572

Crudely put, Nida sees the form of a language (its syntax, grammar, style, lilt, unique
sounds, and complexities) in two ways: as a means or instrument to achieve
communication or as a hurdle to overcome.573

568
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 17.
569
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 18.
570
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 18.
571
Statham, “Functional Equivalence,” 43. Relevance theorists of course have developed
terminology that better reflects a RT approach to Bible translating, e.g. “processing effort, benefits,
relevance.” See Hill et.al., Bible Translation Basics, 29-34; cf. Pattemore, “Framing Nida,” 251-260.
572
Barnstone, for example, asserts that anyone [like Nida, implied] “who argues that meaning is
located in the content, without thought for ‘the sound, style, tone and form,’ is completely off the mark.”
See Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 19, with reference to W. Barnstone, The Poetics of Translation: History,
Theory, Practice (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 62-63. On the other hand, Boer does pause to
make (sarcastic) mention of the works of a pair of alleged Nida “groupies,” namely, “Philip Stine’s Let the
Words Be Written (2004), which reads like a preemptive eulogy, or Ma’s more expository study (2003).”
See Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 18.
573
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence, 19.
246
Thus, according to Boer, “Dynamic equivalence has an instrumental view of form”;574 therefore,
“If the form of a language can be an instrument in that process [the communication of the
message], then well and good; but if not, then it becomes a problem that must be tackled and
solved.”575 Again, Boer is flogging the old (but not quite dead!) horse of the TAPOT era. Contrast
that with what Nida himself later wrote on the subject—first some earlier observations:

It is essential to recognize that the meaning of a text is signaled by a number of different

features, including sounds, words, grammatical constructions, and rhetorical devices. . . .
It is impossible to avoid completely the implications of literary analysis when speaking of
the Bible. To do so would rob the Scriptures of much of their dynamic significance. In fact,
an appreciation of the literary [including formal] qualities of biblical texts can only lead
to a greater appreciation of their relevance. . . .

One must calculate not only how best to render a particular [biblical] rhetorical feature,
but how to compensate for the loss of impact by incorporating into the text [formal]
rhetorical features of the receptor language which may not specifically represent
corresponding features in the source text.576

These quotes from Nida would certainly seem to indicate considerable concern for the formal
features of both SL and TL texts in the process of translation. Nida’s analyses of the literary-
rhetorical forms and functions of biblical texts became increasingly more refined and insightful
over the years. Towards the end of his writing career then, he would observe:577

The fascination of the Bible for both believers and non-believers may be explained to some
extent by the remarkable literary character of the texts. . . . Note the dramatic scene in
Judges 5.28-30 . . . This is highly sophisticated dramatic poetry, as fine as Homer
produced. . . .
[On the other hand], rarely are Bible translators introduced to the rich formal structures
of even New Testament literature. . . . The general lack of stylistic sensitivity to the literary
forms of a local language has repeatedly impressed me. The problem is especially acute in
languages which have only an oral literature, which may be very rich indeed…

Again, this does not sound like a literary (formal) philistine writing—someone who “is a
craftsman first, artist a distant second…[who] has little time for the useless pursuits of literary
critics with their attention to style, sound, structure, and the shape of language.”578

Ostensibly to highlight Nida’s lack of literary sensitivity,579 Boer makes a brief reference to
the work of the Russian Formalist School of literary criticism:

In their effort at defamiliarizing (Ostranenie) texts, the formalists would shift the old values
attaching the relation between form and content. So the form is not an instrument for the
content to appear, but vice-versa: the content is the means for the form.580

574
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence, 14.
575
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence, 19.
576
E. A. Nida et. al., Style and Discourse, with special reference to the Greek New Testament (Cape
Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1983), 1, 157, 170.
577
Nida, Fascinated by Languages, 81-82.
578
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 19.
579
“For these reasons [i.e. the spurious ones just stated], asserting that form is important and that
any literary critic worth his or her salt knows it to be so has little critical impact on Nida’s approach.” See
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 19.
580
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 19-20.
247
But Boer seems to have misread these Formalist critics too (he does not cite any). In the first
place, they did not so much “defamiliarize” texts in their own writings, but rather pointed out
examples of this feature (or their lack) in the literary works of others. More importantly, Boer
has apparently missed the essential Formalist agenda, which was, in fact, just the opposite of his
claim—namely, to draw attention to the manifestation of literary forms used to highlight,
enhance, or otherwise emphasize a text’s content as well as its aesthetic impact, for example:581

[This is] the artistic trademark—that is, we find material [i.e. literary forms, such as
parallelism and imagery] obviously created to remove the automatism of perception; the
author’s purpose is to create the vision which results from that deautomatized perception.
A work is created “artistically” so that its perception is impeded and the greatest possible
effect is produced through the slowness of perception.582

And even on the macro-structure of a literary text, a novel for example, the function of
its forms is primarily to serve its content:

The aesthetic function of the plot [i.e. the formal arrangement of thematic elements, or
“motifs”] is precisely this bringing of an arrangement of motifs to the attention of the
reader.583

However, Nida was well aware of the writings of the Russian Formalists, especially the most
influential of them all:

As Roman Jakobson (1960) has pointed out, one crucial feature of literature results from
the effect of the poetic function which projects “the principal of equivalence from the axis
of selection to the axis of combination”. In general, this means that one selects a theme,
employs a number of motifs, organizes the text in terms of a particular genre and
incorporates those rhetorical or stylistic features which will appropriately highlight
various aspects of the message.584

To be fair, a translation scholar with such critical interests and insights cannot justifiably be
accused of rank formal “instrumentalism”585 or of being “profoundly logocentric.”586

581
It is rather ironic that Boer should refer to the Russian Formalists in contrast to Nida, whom he
accuses of manipulating a translation in order to “recreate that impact [i.e. as discerned in the biblical text]
on the target audience of the translation.” See Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 15. Thus, the primary interest
of the Formalists was to highlight the impact and appeal of artistic writing “because the process of
perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.” See Viktor Shklovsky, “Art as Technique,”
in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (eds. L. Lemon and M. Reis; Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1965), 12.
582
Shklovsky, “Art as Technique,” 22; added contextual clarification in italics.
583
Boris Tomashevsky, “Thematics,” in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. (eds. L. Lemon and
M. Reis; Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965), 68.
584
Nida et. al., Style and Discourse, 153.
585
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 14, 18-20.
586
“To Roland Boer’s description of dynamic equivalence, I would add only that this approach to
translation is profoundly logocentric.” See George Aichele, “The Translator’s Dilemma: A Response to Boer,
Coker, Elliott, and Nadella,” in Ideology, Culture, and Translation. (eds. S. Elliott and R. Boer; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2012) 59. The reason is this: “Because dynamic equivalence favors the
signified thought or content of a message at the expense of the signifier, it is logocentric” (Aichele,
“Response,” 59). According to the dictionary, “logocentric” is a view that regards “words and language as
a fundamental expression of an external reality.” See Soanes and Stevenson, Oxford English Dictionary, 839.
However, the previous discussion, including the many quotes from Nida himself, would indicate that this
is not his perspective at all. In fact, one could turn the tables and make the claim (contra Aichele,
“Response,” 60) that “logocentrism” is actually the position of those who favor or promote “formal
248
10.7 Gnostic Incarnations

In this section, Boer decides to “switch tactics” in his critique of Nida, now resorting to some
spurious theology to make the point that “Nida’s model of dynamic equivalence makes use of a
gnostic Christology”:587

Dynamic equivalence follows a gnostic incarnational model: while the “Word” remains
the same, it may move from body to body.588

Indeed, here Boer, who personally has “nothing against the Gnostics per se,589 approaches what
amounts to an argumentum ad hominem—which was perhaps his purpose in any case. One might
come to this conclusion based on Boer’s own argument: Why single Nida out as being “gnostic”
if it is, in fact, true that he has simply recycled the ancient “paraphrase” approach to translating,
which was “the popular mode of translating into English up until the early nineteenth
century”?590

But Boer continues his ill-conceived foray into theology and church history as follows:
The problem for Nida is that had he been alive in the early centuries of the Christian era
when one council after another hammered out the core doctrines of the church (usually
under imperial pressure for a unified ideology), he would have voted with the Gnostics.
Why? His theory of translation assumes a definable, clear, and pure message that may take
on many different languages without being tainted by them. So also the gnostic Christ
inhabited the body of Jesus only to depart this outer casing at will when the going got
tough…591

Such a mischievous analogy betrays not only a questionable motive, but also certain level of
ignorance about the object of his criticism. Indeed, way back in the days of TAPOT (had Boer
bothered to look), Nida and other DE proponents clearly recognized the fallacy of any position
which would assert “that form has virtually no role to play in the production of this message”—
i.e. “the ‘Word’.”592 At the very beginning of TAPOT, the first three “new attitudes with respect
to receptor languages” are these:593
 Each language has its own genius.594
 To communicate effectively one must respect the genius of each language.595

equivalence,” hence privileging “the signifier at the expense of the signified thought or content of a
message”—where the linguistic form of a text becomes its essential reality and the focus of attention.
587
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 20.
588
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 14; cf. Elliott and Boer, “Introduction,” 2.
589
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 21.
590
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 17.
591
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 21. From Boer’s perspective, in Nida’s “gnostic christological
model of translation…the content of the message (soul) can move freely from one language (flesh) to
another without being affected by that language.” See Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 22. In keeping with
Western linguistic theories and universalistic thinking of TAPOT’s times (the 1960s), Nida did have a rather
optimistic view of translatability and of the possibility of transferring complete “messages” across
languages, cultures, and world-views.
592
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 21.
593
Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 3-4, original italics.
594
“That is to say, each language possesses certain distinctive characteristics which give it a special
character, e.g., . . .” See Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 3-4.
595
“Rather than bemoan the lack of some feature in a language, one must respect the features of
the receptor language and exploit the potentialities of the language to the greatest possible extent. . . .”
See Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 4.
249
  Anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an
essential element of the message.596
These principles were but the rudimentary germs of an admittedly “meaning-based” approach597
(not only “content,” as stressed by Boer)598 that was later fleshed out by Nida and his followers
in “functional equivalence” (as well as by several notable non-DE proponents) into some much
more sophisticated and discerning methodologies that focus in detail on both SL and TL linguistic
and literary forms.599

10.7 Conclusion: Imperialistic and Capitalistic motivation?

In his final section, Boer moves from theology into economic theory and an equally daring, but
deceptive historical analogy between DE translation and what has transpired in imperialistic
politics. Thus, “[t]he ‘message’ of the Bible becomes a pure expression of the commodity form
and as such is a symptom of globalized capitalism.”600 To be more specific:

Nida’s dynamic equivalence is an excellent complement to that [20th century US]

imperialism, coupled as it was with untiring fieldwork enabled by cheap and rapid
transport. . . . So also with the resolute focus on the singular message of the Bible (again,
assuming what one knows what it is): it is infinitely exchangeable, moving from one
language to another with more or less ease. That message is not to be hindered by any
local uses (the distinctive sounds and shapes of a language), for it is above all an
exchangeable commodity.601

Boer here once more recycles his erroneous understanding of DE theory and practice by
employing some fallacious economic and political metaphorical reasoning. However, this will
get him no farther in the minds of those who know anything about the extensive post-TAPOT
field of biblical translation studies, as the cited documentation above has shown. Unfortunately,
the mis-information of Boer’s article might negatively prejudice the opinion of the readers of
Ideology, Culture, and Translation, including many biblical scholars, who do not have much of a
background in this highly specialized and diversified field. In short, what began perhaps as a
“caper” has turned out to be a rather serious, albeit misplaced accusation, or at best a very
misleading impression of Eugene A. Nida and his influential work!

596
“It must be said, however, that if the form in which a message is expressed is an essential
element of its significance, there is a very distinct limitation in communicating its significance from one
language to another…[for example], the rhythm of Hebrew poetry, the acrostic features of many poems,
and the frequent intentional alliteration.” See Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 4.
597
Various cognitive-based linguistic approaches to translation have taught us that the many
formal and semantic differences between two language-cultures and their respective thought-worlds
(world-views) make it impossible to communicate with complete functional equivalence between them,
even with the addition of a host of readily available paratextual aids, such as, explanatory footnotes,
topical headings, illustrations, a glossary, and so forth. There are only varying degrees of “relevant”
textual-conceptual “resemblance” possible and ultimately achievable in any translation. See Pattemore,
“Framing Nida,” 253-254. “The translator cannot hope to make the message so clear that any reader can
fully understand it without any reference whatsoever to the presuppositions that underlie the biblical
account. That is to say, the translator cannot be expected to so transpose the message linguistically and
culturally that it will fit completely within the interpretive frame of the receptor culture.” See Nida and
Reyburn, Meaning Across Cultures, 29.
598
For example, Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence, 21.
599
For example, Pattemore, Souls Under the Altar; Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating.
600
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 14. Furthermore, “the parallels between dynamic equivalence
with commodity relations under capitalism suggest that it is the ideal (and therefore problematic) type of
translation for our own era.” See Elliott and Boer, “Introduction,” 2.
601
Boer, “Dynamic Equivalence,” 22-23.
250
 The theoretical and practical notions involved in Bible translation have developed
considerably since the days of Nida’s retirement. That entire story has been omitted from Boer’s
“caper” due to his overly-cynical focus upon Nida—the man, his mission, and his method. There
have been two main movements during the past two decades in critical reaction to, and in notable
advancement of Nida’s foundational work in this field. These developments have been nicely
summarized by Pattemore:602

[One] outcome has been a theoretical framework for the ongoing translational activity of
the UBS based on a pragmatic communication model, a context-sensitive literary approach
to text, and a functionalist view of the parameters of translation. . . . The second
movement…is the attempt to provide a fundamentally different paradigm for translation
based on a Relevance-Theoretic understanding of the psychology of
communication…[which] can form the basis of a translation theory which includes the
literary and sociological sensitivities of the first approach…603
To conclude then on a positive, more fully informed note then, how should we evaluate
Nida’s life and work?

UBS [and SIL] translation scholarship is in robust shape and actively engaging significant
issues both internal and externally, and this is due in no small measure to the precedent
established by Eugene Nida, and this forms a fitting frame for the heritage he has entrusted
to us.604

We warmly welcome biblical scholars, translation practitioners, and all those engaged in related,
interdisciplinary academic fields of the SBL to learn more about this rich, still developing
heritage—and further, to actually taste the fruits of its enduring labors by participating in a
current Bible translation project somewhere in the world.

10.8 References

Aichele, George. “The Translator’s Dilemma: A Response to Boer, Coker, Elliott, and Nadella.” Pages 59-65 in Ideology,
Culture, and Translation. Edited by Scott Elliott and Roland Boer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Barnstone, Willis. The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Boer, Roland. “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper.” Pages 13-23 in Ideology, Culture, and Translation. Edited by Scott
Elliott and Roland Boer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

602
Pattemore, “Framing Nida,” 263.
603
It may be possible in future to combine several different contemporary approaches to translation into a
single unified “model” (or method), as alluded to in Pattemore, “Framing Nida,” 263. We might first suggest a general
theoretical framework based on cognitive linguistics, in particular, “frame semantics.” See Lourens de Vries,
“Introduction: Methodology of Bible Translation,” in A History of Bible Translation (ed. Philip A. Noss; Rome: American
Bible Society, 2007), 276-277; Timothy Wilt and Ernst Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for Bible
Translators (Stellenbosch: SUN Press, 2008); Ernst Wendland, “Framing the Frames: A Theoretical Framework for the
Cognitive Notion of ‘Frames of Reference’,” Journal of Translation 6/1 (2011b): 27-51. Within this cognitive framework,
the pragmatic-inferential translation theory of “relevance” would effectively operate. See for example, Gutt, Relevance
Theory; Pattemore, “Framing Nida,” 251-262. The latter could, in turn, be further specified procedure-wise by
functionalist methods such as “Skopos Theory” (skopostheorie). See Lourens de Vries, “Bible Translations: Forms and
Functions,” The Bible Translator 52/3 (2001): 306-319; Christiane Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist
Approaches Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997); Pattemore; “Framing Nida,” 250; Wendland, Translating the
Literature of Scripture, 50-53. The preceding translation techniques would include “functional equivalence” as discussed
above, and perhaps (given the necessary human resources and a suitable setting) even “literary functional
equivalence.” See Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating.
604
Pattemore, Framing Nida,” 263.
251
Coker, K. Jason. “Translating From This Place: Social Location and Translation.” Pages 25-37 in Ideology, Culture, and
Translation. Edited by Scott Elliott and Roland Boer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
De Vries, Lourens. “Bible Translations: Forms and Functions.” The Bible Translator 52/3 (2001): 306-319.

De Vries, Lourens. “Introduction: Methodology of Bible Translation.” Pages 267-277 in A History of Bible Translation.
Edited by Philip A. Noss. Rome: American Bible Society (Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura), 2007.
De Waard, Jan and Eugene A. Nida. From One Language To Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1986.
Elliot, Scott and Roland Boer, eds. Ideology, Culture, and Translation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Elliott, Scott and Roland Boer. “Introduction.” Pages 1-10 in Ideology, Culture, and Translation. Edited by Scott Elliott
and Roland Boer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Grudem, Wayne. “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God.” Pages 19-56 in W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.
J. Collins, V. S. Polythress, and B. Winter, Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation
(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005), 19-56.
Gutt, E-A. Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas and New York: Summer Institute
of Linguistics & United Bible Societies, 1992.
Hill, H., E-A. Gutt, M. Hill, C. Unger, and R. Floyd. Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a Relevant Way.
Dallas: SIL International, 2011.

Jakobson, Roman. “Linguistics and Poetics,” Pages 350-377 in Style in Language. Edited by T. A. Sebeok. Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1960.
Kilham, C. A. Translation Time: An Introductory Course in Translation. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1991.

Lemon, L. T. and M. J. Reis, eds. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.
Mojola, Aloo and Ernst Wendland, “Scripture Translation in the Era of Translation Studies,” Pages 1-25 in Bible
Translation: Frames of Reference. Edited by Timothy Wilt. Manchester: St Jerome, 2003.

Ma, H. J. A Study of Nida’s Translation Theory. Beijing: Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Nida, Eugene A. Fascinated by Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003.

Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Nida, Eugene A. and Wm. D. Reyburn. Meaning Across Cultures. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981.

Nida, E. A., J. P. Louw, A. H. Snyman, and J. Cronje. Style and Discourse, with special reference to the Greek New
Testament. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1983.

Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997.
Pattemore, Stephen. Souls Under the Altar: Relevance Theory and the Discourse Structure of Revelation. New York: United
Bible Societies, 2003.

Pattemore, Stephen. “Framing Nida: The Relevance of Translation Theory in the United Bible Societies.” Pages 217-
263 in A History of Bible Translation. Edited by Philip A. Noss. Rome: American Bible Society (Edizioni di Storia e
Letteratura), 2007.
Porter Stanley E. “Eugene Nida and Translation.” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005): 8-19.
Porter, Wendy. “A Brief Look at the Life and Works of Eugene Albert Nida.” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005): 1-7.
Prickett, Stephen. Word and The Word. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Robertson, E. H. Taking the Word to the World: Fifty Years of the United Bible Societies. Nashville: Nelson, 1996.
Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Technique.” Pages 3-57 in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Edited by L. Lemon and
M. Reis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.

252
Soanes, Catherine and Angus Stevenson, eds. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Statham, Nigel. “Dynamic Equivalence and Functional Equivalence: How Do They Differ? The Bible Translator 54/1
(2003): 102-111.

Statham, Nigel. “Nida and ‘Functional Equivalence’: The Evolution of a Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible
Ways Forward.” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005): 29-43.
Stine, Philip C. Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2004.
Tomashevsky, Boris. “Thematics.” Pages 61-95 in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Edited by L. Lemon and M.
Reis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.
Watt, J. M. “The Contributions of Eugene A. Nida to Sociolinguistics.” The Bible Translator 56/1 (2005): 19-29.
Wendland, Ernst R. “A Form-Functional, Text-Comparative Method of Translating, Teaching, and Checking.” Notes on
Translation 14/1 (2000): 7-27.
Wendland, Ernst R. Translating the Literature of Scripture: A Literary-Rhetorical Approach to Bible Translation. Dallas: SIL
International, 2004.

Wendland, Ernst R. LiFE-Style Translating: A Workbook for Bible Translators (2nd ed). Dallas: SIL International, 2011a.
Wendland, Ernst R. “Framing the Frames: A Theoretical Framework for the Cognitive Notion of ‘Frames of Reference’.”
Journal of Translation 6/1 (2011b): 27-51.

Wendland, Ernst R. “Review Article: Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications.” Old
Testament Essays 25/2 (2012a): 421-454.
Wendland, Ernst R. 2012b. “Exploring Translation Theories—A Review from the Perspective of Bible Translation.”
Journal of Northwest Semitic Studies 38/2 (2012b), 89-128.

Wilt, Timothy, ed. Bible Translation: Frames of Reference. Manchester: St Jerome, 2003.
Wilt, Timothy and Ernst Wendland. Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for Bible Translators. Stellenbosch: SUN
Press, 2008.

253
11. What is an Oratorical “LiFE” translation and How is it Prepared?

In this chapter, I will present a brief motivation and definition for the concept of a literary
functional equivalence translation (LiFE, cf. Wendland 2004b, 2010). This is a version that
embodies the attempt to textually represent more of the artistic and rhetorical—indeed also the
lyric—qualities of the biblical text by making a fuller use of the equivalent features of another
language, whether in written, oral, and/or visual form.605

11.1 Definition: “Literary Functional Equivalence”

“Literary functional equivalence” translation (LiFE for short) is simply an extension or

development of de Waard and Nida’s “functional equivalence” methodology (1986). This
approach is based upon the assumption (supported by various types of discourse and esthetic
analyses, e.g., Wendland 2004, 2013, 2014; Wilt 2005a, 2005b) that the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures, by and large, exemplify literary texts of comparatively high quality, and therefore
any translation should manifest a corresponding level of excellence (to the degree possible under
the prevailing circumstances of text production). The term “literary” conveys a twofold emphasis,
namely, upon the artistry (forms) and rhetoric (functions) of the original biblical documents as
well as any derived vernacular, or “target language” (TL), translations (cf. Wendland 2011).
Artistic techniques include both macro- and micro-structural and stylistic features such as
patterned recursion, chiastic arrangement, imagery and figurative language, distinctive word
orders (new topic, focus), rhythm, euphony, and other purposeful sound effects, plus the
integrated use of assorted forceful devices (e.g., rhetorical questions, hyperbole, irony, exact
repetition, direct speech insertions, and so forth).

Basic functional analysis techniques are given more precision through the application of “speech
act” and “schema” (or cognitive “frames”) theory (Wendland 2008). Special attention is given to
the TL and the search for oral and written (or mixed) genres that may serve as functional
equivalents to those found in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the “source language” (SL).
Different degrees of LiFE application are possible, depending on considerations of “relevance”
(cognitive-emotive “gain” versus text-processing “cost”) in relation to a given translation
project’s foundational “job commission” (brief). This would include the major communicative
goal[s] (Skopos) of the present version in view of its envisaged audience or readership, the
primary setting in which it will be used, the project’s management and support system, the
everyday working procedures and relative competence of the translators. The goal may range
from a complete genre-for-genre (SL to TL) “oratorical” transposition to a somewhat limited
amelioration with respect to the text’s typography and page format and/or the utterance-based
phonological (e.g., rhythmic) structures of a relatively literal “liturgical” version.

Thus the intended situation of use is of major importance when preparing a LiFE translation, and
this projected scenario may be effectively researched and assessed through the recursive
application of an interdisciplinary, cognitive “frames of reference” methodology—that is,
involving the complex interaction of flexible, overlapping sociocultural, organizational,
conversational (situation-specific), and textual (including intertextual) referential contexts (cf.
Wilt 2003, Wendland 2008, Wilt & Wendland 2008). It is recognized that complete (“total”)

605
This point is discussed in G. Toury (1995:168). Toury also notes the significant ambiguity that
is inherent in the designation “literary translation”—that is, literary with reference to the quality of the
original text (e.g., the Scriptures) and/or to the particular translation of a given source text, whether the
latter happens to be regarded as literary in character or not according to the normal standards of artistic
excellence (ibid.:168). I am arguing for an application of “literary” to both—to an analysis of the source
text and also to its rendering in a target language.
254
communication via translation is impossible, and therefore the use of various supplementary
paratextual tools (such as explanatory notes, cross-references, sectional introductions and/or
headings, illustrations, a glossary, etc.) and creative features of textual design and formatting
(e.g., indentation, spacing, typography) are also promoted during the preparation of a full LiFE
translation. Two recently published examples of LiFE translations of the Psalms in English are
Boerger (2009) and Wilt (2012). Two recent dissertations that apply a LiFE methodology are
Pluger (2014, NT proverbial sayings) and Watt (2015, selected psalms).

11.2 Motivation for a literary (oratorical) translation

As noted earlier, an increasing number of studies have drawn attention to many significant
aspects of the literary character that the Scriptures, at least certain well-studied books or
pericopes, clearly demonstrate.606 We find in a book like Genesis or John, for example, numerous
expertly interwoven genres and literary sub-types; intricate patterns of formal and semantic
recursion that permeate the discourse along multiple conceptual planes; elaborate image sets
that are often related in intricate semantic sequences; a great density of figurative, symbolic, and
multi-referential language; many passages that are audibly shaped by sound (orality) so as to
appeal to a listening audience; a preference for dramatic direct speech; and significant citations
of, allusions to, or topical developments of earlier biblical texts. Finally, the Bible frequently
manifests emotive, highly evocative discourse, coupled with a forceful rhetorical mode of
challenging, even provoking readers and hearers alike with a vital promissory, life-death moral
and theological message of utmost relevance both in the here-and-now and beyond the grave.607
In short, many detailed stylistic and structural analyses in recent years have convinced scholars
that instances of excellent literature in the Scriptures are the rule rather than isolated
exceptions.608 Just take an unfamiliar passage, examine it carefully with a keen literary-linguistic
eye, and you will probably be amazed at what you find hidden beneath the surface of the text.

606
The following comments by Keefer with reference to the New Testament apply equally well to
the Old (2008:2, 7): “A literary approach to the New Testament assumes that the documents found here
not only convey ideas but also entertain, prod, puzzle, and delight audiences. Even for readers not
religiously bound to the New Testament, the artistry of the New Testament can prove engaging and
provocative. Reading the New Testament as literature brings to light the dynamics of this engagement.
Whereas religious interpreters of these scriptures, driven by a desire to find moral or theological content,
might overlook the aesthetic experience of the reader, literary interpretation foregrounds this experience.
… Too often the New Testament’s writings are similarly assumed to have simplistic meanings. Literary
readings awaken us to the intricacies of the language that makes up the New Testament. … A literary
reading of the New Testament allows readers to understand content through close engagement with form.”
Form has meaning, and this is as true for literary form as it is for linguistic form, for the former is inevitably
created from the latter. Thus, discovering these literary (artistic and rhetorical) “intricacies of the
language” of biblical texts often leads analysts/exegetes to additional dimensions and facets of meaning—
connotative as well as denotative—which they had hitherto not been aware of.
607
Thiselton cogently argues for the prominence of the speech act of promising in biblical writings
(1999:231-239), for example: “[P]romise provides a paradigm case of how language can transform the world
of reality” (ibid.:238, author’s italics).
608
For a varied sample of such recent studies, see Breck 1994, Dorsey 1999, Harvey 1998, and
Wilson 1997. It may be noted that critics who make a positive assessment of the literary quality of biblical
literature, either as a whole or with regard to specific books, tend to adopt a broader perspective on the
original text. They thus carefully consider the larger discourse organization rather than just the surface
linguistic structure, for example Dewey (1980:29-39) versus Turner (1976:11-44) concerning the gospel
of Mark. Even such unlikely books as Leviticus and Numbers have been convincingly shown to manifest a
literary character (cf. Douglas 1999, 1993). An entire series of scholarly commentaries, i.e., Berit Olam,
has been commissioned with the aim of drawing out the literary dimension of the Hebrew Bible, e.g.,
Sherwood 2002.
255
 Thus, whether the language is Hebrew or Greek, the diverse pericopes of Bible, over and
above their obvious religious and moral content, appear to manifest a level of compositional
excellence that is exceptional with regard to both the macrostructure and also the microstructure
of discourse organization. Such high quality is clearly demonstrated in more texts than most
people realize, from the skillful selection and combination of complete literary genres within a
certain book to the integrated usage within individual verses of literary features such as figurative
language, varied syntactic arrangements, tropes based on repetition, rhetorical features such as
deliberate questions, irony, and hyperbole—any or all these being frequently highlighted by
diverse phonesthetic combinations. This claim may be supported whether one analyzes the
discourse from an Ancient Near Eastern perspective (Semitic, rabbinic, Greco-Roman, or all three
stylistic influences in the case of many NT texts) or any of the modern literary approaches (e.g.,
“close-reading,” structuralist, semiotic, Russian Formalist, cognitive poetics, or “new rhetoric”).

Since various texts of the Bible arguably do demonstrate, by and large, a high literary
standard,609 they require a correspondingly high quality of translation to maintain a relative
balance in terms of “functional equivalence,” communicative “effectiveness,” or more specifically
“rhetorical power” and “aesthetic parity.”610 In other words, the very literary nature of the
original text challenges translators to at least attempt to reproduce or match this “given” level of
stylistic excellence in the their vernacular, to the extent that this is possible—that is, in view of
their particular level of education, competence, experience, and commitment as well as the
encouragement and support provided by their translation administrative committee. To do any
less would represent a considerable reduction in the overall communicative value of the
translation in relation to the original SL text. Thus the attempt to produce a mellifluous and
moving “poetic” rendering of at least certain portions of the Scriptures—those of undeniable
literary quality to begin with—would seem to be justified, as long as there is a desirous and
eager consumer constituency that is either calling for such a translation, or who research suggests
would presumably benefit from one.611

11.3 The oral-aural factor and an “oratorical” version

What exactly is a “literary” translation then, and how does it differ from other “meaning
oriented” renditions, “common language” (CL) and “popular language” (PL) versions in
particular? Wonderly broadly defines such literary translations as follows (Wonderly 1968:30):

These are fully contemporary, are oriented to the general public (not just the Christian in-
group), and vary from regular to formal in their [sociolinguistic] functional variety. They

609
I discuss this issue further in “A literary approach to biblical text analysis and translation” (Wilt
ed., ch. 6) and in Wendland 2004b. Several recent extensive studies support this conclusion, for example,
with regard to the Old Testament, see Dorsey 1999; for the New Testament, see Davis 1999.
610
Regarding the translation goal of “functional equivalence,” de Waard and Nida state: “The
translator must seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible will match
the meaning of the original source-language text” (1986:36). “Meaning” is not only “informative” in
function; it is also “expressive” and “affective” in nature. Concerning translational “effectiveness,” Hatim
and Mason propose that “one might define the task of the translator as a communicator as being one of
seeking to maintain coherence by striking the appropriate balance between what is effective (will achieve
its communicative goal) and what is efficient (will prove least taxing on users’ cognitive resources) in a
particular environment, for a particular purpose and for particular receivers” (1997:12).
611
The sort of rendition that I am proposing here would be classified as a “homologous”
translation by C. Nord in her recent helpful overview of functional approaches to translation. She defines
this as a version in which “the tertium comparationis between the source and the target text is a certain
status within a corpus or system, mostly with respect to literary or poetic texts” (1997:52). This translation
technique, the ultimate in linguistic “domestication,” is also known in secular circles as “semiotic
transformation” (Ludskanov) or “creative transposition” (Jakobson).
256
 make free use of all the resources of the language at all levels which are considered
acceptable for published materials, and are thereby not intended to be fully accessible to
the uneducated reader.

Obviously a literary version as defined above can be produced only in a linguistic community
that possesses a relatively long tradition of recognized written literature. Its envisioned
constituency, or target group, would be people who are comparatively well-educated, widely-
read, and who enjoy the challenge of wrestling with the full range of lexical, grammatical,
stylistic, and rhetorical usage in the particular language and society concerned.612

Does anything correspond to a “literary text” in the case of a language group that does not
have such a long or strong tradition of literature and whose members communicate
predominantly by oral-aural means?613 This situation would characterize most societies in Bantu
Africa as well as in many other regions of the world. In such cases, the closest equivalent might
be termed an oratorical text—that is, oral discourse that makes use of the complete range of
genres and styles in the spoken language to convey a message that is widely regarded by listeners
as being impressive, eloquent, persuasive, and beautiful. Such semi-formal, oral-rhetorical usage
would exclude youthful jargon, clichés, and foreign-based colloquialisms (e.g., English
borrowings and calques), on the one hand, and widely unintelligible archaisms or specialist in-
group technical argot on the other (e.g., vocabulary pertaining to specific occupations or
activities like hunting, fishing, house-building, herbalistic medicine, traditional initiation
ceremonies, or ancient religious practices).

Nowadays, such an “oratorical” style is manifested in the main by popular public speakers
and radio broadcasters, including skillful oral performers of ancient verbal art forms as well as
Christian evangelists and revivalists.614 Thus many recognized models of excellent oratory style
do exist; however, these must be carefully collected (often by recording, hence requiring
transcription), analyzed, and published (or broadcast) for standards of assessment to develop to
the point where they may be effectively applied in written literature. Of course, the medium of
print itself requires certain compositional modifications to be made to any published text, for
example, less overt repetition, a more explicit expression of content (to counteract the lack of a
situational context), compensation for suprasegmental, intonational, and elocutionary
(phonological) significance (e.g., the use of commas or dashes to represent dramatic pauses),
more precise conjunctive and transitional devices (“function words”), and a lower incidence of
informal or colloquial diction.615

612
A “literary” translation is not necessarily the same as a “liturgical” version, although the two
types are sometimes confused. A liturgical Bible is often quite traditional and literal in nature, hence not
literary at all according to natural TL verbal norms—although it may be regarded as being so as a result
of long usage and “official” promotion by the user churches.
613
The term “my tongue” (Psa. 45:2) introduces the crucial oral-aural aspect of the message that
we both read (in the original) and translate.
614
I present the results of an extensive study of an outstanding representative of the last mentioned
group in Wendland 2000. Some politicians too are good orators, but their topical repertory tends to be
quite limited and focused on issues of government policies, social welfare, and economic development.
615
Compare the set of audio-oriented features noted in the study of Sundersingh (1999:170). I
would strongly support Sundersingh’s appeal that “[t]he media scene of today’s world demands that we
be sensitive to the needs of non-literates and non-readers [these two categories overlap, but are not the
same] by way of providing them with biblical [i.e., faithfully rendered] Scriptures in media [and modes,
i.e., distinct verbal styles or varieties] other than print” (ibid.:315; the comments in brackets are my own).
257
 The use of these oral models and stylistic techniques is particularly appropriate for
translations of the Bible, which are much more frequently accessed by the ear than the eye.616
Furthermore, recent research has tended to confirm the hypothesis that the various documents
of the Scriptures were in large measure composed aloud and/or were written down with the oral-
aural transmission and reception of their message immediately in mind.617 Consequently, “[s]ince
the acts of both writing and reading were normally accompanied by vocalization, the structure
[and style] of [the] text was marked by aural rather than visual indicators.”618 This fact (assumed
here to be true) has important implications for both the analysis as well as the ongoing
transmission of the biblical text via translation. For one thing, such prominent sonic stylistic and
structural indicators—the rhythmic dimension of discourse, including its characteristic aural
“punctuation” devices—need to be reproduced by means of functionally equivalent techniques
in a translation.619 This “oral-elocutionary” envelope of meaning is a particularly important
consideration in the case of any specifically designed “oratorical” version, which is primarily
meant to be uttered aloud and heard rather than read silently to oneself.620

However, a possible objection to an oratorical, or indeed, even a general literary, translation

needs to be considered. This concerns the validity of applying the results of a close stylistic
comparison and evaluation of the original texts of Scripture to a contemporary Bible translation.
Thus, one might question whether utilizing an artistic-rhetorical manner of composition in the
TL text constitutes a distortion of—in this case, an intentional “improvement” upon—the

616
The preface to the Contemporary English Version states this point well: “Languages are spoken
before they are written. And far more communication is done through the spoken word than through the
written word. In fact, more people hear the Bible than read it for themselves. Traditional translations of
the Bible count on the reader’s ability to understand a written text. But the Contemporary English Version
differs from all other English Bibles—past and present—in that it takes into consideration the needs of the
hearer, as well as those of the reader, who may not be familiar with traditional biblical language”
(American Bible Society, 1995; original italics). This final claim concerning its uniqueness may be
somewhat of an overstatement, but for our purposes the point is simply this: An oratorical version is meant
primarily to be orally read, to be clearly understood aurally, and to make its artistic-emotive impression
upon an audience through the message as it is being heard by them.
617
For further details, see, for example, Achtemeier 1990; Sundersingh 1999:6; Wendland 2008:ch.
1. Recent research confirms the presence of writing at an early date in Israel’s history—in fact, earlier than
previously thought: “Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating
from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign. … ‘It indicates that the Kingdom of
Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written
hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research,’ said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical
Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text” (Moskowitz 2010).
618
Davis 1999:11. Similarly, concerning the Old Testament, Dorsey writes: “[A]ncient texts were
written primarily to be heard, not seen. Texts were normally intended to be read aloud…. To study
structure in the Hebrew Bible, then, requires paying serious attention to verbal structure indicators…”
(1999:16). Such “aural indicators” would include features such as: rhythmic lineation, phonic
accentuation, verbal patterning, prominent discourse demarcative devices, lexical recursion, direct speech,
graphic diction, oral emphasizers, and vivid imagery (to promote topical-thematic recall).
619
This point needs to be emphasized in the production of any type of translation, no matter what
the setting or Skopos. Perhaps I have not made this clear enough in past writings, thus leading to criticism
such as the following: “Despite the advantages of LiFE, it is limited because its approach focuses on the
literary features of language and possesses several communication possibilities for ‘particular audience
subgroups in specific situations or special settings.’ Therefore, it may be unacceptable in a public worship
service with a general liturgical purpose” (Cho 2009:80). A LiFE approach applies to “oral literature” (or
“orature”) just as much as it does to written/printed literature, although different analysis techniques must
be applied and different results are to be expected. Such investigations of an oral style would very likely
be applicable to a translation that is intended for public worship, e.g., to encourage the fluent, rhythmic
articulation of a communally recited liturgy.
620
For a study of the elaborate sound patterning to be found in an apparently prosaic text (Jn.
17), see Wendland 1994a.
258
supposed vernacular “common-language,” or koine, style of the New Testament documents.621
Are we in danger here of over-translation? In other words, even if the biblical books themselves
can be shown to be highly literary (or oratorical) in nature—that is, of recognizable and
demonstrable excellence with respect to their compositional and rhetorical quality—to what
extent are we justified in the attempt to reproduce this level of excellence in a translation?
Obviously, we do not want to overdo a translation simply for the sake of artistry, but to provide
convincing answers to detailed questions of procedure would require more extensive research
and testing than the various Chewa and Tonga case studies presented in this monograph.622 I am
not proposing a literary version as the ideal model to follow; it is only one method among many.
My point is simply to give due consideration to such aspects of discourse, if they are clearly seen
in the biblical text. The overall context of use is the crucial determining factor. Thus, it is
important to remember that all these issues pertaining to the stylistic nature of a given translation
must be considered in relation to a specific biblical text, a particular communicative goal, and
the primary target-language setting.

My major premise is that a well-prepared functionally equivalent translation of the Bible will
normally turn out to be a recognized literary text in the target language, whether on the
elaborated “high,” or formal, level of discourse style or on a more “common” level of linguistic
sophistication. In short, an LT might be characterized as being a stylistically “extended” or
embellished popular-language version. Thus, if the original has been determined to be literature
(and different degrees of artistic and rhetorical quality may be recognized with respect to the
various books), then its corresponding interlingual reproduction should be similarly regarded, in
accordance with recognized standards of verbal excellence in the vernacular. A certain amount
of formal correspondence with the original text will probably (but not inevitably) be lost in this
effort to gain “pragmatic resemblance”—“a [perceptible] similarity of communicative functions”
(de Beaugrande 1968:94). But the goal is to attain a high degree of situational “relevance” for
the intended audience by means of this emphasis upon artful text reconstruction in the
vernacular.623

11.4 Further reflections on a LIFE-like “oratorical” translation

11.4.1 On the complexities of translation

Translation (the “process”) may be generally described as a type of complex, controlled, and
contextualized communication (the generic concept under which “translation” falls). It is
“complex” because two (or more) distinct, and often very different, language-cultures are
concerned. It is “controlled” because the process is directional, moving both cognitively and
textually through the activity of “exegesis” (or interpretation) from a given SL document to what
is intended to be a corresponding TL document, the translation (i.e., intended “product”).
Translation is also “contextualized” because the process must closely reference, investigate, and

621
A stylistic assessment of the of the Hebrew Scriptures is of course more difficult to make due to
the limited corpus of texts, religious or secular, on the basis of which an adequate analytical comparison
may be made (even in cognate literatures). However, the diversity and abundance of “universal” literary
features present in many Old Testament passages greatly reduces the doubt concerning this issue.
622
More discussion and exemplification may be found in Wendland 2008 and 2009.
623
As already noted, “relevance” refers to a balanced, situationally determined appropriateness
with respect to efficiency (the least conceptual “processing” effort) on the one hand and effectiveness (the
greatest cognitive gain or communicative impact) on the other. The so-called “principle of relevance” is
variously treated in different theories of translation. For some (e.g., Gutt 1992:24-25), it is the only
theoretical concept and guideline that is necessary; for others (e.g., Hatim and Mason 1990:93-95), it forms
just part of a much wider text and context-based, sociolinguistic model of interlingual communication (for
more on this well-known “minimax concept,” see de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981:11; Fawcett 1997:12).
259
be guided by two discrete communication settings—that which initially surrounded the original
SL text, and that which subsequently governs the production of an audience-acceptable TL text.

More specifically then, translation is an intricate (text-focused) and intuitive (context-

sensitive) process of verbal exchange, or textual “transubstantiation,” that involves two basic
procedures:

o The intercultural re-ideation of a given SL text, which is a meaningful and purposeful

selection, arrangement, and differentiation of oral or written signs, as it is conceptually
transferred from one world-view domain, or set of interrelated mental representations, to
another;

o The semantically accurate, formally (stylistically) appropriate, and pragmatically acceptable

interlingual re-signification of the original text in a specific TL, along with any essential para-
textual bridge and background material (e.g., explanatory notes, illustrations, etc.) needed to
facilitate a basic comprehension of the translation by a specific target audience (readership).

The first operation requires the cognitive processing and transformation of all the explicit and
implicit semantic and pragmatic features of the original text of Scripture—to the extent and
degree possible, given the resources available to the translation team. Indeed, we must admit at
the outset that due to the limitations under which translators must work, only a partial
representation of the original text and its implied thought-world is possible. The second
procedure, which follows from the first, deals with the overt, constituent “surface-level” semantic,
structural, and stylistic aspects of a discourse. Mistakes that occur during the initial step of
translation, the SL text’s re-conceptualization, are generally introduced into, and hence distort, the
latter stage, its re-composition in the TL.

11.4.2 Bible translation

As already noted, communication by means of translation is a complicated procedure due to the

fact that at least two different languages, cultures, conceptual grids, and semiotic systems are
involved. In fact, in those project settings where translators are not able to access the original
text, it is necessary to introduce a version in a third language-culture and cognitive framework
(world-view), one that may be quite foreign in both respects to the SL as well as the TL. Such a
“bridge translation” is often composed in a major western Language of Wider Communication
(LWC), such as English, Spanish, French, or Russian. This inevitably presents a team with some
serious conceptual and translational problems. However, in the case of a regional LWC, like
Swahili in east Africa or Chewa further to the south, the situation is not as problematic because
these languages belong to the same linguistic family (Bantu) as many others in the area, and they
also reflect many more cultural similarities. Hence, such versions may serve as a “model” for
projects being carried out in related languages.

A translation of the Scriptures presents further challenges because of the great time-gap that
exists between the initial setting of composition and the present-day. As a result, the original
writers and their cultural environment can no longer be directly observed or investigated. Thus,
the real test for Bible translators is presented by the initial “re-conceptualization” process. Once
they have accomplished that assignment in relation to the Hebrew or Greek text and its setting
(with the help of critical commentaries, dictionaries, concordances, and other exegetical aids—
including electronic tools like Paratext and Logos), the second step, creating a linguistic “re-
presentation” in the TL is not quite so difficult. Nevertheless, determining the relevant textual

260
“appropriateness” (relevance, acceptability, etc.) for a particular target group is still a formidable
task that requires of translators the highest level of competence and commitment.

The task of interlingual communication is further complicated by the prestigious nature of

the source text that is being rendered in the case of the Holy Scriptures. A sacred, authoritative,
revered (“high-value”) SL document (albeit the edited copy of a long line of copies) will always
take precedence in value over its translation. Therefore, any TL version must continually be
comparatively examined and improved where possible in the light of the original. Such an
assessment involves several areas of implication that need to be closely monitored. Thus, a
laudable desire to express as much as possible of the intended “meaning” of the Word of God
(certainly the ideal goal, though admittedly unachievable) requires that one pay attention to not
only the content of the biblical text but also to its presumed communicative functions and emotive
impact in relation to its intended audience and their social setting and situational context.624

However, there is even more of a debt to the original to repay in the case of Scripture
translation: Translators must carefully study the linguistic and literary forms of the source
document being translated, not only to determine its semantic content and pragmatic intent but
also because these artistically composed forms themselves often convey, display, or represent
meaning—namely, semiotic significance of a stylistic, structural, aesthetic, and/or rhetorical
nature. Many examples of this could be cited from virtually every biblical book and pericope,
including audible phonological effects such as punning and alliteration, word order variations to
indicate topic and focus, repetition that produces thematic cohesion as well as emphasis,
constructions serving to mark structural peaks and boundaries within a discourse, rhetorical
devices that generate emotion and suspense, and creative formal arrangements which appear to
reflect an artistic impulse to beautify the text conceptually and/or to give it a special aural
appeal. In short then, every well-shaped literary composition gives abundant evidence of the fact
that form has meaning too and must therefore be given its due in any translation effort. This is a
primary goal of our literary-oriented approach, one that may be attempted and accomplished to
a greater or lesser extent in every application of the method, depending on local community
desires, requirements, and resources.

Thus, the proverb traddutore—traditore, roughly put: “the translator is a traitor,” applies also
to the form of verbal discourse. The more literary the text, the more “traitorous” a translator
inevitably becomes! Moreover, not only “two principal models” of translation exist—a “formal
imitation” of the original text and a version that aims for “content correspondence,” as is
commonly stated, but there is at least one other possibility to consider: This is a rendering that
seeks to achieve the closest possible degree of semantic equivalence, but does so by utilizing the
most excellent available TL structural and stylistic forms in the process. It is arguable that in the
case of the Holy Scriptures, no less of a translational goal ought to be set forth before all those
engaged in the project.

624
I must emphasize here the utter impossibility of translation in all of its aspects—form, content,
function and effect. Translation always involves some sort of distortion—of addition, subtraction, or
modification. It is simply not possible to reproduce the full denotative and connotative significance of the
original in any version because a “translation always functions in a totally different socio-historical
context” (de Vries 2001:317). Therefore, a careful selection in terms of what can, and what needs, to be
done must be made in the light of the requirements and resources of the contemporary target audience
and their circumstances. More will be said below about this important pragmatic translation principle of
the “limited good.”

261
11.5 Towards an “oratorical” literary-functional-equivalence (LiFE) translation

An oratorical, LiFE manner of translating stresses the importance of form, including sonic—
elocutionary style, in text analysis and transfer, that is, with respect to both the SL and also the
TL documents. This approach may be further described by means of the following characteristics
which, taken together, serve to distinguish its practical methodology as applied to Bible
translation:

 A manifold discourse-centered, genre-based, holistic technique of text-processing.

 A prominent pragmatic-functional component that evaluates a given biblical discourse
in terms of its assumed interactive speech and text acts along with its manifest rhetorical
strategies.
 A concern for investigating complete communication frames, that is, the entire process
of message transmission, taking into consideration also the extralinguistic sociocultural
setting of the TL text as well as that of the original document.
 A focus on the artistic and rhetorical aspects of discourse—its presumed impact, appeal,
beauty, and relevance in relation to its intended audience or readership.
 A special interest also in the oral-aural (“oratorical”) dimension of the source and target
texts, as well as its associated visual display, or typographical format, on the printed
page.
 A recognition of the need for a variety of para-textual supplementary devices that seek
to highlight significant structural and stylistic features to be found in the biblical text
and/or reproduced in the translation.
 An ongoing, monitored sensitivity to translation users (their wishes, needs, limitations,
values, expectations, etc.) and also to usage (when, where, and how the version is
programmed to be employed).

The fullest type of LiFE application is realized in a complete genre-for-genre transformation on

both the MACRO- and also the micro-structural levels of the TL text. This sort of version would
tend to demonstrate the widest possible (yet also suitable) use of TL artistic and rhetorical
resources in keeping with the genre that has been chosen as a translation model. But this is by
no means the only option. There are many potential “LiFE forms” depending on the local
circumstances, but one procedural principle is paramount, namely, that every translation can be
made “literary” (“oratorical”), at least to a certain minimal degree.625 The primary aim is to
produce a translation text that both reads easily and sounds natural to the ears of a TL audience
in specified, relevant respects, as determined by the project commission.

625
To elaborate: An “oratorical” version is a literary translation that is meant to be recited, heard,
memorized, and transmitted orally and has been composed specifically for that purpose. The text is therefore
both translated and also tested aloud as a matter of explicit procedure with special attention being given to
its acoustic appeal and sonic aesthetics. The appeal to orality does not necessary mean that oral genres of
verbal art provide the best models for Bible translators to imitate. On the contrary, many stylistic devices
featured in Chichewa oral narrative, for example, are unsuitable and sound unnatural in written discourse,
e.g., the amount of exact repetition, use of exclamations, redundant connectives, and the like.
262
 Five main premises or assumptions underlie such a LiFE approach as applied to the
Scriptures:

1. The foundational base text, the canon of Scripture, is arguably an excellent,

“literary” document, consisting of many different genres and styles of composition.
2. The available literary/oratorical resources of the TL are not often utilized, even
partially, in most Bible translations, whether literal or idiomatic in nature.
3. Diverse degrees, or strategies, of LiFE translational application are possible with
respect to both the TL as a whole and also the particular biblical text to be
translated.
4. Depending on the language involved, different features of linguistic form may be
selected for specific “literary enhancement” (foregrounding, making more
“relevant” or “domesticated”) in a LiFE translation.
5. A literary (artistic + rhetorical) translation is intellectually stimulating and
emotively satisfying for competent translators to use their creativity to produce.

The first premise provides the motivating force for the others: IF the text of Scripture is somehow
“literary/oratorical” in nature (manifesting certain functionally significant artistic and rhetorical
qualities), THEN this dimension of overall “meaning” needs to be taken into account when setting
up a project and formulating its goals. The organizers must at least acknowledge the presence of
this factor in the biblical documents even if they are unable, for whatever reason, to take it into
serious consideration within the translation itself.626

It is important to note once again the variety of potential application: Many different areas
and degrees of literary engagement and enhancement are possible, depending on the operational
organization and capabilities of the project, which may range in scale from the production of a
full Bible to a brief selection designed for a special religious occasion. I suggest that as a basic
minimum, it would be most expedient, and perhaps also the most acceptable solution, to apply
an oratorical manner of translating consistently to the phonology, or sound structure, of the TL
text. This would involve features such as: the overall rhythmic flow of discourse,627 a natural
pattern of sequential lineation based on utterance units, pleasant sounding collocations of words
and phrases, euphonious alliteration and assonance, pointed paronomasia, and, if common in the
TL genre concerned, also a touch of rhyme.628

626
To ignore the literary dimension of a text is to diminish its full meaning. “Approaching the
complexities of translation from a literary theoretical angle makes sense when one keeps in mind that
literature is regarded as the most complex form of language usage, incorporating much more than semiotic
meaning or signification. In poetic language all the aspects and possibilities of language are deliberately
exploited to concentrate meaning, to achieve that density of meaning which Jurij Lotman… saw as the
essence of the artistic text when he coined the phrase ‘Schönheit is Information” (du Plooy 2002:2002).
627
For a pertinent caveat concerning the assessment of rhythm in literature, see Crisp 2004:49.
628
The bottom line: Any biblical text—large or small, poetry or prose—can (should?) be translated
in a literary manner to the extent and degree possible, that is, with an ear keenly attuned to the rich phonic
potential and the distinctive expressive beauty (the linguistic genius) of both the biblical text and the
vernacular version. Of course, a more radical application of a “domesticating,” literary method of
translation in the TL may result in certain lack of equivalence with regard to the forms of the original SL
text, for example, various types of repetition and larger structural patterns (inclusio, chiasmus, an acrostic
arrangement). This loss must be balanced against the increased psychological effects (literary perception,
263
 Thus, the component of “literariness” (verbal resourcefulness, rhetorical persuasiveness)
may be introduced in a translation through diverse devices and in different measures. The
emphasis, as always in the case of the Scriptures, remains focused firmly upon the semantic
content of the original text, but there is an interest also in conveying its communicative
significance artistically when translating, that is, in accordance with the linguistic “genius” and
literary-oratorical inventory of the target language. The latter refers to the various stylistic
features which distinguish the discourse of different genres—that is, as currently recognized and
evaluated by artistically-sensitive lay-people as well as by local “experts” in the TL and its
literature (orature).

11.6 Literary (oratorical) influence on the Bible interpretation-translation

process

There are two areas of literary (or “oratorical”—with an emphasis on the oral-aural dimension of
discourse) importance and consequence that must be considered during the translation process.
An “artistic” concern leads one to focus upon the formal, esthetic and iconic facets of verbal
texts, whether oral or written, i.e., what is beautiful, euphonious, memorable, sensually
appealing in discourse. There is accordingly an emphasis upon the poetic (artistic), relational
(phatic) and ritual (liturgical) functions of communication.
A “rhetorical” interest, on the other hand, directs one towards the functional, dynamic aspect of
text transmission, i.e., what is powerful, persuasive, influential, pragmatically effective in
discourse. In this case, the emphasis is upon the expressive, affective, and imperative functions of
communication.

The formal scope of an oratorical (including a “poetic”)629 approach thus extends in two
directions which converge and overlap in many places. One impulse examines the artistic beauty
of the Scriptures with respect to both the original and the translated text. Here one seeks to
determine what makes the biblical text esthetically attractive—capturing the eyes, ears, and
general interest of its hypothetical audience—thereby also enhancing the other communicative
aims that the author sought to achieve in and through his words.

The second literary inclination highlights the potency, or persuasive power, of the source and
target texts. How did the writers of Scripture use language to capture minds, hearts, and wills—
that is, to influence their hearers and readers to understand, feel, accept, and do certain things?
Here the analyst attempts to identify the specific stylistic features that enabled people to
experientially sense the Bible’s impact in terms of diverse emotions, passions, attitudes, and
moods?630 Together, the manifest artistry and rhetoricity of the original text serves to enhance
its overall credibility, authority, and authenticity, while effecting varying degrees of
interpersonal power and solidarity in relation to a continual succession of audience groups, both
ancient and modern.

The bottom line: Any biblical text—large or small, poetry or prose—can (should?) be
translated in a literary (oratorical) manner to the extent and degree possible under the prevailing
circumstances of production. That means with an ear keenly attuned to the rich phonic potential

rhetorical impact, aesthetic appeal) that an artistic-rhetorical version might generate, for a listening
audience in particular. Simon Crisp (2004) provides a helpful overview of some important issues pertaining
to the literary potential of a literal Bible translation in English.
629
The discipline of poetics refers to the study of formal [structural and stylistic] artistry in
literature—its analysis, interpretation, and comparative evaluation.
630
From a theological perspective, my view is that this formal literary motivation and textual
implementation was guided in the case of the various authors (also the scribal recorders, editors, etc.) of
Scripture by the essential, superintending operation of the Holy Spirit.
264
and the distinctive expressive beauty (the linguistic genius) of both the biblical text as well as
the vernacular version. Of course, a more radical application of a “domesticating,” literary
method of translation in the TL may result in certain lack of equivalence with regard to the forms
of the original SL text, for example, various types of repetition and larger structural patterns
(inclusio, chiasmus, an acrostic arrangement). This loss must be balanced against the increased
psychological effects (literary perception, rhetorical impact, aesthetic appeal) that an artistic-
rhetorical version might generate, especially for a listening audience, and in particular one that
understands and can appreciate the literary value of the original text—and, on the other hand,
the creative efforts made to replicate as much as possible of this aspect of meaning in translation.

11.7 Translation choices: A continuum of possibilities—or “compromises”?

We recognize that every translation is only a partial (indeed a very pale) image or reflection of the
original text because only selected constituents of the source language document can be
adequately, let alone equivalently, represented in the target language. Therefore, a choice must
always be made—that is, in the light of the total frame of reference presented by the translation
setting and in accordance with context-related “situational relevance.” Also applicable here is
the ethical “integrity factor,” namely, the desire to keep the inevitable interference, distortion,
or loss, in crucial areas of communicative significance to a minimum.

Thus, there is, in practice, a continuum of possibilities that capable and creative translators
may work with, as schematized on the diagram below:

A proposed translation continuum:

less ============== “oratorical” ============= MORE
Oral-aural features applied, in increasing scope: phonological < morphological < lexical < syntactic < textual

Different types (or “styles”) of translation also range along this continuum, that is moving from
a completely “foreignized” formal correspondence interlinear version at one end to a fully
“domesticated,” functionally equivalent genre transformation at the other. However, the chief
requirement or guideline is that every declared, or intended, “literary” version would display at
least some perceptible artistic embellishment aimed at rendering the text more natural sounding
in the TL.

Every translation has its particular strengths and weaknesses, both exegetically and
stylistically, depending on which aspects of the original text the translators (and/or their
commissioners) have chosen to either to downplay or to highlight during their work. (Thus, the
simple diagram above might also be referred to as a “continuum of compromises”!) The “perfect”
translation never has been, nor ever will be, realized in human language. Therefore, the ideal is
to have several diverse renderings available in a given sociolinguistic setting so that they may be
used to complement each other during any kind of Scripture study, instruction, or proclamation,
thus enriching the overall communication of the biblical message.631 It is also important to
educate the primary audience (readership) of a given version, whether under discussion or
already published, concerning the basic principles of Scripture interpretation and translation—

631
“[O]ne type of translation is not enough for the various things people want to do with the Bible”
(de Vries 2001:312). Of course, this presupposes that they are sufficiently educated as to the various
options available and how to apply them in their lives (see further below).

265
plus how one’s approach to these matters affects the choices or options that translators have
available to them in a particular communicative and religious setting.

In a blog-text entitled “Word for word or Thought for thought?”— David Capes states (Jan.
7th 2013; http://www.hearthevoice.com/blog/68):

“I’m often asked whether The Voice is a word-for-word translation or a thought-for-thought

translation. … To state the question as an either-or implies that there is a strict dichotomy
between a word and a thought. It assumes there is little to nothing in common between
them. In fact that is not true in the slightest. … People can keep a thought to themselves;
but when they speak, they have expressed something they have thought. … My point is
that there is no strict dichotomy between a word and a thought. Every word is a thought
expressed. Those who distinguish strictly between a word-for-word translation and a
thought-for thought translation exaggerate the difference and are trying to privilege one
over the other.”

These are some helpful insights on the nature of translation. However, the problem is rather
more complicated that Capes has suggested. This is because in any connected text, such as we
have in a passage or pericope of Scripture, words are joined syntactically together, and hence
their respective thoughts (senses, images, connotations, etc.) reflect off one another to evoke a
composite conception. This mental representation—actually, a series of them that merge, one into
the other, as the text unfolds—reflects a compound perspective that consists of several pertinent
worldview-influenced “frames of reference,” for example, sociocultural, organizational,
situational, and (inter)textual. This constitutes the overall “meaning” of the biblical text, as
intended by its author in his initial setting of communication in Hebrew (Aramaic) or Greek
many-many years ago.

This complex scenario simply suggests, as noted earlier, that no translation can seriously
claim to convey “the meaning of the original text” fully and completely. There will always be a
certain degree of semantic and pragmatic (including “literary”) leakage—depending on the
competency of the translator (or team), the type of translation carried out, and the specific
language-culture concerned. More “literal” (word-for-word, formal correspondence, FC) versions
inevitably have a harder time of it due to the very nature of interlingual communication, i.e.,
corresponding words between languages are only partially equivalent in meaning—and all too
often misleading, confusing, nonsensical, or even erroneous when combined in unnatural or
unusual collocations in the target language (TL) and their local cultural environment. On the
other hand, “free” (thought-for-thought, functional equivalence, FE) versions are not perfect either
because they must often select one from among several possible senses in a given context, or
because they can express only a partial representation of the full contextual meaning intended
by the original text.

Take, for example, the word for “Holy Spirit”—certainly a central biblical concept if there
ever was one. But what are translators in most SE Bantu language settings to do when their
normal word for (good, as opposed to malevolent) “spirit” (mzimu) has immediate reference to a
(deceased human) ancestral spiritual being, that is, according to popular belief. Combine this
conceptual barrier with the lack of the notion of “holy” in a spiritual sense—with the closest
term referring either to a socially-determined ritual “purity” or to “cleanliness” in a physical
sense. Then we see that there is a genuine challenge of communication which needs to be
resolved through extended discussion, negotiation, and probably also a certain measure of
compromise on the part of diverse members of the wider Christian community for whom the
translation is being prepared.

So what does this mean then for ordinary Bible readers—that that cannot trust or rely upon
their Scriptures? Not at all! Most translations do convey the essential message intended by the
266
original text—to a greater or lesser extent, depending on how easily and clearly average people
understand the particular version that they happen to be reading (or listening to). Most Bible
translations today also include a generous measure of paratextual aids: book introductions,
section headings, cross-references, descriptive-explanatory footnotes, glossary entries for key
terms, and illustrations. Furthermore, we must not ignore the important didactic and
indoctrinating functions of local church communities, that is, to educate their respective
memberships concerning the meaning of some of these key biblical concepts. In any case, serious
students of the Scriptures can greatly enhance their understanding by using several versions (at
least one FC and one FE translation) concurrently, and by making use of one or more of the many
“study Bibles” that are generally available (whether in-print or on-line), which can help them to
expand their own conceptual frames of reference to correspond more closely with those that
match the biblical text (see Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation, St Jerome, 2008, chs.
8-9).

11.8 A method for discovering the oratory of the vernacular

At some point, the question arises: How does one go about discovering a vernacular model (or
models for different genres) that may then be employed, perhaps in adapted form, when
translating the varied literature of the Scriptures? Since I have dealt with this subject in detail
elsewhere (Wendland 1993: ch.3; 2004: ch. 8; Zogbo and Wendland 2000: ch.4; cf. also Boerger),
I will just present a summary here of a comparative method that one might apply in order to
accomplish this objective. It consists of the following seven steps:

a) First of all, a competent “research and testing team” needs to be selected and
trained for the task, namely, how to discover and collect a suitable corpus of
sample texts in the target language (TL) for the purposes of analysis and
evaluation.

b) As many TL texts as possible, representing a broad diversity of oral and written

(if available) genres, should be collected, accurately transcribed (using a standard
format), and then categorized in such a way that they can be easily accessed and
conveniently referred to.

c) Next all the documented texts need to be closely analyzed with respect to the
various genre-specific structural and stylistic features that they manifest, and once
the principal features have been identified, the examples need to be gathered
together for subsequent comparative assessment.

d) The various features gathered in the preceding steps must now be evaluated for
excellence with a view towards rating different examples in terms of their relative
“quality” (i.e., artistic beauty/appeal and rhetorical power/impact) and pragmatic
function (e.g., as genre and structural markers, emphasizers/intensifiers,
conveyors of diverse emotions and personal attitudes).

267
 e) The assortment of structural and stylistic features determined in the TL must then
be compared with the closest corresponding Hebrew counterparts (which
presupposes that these have already been identified) in order to find the closest
possible form-functional “matches” for use in translation work.

f) The inventory of potential TL features that have been identified and classified (as
above) should then be applied when rendering a particular biblical text—if
possible, by a translator (or designated stylist) who is an expert in terms of
communicating effectively in her/his mother-tongue.

g) Finally, as always, the translated draft must be carefully and thoroughly tested on
its primary intended audience (and revised wherever necessary)—not only with
regard to the accurate expression of content, but also with respect to the clarity,
naturalness, and idiomacity (liveliness and loveliness) of the language.

These guidelines may be modified as needed in order to accomplish the goal of discovering an
adequate range of TL models for use in translating the diverse genres and styles of biblical
literature.

11.9 Organizing and implementing a literary translation project

I will assume here that a certain translation project commission (brief) has made the joint decision
to include within its Skopos the aim of producing a lyric “literary functional equivalent” (LiFE)
version for an entire poetic book, such as the Psalms (cf. Wendland 2004b:25-27). What then are
some of the chief obstacles or challenges that face those who are commissioned with the task of
carrying out this objective? The following is a summary of the most relevant factors, many of
which have already been mentioned or alluded to in the preceding discussion.

11.9.1 Need for sufficient pre-project planning and research

This crucial first step in the process of planning an efficient and effective translation project is
frequently overlooked or ignored in the rush to get things underway. In the past, such neglect
was perhaps understandable since many planners felt that there were only two major
alternatives—namely, a version that is either relatively literal or dynamically idiomatic in nature.
It was further assumed that they, as church leaders, were in the best position to make a choice
on behalf of the entire TL group. As suggested above, however, this is not the case nowadays;
there are always several translation possibilities to choose from, depending on current resources
or limitations (ecumenical, financial, temporal, educational, staff-related, pre-existing versions,
etc.) as well as the expressed needs of the primary audience.

This last issue needs special emphasis. For far too long now, Scripture translators and
publishers seem to have been focused on their own preferences and opinions and consequently
know relatively little about the people whom they have been commissioned to serve with their
skills. Many questions need to be answered before a project gets underway: What do ordinary
Bible users wish to see, or hear, in a translation that is meant for them? Do they even realize
what the full range of options is in this regard, that is, the auxiliary resources that can be made
readily available in a modern publication, e.g., illustrations, footnotes, introductions, cross-
268
references, a concordance or glossary, and so forth? Would they prefer the text in written or
audio form, in which style or format of presentation—and why? These and many similar queries
can be reliably answered only in one way, that is, by actually asking those for whom the
translation is intended by means of a systematic, comprehensive, and widespread program of
prior “market research.”

11.9.2 Selecting and training the translation team

I consider this to be the most important limiting or enabling factor in the preparation of any
literary translation. If at least one member of the team of (usually) three persons does not have
the gift of artistic composition, in an oral or written mode, then the project will not really make
much progress, no matter how many other supporting resources are available. Furthermore, in
my experience at least, for a genuinely literary, say a poetic, version to succeed, it must first be
composed with the genre-based and related artistic essentials already in place—as opposed to
being subsequently pasted together like patchwork on to some mediocre text by a designated
“stylist.” The lyric foundation has to be firmly laid and fully apparent in the initial draft, which
can then be either corrected exegetically, if need be, or “polished up” stylistically.

How does one go about finding an individual with the requisite spiritual empathy and artistic
talents to do an acceptable job when composing a text of Scripture? As part of the pre-project
investigations, a search could simultaneously be made for a competent “team” of three—that is,
the literary drafter, the exegete, and a capable reviser/tester/research-resource person. Perhaps
an initial trial workshop will have to be conducted with the specific aim of identifying these
diversely qualified team members. Once chosen, they will also have to be provided with the
necessary specialized education and training in any areas where they may be deficient—for
instance, the artist in exegetical skills, the exegete in literary-orality skills, and the researcher in
the skill of valid audience sampling procedures. All this preparation is essential (and it may well
take some time) to insure that the most competent and capable group of translators is assembled
for so rigorous and demanding an assignment as interlingual, cross-cultural, religious
communication.

A similar, but much less extensive course of instruction will also have to be offered to those
who have been selected to serve as “reviewers” of the translation—with respect to either the text
as a whole or only specific aspects of it (e.g., poetic features, exegetical accuracy, key theological
vocabulary, extratextual supplements, dialectal variations). If reviewers have not been well
prepared to appreciate how and why the drafts that they will be examining differ from a more
literal rendering and why they must be tested orally, they may be inclined to use the very features
that make a text literary (or “oratorical”) in their language as evidence in criticism against it.

11.9.3 Composition-translation procedures

Once the “raw material” in terms of human resources has been assembled, they must meet
together to agree upon, or be guided into approving, a complete set of practical operational
procedures. These need to be considered and established in keeping with the wider project
purpose (Skopos), and the detailed translation principles and procedures that arise from this
communicative goal. An excellent team of individuals that lacks an adequate working plan
whereby they can mutually stimulate, correct, complement, and encourage one another will not
function very well in practice, if at all. In fact, if they cannot learn to cooperate, they may only
interact to frustrate, even infuriate each other and thus hinder or, worse, undo the entire
enterprise.

Therefore, the team or perhaps its appointed “coordinator,” working in close conjunction
with an experienced translation consultant and a competent administrative committee
269
representing the target community, must sit together to formulate detailed job descriptions and
guidelines for all team members. These may have to be periodically revised and elaborated upon
as the project proceeds in order to meet new exigencies, needs, goals, potentials, or obstacles—
but always on the basis of mutual agreement and consensus. Such principles and procedures will
also have to be fully communicated to all chief reviewers as well as leading project supporters in
order to make sure that they clearly understand what is going on and have a chance to contribute
in some way to the larger cooperative effort. In addition, the wider community too will need to
be kept informed of where the work stands at any given moment, and how well the project is
performing with regard to successfully fulfilling the terms of its guiding Skopos statement.

11.9.4 Evaluating and testing the translation

The translation team itself, together with selected reviewers or review teams, will naturally
carefully monitor and continually assess the quality (and quantity) of work that is being done.
However, at a relatively early stage various representatives of the TL community will also have
to be actively involved in order to gauge their popular reaction and response to what is probably
a novel type of Scripture translation in their setting. This must of course be done with the
version’s primary setting of use in mind—whether more or less formal (e.g., public worship or
private devotions). In any case, the primary mode of testing (and associated evaluation) must be
oral-aural in nature, with presenters previously trained in such elocutionary skills. Does the
current text then meet the target community’s desires and expectations, as expressed in the
project Skopos (which they are all hopefully quite familiar with)? Does the translation as it stands
satisfy their criteria and standards with regard to acceptable literary (or “oratorical”) style and
linguistic usage? If not, what textual changes or alterations can be suggested—which, if
widespread, may necessitate in turn certain modifications in the team’s translation principles and
working procedures?

The need for text-related testing does not end once a particular version has been published.
A general or more focused program of evaluation must be continued, now in relation to the TL
population as a whole and wider usage within a diverse range of religious settings. To what
extent does a specifically poetic-lyric translation meet particular needs and satisfy smaller sub-
groups of Bible users (e.g., youth choirs, revival crusades, radio broadcasts, dramatic
performances, comic book publications, and so forth)? On the other hand, do strong public
reactions suggest any revisions that need to be made in the event that a second edition becomes
feasible? Obviously such testing work needs to be coordinated by some responsible and broadly
acceptable agency (e.g., the national Bible Society, the regional Christian Council), while the
results of such research must be properly documented and saved for possible future use in a new
publication.

11.9.5 Encouraging personal/popular involvement

As noted throughout this appendix, a recent development in modern translation theory (e.g.,
Dynamic Equivalence, Reception Criticism, Relevance Theory, Frames of reference, etc.) has been
a special emphasis upon the hermeneutical and applicatory activity of the “target” (“respondent”)
group for whom a particular version has been prepared.632 Without repeating myself, I might
point out two additional aspects of this vital community-based involvement in Bible translation,
with specific reference to a non-traditional (poetic) rendition of a given book, like the Psalter, or

632
In the light of these developments that are aimed at involving greater efforts to involve the
particular language group for whom a translation is being prepared, a more appropriate designation for
the specific audience or readership intended, is needed. Another possibility is the “client (or consumer)
community.”
270
an individual well-known pericope, such as Psalm 24. These involve two distinct perspectives or
orientations—subjective and objective:

11.9.5.1 Subjective: management—support—usage

The widely used technical term “receptors” (UBS in particular) is rather misleading with regard
to the actual dynamics of any effort that is intended to translate the Scriptures into one of the
6000+ world languages, whether this happens to be large (international) or small (provincial)
in terms of geographical range and number of speakers. Over and above their personal
contribution to the process of communication, ordinary users (not only the scholars and clergy)
need to be sufficiently engaged in the entire sequence of text production. If they are envisioned
as the ultimate “consumers” of a particular version, then they must in turn see themselves as the
joint “owners,” or “stockholders,” in the venture that is being carried out on their behalf.
Obviously, they cannot do the actual translation work themselves, but they must feel that they
do play a meaningful role by “advising” as well as “responding to” the corps of translation
personnel that was chosen to implement the program for them—the translators, revisers, testers,
and administrators of the project. They are also “consumers” in that it is their opinion and
evaluation that matters as far as a publication’s sales are concerned. If a particular Scripture
product does not “sell,” then it is up to the project organizers and sponsors to find out why—and
what went wrong.

The general population of a given language group also needs to shoulder the responsibility
of not only upholding the translation as it is being prepared (e.g., through financial contributions,
public relations to popularize the project, prayer support), but they must also commit themselves
to actively use the version once it has been published. This cannot be taken for granted: ethnic
pride may be enough to get a certain translation into print, but practical sociolinguistic realities
(e.g., language decay and death) may leave most copies sitting on the shelf. Usage assessment
may also involve a decision to suspend critical judgment until people have had a chance to
become accustomed to the new version in a variety of religious settings. A great deal of time,
expense, and effort goes into producing any Bible translation; this can be justified (and the
translators’ labors at least partially rewarded) only if the version that results is then able to
contribute in a significant way to the growth and development of the Church, whether on an
individual or a corporate basis. Only the intended consumers themselves can ensure that this
spiritual goal is accomplished—namely, by actively utilizing (reading, teaching, memorizing,
composing into music) the very Word of God that they now have in their mother tongue.

11.9.5.2 Objective: education

In order to successfully carry out their “subjective” role as outlined above, a language community
needs to be progressively and systematically educated in an objective way with regard to what
their particular roles and responsibilities are. How can they be expected to adequately appreciate,
or support, a more creative type of Scripture translation if they do not know why and how it has
been prepared? This a matter of great concern, especially in areas where people are already quite
familiar with one or more versions, either in their mother tongue or a major lingua franca, which
manifest texts that are stylistically very different from the one that is currently being translated.
For example, how was the dimension of lyric “orality” built into the translation and why was
this important in terms of their local communicative context, involving a variety of settings of
potential use?

Such a community-based educational program concerning Bible translations should be

carried out during the early stages of project planning, when the foundational Skopos is being
formulated. It must then be continued throughout the duration of the work, so that as many
people as possible can contribute constructively critical feedback to their joint venture. Certain
271
forward-thinking Bible societies (e.g., many in South America) have found that basic instruction
in the different fields of biblical studies as well as translation practice can be beneficially
extended beyond the time of publication in order to enable people to intelligently access and to
more fully utilize the new version, especially one that is supplemented by a variety of paratextual
aids. This special training in Scripture understanding use would not be carried out in isolation
from any already existing translations, but together with them in a mutually complementary,
comparative exercise of Bible learning, coupled with much life-related personal application.
Special instructional materials need to be developed to guide this process of educating the
audience for engaging the Scriptures in a more meaningful and life-related manner (e.g., Hill &
Hill 2008).

11.10 Summary: Four LiFE principles (the 4 “R”s)

A literary, oratorical, functional-equivalent translation approach features four essential

principles that pertain to motivation as well as implementation:

 Reality—namely, the demonstrated fact of literary artistry and rhetoric in: (i) the writings of Scripture,
and (ii) the verbal, including poetic resources, oral and written, of the target language (TL). We must
make manifest the SL dimension of reality by means of detailed text studies of the biblical documents,
and the same effort needs to be applied to the TL. Thus, the various artistic and rhetorical
characteristics of the available literature as well as orature (oral narratives, proverbs, praise poetry,
laments, etc.) of the TL need to be thoroughly researched and recorded for possible use in Bible
translation.

 Realization—namely, the use or application of at least “some” of the primary oratorical (oral-aural)
and lyric resources of the TL (a, ii) in a translation of specific books of the Old and New Testament
Scriptures in keeping with their manifest artistic beauty and rhetorical power (a, i). This is the heart
of the translation process as we seek to represent—primarily in oral-aural form—as many aspects of
the original (content > intent [function] > form) as possible in the TL text. How much LiFE is
possible? That is determined by (c).

 Relevance—namely, the norm or guide used for determining the most suitable “some” of those TL
artistic-rhetorical features determined during step (b). There are three main criteria of “relevance”:
processing cost, the degree of difficulty that the translated text poses for readers and hearers; the
amount of contextual effects derived from the process, that is, reinforcing, augmenting, or deleting
significant contextual assumptions (Gutt 1992); and, adding a criterion to the usually cited pair, the
appropriateness (and demonstrated acceptability) of the text in terms of content and purpose in relation
to a specific audience group, one that is prepared to receive and use a LiFE translation.

 Responders—namely, those who process and react to the TL text (“receptors”, “target audience”,
translation “consumers”), hopefully in a positive manner in terms of actual use, with an emphasis on
the poetic and oral-aural quality of the vernacular text. The “relevance” criterion (c) must therefore
always be assessed in relation to a very specifically determined potential audience group, whether
large or small. This primary “audience” (readership) needs to be carefully identified and defined on
the basis of pre-project sampling in the translation job commission (brief) in relation to the particular
goal (Skopos) of the translated version that is being produced.

11.11 References

Boerger, Brenda H. 2009. Psalms (Poetic Oracle English Translation). Dallas: Self-published.

272
Pluger, Chris. 2014. “Translating New Testament Proverb-like Sayings in the Style of Nsenga Proverbs.” MA Thesis—
Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics (Dallas, Texas).
de Waard, Jan and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. From one language to another: Functional equivalence in Bible translating.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Watt, Milton. 2015. “Re-Sculpting a Poetic Text: Towards an Acceptable Poetic Translation of the Psalms—Exemplified
by Psalms 131 and 150.” PhD Dissertation (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa).
Wendland, Ernst. 2004. Translating the Literature of Scripture: A literary-rhetorical approach to Bible translation. Dallas:
SIL International.

Wendland, Ernst. 2008. Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation: A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers.
Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Wendland, Ernst. 2011. LiFE-style Translating: A Workbook for Bible Translators (2nd ed.). Dallas: SIL International.

Wilt, Timothy L. 2003. “Translation and communication,” in T. Wilt (ed.), Bible Translation: Frames of Reference.
Manchester: St. Jerome. 27-80.
Wilt, Timothy L. 2005a. “Literary Functional Equivalence: Some Case Studies.” Journal of Biblical Text Research 10,
82-116.
Wilt, Timothy L. 2005b. “Translation Principles for LiFE, Inductively Derived,” in Philip Noss, ed., Current Trends in
Scripture Translation: Definitions and Identity. Reading: UBS, 215-223.

Wilt, Timothy L. 2012. Praise—The Book of Psalms Translated from the Hebrew. CreateSpace: Self-published (available
from Amazon).
Wilt, T. and E. Wendland. 2008. Scripture Frames & Framing: A workbook for Bible translators. Stellenbosch: SUN Press.

273
12. Translating For LiFE: An Exercise in Preparing a Literary Functional-
Equivalence Version

Aim: In this chapter, you will review the notion of “translation” – that is, how to define it in terms of
several different form-functional options. In the process, including various focus questions and
special projects, you will apply some of the principles of translation discussed in earlier chapter,
with special reference to a “literary functional-equivalence” (LiFE) version.
Goals: After working through the exercises of this chapter, you should be able to do the following tasks:
1. Define what translation is in relation to communication.
2. Understand the method of relevant functional equivalence Scripture translating.
3. Describe a literary functional-equivalence (LiFE) approach to translation.
4. Distinguish several different types or styles of translation.
5. Prepare a LiFE translation of a poetic text of Scripture.

12.1 A relevant functional-equivalence approach to Bible translating

We now turn to consider the possibility of producing a Bible version that is somewhat different
from the literal or idiomatic versions that Bible translators normally think about. I have in mind
a version that would make use of at least some of the literary resources of a language, where
suitable – that is, in keeping with the style manifested in the original text, on the one hand, and
appropriate for the intended audience, on the other. In general, relevant functional equivalence
is the overall aim, but particularized in favor of a more (rather than less) artistically- and
rhetorically-shaped translation. I term this “literary functional equivalence” (LiFE).633 In this
endeavor, the ultimate and ideal goal, where circumstances allow, is to effect a genre-for-genre
holistic transmission of the Scriptures.

A functionalist method, as this is, stresses the communicative purpose that a particular
translation is designed to perform for its primary target audience within a given sociocultural
setting. In the “functional equivalence” proposal of de Waard and Nida (1986:36), the translators’
objective is to “seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible
will match the meaning of the original source-language text.” From this perspective, it is the
principal communication functions of the SL text that translators must seek to discover and then
reproduce in their TL text. Other theorists emphasize the particular goal of the text within the
TL setting, saying that this ought to determine the manner and style of translating in accordance
with the governing framework for the translation project as a whole. This is because it is

633
My concept of functional equivalence is informed by three other helpful approaches to
communication theory and translation: (1) Relevance Theory, which is a cognitive, inferential approach to
text processing, communication, and translation featuring the “mini-max” notion of text processing, an
essentially cognitive view of “context,” and the crucial importance of “inference” in all types of
communication; (2) Skopos Theory, which is an explicit goal-oriented, process-directed, project-based
approach to translation theory and practice pioneered and developed by a German school of translation
specialists (Reiss, Vermeer, Nord); and (3) Cognitive Poetics, which is a specific application of cognitive
linguistics to the study of literary texts (poetics). This third approach stresses the perceptual notion of
figure and ground; the close interconnection of experience, cognition, meaning, and language; the
importance of “readerly” interpretation (how readers/hearers perceive and understand verbal texts); and
the primary mental strategies that all people employ when they interpret any text, whether literary or not
(Stockwell 2002). From this perspective, translation may be defined as the textual (or verbal) “mapping
of different knowledge domains guided by the principle of analogy” (Feyaerts 2003:210). I might add that
the principle of metonymic association (part-whole, cause-effect, base-time/place, etc.) seems to be
involved along with that of metaphoric analogy, perhaps not as prominently, but essentially so nonetheless.
274
necessary to have an adequate general perspective when making all the crucial decisions needed
to translate a specific literary text for a particular target audience. These two functionalist
positions do not necessarily conflict with one another; on the contrary, both viewpoints are
needed so that the author-intended aims of the Scriptures as well as the needs, desires, and
expectations of a contemporary audience are respected and ultimately satisfied, to the degree
possible, during the translation process.

The salient functions of a given Bible text may be re-presented in a target language by either
a literal or a more idiomatic translation, depending on its envisaged use. The primary intentions
of the original author are not ignored in this operation but, in view of the impossibility of
satisfying all of them, they are evaluated for relevance in light of the TL setting and then
prioritized for application in the translation itself. The main preliminary requirement in preparing
a literary version is that its producers carefully explain beforehand what they intend to do and
why. An explanatory statement of this nature could be either incorporated as part of the
introduction to a translation or published as a separate, accompanying document.
Q: Name a number of the key points that you feel would need to be included in an introduction to a
translation that takes literary issues seriously, in the biblical text as well as the vernacular version.
Specifying the SL text’s primary functions is only part of the translator’s task. A greater
challenge is to determine which of these communicative intentions, major and minor, are to be
conveyed in the TL and how this is to be done. In other words, which stylistic devices and
rhetorical strategies among those available in the TL are appropriate for use in the Scriptures
according to the literary conventions that would apply to the genre and setting concerned? We
recognize the impossibility of an overly ambitious, blanket goal that seeks to convey the full
semantic and pragmatic value of the original text via any translation. Therefore, a choice must
always be made between those aspects of the message which the translators will at least attempt
to convey and those that they concede will probably be lost during the transmission process.
Issues such as these will have to be thoroughly discussed and then spelled out within the project
Brief and its Skopos.

It is helpful to consider these practical procedures pertaining to a functional-equivalence

approach to Bible translation in light of some of the psychological insights that stem from
“Relevance Theory” as adapted to translation studies by E.-A. Gutt (1992). Relevance Theory
(RT) offers a general way of evaluating the acceptability of a given translation. In the terminology
of RT a text is deemed optimally relevant (or fully acceptable) if it provides “adequate contextual
effects” for the audience, yet “without requiring unnecessary processing effort” (Gutt 1992:24–
5). In this case, the notion of “context” is not concrete or physical in nature; rather, it refers to
one’s psychological state of mind, or, as it is called in RT, “cognitive environment.”

Furthermore, RT highlights the extent to which we communicate with each other by

inference, that is, by depending not only on verbal texts and their cotexts, but also on our assumed
shared knowledge and crucial features of the context (the social and situational environment).
Thus our aim, under most circumstances, is to communicate in a way that is able to achieve
greater efficiency in terms of lower mental effort and effectiveness, or greater personal benefit for
the envisaged audience. In other words, serious speakers seek to convey important matters in a
manner that is easiest for their hearers to understand, yet also with an appreciable amount of
rhetorical impact and esthetic appeal, resulting in a significant number of cognitive, emotive, or
volitional effects within a particular setting.
Q: Evaluate the inferential principle of relevance—how helpful is this for you?
Can you give a personal example of how it seemed to apply in a communication experience that you
had recently?

275
 As you study these pages with a Bible translation project in mind – whether real or hypothetical –
what do you infer with regard to my intentions with this workbook?
How do these intentions involve you? In other words, what might my expectations be concerning the
nature of your participation and application of the various issues that we are discussing?
On the other hand, what are some of the main expectations that you have regarding the benefit(s) that
you hope to derive from your participation in this course (or from working through this manual)?
The common-sense principle of aiming for optimally-relevant communication may be
applied to the activity of translation in several ways. It may be applied on the general level of
policy (e.g., formulating the goals of a Bible translation project) or more specifically with regard
to translation principles and procedures (e.g., how to handle a particular metaphor in a given
passage). The question always is, How can we re-present the SL text at hand in the TL so that
our intended audience gets the most out of what the original has to say, yet without having to
work too hard at it mentally – that is, to the point of discouragement and giving up?

During this process, when evaluating what actually needs to be communicated (or what does
not), it is helpful to adopt a functional perspective. In other words, one first needs to identify the
primary and secondary communicative aims that operate in a given source text. Next, one must
compare these with the particular goals that a certain audience wants to accomplish by reading
or listening to the text in their language – so that it becomes relevant for them (e.g., with respect
to the informative, expressive, directive, or any other pragmatic function). Finally, one must
determine how these respective priorities can best be accomplished both within the text of the
translation by means of a suitable translation style and through various paratextual aids (e.g.,
marginal notes, section introductions, and cross references).

A good example of the potential benefits of a Relevance Theory approach to Bible translation
may be found when dealing with the literary technique of intertextuality. An emotionally-moving,
conceptually-inspiring literary text often includes various references, both direct and indirect, to
pre-existent texts. These intertextual citations, allusions, and echoes may sound either stronger
or weaker in the ears of an audience depending on how familiar they are with the earlier texts
and on how much effort they are willing to put into a study of the present text in order to discover
these references, or to examine their original setting to see how they were used. Most of the New
Testament books are filled with instances of intertextuality, that is, direct citations of and indirect
allusions to the Hebrew Bible (usually via the Greek Septuagint). The book of Revelation is an
example:
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain
because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.
They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the
inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”
Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the
number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was
completed. (Rev. 6:9-11, NIV)

In order for people today to understand the preceding passage properly, so that it gains
greater relevance in their lives, their conceptual boundaries need to be expanded. In other words,
their minds must be cognitively enriched by a number of OT texts, and others, including some
from the Revelation itself. These texts were undoubtedly familiar to those for whom this book
was most directly intended – the first audience, who needed to access and process these prior
texts in order to fully grasp the ostensible content and intent of Revelation 6:9–11. The following
are several of the most pertinent pre-texts (there may well be more) that serve to create the
necessary conceptual relevance that allows the process of interpretation to take its intended
course. Answer the questions below by looking up the references and seeing how they create a
wider context for understanding:

276
 1. Why were the souls to be found “under the altar”? Why is that place significant, and what does this have
to do with the later mention of “blood”? Read Exodus 29:10–12 and Leviticus 4:7, 18, 25, 34.
2. What is the connection between martyrdom and OT sacrifices? Read 4 Maccabees 14 – 17 and
Philippians 2:7.
3. What does the blood of martyrs crying out for vengeance mean? Read Genesis 4:10 and Matthew 23:35.
4. How do Psalms 74 and 79 help us to understand the appeal of slain souls in verse 10, beginning with
“How long …!” Also read Psalms 6:3; 13:1; 80:4.
5. Which “inhabitants of the earth” are being referred to? Read Revelation 4:10; 8:13; 11:10.
6. What is the importance of being “given a white robe,” and what is the symbolical significance of this?
Read Revelation 3:4–5; 3:18; 4:4; 7:9, 13–14.
7. Why are the righteous martyrs “told to wait a little longer”? Read 2 Esdras 4:35–37 and Enoch 47:4.
8. How would those who died “because of the word of God” be one day vindicated by the word of God?
Read Revelation 19:1–2 and 11–16.
9. How is the special relevance of the fifth seal within the set of seven manifested? In other words, how is
it different from the others and how does this difference lead us to look for some greater meaning?
Where do you find the report of the opening of the seventh seal and what happens after that? What then
do we do with chapter 6? How does chapter 6 relate to the content of the fifth seal report? Note the
introduction to the seven seals, especially 5:9–10.
10. As we have seen, the book of Revelation is full of intertextual markers of relevance. What important
implications does this have for Bible translators and other Scripture text interpreters?

The preceding example from Revelation illustrates how the principle of relevance in context
operates during biblical interpretation. An OT text that is directly quoted (probably via the LXX),
clearly alluded to, or merely echoed, in a given NT passage will of course evoke its original
textual context. The biblical writer depended on this for his words to have their full meaning,
including a certain additional amount of impact and persuasiveness. It is therefore up to the
current audience, whether those intended by the initial communicative event or all subsequent
(“secondary”) audiences, to determine optimal relevance with respect to the two texts and
contexts involved by applying the cost versus gain criterion of significance within the immediate
situation. In other words, which interpretation provides the greatest number of salient contextual
effects (conceptual and emotive benefits) without requiring overly much processing effort in
cases where there are two or more ways of understanding a given text? On the other hand, how
does the inferential search for greater relevance in the case of difficult passages lead interpreters
to an ever-widening circle of cotexts – those from the book at hand (intratextual relevance) or
those from other documents of Scripture and even from extrabiblical texts (intertextual
relevance)?

When these notions are applied to translation, then we recognize that the use of a novel,
creative, situationally-appropriate literary device (whether a metaphor, hyperbole, irony, word-
order shift, rhetorical question, or parallel construction) produces a momentary delay or pause
in the conceptual processing of a text. This increase in the difficulty and length of perception in
turn causes the hearer or reader to take notice, to pay closer attention in the course of interpreting
the discourse at hand. Its sense and significance is highlighted at that point, and thereby made
more relevant if the information being conveyed somehow stimulates or heightens the cognitive
awareness and emotive experience of the interpreter(s). The aim of today’s translators is to search
for a particular form or set of literary forms in the TL that will stimulate a similar effect. They
would thereby achieve the amount of essential functional equivalence that the original text did
for its intended audience – with respect to as many artistic and rhetorical aspects of the discourse
as possible.
277
 Of course, in the case of conceptually rich, allusive passages like Revelation 6:9–11, it will
often not be possible for the translated text to convey all of the information necessary for the
reader/hearer to perceive and interpret the essential literal, let alone literary, meaning that the
author intended. “Loss” with respect to the text’s quantitative and qualitative significance,
including its implicit as well as explicit content, is inevitable. Therefore, supplementary
assistance is needed in the form of explanatory notes, summary introductions, section headings,
and/or cross-references.

The extent to which Bible translators are able to consider such effect-matching and context-
building endeavors during their everyday work depends on their level of expertise and
experience, the type of version envisioned, the competence of their target audience, and the
relative size and scope of the text portion concerned. The important thing to keep in mind is that
the meaning of a text involves more than its overt propositional content. Diverse feelings,
attitudes, values, and connotations, along with a number of crucial socioculturally-based
conventional associations, are also present and must be accounted for. This is especially true
when dealing with well-composed literary, especially poetic, discourse, as is characteristic of the
Scriptures. This additional expressive and emotive import must be factored into the translation
equation – either by means of an explicit textual or paratextual procedure or through a focused
intuitive exercise of verbal creativity aimed at attaining message parity. Extratextual
publications, such as those that shed light on the ancient Near Eastern setting, are also helpful
in constructing for consumers a conceptual context conducive to interpreting the biblical text
more completely and accurately. Such efforts, no matter how great and time-consuming, must
be put forth if justice is to be done to the original author’s communicative motivations, goals,
and ultimate textual designs.
For reflection, research, and response:
1. In the light of the following quotation, describe in your own words how the cognitive principle of relevance and
the heuristic method of functional equivalence work together in the practice of Bible translation with respect to
both analyzing the SL text and then representing this in a given TL text. Would it be possible to utilize them both
in the translation that you are working on, or plan to work on? Why, or why not? How then would you define
“communicative clues” in the light of what you have already learned in this book?
[A] translation must retain all the communicative clues of the original. … Their value lies not in their
intrinsic form, but in their communicative function. Due to the structural differences between
languages, it is not possible to reproduce the linguistic properties of one language in another. However,
it is often possible to identify the communicative clues of the source text and formulate receptor
language equivalents that serve the same communicative function. This approach is inherently similar
to that of functional equivalence, which also treats the linguistic components of the source text from
a functional perspective. The emphasis relevance theory places on keeping processing effort to a
minimum means the reformulated communicative clues must be natural to the idiom of the receptor
language. (Smith 2002:110-111)

2. Inadequate terminology is always a barrier in formulating definitions. In this lesson we understand the term
“functional equivalence” in rather broad terms; perhaps communicative correspondence might be better. Consider
this concern in light of Statham’s observation (2005:42–3):
The term ‘functional equivalence’…is based on a term (function) which refers to only one – albeit
absolutely fundamental – constraint (language function) among the many to which the translation of
biblical texts is properly subject, such as clarity, simplicity, naturalness, idiomaticness, and
faithfulness. An adequate definition of nonformal correspondence translation needs to be
comprehensive of these constraints as well. Furthermore, the emphasis on functions of language and
equivalence of function is too easily perceived as affirming the fundamentalist view that the role of the

278
 Bible is to evoke in contemporary audiences the same response that it was intended to evoke in ancient
audiences.

Is the inferential “principle of relevance” sufficient to qualify (or correct) such mistaken notions about what a
“functional equivalence” approach to translating is all about? If not, what proposal do you have for finding a way
out of this dilemma of definition?
3. Evaluate the following suggestion by Huddleston (1988:122–3) towards an adequate definition of translation. How
does it help to broaden our understanding and application of the concept of functional equivalence?
I saw that dynamic equivalence really meant “dynamic and equivalent”, i.e., dynamic in reference to the
target language, and SEMANTICALLY equivalent in reference to the original meaning of the source
text.…Hartmut Wiens [in Notes on Linguistics, No. 3, July 1986] contends that unilingual audiences
have a nativelike command of many different levels of linguistic structures. These levels are loaded
with sociological implications and are used accordingly. The different forms can convey identical
denotations while changing drastically the connotations. The variable factors include region, status,
style, age, sex, and ethnicity. An equivalent dynamics approach should be sensitive to this sociological
phenomenon. The dynamic of a text indicates that a choice is always made from among many possible
levels of equally intelligible linguistic structures. The sociological implications of a translation must
reflect those of the source, and the linguistic structures of the target language must be selected
accordingly.

4. The twin concerns of relevance and functional equivalence come to the fore as a translation team wrestles with the
problem of interpreting, and then rendering in their language, God’s unique revelation of himself in Exodus 31:3–
14: “I am who I am.” What does the word YHWH mean here? Why does YHWH reply in this elliptical manner to
Moses, who had simply asked for his name?
The redundancy is undoubtedly intentional and purposeful – an obvious signal to the exegete to call on the principle
of relevance. Repetition is there for a reason. Some of its more common functions are emphasis, topicalization,
foregrounding, pattern-building, cohesion, and punning. (See Isa. 5 – 8 for important instances of these.) Could
the reiterated usage of the same verb form “I am” in Exodus 3:14 perhaps be a divine pun, intended to add a little
mystery and a sense of the numinous to the Name? Surely it is an unforgettable introduction to Israel’s personal
Lord of the covenant (Exod. 3:6a, 15–17).
The literal translation of a literary device in Hebrew or Greek often causes considerable problems of
comprehension for a TL audience: For example, the old Nyanja Bible reproduced the three Hebrew words as
precisely as they could (in caps): INE NDINE YEMWE NDIRI INE, which turns out to be nonsense: “I I-am the-
very-one I-am-(going to do something) I.” The second “I am” is an inappropriate form since it is normally used
only as a periphrastic linking verb, as in ndili kupita “I am in the process of going (somewhere).”
In contrast, the new popular-language Nyanja translation, Buku Loyera, tried to put this utterance in the form of a
natural reply to the common question “What is your name?”: Dzina langa ndine NDILIPO “Name my I-am I-AM-
HERE.” This rendering, in which “I AM” is expressed only once and the name YHWH is rendered as the meaningful
though somewhat mysterious NDILIPO “I AM HERE/PRESENT,” a timeless utterance, eliminates the redundancy of
the Hebrew. Thus there is a significant semantic loss but also an important pragmatic gain. It represents the
translators’ view of how they expect that YHWH would have replied to them if he were speaking Chichewa. This
reading preserves a sense of the mystery of the original text: NDILIPO “I AM HERE – what sort of a name is that?!”
At the same time the utterance is expressed meaningfully, indeed, idiomatically, so that people can focus on the
possible underlying sense of the name – not puzzle over the unintelligibility of God’s utterance as a whole, as is
the case in the older version.
How have you handled the problems presented by this verse in YL? To what extent have you looked to a literary
solution, as in the new Nyanja translation? Evaluate this version in comparison with how you feel that you must
handle the matter most relevantly in your setting.
5. Read 1 Peter 1:2 and explain its meaning – especially the phrase “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Now
read Exodus 24:3–8. How does the relevance of Peter’s words increase for you in light of the sacrificial ritual
described in Exodus? How can this additional significance be best conveyed in a translation in YL? Suggest a
possible wording that might succinctly and satisfactorily provide a key to the intended meaning.

279
6. Find an example from the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2 – 3 in which a reference to the sociocultural
setting of Asia Minor provides a vital context, or cognitive frame, that enables the process of interpretation to
progress to completion. Describe how the immediate relevance of the Revelation text is dependent upon this
extratextual information. Finally, compose an explanatory note that would adequately communicate this needed
information to an average audience in your sociocultural setting.
7. It is important to recognize the influence of intertextuality while doing textual exegesis and translation. Study the
following passages from Revelation 21 – 22 in relation to some probable OT pre-texts. Note any changes in the
wording from the prophetic precursor, especially with reference to the concept of “the nations.” What might these
variations signify with regard to interpreting the author’s intended meaning and then accurately translating it for a
contemporary audience?
a. Revelation 21:3  Ezekiel 37:27; Zechariah 2:15 (cf. Isa. 19:25; 56:7; Amos 9:12)
b. Revelation 21:24  Isaiah 60:3, 5, 10
c. Revelation 21:26  Isaiah 60:11b
d. Revelation 22:2  Ezekiel 47:12; Zechariah 14:8 (cf. Gen. 2:10–14)
8. What paratextual or extratextual aids does your translation team depend on to enrich the cognitive-interpretive
framework of people in your primary target audience? Give one or two typical examples to illustrate your
procedure with reference to Revelation 22.
9. Regarding creativity in Bible translation, David Tuggy says (2003:276–7), “Translation is by its very nature a
balancing act.…The only hope we have of balancing well in such a situation is to interpret the source text very
accurately, and to have a very thorough knowledge of, and a fertile but well-disciplined creativity in, the target
language as well.” What are some of the things that have to be “balanced” during the translation process? Why
must creativity in Bible translation be well-disciplined? How can such creativity in the TL be increased? What
methods have you employed to increase creativity?

12.2 Defining translation more precisely

Before we can actually prepare a translation, we need to be very clear about the object of this
creative, yet controlled, compositional activity.
Q: What is “translation”? Try defining it here at the outset of our discussion based on your own
experience.
Why is translation a difficult process?
As you may already know from work that you have done, meaningful translation – as opposed
to mechanical translation – is a very specialized, complex, and varied type of verbal
communication. It involves an interpersonal, transformative sharing of the same text between
two different systems of language, thought, and culture. In other words, translation necessitates
a total re-conceptualization and re-signification of a text that comes from one linguistic and
sociocultural setting so that it is intelligible in a completely different communication
environment.

This multilingual, intersemiotic, cross-cultural process of textual, as well as cognitive,

transformation may be defined or described and evaluated in different ways, depending on a
number of important factors. Among these factors are:
1. the model of translation that one adopts (whether source-text oriented or target-text oriented,
concordant, SMR-code, generative text-linguistic, cognitive-poetic, or relevance based);
2. the motive, or purpose (Skopos), of the translation in relation to a designated target audience in one
or more preferred settings of use;
3. the manner in which the re-composition process is carried out (e.g., literal versus idiomatic),
including one’s view or opinion of the original text.
280
 Translation may be simply defined as the practice of intercultural and interlingual
communication. It is an intricate, at times artful, process of semiotic textual exchange, or verbal
“transubstantiation” (trans-FORM-ation), involving two basic procedures:
1. The intercultural re-ideation of a given SL text, which is a meaningful and purposeful selection,
arrangement, and differentiation of signs, whether oral or written, as it is conceptually transferred
from one worldview domain and value system to another;
2. The semantically accurate, formally appropriate, and pragmatically acceptable interlingual re-
signification of the original text in a specific TL, along with any essential paratextual or extratextual
bridge and background material needed to facilitate comprehension.
The first procedure requires the cognitive processing and conversion of all the deep-level
semantic and pragmatic features of the original text in terms of the target language and cultural
setting, whereas the second, which follows from the first, deals with the more overt surface-level
semantic, structural, and stylistic aspects of verbal composition. These procedures are both
learned and intuitive in nature – that is, the product of rigorous systematic training as well as
innate ability. In any case, mistakes that occur during the first step of the translation process, re-
conceptualization, are always reflected in, and hence distort, the second stage, re-composition.
Conversely, once translators can accomplish the first step in relation to a given SL text and its
cognitive/emotive setting, the second, creating a linguistic re-presentation in the TL, is usually
not as difficult, although determining the relevant level of appropriateness (accuracy,
acceptability, etc.) is always a challenge.
Q: What do you think of the definition of translation above?
Discuss the wording of that definition as a class exercise and propose any modifications that would
produce a more suitable definition.
Which process do you find more difficult, re-conceptualization or re-composition? Why do you say so?

Do we translate texts or do we translate meanings? Is there a difference? Consider the

following points and discuss them sequentially:
1. We translate “texts,” which represent “meanings.” This process considers everything: the form, content,
and intent, as well as the situational and interpretive settings, of both the source text and the target text.
In other words, we always translate “texts-in-cotexts-within-contexts.”
 Explain the meaning of this last expression. Is it clear or should it be modified?
2. We translate the source text (and its represented meaning) to the extent possible – in keeping with the
project’s primary objectives and with the realization that any translation can be only a partial, hence
imperfect, and selective representation of the full communicative value of the original text.
 What effect, if any, does such a perspective have on the “doctrine of verbal inspiration”?
 Do Bible translators even need to worry about such concerns? If so, why?
 How can apparent misunderstandings regarding such issues be explained?
3. The term “text” implies the importance of stylistic form, based on a phonological foundation (as pointed
out by the proponents of cognitive grammar).
 Would you agree? Explain, and give an example to illustrate your answer.
4. A careful analysis of literary form is necessary in order to determine the author-intended content and
goals of the source text within its likely, but ultimately hypothetical, contextual setting.
 How important is “form” in your practice of translation – with respect to the SL text?
 How do you demonstrate your attention to this factor?

281
  Why do translators need to be concerned about the original contextual setting at all? Is not the
biblical text alone enough?
 Illustrate your response to this issue with reference to the books of Deuteronomy and
2 Corinthians.
5. To a greater or lesser degree, the SL form itself has meaning, that is, communicative significance, with
respect to emotive expressiveness, esthetic appeal, rhetorical impact, and textual organization. Thus the
Italian proverb traduttore – traditore “the translator [is] a traitor!” applies also to form.
 Explain the implications of this to the practice of Bible translation in your setting.
 If possible, also give an example to clarify what you mean.
6. A literary/oratorical approach pays special attention to the non-referential, connotative, and evocative
features of discourse associated with the SL forms.
 How important are these formal, stylistic concerns to the composing of a translation in your
language and setting? Why, or why not?
 Have such issues been thoroughly, or even partially, discussed at any stage?
7. The answer to the previous question may be, “It all depends.” It depends on what the principal aims of
the translation happen to be in the primary intended setting of use. If these aims include an effort to
achieve naturalness in terms of textual impact and appeal, then TL literary form is vitally important and
needs to be carefully researched and applied consistently and appropriately in the practice of translation.
 To what extent has this occurred in the context of your Bible translation?
 If not much has been done in this respect, particularly with respect to the oral art forms of YL,
how can the situation be improved?

The complicated process of translating may be defined more precisely by breaking it down
into a number of key components:
Translation is (a) the conceptually mediated re-composition of (b) one contextually framed text (c)
within a different communication setting (d) in the most relevant, (e) functionally equivalent manner
possible, (f) that is, stylistically marked, more or less, (g) in keeping with the designated job
commission (h) agreed upon for the TL project concerned.
The sequence of these core constituents can be explained as follows (cf. Wendland 2004b:85):
1. The conceptually mediated re-composition: The translator acts as a “mediator,” or verbal “foreign-
exchange broker,” who must fairly represent all his “clients,” that is, the original author and his
communicative intentions as well as the needs and desires of the target audience.
2. One contextually framed text: “Context” is the total cognitive-emotive-volitional frame of reference
that influences and guides the perception, interpretation, and application of a given text.634

634
I accept the principle of Relevance Theory, which views context as an all-encompassing
cognitive construct informed by an individual’s memory and current experience, including the physical,
sociocultural, interpersonal, and verbal setting in which a given act of communication is taking place (see
Gutt 1992:21–4). Context, according to Gutt, refers to the “cognitive environment” (CE) of a given
individual – a comprehensive, all-inclusive mental construct, or conceptual-emotive framework, composed
of knowledge, associations, and inferences based on that person’s prior learning, both formal and informal,
positive or negative; past experiences, good as well as bad; the immediate physical and social environment;
the present cotextual setting of any verbal text under consideration; current assumptions (including those
that pertain to the CE of other interlocutors on the scene); all other perceptible communicative stimuli
(semiotic verbal or nonverbal signs, including the text that is presently being read, watched, and/or
listened to); any noncommunicative stimuli, that is, any random noise that is manifested in the present
282
 3. Within a different communication setting: The translator negotiates a re-formulation, that is, a verbal
re-signification, of the original text in a new language, mind-set, and sociocultural environment.
4. The most relevant: The aim is to achieve the greatest number of beneficial conceptual, emotional, and
volitional effects for readers without their expending excessive or undue processing effort.
5. [The most] functionally equivalent manner possible: The target text should manifest a sufficient degree
of similarity to the original in terms of the meaning variables of semantic content, pragmatic intent,
connotative resonance, emotive impact, artistic appeal, and/or rhetorical power in accord with its literary
genre.
6. Stylistically marked, more or less: The degree of stylistic domestication (i.e., reflecting the genius of
the TL) versus the degree of foreignness (reflecting the “otherness” of the SL text) must always be
assessed with respect to the linguistic and literary norms, conventions, and expectations of the TL
audience.
7. In keeping with the designated job commission: A TL text’s level of accuracy and acceptability is
defined with respect to the translation project’s job commission, or brief, which includes its general terms
of reference, primary communication goal(s), staff experience and training, available resources, quality-
control procedures, community wishes and requirements, administrative and management procedures,
and desired completion schedule.
8. Agreed upon for the TL project concerned: The communicative framework of the TL social and
religious setting is determinative for establishing the job commission, which needs to be first carefully
researched, then agreed upon by all major sponsors and supporters, and, finally, closely monitored,
evaluated, and, if necessary, revised on a systematic, ongoing basis
It is important to note that translation is different from monolingual communication in that
translation involves at least two different external settings and interpersonal situations, and often
three (e.g., that evoked by an English translation), if the translators cannot access the original
text. The formal and conceptual distance between these two or three contexts is variable,
depending on the languages and cultures concerned. Generally speaking, the greater this distance
(i.e., from the ancient Near Eastern environment), the more difficult the translation task becomes
and the more active form-oriented mediation on the part of the translator is required if a
meaningful, let alone a literary, version is to be prepared.

We might add the following observations to the 1-8 components of the translating process
above:
a. Translators do not, ideally, work in isolation, but rather as part of a team of mutually supportive co-
translators, reviewers, technical specialists (exegetes, literary artists, keyboarders, computer
technicians), and consultants, coaches, advisers, guides, and at times mentors.
b. Each communication setting incorporates interacting levels of extratextual influence that together
affect all aspects of text representation – its production, transmission, and processing (factor b). Thus
there are diverse cultural, institutional (including ecclesiastical), religious (traditional and modern),
environmental, interpersonal, as well as personal (psychological and experiential), factors that affect
the overall communication context either directly or indirectly. These varied and variable frames all
merge to form the respective collective cognitive framework of the SL or TL communities – and the
individual viewpoint of each individual of which the group is composed.635

setting, perhaps even hindering the current process of communication; and, finally, those particular or
general emotions, attitudes, and values that happen to be associated with any of the preceding elements.
635
To avoid terminological confusion, one might distinguish between the notions of “context” as a
specific, external, perceivable reality and of “frame” as one individual or collective cognitive organization,
or mental representation. The sum total of frames of reference that are relevant to the interpretation of a
283
 c. The perspective and opinion of the current audience, which needs to be clearly specified at the outset,
is then determinative (factor 8) in drawing up an organizational Brief, which is the defining and
guiding document that outlines the Skopos, principles, procedures, and provisions for a given Bible
translation endeavor.
d. In terms of this definition, the translation of a literary version is carried out according to the general
principle of psychological relevance (factor d, focus on the TL text), which governs the project-
specific practice of functional equivalence (factor e, focus on the SL text), as particularized or
delimited by the agreed-upon Skopos.
e. The LiFE method is applied with respect to the content and intent of the original text, but also in
view of and guided by the genre-determined stylistic features of the TL (factors f–g), starting out
from its significant phonological forms. Another type of translation – for example, a formal-
correspondence version for liturgical purposes – may be defined in much the same way, except for
specifying a different qualifier of “relevant.”
f. To some degree, whether more or less, stylistic domestication (f) is always called for. Even a
relatively literal translation needs to be stylistically marked in a discernible and appreciable manner,
at least phonologically, with regard to naturalness, for this is perhaps where a translation’s style is
most immediately perceptible. How the text reads aloud, how it actually sounds in the vernacular, is
a criterion of utmost importance for “literariness.”
g. Finally, it is important to remember that every translation, no matter what kind, always involves a
communicative loss with respect to content, intent, connotation, or some other type of significance.
This fact, which is supported by the principles of cognitive grammar, argues against both the
dynamic-equivalence approach (DE) and the formal-correspondence approach (FC). With regard to
DE, it is not possible to change linguistic forms, even phonological forms, without altering the
meaning in some way. With regard to FC, if the SL forms are not changed in the transfer process,
the meaning in the TL text is inevitably altered. In other words, a literal rendering changes the
intended sense and significance of the message as much as a dynamic-equivalence rendering, in fact,
more so. In either case, of course, certain types of lost information may (must?!) be supplied
paratextually by footnotes, introductions, section headings, or a glossary. Such descriptive or
explanatory information may also be supplied extratextually by means of supplementary, context-
enriching publications.
For reflection, research, and response:
1. What do you think of the expanded definition of translation (with the 1-8 components) given above? Which, in
your opinion, is the most important component? Why do you say so? Do you wish to simplify, clarify, supplement,
or even replace it? If so, how does your proposal feature a literary approach with reference to both the SL and the
TL settings of communication?
2. Evaluate the explanations that follow the expanded definition of translation. Do you have any additions or
corrections to suggest? Which is the most important of these concerns from the perspective of a Bible translation
in YL? Why do you say so? Try to give a concrete example.
3. Can you give an instance where the form of the biblical text is meaningful? Which aspects of a proverb, for
example, convey some aspect of connotative, or associative, meaning? See if you can find an illustration or two
from Proverbs 17 (in the original Hebrew if possible). Then evaluate the following conclusion by Unseth
(2003:17), and apply the implication to your own translation setting. How does it modify your understanding of
what the process of translation entails?
[T]he translation of proverbs requires an appreciation of the fact that proverbs have an aesthetic quality
in their form in the source text and a conscious awareness of the aesthetic techniques used in forming
proverbs in the RL. Then the translator is in a much better position to remold foreign proverbs into
meaningful and aesthetic forms in the RL. This is important because for proverbial speech, part of the

given text constitutes its overall conceptual framework (see Wilt 2002a, chap. 2). However, I have not
maintained such a distinction in this book.
284
 meaning is the form. Put another way: if passage does not have a proverbial form, it will not have (as
much) proverbial meaning.

4. Discuss the meaning of the Italian proverb traduttore – traditore “the translator is a traitor,” and apply it to your
particular translation project. In what sense do translators betray the original text, and what can be done about it?
How can such a “betrayal,” though it cannot be eliminated, be diminished?
5. In what ways is the translator a “mediator” in the course of his or her work? What are some of the key
characteristics of a mediator? How is this term rendered in YL? Can you think of any other ways in which to
describe the work (and difficulties) of translation?
Consider this: The translator is a “trader,” a person who exchanges one text (in the SL) for another (in the TL), all
the while striving to keep their respective communicative values approximately the same. Moisés Silva says the
translator is a “transformer,” someone “who, like it or not, transforms a text by transferring it from one linguistic-
cultural context to another” (in Scorgie, Strauss, and Voth 2003:47).
Umberto Eco prefers to look at the translator as a “negotiator”. In his view, the process of translation is “a matter
of negotiation between the translator, the reader and the original author, whose unique voice should remain in the
text….Negotiation is a process by virtue of which, in order to get something, each party renounces something else,
and at the end everybody feels satisfied since one cannot have everything” (Eco 2003:192, 196). Apply his
comments to a LiFE manner of translating. Are there any aspects of the biblical text that are not negotiable? If so,
which ones? Why?
6. Consider the following caveat regarding the practice of functional equivalence Bible translation (Cameron
1990:101–2):
Now there is sometimes in translation such a thing as the mot juste: sometimes there will be a word or phrase
in the receptor language which precisely, or as precisely as possible, catches the meaning of the original, and
in these cases no other translation will do.…[I]t does seem that in many places translators are too ready to
abandon formal correspondence and embark on the search for functional equivalence. Of course ‘abandon
formal correspondence’ is an over-simplification, because it implies that formal correspondence is ready to
hand, whereas it has to be uncovered: formal correspondence is not the same as literalism. The point is that
there is today an implied assumption that, the aim of translation being equivalent effect, this effect is to be
achieved by functional equivalence. But such an assumption is not universally valid. Indeed it may be said that
functional equivalence always starts at a disadvantage in its pursuit of equivalent effect, because it invariably
disrupts the rhythm of the original, and the rhythm of the original is an inseparable part of its effect. The
principle should be therefore that the possibilities inherent in formal correspondence must be exhausted first,
and only if they yield nothing should there be resort to functional equivalence.
Are the translators in your team (or those in a project that you know of) capable of putting the concluding
recommendation into effect? Explain why – or why not. To what extent do you take the rhythm of the biblical text
seriously in translation? If you do, give an example. Also give an example of a case where literalness may be
idiomatic, that is, where a formally correspondent rendering of the original text turns out to be the most functionally
equivalent way of putting the concept in your language (le mot juste!).
7. Our definition of translation focuses strongly on the notion of context (an integrated set of cognitive frames) as a
very important and influential aspect of the entire translation process. Point out several ways in which this is true.
Why is it important to pay so much attention to these contextual factors?
8. In the explanation of point a of the above definition of “translation,” the intentions of the original author are
mentioned as being the key reference point in the process. However, objections can be raised against such a
perspective. What do you think of Yu’s objection (2005:236)?
[O]ften, I do not really know who wrote or edited a particular book in the Bible. This is especially true
in the OT. Even in cases where I’m quite sure who the authors might be, how could I find out about
their intention?…All I have are copies or translations of the texts. In practice, the appeal to authorial
intention seems problematic.

Evaluate the following response to this objection. Discuss some of the problems involved with the attempt to
discern authorial intention in ancient texts:

285
 Text and context do set boundaries on what meanings are plausible.…A text may point to a trajectory
of plausible meanings instead of ‘having’ only one meaning. In the case of biblical texts, we are far
removed from the cultural, historical and linguistic situations surrounding these texts, and these gaps
complicate matters.…This is not a problem. I’m not talking about exactness, but approximations. My
aim is to get at some adequate readings of the text, not the meaning of the text. (ibid.:239)

Can a literary perspective be used in conjunction with a linguistic (text) analysis to help narrow the range of
hermeneutical possibility in more doubtful cases? If so, explain how this works.
9. Study Luke 10:13–14 and select the aspects of the essential contextual or background information that needs to be
supplied paratextually so that people of YL can properly understand the passage.
10. How do the following observations by Eco (2003:3) relate to a LiFE approach to translation?
In translation proper there is an implicit law, that is, the ethical obligation to respect what the author
has written. It has been said that translation is a disguised indirect discourse (“The author so and so
said in his/her language so and so”). Obviously, to establish exactly what “the author said” is an
interesting problem.…

This is a problem because so often what the author said is bound up with how he said it, that is, with the formal
features of the SL text. What do you think?
11. Compare our definition of translation with Wilt’s definition (2002a:78, noting also his diagram on p. 79). How are
the two definitions similar – or different? Do they complement each other – or not? Explain.
12. Give a definition of translation in YL that could be readily understood by a monolingual translator. (Do not
necessarily copy the definitions of others.) Then give a back-translation into English and point out any special
features of your definition and tell why you have incorporated them.

12.3 Defining a literary functional-equivalence translation

In section 13.1 we examined the desirability of a relevant functional-equivalence type of

translation. Such a translation would be in keeping with the wider definition of translation that
we have been considering. A version that manifests a good measure of literariness is the kind of
translation that should have relevance for many people (i.e., benefit, utility, applicability,
appropriateness), since, as we have seen, many portions of the Bible may be classified as
literature. In fact, we may go so far as to argue that each and every translation intended for
public reading/hearing should be composed, more or less, as a literary functional equivalent of
the original. In other words, any translation, even a literal version, can be made to manifest some
degree of recognized TL poetic and rhetorical features, depending on the version’s primary
purpose, setting of use, and principal audience.

How can this be done? That is the question that we will try to answer in the remainder of
this lesson. Our emphasis here is a translation that is more literary in nature rather than less (or,
we might say, more oratorical if we wish to emphasize orature and the oral-aural dimension of
discourse). This is what we term a literary functional-equivalence (LiFE) translation. A well-
trained and skilled translation team should be able to produce such a version, one that displays
an excellent literary standard – in other words, a text that has recognized artistic qualities on all
strata of linguistic structure in the TL. It is normally composed within the framework of a TL
genre that is a functional equivalent of the primary SL discourse being rendered, but having its
own distinctive stylistic features that operate as a formal “package” to convey the principal
communicative purpose(s) of the original text.

Production is only part of the task, however. Often the job of promotion is just as important,
including a certain amount of education concerning the translation product in mind. Thus, it
may be necessary to convince a project’s sponsors, administrators, supporters, and at times even
the public at large that a more idiomatic version of the Scriptures is not only feasible, but also
highly desirable. As Landers (2001:7) observes, “One of the most difficult concepts about literary
286
translation to convey to those who have never seriously attempted it – including practitioners in
areas such as technical and commercial translation – is that how one says something can be as
important as, sometimes more important, than what one says.”

In view of this difficulty, it must be stressed that various degrees and levels of literary
application are possible. The different options may be explored and finally determined on the
basis of audience research in relation to the main communicative objective that the team aims
to accomplish in the primary setting of intended use.

Another crucial factor necessary for success is having a translation team that is equal to the
challenge. However, depending on the circumstances, a literary technique may be applied in a
more limited manner. That is, it may be applied to only selected features or portions of the
biblical text. Even a little bit of LiFE can mean a lot to any translation!
Q: What do you think of this notion?
If you agree with the basic concept, try to give an example of such selectivity using a prominent
stylistic feature or two from YL.
What sort of qualifications should LiFE translators have in order to have a reasonable chance of doing
a good job?
What kind of supplementary training do they need?
The following are the main premises or assumptions that underlie a LiFE approach, each of
which involves an adjustable gradient of possible perspectives, interpretations, and applications:
1. The biblical text is undeniably a book of literary forms, consisting of many different genres and their
associated stylistic features. It embodies a demonstrably excellent compositional quality
(“literariness”) in many places, in both the Hebrew and Greek Testaments – with valid differences
of opinion to be expected as to where, in which respects, and how much such artistry is manifested
(e.g., cf. the books of Kings with Chronicles, or 1 Peter with 2 Peter).
2. The available literary/oratorical resources of the TL are not often utilized, even partially, in most
Bible translations. Nor are they, in many cases, even adequately researched to discover what is
actually available in terms of stylistic features and rhetorical techniques. As a result, a whole
dimension of potential cognitive enrichment is overlooked.
3. Different degrees of LiFE application are possible with respect to the TL text, depending on the
prevailing sociocultural and ecclesiastical setting. In other words, the functional profile designated
for re-presentation in a translation will vary in keeping with the priorities set forth in the project
Skopos and the textual features of the biblical document at hand (e.g., its segmentation, cohesive
properties, peak points, and microstylistic devices).
4. In a LiFE translation different features of TL form may be chosen for specific literary enhancement
(e.g., marking or foregrounding), whether phonological, lexical, syntactic, or macrotextual (genre-
related). This decision-making process is guided by the decisions made during the project-planning
stage and incorporated into the project Skopos. LiFE involves the functionally oriented, selective
process of formal text re-creation, coupled with its semantic preservation (insofar as possible).
5. To produce a literary translation is intellectually stimulating and emotively satisfying. It gives gifted
translators the opportunity to be both individually and collectively resourceful and innovative in the
use of language, whether to a greater or lesser degree. Once competent and creative communicators
get used to more fully utilizing the rich artistic and rhetorical assets of the TL in order to match the

287
 communicative dynamics of the biblical text, they become captivated by the challenge and seek to
engage it dynamically at every opportunity.636
The extent to which LiFE principles may be applied in a given translation project depends
on a wide range of variables that interact within the total communication framework (for some
ideas, see chap. 6 of Wilt 2002a). Not the least of these variables is the amount of resources
allocated to the project – human, financial, and technical. As already noted, this would include
the qualifications and competence of the translators as well as the level of support allocated for
their ongoing training and for an ongoing assessment and possible later revision of the text.

Other important but not often considered factors are the history of translation and the
influence of subsequent publications, as well as interchurch politics in the region concerned.
Q: How desirable would it be, for example, for any new Bible to look (or sound) like previously published
and widely used versions, whether in the same TL or a language of wider communication?
Will future interchurch developments have any influence one way or another on the project?
Have particular biblical terms, expressions, compositional styles, or published formats become identified
with certain church denominations or constituencies?
The matter of flexibility – being willing to apply a variable degree or intensity of literary
functional equivalence – is crucial to this chapter’s recommendations. A LiFE approach does not
really represent a new translation method: it can be actively applied, whether globally or
selectively, at one or more linguistic levels within any translation, depending on the particular
expressive genius of the TL.637 It may embrace the text’s phonology (e.g., rhythmic utterance),
lexicon (e.g., ideophones), morphology (e.g., deictic affixes), syntax (e.g., strategic word-order
variations), or the discourse structure as a whole (e.g., using parallel or chiastic patterning,
including its formatting on the printed page).

To put it another way, at least one prominent element of stylistic form in the translated text
needs to be artfully modified in a systematic, consistent manner and for a definite rhetorical
purpose in order for it to qualify as a literary/oratorical version. Exactly how much and in which
respects would have to be determined on the basis of considerable pre-translation research and
formulated in an explicit brief. This comprehensive statement of the project’s terms of reference
and job specifications, including its Skopos, must always be specific to the proposed target
audience and the version’s intended use.638 Thus even a more formally correspondent liturgical,
or “pulpit,” version may be given more LiFE if it has been rendered artistically in certain
perceptible respects in keeping with TL norms and popular expectations.

However, to produce a literary translation requires a highly skilled, creative and cooperative,
experienced and biblically educated translation team. To what extent are project organizers and
administrators really committed to, or even aware of, this crucial need in terms of personnel?
Literary translators must first apply their knowledge and skills to a careful and thorough analysis
of the SL document. They then re-present the original text and its significance in the TL, whether
selectively, working from content to various aspects of form, or holistically, composing the
translation as a conceptual and stylistic whole. In the latter instance, they work more intuitively

636
This point is especially worth noting. Landers (2001:5), a secular translator and critic, observes,
“[O]nly literary translation lets one consistently share in the creative process. Here alone does the
translator experience the aesthetic joys of working with great literature, or recreating in a new language
a work that would otherwise remain beyond reach, effectively ‘in code’.”
637
The “genius” of a given language refers to the various stylistic features that distinguish the
discourse of different genres as recognized and currently evaluated by sensitive lay people as well as
experts in the TL and its literature/orature.
638
For more discussion on the concept of brief and Skopos, see Nord 1997:27-31.
288
either on a complete utterance-for-utterance basis or on a paragraph-for-paragraph basis, always
being guided by the style of the TL genre that is the nearest functional equivalent to that of the
SL text. In cases where no TL correspondent exists, translators may have to create their own
hybrid genre as they proceed, based on the appropriate speech styles that are available in the
vernacular.

As already noted, text production is only part of the task. In addition to text promotion, an
intense process of comparative text examination, evaluation, and, when necessary, correction
must also follow the work of translation in order to ensure that the necessary level of overall
quality has been attained. Here again, translators of the highest competence are required, and
often these persons are different from those engaged in text composition. Such a translational
review and critique is carried out first with reference to the exegetical and literary features of
the biblical text with respect to form, content, and function – and then the vernacular draft is
revised and refined accordingly.
For reflection, research, and response:
1. Try to define what a LiFE translation is in your own words, first in English, then in your own language. The
following is what Eco, a well-known professional translator and literary scholar, had to say on the subject
(2003:56):
[T]he aim of a translation, more than producing any literal ‘equivalence’, is to create the same effect in
the mind of the reader (obviously according to the translator’s interpretation) as the original text
wanted to create. Instead of speaking of equivalence of meaning, we can speak of functional
equivalence: a good translation must generate the same effect aimed at by the original.

Evaluate Eco’s opinion in light of the preceding discussion of a LiFE approach to translating the Scriptures in a
dynamic manner.
2. What are some of the outstanding literary or oratorical stylistic features in YL that could well be utilized in a LiFE
translation of the Bible? Give an example or two in relation to a specific biblical passage or a familiar vernacular
saying.
3. If you do not have an immediate answer to the previous question, how might you go about finding out? In other
words, how do you propose carrying out such a research project in the context of YL?
4. Can you think of a local situation where a LiFE version might be a possible goal to try to achieve – that is, with
respect to the general ecclesiastical and social setting that you live in?
5. What would be some of the most important factors that would hinder or prevent the production of a literary
translation in your community or setting of work? How might some of these potential barriers be overcome or
mitigated?
6. Christiane Nord makes the following Skopos “suggestions for a purpose-oriented approach to literary translation”
(adapted from 1997:92-93). How do these principles relate to what has already been said in this lesson about
preparing a literary translation—now, with specific reference to the Scriptures? Record any similarities,
differences, and additional ideas or implications that you discern:
a. Interpretation:
Interpretation The translator interprets the source text not only with regard to the sender’s intention but also
with regard to its compatibility with the target situation. This means that the translator compares the target
text profile (time, place, motive, addressees, medium, etc.) with the material offered by the source text,
analyzing not only the sender’s intention with regard to the source-culture receivers but also the possibilities
that target receivers have of coordinating the source-text information with their own situation and horizon.

b. Text Function:
Function The target text should be composed in such a way that it fulfils functions in the target situation
that are compatible with the sender’s intention. When analyzing the source text, the translator tries to find
out which function or functions the text fulfils…in the source culture. The first question is which of these
functions can be achieved in the target culture (and in what hierarchical order) by means of an instrumental
[i.e., idiomatic] translation, or whether a documentary [i.e., more literal] translation would be more
appropriate.

289
 c. Cultural Distance:
Distance The text world of the translation should be selected according to the intended target-text
function. … [This concerns such issues as how much local cultural adaptation to allow as opposed to the use
of paratextual aids like footnotes, illustrations, a glossary, etc.]

d. Text Effect:
Effect The code elements should be selected in such a way that the target-text effect corresponds to the
intended target-text functions. Like the source culture, the target culture provides linguistic means
appropriate to attaining a particular text function. Using these means, the translator can be relatively sure the
target receivers will recognize the intention and receive the text with the desired function. … The translator
thus has to use source-text analysis to determine whether and to what extent an imitation of the source-text
style could be an appropriate way of achieving the intended function and what effect this will have (such as
enrichment of the target language). The result of this analysis should determine the choices made in the
translation process.

With regard to this last principle, what does “enrichment of the target language” mean? Have you noted this effect
in the Bible translation that you are (or were) engaged in? If so, give an example. If not, explain why. What would
be the converse of “enrichment” with regard to TL style when a more literal translation approach is followed? Can
you give an example of this outcome in a vernacular translation that you know of?
7. Do you agree with the following assertion by Landers (2001:8)? Discuss this in light of your own translation work
or goals.
Consider some of the capabilities that the literary translator must command: tone, style, flexibility,
inventiveness, knowledge of the SL culture, the ability to glean meaning from ambiguity, an ear for
sonority, and humility. Why humility? Because even our best efforts will never succeed in capturing in
all its grandeur the richness of the original.

8. Is God an artist – does he really appreciate the beauty of forms? Discuss this in light of the following Scripture
passages: Genesis 1:4, 10, 31; Exodus 25:9; 1 Kings 6:12–13; Ezekiel 33:32, 40–43; Psalms 19:9b–10; 45:1–2,
17; 119:54, 103; 1 Corinthians 1:17 (in comparison with 2 Cor. 5:11); Colossians 3:16; 4:6; and Revelation 21:10–
27. What relevance do these passages have to LiFE-style translating? Mention at least one of the artistic or
rhetorical features in each of these texts that needs to be addressed and accounted for, in some way, in a
communicatively “honest” Bible translation. Try translating one of these texts in an overtly literary or oratorical
manner in YL.
9. The interrelated factors of research and testing are always necessary in connection with Bible translation programs.
However, only in rare instances is such pre- and post-project investigation actually carried out on a sustained basis
– and then only by the better-funded projects. If you have ever participated in such research, summarize how it
was conducted and what its main results were. What are the main reasons for testing a translation, not only while
it is being prepared, but after it is published? If research and testing are not prominent aspects of your project, what
can you do to stimulate community awareness concerning this need?

12.4 LiFE translation in relation to other approaches

12.4.1 The translational continuum

There are many ways of doing a translation. The different types are frequently classified on the
basis of how closely or loosely they retain the formal features of the SL text in the TL text – how
literal or idiomatic they are in linguistic or stylistic terms. A more literal version may be described
as being foreignized with reference to the intended TL audience; such a text requires readers or
hearers to learn many of the SL’s unusual linguistic features as reflected in the translation, just
as though they were learning a foreign language. In other words, translators leave the original
writer more or less undisturbed and try to move today’s readers towards his manner of
expression. (This is an author-oriented focus.) Conversely, in the case of an idiomatic version,
translators move the original writer and his text towards today’s readers. (This is a audience-
oriented focus.) They do this by domesticating the text of their translation through the use of
stylistically natural linguistic forms whenever possible. This indigenous text principle always
involves culture as well as language, for the two cannot be separated.
290
 Q: Can you give an example of such domestication, using a term that has been borrowed into YL from
the Scriptures (e.g., “bread,” “wine,” “prophet,” “temple,” “baptize”)?
What is the communicative effect if such terms are left “foreignized” in the text by means of a
transliteration or the use of a loan word from another language, e.g., tempile “temple”?
An idiomatic version has the primary aim of reproducing more fully, overtly, and/or
naturally the semantic content and communicative intent of the original message by employing
the most expected TL forms available. From a LiFE perspective, we might add the qualification
that the term “idiomatic” includes the various literary features that are associated with the
different TL genres that would best serve as models for the translation. In any case, the point to
note is that the concept of “meaning” includes the apparent major and minor communication
functions and speech acts of the distinct form-content text units represented in the SL document.

A form-functional approach of this kind, guided by the principle of communicative

relevance, may be applied more or less comprehensively or intensively to a translation,
depending on the circumstances, that is, taking into consideration the intended purpose or
prospective use of the entire text within the TL community. Of course, no translation can
reproduce all of the original document’s elements of form, content, and function.639 Rather, there
are a number of different possibilities in terms of selection, focus, and emphasis – that is, a
gradient ranging from versions that concentrate on the SL forms to those that seek to duplicate
the principal communication functions of the base document as a whole, but using features that
are effective as well as appropriate in the TL. In the diagram below some of the available types
are indicated, along with the English versions that are approximate examples of each. Study this
diagram and then do the following exercises:
Q: Discuss the ratings suggested in this diagram and record any points of disagreement. (It should be
emphasized that no notion of value or quality is attached to these ratings, which are approximate to
begin with. The diagram is offered merely as a point of discussion concerning translation styles.)
Then compare the diagram below with the diagram on page 89 in Translating the Literature of
Scripture (Wendland 2004b). What difference do you see?
frequency of TL literary-rhetorical
features used in the translation
very high
*h
relatively high *g
*f
moderate use *e
*d
very few *c
*b
none at all *a
less LiFE-oriented style more LiFE-oriented style
more foreignized (literal) more domesticated (idiomatic)

[a = interlinear, b = NASB, c = RSV/ESV, d = NIV, e = GNT, f = CEV, g = NLB, h = The Message]

639
The SL message cannot be exactly reproduced or completely conveyed in a given TL – there will
always be an appreciable loss, gain, or skewing of semantic and pragmatic significance that occurs in the
process of interlingual representation. Translators must therefore be selective, aiming to achieve the
highest possible degree of information parity. But this can be done only with respect to certain aspects of
the initial communication event or smaller portions of the SL text. Thus communication via translation is
invariably only partial, imperfect at best. Worse, it can also be misleading – misstating or misrepresenting
the message intended by the SL author.
291
 Note that this simple diagram does not measure or evaluate the exegetical accuracy of the
versions that have been cited. (Accuracy is, of course, a factor of great concern in Bible
translation studies, and we will consider it in lesson 7.) Another point that needs to be stressed
is that the more domesticated translations are not necessarily “better” than the more foreignized
ones – or vice versa. It all depends on the target audience and what they feel that they need in a
contemporary translation. Their evaluation, however, may vary depending on the extent to
which key persons were consulted during the translation process and how acceptable they find
the translation to be once it has been completed, published, and used.

A full LiFE version, whatever the language, is one that generally succeeds in matching the
sequence of changing minor and major communicative functions of the biblical document (from
speech acts to text act) by the use of suitable TL forms, both minor ones (stylistic features) and
major ones (genres), whether more or less literally in relation to the original text. In other words,
while a literary version, like a literal version, stresses the importance of verbal form in
translation, it is not SL form, but TL form that is primary. This is true not only in quantitative
terms, but also from a qualitative perspective. Such an evaluation would need to be made on the
basis of recognized stylistic criteria of excellence with respect to a wide range of phonological,
lexical, syntactic, and textual features of artistry and rhetoric in the TL. Furthermore, it is clear
that this critical assessment would have to be made or validated by practiced literary experts or
experienced vernacular artists – not necessarily by theologians, biblical scholars, or
denominational leaders, who may have a vested interest in the use of an older translation that
they grew up with or based their studies on at the seminary.
Q: To what degree do vernacular experts or stylists who are not trained in theology participate in your
translation project? Summarize the nature of this involvement.
Alternatively, summarize the reasons why such resource persons have not yet (or not fully) been
utilized.
What steps could be taken to get such essential participants involved in the work of Bible translation?
As to the preceding diagram’s vertical axis, which represents the relative frequency with
which recognized literary forms occur in the translations, there are various options open to the
creative translator. The sound structure of the text would need to be modified as a first step in a
literary direction. In other words, a literary version should feature a discourse that is aurally
enhanced with respect to one or more phonic devices such as parallel lineation, rhythm, rhyme,
alliteration, assonance, and/or various kinds of word play (paronomasia). In order to produce this
sort of euphony and rhythmic symmetry in utterance progression, certain preferred types of
balanced syntactic construction, interclausal linkage, and lexical selection or collocation are
often required. A literary rendering, even a limited one, would also seek to retain most of the
evoked visual component of the biblical text – that is, its major images, core cultural symbols,
and metaphoric language. This goal would be modified only as needed to incorporate certain
lexical cues, for example, to guide the reader/hearer’s interpretation in the case of the more
difficult or foreign figures of speech.

The most comprehensive and inclusive way of satisfying this form-functional criterion, if the
goal is a more literary translation, is by means of a globally applied, genre-for-genre rendition of
a complete book, text, or pericope. In other words, the translators move from a specific biblical
text type (e.g., a lament psalm) into the nearest functionally equivalent vernacular genre.
According to such a strategy, the stylistic and rhetorical quality of the SL literary text is analyzed,
assimilated, and then transformed as a whole in keeping with the stylistic characteristics that
have been previously established for the most closely corresponding TL genre, whether oral,
written, or a hybrid of the two.

Such a holistic, more intuitively implemented approach aims to attain communicative

correspondence (or at least sufficient similarity) at a much higher discourse level during
292
composition than simply matching form-functional features on a one-to-one basis with regard to
individual sentences. Competent translators would thus endeavor to immerse themselves
conceptually in the original message by thoroughly studying the SL text and its context. They
would then with like intensity search out, or more likely, intuit, the communicative resources
available in the target language and cultural setting. The final step would be that spontaneous
act of creative synthesis whereby the biblical message is transformed in translation – reformulated
in the most relevant way for a particular contemporary audience (cf. the “interpretive approach”
to translation; Wendland 2004b:66–71).

But if a local translation commission or job description calls for a version that is not so
dynamic or idiomatic in nature, a greater degree of formal correspondence will be required with
respect to the structural and stylistic features of the biblical text such as its metaphoric imagery,
sentence construction, lexical combinations, instances of repetition, and consistency in key-term
usage. Nevertheless, it would still be possible to render certain other aspects of the text in a
pleasing literary manner, especially on the phonological level. Thus every translation of Scripture
can – and probably should – reflect a discernable measure of the artistic style that can be
recognized in the TL as appropriate for the genre being conveyed. In this case, the translation
continuum in the preceding diagram would manifest a specific literary component at each and
every stage along the way, with the differences among the respective versions being only a matter
of quantity, not completely different types of translation. That is the expanded vision of a literary
version that could, ideally, be realized in virtually all Bible translation work.

The question, then, would not be if a particular version is to be literary – only to what extent,
in which respects, and where in the text. How much TL literary style or rhetoric is it possible to
reflect in a given translation, and what crucial determining factors are present in the local
setting? What then are the main practical, teamwork-related implications of this decision? These
are important issues for any project to consider before translation work begins and even before
the translators are selected.

Even if the Skopos is to achieve a significant amount of functional parity in the translation,
the answers to such questions could vary, depending on the particular SL documents to be
rendered: The more persuasive and vigorous the rhetoric and/or artistry displayed in the original
text (i.e., with special emphasis on the expressive, affective, and poetic functions of
communication), the more marked the printed translation ought to be, stylistically, in terms of
TL verbal conventions, and the more evocative it ought to sound in turn to the ears of its intended
audience.
Q: List one OT and one NT book that you feel would fall into the preceding category.
Next, name an OT and a NT book that you consider to be manifestly less “literary” (artistic-rhetorical)
in nature. Give reasons. Discuss your choices in class.
For reflection, research, and response:
1. The following saying is attributed to Rabbi Judah in The Babylonian Talmud: “If someone translates a verse [of
Scripture] literally, he is a liar; if he adds thereto, he is a blasphemer and a libeler.” What does this mean, and to
what extent is it actually true or an exaggeration? Is there scope for a compromise in this respect? Explain your
position on the matter.
2. Literal translations are often said to follow the principle of formal correspondence, but how far does such formality
or correspondence go with respect to literary features of the SL text such as alliteration, paronomasia (word play),
rhythm, euphony, frontal displacement for emphasis, or – to cite one of the most challenging – the acrostic pattern
in poetry? Why are such features generally ignored? What is lost in terms of meaning when they are neglected?
3. Evaluate the following definition of the “translation process” (Munday 2009:235), with special reference to the
underlined expressions. Discuss the difficult portions of this definition in class and suggest clarifications,
simplifications, explanations, etc. as necessary.

293
 A mental activity performed by a translator/interpreter allowing him/her to render an ST [source text]
(oral, written, audiovisual, etc.) formulated in an SL [source language], into a TT [target text] using the
resources of a TL [target language]. It is a complex cognitive process which has an interactive and non-
linear nature, encompassing controlled and uncontrolled processes, and requiring processes of
problem solving and decision making, and the use of strategies. Its specific characteristics vary
according to the type of translation (written, oral, audiovisual, etc.).

4. Moisés Silva, a prominent NT scholar, makes the following observation (in Scorgie, Strauss, and Voth 2003:39,
43):
All successful translations of literature…sound natural, as though they had originally been written in
[the TL] (while also preserving a feel for the original cultural setting). Therefore, they are more easily
read and understood than if they reflected the foreign syntax and word usage. (Incidentally, since the
message communicates more clearly, one can argue that they are more accurate than literal renderings
would be.)…The point here is that a nonliteral translation, precisely because it may give expression to
the genius of the target language…,can do greater justice to that of the source language (Greek).

What do you think of this opinion, especially as it applies to the translation that you are working on or to the
version that you like the most in your mother tongue?
5. Another well-known NT scholar, D. A. Carson, calls attention to the following crucial distinction (in Scorgie,
Strauss, and Voth 2003:68–9):
But the question that must always be asked is whether the original text sounded “foreign” to the first
readers and hearers. In other words, is the “otherness” of God and thus that “foreignness” of the Bible’s
message concretized in the foreignness of the language itself?…In fact, the more direct [i.e., literal]
form of translation may draw attention to the foreignness of the original language to the modern reader
(though it was not foreign to the first readers) and thus actually distract the reader from the far more
important “otherness” of God.

Explain this in your own words, in particular, its implicit warning to Bible translators.
6. The following chart shows four different renderings of part of Clément Marot’s poem “A une Damoyselle malade”
(cited by Moisés Silva in Scorgie, Strauss, and Voth 2003:45 and slightly modified here). Which version do you
prefer? Why? Describe the differences in translation technique (and outcome, including impact) for the four
versions. Which type of audience might each version best suit? (This exercise is good preparation for the next
section, where we will consider a biblical love poem.)

SL T1 T2 T3 T4
Ma mignonne My cute one My darling My sweet maid Lover mine,
Je vous donne I give thee I bid thee You I wish Here’s a sign
Le bon jour; The good day; Good day; A good day; Of my love,
Le séjour The stay Thy stay in bed Your sickbed Turtledove.
C’est prison. It’s prison. Is like prison. Is a jail. You’re not well,
Guérison Healing Thy health Total health I can tell.
Recouvrez, Recover, Recover, Please regain, All cooped up,
Puis ouvrez Then open Then open Then unlatch Buttercup?
Votre porte Thy door Thy door Your room’s door How about
Et qu’on sorte And that one leaves And go out And go out Going out?
Vitement, Quickly, Quickly, With full speed, Hit the town!
Car Clément For Clément For Clément For Clement Lose that frown –
Le vous mande Informs it to thee. Orders thee Does insist Clem’s command!

12.4.2 The Song of Songs: a case study

The love lyric found in Song of Songs 8:5b–7 begs for a literary exegesis and translation. The
Hebrew text of this artistically beautiful and rhetorically powerful passage reads as follows:

294
 -‫ּתי‬
.ִ ‫ר ְר‬
ַ ‫ֽע‬ 0 ‫ּוח‬
ַ 0 ‫ַּתחַ ת הַ ּתַ ּפ‬
-‫ ֶּמ‬. ‫ ִא‬-‫ּמָ ה ִח ְּב ַל ְת‬4 ָ‫ׁש‬
‫׃‬-‫ה יְ לָ ַ ֽד ְת‬6‫ּמָ ה ִח ְּב ָל‬7‫ָׁש‬
-‫ל־ל ֶּב‬
ִ ַ‫חתם ע‬ָ : ‫ימנִ י ַ ֽכ‬ ֵ * ‫ִׂש‬
- .ֶ‫ עַ ל־זְ רע‬0 ‫ּכחתָ ם‬ ַֽ
‫ֲבה‬ ָ. ‫ אַ ה‬0 ‫ ֶות‬0 ָ‫ִ ּֽכי־עַ ּזָ ה כַ ּמ‬
‫ ל ִקנְ ָאה‬7‫ה ִכ ְׁשא‬6‫קָ ָׁש‬
‫בֶ ְתיָ ֽה׃‬6‫ׁש ׁשַ ְל ֶה‬7‫ ֵּפי ֵא‬A ‫ ֶפיהָ ִר ְׁש‬A ָ‫ְרׁש‬
‫ֲבה‬
ָ. ‫ת־האַ ה‬
ָֽ ֶ‫ ְלכַ ּב ת א‬0 ‫ּוכלּו‬ ְ ֽ‫ל ֹא י‬  ‫ַמיִ ם ַר ִּבים‬
‫איׁש‬: ִ ‫ל ֹא יִ ְׁש ְטפּוהָ ִאם־יִ * ֵּתן‬  ‫רת‬7 ָ‫ּונְ ה‬
‫ֲבה‬ָ. ‫ ּבָ אַ ה‬0 ‫אֶ ת־ּכָ ל־ה ן ּבֵ ית‬
‫ ּוזּו ֽל׃ ס‬6‫ ז יָב‬7‫ּב‬
To examine this passage more closely, first read the text in a literal English version such as
the RSV and pick out the poetic features that stand out.
Q: Why did these particular items seem especially noteworthy?
Now read this passage in a more dynamic translation such as the GNT or The Message. How do you
like this version in comparison with the first one? Explain why and give examples to support your
preference.
Which translation sounds more poetic to you?
Do you have any literary improvements to propose concerning either translation? Try to give several
specific instances.
It may be soundly argued on literary as well as structural grounds that the thematic peak of
the Song of Songs is reached in the colorful, highly emotive strophe of 8:5b–7. Its onset is
delineated first by the formulaic closure of 8:3–4 (RSV):
3 O that his left hand were under my head,
and that his right hand embraced me!
4 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
that you stir not up nor awaken love
until it please.

his prominent structural border is followed by an equally strong marker of aperture in 8:5a;
namely, the rhetorical question that duplicates the corresponding strophe-initial query in 3:6a.
(This is a compositional device termed anaphora).
5 Who is that [fem.] coming up from the wilderness,
leaning upon her beloved?

This question serves to fix our attention on the participant next referred to, in this case the
female speaker. She begins, in 8:5b, with a figurative, allusive, and rather enigmatic description
of her intimate relationship with her lover:
Under the apple tree I awakened [or aroused] you.
There your mother was in travail with you,
there she who bore you was in travail.

295
(Note the intratextuality here, for example, the wake-up call that reverses the choral
prohibition of 2:7 and 3:5.)
In the ancient Near East, the topics of love and sexuality were often expressed figuratively
using the imagery of fruit and fruit trees (cf. 2:3). Here, in 8:5b, the female speaker picturesquely
compares the birth and growth of love that she produced in her man to his mother’s giving birth
to him. Assonance in the vowel-sound /a/ reinforces the point that it is the woman who is the
main actor in this event (i.e., the reiterated object, -cha ‘you’, is masculine singular).

The words of 8:5b lead to a highly personal appeal for intimate proximity in verse 6 – not
only physically, but socially as well, as the imagery suggests, that is, in their communally and
religiously “sealed” marriage vows (a development of the metaphor of 1:13). The seal (‘cylinder-
seal’ or ‘signet-ring’) symbolized personal identity and ownership along with connotations of
preciousness and authority. The closeness of this amorous relationship is further reinforced by
the heart and arm (or wrist) figures, since seals would always be closely attached to them.
6 Set me as a seal upon your heart,
as a seal upon your arm;
for love is strong as death,
jealousy is cruel as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
a most vehement flame.
The consequential ‘for’ (kiy) in the middle of verse 6 announces what sounds like a clear shift in
the speaking voice – from the woman to the implied author/poet as he expresses the point of the
Song, which in Hebrew goes like this (as shown by a very literal English translation):

For strong like (the) death [is] love,

unyielding like Sheol [is] passion---
its blazes the blazes of fire [like] [are] the flame of Yah[weh]!
A host of Hebrew literary devices converge here to mark this as a high point in the book (possibly
the ultimate peak). It is also distinguished by a shift in genre, for the overtones of Wisdom literature
are obvious here. Observe the poetic features: strict parallelism (the first two lines); syntactic
placement (the utterance-final key terms ‘love’ and ‘passion’); imagery (simile and metaphor);
symbolism (death and fire); paradox (the compelling power of death [destructive] versus love
[creative]); condensation (especially the final line); an ascending rhythmic pattern (3+3+4) with
variation (the last word, or is it a half-line?); more assonance in the vowel sound /a/ (to tie the text
to v. 5b); alliteration (the repeated sh of lines 2–3) with possible onomatopoeia (imaging the hissing
of a fire); and finally, a possible cryptic mention of the divine name (-yah) in ultimate, climactic
position (‫ב ְתיָה‬
ֶ ‫)ׁשַ ְל ֶה‬.
In verse 6, then, we have the fullest, most sustained attempt to describe (or better, evoke)
the supreme subject of the Song; namely, paired male-female love (note the definite article of
abstraction in verse 7). It is indeed a most irrepressible, irresistible, unquenchable force.
Furthermore, the clipped and suffixed reference to Yahweh, while it could be a mere idiomatic
substitute for the superlative (i.e., the “hottest/brightest” flame), in this structural position (cf.
the equally unique “your name” in balance as a possible inclusio at 1:3) and in conjunction with
so much stylistic embellishment, definitely seems to signify something more. Thus the final term
shalhebet-yah ‘the flame of Yah(weh)’ could well stand as the apex of the credo and of the Song.
God is the Source not only of love in all its power and passion, but of the marriage relationship,
in which affection is most completely and intimately experienced. Yahweh would surely seem to
be present in this context (see NJB, GW, and ASV), for fire is employed as a symbol of God’s
purifying presence throughout the Bible – here too then as the inexhaustible spark of a shared
life of total devotion.

296
 Also here towards the end of the Song the subdued presence of Yahweh in the single
theophanic flash of a flame contrasts in implicit intertextuality with the contemporary love
poetry of other cultures (e.g., mowt ‘death’ and reshep ‘flames’ in Ugaritic cultic texts). Pagan
poems made frequent mention of the deity, often in conjunction with immoral, allegedly
worshipful sexual activities. The divergence in the case of the Song would thus seem to indicate
a radically different nature, purpose, and message.

There’s still more of course: the poet does not finish in 8:6 but goes on in grand panegyric
fashion to figuratively suggest the significance of “[this] love” (ha’ahaba with still more
accentuating assonance) in verse 7:
7 Many waters cannot quench love,
neither can floods drown it.
If a man offered for love
all the wealth of his house,
it would be utterly scorned.

From a mighty fire to a cosmic flood, a divinely motivated affection cannot be quenched. The
allusions here need not be primarily mythological, for the psalmists had already dealt polemically
with that issue through defamiliarization (citing the supposedly sacred only to deny it)640 when
proclaiming the almighty Lordship and mercy of Yahweh in caring for his people (e.g., Pss. 18:6–
16; 32:6; 93; cf. Exod. 15:1–10). The image of water is especially relevant here due to the
preceding references to the fiery passion of love. The extra long cola of 7a and 7c mimic both
the amplitude of the content and the rhythmic movement of the language, each concluding with
the key word “love.”

This magnificent depiction is rounded out in a more conventional wisdom fashion by means
of a contrastive, probably ironic, reference to the proverbial fool who misunderstands and hence
by implication also misuses love. No price can purchase love. Such a misguided consumer
deserves only “utter scorn” (an intensified bôz yâbûzû lô) from society at large for polluting a
godly gift (as does the adulterer, who is severely punished for his desecration of love). The
strophe-final pronoun loh ‘to him’ is homophonous (same-sounding) with the preceding double
occurrence of the negative lo’ ‘not/no’. No self-seeking idiot can either buy or bar love!

The problem for translators is how to give a contemporary audience some idea of the
significance of the many diverse, but related figures of the Song without overly explicating it,
hence destroying its essential poetic nature. A certain amount of literary and cultural
contextualization in terms of an appropriate indigenous lyric genre expressing affection will
undoubtedly be necessary in order to preserve the dynamic impact and esthetic dimension of the
original. But one cannot go too far in this regard so that the biblical situational context is
contradicted or important intertextual resonances are lost (e.g., vines and vineyards, cedars,
sheep and goats, Lebanon, Mount Carmel – even the pejorative allusion to a fool). A possible
solution in such cases, in addition to the essential use of explanatory notes, is the exploitation of
indigenous conventional figures that have lost their immediate semantic reference and which
convey an idealized impression of ardor and affection in the target language.

We may see how this might be done in Chichewa with regard to the crucial passage of 8:6b
by comparing the translation of 8:6b in three different versions: (1) the 1923 missionary version
(first selection below); (2) the 1996 popular language version (second selection below); and (3)

640
“‘[D]efamiliarisation’ proposed by Russian Formalists [is] a device by which an artist succeeds
in persuading his readers to perceive the described object under a different light and [so] to understand it
better than before” (Eco 2003:90).
297
in a poetic ndakatulo lyric (a poetic genre that is popular in published, spoken, or sung form).
Relatively literal English back-translations are given after each of the renditions that follow:

1.
Pakuti cikondi cilimba ngati imfa;
Njiru imangouma ngati manda:
Kung’anima kwace ndi kung’anima kwa moto,
Ngati mphenzi ya Yehova.
Because love is strong like death;
Envy becomes hard like a grave:
Its flashing is the flashing of fire,
Like lightning of Jehovah.
2.
Paja chikondi nchamphamvu ngati imfa,
nsanje njaliwuma ngati manda.
Chikondi chimachita kuti lawilawi ngati malawi a moto,
ndipo nchotentha koopsa.
As you know, love is powerful like death,
jealousy is stubborn like a grave.
Love often goes flash-flash! Like flames of fire,
and it is terribly hot.
3.
Kunena inetu, chikondi sichitha mpaka imfa;
chayaka psi! monga moto uwala wa Chauta!
Changu changa n'chouma gwa! ngati manda.
Well as for me, [my] love does not end until death;
it’s on fire, ashes! like the shining flame of Creator God!
My zeal is rock-hard! just like the graveyard.

For reflection, research, and response:

1. How many different translations of the Bible do you have in your language? How would you classify
each of these based on the diagram of translation possibilities given in section 3.4.1? Or how would you
rate the translation that you are currently working on? Why was its particular style chosen? Is there any
need for a LiFE-style version in your wider translation setting? Would it be opposed by influential local
church bodies? Explain with reference to your own TL situation.
2. Compare the RSV (or NIV) translation of Song of Songs 8:5–7 with that of the GNT (or CEV). Where
do some major differences occur? List three places where you see significantly different renderings for
the same Hebrew words. Which version do you consider to be the most literary in nature in each case?
3. Evaluate the three Chichewa translations of Song of Songs 8:6 above. Does any seem to distort the sense
of the Hebrew text? List five major differences among them. Pick out three instances where the
Chichewa poetic version tries to reproduce the rhetorical power of the original. Which type of translation
would work best in your language for a modern situation and a youthful audience?
4. Prepare a dynamic literary translation of Song of Songs 8:5b–7 in your language. Do you have a genre
of love poetry or wisdom poetry in YL that would be suitable for this task? Explain. Give a back-
translation into English and point out three special stylistic devices that you have used to reproduce the
beauty or power of the Hebrew text. Compare your draft with the Nyanja ndakatulo rendition that
follows. What are the major similarities and differences that you observe? Be prepared to describe (and
possibly defend) your version in class.

298
 Ine ndidakuyatsa mtima patsinde pa mango –
uja mtengo adachirirapo amai pakubala iwe.
Umatirire mtima ndi chosindikiza chosalekeza
kuti musalowedi winanso, koma ine ndekha.
Kunena inetu, chikondi sichitha mpaka imfa,
Chayaka psi! monga moto uwala wa Chauta!
Changu changa n'chouma gwa! ngati manda.
Chikondi chimenechi palibe madzi a chigumula
angathe kuchizimitsa kapena kuchikokolola, ai!
Ngakhale munthu atapereka chuma chonse,
kufunitsitsa kugula chikondi choterechi,
iyeyu adzangonyozeka nazo zyolizyoli!
I aroused your heart at the base of that mango [tree],
the very tree where your mother labored delivering you.
Fasten your heart with a seal that does not let go
lest any other enter there at all, except me alone.
Well, as for me, [my] love does not end until death,
It's on fire, ashes! like the shining flame of Creator God!
My zeal is rock-hard! just like the graveyard.
A love like this, there are no flood waters
able to put it out or sweep it away, not at all!
Even if a person were to give all [his] wealth,
trying his best to purchase a love of this sort,
he would be fully embarrassed in the effort – shame!

The following poetic features are found in the preceding sample:

a. balanced lineation
b. internal rhythm and rhyme
c. emphatic syntactic displacement
d. graphic imagery and vivid idioms
e. condensation
f. deictic and emphatic affixes
g. assonance, alliteration, and punning
h. topical reversal (illustrated by the following couplet, v. 6e–f)
i. dramatic ideophones: Chayaka psi! monga moto uwala wa Chauta!
Changu changa n'chouma gwa! ngati manda.
5. Consider the first two lines in the Chichewa version of Song of Songs 8 that appears in exercise 4. Are there any
cross-cultural conceptual problems with respect to the specific kind of tree mentioned and giving birth under it
(apparently publicly)? Explain. What may be done to resolve any difficulties here – or anywhere else in the poem
as a whole?
6. Where is there an instance of enjambment (a run-over thought, a concept that carries on to the next line) in the
Chichewa version? What seems to be its likely poetic function? Does the poetry of YL make use of this device? If
so, can it be used for the same discourse purpose?
7. Tito Lahaye (2003:407) makes this important observation:
Along with a growing awareness of a distinct local identity…there needs to emerge a willingness and
desire to explore one’s own cultural richness and wherever possible to incorporate that into Bible
translation by drawing on the full range of genres present in the target language.…[W]here cultures
have made the transition to Christianity they will find that, where materials representing special
features of their language have been considered and incorporated in a Bible translation, that translation
will be more acceptable and meaningful.

In class discuss the implications of this and give some actual examples that arise from your own setting of Bible
translation.
8. Leland Ryken (2002:9–10) expresses his view of literary translation as follows:
The Bible is a written document that obeys the rules of literary discourse at every turn. A narrowly
focused linguistic approach to translation has often lost sight of larger literary principles.…[O]nly an
essentially literal translation of the Bible can achieve sufficiently high standards in terms of literary
criteria and fidelity to the original text. (bolding added)

Do you agree with Ryken? With his whole statement, with parts of it, or nothing at all? Give your reasons. (For a
cogent critique of Ryken’s position, see Simon Crisp 2004:43–51 and Mark Strauss 2005.)

299
12.5 Preparing for a poetic LiFE translation

A LiFE translation must always be based upon a thorough artistic and rhetorical study of the
original SL document. Such an analysis would alert translators to the specific literary character of
the biblical text under consideration (which is an integral part of its total meaning package).

The sort of text study envisaged includes two distinct general operations over and above the
usual word-by-word, verse-by-verse exegetical-hermeneutical analysis. These operations help us
more completely and accurately determine the non-referential dimensions of meaning presented
by any independent biblical pericope (i.e., a self-standing unit of discourse at the paragraph level
of structural organization and above).
The two areas of emphasis (though they do converge and overlap in many places) are:
1. Artistic text analysis. An artistic text analysis highlights the formal, esthetic, and iconic facets
(beautiful, euphonious, memorable, sensually appealing) of verbal discourse, whether oral or written.
The focus is upon the poetic and expressive functions of communication.641
2. Rhetorical text analysis: A rhetorical text analysis highlights the functional, dynamic element
(powerful, persuasive, influential, purposefully effective) of verbal discourse. The focus is upon the
affective and imperative functions of communication.
A literary, form-oriented approach thus extends in two directions: to stimulate emotive solidarity
and communicative power within the audience. At the same time, there is a special concern for:
1. The appeal of the text, both the original and its translated version.
The analyst asks what makes the text esthetically attractive – capturing the eyes and ears
of the audience and facilitating the other communicative aims that the author sought to
achieve in and through his text.
2. The potency of the text – the power and persuasiveness of both the SL and TL texts.
The analyst asks what it is that compels listeners to feel experientially the Bible’s impact,
emotions, attitudes, moods, exhortations, and admonitions (under the operation of the Holy
Spirit).
The artistry and rhetoricity of the Scriptures operate in tandem to enhance the overall credibility,
authority, and authenticity of the various writings. Each constituent document features an artful,
at times unique, manner of expression that is most fitting for subject matter of lasting
significance.
A literary method of analysis is needed to fully investigate the compositional aspects of
biblical discourse since such an approach pays special attention to a text’s macro- and
microstructure, its stylistic distinctives, its functional dimension, as well as the emotive and
connotative aspects of the discourse. By this means, then, the necessary foundation is also laid
for effecting a corresponding communication of the literature of Scripture in another language,
literary tradition, and cultural setting.

What makes an artistic translation? You be the judge. Consider Psalm 23:4 in several
versions:

641
In an earlier development of the LiFE approach, I used the term “poetic” instead of “artistic” to
describe this interest in and concern for the formal dimension of literature. However, poetic seems too
specific (being so closely identified with pure poetry), while artistic may be too broad. In any case, I
understand artistic rather generally as describing the product of “a person who does anything very well,
with imagination and a feeling for form, effect, etc.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary).
300
 ‘Even though I walk through the valley of
‫ ָמוֶת‬F ‫יא צַ ְל‬C ֵ‫ּגַ ם ִ ּֽכי־אֵ לֵ*  ְּבג‬ the shadow of death’

‘I fear no evil; for thou art with me’

‫ּתה ִעּמָ ִדי‬
6 ָ ַ‫ירא ָ רע ִּכי־א‬
ָ ‫ֹא־א‬
(ִ ‫ל‬
‫׃‬...‫ֲמנִ י‬
ֽ ֻ ‫ ֵהּמָ ה יְ נַ ֽח‬-‫ ּו ִמ ְׁשעַ נְ  ֶּת‬6-‫ׁש ְב ְט‬
ִ ‘thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me’
(MT/RSV)

Yea, though I walk in death’s dark vale,

yet will I fear none ill:
For thou art with me; and thy rod
and staff me comfort still. (Church of Scotland)

Even when the way goes through

Death Valley,
I’m not afraid
when you walk at my side.
Your trusty shepherd’s crook makes me feel secure. (Peterson)

He guides them with his staff, keeps them in line, on the right path, however dark the
shadows… (Wilt)

I may walk through valleys

as dark as death,
but I won’t be afraid.
You are with me,
and your shepherd’s rod
makes me feel safe. (CEV)

M’chigwa cha mdima bii! n’kayendamo, If in a deep dark valley BLACK! I happen to walk,
Mantha onse balala! poti Chauta alipodi. All [my] fear GONE! since Chauta is right there.
Inu Abusa, muli pafupi n’zida zotetezera, O Herdsman, you are close by with weapons for defense,
Ine mtima pansi phee! nthawi zonsezo. As for my heart, it’s completely QUIET! at all times
(a Nyanja ndakatulo lyric translation)
Q: Which version above do you think is more poetic and why? According to which criteria?
How would you translate this verse poetically in your language?
In what setting could such a poetic rendition be used?
Would an oral-aural medium be more appropriate? Explain.
Together – and they must always be considered in a close conjunctive relation with each
other – the two facets, the artistic and rhetorical, comprise the creative essence of any eloquent,
excellent, influential, inspiring instance of written or oral communication. It is this semiotic
import and pragmatic implication that constitute the heart of the meaning of any literary
discourse. It is not limited to the referential dimension of significance; rather it includes all of
the different functional aspects noted above. Unfortunately, the diverse passages of Scripture –
both the well-known and the unfamiliar – are not often thought of, let alone analyzed or
translated, along such lines.

A literary-sensitive exegesis of the biblical text prepares the way for a corresponding literary
functional-equivalence (LiFE) translation into any target language. As the SL literary features are
analyzed in terms of form and function, proactive translators already begin to anticipate how

301
they might render them accordingly – at least to the extent determined by the project Skopos. A
LiFE style of translation is not a “one-way-only (mine!)” method; rather, it offers a broad
continuum of possibilities, as schematized below:
A translational LiFE-style continuum
less ========== literariness” ========== MORE
features applied: phonological + morphological + lexical + syntactic + textual (genre-based)

In other words, there are different options that can be selected to render the graded functional
profile derived from an analysis of the SL text. They range from a more to a less freely applied
set of artistic choices in the TL. The functional profile is a prioritized list ranging from the more
general communicative goals (pragmatic intentions) of discourse (informative, expressive,
imperative, etc.) to the specific speech acts (e.g., warn, praise, appeal) that are manifested in the
sequence of utterances that make up a given text. It is an inventory of aims that may well vary
from one section to the next. The stylistic choices in the vernacular are also determined in
accordance with the designated purpose of the version at hand, the particular genre chosen to be
its receptacle in the TL, and the Brief that governs its overall manner of production.
Bottom Line: Any biblical text – large or small, poetry or prose – can be translated artistically
in selected, relevant respects, that is, with an ear keenly attuned to the TL’s rich phonic beauty
(euphony) and full rhetorical potential (verbal energy). There is no translation that does not need
at least a little LiFE. It is an inherent part of an overall communication methodology that aims to
accent the stylistic resources and compositional techniques of the vernacular in service of an
original text that surely deserves such attention in terms of its message form, content, and
ultimate goals.
For reflection, research, and response:
1. The literary dimension of discourse may be factored into two aspects – the artistic and the rhetorical. What is the
difference between the two, as you understand them from the preceding discussion? How would you express these
distinctions by way of explanation in YL? What difficulty would you encounter when trying to communicate these
concepts, and how could you get around that?
2. How does a literary perspective stimulate a sense of communicative power (rhetorical impact) and solidarity
(esthetic appeal) within a given biblical text? Answer this with reference to Isaiah 6:8–10 (the RSV text is
displayed below in a reformatted form). After you have studied this text, answer the question: How do artistic
features and rhetorical concerns converge to enhance and empower Yahweh’s message of judgement to his people?
8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying,
“Whom shall I send,
and who will go for us?”
Then I said,
“Here am I!
Send me.”
9 And he said,

“Go, and say to this people:

‘Hear and hear,

but do not understand;
see and see,
but do not perceive.’
10 Make the heart of this people fat,

and their ears heavy,

and shut their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

302
3. How do oral-aural concerns affect the translation process, for example, with respect to the preceding text from
Isaiah? How would you render this passage in YL in order to make the appropriate auditory impression, one that
complements the divine message of prophetic judgement?
4. Evaluate Peterson’s rendering of Isaiah 6:9b–10 from the point of view of literary as well as exegetical
considerations:
“’Listen hard, but you aren’t going to get it;
look hard, but you won’t catch on.’
Make these people blockheads,
with fingers in their ears and blindfolds on their eyes,
So they won’t see a thing,
won’t hear a word,
So they won’t have a clue about what’s going on
and, yes, so they won’t turn around and be made whole.”
5. What do you think of the continuum of translational possibilities shown in the diagram above? Have you ever
thought about Bible translation in these terms? Is it helpful to do so? Explain. Try to give an example of the
application of each of these features – phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, and textual – from your
own literary rendition of Isaiah 6:8–10? Would you be inclined to use all of these features in translating this
passage, or use them in a more limited manner? Explain. Why does a TL community need to be educated as to the
nature and purpose of these different options before a new translation project is undertaken? How can this
educative process be best carried out in your communication setting?
6. Do you agree with the proposal that every Bible translation, even a more literal, liturgical version, could benefit
from applying LiFE principles to one degree or another, whether less or more? If so, give reasons for your
conclusion; if not, explain your doubts and problems concerning this approach – that is, in the framework of your
specific church setting and translation situation.

12.6 A ten-step exegetical methodology

We will now review the methodology that was outlined in chapter eight (8.10), one that lends
itself to a LiFE approach. It is offered merely as a general suggestion as to how a text analysis
might be carried out in ten steps. It will be applied to Matthew 25:31–46, a passage that is
basically narrative in nature, but exhibits a number of literary, even poetic, characteristics.
Obviously, various modifications could be made to the ten steps in terms of composition and
order of arrangement, and perhaps several steps could be combined into one. (For a somewhat
different presentation of these steps applied to the book of Obadiah, see Wendland 2004b,
chap. 7; cf. Wilt & Wendland 2008:chs. 8-10). Even so, all of the critical factors mentioned would
somehow need to be included within any comprehensive exegetical study.

This set of procedures is designed to prepare the ground for a subsequent LiFE-style
translation, which would already have been anticipated as the analysis is being carried out. As
we have already seen, a LiFE renditiom is one that aims to extract more of the vital artistic
essence from a given biblical document and then articulate this “soul” of the text within a specific
TL version, whether intuitively in response to one’s creative gift or in accordance with some
specific compositional guidelines. One should be ready to apply what is learned during the
exegetical stage to the preparation of an artistic-rhetorical translation, whether to a greater or
lesser extent, in accordance with the principle of relevance and the brief, in particular, its primary
TL-oriented Skopos.

The following exercise will be carried out as a cooperative and interactive, question-driven
venture. After an initial explanation of each step, the process of analysis is started according to
a recommended procedure or through a series of questions for investigation. The student is
required to complete a study of the discourse for that particular step, either according to the
outlined procedure, or using another method that is more familiar. The object of the exercise is
not simply to mechanically follow a given technique of discourse analysis but to experiment,
303
whenever possible, with different procedures during the process of discovering a practical
methodology that one is confident about applying on a regular basis. The ultimate goal is to
derive from a close exegetical study the information and insights that will prove useful for
translating the text at hand more accurately, appropriately, and acceptably in another language.
Now let us examine Matthew 25:31–46 in a literal English translation (RSV) and in the original language. The
RSV will be given first, in an unformatted form, and the formatted Greek text next. Read the passage through
several times in order to familiarize yourself with its content. Make a mental note of any aspect of discourse
form or content that strikes a special chord. At least one of your readings should be aloud – of the Greek text in
particular. Why is an oral articulation of this passage helpful, even necessary, for understanding it (consider its
textual setting)? Which structural features are thereby highlighted?
31
When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32
Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd
separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom

prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty
and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was
sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord,
when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a
stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and
visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my
brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the
eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty
and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe
me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee
hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will
answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And
they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
I
31Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου      A
ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι µετ᾽ αὐτοῦ,
τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ·
32καὶ συναχθήσονται ἔµπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,
καὶ ἀφορίσει αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων,
ὥσπερ ὁ ποιµὴν ἀφορίζει τὰ πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων, 
33καὶ στήσει τὰ µὲν πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, 
τὰ δὲ ἐρίφια ἐξ εὐωνύµων.
34τότε ἐρεῖ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ,     B
∆εῦτε οἱ εὐλογηµένοι τοῦ πατρός µου,
κληρονοµήσατε τὴν ἡτοιµασµένην ὑµῖν βασιλείαν
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου.
35ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ ἐδώκατέ µοι φαγεῖν,   Ca
ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ µε,  b
ξένος ἤµην καὶ συνηγάγετέ µε,  c
36  γυµνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετέ µε,     d
ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε, e
ἐν φυλακῇ ἤµην καὶ ἤλθατε πρός µε.  f
37    τότε ἀποκριθήσονται αὐτῷ οἱ δίκαιοι λέγοντες,  D
Κύριε, πότε σε εἴδοµεν πεινῶντα καὶ ἐθρέψαµεν, a
ἢ διψῶντα καὶ ἐποτίσαµεν; b
38  πότε δέ σε εἴδοµεν ξένον καὶ συνηγάγοµεν,    c
ἢ γυµνὸν καὶ περιεβάλοµεν; d
39   πότε δέ σε εἴδοµεν ἀσθενοῦντα e
ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ ἤλθοµεν πρός σε; f

304
 40 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, E
Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, 
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων 
τῶν ἀδελφῶν µου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, 
ἐµοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

II.
41Τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύµων, B'
Πορεύεσθε ἀπ᾽ ἐµοῦ [οἱ] κατηραµένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον 
τὸ ἡτοιµασµένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. 
42 ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐδώκατέ µοι φαγεῖν, C'a'
ἐδίψησα καὶ οὐκ ἐποτίσατέ µε,  b'
43 ξένος ἤµην καὶ οὐ συνηγάγετέ µε, c'
γυµνὸς καὶ οὐ περιεβάλετέ µε, d'
ἀσθενὴς e'
καὶ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ οὐκ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε. f'
44 τότε ἀποκριθήσονται καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγοντες, D'
Κύριε, πότε σε εἴδοµεν πεινῶντα a'
ἢ διψῶντα b'
ἢ ξένον c'
ἢ γυµνὸν d'
ἢ ἀσθενῆ e'
ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ οὐ διηκονήσαµέν σοι; f'
45   τότε ἀποκριθήσεται αὐτοῖς λέγων, E'
Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν,
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον οὐκ ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων
τῶν ἐλαχίστων, οὐδὲ ἐµοὶ ἐποιήσατε.
46καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, A'
οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

12.6.1 Step 1: Study the cotext

Step 1 is to investigate the wider linguistic setting of the passage to be analyzed and note any
points of continuation, correspondence, and/or contrast.

Before beginning a detailed study of the focal text itself, one must scrutinize its surrounding
discourse cotext, both immediate and remote, in order to determine any close connections with
the passage under consideration. It is also necessary to confirm the structural integrity and unity
of the passage, in particular, the features that demarcate it as a discrete and self-standing
compositional unit. Especially important in this respect is the cotext that occurs prior to the text
under examination, since certain aspects of it are likely to have some influence upon the overall
development of the author’s current discourse.
Q: Do you think Matthew 25:31–46 is an independent pericope and thus worthy of a section heading,
or not? Cite some textual evidence in support of your conclusion.
What links this passage with the preceding pericope and what separates the two?
A discourse analysis of the major section of Matthew’s Gospel covering chapters 24 – 25
reveals the following: First of all, we observe that the 25:31–46 pericope appears to form the
final section of a tripartite, seven-sectioned A-B-A' ring composition. After an initial narrative
opening, or aperture (in 24:1–3; see 26:1 for the next major aperture), Christ begins his paraenetic

305
instruction concerning the end of the age by describing some of the salient signs of “those days.”
His words unfold a subtle blend of key events that will occur during the prophetic times of both
the messianic and also the eschatological ages (24:4–31//unit A).

This semi-narrative prediction suddenly breaks off at 24:32 (“So from the fig tree learn this
parable”), and the discourse shifts into a parabolic mode with a series of five dramatic object
lessons. One hortatory passage reinforces another in stressing the need for people to get ready
for a day of decision (segments 24:32–35, 36–44, 45–51; 25:1–13, 14–30 of unit B).

An apparently resumptive section A' (25:31–46) then appears, the seventh portion of the
larger discourse begun in chapter 24. This vividly climactic unit appears to continue the
eschatological account where A left off; namely, with the Son of Man’s coming from heaven in
glory, accompanied by his angels and in the presence of all humanity (24:30–31; cf. 25:31–32).
The contrastive judgement dialogue scene ends with the consignment of the wicked to “eternal
punishment,” a theme that marks the ending of several of the preceding parables (e.g., 24:51,
25:30), a case of structural closure (epiphora). Thus the ambiguity of genre (i.e., is it history
and/or parable? – see section 3.6.2) may be a deliberate rhetorical device intended to focus not
so much on the individual details of the eschatological event but on the certainty of its occurrence
and the need to prepare in advance. The text has clearly been constructed to produce a structural
and rhetorical peak in this third and final section, especially with its summary conclusion
regarding the great separation between “the righteous” and the rest (25:46). Such a perspective
is supported by the similar passage at the end of the first major discourse of Christ in Matthew’s
Gospel, in 7:24–27 (the parable of the wise and foolish builders), which also manifests a binary
structure and is ethically toned as well as thematically contrastive.
Q: What do you think of this proposed A-B-A' structural arrangement of the larger discourse of which
Matthew 25:31–46 is a part? Do you have any revisions to suggest?
Is the middle, parabolic section (B) clearly distinct?
What are the implications of this sort of literary segmentation of the biblical text for translation?
If such a textual arrangement is valid, and helpful for understanding Christ’s teaching here, how can
its relevance be expressed or made apparent in a contemporary Bible translation?
Major text-critical issues should also be studied as part of the “cotext” at this initial stage of
the analysis. In such an investigation one considers the principal variants or alternative readings
which may apply at different points in the passage. Any special problem areas must be identified
and a tentative resolution arrived at before the text itself is examined in detail as an integral unit
of discourse. Preliminary decisions in this regard may be reviewed and revised later in light of
the text-analysis procedures that follow.

With respect to the original Greek text of Matthew 25:31–46 there do not seem to be any
outstanding difficulties. Metzger’s Textual Commentary (1994) and Omanson’s A Textual Guide
(2006) do not list a single point of contention here. Carlton’s Translator’s Reference Translation
(2001) notes two minor variants, but neither one has much manuscript support or is supported
by the various versions.

According to Carlton (ibid.), a number of manuscripts have the adjective “holy” in 25:31
used as a modifier of “angels.”
Q: How important is this addition?
How might a copyist have introduced the word “holy” here (see Luke 9:26)?
Why, in light of Matthew 16:27, is the reading without “holy” probably the correct one – that is, over
and above the external manuscript evidence?

306
 Regarding 25:41, Carlton (ibid.) says that a few manuscripts specify “the Father” as having
prepared the fire of punishment for the devil and his angels.
Q: What might have caused this addition (see v. 34)?
If “the Father” is left out of your translation, is it clear to most readers who prepared the fire?
Many might conclude that the speaker, Christ, is the agent. This ambiguity thus turns out to be a major
translational issue rather than a minor textual one. How would you deal with it in YL?

12.6.2 Step 2: Specify the literary genre

Step 2 is to identify the principal text type and subtypes along with their associated stylistic
features and functional implications.

A prior read-through of the pericope or book designated for analysis should give one an
indication of the text’s primary genre (discourse type), plus any minor genres incorporated within
it. This involves specifying the major communicative purpose for which the text was prepared in
light of a given sociocultural setting or interpersonal situation. It also involves identifying any
typical literary features that mark this kind of composition. The text type may be the same as,
similar to, or different from what precedes or follows it in the surrounding discourse.

The genre may be compound or mixed – that is, composed either sequentially or
simultaneously of two or more distinct literary categories, some of which may be clearly
secondary in importance. Each distinct (sub)genre will normally manifest a distinctive style and
function, with the primary genre often modifying the communicative aim of any secondary ones
included within it.

We see an example of this sort of combination at the beginning of Paul’s letter to the
Galatians.
Q: What is the function of Paul’s personal narrative testimony in Galatians 1:11 – 2:14?
Does this section end at 2:14 or is there another possible terminus? Explain your conclusion.
This step in the analysis includes an identification of all the individual compositional features
and stylistic devices that serve both to constitute and also to distinguish, or mark, the primary
genre and its subtypes. Any credible analysis of the structure and rhetoric of a given literary
work must begin with the notion of genre, for the conventions of a given genre are normally
reflected both in the macro- and microstylistic features of the text, whether oral or written. The
genre of Matthew as a whole may be specified most generally as a biographical narrative.
Q: How would you define the term “narrative”? Compare your definition with one from a dictionary or
handbook on literature.
What are the primary characteristics of a narrative discourse?
In the case of Matthew, why is it necessary to qualify the designation of narrative with biographical –
what does this suggest about the story that is being told?
Why is it important to keep this qualification in mind as we read this (or any) of the Gospels?
Matthew’s narrative is also dramatic in nature – that is, it features an internal plot that
guides the selection and presentation of characters and events. A plot normally moves gradually
towards some major peak in the depiction of the life of the chief character(s), followed by a much
shorter resolution.
Q: Where does the major peak of Matthew’s narrative occur? Why do you say so?
How does this compare with the plots of the other Gospels?
307
 Many analysts prefer to specify the discourse type of a work like Matthew even more
precisely in an effort to better account for its structure, content selection, and style. For example,
some would say that Matthew also exhibits the characteristics of an apology, that is, a formal
defense of the person of Christ and/or the Christian religion. Evaluate this opinion with an
argument either for or against it.

Several questions confront us as we attempt to further specify the nature of the

Matthew 25:31–46 pericope. Is it presented as a historical or a parable text? Some scholars
classify the discourse as prophetic history – that is, as nonfiction that incorporates certain
apocalyptic features within an eschatological temporal setting (cf. Dan. 7:13–14). Others point
to the prominent comparative element that is introduced with the metaphor of the sheep and
goats in verse 32, the imagery of which then implicitly colors the remainder of the text. These
scholars view this pericope as a parable that appears to function as a climax – the significant
seventh occurrence! – in the sequence of Christ’s “parables of separation,” all of which (7:24–27;
13:24–30 [explained in 36–43]; 13:47–50; 24:45–51; 25:1–13; 25:14–30; 25:31–46) are oriented
towards the final judgement.
Q: How would you label the Matthew 25:31–46 passage – as factual prophetic history or as an
illustrative parable?
Would your classification make any difference in how you eventually translate this text in YL?
For example, does a parable in your oral or written tradition present any formal markers (e.g.,
introductory or concluding formulae, special tense-aspect markers, or distinctive particles of
participant reference) to indicate that it is a non-historical discourse?
What difference does it make to one’s understanding of this pericope whether it is construed as historical
or fictional?
If the text is not marked with regard to genre in your translation, how will the audience be likely to
interpret it?
Is an explanatory note needed to clarify this issue? If so, how would you word it?

12.6.3 Step 3: Find the points of major disjunction

Step 3 is to note all “break points” in the text, that is, places where one or more prominent shifts
in form or content occur.

Breaks, or points of disjunction (major) and transition (minor), are created within a literary
text whenever there is a notable change or content modification with respect to time, place,
topic, personal participants, central participant, speaker, addressee, text type (genre), and/or
sequence of events. Where several of these indicators of shifting co-occur, such as a variation in
place and time or speaker and subject, the break is more prominent, hence better substantiated.
Normally a new paragraph begins at that point—or a new section, if the disjunction is greater in
terms of the number of breaks manifested. Thus, an adjacent pair of disjunctions create between
them a “chunk” of text, that is, a conceptual or thematic unit consisting of a variable number of
sentences that manifest a perceptible, memorable coherence based on time, place, topic,
discourse type, and/or communicative purpose. Other, supporting signals of disjunction within
a literary text are the formal markers of a new topic or a digression (e.g., NP-fronting,
nominalization, use of an independent pronoun), characteristic discourse formulae and
transitional expressions (e.g., conjunctions or phrases of aperture like “And it came to pass,” “In
that day,” “Thus says the LORD,” and “After this,” or of closure like “oracle of Yahweh,” “Selah,”

308
and “Amen”),642 and concluding summary statements that typically signal the end of a complete
unit of discourse (e.g., “Then they will know that I am the LORD” and “And [X] his son succeeded
him as king” and “To him be the glory forever!”).
Q: Where would you posit break points (new paragraph units) in connection with the Matthew 25:31–
46 pericope?
Finding the breaks is not very difficult to figure out for this text, but the exercise will help you
practice this aspect of discourse analysis in preparation for more difficult passages.
List the verses at which you would begin a new paragraph as well as the shift(s) that occur at that point,
along with any supporting text-break markers. Write your choices in the blank spaces of the diagram that
follows. (More lines are provided than you will need.) The first and last segments, which are the outer
boundaries of this pericope, have been done for you.

verse number type of shift(s) that occur as the preceding verse moves to this one
25:31 new central participant explicitly identified – “the Son of Man”; shift from
parable to prophecy; a different setting and dramatic situation is established.

26:1 shift from direct speech to narrative report; introductory transitional margin
(“When Jesus had finished”); a change in the topic to be developed in
subsequent verses.

12.6.4 Step 4: Plot the patterns of formal and conceptual repetition

Step 4 is to record and posit the significance of any obvious patterns of linguistic reiteration
within the discourse: phonological, lexical, syntactic, and textual.

Repetition may be exact (replication) or synonymous to varying degrees (recursion). The

device occurs in oral as well as written discourse and may be of many different formal and
semantic types, extending for textual spans that may be long or relatively short within a given
composition. Recursion includes contrasts as well as similarities and may be manifested in
parallel expressions as well as by intertwined and overlapping instances. Repetition is normally
the most prominent, hence obvious characteristic of any literary discourse. The more repetition
that occurs and the more exact it is in nature, the more poetic a text is regarded.

642
These are not completely predictable markers. For example, note the position of “amen” in Rev.
7:12 and what the twofold mention of “amen” serves to mark.
309
 Q: Why is exact repetition especially important for those who are aurally apprehending a text, and what
are the implications of this for Bible translation at large and translation technique in particular?
The individual instances of repetition will often create larger, sometimes overlapping
patterns of formal structure and thematic significance within a passage. These may link up with
the surrounding cotext on either side of the pericope under study. Such replication or recursion
thus physically organizes and demarcates a text, both externally, on the boundaries of structural
units, as well as internally by creating varied patterns of formal cohesion, including variable
spans of participant reference. All this contributes to the text’s distinct thematic meaning and
communicative purpose, certain areas or aspects of which may also be foregrounded by
reiteration as a marker of prominence.643 By coordinating the key repetition patterns of a text with
its major shifts in form and/or content (step 3) the analyst is able to make a preliminary proposal
of the principal paragraph-level or strophe-level breaks within the discourse at large.

The main contours of the recursive patterns of the Matthew 25:31–46 pericope are shown in
the diagram of the Greek text that was displayed at the beginning of section 3.6. There are two
larger “panels” of constituent structure, I and II, each of which consists of five sub-units (A, B, C,
D, and E). As it turns out, each of the internal elements of II (B'–E') contrasts with and serves as
an effective counterfoil to those of the initial and corresponding unit I (B–E).
Q: Can you discern this arrangement of the text in the SL text?
If not, refer to an interlinear version and make a copy of this display, including the letters that indicate
the text’s structural organization, using an English translation.
The parallelism of panels I and II serves to reinforce both the dual and also the polar nature of
the heavenly trial scene: Only two clearly defined groups are in the dock, and these are strongly
antithetical in terms of character and hence also of the judgement that each group receives.
(Notice that the only negatives of this passage, eight of them, occur in panel II.) One group, the
one “on the right,” is publicly vindicated and lauded by the Lord; the other “on the left” is just
as incisively repudiated and condemned.
Q: Is this great division, or contrast, clear to you in the structure of the text?
Does the special format reveal this more clearly?
Would such an arrangement be too difficult or complicated for your typical TL audience to interpret? If
so, can you propose any modifications that would simplify the format, but still highlight the text’s
contrastive nature?
The repeated subsections of this larger structure (a–f and a'–f') may have further suggested
to the original audience the absolute certainty of the Lord’s judicial process as well as the legal
precision whereby it is conducted. In addition, this carefully organized structure possibly may
have been composed as an isomorphic, aural reflection that depicts the perfectly measured justice
of the verdict and the corresponding righteousness of the Judge – as well as the great moral
divide that now distinguishes, and will ultimately separate forever, two fundamentally
antithetical ways of life (see Psalm 1).
Q: Will the associations listed above be apparent to people of your cultural and literary setting when
they read this passage? Explain why, or why not.

643
Anne Garber Kompaore points out that in directive discourse “the most thematic referent will
have the highest frequency of pronominal references. The least thematic referent is the least likely to have
any pronominal references” (2005:8; see also Kompaore 2004). On the importance to Bible translators of
analyzing the patterns of participant reference in Hebrew discourse, see de Regt, 1999. Such a more
detailed linguistic study could be profitably carried out during step 6 of our set of analysis procedures.
310
 In a tightly constructed pattern of similarities such as we see in Matthew 25:31–46, one must
also note any prominent variations or differences in terms of their possible rhetorical
implications.

Consider and comment on the following disparities and their possible semantic implications:
1. Note the obvious condensation that appears in the response to the king from the defendants on his left
(compare panels D' and D above). It is tempting to view this as a verbal reflection of the very lack of
concern for the disadvantaged and needy that such people had just been found guilty of.
2. The Son of Man is referred to as speaking to “the righteous” in his judicial capacity as “king” in verses 34
and 40 (i.e., an inclusio within panel I), whereas he is not referred to in this way in the corresponding
verses 41 and 45. This suggests that the unrighteous did not recognize or respect the Son’s royal authority
and thus treated the lesser of his subjects accordingly.
3. The Lord, on the other hand, honors the righteous by calling them “my brothers” (v. 40); significantly the
unrighteous are not so addressed in the parallel passage (v. 45). The notion of brotherhood certainly
distinguishes the ethical attitude and actions of those mentioned in panel I, in sharp contrast to their
counterparts in II, who could not even perceive a brother, let alone respond to the obvious needs of one
(cf. Matt. 7:12).
4. It is obvious that segment A' of panel II is located out of its expected place. What might be the reason for
this shift of position in terms of the larger narrative structure?
Q: Which of the preceding observations do you think is the most significant for understanding this text?
Would it be helpful to point out any of these interpretive possibilities in marginal notes for this passage?
Explain why or why not in relation to your own current or proposed Bible translation setting.

12.6.5 Step 5: Discover and evaluate the artistic and rhetorical features

Step 5 is to identify the chief artistic devices and rhetorical techniques within the whole text,
especially at points of special concentration, and then to determine their local or global textual
significance.

As steps 3 – 4 demonstrated, the internal break points and major recursive patterns reveal
formal linguistic structures of different sizes in a literary text. Any biblical pericope will also
manifest various kinds of poetic or prosaic stylistic technique. This compositional feature makes
an added contribution to the pericope’s wider esthetic appeal and rhetorical impact, both on the
local and global level of functional significance. A great diversity of Hebrew and Greek literary
devices may be included here: figures of speech (tropes), comparative or contrastive elements of
imagery, ellipsis and other types of condensation, word plays (paronomasia), alliteration and
assonance, rhythm and rhyme, artful redundancy and conceptual expansion, syntactic relocation
front or back, rhetorical and deliberative questions, irony and sarcasm, humor, paradox, enigma,
and a balanced or patterned strophic/paragraph structure.

Such stylistic techniques are generally introduced for the purpose of polishing and
persuasion, that is, with respect to a text’s form (artistry) and function (rhetoric). Therefore,
these features need to be examined in relation to the salient patterns of repetition and the shifts
in content previously noted as a way of indicating more overtly where structural boundaries and
areas of focal, or foregrounded, meaning appear within the discourse (e.g., the emotive climax,
thematic peak, end-stress, or closure). One’s initial conclusions in this regard are often supported
or confirmed at places where these devices appear to be especially concentrated through
reiteration, juxtaposition, or incorporation.

311
 Comment on the special meaning and function (including any possible positional
significance) of each of the following literary features that occur in Matthew 25:31–46. Refer to
the UBS Translator’s Handbook for Matthew and/or some other reliable exegetical commentary or
study Bible for additional assistance. For each literary feature, also identify a possible equivalent
in YL. The first one has been done for you as an example of what to do here. Feel free to comment
on any other rhetorical feature that you happen to notice in this text as you carry out the analysis.
Literary feature + verse no. Identification of the feature Function within the discourse
“in his glory,” “throne of his repetition of the key term highlights the magnificent
glory” (v. 31) “glory” together with the nature of this judgement scene
reference to “his” and of its central character –
the Son of Man – at the very
beginning of the pericope
“as the shepherd separates
the sheep from the goats”
(v. 32)
“on his right…on (the) left”
(v. 33)

“inherit…(the) kingdom”
(v. 34)

“from (the) foundation of

(the) world” (v. 34)

“naked” (v. 36)

“you came to me” (v. 36)

“the righteous” (v. 37)

“when…and when…and
when”
(vv. 37–39)
“truly I tell you” (v. 40)

“one of my brothers, the

(very) least” (v. 40)

“from me” (v. 41)

“the cursed (ones)” (v. 41)

“also they” (v. 44)

“neither to/for me you did

(it)” (v. 45)

312
 “into eternal
punishment…into eternal
life” (v. 46)

12.6.6 Step 6: Do a complete discourse analysis

Step 6 is to prepare a detailed linguistic study of all verses within the pericope and propose an
inclusive topical-thematic summary.

The preceding investigations of genre, textual demarcation, recursion, and the artistic and
rhetorical features prepare the ground for a more systematic analysis of the chief linguistic
properties of the passage at hand. Step 6 usually reveals some additional aspects of the passage’s
literary character as well. Such a study of the discourse as a whole may be carried out in different
degrees of detail, ranging from a simple overview of the main clause constituents (S, V, O, etc.)
as they occur in sequential combination to a full syntactic structural breakdown (kernel, colon)
of the entire text.

The aim of such an analysis is to determine what the specific grammatical constructions
(morphological and syntactic) chosen by the author to convey his content contribute to the
expression of the text’s overall meaning and function. The analyst considers, for example, the
order of syntactic constituents within a clause, tracing the sequential reference to key participants
in the text, the relationship of dependent clauses to each other and to independent clauses within
sentence units (foreground-background), complexes of possessive constructions, sequences of
prepositional phrases, juxtapositions of event nouns, and use of the passive voice, of nonfinite
verbal forms (participles, infinitives), and of tense-sequence patterns. The analyst also seeks to
discern what is distinctive (that is, marked or non-normal usage) within the microstructure of
any passage and what is the implied literary significance of this.

Two methods of analysis will be illustrated in the rest of this section. The first involves a
simple literal charting of clause units as they occur in the progression of the discourse. In order
to do such an analysis you will need to refer to the Greek text or an interlinear version, which
often reveals patterns and parallels that are not apparent in any translation, whether literal or
idiomatic. The following, for example, is a display of the lexical constituents of Matthew 25:31–
34 (Note that English words used to render one Greek word are connected by hyphens). Complete
the chart for verses 35–40. When finished, compare your chart with those of other members of
the class as a joint discussion exercise.
Ref. LINK Pre-Verb 1 (2) VERBAL Post-verb 1 (3) Post-verb 2 (4)*
31a Now when he-comes the Son of Man in the glory his
and all the angels with him,
31b then he-will sit on (the)-throne of-glory his;
32a and they-will-be- before him
assembled all the nations,
32b and he-will-separate them from-one another

32c just-as the shepherd he-separates the sheep from the goats,

33a and he-will-set the sheep on (the)-right-his,

33b but --------------- the goats on (the)-left.

34a Then he-will-say the king to the-(ones)

313
 on (the)-right-his:
34b “Come the blessed-ones of Father my,

34c inherit the prepared for-you kingdom

From (the)-foundation Of-(the)-world.”
35a

35b

35c

35d

35e

35f

36a

36b

36c

36d

36e

36f

37a

37b

37c

37d

37e

38a

38b

38c

38d

39a

39b

40a

40b

40c

40d

* The numbers in parentheses simply indicate additional syntactic constituents that may be filled sequentially in either “pre-verb” or “post-verb”
position. Obviously, the more distinct fillers there are, the more marked the clause is at that point. The term “verbal” includes finite verbs as well
as predicative non-finite forms, such as participles, infinitives, and gerunds used verbally within a clause.

314
 What can such a linguistic charting tell us about the text before us? Any noun, full pronoun,
or noun phrase that occurs before the main verb (or an object/comment before a subject/topic
in a non-finite or verbless clause) is potentially significant and normally marks something of
interest or importance within the discourse (see also step 5).
Q: Does that hold true on the chart above, for example at verse 32c? Discuss any other examples of this
nature that you find.
Who are the chief participants of this discourse? Do you notice anything special about how any one of
them is referred to in the text?
Does a single participant stand out as the main character of the account? If so, how is this person and
discourse role marked linguistically?
Anything unusual – that is, anything falling outside a normal (unmarked) NT Greek pattern –
should be examined for its possibly special semantic significance within the text, e.g., ellipsis,
expansion of information within a phrase, or repetition. (The same heuristic principle applies
when a Hebrew text is being charted.)
Q: Do you notice any instances of these marked phenomena in your chart?
Consider the various transitional expressions that appear, including any non-default conjunctions:
What can these tell you about the construction of the discourse? (An example is τότε ‘then’ at
v. 34a.)
A chart like the one above can also be used to more systematically reveal the repetition of
key words and semantic fields that form the basis for the theme or sub-theme that synopsizes the
semantic essence of a particular paragraph (or larger) unit within the discourse. The salient
elements in any thematic statement derived from such a study may also be highlighted by the
various marked linguistic structures and literary devices that have already been mentioned (e.g.,
fronting of subject or object). These thematic summaries, which may be condensed further as
section headings within the biblical text, are usually generated intuitively after a careful analysis
of the discourse, but scholars are currently developing more explicit principles and procedures
for elucidating the nature of “theme” (and “rheme”) as well as theme-shifting in literary texts.644
Q: Which prominent notions appear already in the small text portion charted above? Study the entire
pericope of Matthew 25:31–46 and identify the three or four most important thematic ideas, based
on conceptual recursion and stylistic marking.
Next, compose a thematic summary for this portion of the book. Then condense your summary into an
appropriate set of section headings for the unit. (You may decide that only one section heading is
needed.) Compare your proposal to those of other Bibles and record any major differences.

644
See, for example, Floor 2004, which may be accessed in a pdf file on the website of the Centre
for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa (http://academic.sun.ac.za/as/cbta/). Floor (2004:v)
defines the notion of theme as the “developing and coherent core or thread of a discourse in the mind of
the speaker-author and hearer-reader, functioning as the prominent macrostructure of the discourse. The
information structure, with its topics and focus structures and its strategies, can be used as a tool to identify
and analyse themes. These categories and strategies together are called theme traces when they occur in
marked syntactic constructions or in other prominence configurations like relexicalisation, end-weight,
and repetition of macrowords. Theme traces are defined with the following wording: A theme trace is a
clue in the surface form of a discourse, viewed from the perspective of information structure that points
to the cognitive macrostructure or theme of a text. This clue is in the form of (1) a marked syntactical
configuration, be it marked word-order or marked in the sense of explicit and seemingly ‘redundant’, all
signaling some thematic sequencing strategy, or (2) some recurring concept(s) signaling some prominence
and coherence.”
For another important collection of literary-oriented cognitive linguistic studies of theme see
Louwerse and van Peer 2002.
315
 If you have time, complete a constituent charting of the remainder of the pericope – that is,
through verse 46 – and comment on any item in your chart that is noteworthy. (This type of
systematic study provides a framework within which to integrate the results of steps 1 – 5.)

The second method of discourse analysis is a more detailed type of syntactic-semantic study.
It is illustrated below with reference to Matthew 25:33–35b. This kind of analysis is useful in
certain cases, as when dealing with a particularly difficult passage (which the following is not).
33a … and he will place the sheep at his right hand,_______
a-|___________________________
33b but the goats (he will place) at the left. ______________| |
i-|
34a Then the king will say to those at his right hand,___________________________ |
| |
34b ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, _________________________ h-| |
c-| |_______|
34c inherit the kingdom ___________________________ |_______ |
b-|_______| |
34d prepared for you from the foundation of the world;___| | ______|
g-|
35a for I was hungry ___________ |
d-|_____ |
35b and you gave me food,_____| | |
f-|____________________________|
35c I was thirsty______________ |
e-|_____|
35d and you gave me drink,…___|
The various semantic relationships between clause units may be specified as follows (the base is
the clause that occurs first in a symmetrical pairing, or is the principal clause of an
asymmetrical pair; 33a is of course connected to the last clause of v. 32, and 35d to the next
clause in v. 35):
a = base-contrast b = base-attribution c = base-addition
d = circumstance-base e = circumstance-base f = base-addition
g = command-reason h = base-content i = base-sequential time
This diagramming technique in effect forces the analyst to examine the text more carefully in
terms of its sequence of meaningful relationships. 645 In all probability, there will be differences
of opinion as to how to classify the various paired relationships; for example, are d and e better
viewed as “circumstance-base” or as “base-sequential time”? There will also be differences of
opinion as to how to link them up in a hierarchical structure that incorporates the entire passage
under consideration. The aim is not to seek the single “correct” answer in each and every case,
but simply to become more aware of the possibilities for interpreting the text and the different
types of evidence that supports one option over against another. It is especially important to

645
For further explanation of this method, see Wendland 2002, sections 3.3–3.4. Levinsohn
(2006b) recommends a more pragmatic approach to the interpretation of Greek (presumably also Hebrew)
conjunctions. Thus the connective γὰρ at the beginning of v. 35 serves “to signal that what follows
strengthens a preceding assertion” and does not necessarily indicate the semantic relations of explanation,
grounds, or reason. If no marking of such a relationship of reinforcement is included in a translation (e.g.,
by omitting any conjunction as in the CEV), the original inferential connection between the discourse
constituents (in this case, v. 34 and vv. 35ff.) is weakened or even lost. Similarly, the conjunction δὲ signals
“that what follows marks progression (development)” in the discourse; καὶ signals “that what follows is to
be associated with what precedes, without specifying how”; and οὖν signals “that what follows is a
resumption (in most instances) and advancement of the same theme line as before” (Levinsohn 2006b:18).
Clearly, further research is needed in this area so that the primary implications inherent in these
conjunctions can be reproduced in translation, whether by corresponding conjunctions (if available) or
some other device, e.g., tail-head repetition, word-order variations, deictic particles, etc.
316
observe the higher-level (rightmost) connections since these provide overall sense and coherence
to the section as a whole and consequently need to be clearly reflected in any translation (e.g.,
at g where two major text constituents are joined by the relation of command-reason).
Q: Evaluate the semantic relationships shown above and suggest any modifications or corrections that
you feel are needed.
How would you mark the structural relationship indicated at point g so that it is clearly evident in YL?
Why is this transition of special importance in the discourse?
Now try to make your own diagram of the logical links between constituent clauses in verses 44–46.
Discuss your individual results in class.
An even more detailed semantic structure display can be prepared after or in place of the
preceding text analysis. This sort of display is similar to the syntactic-semantic diagram
illustrated above but goes further in that it attempts to make all implicit information explicit,
including the hierarchically arranged logical connections that relate individual propositions on
different levels of compositional organization.646 But for most purposes in the normal translation
setting, such precision will not be necessary: a simple topical outline will suffice. This should be
formulated in any case after the linguistic analysis of step 6 in order to prepare any section
headings that will be needed. Consider, for example, the following outline for the pericope of
Matthew 25:31–46:
Drama of the Last Judgement
a. Introduction: The Son of Man enacts his judgement:
“the sheep” are separated from “the goats” (31–33)
b. The king invites and commends “those on his right” (34–36)
c. ‘The righteous’ query their commendation and the king responds (37–40)
d. The king condemns and accuses “those on his left” (41–43)
e. The left query their condemnation and the king responds (44–45)
f. Conclusion: the king’s judgement is carried out (46)
Q: How well does the above outline express what you feel are the essential theme and sub-themes of
Matthew 25:31–46?
Based on your own linguistic and literary analysis of the text, do you wish to propose any changes to
this outline, whether to remove a certain heading, re-word one, or add another?
What do you begin to notice about the larger organization of Matthew 25:31–46? Point out any salient
correspondences or contrasts of thematic significance.
Compare this outline with the section heading(s) that you proposed earlier. Do any modifications seem
necessary in light of the additional discourse analysis that you have carried out? If so, explain where
and why.

12.6.7 Step 7: Investigate the referential framework

Step 7 is to study all key concepts, technical terms, images, and symbols along with their
interrelationships in light of the text’s ancient Near Eastern sociocultural and religious setting.

646
SIL International has published a number of helpful New Testament analyses of this nature, a
recent example being A Semantic and Structural Analysis of James by George and Helen Hart (2001).
317
 Having examined the basic lexical, syntactic, and semantic shape of the discourse during the
previous steps, in this seventh step we focus upon the distinctive content of the pericope and its
main individual constituents, that is, the principal lexical clusters, key thematic and associated
concepts (whether literally or figuratively expressed), any cultural symbols, plus all prominent
semantic fields, or mental spaces, that the text evokes or alludes to (see Stockwell 2002, chap. 7).
In short, the analyst must carefully think through the entire passage and all that it either
presupposes or implies, especially in light of its ancient Near Eastern background.

We may distinguish here between key concepts and technical terms. Key concepts (e.g., “law,”
“righteousness,” “grace,” “evil”) tend to be more abstract and thus may allow for a variable
translation, in keeping with the context and lexical collocation. Technical terms (e.g., “sacrifice,”
“tabernacle,” “angel,” “synagogue,” “centurion,” “wine”) are more specific or concrete and are
normally rendered the same way throughout the Bible. Most of the important items of vocabulary
in Matthew 25:31–46 are technical terms, but two key concepts appear in the first and last verses
of this pericope: ‘glory’ (δόξῃ) in verse 31 and ‘eternal’ (αἰώνιον) in verse 46.
Q: How would you translate ‘glory’ and ‘eternal’ in the Matthew 25 passage?
Can you think of other contexts in which you would use different terms (e.g., in 2 Cor. 3:7 where ‘glory’
has reference to the face of Moses and in Rom. 16:26 where ‘eternal’ has reference to God rather than
to eternal life and eternal punishment as it does in Matt. 25:41)?
But before one can come to grips with the wider referential world of the discourse, it is
necessary to do an adequate background study of its situational context. This refers to the entire
nonverbal extralinguistic setting in which the biblical document as a whole was authored,
transmitted, received, and responded to (i.e., the political, economic, educational, artistic,
sociocultural, philosophical, religious, and ecological milieu). How might the contemporary
communication environment have influenced what was written (or not written), and how might
it have affected the manner of writing?

At times it is possible to posit a particular setting of communication for a distinct pericope

within a given book. Is that true for Matthew 25:31–46? Explain why or why not. The
hypothetical situational context for this passage will be considered as we do our analysis of its
crucial terms and concepts.

There is one important theological expression at the very beginning of this pericope.
Q: What is this expression? To whom does this title refer?
What special significance is attached to this title in the Old and New Testaments?
Do a word study of this expression, using your study Bible, Translator’s Handbook, Bible dictionary,
and/or lexicon. Determine how it is to be understood here in Matthew 25:31.
Compare it to the following passages: Ezekiel 2:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:17; Mark 8:29–31; Revelation 1:13.
By linking “the Son of Man” with “all the angels,” “sitting on the throne of his glory,” and “all
the nations” (vv. 31–32a), Matthew evokes a certain scenario in the minds of the original
audience. He has set a great stage (in literary narrative terms) for the twofold action that follows:
first the “gathering,” then the “separating.” Who is doing the judging here (cf. Isa. 4:2) – what
would have been the normal Jewish expectation? In this case, the royal Judge is earlier identified
as the one who is speaking these words. And who is that?
Q: Is the same judgement scene conceptually apparent to the consumers of your translation today?
Does it make any difference? If so, what can be done either within the text or alongside the text to help
people to visualize, understand, and appreciate the momentous event that is taking place here, as
recorded by Matthew?

318
 The magnificent royal throne-room scene shifts for a moment to a rural pastoral setting with
the reference in verse 32 to a shepherd separating the sheep from the goats.
Q: In literal terms with reference to an ancient Palestinian setting what practice is being carried out
here?
How does this apply figuratively to the future situation that the Son refers to?
What symbolic associations were connected with sheep and goats by people living in the time of Christ?
What connotations do these animals have in your social setting and oral or literary tradition?
What is the significance of “the right” and “the left” sides in ancient Near-Eastern culture? How does
this compare with the meaning of “the right” and “the left” in your culture?
At verse 34 a seemingly new participant enters the text; namely, the king. To whom does
this refer and how do you know?
Q: What does kingly imagery evoke in the minds of people who live in your sociocultural setting?
How can you make this reference to the antecedent “Son of Man” clear for your readers and hearers?
What would a literal rendering of this messianic title mean to average non-Christians?647
Where does the conceptual metaphor RULING IS SHEPHERDING (see section 2.1) originate in the
Bible? Cite several key passages in this regard.
In the New Testament, Christ shifts the notion of RULING IS SHEPHERDING to LEADING (or
CARING FOR) IS SHEPHERDING.
Q: What’s the difference? Cite several key passages to this effect.
Do such concepts transfer well to your language and culture? If not, do you need to qualify them within
the translated text or paratextually? Explain.
What would the collocation of the three phrases “blessed of my father,” “inherit…the kingdom,” and
“from the creation of the world” suggest to Christ’s original audience?
Is this different from what it suggests to people who hear this promise today in YL? In other words,
which people, at the time of Christ, considered themselves to be the “blessed”?
Why would perhaps even the disciples be shocked by Christ’s announcement? (Recall who are gathered
there before the throne in v. 32a.)
Note the sorts of activities and individuals mentioned in verses 35–36.
Q: How are corresponding persons and deeds viewed within the context of your culture?
To whom does Christ refer when he says “one of the least of these brothers of mine”? Why are such
people singled out?
With whom are they being contrasted in general ancient Near-Eastern society?
Who then are “the righteous” of verse 37? What characteristics are associated with righteous people in
your society?
Who are the “cursed” of verse 41?
What image does Christ conjure up for his audience when he says “eternal fire”?
Who “curses” people in your culture? Is it some evil person, such as a hateful individual or even a
sorcerer?

647
In Chichewa the literal expression “Son of Man” (Mwana wa munthu) refers either to the child
of an African or, idiomatically, to some extraordinary fellow, a man who has just performed a strange or
extraordinary feat (cf. mwana wa mkazi “child of a woman”).
319
 Does a curse normally result in death or injury (according to popular belief)? In other words, could this
passage be misunderstood in YL? If so, what kind of an explanatory footnote would clarify the
intended meaning?
What would Christ’s listeners think about the devil and his angels? Would they tend to fear them or
not, and why?
How would their feelings and attitudes compare with those of people today in your religious setting?
What contrasting images did the phrases “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” in verse 46 evoke for
the members of Christ’s audience or readers of Matthew’s Gospel?
How might this differ for the readers of your translation?
Do non-Christians know or use such expressions? If so, what do they mean by them?

12.6.8 Step 8: Connect the cross-textual correspondences

Step 8 is to look for prominent intra- and intertextual references and allusions that are embedded
within the discourse, whether explicit or implicit.

From a literary as well as a thematic perspective, it is important to record all significant,

topically related concepts and propositions that derive from either previously mentioned material
within the same composition (intratextual) or from other texts (intertextual) that were likely to
have been known to the original audience. The apparent purpose for such citations, paraphrases,
allusions, and echoes (moving down from the most to the least noticeable within the text) then
need to be ascertained. That is, were they used for reinforcement, validation, foregrounding,
contrast, or further logical-rhetorical development? The same goes for any important cultural or
religious symbols that may be discerned within the text, whether explicitly mentioned or only
alluded to (cf. step 7).

Assuming that these different types of culturally based meaning were recognized by the
original readers and hearers of the text at hand, the question arises, How can such semantic
relevance be made apparent to our target audience today?
Q: Are standard cross-references effective for most people?
Would there be a more helpful way of pointing out significant intra- and intertextual references?
Explain.
Look up the Scripture passages listed below and make a note of what sort of information has
been alluded to “behind” the text of Matthew 25:31–46. Suggest what might be the rhetorical
function of this rather heavy intra- or intertextual conceptual linkage. In other words, what
special aspect of denotation or connotation is being appealed to and applied within the cognitive
framework of Matthew’s judgement scene in this passage? The first two references have been
complete as examples of how to proceed in digging beneath the surface of the discourse for
elements of additional implicit meaning.
verse cross-reference corresponding their significance within
element(s) Matthew 25:31–46
31 Daniel 7:13–14; “Son of Man” Matthew’s text (including v. 32) clearly
Zechariah 14:5 alludes to Daniel’s Messianic vision, thus
forging a crucial identity of reference
involving “the Christ” – past and present.

320
 31 Matthew 19:28 “on his (my) glorious Matthew 19:28 says that Christ’s followers
throne” (those who have left all for him) will also
participate with him in judging the nations.

31 Matthew 13:37–43; “the (his) angels”

16:27; 24:31

32 Ezekiel 34:17; ???

Micah 4:3;
Malachi 3:18

34 Matthew 18:23; “the king”

22:2;
27:11, 29, 37

34 Matthew 5:3–11; “blessed”

23:38; 24:46

34 Matthew 19:29 “inherit”

34 Matthew 13:35 “the creation of the world”

35– Isaiah 58:7 ???

36

40 Matthew 12:48–50; “brothers”

23:8

41 Isaiah 66:24; ???

Matthew 5:22, 18:8

46 Matthew 1:19; 5:6, “the righteous”

10, 20; 6:1; 13:43;
23:28

46 Matthew 7:14; “eternal life” + ???

18:8;
19:16; Daniel 12:2

Note that some of these expressions are exactly the same in two or more passages:
Q: What is the standard translation procedure that applies if the sense is the same in these places?

321
 What if the sense is significantly different (e.g., “blessed” in Matt. 21:9 and 23:39)?
What can we do with those allusions that are clearly recognizable (by a biblically literate reader), but
where the wording is not exactly the same?

12.6.9 Step 9: Determine the functional and emotive dynamics

Step 9 is to ascertain the main communicative functions and primary speech acts of the text,
along with their associated emotive and connotative elements.

This is another way of examining the biblical text as a whole: It zeroes in on its individual
and conjoined pragmatic (interpersonal) properties, again with the possibility of applying
different degrees of specificity and shading. It builds upon the genre study of step 2 as well as
our investigation of the text’s rhetorical devices in step 5 and also benefits from the knowledge
gained when carrying out the manifold discourse analysis of step 6. First, in step 9, the main
communicative functions of the discourse are determined (e.g., informative, expressive,
imperative, relational, esthetic, and ritual), and then the more specific speech acts as they occur
in sequence, either in a monologue sequence or a dialogue exchange (e.g., speech acts that
encourage, comfort, rebuke, condemn, appeal, certify, authorize, and inform). In addition, any
strong connotative elements (i.e., emotional and attitudinal overtones) that are expressed during
the act of “speaking” need to be taken note of, for these non-semantic elements also need to be
represented, if possible, in a LiFE-like translation.

Study the verses listed below and identify the principal speech act that is represented in
each, as well as any strongly felt emotions or attitudes which the speakers seem to be expressing
along with their words. Certainly in any oral presentation of this pericope (and any other one
composed primarily of direct discourse) vocal qualities would have to be represented as an
integral part of the text. In some languages certain non-semantic lexical features must also be
included in order to properly reproduce these personal, attitudinal aspects of human speech (e.g.,
exclamations or interjections, honorific or pejorative terms, and deictic particles), without which
the text would sound very flat and unnatural. The first example has been completed as an
illustration of the analytic method desired.
verse primary speech act accompanying attitude(s) and emotion(s)
25:34 invitation sincerity, delight, enthusiasm

25:35

25:37

25:40

25:41

25:43

25:44

25:45

No matter how the text of Matthew 25:31–46 is classified in terms of genre, it is clear that
the point of the end times discourse is not primarily informative – to reveal and explain the earth-
shaking events that will transpire at the end of time. Rather, it is imperative – intended through
322
Christ’s visionary account to motivate here-and-now ethical behavior. Thus what we have is not
simply a descriptive narrative intended to instruct the audience; instead, it is a vivid pastoral
appeal calculated to encourage attitudes and actions that befit “the righteous” who enter into
eternal life (25:46). This identification of the central communicative purpose leads us to a
consideration of certain prominent rhetorical features that help set the scene and animate the
Lord’s graphic portrayal of his post-parousia judgement activity.

By virtue of the naturally prominent narrative device of end stress, the burden of this private
instruction to his disciples would seem to be Christ’s dramatic exhortation to put their professed
faith into practice as a life-long habit of acts of loving assistance on behalf of “the least” of the
Lord’s brothers (25:40, 45; cf. 22:34–40). This is where real “kingdom of heaven” work begins
(25:1, 14), and this is the evidence which Christ the king will testify for – or against – in the
judgement. Thus “salvation” for the righteous is initiated in this earthly life, being manifested by
selfless deeds of “service” (25:44). This implicit encouragement (or warning, as the case may be),
though set within a particular historical setting, is timeless in its persuasive relevance and
potential application to any individual or audience in attendance.
Q: Would you agree that this pericope builds up to a peak of intensity at the very end in terms of both
form and content?
How do verse 40, 45, and 46 relate thematically to each other?
What are some of the key emotive elements that contribute to this progression of intensification?
Is this development apparent in your translation? If not, what can be done, whether textually or
paratextually, to call attention to it?
It is interesting to observe that this deceptively simple account reflects aspects of all three
of the so-called “species” of classical Greco-Roman rhetoric: The surface of the text reveals certain
judicial as well as epideictic concerns; that is, it seeks to influence the audience with regard to a
right versus wrong legal standard as well as an honorable versus dishonorable value system.
However, the message’s real import is deliberative in nature: it is intended to convince listeners
concerning the expediency of specified beneficial behavior in contrast to detrimental actions in
view of a future day of public reckoning.

Give an example of a passage or expression within this pericope that conveys each of these
rhetorical motivations.
a. Judicial – a precise judgement of right or wrong: ___________
b. Epideictic – an appeal to what is praiseworthy or shameful: ___________
c. Deliberative – a concern for the beneficial as opposed to what is harmful: ___________
The artfully composed discourse structure of this challenging pericope is obviously being
used as a persuasive (rhetorical) device. The literary style is thus enhanced as a means of shaping
and sharpening the intended message so that it will have the greatest possible impact, upon
listeners in particular. It may thus be viewed as a macrotextual equivalent of the “A, and what’s
more, B; not only A, but B” type of parallel patterning that characterizes biblical poetry (with
discourse panel I of the Greek text displayed at the beginning of section 13.6 corresponding to
“A” and panel II to “B”). As our examination of the original text would indicate, this passage
could be classified as an instance of oratorical prose, being marked by stylistic features such as
rhythmic utterances, alliteration, balanced syntactic patterns, figurative language, conclusion-
focused interrogatives, and incorporated direct speech.

The question now is, To what extent can this prominent artistic and rhetorical dimension be
reproduced in a contemporary translation? This leads to the final step in preparing the ground
for a LiFE-style translation.

323
12.6.10 Step 10: Coordinate form-functional matches

Step 10 is to collect, categorize, and prioritize all potential correspondences between the SL and
TL, and then prepare a provisional translation of the pericope or complete book.

This final stage involves a selective listing of all form-functional matches – whether confirmed,
pending, or just possible – that have been identified during the preceding steps. This would be
based on a prior survey of all distinctive and frequently used artistic and rhetorical features of
the TL that are available for rendering those of the biblical document. If both textual form and
function can be matched across languages, so much the better; often, however, the function of a
particular SL device will have to be reproduced by a different TL form. The aim is to keep the
divergence in such cases as small as possible, even though at times only a complete reformulation
will do. The compositional inventory might well include suggested biblical texts and
representative samples to which the designated TL literary/oratorical genres and their related
stylistic features could apply.

These different devices then need to be classified and catalogued for future reference. An
electronic “dictionary file,” database, or some other categorized retrieval system should be
created and continually updated with new and revised artistic and rhetorical data entries as the
project continues. Even as the exegetical procedures are being conducted with reference to the
biblical text, translators can begin to consider their possible translational implications. Important
questions and issues that pertain to form (style, structure), content, and function should be
thought of in terms of how they might be handled in the TL, especially from a LiFE perspective.

Step 10 is probably the hardest of all the steps to carry out because it requires that translators
begin to think in the TL even as they are analyzing SL language forms. It is perhaps best to carry
it out in two separate stages: one with an emphasis upon inventorying the chief SL literary forms
and their assumed communicative functions, and the other with a corresponding emphasis on
discovering close literary/oratorical equivalents in the TL, in keeping with the particular genre
of literature in focus.

Following the analysis of a biblical text according to the set of procedures considered up to
this point, the initial translation of it may be done in several ways. A relatively literal rendition
would be the easiest to get the compositional process moving. This literal draft can later be
enlivened by appropriate literary devices in a relevant, functionally equivalent manner. The
opposite approach would be to have a literary artist compose a complete genre transformation
at the outset, that is, prepared intuitively according to the closest functional model text type in
the TL oral or written tradition. This draft could then be sharpened exegetically with reference
to the SL text at a later time. Many variations of these two approaches might be applied instead,
depending on what is most efficient and effective for the translation team. In most cases,
however, the first draft should be prepared by a single experienced translator, rather than by a
team trying to patch concepts and texts together as a committee.
Q: What operational procedures does your translation team or committee follow to carry out its work,
from researching the target language and literature/orature through the initial draft stage and on to
polishing the final pre-publication document?
Do you have any practical revisions or modifications to suggest with respect to the preceding ten steps
of analysis?
What can be done to stimulate and encourage the vernacular creativity and resourcefulness of
translators when rendering the biblical text?
This is often a rather difficult thing to do, even in the case of gifted verbal artists. Could it be
that they are intimidated by the critical eyes of biblical scholars or pastors on the review

324
committee who may be prejudiced in favor of some other, more foreignized translation? If so,
what can be done to resolve the situation?

12.7 A vernacular case study

The following is a case study pertaining to the development of several Chichewa Bible translations
(Malawi). As you read through it and the LiFE example at the end, compare it with the situation
in your language and translation setting, either past or present. Be prepared to discuss any
noteworthy similarities or differences that become apparent.

The magnificent structure, artistry, and rhetoric of many biblical texts often turns out to
sound quite the opposite in a translation, whether ancient or modern. This is true of the 1923
Chichewa version, Buku Lopatulika. In terms of verbal style, expression of content, and
typographical format, this translation speaks with a very heavy “foreign accent.” In places it is
almost unintelligible to ordinary listeners. The 1998 idiomatic “popular-language” version (Buku
Loyera), which was prepared by trained mother-tongue translators, is a great improvement. But
even though its language is natural and very understandable overall, in a number of places,
including the passage under consideration, this modern version still fails to reproduce the
dynamic style and full persuasive force of the original.

More recently, some experimental efforts have been undertaken to produce a text that more
adequately represents the oft-missing literary dimension in Chichewa. While a LiFE translation is
not to be thought of as the ideal, it is one viable option among the others available with reference
to a specific audience and religious setting. The downside to a LiFE translation is that in trying
to duplicate the vital artistry and rhetoric of the original text, certain of its microstructural
features will certainly be lost. However, the benefit in terms of greater communicability and
acceptability for a particular target group is a significant factor that may well make it worth the
extra effort necessary to produce such a translation.
Q: In YL, what would some of the most important of these losses be in terms of the Matthew pericope,
and why are such deficits probably unavoidable during the translation process?
How might these losses be compensated for by certain gains through the use of literary forms that more
closely duplicate the biblical text’s communicative functions, including its prominent rhetorical
effects?
One of the first things to consider in preparing a LiFE version is the issue of genre equivalence.
Is there a TL genre available that can serve as a close, if not exact, functional equivalent for
Christ’s last judgement discourse – a dramatic narrative parable that manifests a prominent
oratorical style? As it so happens, there is such a flexible literary form in Chichewa; namely, the
ndakatulo genre of lyric poetry, which functions well to translate highly emotive, rhetorically
toned passages of the Scriptures. In fact, all of the stylistic features that were listed earlier as
being noteworthy with respect to Matthew’s Greek text are very prominent also in the ndakatulo
mode of dramatic composition.

In addition, the narrative macrostructure itself is quite common in the Chichewa oral
tradition. A common form of story telling involves the use of what may be termed parallel image
sets in which human attributes are objectified, with traditional narrative characters being used
to portray certain important positive and negative values. First, one model of behavior is
presented, then the other by way of contrast – quality for quality. There is a similar parallel
image set in our Matthew 25:31–46 judgement passage: the first positive, leading to a blessed
outcome, and the second negative, resulting in disaster. Each of these is reflected off the other
to heighten the thematic and moral point of the passage as a whole. This wedding of a dynamic
rhetorical style with a familiar narrative structure has the potential for creating a great
impression on any Chewa listening audience.
325
 The medium of hearing must be stressed. It is highly probable that this pericope in Greek
was initially composed with an oral-aural manner of communication in mind. The entire text is
eminently recitable (or chantable) due to its verbal recursion, parallel patterning, rhythmic
sequences, euphony, and an incremental climactic development. As a result, this passage is most
memorable, hence transmittable as well. Bible translators need to seriously consider this aspect
of the discourse as they re-present the text in the TL in order that it be as easily and effectively
conveyed to hearers as the original was.

This necessitates, in turn, a reader-friendly display of the discourse on the printed page. The
text must be formatted as a sequence of meaningful utterance units combined within clearly
delineated narrative “paragraphs.” One possibility would be to follow the Greek text as set out
at the beginning of section 13.6, using a balanced and terraced sequence of corresponding
segments in the vernacular (either with or without the accompanying letters along the right
margin). If that technique is felt to be too sophisticated or complicated, however, some
simplification could be introduced. The goal of such an integrated procedure (sound connected
closely with sight) is to enhance the general readability, hearability, and intelligibility of the
whole passage, including its interconnected parts.

A sample translation of Matthew 25:34–36, composed in the ndakatulo lyric style and
manifesting a more natural printed format, is set out below, together with a relatively literal
back-translation into English. This particular version has been stylistically reduced in its verbal
dynamism, however, that is, limited in terms of its vividness of expression and rendered more
prosaic in nature. This was done to prevent the form of the text from overshadowing or detracting
somewhat in any way from the solemn content that is being communicated. Nevertheless, several
graphic ideophones (shown in boldface) that appeal to the drama of the original setting have
been included (used only in the first, connotatively positive panel. This experimental rendition
represents the ultimate in terms of functional equivalence. It is intended to satisfy a specific need
for a clearly defined contemporary audience, for example, to provide a version to be used by a
youth drama group in a public performance. How effective would a translation like this be in
such a situation? That can be determined only after a thorough program of audience-testing has
been carried out and the results carefully evaluated.
Tsono Iyeyo ngati Mfumu So this one, just like a king,
adauza akudzanja lamanja: told those at his right hand:
Bwerani kunotu inu Come right here you
odalitsidwa ndi Atate anga. people blessed by my Father.
Lowani mu ufumuwu Enter into this kingdom
umene adakukonzerani Iyedi, which He actually prepared for you,
chilengedwere dziko lapansili. since the creation of this very world.
Paja Ine ndidaali ndi njala, You know, I was hungry,
inu nkundipatsa chakudya. right away you gave me some food.
Ndidaali kumva ludzu, I was feeling thirsty,
inu nkundipatsa chikho pha. right away you gave me a cup, full up.
Ndadaali mlendo, balamanthu, I was a stranger, arriving all of a sudden,
inu nkundilandira kwanuko. right away you received me into your home.
Ndidaali wamaliseche Ine, I was naked, I was,
inu nkundibveka bwino. right away you dressed me up well.
Ndinkadwala mpaka kumanda tswii, I was so sick I could have gone to the grave straight,
inu nkumandizonda ndithu. indeed, you kept coming to see how I was.
Ndidaali mange mu ndende, I was bound up in prison,
inu nkumadzandichezetsa. You would keep on visiting me.

No matter how dynamic or idiomatic a translation is, however, it can never reproduce in the
TL the full communicative value of an excellently composed literary source text – not if the
closest possible content equivalence also remains a matter of priority. A poetic re-creation can

326
perhaps handle most aspects of the textual or stylistic richness, but like any rendering, it too
often fails with regard to the implicit level of communication and the great amount of contextual
information that is normally presupposed by the original.

What can be done to redress this regrettable loss of significance? Of course, various
supplementary helps can be pressed into service: illustrations, cross-references, footnotes or
marginal notes, section headings, a key-term glossary, concordance, and so forth. But even these
will ultimately fall short to a greater or lesser degree due to a lack of adequate background
knowledge on the part of most receptors, a situation that is usually exacerbated as a result of
intercultural differences and even outright contradictions.

Explanatory footnotes (or sound-marked asides in an audio version) offer perhaps the best
means of supplying such information, including the major extralinguistic implications and
applications that arise from the passage at hand. A footnote would be needed, for example, with
regard to the concept of a post-death divine judgement, which is alien to African religious beliefs.
(The African view is that a person is judged progressively, based on traditional social norms and
contemporary mores; the result of this indigenous public verdict is manifested in the afterlife
only in terms of how one is ultimately regarded and revered as an ancestral spirit.) A footnote
would also be needed to explain why sheep were so highly regarded in the ancient Near East,
including their religious symbolism, as distinct from goats. Sheep are little known in south-
central Africa, except on large, foreign-owned commercial farms. Goats, on the other hand, are
very common and have a largely negative connotation similar to that of Bible times, but with
rather different contextual associations. In the Scriptures, goats are connected with sin in general;
in Bantu societies, with illicit sexual relations in particular.

Finally, what is the pragmatic relevance of rhetoric in relation to discourse structure as far
as Bible translation is concerned? The answer depends on the type of translation that is being
produced and how crucial the values of appropriateness and acceptability are to it. When the
goal is greater contemporary communicative value, then the dimension of effectiveness will be
somewhat more important to achieve than efficiency. In other words, the conceptual “cost” in
terms of the relative ease of text processing will be less important than a potential “gain” with
regard to cognitive and emotive contextual effects such as relative impact, appeal, artistry,
aurality, and memorability. To be sure, Bible translators always want to be “on the right side” as
they re-signify the biblical text within the framework of another language and culture, but such
a critical judgement can be determined only in relation to a particular audience or constituency
who need to hear the Word proclaimed to them in a manner that closely resembles that of the
original setting of communication. This includes, to the extent possible, the dramatic content as
well as the dynamic style and structure of the Scriptures as they were first written, proclaimed,
and have subsequently been transmitted to us by the extant textual witnesses.
For reflection, research, and response:
1. What do you think of the Chichewa poetic-prose version given above? Compare it with Peterson’s contemporary
English rendition of Matthew 25:34–36, presented below as originally formatted. Does either version seem to go
too far in certain respects, whether exegetically or stylistically? Pick out some of the chief literary features that
appear in these dynamic translations and give a brief evaluation, keeping the respective audiences in mind.
Then the King will say to those on his right, “Enter you who are blessed by my Father! Take what’s coming
to you in this kingdom. It’s been ready for you since the world’s foundation. And here’s why:
I was hungry and you fed me,
I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,
I was homeless and you gave me a room,
I was shivering and you gave me clothes,
I was sick and you stopped to visit,
I was in prison and you came to me.”

327
 Then those “sheep” are going to say, “Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry
and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to
you?” Then the King will say, “I’m telling you the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to
someone overlooked or ignored, that was me – you did it to me.”
2. Now, reconsider Peterson’s version, The Message, in light of what its aims are, as expressed in the following
excerpt from his preface. What do you think about his assessment of the biblical text in view of these aims
(Peterson 2003:8)?
In the Greek-speaking world of that day, there were two levels of language: formal and informal. Formal
language was used to write philosophy and history, government decrees and epic poetry.…But if the
writing was routine – shopping lists, family letters, bills, and receipts – it was written in the common
informal idiom of everyday speech, street language.… In order to understand the Message right, the
language must be right – not a refined language that appeals to our aspirations after the best but a
rough and earthy language that reveals God’s presence and action where we least expect it.…The goal
is not to render a word-for-word conversion of Greek into English, but rather to convert the tone, the
rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak. (Peterson 2003:8)

In what sense could the writings of the New Testament be considered “routine”? To what extent could the discourse
of Christ and his apostles be regarded as “street language”? Base your answer on the text studies that we have
already carried out. Can an argument be made for a third level of language in the NT – somewhere between formal
and informal? Which body of writings greatly influenced the Greek structure and style of the NT? How great was
this OT (LXX) influence? Discuss these issues in class. In particular, consider how our conclusions concerning
these matters would affect our approach to and philosophy of Bible translation.
3. Prepare your own LiFE translation of Matthew 25:34–36 (or the entire passage, if your instructor prefers). First of
all, specify your target audience and the purpose for which you are preparing your translation. Then, with these
criteria in mind, create a literary rendering, to the degree that is appropriate. Next, give a fairly literal English
back-translation of your vernacular text. List the specific artistic and rhetorical devices that you used and tell why
you used them. Finally, in class, present orally the several versions that have been produced; then critique them so
that the class members can learn from one another about the different communicative possibilities that exist for a
version of this nature.
4. Compare the method of charting the sequential clause-constituent order of a biblical text given in section 3.6.6
with the more detailed plan proposed by Dooley and Levinsohn (2001:43-48). What are the major similarities and
differences? What can you learn from the method outlined by D&L that can make your discourse charting
procedure a more informative and/or accurate exercise? Note: Dooley and Levinsohn also outline “A methodology
for analyzing [participant] reference patterns” in (2001:127-134). If time and interest allow, this approach may
also be studied to see how it can help us better understand the organization of a text, especially with reference to
the important communicative aspects of structure and function that need to be reproduced in a translation. A good
text to further practice these discourse analysis procedures on is Matthew 25:14-30, “the parable of the talents.”
5. In deictic shift theory a number of the hermeneutical concerns addressed in our analytic framework are combined.
This theory posits “a speaking, writing or thinking ‘voice’ [that] represents a deictic center, which a reader can
mentally project by adopting the cognitive stance that best accounts for the sense of coherence across a text”
(Stockwell, in Semino and Culpeper 2002:78–9; see also Stockwell 2002:53–5). Changes in perspective are
stimulated by deictic shift devices that may be perceptual (personal), spatial, temporal, relational (social), textual
(medium-based), or compositional (structural) in nature. Areas of interest and importance within a text generally
coincide with those points at which “the deictic centre has to be moved within the readerly projection.” These are
marked in a printed text by paragraph breaks and other typographical devices.
Where does the major deictic shift occur in the Matthew 25:31–46 passage? What is your evidence for this? (Recall
the earlier structural and stylistic analysis.) Do a greater number of these shifts occur at the onset of chapter 26 (in
vv. 1–5), which is the start of a new principal unit of the Matthew narrative of Christ? Identify them. How can you
assist the reader/hearer to keep track of these perceptual movements in your translation? (These may occur on
several discourse levels, such as implied author – implied audience, Christ – disciples, and Son of Man – those on
the right/left.)
6. In her basic typology of literature in translation, Katharina Reiss (2000:31–3) posits the form-focused text, which
she describes as follows:

328
 In these texts the author makes use of formal elements, whether consciously or unconsciously, for a
specific esthetic effect.…Therefore, the expressive function of language, which is primary in form-
focused texts, must find an analogous form in the translation to create a corresponding impression,
so that the translation can become a true equivalent.… This can be done by creating equivalents
through new forms. Thus in a form-focused text the translator will not mimic slavishly (adopt) the
forms of the source language, but rather appreciate the form of the source language and be inspired
by it to discover an analogous form in the target language, one which will elicit a similar response in
the reader.

Discuss the preceding quotation in light of what you have learned about a LiFE approach: What are the main
similarities and differences?
Do you think that a given biblical text is form-focused to the exclusion of other emphases, that is, a content focus
and appeal focus? (These are the other principal categories Reiss posits, ibid.:26.) Explain.
To what extent is there a special focus on the structural and stylistic forms of the Matthew 26 pericope – and what
is the implication of this for your vernacular translation of this text?

12.8 From analysis to synthesis in translation

There is obviously a considerable amount of overlapping and interconnection in the ten

operations proposed as steps in section 3.6, in both the analytical tools applied and their
respective areas of application. In other words, top-down (general => specific) and bottom-up
(specific => general) text-processing procedures take place, either together or in close alternation
(see Dooley and Levinsohn 2001:51–2). As Qvale (2003:249) points out,
In mental processing…the various stages are not chronologically separate; introspection reveals
that we move back and forth between the operations that constitute the translation process,
shuttle-like, according to Lomheim [who says,] “…[I]t is therefore closer to reality to view the
entire translation process as a continuous activity in which the various stages are interwoven
and govern one another.…”

For example, genre identification (step 2) must be carried out with reference to the
microstylistic features (step 7) that characterize or distinguish one genre in relation to another,
either in the SL or the TL. On the other hand, as was suggested earlier, the syntactic-semantic
discourse analyses (step 6) may be carried out in a more detailed manner, by diagramming all
the logical relationships between propositions (semantic clause units in which all implicit
information is explicitly stated).

Each of the ten steps (guidelines) reflects at least some difference with regard to focus, scope,
or emphasis when applied in relation to a given biblical pericope. However, the individual steps
must always be carried out in conjunction with and in light of one another (usually in a back-
and-forth progression) in order to produce a holistic, systematic, audience-oriented, and context-
sensitive study of the original text. And this must be done before to the attempt to communicate
it in a very different, contemporary language-culture setting and religious milieu.

The goal of the methodology proposed above is to apply the knowledge gained during
exegesis to an actual translation, one that reproduces at least partially (feature-selectively) a
literary-equivalent rendition for a designated audience within the contextualized frame of
reference specified by a given project Skopos. Of course, even a more formal-correspondence
version may be rendered in an esthetically motivated LiFE-like manner, normally through some
sort of phonological enhancement, utilizing, for example, a simple metrical pattern, rhythmic
diction, and/or strategically placed rhymes, puns, or alliteration. Thus if so desired, any Bible
translation – from the most literal to one that is largely idiomatic – can, in practice as well as

329
theory, be expressed in one or more relevant literary respect(s).648 This may be done by
capitalizing on one or more of the distinctive stylistic features that best manifest the genius of
the TL in the most appropriate manner for the intended audience.

Our ten text-processing procedures, which apply in particular to an initial analysis of a

selected biblical pericope (or, less likely, an entire book) are personal suggestions only. They
may easily be rearranged, supplemented, or modified as necessary. When it comes to a specific
translation project, they need to be restated in more specific TL terms. It would be a good idea
to put the agreed system into operation during the course of a team’s day-to-day work schedule
so that translators are continually practicing their procedures (revising them as the need arises).
After some trial and testing, they may become recommended guidelines, included in the project
Brief. Not that they need to be slavishly followed – they are merely a framework within which to
conceptualize the transfer operation and the process of textual synthesis.

I will conclude with another, this time a somewhat more dynamic, example of a LiFE
rendition in the Chichewa poetic translation of the third and concluding stanza of Job 28.
Job 28:23–28 is an especially suitable passage for a distinctive, skillful manner of composition
to be manifested. It would act as a means of drawing verbal attention to the significance of the
text at this crucial, culminating point in the poem and also serve to distinguish it stylistically
from its cotext. The challenge to translators is simply this: How can they verbally convey the
most significant dimensions of the lyric meditative instruction of Job 28 with the impact,
attraction, and connotation of pious reverence that pervades the original Hebrew text?

This pericope was formulated in Chichewa with a specifically oratorical presentation in

mind, so that it can be orally declaimed or even sung to the accompaniment of a musically
complementary melody. The printed text was also formatted on the page in measured flowing
lines so as to facilitate a rhythmic recitation or reading aloud and hopefully a better
understanding. The Chichewa version appears below in parallel with a back-translation into
English, one that is relatively literal so as to draw attention to some of its outstanding stylistic
features.649

Mulungu ndiye yekha amadziwa, God is the one who knows,

kudziwa njira yopitira kumeneko, knows the way of going there,
kumene kumapezeka nzeru imene. to where wisdom itself may be found.

Paja amayang’ana soo! mpakana
[#] kumathero a dziko lonse lapansi,
kuona zonse zakunsi kwa thambo.
Iyetu [^] popatsa mphepo mphamvu
ndi kuyesa kuchuluka kwa mvula,
poika lamulo loti madziwo agwe
ndikukonza njira yoyenda mphezi,
pamenepo ndiye adapeza nzeruyo
ndi kufufuzafufuza wake [@] mtengo,
inde*, n’ kuvomereza phindu lake.
In fact he looks long and hard, SOO! right up
[#] to the ends of the whole land down here,
to see everything that is below the sky.
Surely he [^] in giving power to the wind
and in measuring out the amount of rain,
in setting a command for those waters to fall down
and in preparing a path for the lightning to travel,
then is when he found that wisdom
and carefully investigated of it [@] the worth,
yes*, and to assert its value.

648
Such a technique is clearly stated in the introduction to Wilt’s LiFE translation, Prayer, Praise,
and Protest (2002b): “I have often restructured texts in the attempt to represent in contemporary English
style their genre, thematic accents and coherence of images as well as information content.…I have tried
to reflect the Hebrew’s use of devices such as wordplay, assonance (repetition of the same sound) and
thematically linked ambiguity (a certain word or line can be understood in more than one way, both
according with themes of the text), though with less frequency than they occur in the Hebrew texts.”
649
The symbols such as the pound sign and caret in the display below are explained in the
paragraph that follows the display.
330
 Tsono Mulungu anthu onse awauza, So now God all people he tells them,
‘Kuopa Chauta [$] ndiyo nzeru ndithu, “Fearing Chauta [$] the Creator is really wisdom,
kuchotsa zoipa m’moyo, apo ndipo!’[%] removing evils from life, that’s where it’s at!%”

The main artistic attributes of ndakatulo lyric-expressive poetry are clearly evident from this
selection, for example, use of the vivid ideophone sooo! ‘looking intently’ to duplicate the
intensity of the utterance that is introduced at the beginning of Job 28:24 by the combination of
the conclusive-consequential conjunction ‫‘ ִּכי‬for, surely, that is to say’ followed by the fronted
separable pronoun ‫ ּוא‬7‫‘ ה‬he’, referring to God. Other features include balanced lineation; inclusion
of interlineal transitional devices (e.g., at marker *); divergences from a prosaic syntactic word
order (at marker @); enjambment (at marker #); additional emphasizers and intensifiers (^);
introduction of a distinctive divine name ($); alliteration/assonance (%); reiteration; and
contemporary idiomatic language (including the final rhythmic verbal capstone apo ndipo!). As
already noted, the poetic manner of composition is complemented by the text format, which
highlights the lined progression and calls visual attention to the first and last utterances
(foregrounded also in the Hebrew text of Job 28).

An effort was made in this translation exercise to ensure that the literary style does not
overpower or detract from the biblical message. To do so would disturb the text’s overall
reflective tone and solemn content, in which case the verbal form would be unworthy of its
subject, making it unsuitable for use in public worship. A poetic mode of oratorical expression is
not foreign to a didactic communicative purpose, for research has indicated that it would sound
appropriate if employed in a traditional Bantu setting of Christian religious initiation and
catechetical instruction. Such a dynamically rendered version may not be suitable for all
audiences or fit for every occasion. But if composed, for example, with an active, community-
involved youth group, drama troupe, or gospel choir in mind, a rhetorically heightened text
would certainly help the intense debates of the original Hebrew to become audibly and emotively
alive in the Chichewa vernacular for a contemporary generation of wisdom-seekers.

For reflection, research, and response:

1. What do you think of the Chichewa lyric rendition above? Give your general assessment of it (based on
the English back-translation) and indicate some possible points of caution. Do you recognize in this text
any stylistic devices that are common in the poetry of YL? Specify what these are.
2. Prepare a LiFE translation of Job 28:23–28 in YL along with a literal back-translation into English. Then
summarize some of the main literary features that you have included in your version.
3. Discuss the differences between LiFE as a translation philosophy and a translation procedure. Which,
if any, of these would fit into your setting of translation – and why?
4. Discuss the following quotation from Martin Luther (1960:213–4) in relation to a LiFE approach to
translating:
What is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously to words which one
cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew
style. Rather he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew author – that he
concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, “Pray tell, what do the
Germans say in such a situation?” Once he has the German words to serve the
purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the
best German he knows.
5. Read the introduction to Wilt’s English translation in Prayer, Praise, And Protest (2002b) and identify
the main goals of his literary version. Then read his translation of “Pigeon” (Jonah) and pick out three
good examples that illustrate his recommended translation procedures.
331
6. Study Wilt’s literary rendition of Psalm 23, presented below (II, from Wilt 2002b:30). Carefully
compare this to Peterson’s Psalm 23 in The Message (I, also below). If possible, also compare them to
the original Hebrew text or an interlinear version. Then carry out the exercises that follow with reference
to YL:
I
A good shepherd looks after his flock’s every need: fresh grass, clean, calm streams, and safety. He guides
them with his staff, keeps them in line, on the right path, however difficult the way, however dark the
shadows. He gains a good reputation because of his care for his sheep.
This is how it is with Yahweh’s care for me. I fear no harm. I’m completely at ease and healthy, because he
shepherds me.
A loving host makes sure that her guests are refreshed before eating, gives her best drinks, then invites
them to a fine meal.
This is how it is with Yahweh’s care for me.
Goodness and Commitment will always come looking for Me, so that I may stay in
Yahweh’s house for many days.

II
A DAVID PSALM
GOD, my shepherd!
I don’t need a thing.
You have bedded me down in lush meadows,
you find me quiet pools to drink from.
True to your word,
you let me catch my breath
and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through
Death Valley,
I’m not afraid
when you walk by my side.
Your trusty shepherd’s crook
makes me feel secure.
You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.
You revive my drooping head;
my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me
every day of my life.
I’m back home in the house of God
for the rest of my life.
a. Pick out and evaluate a clear example of Wilt’s having applied a literary translation technique.
b. Find three places where Wilt’s translation of Psalm 23 clearly differs from Peterson’s. Then try
to explain and evaluate the differences. What appears to be the literary motivation in each case?
Which rendering do you prefer? Give reasons.
c. Would there be any expressions in the following translations that would cause difficulties if
rendered literally in your language? How could you say it in YL in an alternative but still LiFE-
like way?
d. Do you have any revisions to suggest with regard to the English text of either of these two
translations?
7. Prepare a LiFE version of Psalm 23 in your mother tongue. Also give a fairly literal back-translation of
it into English. The class may then compare their respective renditions of Psalm 23.

332
8. Summarize in YL the ten steps of sections 3.6.1 – 3.6.10. Which of them are especially difficult to
understand and express? How might you paraphrase them so that they are more clearly stated? Are there
any steps that you would like to modify, or any that you wish to add to the list? Would you prefer to
perform the steps in a different order when working in YL? Explain.
9. Which topics or exercises in lesson 3 were especially difficult and therefore in need of additional
instruction, explanation, and/or practice with selected examples from the Bible? Has any subject of
interest to you been left out? Has any exercise been presented in a way that you were unable to
understand and apply in the field? Do you feel comfortable now about applying a LiFE method of
translation to a biblical pericope in YL, at least to a limited extent? If so, which text would you like to
try it on? If not, which aspects of this approach remain problematic for you – and why?
10. Daniel Shaw (2004:9–10) says that “the hermeneutical process is a progression of four movements,”
which may be summarized as follows:
a. Read the text:
text Understand what God actually said.

b. Experience the context:

context Why was this text communicated in the first place? Understand the
interaction between the divine and human authors, the rationale for that time and place, and
appreciate the particulars and intricacies of the context that in large measure precipitate the
content and structure of the message.

c. Relate this understanding to comparable structures in the communicator’s world or horizon.

d. Use this understanding to pass the message along:

along Information gained from the first three
movements can then be used to transform the message into symbols and manifestations that
enable new audiences to appreciate the intent of the source and apply it to their own
circumstances.
How do these four hermeneutical procedures relate to the ten steps of sections 3.6.1 – 3.6.10? Note the
emphasis on an adequate contextual understanding of the text of Scripture in its original as well as its
contemporary setting. This is absolutely essential if accurate and acceptable communication is going to
occur via any type of translation. What can you do to encourage people to desire and work to gain such
an understanding – to increase their level of biblical literacy?
11. Evaluate the following set of procedures for preparing a “creative” translation* in comparison with the
“ten steps” of the LiFE methodology presented earlier.650 What are the main similarities and differences
between these two approaches? Do you have any suggestions for revising (changing, adding, deleting)
the five guidelines listed below?
“In making a translation, a translator (often, probably even usually)
(i) creates semantic resemblance out of linguistic variance;
(ii) selects target-language-norm-conforming forms that are as close as possible to the source
text formalities;
(iii) decides how to deal with cultural and contextual variance; and
(iv) considers the purpose of and audience for the translation, all against the background of
(v) his or her understanding of the source text.
This task presents translators with numerous types of choice and opportunities for creativity…”

650
This selection is taken from an email communication (from James.St-andre@manchester.ac.uk)
citing an Abstract for the paper “Translating a very short story” which was presented by Kirsten Malmkjaer
at the Monday Seminar Series of the Centre for Translation & Intercultural Studies of the University of
Manchester on Monday 24 November, 2008.
333
 13. An Overview of In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It
Means651

13.0 Introduction

In this scholarly anthology of 264 pages, including the editors’ introduction, a listing of
contributors, and a subject index, eighteen professional literary translators “from widely varying
backgrounds, languages, fields, and genres” (xx),652 reflect deeply and from diverse perspectives
on the nature of their craft and its importance within the wider world of English literature. These
essays explore “both the larger, complex questions of translation’s role and function in the world
of literature and the more detailed, word-by-word dilemmas faced by every translator,” thus
illuminating “what matters in translation and why translation matters.”653 The various studies
are divided into two major sections. Part 1, “The Translator in the World,” discusses “attitudes
towards translation as seen in a variety of ethical, cultural, political, historical, and even legal
contexts,” offering “a number of perspectives on the understanding and self-understanding of
translators in the literary and critical arena” (xx). In Part 2, “The Translator at Work,” there is a
focus “on questions of craft” and a consideration of “specific acts of translation from various
points of view” (xxi).

In the material that follows, I do not present a normal review of the sequence of studies
included In Translation; rather, I offer a selection of citations that I found especially significant
from each of the essayists (from some more than others) with regard to my own circumscribed
interest in Bible translation, and specifically, the application of a literary (artistic-rhetorical)
structural manner of rendering the sacred text.654 Thus, only a limited portion of the wide range
of content covered in these individual studies is reflected in the quotations that I have chosen,
but this should be sufficient to indicate the high quality of each author’s work and accordingly
to encourage a reading of her/his entire essay. Occasionally I interact with the author on a
particular issue, either directly or by means of a footnote, but usually I simply present his or her
perspective and opinion as it appears in the text. I trust that I have not distorted any individual
author’s content or intent by means of these selective quotes or my comments on them.655

In their Introduction, “A Culture of Translation” (xiii), the editors reflect on the role of
translators in English which “is now indisputably the dominant global lingua franca” (xv). On
the one hand, contemporary “translators into English can be said to labor in the service of
monolingualism…by increasing the degree to which the culture of the entire globe is available
through English” (ibid). But on the other hand, “translation works to strengthen the pluralism of
world languages and cultures by giving writers in all languages the opportunity to reach English’s
global audience while still writing in their native tongues” (ibid). Furthermore, “the failure to
translate into English, the absence of translation, is clearly the most effective way of all to
consolidate the global monoculture and exclude those who write and read in other languages
from the far-reaching global conversation for which English is clearly the vehicle” (xvii). “To say
of translation—as is so often said—that ‘the original meaning is always lost’ is to deny the history
of literature and the ability of any text to be enriched by the new meanings that are engendered

651
Edited by Esther Allen and Susan Bernofsky (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013; ISBN
pbk: 978-0231-15969-2). This chapter, documenting the varied perspectives of recognized professional
(secular) translators, supports a Literary-Functional Equivalence (LiFE) method of translating the
Scriptures.
652
All page citations are from the book under consideration, unless otherwise indicated.
653
From endorsements by Lydia Davis and Motoyuki Shibata given on the book’s back cover.
654
See, for example, Ernst Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International,
2004).
655
I extend my sincere apologies to the authors wherever this has inadvertently happened.
334
as it enters new contexts—that is, as it remains alive and is read anew” (xvii-xviii, original
emphasis). “Translation not only brings us the work of those who write in other languages; it
simultaneously reveals the limits of our own language and helps us move beyond them,
incorporating new words, concepts, styles, structures, and stories” (xviii).

The 21st century “has shown itself to be an age of translation,” and the development of new
technologies, like the Internet, “has affected every aspect of the translator’s work, from the
process of producing a translation to the mode of publication, the scope of the audience, and the
depth and complexity of the preexisting relationship between the source and target languages
and texts, particularly when the target language is English” (xix). In sum, “translators are writers
and curators of cultural interaction who transport us between linguistic spheres, making their
languages listen as well as speak and transforming them into vehicles for a wide range of literary
traditions” (xxii). Not only that, but from a theological perspective, Bible translators are also
instruments of the Holy Spirit, who desires that the words of Scripture are read, heard, and
understood in all languages and cultural contexts of the world (Acts 2:1-12).

13.1 Making Sense in Translation

In the first essay, “Making Sense in Translation—Toward an Ethics of the Art,” Peter Cole
endeavors to answer the question, “Can ethics really account for an art in any way that matters?”
(3). To produce a “good” translation, one that attains “an afterlife for the literature in question,”
requires not only skill, training, experience, and so forth—it also demands considerable effort
(4). To a lesser extent, it also needs the right translation technique—one that is appropriate for
the text, the intended audience, and the context of use. The question is: “Is it ethically more
appropriate to call attention—through register, cadence, and the like—to the passage of time and
the difference of cultural context; or, when push comes to translational shove, is it ultimately
more honest to create an illusion of immediacy—to account for the way a story or poem might
have been heard by its original audience?” (6). The contemporary translator must take into
consideration not only the meaning of the text itself and how to best convey that, but the original
context of interpretation also needs to factored into the communication process along with the
hermeneutical tradition that has been attached to the text since the time of its initial composition.
“One needs in translating, and especially in translating [sacred] texts from the ancient past [like
the Scriptures], to respond and be responsible not only to the original poem or passage of prose
but also to the body of knowledge that has accrued around it, around the would-be reader of the
translation, and around the two (and sometimes three or more) languages and literary traditions
involved” (6).656

In their virtually impossible effort to achieve “this transmigration ha’ataquah, or

transference” of texts along with their cognitive contexts,657 translators are similarly warned that

656
In this connection, Cole suggests that “in crossing centuries, languages, and cultural galaxies,
factoring in the thousands of elusive elements that come into play, the straightforward algebra of
equivalence won’t do; if we want to approach it in scientific fashion…we’ll need to look in the direction
of postquantum physics, or the nature of scientific study itself” (6-7). Unfortunately, he does not really
explain the meaning of his “scientific” proposal, and we are left with more down-to-earth multifaceted
practical approaches, like that of “frames of reference” (e.g., T. Wilt & E. Wendland, Scripture Frames &
Framing, Stellenbosch: Sun Media Press, 2008), to deal with the complexities presented by a complete
translation project and its management in the modern age, e.g., that of the Bible.
657
The term ha’ataqah derives from “fourteenth century kabbalists” and “also happens to be a term
Hebrew uses to mean—translation” (10). “Only one who is profoundly convinced of the impossibility of
translation can really undertake it” (citing Franz Rosenzweig, 15). Regarding the “religious” notion of
“transmigration,” Cole observes: “in the word ‘translation’ itself—which etymologically suggests a ‘ferrying
or carrying across’ (as does the root of the word ‘metaphor’)—[a translator’s ethically motivated]
investment, surrender, and belief lead to a place where alignment is sought between souls” (ibid), namely,
335
“there is…no serious afterlife for a given poet or writer of prose that does not re-embody (as it
reimagines) the sensory dimensions at the heart of an art” (10, my emphasis). Relying on artistic,
communicative “instinct, not ideology,” and “trained by long apprenticeship to attention in
language, [translators] let themselves be led by a feel for the words before them in an asymptotic
rehearsal and performance involving desire, denial, vision, revision, imagination, and regret—
nearing, perhaps, but never achieving something we choose to call perfection” (10)—or complete
“equivalence”! To be more specific, “good translation…is translation that both makes and
discovers sense. It is reasonable, and coheres emotionally, but also and more importantly engages
the senses as it embodies, in a physical manner, what the translator recognizes as the salient
properties or qualities of the original and its artfulness” (11).

Furthermore, when undertaking “the responsibility for another work of art in a different
language—for the particular pressure, pleasure, texture, tension, and tone of its constituent
parts—the translator also (if he [sic] is up to the task) becomes more responsive to these same
constituent qualities; and so he will in the passage to a new language try to account for them as
live elements, to preserve them through transformation rather than salting or pickling them
through superficial mimicry” (ibid, original emphasis). The question for serious Bible translators
then is this: To what degree do the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures actually embody artistry
alongside theology in their constituent books, and if the former dimension is found to be
significantly present in the text,658 how will they undertake their ethical responsibility to address
it in their work? When carried out “responsibly,” Cole suggests that “mutual enhancement” is the
result: “In giving the original new life, a translation sheds light on it as well. And in the process,
the language of the translation is also renewed” (14). However, such communicative enrichment
cannot occur by adopting a brute foreignizing procedure; rather, a more sensitive, creative
approach must be adopted, one that utilizes the ubiquitous “‘malleable material’ of one’s own
language”—not some “freakish or distorting implant shouting, ‘Look at me, I’m different, foreign,
unusual!’” (ibid, original emphasis).

13.2 Anonymous Sources

In chapter two, “Anonymous Sources,” Eliot Weinberger has a number of interesting things to
say “On Translators and Translation” (17). Following from the book’s Introduction, he observes
that “translation liberates the translation language”; this is because “a translation will always be
read as a translation, as something foreign,” and it is therefore “liberated from many of the
constraints of the currently accepted norms and conventions in the national literature” (18).659
Weinberger goes on to point out a crucial misunderstanding of “that tedious Italian pun traduttore
traditore” (21).660 “The characterization of translation as betrayal or treason is based on the
impossibility of exact equivalence, which is seen as a failing,” but while it is true that “no
translation is identical to the original,” even within the same language “no reading of a poem
[or any piece of literature] is identical to any other, even when read by the same person” (22).661

with respect to the pragmatic sensory-emotive (artistic-rhetorical) dimension of the original text and its
re-expression in another language.
658
For some textual documentation, see E. Wendland, Lovely, Lively Lyrics: Selected Studies in Biblical
Hebrew Verse (Dallas: SIL International, 2013).
659
He cites the examples of German literature at the turn of the 19th century, post-revolution
(1949) poets in China, and American poets twice in the 20th century (18-19).
660
“Perhaps the Italian sentence betrays something in the cultural consciousness of Italy, which
resonates through the political and ecclesiastical life of that country, where betrayal, like a shadow, is the
obverse side of trust” (21, citing the Italian-American philosopher, Arthur Danto).
661
In addition to pointing out a common misunderstanding of the concept of “equivalence” in
translation studies, Weinberger also tackles “the old bugbear of ‘fidelity,’ which…may be the most
overrated of a translation’s qualities” since “up to a point, anyone can translate anything faithfully” (24).
336
As cognitive linguistics teaches us, every new act of communication, of whatever kind, is a new
“translation,” as it were, a re-expression within the mental framework of “one’s own [constantly
changing] experience and knowledge—whether it is a confirmation, a contradiction, or an
expansion” (ibid). Thus, “translation, above all, means change” because, like metaphor, it
obviously involves semantic “movement”—the former, from one language into another. But
whereas “metaphor makes the familiar strange, translation makes the strange familiar” (23).

Turning his attention to the translation of poetry, Weinberger suggests that the purpose “is
to allow the poem to be heard in the translation language, ideally in as many of the ways it is
heard in the original language” (24, original emphasis).662 This “means that the primary task of
a translator is not merely to get the dictionary meanings right—which is the easiest part—but
rather to invent a new music for the text in the translation language, one that is mandated by
the original,” but which “is not a technical replication of the original” (ibid). How can one learn
these new verbal lyrics? “To do so requires a thorough knowledge of the literature into which one
is translating” (ibid, original emphasis). On the other hand, “all the worst translations are done
by experts in the foreign language who know little or nothing about the poetry alongside which
their translations will be read” (25). That was certainly the case during my years as a Bible
translation consultant: the “weakest link” of any team was a self-styled “expert” in the biblical
languages who knew little or nothing about the orature and written literature in her/his mother-
tongue.

While it used to be the case that translators were “invisible people…often confused with
simultaneous interpreters” (25), nowadays they often have organized themselves into influential
social pressure groups, with some even claiming “that they are authors” too (26).663 Academic
interest has also grown to the point that “there is, perhaps, no subject in literature more suited
for theoretical rumination in its current modes than translation” (27). Along “with this
preoccupation with the translator—and the self-evident and now excessively elaborated corollary
that everything is a form of translation—the translator has suddenly become an important
person” (ibid).664 It would be better, both theoretically and practically, for their respective roles
and associated recognition, whether criticism or acclaim, to remain distinct: “The translator, in
the familiar analogy, is an actor playing the role of the author” (28, my emphasis). What cannot
be denied is that “translation is an obvious necessity” because “translation is what keeps
literature alive” (30), at least in the sense of allowing access to books that would otherwise
remain closed to the vast majority, and this includes The Book—the Bible. Moreover, despite
what may be some formidable challenges in certain situations, “there is no text that cannot be
translated; there are only texts that have not found their translators” (ibid)—and consequently,
given the right practitioner(s), there is no translation that cannot be somehow improved in
relation to a particular purpose and target audience.

The problem here lies in defining that “point” where fidelity changes into something else—for what
reason(s) and with what consequences.
662
I have noticed that whereas professional translators, like those represented in this anthology,
pay close attention to sound and the oral-aural dynamics of their work, secular translation theorists by and
large do not and rarely mention the subject.
663
A situation that strikes the essayist as “a Pirandellesque (or Reaganesque) confusion of actor
and role” (26).
664
“Small wonder, then, that the advance guard of translators and their explainers are now
declaring that the translator is an author” and “that a translated and original text are essentially
indistinguishable” (27). This is a regrettable development in the field that I too have found occasion to
critique (cf. chapter 1).
337
13.3 Fictions of the Foreign

In “Fictions of the Foreign” (ch. 3), David Bellos critically examines “the Paradox of ‘Foreign-
Soundingness’” (31). In response to the charge by certain translation critics that “domesticating
translation styles” are guilty of committing “ethnocentric violence,”665 Bellos asks, “How then
should the foreignness of the foreign best be represented in the receiving language” (31)? The
common practice of borrowing lexical and syntactic features of the ST for use in the TT in order
to be somehow “faithful” to the original only results in “the foreign-soundingness of a
translation,” and the usual result that it “may be rejected as clumsy, false, or even worse” (32).
“The project of writing translations that do the least ‘ethnocentric violence’ to the original thus
runs the risk of dissolving into something different—a representation of the funny ways
foreigners speak” (42). Of course, in the case of the Bible many people patiently tolerate the
“funniness,” awkwardness and frequent opaqueness of their translations on account of their
reverence for the sacred text and its divine author, but it does not have to be that way. And given
the high literary quality, generally speaking, of the various texts of Scripture, it should not be that
way—not for any translator worth his salt.

This is not to say that there is no benefit at all in a “foreignizing translation style” that bends
“English into shapes that mirror some limited aspect of the source language, such as word order
or sentence structure” (39). Thus, “a genuine educational and social purpose can be served by
maintaining items of the source text in the translation,” for “it allows readers to acquire what
they had not learned at school, or to refresh their memory of half-forgotten lessons” (35).666 But
this “selective or ‘decorative’ foreignism is available only in translating between languages with
an established relationship” (ibid), like French for American English-speakers and increasingly
Spanish in the 21st century.667 Such a foreign-oriented translation policy is also appreciated by
scholars who happen to keep up-to-date with the ST languages, like biblical Hebrew or Greek;
they often know what the original is referring to in the case of otherwise difficult English
renditions.668

Bellos calls attention to Friedrich Schleiermacher, the 19th century philosopher-translator,

who is “usually understood to have taken his distance from fluent, invisible, or ‘normalizing’
translation when he said, ‘The goal of translating even as the author himself would have written
originally in the language of the translation is not only unattainable but is also in itself null and
void.’ But that famous statement can also be understood the other way around” (36)—the foreign
accent of the original needs to be naturalized in translation. For example, “Why should we want
or need Kafka to sound German, in any case? In German, Kafka doesn’t sound ‘German’ at all—
he sounds like Kafka. . . . Making Kafka sound German in English is perhaps the best means a
translator has to communicate to the reader his or her own experience of reading the original”
(ibid) like a MT speaker would have read it.

The conclusion is, and this is quite significant: “Foreignness in a translation is necessarily an
addition to the original” (ibid, emphasis added), and, I might add, an unnatural addition at that.
But this dark literary cloud does have its silver lining, at least for English: “A foreignism—be it

665
Citing Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility (London: Routledge, 1995, 20 and passim)
(43).
666
It almost sounds as if Bellos writes with a certain degree of irony here, but I cannot be certain.
He adds, “Without the information that the work in question has been translated from language A,
foreignizing translations do not themselves allow the reader to identify which foreign language A is” (39).
667
“You can’t do that with Russian or German anymore” since “these languages are taught to only
tiny groups of students nowadays” (35).
668
These literalistic English (French, Spanish, Chewa, etc.) versions “rely for their foreignizing
effect on the reader’s prior knowledge of the approximate shape and sound of [the] foreign language” of
the source text.
338
a word, a turn of phrase, or a grammatical structure that is brought into our marvelously and
infuriatingly malleable tongue by a translator seeking to retain the authentic sound of the
original—has its path already mapped out: Either it will be disregarded as a clumsy, awkward,
or incomplete act of translation, or it will be absorbed, reused, integrated, and become not
foreign at all” (42)—yet, with reference to semantics, not necessarily retaining the same sense or
significance. The latter scenario is the imminent danger where translations of Scripture are
concerned.

13.4 Translation, Ghosts, Metaphors

In “Beyond, Between—Translation, Ghosts, Metaphors” (ch. 4), Michael Emmerich delves into
the definition of “translation,” in spite of the fact that the term is, by his own admission,
“incapable of definition…because it is sort of a node—a point of intersection” (44). He begins
his quest from the perspective of English, where “translation comes from the Latin word
translatus, the past participle of transferre, which might be translated as ‘carried across’” (49)—
then with special reference to the various terms available in Japanese, e.g., hon’yaku, which
“refers specifically to translation from foreign (non-Japanese) languages into Japanese (or vice-
versa)” (45).669 Emmerich concludes that rather than as a point in a particular language,
“translation must be viewed as a node within which all the ideas of translation in all the
languages that ever have been or could ever be might potentially congregate, intersect, mingle”
(47). Here is where the metaphor of the “ghost” comes in: “We could say that the word
‘translation’ is haunted by all the concepts it might translate, the words with which it may be
translated” (ibid). Thus, rather than as a “bridge,” translation is better conceived “as a ghostly
activity,” that is, “the haunted, haunting experience of being simultaneously within two
languages, cultures, and nations but belonging fully to neither” (51). As a translator of sorts
myself, however, I wonder whether it is accurate to say that the translator operates in some sort
of nebulous “ghostly, disembodied” state (56): Can s/he really become “disembodied” cognitively
or sensually as s/he works within and between the mental frames of reference of two distinct
corporeal languages?670 Furthermore, the binary imagery itself may be somewhat too simplistic;
I find the fourfold distinction of “mental space theory” rather more satisfying and useful as a
figurative conception of the multiplex process of interlingual, cross-cultural, world-view
transposing communication that translation both refers to and represents.671

13.5 Translation as Scholarship

In “Translation as Scholarship” (ch. 5), Catherine Porter surveys some of the present challenges
and possible solutions to the interrelated issues of translator roles and responsibilities as they
pertain to advances in scholarship in the field of translation. For example, “serving the text and
collaborating with its author are only two among the many, sometimes conflicting,
responsibilities that a translator has to weigh and juggle” (59). Furthermore, should translators
strive to remain “invisible” in their work, and is the notion of “original, authorial meaning”
empirically valid? (60-61). Finally, is the job “doable” at all: “Literary and scholarly translation
alike entail not just a transfer of meaning but a thoroughgoing recontextualization: In what
contexts—literary, rhetorical, social, historical, political, economic, religious, cultural—was the

669
Thus, “in order to translate ‘translation’ into Japanese,” one first must ask “what particular
variety of ‘translation’ we are talking about,” for example, “a retranslation is a…kaiyaku” (46).
670
Cole seems to suggest the same, as noted earlier: “Good translation…engages the senses as it
embodies, in a physical manner, what the translator recognizes as the salient properties or qualities of the
original [text] and its artfulness.” (11).
671
Four distinct “mental spaces” are posited as one works both conceptually and linguistically
within and between two languages when translating: target (ST), source (TL), generic (ST-TL), and blended
(TT) (Wendland, Survey of Translation Studies, 138-139).
339
source text embedded, and what adjustments will have to be made to transmit those contexts or
produce comparable ones in the translation?” (62). From this perspective, the translation of an
ancient, high-value document, such as the Scriptures, is clearly impossible—that is, if one is
limited to the confines of the translated text itself. Only a complete “study” or “reference Bible”
will do, that is, a meaningful translation supported by a wide array of “supplementary helps”:
explanatory notes, illustrations, introductions, a glossary and concordance, cross-references,
sectional headings, and so forth.672

Toward the end of her essay, Porter makes two general, but noteworthy observations: “The
aspect of the translator’s invisible work…requires both an intuitive and an analytic command of
the interlocking features and structures of two language systems” (65). Thus, academic
knowledge is not enough; this must be coupled with native intuition augmented by a considerable
amount of translation-based experience. Second, when approaching any translation commission,
“one cannot posit a simple dichotomy between works that privilege artistic form and those that
privilege the communicative function” (ibid). Indeed, in the case of the Scriptures, both these
considerations, or obligations, are abundantly applicable throughout.

13.6 Biography of an Artform

In chapter 6, “The Biography of an Artform,” Alice Kaplan overviews several novel case studies
that relate “the lived experience of translators” and “the everyday psychology of translating” to
“the complex relationship between writers and translators” (67). She concludes with some
personal reflections regarding “the gift of translation” (78):673 “Every act of translation is an act
of attentiveness. As a translator, I notice aspects of style and language that would have escaped
the part of me who is simply a reader, and even a literary critic. . . . In the act of translating, we
come closer to the literary object than anyone else except the writer who has created it; and in
so doing, we learn something about ourselves as writers” (80). I would like to also suggest the
reverse procedure in the formal and informal training of (Bible) translators: Try to gain as much
experience as possible as an active and “attentive” literary writer (or oral composer) in the
language of translation, for example, by composing poetry (hymns), argument (sermons), or
narrative (dramatized scripture re-telling).

13.7 The Will to Translate

In “The Will to Translate” (ch. 7), Esther Allen presents “Four Episodes in a Local History of
Global Cultural Exchange” (82), in which she selectively describes “the work of four translators
of Latin American literary prose into English in and around New York City” (83).674 In closing,
Allen reflects on Google Translate’s claim that “this technology can make the language barrier
go away” (100). A “closely related misconception” is that “there is a single ‘correct’ translation
of any given phrase or literary passage, and if the human just thinks hard enough, or the machine
crunches enough data, both will arrive at that unique and identical formulation” (ibid). The
fallacy of course is that there are as many “correct translations” as there are different social
situations, communicative purposes, and evaluating authorities for the same source text. The

672
Even the method of translating itself must be up to the task. In this respect, the bottom-up
procedure seemingly advocated by the author is inadequate: “the translator can begin to engage with the
text itself: word by word, phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence” (62). Clearly, a more holistic, discourse-
oriented, structure-functional approach needs to be adopted.
673
One experience even intimated to her “a metaphor for translating—when it goes well,” namely
“piano music for four hands” (79). Most experienced translators can suggest what each of those essential
“hands” might represent.
674
They are, in order of consideration: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Rollo Ogden, Harriet de Onís,
and Gregory Rabassa.
340
same threefold principle applies to translations of Scripture. While Google may be reckoned to
“succeed” at a certain basic level of information transfer, “if we deem language to be information
and nothing more, and translations no more than the transfer of that information, this
misconception may become our truth” (ibid). This warning is just as apropos to all those who
endeavor to translate “the literature of Scripture” (Wendland 2004).

13.8 The Great Leap

The first of the more text-focused studies of Part 2 of In Translation is Forrest Gander’s
consideration of “The Great Leap: César and the Caesura” (ch. 8).675 After an introduction that
surveys the importance of translation in the modern age, Gander concludes: “It shifts our
perspective and realigns our relation to the world, bringing us into proximity with other
modalities…it can draw us across that most guarded border, the one we build around ourselves”
(110). Training and experience should raise a “big question” for all translators: “To what degree
do host languages and host cultures attest to constructions of the world that are incommensurable
with my own?” (ibid). Consideration of several Spanish examples prompts a pair of related
practical queries: “If we translate…colloquially, are we simply undermining [some] of the most
interesting differences in the ways that the two languages negotiate experience?” – On the other
hand, “if we draw attention to differences by foregrounding the literal…aren’t we merely
exoticizing a distinction imposed by our foreignness, by our own point of view, one that isn’t
discerned by the readers of the host language…” (112). In any case, careful, contextualized
translating reveals that “there seems to be a close relation between the particularities of language
and the perceptions and conceptions of the speakers of that language” (113)—a relationship
involving semantic and/or pragmatic “meaning” that needs to be accounted for in any serious
translation, like that of Scripture (e.g., via expository notes, or some other device, depending on
the medium of message transmission).

With particular reference to the translation of poetry, his specialty, Gander concludes,
“Maybe there are times when not ‘representing’ the original is precisely what permits the creation
of something less definitive but more ongoing, a form of translation that amplifies and renews
(and even multiplies) the original poetry’s meanings” (115). Although one must take care of
possible erroneous amplification or multiplication of meaning in the case of biblical poetry,
meaningful experimentation with regard to poetic form, including certain felicitous foreignizing
reflections, in order to enhance the aesthetic and affective dimensions of the original text may
well turn out to be rewarding, especially when an oral performance is in view. “From even such
intermittent linguistic collaborations, a whole new realm of sonorous interaction and implication
becomes possible, allowing [one] to create a more expansive and expressive prosody and inviting
readers [and hearers in particular] to venture a little further across the border” (116) towards
the verbal domain of the source text.

13.9 Misreading Orhan Pamuk

In “Misreading Orhan Pamuk” (ch. 9), Maureen Freely documents the various linguistic,
symbolical, and emotive676 challenges that she experienced when translating several novels by

675
The first part of the title regarding the “leap” derives from Robert Bly’s (1972) collection of
poetry entitled Leaping Poetry: An Idea with Poems and Translations (107): “What Bly’s ‘leaping poetry’ boils
down to—‘leaping is the ability to associate fast’—is a diffusion of Ezra Pound’s translation of Aristotle:
‘Swift perception of relations, hallmark of genius’” (108). Gander uses the device of “caesura” (a break or
pause introduced into a poetic line, like the athnah in Hebrew) to deal with various rhythms, or a “call
and response” pattern in the translation of Spanish poetry (112-115).
676
“Our greatest area of difficulty was the language of emotion, which tends to be expansive and
even anatomical in Turkish” (121).
341
the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk into English.677 In an exceptional manner of collaboration,
Freely, herself a novelist, was able to work closely together with the author, Parmuk, to produce
a joint work, the additional effort being necessary “because we both knew that the English
translation would form the basis for most translations into other languages (…now more than
sixty)” (120).678 Freely describes her multifaceted role as follows: “A translator did not just need
to find the right words, stay in close conversation with the author, and run interference for him
as the book made its way through the publication process; she also had to do everything she
could to contextualize the book for readers who were not familiar with Turkey—not inside the
text but outside it, in journals and newspapers, and at conferences, symposia, literature
festivals…” (123). As already noted, various types of paratextual contextualization are frequently
used by Bible translators and publishers nowadays, but extratextual means similar to those
mentioned by Freely should also be seriously considered, thus hopefully engaging those readers
and listeners who do not possess or have access to a printed copy of the Scriptures.

13.10 On Translating a Poem

In chapter 10, José Manuel Prieto describes his experiences “On Translating a Poem by Osip
Mandelstam” from the original Russian into Spanish.679 “The poem was the celebrated ‘Epigram
Against Stalin,’ which begins with the line ‘My zhivem pod soboiu ne chuia strany’ (‘We live without
feeling the country beneath our feet’)” (127). Prieto presents a most interesting historical and
linguistic “commentary” on the successive lines of this famous poem,680 which in fluid lyric
sarcasm expresses Mandelstam’s bitter critique of the great persecutor of himself and his people.
Prieto introduces his revealing observations on the poem with an astute, indeed poetic reflection
on the difficulties that he experienced in the process: “It was virtually impossible to translate its
sonorities, or the richness of its many images that don’t come through or resonate in the target
language—in my case, Spanish. As the poem moves from one language into another, the aura of
meaning and allusion that is absolutely transparent to the Russian listeners the poem was
addressed to is lost. It’s as if the poem were a tree and we could only manage to transplant its trunk
and thickest limbs, while leaving all its green and shimmering foliage in the territory of the other
language” (128, added emphasis). How often does this same deflated feeling of creative loss and
deficiency strike Bible translators when contemplating their current rendition of one of the great
poems or poetic passages of Scripture—Genesis 1, Exodus 15, Judges 5, 2 Samuel 22, Job 3,
Psalm 23, Isaiah 40, Ezekiel 37, Hosea 2, Joel 2, Habakkuk 3, Matthew 5, John 17, 1 Corinthians
13, Ephesians 1, Revelation 7, and so many more?

677
The difficulties were also political in nature, for “over two generations [in the 20th century] [a]
program of state intervention in the Turkish language has resulted in the loss of 60 percent of its
vocabulary…most of the lost words [being] of Arabic or Persian origin” (119).
678
A similar result is seen in the case of certain Bible translations in languages of wider
communication. Knowing the potential for the extended influence of such versions, greater attention and
perhaps also resources can be devoted to their careful preparation. This occurred with the new Chewa
Bible translation (E. Wendland, Buku Loyera (‘Holy Book’), Blantyre: Kachere Books, 1997), for example,
which after its publication (and even before, in draft form), has served as a model in the 21st century for
many other translations within east-central Africa, where Chichewa is spoken as a first or second language
by some twenty million people.
679
This essay has itself been expertly translated into English by Esther Allen. Osip Mandelstam, of
Jewish ancestry, “ranks among the most significant Russian poets of the twentieth century”
(www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/osip-mandelstam -- accessed 11/10/2015).
680 It is “described by one critic as the sixteen lines of a death sentence…perhaps the twentieth
century’s most important political poem” (128).
342
13.11 Are We the Folk in this Lok?

“Are We the Folk in this Lok?”681 is the thematic query posed by Christi A. Merrill (ch. 11), as
she explores the notion of authorship and “Translating in the Plural” in relation to traditional
verbal art forms (“folklore”). The illustrative focus of her discussion is a Hindi short story by
Vijay Dan Detha that “itself was inspired by a Rajasthani folktale” (143). The problem of
compositional origin arises, she suggests, when we conform “to modern (European) notions of
single authorship when the creative process itself is decidedly plural” (ibid). Her solution, stated
at the outset and defended in her essay, is “to create a new category called ‘storywriter,’ which
can apply equally to author and translator as be used as the literary equivalent of a ‘storyteller’”
(ibid). One may debate whether this proposal regarding terminology really helps settle the issue,
but Merrill moves on to consider the important factor of medium of transmission (oral
performance versus written text), which clearly muddies the waters. For example, Albert Lord’s
theory (Singer of Tales) “fails to take into account…the role played by the invisible, nameless
scribe setting these songs to paper,” so if he “can insist that each performance of a song is a
creation unique in its own right and not a mere reproduction, then he should consider a written
version as yet another performance” (147). The Brothers Grimm are a case in point: “[They] did
not seem to distinguish authenticity based on oral versus written sources, but rather would write
down as many versions as they heard, and then begin the arduous process of refining them in
order ‘to create an ideal type for the literary fairy tale, one that sought to be as close to the oral
tradition as possible, while incorporating stylistic, formal, and substantial thematic changes to
appeal to a growing bourgeois audience’” (148).682

Merrill’s argument is that “while logocentricity encourages us to believe the power of the
story can be reduced to specific words in a fixed text, lok-centricity forces us to embrace the
ambiguity and temporality inherent in plural play” (152). She further recommends that “we
recast the author –translator relationship in such a way as to emphasize the creative enterprise
we both participate in” (154). Of what relevance is the preceding discussion to Bible translation?
In recent years, folklore-based proposals like those of Merrill regarding authorship, scribal
influence, a “flexible tradition” of textual transmission, and “multiple authorship” (no “divine”
involved!) are being increasingly applied in biblical studies, and the potential impact upon
translation is considerable. For example, what is the “original text” (or better perhaps, the
“earliest established text”) of Scripture that we are to translate (in whatever language), and if
there is no recognized, documentable “source text” (as many would claim), then how does this
position affect our practical manner or method of translating and familiar qualitative notions
such as “fidelity,” “accuracy,” “equivalence,” and “relevance”?683

13.12 Choosing an English for Hindi

In chapter 12, Jason Grunebaum considers the issue of “Choosing an English for Hindi,” which
“raises some very interesting questions about the process of translation and the intended
audience” (156). Audience location is important in relation to both the language of the ST and
that of the TT speakers. In particular, “the translator’s process of bringing cultural differences
and nuances from the source language [Hindi] into English, weighing one strategy against
another, might conclude with one choice if the English reader is from North America and quite

681
“Here I mean lok in the sense of people or folk, but also in the sense of worlds” (149).
682
Citing Jack Zipes, The Brothers Grimm: From Enchanted Forests to Modern World (New York and
London: Routledge, 1988), 10.
683
For a discussion of these and related issues, see ch. 3 in E. Wendland, Orality and Scripture:
Composition, Translation, and Transmission (Dallas, SIL International, 2013).
343
another if the reader is from South Asia” (156).684 Grunebaum employs two contrastive case
studies to illustrate certain key aspects of the hypothetical decision-making process involved
when translating certain technical terms and culturally specific concepts from Hindi into English:
Krishna of South Delhi and Kris of Chicago. For example, with Krishna as the “ideal reader,” the
translator “can leave some Hindi words in the English translation” (157), and there would be
“many fewer cultural differences” that s/he would need to deal with. Furthermore, s/he “might
also decide to write in a more South Asianized” dialect of English, e.g., “I am just coming” (=
“I’ll be right back”) (158). For Kris, on the other hand, “much more translation will need to be
done” (159), for example, using special devices like a “stealth gloss” to “sneak a definition…into
the English text” of a Hindi local term or culturally specific concept (158). Grunebaume provides
several fascinating examples of such terms and how he would handle them when translating for
a Western audience in a situation where footnotes or a glossary are not allowed (ftn. 2, 167-168):
juthan—“leftover food that has been made ritually impure by someone else’s having touched it”
(161) and swadeshi—“literally it means both of one’s own country (India) and something made
and manufactured in one’s own country (India)” (163). The decision-making process outlined for
these two cases is very instructive, also for Bible translators, as is Grunebaum’s final piece of
advice when seeking to work out “difficult conversion problems”—simply, “enthusiasm”! (167).

13.13 The Translator’s Afterword

In Chapter 13, “As Translator, as Novelist: The Translator’s Afterword,” the well-known Japanese
novelist and translator Haruki Murakami reflects on his translation of Scott Fitzgerald’s novel
The Great Gatsby as well as the controversial history of Fitzgerald’s colorful life.685 In situating
his own rendition in relation to other Japanese versions of the novel, Mukarami observes:
“Although numerous literary works might properly be called ‘ageless,’ no translation belongs in
that category. . . . when a specific translation is imprinted too deeply on the minds of its readers
for too long, it runs the risk of damaging the original” (171). He does not elaborate, but a major
type of “damage” might be that the translation actually replaces the original in people’s minds,
and the venerable King James Version of the Bible comes to mind here. “It is therefore imperative
that new versions appear periodically” for the purpose of linguistic “updating” and to offer “a
broader spectrum of choices” (ibid), and this has been proven over the long history of Bible
translating. A particular challenge for Murakami was how to deal with “the beauty of Fitzgerald’s
fluent, elastic prose” (172), “which flows as does a piece of elegant music, and his sentences ride
upon this rhythm” (174). In his effort to “recreate that rhythm in Japanese” (175), Murakami
“found himself reading sections of the novel aloud as [he] worked, sometimes in the original
English and sometimes in Japanese” (ibid).686 That would be an excellent practice for all Bible
translators to emulate when working on prose and, especially, poetic texts. Not only are more
translations actually heard than silently read, but a translation that is sensitive to the spoken
word as it is heard will be easier to read as well.

13.14 Haruki Murakami and the Culture of Translation

Chapter 14, by Ted Goosen, is a short tribute to “Haruki Murakami and the Culture of
Translation.” “Japanese culture is often characterized as a culture of translation” because “the
Japanese language of today is the result of translators struggling to match Chinese characters

684
At the time of publication, the author estimated there to be at least “254 million English
speakers and potential readers” in the general region of “South Asia” (156). As the “‘associate official
language’ of India, English is obviously an extremely important bridge language on the continent” (159).
685
This essay was translated from Japanese by the next essayist, Ted Goosen (ch. 14).
686
On the other hand, his strategy for “translating Gatsby’s per phrase, ‘old sport’” (181) was simply
to import the expression into Japanese because “try as I might, I could find no Japanese word with similar
associations” (182)!
344
and Japanese words, affixing native pronunciation in some cases, adopting approximations of
Chinese pronunciation in others…” (183). On the other hand, “the founders of Japanese modern
literature [including Haruki Murakami] tended to be either scholars of Western literature or
translators” (ibid). But Murakami went even further, and when creatively tackling the rhythmic
prose of The Great Gatsby developed a distinctive rhythm of writing drawn from 20th century
American jazz. Though deemed “unnatural” by “some Japanese critics,” his translations are so
popular that “the ‘Murakami style’ now feels quite normal, especially for those raised on it” since
the 1980s (185). Such an idiosyncratic personal style would not be recommended for any
translation of Scripture, but a procedure that pays major attention to the “music of language” is
one that should definitely be encouraged.

13.15 Translating Jacopone da Todi

In his case study on “Translating Jacopone da Todi” (ch. 15), Lawrence Venuti addresses the
challenge of “Archaic Poetries and Modern Audiences.” Venuti is rightly skeptical “as to whether
cross-cultural understanding is possible in literary translation, particularly when the foreign text
to be translated was produced in a remote historical period” (187). He renders his usual criticism
of Eugene A. Nida’s early (1964) notion of “equivalent effect” (188), but strangely, does not draw
attention to Nida’s later (1986) concept of “functional equivalence”687 when observing that
“modern translators have been forced to develop strategies that answer primarily to the function
which the translations were designed to serve” (194, emphasis added). In any case, Venuti
focuses on the difficulty of dealing with archaic poetic forms in translation: “Prosody, in
particular, is a repository of literary traditions and practices, so that the translator’s effort to
imitate somehow the meter or rhythm of an archaic foreign poem cannot simply restore past
sounds and listening experiences for readers who do not have sufficient access to the foreign
context” (189). Venuti illustrates his argument by fairly critiquing the poetic translation
techniques of Ezra Pound.

One possible solution, though only for experienced scholarly translators it would seem, is to
create a “stylistic analogue [that] signals the linguistic and literary features of the foreign text in
a disjunctive and indirect manner, through the interpretive differences that transform the foreign
forms and themes as well as the receiving literature” (191). The problem is that such a rendition
would require an equally sophisticated interpretive audience: “Can a translation of an archaic
foreign poem be appreciated by readerships who do not necessarily share the interpretation that
the translator has inscribed in the text through a stylistic analogue?” This would appear to be
the challenge faced also by Bible translators, say, of the Psalms, but hopefully a sufficient
hermeneutical framework should have been established for readers/hearers who are familiar
with the Scriptures in general and who have been educated as to how to understand these ancient
prayer-poems through the teaching ministry of the church.

Venuti exemplifies his own innovative method of approaching these issues by means of a
rather detailed comparative study of several lyric renditions from the original Umbrian composed
by the medieval Italian poet Jacopone da Todi. He precedes his own experimental versions aimed
at creating a “stylistic analogue” with the query: “Will the translations work for an audience of
literary scholars and translators who not only have some familiarity with the traditional materials
I have used, but can understand (if not accept) the theoretical rationale for my method?” (202).
This would appear to constitute a rather small target group indeed. On the other hand, one
wonders if Venuti has not set himself too small a target to aim at with the self-imposed scholarly

687
Technically termed “Skopos [purpose] theory” in functionalist translation theory, which though
not specifically named, is clearly embraced and developed rhetorically in Jan de Waard and Eugene A.
Nida, From One Language To Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1986).
345
strictures placed upon his methodology. How much of the original poetic technique does a
modern audience really need to comprehend in order to evaluate and appreciate (or critique)
Venuti’s lyric efforts, a sample of which follows (O papa Bonifazio, 204-205)?688
My dear Pope Boniface,
I suffer your disgrace,
the dreaded malediction
of excommunication.
You spoke with forkéd tongue
and deeply I was stung:
it has to lick my sore
to show the plague the door;
because I’m sure my grief
can’t find the least relief
without the execution
of your absolution.
Out of grace I beg you,
say, “Ego te absolvo,”
leaving my other fears,
till past this vale of tears.

13.16 “Ensemble Discords”

In “‘Ensemble discords’: Translating the Music of Scève’s Délie” (ch. 16), Richard Sieburth unfolds
a rather technical description of his efforts to translate Délie (1544), a celebrated Italian musical
poem by the composer Scève, following the three essential categories proposed by the famous
Roman politician and philosopher Boethius in his 6th century treatise De Institutione Musica
(209).689 One really has to read Sieburth’s essay rather closely in order to appreciate his specialist
insights as he explains his varied translating procedures; even his figurative description of the
translation process itself almost requires a musical mind to fathom: “Translation, like love (or
music)—as I have been trying to suggest with Scève—involves being apart together, mutually
ingathered by an interval or caesura that, as he puts it…, renders us ‘ensemble discords’” (219).
Perhaps the ultimate aim of this imagery is to suggest something of the paradox(es) that
translation present(s)—for example, the unified looking (and sounding) outcome in the target
language, when later assessed by the translator, who realizes all the disjunctions and infelicities
that are present when compared with the source language base text. But the good news (if it may
be considered as such) is this: The vast majority of those for whom we translate are not translators
themselves and/or are unable, on their own, to access the original in order to make any critical
evaluation.690

688
The original Umbrian poem is classified as a lauda, “a religious song or hymn, designed for a
soloist with a chorus and framed in different meters and verse structures” (192). Jacopone da Todi
composed over a hundred such poems.
689
These are musica mundana (“the overall harmony of the universe”), musica humana (“which
unites the incorporeal activity of the reason with the body”), and musica instrumentalis (“the actual singing
or playing of music”) (209).
690
Of course, Bible translators do want their target audience to thoughtfully, even emotively,
respond to their publications, draft versions in particular. However, such popular criticism needs to be
346
13.17 Translation and the Art of Revision

In chapter 17, Susan Bernofsky offers many helpful suggestions regarding “Translation and the
Art of Revision.” She leads off with her main point: “Revision isn’t the first thing that comes to
mind when we think about creativity and artistic production, but it is nonetheless a crucial part
of the writing process” (223). And translation involves a complex form of writing—hence also re-
writing: “Although we strive to produce translations that look as though they hatched perfectly
formed from the translator’s skull, generally a great deal of reworking is required” (ibid).
Bernofsky, an award-winning literary translator and educator, proceeds to outline her four-stage
process of translation-and-revision, concluding: “There is rarely a single perfect solution to any
given translation problem, and so the process of revising involves trying out dozens of potential
solutions until one of them begins to shimmer in that peculiar way that marks it as the best
possible choice” (225). A carefully controlled and documented revision procedure must also be
followed in any Bible translation project, due to the sacred nature of the source text, its
compound size and complexity, as well as the manifold individual and public use for which the
translation is prepared. A common problem facing such projects is the frequent lack of credible
“potential solutions” that are generated over time, especially concerning certain key theological
terms and controversial passages; on the other hand, the options that do become available may
be evaluated by a (hopefully) coordinated team of colleagues rather than a single person, “the
translator.”

Bernofsky continues with some examples of revision work—her own preceded by several
from August Wilhelm Schlegel, “one of the greatest German translators of all time” and a “master
of rhythm, tone, and nuance” (225). Special attention is rightly given to the sound of the text:
“The translation does have to find a rhythmical identity and integrity that will convince readers
[especially hearers!] they are encountering a genuine piece of writing. . . . Revising means
listening to a potential text, hearing it amid all the rhythmical detritus of inadequate versions
[so that] with each successive draft, the text draws closer to the ideal form it will inhabit when
its transformation is complete” (229). In short, “voice is the crux of all translating”—one’s inner
and outer ears—because “hearing [the text] happens on a non-cognitive level, but approaching
[it] cognitively while listening can help” (230).

The translator must work hard to counteract the fact that “style can go soggy in translation,”
and so “emphasizing and underscoring a text’s characteristic attributes [i.e., functionally, if not
formally] is crucial to good translation, a way of turning up the volume on a key aspect of a
sentence or phrase to solidify the writer’s voice in the translation” (ibid), which is thereby
complemented by the translator’s voice. Finally, Bernofsky offers some excellent advice for all
dynamic and creative literary translators, including those who seek to functionally render the
varied literature of Scripture: “All translation is transformation. It just isn’t possible for a text to
work in its new language and context in exactly the same way it worked in the original. When
you create a translation of a literary work, you are creating a new set of rules for the text to
operate by. This is what revision is for. . . . and yes, somewhere along the line the original text
must be forgotten” (233)—though, we might add in the case of Scripture, never completely or
for too long a time.691

adequately informed in the sense that respondents should first be educated with regard to the nature and
purpose of the version at hand—as well as some of the difficult choices that had to be made in its
production.
691
Thus, this “forgetting” of the original text pertains mainly to the linguistic forms in which the
message was expressed; after the message has been re-shaped in the TL, then the translated result must be
carefully compared in terms of inscribed content and intent with that of the source text, which is thereby
“remembered” again.
347
13.18 The Art of Losing

In the final essay (ch. 18), Clare Cavanagh discusses “The Art of Losing: Polish Poetry and
Translation.” This title reflects the opinion of “many critics” that “losing things is what translators
do best,” and that “translators of poetry generally get the worst of it” since they must confront
“the forms of meaning and the meaning of forms” (234). However, the title actually derives from
Elizabeth Bishop’s villanelle,692 “One Art,” the first stanza of which reads as follows (235):
The art of losing isn’t hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.

In this study then, Cavanagh aims “to take a look at what is lost and found when you try to
follow the poet’s form-creating impulse by re-creating, however imperfectly, the original poem’s
rhyme and meter” (ibid), with reference to the Polish poet, Stanislaw Baranczak’s borrowing of
the forms of Bishop’s villanelle in his poem “Plakala w nocy” (“She Cried That Night”).693
Cavanagh then considers some additional poems (in translation) by Baranczak and several other
Polish poets to further illustrate “what’s been lost and found in translation” (236)—actually, with
special reference to the latter, as particular instances of poetic creative reconstruction are briefly
discussed (“the rich Polish tradition of poetic creation from loss,” 241). In conclusion, she
observes: “Form, substance, and joyful failure: these are the defining elements…both in lyric
poetry and in poetic translation. Of course translating poetry is impossible: all the best things
are. But the impulse that drives one to try is not so far removed, I think, from the force that sends
the lyric poet out time after time to master the world in a few lines of verse. . . . You try remaking
[the original] in your own language, in your own words, in the vain hope of getting it once and
for all, of finally making it your own” (244).

Would that all Bible translators were motivated and driven by the same—yea rather, a
higher—desire, the impulse of seeking to serve the Word-inspiring Lord of sacred Scripture. For
them, when they do try their best, there is no “vain hope” or final failure, for they will find
blessing not only in the final version, joyfully produced, but also during the long journey of
getting there (Psalm 119:103-105, NIV):
How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
I gain understanding from your precepts…
Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light for my path.

As I hope to have implied in the preceding overview, the diverse essays collected in In
Translation are both insightful and instructive on many levels for all literary translators, teachers,
and researchers, including those who have the gift and the supporting resources to apply some
of these principles when tackling biblical poetry.694 This book, written by professional poets
and translation practitioners, is therefore well worth a read by all experienced translators of
Scripture and their consultant trainers—ideally, if possible, also by their eventual audiences, by

692
A villanelle is “a pastoral or lyrical poem of nineteen lines, with only two rhymes throughout,
and some lines repeated” (Concise Oxford Dictionary).
693
This formal lyric imitation appears in Baranczak’s collection, Chirurgiczna precyzia (Surgical
Precision, 1988).
694
I realize that such a challenging endeavor is simply not possible for all teams and every
translator, due to one critical lack or another within their overall translation setting.
348
people who will, to one degree or another, evaluate their published poetic renditions, perhaps in
close comparison with other versions in which the effort to beautifully and powerfully lyricize
the vernacular has not been made.

349
 14. REVIEW: why translation matters—also for LiFE

14.1 Introduction

why translation matters (the title as published, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010) is an
outstanding book on the subject of modern “literary translation,” written by Professor Edith
Grossman—herself a nationally-recognized literary translator, critic, and teacher.695 This slim,
easy to read volume (135 pages) of three chapters plus a lengthy “Introduction,” also includes a
Preface, a helpful Index, and a listing of “Important Translations,” works cited, and
acknowledgements. Prof. Grossman first of all presents a cogent argument for the cultural
importance of literary translation from an American perspective, at the same time highlighting
the vital role of the translator in this complex process of intercultural, trans-linguistic
communication. Along the way, she not only explains “why translation matters,” but she also
clarifies via exposition and example “what kind of translation matters,”—namely, a rendition that
enables readers (and hearers!) to “perceive the text, emotionally and artistically, in a manner
that parallels and corresponds to the esthetic experience of its first readers” (7).696 It is this
second, implicit question addressed by Grossman that I am especially concerned with in my
review from the specific viewpoint of a “literary functional equivalence” (LiFE) approach to Bible
translating.697 This latter perspective guides my selective presentation of the author’s perceptive
and informative argument, which depends largely on direct citations from her text itself. After
this interactive overview, I conclude with a section that underscores the relevance of Grossman’s
insights for a LiFE-style methodology and a final practical application to the literary translation
of Psalm 13 in English by Dr. Brenda Boerger and my own version in Chichewa, a major Bantu
language spoken in SE Africa. The aim of my summary-review is to suggest the relevance of
contemporary, professional translation theory and practice for rendering the texts of sacred
Scriptures in a way that more closely corresponds functionally to their dynamic literary character
and artistic quality in the original source languages.698

695
Prof. Grossman (PhD New York University) is one of the most highly regarded contemporary
American translators of Latin American literature, covering all genres, from the novel and poetry to non-
fiction. She has won numerous prestigious awards and in 2009 was elected to the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences; her master work is the translation of the classic Don Quixote. The book under
consideration is based on a series of inaugural lectures in the humanities delivered at Yale University in
2008.
696
All references are to the book under consideration, unless specified otherwise. She comments
further: “This is the translator’s grand ambition. Good translators approach that purpose. Bad translations
never leave the starting line.” In the course of her discussion, Grossman clearly identifies her definition of
what constitutes “good” and “bad” translations. Her goal when translating is rather similar to that of the
“dynamic equivalence” approach of E.A. Nida and C.R. Taber, that is, “defined in terms of the degree to
which receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner of
receptors in the source language”—with reference to the principal informative, expressive, and imperative
functions of language (The Theory and Practice of Translation [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969], 24-26).
697
As expounded and illustrated, for example, in LiFE-Style Translating: A Workbook for Bible
Translators (2nd ed.), Dallas: SIL International, 2011.
698
Some other works by literary translators that confirm and further develop Grossman’s approach
are these: Robert Wechsler, Performing Without a Stage: The Art of Literary Translation (North Haven, CT:
Catbird Press, 1998); Clifford E. Landers, Literary Translation: A Practical Guide (Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto,
and Sidney: Multilingual Matters, 2001); David Bellos, Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the
Meaning of Everything (London: Faber, 2012); Esther Allen and Susan Bernofsky, eds., In Translation:
Translators on Their Work and What it Means (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013; see ch. 12).
350
14.2 Why does translation matter?—Some cogent reasons

Grossman suggests five closely related reasons why it is necessary to think more seriously about
translation—“an area of literature that is too often ignored, misunderstood, or misrepresented”
(x). Translation enables us to:

a) Access literature “originally written in one of the countless languages we cannot read” (x).
“The very concept of world literature as a discipline fit for academic study depends on
the availability of translations” (13).

b) Gain an enriching understanding of and insight into new cultures and their literary productions:
“Translation always helps us to know, to see from a different angle, to attribute new value
to what once may have been unfamiliar” (xi). “Translation expands our ability to explore
through literature the thoughts and feelings of people from another society or another
time” (14)—“the many varieties of human experience and perception [that other
languages-cultures] can express” (17).

c) Expand and enhance our own language competence in many different ways: “Literary
translation infuses a language with influences, alterations, and combinations that would
not have been possible without the presence of translated foreign literary styles and
perceptions, the material significance and heft of literature that lies outside the territory
of the purely monolingual” (16).699 This impact is both conceptual and stylistic: “The kind
of artistic discovery that translation enables is profoundly important to the health and
vitality of any language and any literature” (17). “The result of the linguistic infusion of
new means of expression is an expansion of vocabulary, evocative potentiality, and
structural experimentation” (22).700

d) Magnify and diversify both the individual and corporate imagination and world-view: “Imagine
how bereft we would be if the only fictional worlds we could explore, the only vicarious
literary experiences we could have, were those written in languages we read easily” (26)
and in cultural settings that we are familiar with.

e) Strengthen our vision of a diverse, yet common humanity: “[Translation] matters for the same
reasons and in the same way that literature matters—because it is crucial to our sense of
ourselves as humans” (32).

699
“Goethe believed that a literature exhausts itself and its resources become vitiated if it closes
itself off to the influences and contributions of other literatures” (22).
700
“The more a language embraces infusions and transfusions of new elements and foreign turns
of phrase, the larger, more forceful, and more flexible it becomes as an expressive medium” (23).
351
 Though translation and translations matter for these and undoubtedly other reasons as well,
those who provide these literary works—the translators—are not often very highly appreciated
or even recognized for the significant contribution that they make to the literature of a language.
A great part of the problem relates to the lack of attention that is given to translations and the
work of translating in the major English-speaking nations.701 “The sad statistics indicate that in
the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, only two to three percent of books
published each year are literary translations” (27-28).702 Furthermore, “the majority of American
and British publishers resist the very idea of translation and persistently hold the line against the
presence of too many translated works in their catalogues” (28). Apparently publishers feel that
“English language readers are put off by translations,” which results in their “longtime and
forever-mindless reluctance to put the translator’s name, in legible size, on the cover of a book
that has been brought over into a second language” (28).703

It certainly does not help the situation, according to Grossman, that “reviewers seem to care
about translation even less than publishers do” and “tend not to speak substantively about
translation or its practitioners, even when the book they are translating is a translated work”
(29-30). When ethically forced to acknowledge the fact, frequently “this burdensome necessity
is taken care of with a single dismissive and uninformative adverb [for example, ‘ably’] paired
with the verb ‘translated’” (30). Despite in most cases not knowing the original language of the
work being reviewed, “by an act of prestidigitation that verges on the miraculous…they often
discus the style and language of the book as if they were discussing the language of the original
writer, as if the work of the translator—the work they are reviewing—were not the connection
that has allowed them the read the book in the first place” (31).704

14.3 What kind of a translation matters?—One that matches the literary quality
of the original text

Throughout the text of why translation matters, Prof. Grossman includes a veritable cornucopia
of quotable quotes regarding the specific character of the type of “literary” translation that she
has in mind. I can do no better than to offer readers a selection of these important insights, the
topics of which cover the full gamut of modern translation theory and practice. I made an effort
to categorize the following ten principles and procedures for ease of reference into some of the
principal issues that interest or concern meaning-oriented Bible translators today, and have
added periodic footnotes that offer further reflection from a consultant’s perspective:

a) How can we define “translation,” basically? “The most fundamental description of what
translators do is that we write—or perhaps rewrite—in language B a work of literature

701
Perhaps attributable “to the high degree of xenophobia rampant in our country [USA]” (43).
702
This embarrassingly low figure may be compared with other languages and countries “like
France or Germany, Italy or Spain, and in Latin America,” where “the number is anywhere from twenty-
five to forty percent” (28).
703
Grossman recognizes the fact that, generally-speaking nowadays in the literate West, “the
number of readers of literature is on the decline,” and consequently “translations and the people who
create them can become too easy a target for a beleaguered industry”; but her point is that “shortchanging
translators and ignoring translation in no way helps to solve the grave problem of a reduced readership”
(29).
704
With justified sarcasm, Grossman reflects on the competency of monolingual reviewers: “Do
they think translations consist of a magical kind of tracing paper placed over the original text? Are they
really convinced that the contribution of the translator is a merely rote mechanical exercise on that
miraculous tracing paper, like the wondrous interlinear translations of second-year language students?”
(31).
352
 originally composed in language A” (7) … The undeniable reality is that the work
becomes the translator’s (while simultaneously and mysteriously somehow remaining the
work of the original author) as we transmute it into a second language…the result of a
series of creative decisions and imaginative acts of criticism” (8).705

b) What does “style” have do to with the task of translating? “Translators need to develop a
keen sense of style in both languages, honing and expanding our critical awareness of the
emotional impact of words, the social aura that surrounds them, the setting and mood
that informs them, the atmosphere they create. We struggle to sharpen and elaborate our
perception of the connotations and implications behind basic denotative meaning in a
process not dissimilar to the efforts writers made to increase their familiarity with and
competence in a given literary idiom” (7-8).706

c) How do the oral and aural faculties affect and influence the process of translation? “In the
process of translating, we endeavor to hear the first version of the work as profoundly
and completely as possible, struggling to discover the linguistic charge, the structural
rhythms, the subtle implications, the complexities of meaning and suggestion in
vocabulary and phrasing, and the ambient, cultural inferences and conclusions these
tonalities allow us to extrapolate” (8-9).707 “I always seem to conceive of and discuss the
translating process as essentially auditory, something immediately available to other
people, as opposed to a silent solitary process. I think of the author’s voice and the sound
of the text, then of my obligation to hear both as clearly and profoundly as possible, and
finally of my equally pressing need to speak the piece [idiomatically] in a second
language” (12).708

705
This process of “criticism” includes a careful and complete analysis and qualitative assessment
of the original source text, noting in particular the various author-composed “communicative clues” that
direct the reader/hearer to attend to features of special structural, semantic, and pragmatic importance.
706
Here Grossman well summarizes the process of “going the extra mile” when translating—where
translators closely investigate the various non-referential aspects of “meaning” that constitute such an
essential part of the original “message”—indeed, also of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, in my experience
most Bible translators have neither the expertise nor the time to examine and cope with this crucial
dimension of literary significance.
707
This is another important facet of translating that many Bible translators either ignore or are
ill-equipped to deal with. The sounds of the original text are a vital, often memorable aspect of its overall
meaning, and so a certain minimum level of competence is required to analyze its semantic or pragmatic
significance. The translated text must in turn be evaluated also with respect to its sonic structure and
style—how well these features corresponds, functionally-speaking, with the source text (cf. E. Wendland,
Orality and Scripture: Composition, Translation, and Transmission [Dallas: SIL International, 2013], ch. 1).
708
Thus, one of the best ways to test a translation is to utter it aloud to yourself “in the author’s
voice”—second, to do the same in a public oral performance before an audience, as the discipline of
“performance criticism” would teach us (cf. Orality and Scripture, 319-320).
353
 d) In what respects are translators like actors, “performing without a stage”?709 “The unique
factor in the experience of translators is that we not only are listeners to the text, hearing
the author’s voice in the mind’s ear, but speakers of a second text—the translated work—
who repeat what we have heard, though in another language, a language with its own
literary tradition…which must be treated with as much respect, esteem, and appreciation
as we bring to the language of the original writer. … Translators are like actors who speak
the lines as the author would if the author could speak English [or any TL]. … Translation
is…a kind of interpretive performance, bearing the same relationship to the original text
as the actor’s work does to the script, the performing musician’s to the composition” (10-
11).710

e) To what extent does the activity of literary translation involve artistic “re-creation”? “Our
purpose is to re-create as far as possible within the alien system of a second language, all
the characteristics, vagaries, quirks, and stylistic peculiarities of the work we are
translating. We do this by analogy—that is, by finding comparable, not identical,
characteristics, vagaries, quirks, and stylistic peculiarities in the second language” (10).711

f) What is the antithesis of genuine “literary” translation? “Recreating the work in any other
way [than by re-creative analogy]—for example, by succumbing to the literalist fallacy
and attempting to duplicate the text in another language, following a pattern of word-
for-word transcription—would lead not to a translation but to a grotesque variation…
Furthermore, a mindless, literalist translation would constitute a serious breach of
contract…it is not acceptable, readable, or faithful, as the [publishing] letters of
agreement demand, though it certainly may have its own perverse originality” (10-11).712

709
See Wechsler, Performing Without a Stage, passim.
710
We note here, in contrast to many contemporary literary critics, Grossman’s pointed concern
for the original author and the source text, which any translation must identify with in as many tangible
ways as possible. Thus, there is an inscribed “original meaning” that must necessarily guide any subsequent
translation and its assessment with regard to fidelity. If this is true with respect to secular literary works,
how much more so the sacred Scriptures? Grossman also rightly attends to the language of translation and
the need for translators to be highly competent, even expert artist-composers, when preparing their local,
contemporary re-formulation of the source text.
711
The key notion here is “comparable, by analogy”—but how can this be carried out? Translation
theorists suggest different expressions to denote their desired goal—“functional equivalence,” “interpretive
resemblance,” “critical correspondence,”—but in the end, their application in practice depends on the
creative abilities and technical competencies of the translators themselves.
712
There is simply no way in which a literal, “formal correspondence,” “foreignizing”-type of
version can duplicate either the literary qualities of the biblical text, or the principal aspects of its intended
meaning for average (non-specialist) readers and hearers. A full literary version of the Scriptures, like the
original text, should not sound like a translation at all—except for the periodic references to strange
persons, places, customs, and artifacts, as would be the case in any classic novel set in an ancient time,
and unfamiliar place, and a foreign culture. The language (lexicon, syntax, poetics) may well be stretched
in the TL rendition, but not strangely so, in unnatural, alien-sounding diction.
354
 g) Are traditional translation concepts like “equivalence” and “fidelity” out-of-date and in need of
replacement? “Intrinsic to the concept of a translator’s fidelity to the effect and impact of
the original is making the second version of the work [the translation] as close to the first
writer’s intention as possible. A good translator’s devotion to that goal is unwavering”
(31). “In translation, the ongoing, absolutely utopian ideal is fidelity. But fidelity should
never be confused with literalness” (67). “To my mind, a translator’s fidelity is not to
lexical pairings but to context—the implications and echoes of the first author’s tone,
intention, and level of discourse” (70-71). “Verse translation at best generates a wholly
new utterance in the second language—new, yet equivalent, of equal value” (89, citing
John Felstiner, Translating Neruda). “I have always believed that in the process of
rewriting a poem…it is incumbent upon me as the translator to hear that beat and transfer
an equivalent pulse into the English lines” (97). “In the best of all possible worlds…the
translation stands on independent, English-speaking legs and displays the ‘equal value’
[i.e., ‘equivalence’] that John Felstiner writes about so compellingly. At the same
time…the translation remains faithful to the esthetic and emotive reality of its source and
is a consistently true and accurate reflection of the first [source] poem” (99-100).713

h) How does the influence of “context” impact upon the work of translation? “Words mean as
indispensable parts of a contextual whole that includes the emotional tone and impact,
the literary antecedents, the connotative nimbus as well as the denotations of each
statement. … The meaning of a passage can almost always be rendered faithfully in a
second language, but its words, taken as separate entities, can almost never be.
Translators translate context” (71). … “Translating by analogy means we have to probe
into layers of purpose and implication, weigh and consider each element within its
literary milieu and stylistic environment, then make the great leap of faith into the
inventive rewriting of both text and context in alien terms” (73).714

713
The notion of “equivalence” in the translator’s toolkit of terms is also current in the works of
recognized authorities in the field of “translation studies,” for example, Jeremy Munday, Introducing
Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd ed. [London & New York: Routledge, 2008], 36-54;
Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories [New York & London: Routledge, 2010], 6-42); and Mona
Baker, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 2nd ed. (London & New York: Routledge, 2011],
passim).
714
Grossman recognizes that it is impossible to incorporate all of the essential conceptual context
necessary for interpreting a translation into the text itself—that various paratextual supplements are
necessary to create the necessary hermeneutical frame of reference to permit understanding (see E.
Wendland, Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation [Manchester: St. Jerome: 2008], 259-296). In her
magnum opus, the translation of Don Quixote, for example, she reports that “I chose to use footnotes,
many of them based on the notes in Riquer’s edition, and the others the result of my seemingly endless
perusals of encyclopedias, dictionaries, and histories” (86). A modern Bible translation, in order to be
effective as well as marketable, requires many other auxiliary aids, such as individual book introductions
355
 i) How does the translation of poetry compare to that of prose? “The translation of artful prose
and the translation of poetry are comparable in several significant ways. They both
presuppose in the original writing an exquisitely thoughtful use of language to create the
many effects that the literary arts are capable of: emotional resonance, conceptual
engagement, rhythmic pattern, esthetic tension, and sheer gorgeousness of expression.715
And they both present analogous challenges to the translator’s literary sensibilities and
our capacity for entering a text as deeply as possible. The specific experience of
translating poetry, with its obligatory attentiveness to the most-minute compositional
details—linguistic nuance, rhythm, and sound in two languages—enhances immeasurably
the approach to the translation of prose…” (92-93). However, since “poetry is the most
intense, most highly charged, most artful and complex form of language we have” (93),
“the confluence of sound, sense, and form in a poem presents an especially difficult
problem in parsing for the translator. How can you separate the inseparable? The
simultaneous, indissoluble components of a poetic statement have to be re-created in
another language without violating them beyond recognition… The language of the
poem, its syntax, lexicon, and structures, by definition have to be altered drastically, even
though the work’s statement and intention, its emotive content and imagery, must remain
the same” (95).

j) Finally, what is a good method or model for translating poetry?716 “I begin the attempt to
effect the transposition from Spanish to English by reading the poem aloud. … I repeat

and outlines, section headings, cross-references, illustrations, summary charts, a glossary of key terms or
an index, perhaps even a basic concordance.
715
Does this sentence adequately capture our thoughts, attitudes, and feelings as we read, study,
teach, and/or translate the texts of Scripture—generally, or only with respect to certain books or passages?
Perhaps in our desire to focus on sacred content—the referential “meat” of the biblical text—we tend to
ignore or overlook these esthetic responses and the impact they can have on our wider experience and
involvement with the Word of God. In Grossman’s opinion, as far as poetry is concerned, “of all these
poetic elements, the most important is rhythm. … Almost every poem uses rhythmic stresses and their
effects to create a powerful, frequently subliminal esthetic pull between the tension of anticipation or
expectation and its satisfaction or release…the music of a verse” (97). In my experience, especially when
translating the Psalms into a Bantu language, the rhythm, or beat, of the text along with its aural concord
and phonological appeal are features of utmost concern (see the example of Psalm 13 to follow).
716
This raises the interesting question: What makes a good translator—natural ability, formal and
informal training, expertise in both source and target languages and their literatures? Yes, all of these
qualities, and Grossman adds one more that I came to increasingly appreciate when working with many
mother-tongue African translators over the years: “I think that solutions to the most interesting problems
in translation ultimately depend on the translator’s intuition. For example, if part of the meaning is likely
to disappear in the translation, there are times when I prefer to add a few words that may not exist in the
original in order to convey the full idea” (Maria Salisbury, “The Making of a Translator: An Interview with
Edith Grossman” (no date), link at http://translation.utdallas.edu/Interviews/EdithGrossmanTR_41.html,
accessed on May 28, 2016).
356
 this procedure, reading the lines aloud, over and over again, until the Spanish pattern
have been internalized and I can start to hear in my mind’s ear the rhythms of a
preliminary English version. … When I finally write down a translated version, I read that
aloud as well, many more times than once, listening for the authenticity of the English
and its synergistic connection to the original, doing my best to have the two mesh until
the seams and points of union become invisible” (99)—or we might say, no longer
audible!717

14.4 How does a “literary translation” relate to Scripture?—The example of

Psalm 6

For Bible translators, consultants, their support staff and supporters, the question of “why
translation matters” does not arise, for it is a veritable matter of life or death, and the
communication of sacred Scripture, the regenerating Word of God, is probably their primary
calling and mission in life. However, the question of “what kind of translation” clearly is an issue
of concern that needs to be carefully considered in advance on the basis of substantial planning,
market research, and potential target audience testing.718 There are various types or styles of
translation possible, each in relation to a primary communicative purpose (Skopos), depending
on the needs and expressed wishes of the intended receptor, or user community, but the following
illustration relates specifically to the kind of version that Prof. Grossman recommends as
embodying a “literary” translation (16)—or in more explicit terms, a “literary functional
equivalence” (LiFE) rendition. A general way of defining “translation” more precisely in
contemporary terminology is as follows:

Translation is the conceptually-mediated re-composition of one contextually-framed text

within a different language and communication setting in the most relevant, functionally-
equivalent manner possible—that is, stylistically marked, more or less, in keeping with
the designated job commission agreed upon for the TL project concerned.719

More specifically then, the “literary” dimension would be infused functionally by giving
special attention in the translation process to the oratorical (oral-aural) as well as the artistic
(formal) and rhetorical (functional) aspects of the source text. This exercise in re-composition is
carried out in comparative relation to appropriate models and resources for textual transfer that
are found within the target language inventory of literary works, all genres and styles included.720
To illustrate this type of literary transformation in a language other than English, I will present
several poetic versions of Psalm 6, to be preceded by the original Hebrew text and a relatively
literal (“formal-correspondence”) English translation for reference. The English text includes a
selection of scholarly notes that provides a conceptual frame of reference to deepen one’s
understanding of this typical lament psalm and some of its hermeneutical challenges.721

717
Grossman’s perceptive poetic translation procedures may be compared with my own (Orality and Scripture,
302-322). Her focus on attaining functional equivalence between the sound quality of the source text and that of the
target text is a feature that needs to be incorporated more explicitly within my approach.
718
For some guidance, see Timothy Wilt and Ernst Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for
Bible Translators (Stellenbosch: SUN Press, 2008).
719
Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating, 104; see also pp. 104-106.
720
LiFE-Style Translating, 106-115.
721
Grey shading is used in the Hebrew and Chewa texts to highlight points of sonic significance.
357
 My application, limited though it may be due to space, will be based upon an initial
analytical examination of the text of Psalm 6, which is within the first set of the “Davidic” laments
in the Psalter (Pss. 3-7). Furthermore, it is “the fullest in exhibiting the key elements of the genre
and in ‘performing’ the drama of lament that moves from plea to praise.”722 This analysis focuses
first and foremost on the psalm’s micro-structure, a bottom-up perspective; then some
complementary top-down, literary-structural observations are advanced; finally, three samples
of a “direct,” literary-poetic mode of translation (including one of my own) are offered for
comparative exemplification and practical application.

14.4.1 The Microstructure of Psalm 6, with textual, literary, and exegetical notes723

For the music director, to be accompanied by

‫ל־ה ְשּׁ ִמ ֗ ִינית‬
ַ ‫ַל ְמנַ ֵצּ ַ֣ח ִ ֭בּנְ גִ ינוֹת ַ ֽע‬
stringed instruments, according to the
sheminith style;724
a psalm of David.
‫ִמזְ ֥מוֹר ְל ָדִ ֽוד׃‬
Stanza A: General APPEAL for help
1 LORD,725 do not rebuke me in726 your anger!
‫יחנִ י‬
֑ ֵ ‫תוֹכ‬
ִ ֥‫ֽהוה ַאל־ ְבּ ַא ְפָּך‬
֗ ָ ְ‫י‬
Do not discipline me727 in your raging fury!728
‫ְ ֽו ַאל־ ַבּ ֲח ָמ ְתָך֥ ְתיַ ְסּ ֵ ֽרנִ י׃‬
2 Have mercy on me, LORD, for I am frail!729
‫ָח ֵנּ֥נִ י יְ הוָ ֮ה ִ ֤כּי ֻא ְמ ֫ ַלל ָ ֥אנִ י‬
730 731
Heal me, LORD, for my bones are shaking!
‫הו֑ה ִ ֖כּי נִ ְב ֲה ֣לוּ ֲע ָצ ָ ֽמי׃‬
ָ ְ‫ְר ָפ ֵ ֥אנִ י י‬

722
Walter Brueggeman and Wm. H. Bellinger, Jr., Psalms (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2014), 48.
723
The gray shading highlights selected textual features of special interest that are commented on in these
notes. The English translation is that of the NET.
724
The meaning of the Hebrew term ‫ינית‬ ִ ֗ ‫“( ְשּׁ ִמ‬sheminith”) is uncertain; perhaps it refers to a particular style
of music (cf. 1 Chr. 15:21)—or to an eight-stringed instrument (John Goldingay, Psalms, vol. 1 (1-41) [Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2006], 135). “Ibn Ezra is probably right when he prefers ‘on the eighth mode,’ somewhat similar
to Gregorian chant” (Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003], 112).
725
The divine vocative that opens this psalm is an early indication of its urgency and intensity.
726
Whether the ‫ ְבּ‬of both cola has an instrumental (e.g., Pro. 3:11-12; Job 5:17) or causal (Ps. 38:1, 39:11)
sense is difficult to determine; perhaps both are intended, an instance of intentional poetic ambiguity—or “semantic
density” of expression: “Do not rebuke me by means of//because of your anger!”
727
The verb ‫ יָ ַסר‬suggests a didactic wisdom setting, with reference perhaps to a parent disciplining a child
(cf. Prov. 3:11). “Separating the negative from the verb…is very unusual and adds to this emphasis” (Goldingay,
Psalms, 136).
728
Note the negativized adjunct (prepositional) phrases (shaded) in 1a and 1b. Both are fronted (constituent
focus) before the respective verbs, seemingly to accent the Lord’s “anger” (apparent punishment) that the psalmist
feels in his desperate plight. The implication appears to be that the psalmist has sinned, causing God to discipline him
by bringing a life-threatening illness upon him (vv. 2-7), though there is no reference to sin in the psalm (cf. Pss. 32:5,
38:1-3).
729
The two negative appeals of v. 1 are balanced and complemented by a pair of positive correspondents in v.
2, but now, contrastively, the two verbs appear in clause-initial position.
730
“The petition ‘heal me’ does not necessarily refer to physical healing [only] but may well include every
restorative work that God does upon body and soul” (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms [Grand Rapids: Baker,
1969], 85).
731
The syntactic, morphological, and phonological (i.e., rhymed) parallelism involving an initial imperative
followed by a vocative in the two cola of v. 2 serves to audibly heighten the deep pathos of the psalmist’s appeal. His
358
 3 I am absolutely terrified,732
‫אד‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ְו֭נַ ְפ ִשׁי נִ ְב ֲה ָ ֣לה ְמ‬
and you, LORD – how long will this continue?733
‫ד־מ ָ ֽתי׃‬
ָ ‫֝הוה ַע‬
֗ ָ ‫וְ ַ֯א ָ ֥תּ ְי‬
Stanza B: Specific APPEAL for help
4 Relent,734 LORD, rescue me!735 ‫שׁוּבה ְי֭הוָ ה ַח ְלּ ָצ֣ה נַ ְפ ִ ֑שׁי‬ ָ֣
Deliver me because of your faithfulness!736 ‫יענִ י ְל ַ ֣מ ַען ַח ְס ֶ ֽדָּך׃‬ ֵ ֗ ‫וֹשׁ‬ִ ‫֝ה‬
5 For no one remembers you in the realm of ‫ִ ֤כּי ֵ ֣אין ַבּ ָ ֣מּוֶ ת זִ ְכ ֶ ֑רָך‬
death,737
In Sheol who gives you thanks?738 ‫ה־לְּך׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ִ֝בּ ְשׁ ֗אוֹל ִ ֣מי יֽ ֶוֹד‬

cry is correspondingly motivated by the two subsequent ‫ ִ ֤כּי‬clauses that refer to his frail physical condition. Normally
the verb ‫ ָבּ ַהל‬refers to an emotional response and means “tremble with fear, be terrified” (see vv. 3, 10). The “bones”
are viewed here as representing the entire body (synecdoche), which has been gravely affected by his illness. Thus,
the verb may figuratively refer to one of the effects of his physical ailment, perhaps a fever. In Ezek. 7:27 the verb
describes how the hands of the people will shake with fear when they experience the horrors of divine judgment. We
note also the typical poetic heightening or specification that occurs in the second parallel line (2b).
732
The suffixed form of ‫“( ֫ ֶנ ֶפשׁ‬inner being”) is often equivalent to a pronoun in poetic texts. It is fronted as
an instance of constituent focus; over and above his desperate physical condition (v. 2), his entire ‘life-force’, or psyche
(‫) ְו֭נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬, has been adversely (‫אד‬ ֹ ֑ ‫ ) ְמ‬affected! This sad fact is phonologically underscored by a repetition of the verb
‫ – ָבּ ַהל‬his body is shaking and his “soul” is shocked! This focus on the psalmist’s suffering self continues from the
preceding of ‫“( ֲע ָצ ָ ֽמי‬my bones”) v. 2b and the colon-concluding ‫“( ָ ֥אנִ י‬I”) of 2a.
733
Literally, “and you, LORD, how long?” This is the first occasion in the psalm in which the divine name is
not attached to an imperative petition. The pronoun ‫ ַ֯א ָ ֥תּ‬forcefully contrasts with ‫ נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬in the preceding line (3a), as
the two protagonists are syntactically placed into prominent opposition. In addition, the broken syntax of 3b mimics
the psalmist’s broken physical and mental state. He addresses Yahweh forthrightly as well as forcefully with the initial
vocative pronoun (‫) ַ֯א ָ ֥תּ‬, which is itself truncated, but then simply cries out with a brief, but poignant, (rhetorical)
question: How long will this (i.e., his suffering) continue—OR—How long will it take YHWH to respond to his dire
situation? “Because of the intensity of his emotions, [the psalmist] cannot complete his thought (cf. 31:1, 35:17, 74:10,
et al.)” (Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in K.L. Barker and J. Kohlenberger III, eds., NIV Bible Commentary, vol. 1:
Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 790-937 [800]).
734
Terrien proposes “Repent!” – However, it does not seem likely that this is a “command” or that the psalmist
is “arguing with his God” (The Psalms, 113). Why not? Because of the following ‫ ַח ְס ֶ ֽדָּך‬.
735
A reversal in the order of participant reference marks the boundary with continuity between stanzas A
and B, i.e., ‫שׁי … ְי֭הוָ ה‬ ֑ ִ ‫ נַ ְפ‬in v. 4a; cf. 3ab (a literary device termed “anadiplosis,” or the “overlap construction”).
736
The psalmist appeals to the LORD for deliverance from his illness on the basis of God’s “steadfast
covenantal fidelity” (‫ ) ֶ֫ח ֶסד‬to his people—even when they have sinned against him in some way. The two protagonists
in this passionate prayer are foregrounded at the end of each line of v. 4, with “my life” (psalmist) being utterly
dependent on “your faithful love” (Yahweh).
737
This verbless motivational clause parallels those that accompany the psalmist’s prayers in stanza A (v.
2): “for (‫ ) ִ ֤כּי‬there is not in death your remembrance.” The objective 2ps pronominal suffix ‫ָך‬- contrasts with its
subjective use at the end of the preceding colon (‫)זִ ְכ ֶ ֑רָך – ַח ְס ֶ ֽדָּך‬. The Hebrew noun ‫“( ֵ֫ז ֶכר‬remembrance”) here refers
to the “name” of the Lord as invoked in liturgy and praise, especially during communal worship (cf. Ps. 30:4; 97:12).
“‘Remember’ is more than an intellectual act of mental representation. It is an intense spiritual act of bringing to mind
what God has done as a basis for gratitude (cf. 111:4)” (VanGemeren, “Psalms”, 800). Such remembrance could even
refer to “recounting God’s great deeds in an act of worship: cf. 71:15f.; Isaiah 63:7)” (Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72
[Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973], 61). “Death” here refers metonymically to the realm of death where the
departed spirits reside. “This does not mean that the OT denies life after death, but it puts its emphasis on the present
life, lived in relationship to God” (VanGemeren, “Psalms”, 800)—and the fellowship of believers (cf. Pss. 16:8-11,
17:15, 22:22-31, 49:15, 73:23-25; Isa. 26:19; see also Leupold, Psalms, 86-87; Kidner, Psalms, 62).
738
In Sheol, the dark and unknown place of the dead, who would be able to praise God? Obvious answer:
Nobody! (a rhetorical question). The RQ marker ‫ ִ ֣מי‬emphatically matches the preceding reason marker ‫ ִ ֤כּי‬. According
to common OT belief (though there are exceptions, e.g., 23:6), those who descend into the realm of death/Sheol are
cut off from God’s mighty deeds and from the worshiping covenant community that experiences divine intervention
(Pss. 30:9; 88:10-12; Isa. 38:18). In his effort to motivate a positive divine response, the psalmist reminds God that he
will receive no praise or glory if he allows the psalmist to die. Dead men do not praise God! This is the only verse in
359
 Stanza C: LAMENT over psalmist’s suffering
6 I am exhausted as I groan; ‫יָ ַג ְ֤ע ִתּי׀ ְ ֽבּ ַאנְ ָח ִ֗תי‬
all night long I drench my bed in tears;739 ‫ל־ליְ ָלה ִמ ָטּ ִ ֑תי‬ ֭ ַ ‫ַא ְשׂ ֶ ֣חה ְב ָכ‬
my tears saturate the cushion beneath me.740 ‫ְ֝בּ ִד ְמ ָע ִ֗תי ַע ְר ִ ֥שׂי ַא ְמ ֶ ֽסה׃‬
7 My eyes grow dim from suffering;741 ‫ָ ֽע ְשׁ ָ ֣שׁה ִמ ַכּ ַ֣עס ֵע ִינ֑י‬
they grow weak because of all my adversaries.742 ‫ל־צוֹר ָ ֽרי׃‬
ְ ‫ָ ֽ֝ע ְת ָ ֗קה ְבּ ָכ‬
Stanza D: Confident PROCLAMATION
8 Turn back from me, all you who behave ‫֣סוּרוּ ִ ֭מ ֶמּנִּ י ָכּל־ ֣ ֹפּ ֲע ֵלי ָ ֑אוֶ ן‬
wickedly,743 (A – imperative)
for the LORD has heard the sound of my ‫֝הוה ֣קוֹל ִבּ ְכיִ ֽי׃‬
֗ ָ ‫ִ ֽכּי־ ָשׁ ַ ֥מע ְי‬
weeping!744 (B – motivation)
9 The LORD has heard my appeal for mercy;745 ‫ָשׁ ַ ֣מע ְי֭הוָ ה ְתּ ִחנָּ ִ ֑תי‬
(B’)
the LORD has accepted my prayer.746 (B”) ‫֝הוה ְ ֽתּ ִפ ָלּ ִ ֥תי יִ ָ ֽקּח׃‬
֗ ָ ‫ְי‬

the psalm that lacks a first-person pronominal reference in each colon—except for the very last line of the poem (10b).
On “Sheol,” see further Kidner, Psalms, 61-62.
739
Lit., “I cause to swim through all the night my bed”—a graphic image of physical and mental suffering.
An isomorphic equivalent of the length of time in suffering being referred to is reflected orally in the lexical length of
the poetic line (6b)—that is, in comparison with the shorter, “exhausted” expression of the psalmist in v. 6a.
740
Lit., “with my tears my couch I flood/melt”—a line beginning with the last in a series of –‫ ְב‬phrases. The
initial noun of this third line of the tricolon ‫ ְ֝בּ ִד ְמ ָע ִ֗תי‬phonologically reflects the final ‫ ְ ֽבּ ַאנְ ָח ִ֗תי‬of 6a, while the line as
a whole figuratively parallels the preceding line (6b) through constituent focus (front-shifting), the non-verbal
elements (‫ ) ְ֝בּ ִד ְמ ָע ִ֗תי ַע ְר ִ ֥שׂי‬serving to accent the psalmist’s deepest, darkest emotions.
741
Lit., “my eye wastes away”—presumably (metaphorically speaking) from losing so much fluid through the
shedding of tears (cf. the English idiom, “I cried my eyes out”)!
742
The eyes “grow weak” because they are figuratively “old”; note the rhyme of the initial verbs in this
bicolon. The alliterative noun ‫צוֹר ָ ֽרי‬ ְ complements the alliterative verb ‫ ָ ֽע ְשׁ ָ ֣שׁה‬at the beginning of v. 7. The reference
to “enemies” may reflect the popular, but erroneous opinion that sick people were great sinners and hence being
punished by God (e.g., Job 4:7-11, 8:1-22, 11:13-20). On the other hand, Terrien suggests that “the poet is the victim
of sorcerers…professional magicians” (The Psalms, 114), but this is rather too specific and unsupportable by the textual
evidence.
743
Lit., “all [you] workers of wickedness” (cf. Ps. 5:5). The psalmist, in an outburst of assertive faith at the
onset of stanza D, suddenly “turns” in attitude to aggressively confront his “enemies” verbally (v. 7b)—those who
were “evildoers” (8a) in the sense that they made his bad situation worse, like Job’s friends, either deliberately or in
ignorance. Whether the psalmist actually experienced some significant relief—or he confidently anticipates that
Yahweh is about to provide a respite (a common spiritual-psychological “turn-about” found in a typical lament psalm,
e.g., Pss. 16:8, 22:22, 28:6, 31:21) cannot be established with certainty. The corresponding references ‫ל־צוֹר ָ ֽרי‬ ְ ‫ ָכ‬and
‫ ָכּל־ ֹ֣פּ ֲע ֵלי ָ ֑אוֶ ן‬form a cohesive bridge between stanzas C and D, yet at the same time heighten the jarring incongruity in
outlook in the psalmist’s words, from fearing to daring with respect to his opponents.
744
The ‫ ִ ֤כּי‬motivational clause seems to bear some contextually derived asseverative force here as well—a
connotation that is reinforced by the next, semantically parallel line (9a). The three final lines of the psalm express
the psalmist’s “certainty of acceptance” before the Lord (Leupold, Psalms, 89).
745
The repetition of ‫מע ְי֭הוָ ה‬֣ ַ ‫ ָשׁ‬strengthens the psalmist’s assertion of the Lord’s favorable response. God’s
“hearing” an appeal implies his immediate commitment to salutary action. The psalmist “speaks in faith: the victory
is yet to come (10), but he already knows that he is answered” (Kidner, Psalms, 62).
746
The prefixed verbal form “has accepted” may be interpreted as a preterite here; it is parallel to a perfect
and refers to the fact that the LORD has responded favorably to the psalmist’s request. On the other hand, a translation
like NIV’s “accepts” also conveys the correct idea (see Craigie, Psalms, 95). A chiastic arrangement of syntactic
constituents reinforces the psalmist’s confident claims: Verb + Voc/Nobj (9a) // Voc/Nobj + Verb (9b), as does the
similar sounding key nominal expressions that reference his appeal: ‫ ְתּ ִחנָּ ִ ֑תי‬and ‫ ְ ֽתּ ִפ ָלּ ִ ֥תי‬. The initial pairing of ‫֝הוה‬ ָ֗ ‫ְי‬
‫ ְ ֽתּ ִפ ָלּ ִ ֥תי‬may be construed as an instance of topic focus combined with constituent focus. “The poetics thus explain the
unusual word order in v. 9b, subject-object-verb” (Goldingay, Psalms, 140).
360
 10 May all my enemies be humiliated and ‫יֵ ֤בֹשׁוּ׀ וְ יִ ָבּ ֲה ֣לוּ ְ ֭מאֹד ָכּל־אֹיְ ָ ֑בי‬
absolutely terrified!747 (A’)
May they turn back and be suddenly ‫ָי ֻ֗֝שׁבוּ יֵ ֥בֹשׁוּ ָ ֽרגַ ע׃‬
humiliated!748 (A”)

14.4.2 Literary-structural summary

Psalm 6 may be classified as a “lament,” or “psalm of petition,” since a fervent appeal to the
LORD for help dominates the first portion of the prayer (vv. 1-4),749 as marked by a vocative
(‫֝הוה‬ ְ in each of the four bicola, and two of them in v. 2. This psalm is often included among the
ָ֗ ‫)י‬
so-called “Penitential Psalms” (along with Pss. 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143), but there is no explicit
confession of sin (whether specific or general), nor is there any plea for God’s forgiveness (cf.
25:7, 18).750 The text appears to divide itself topically and functionally into four stanzas—two
longer outer poetic units, which focus on Yahweh, and two shorter inner ones, which focus on
the psalmist himself: A (1-3), B (4-5), C (6-7), and D (8-10).751 Psalm 6 “reflects a dramatic
theology in which the speaker and YHWH, who is addressed, engage in a dynamic transaction in
which both partners are under way in response to the other.”752 The rhetorical dynamics of these
four poetic units may be described as follows:

In stanza A the psalmist plaintively lays out his desperate situation before Yahweh:
spiritually (v. 1, God is angry), physically (v. 2, the psalmist’s body is weak), and psychologically
(v. 3, he is terrified)—the three conditions seemingly representing a consequential progression.
Pragmatically, a pair of negative appeals to God (v. 1)753 are followed by two positive
correspondents (v. 2), and then a summary, as it were, of his dreadful state that ends in the
formulaic ‫ד־מ ָ ֽתי‬
ָ ‫( ַע‬v. 3), i.e., “how long” will I have to endure such trauma?! Reinforcing his

747
Lit., “and may they be very terrified.” The psalmist uses the same expression in v. 3 to describe
the terror he was experiencing. Now he asks the LORD to turn the tables and cause his enemies to know
what absolute terror feels like—in this case, God’s judgment inflicted upon those who unjustly attack his
people. Reference to “all my enemies” (‫ )כָּל־אֹ יְ ָב֑י‬in v. 10a forms a stanza-bounding inclusio with “all workers
of iniquity” (‫)כּל־ ֣ ֹפּ ֲע ֵלי ָ ֑אוֶ ן‬
ָ in 8a and a parallel structural “closure” with “all my adversaries” (‫ל־צוֹר ָ ֽרי‬
ְ ָ in 7b.
‫)כ‬
748
The four prefixed verbal forms in this verse (10ab) are best understood as jussives and form a
powerful doubled close to the psalm. The psalmist concludes his “prayer” with an imprecation, calling
divine punishment down on his enemies. The reiterated verb ‫ יֵ ֤בֹשׁוּ‬accents the psalmist’s wish, “be shamed,”
and forms an ironic audible pun with the hoped-for overall outcome, as expressed in the sound-alike verb
‫י ֻ֗֝שׁבוּ‬,ָ “turn” (i.e., a great reversal in fates). The psalm’s final adverbial noun ‫[“( ָ ֽרגַ ע‬in a] moment”) contrasts
markedly and thematically with close of stanza A: ‫ד־מ ָ ֽתי‬ ָ ‫“( ַע‬how long”). “Why will the enemies be shamed
and dismayed? The fate of Job’s enemies may suggest an answer. They are exposed as people whose
fundamental religious perspective is wrong. … Their entire position as imploded” (Goldingay, Psalms, 140-
141).
749
Peter Craigie observes that Psalm 6 “contains a high percentage of formulaic language” in
common with other psalms and OT literature. This “common language gives the psalm a familiar flavor,
but at the same time it is distinctive by virtue of the power and pathos of its lamentation” (Psalms 1-50,
Word 19 [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983], 91-92).
750
Craigie proposes that perhaps “the palmist prays not to be rebuked or chastised for bringing
this problem to God in prayer,” for God may have had a good reason for allowing this illness to afflict him
(Psalms, 92).
751
Most commentators combine stanzas B and C into a single poetic unit, e.g., Craigie, Psalms, 92;
deClaissé et al, Book of Psalms, 102; Goldingay, Psalms, 135; Brueggemann and Bellinger, Psalms, 50 (but
this contradicts their text outline on p. 47, which agrees with my proposed structural arrangement, as does
Terrien (The Psalms, 112).
752
Brueggemann and Bellinger, Psalms, 52.
753
The Hebrew text as rendered in English may suggest to some readers/hearers that the psalmist
is praying that God would not begin to “discipline” him. However, as v. 2 indicates, the psalmist is rather
appealing that God would not continue to apply such discipline—so that it seems “wrathful” in nature.
361
urgent plea, the psalmist invokes the divine covenantal name in every verse of this strophe, four
times in total. Whatever the cause of his pitiful condition, the Lord God was the psalmist’s only
solution.

A much more specific and logically supported appeal to the LORD to act on the psalmist’s
behalf begins stanza B,754 with three imperatives packed into v. 4: “turn” (‫)שׁוּבה‬ ָ֣ – “rescue” (‫)ח ְלּ ָצ֣ה‬
ַ
– “deliver” me (‫יענִ י‬ ֵ ֗ ‫וֹשׁ‬
ִ ‫!)ה‬
֝ The requested actions are all based on that essential covenantal
relationship that binds the believer with his God in the OT, namely, the key concept of “steadfast
faithfulness” (‫)ח ֶסד‬,
ֶ֫ which forcefully ends the verse.755 In the next bicolon then, the psalmist offers
another cogent reason (leading off with a consequential ‫כּי‬, ֤ ִ v. 5a) to motivate Yahweh’s positive
response: a person cannot praise and glorify God if s/he is dead—the fundamental connection
between deity and worshiper would be broken! (5b).

Stanza C expresses a doleful lament that summarizes the psalmist’s wretched personal
(physical and psychological) condition as well as his adverse social situation. He is in a wretched
mental state (6), and now suddenly it appears as if many hostile adversaries or simply pestering
onlookers vex him (7), as in the case of Job (e.g., 30:1-15).756 These sad lines, coupled with those
of stanza B include “the three relational parties that are often names in prayers for help: God
(you), the psalmist (I), and the enemies.”757 The lament reaches its emotional peak (or nadir!) in
the tricolon of v. 6 and its pitiful verbal pictures of a grievously ill and sorrowful psalmist.

An almost shocking shift in topic and tone begins the final stanza D (v. 8a), which creates
a dramatic pause and shift of perspective within the prayer.758 The basic pragmatic pattern of
imperative followed by rationale continues, as in the two preceding stanzas A and B, but now
the psalmist unexpectedly turns upon the hostile “mischief-makers” (‫ ) ֹ֣פּ ֲע ֵלי ָ ֑אוֶ ן‬just mentioned in
v. 7b and orders them to “get out!” (‫)סוּרוּ‬.
֣ How could he be so bold under the circumstances?
Three subsequent cola say essentially the same thing: “Yahweh has answered my prayer!” (8b-
9)—either by means of some miraculous act of restoration (from an apparent illness), or through
confident anticipation, a personal reaching out in faith to what he’s sure will soon happen.759 In

754
“As often happens, the second section of the psalm repeats the first, restating it in different
words and thus underlining its concerns” (Goldingay, Psalms, 137). This is a macro-structural application
of the well-known principle of BH lineal parallelism, “A—and what’s more, B” (James Kugel, The Idea of
Biblical Poetry (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1981, 8-23). “The characteristic movement of meaning is one of
heightening or intensification…of focusing, specification, concretization, even what could be called
dramatization” (Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry [New York, Basic Books, 1985], 19).
755
Thus the psalmist seems to back off from viewing his current adverse situation as being a
punishment for sin (v.1, a common OT understanding, cf. Ps 38:1-4), and now in v. 4 stresses the “faithful
love” that binds him to Yahweh in a life-long interpersonal relationship (deity—devotee).
756
It is likely that these adversaries were fellow members of the psalmist’s own social-religious
community, and their threats were not necessarily physical, but rather some “form of speech, slander, or
perhaps testimony in court” (Brueggemann and Bellinger, Psalms, 51).
757
DeClaissé et al, Book of Psalms, 104. “The Psalms focus on the causes or consequences of illness
in the form of attacks from people like Job’s friends rather than on the illness itself” (Goldingay, Psalms,
136).
758
Craigie astutely submits that the sudden shift in tone between stanzas C and D “is vital to the
spiritual progress within the psalm, whereas continuity is indicated by the use of similar and related words
in both parts. Brueggemann & Bellinger hypothesize that “in the dramatic performance of this psalm, an
assurance of YHWH was uttered by some trustworthy speaker” (Psalms, 50), such as a priest. Thus, forms
derived from ‫‘ ָחנַ ן‬gracious’ occur in vv. 3 and 10, the verb ‫‘ ָבּ ַהל‬be disturbed’ is used in both vv. 3-4 and in
v. 11, and the verb ‫‘ שׁוּב‬return’ is used in vv. 5 and 11; these stylistic devices impress upon the reader [ew:
and more so the hearer!] both the unity and the power of the poem” (Craigie, Psalms, 91).
759
“It may have been the case that as the psalmist progresses in prayer, he eventually reaches a
point where faith and confidence outstripped anguish and despair” (deClaissé et al. 2014:106, citing E.
362
any case, the psalm’s final line proclaims the Lord’s judgment upon his erstwhile enemies, who
will end up being publicly humiliated as a result of the psalmist’s divine vindication (v. 10).760
Thus as a result of the Lord’s real or expected deliverance, a dramatic reversal has occurred: in v.
3 it was the psalmist (lit. his ‘bones’) who was “terrified” (‫)בּ ַהל‬ ָ – now in v. 11 his enemies feel
the same way; Yahweh was called upon to “turn [towards]” (‫ )שׁוּב‬to help the psalmist in v. 4 –
in v. 11 his enemies will “turn [away]” from him in disgrace; again, back in v. 3 the psalmist
appealed to the Lord to “be merciful” (‫)חנַ ן‬ ָ towards him – and God “heard” (positively responded
to) his “prayer for mercy” (‫)תּ ִחנָּ ה‬
ְ in v. 10.761 A topic-functionally-based “ring structure” generates
a strong cohesive bond within the stanza: A (8a, 10a-b): imperative plus imprecation regarding
the psalmist’s enemies; B (8b, 9a-b): rationale, based on the LORD’s positive response to his
fervent supplication. In the end, the Lord surrounds his trusting supplicant with protection (v.
9), while all his adversaries are forced to flee the scene in shame (v. 10). The climactic character
of this final stanza is sonically supported by all of the phonological correspondences manifested
within the text, as shown by the gray shading above.

The diachronic, precatory development of Psalm 6 in terms of stanzas is accompanied by an

interesting chiastic correspondence with regard to lexical length, with two shorter poetic units
surrounded by matching longer ones:
A: general appeal (24 lexical units)762
B: specific appeal (15)
C: mournful motivation (15)
D: assertive trusting testimony (24).
The psalm’s lexical midpoint then occurs on the border between verses 5 and 6, with 39 words
in each half. This verbal symmetry is simply another aspect of the text’s overall artistic structural
design. Among the chief functionally-oriented “communicative clues” that translators should
endeavor to reproduce idiomatically in their TL text are these:

 the essential poetic structure of Psalm 6 in terms of four stanza divisions;

 the sorrowful emotive overtones that run throughout the first three stanzas;
 the unexpected, but strong (imperative) and motivated shift in attitude and outlook that characterizes
stanza D;
 the mini-climaxes in oratorical import that seem to occur at the end of each stanza, i.e., vv. 3b
(rhetorical question), 5b (rhetorical question), 7b (the sudden revelation that the psalmist’s suffering
is social as well as physical), 10 (the thematic “turning” that occurs when the enemies are “shamed”—
wordplay);
 the pragmatic force (topic/focus) of the periodic, fronted nominal phrases noted in the earlier
exegetical analysis (e.g., v. 1a-b – constituent focus);
 the semantic implication of the occasional Hebrew conjunctive particles (e.g., the parallel ‫‘ ִ ֤כּי‬for’
clauses in v. 2a – a “reason,” or motivational use here);

Gerstenberger). “Whatever the way the psalm was used, it invites people using the psalm to expect Yhwh
to respond to their prayers” (Goldingay, Psalms, 140).
760
“The threefold utterance of the divine name alongside the threefold mention of the adversaries reveals
that the speaker is in a confrontational situation that is beyond the speaker’s own capacity” (Brueggemann & Bellinger,
Psalms, 49).
761
“The double ‘shaming’ follows on the double ‘listening.’ And their great shaking corresponds to the
suppliant’s double shaking. The ‘turn’ of v. 10 corresponds to the ‘turn’ of v. 4, and whereas v. 3 asked ‘How long?’
now the suppliant knows the shaming will come about ‘instantly’” (Goldingay, Psalms, 141).
762
The psalm’s superscription, v. 1 in Hebrew, is not included in this count.
363
 other, deliberately positioned (fronted/backed) syntactic elements forge contrastive or complementary
links on the textual microstructure (e.g., the antithetical implication of the initial pronoun ‫ ֯ ַא ָ ֥תּ‬in v. 3b
in contrast with ‫ נַפְ ִשׁי‬in the preceding line, 3a);
 the phonological and lexical reiteration that forges perceptible cohesive linkages throughout the psalm
and hence the prayer as a whole;
 a functionally-equivalent TL literary genre (along the lines of a lament with an optimistic topical
surprise at the end) that can duplicate the artistry, impact, and appeal of the original Hebrew poetry
on the macro-level of discourse.

14.4.3 Exemplifying a “direct” literary translation

The challenge facing translators is how to reproduce the most significant communicative clues
of the original in translation. In the case of the literature of Scripture, the mere rendition of
semantic content is not sufficient—or being “faithful”—to the nature of the biblical source text.
This is especially true where poetry is concerned, where beauty and emotive shading must also
be considered. It is difficult to duplicate the SL’s artistic and/or rhetorical features on an
individual item-for-item basis, though the effort should be made since at times this is possible.
Often, however, communicative equivalence, or translational correspondence, is possible only
with reference to larger chunks of text—within a particular stanza or even on the generic level
of the psalm as a whole, as matching TL oral-aural devices are utilized where they sound natural
in relation to the content and intent being conveyed.763 The following are three quite different
“direct” poetic renderings764 of Psalm 6 in English,765 which may be compared with each other
as well as the original Hebrew text with respect to particular and general effectiveness with
reference to a specific TL audience group.

Yahweh,
I know you’re furious.
I know that’s why I’m dying.
But please, stop punishing me,
or at least not so angrily.
Please, Yahweh, please!
I can’t stop shaking.
I can hardly breathe.
For how long Yahweh? Please stop!

763
The issue of “sound” is crucial when evaluating any translation of the Psalter for, ideally, the
psalms are meant to be audibly articulated, in particular via some type of vocally heightened oral
expression. Any comparative “testing” of versions must take this phonic dimension into consideration.
764
Note that in contrast to a “foreignized,” SL-orientated translation, as promoted in van der
Merwe 2016 (cf. ftn. 3), I would advocate a more “domesticated,” TL-orientated version—one that aims
to reproduce, to the degree possible, the semantic and pragmatic intentions of the principal communicative
clues of the biblical text in a functionally-equivalent, idiomatic manner in the language of translation.
765
The first translation is by Timothy Wilt, Praise, Prayer and Protest: The David Collection (Psalms
1—72), self-published (2002), p. 7. I have modified the original formatting of the text somewhat. The
second version is by Brenda Higgie-Boerger, Poetic Oracle English Translation (POET) Psalms, self-published,
2009, p. 23; several footnotes indicate specific places where Dr. Boerger re-presented the communicative
clues of the Hebrew text in her translation. The third rendition is my own, which I composed after “feeling
through” this psalm.
364
 If you respect your commitment to me, you’ll heal me,
and I’ll always remember this and praise you.
Otherwise, I’ll die.
My strength ebbs in my anguish.
My eyes are swollen from crying as my enemy hisses at me.
I can hardly see.
At night, my tears drench the pillow and soak the bed.

Workers for evil—enemies,

Get away from me!
Yahweh hears my prayers as well as my sobs.
Yahweh has decided to be kind to me.
It’s your turn to be humiliated.
All of you will slink away in shame, shaking in fear!

==============================================
DO THE DEAD BLESS YOU?
by David, with an eight-stringed lyre
a psalm of repentance766

1-3 Don’t discipline me in your ire,

For I am heartsick and so tired.
Please don’t condemn in fury.
Have mercy for I’m very weak.
It’s your renewal, Lord, I seek.
My body’s ill and weary.

4 Come and rescue.

So in love I will be saved, Lord.
5 Do dead bless you?
Can I praise you from the graveyard?767
6-7 Each night I’m weeping on my bed
And now I find my sheets are drenched.
From tears my pillow’s sopping.768
My eyes are dim due to my woe.
They burn with tears about my foe.

766
Dr. Boerger adds: “cywydd llosgnog with refrain; Tune: O Morning Star, How Fair and Bright
(887.887.48.48. Wie Schön Luechtet der Morningstern)”
767
The putative “refrain” is marked by a different font and larger type.
768
6:6-7 – These six lines have the same number of ‘crying’ terms as the parallel verses in Hebrew
(Boerger 2009:23)
365
 I’m worn out from my sobbing.

[Come and rescue.

So in love I will be saved, Lord.
Do dead bless you?
Can I praise you from the graveyard?]769
8-10 My God responds to groans, despair.
So surely he will grant my prayer.
Leave me, men of transgression.
Let them lose face, while I am safe.
And make them do an about-face.770
Lord, hear my intercession.
==========================================
6. Prayer of a scorned sufferer771

Lord, don’t punish me in anger, 1-3

don’t chasten me in your wrath.
Rather, have mercy—I’m so weak;
heal me, for I’m feeling such pain.
Indeed, I’m sick in mind and heart—
how long then before you respond?

Come back to me, Lord, deliver me; 4-5

Save me since your love never fails.
If I’m dead, how can I worship you?
No one remembers you in the grave!

I’m truly worn out with weeping; 6-7

I cry to you day and night for aid;
my bed is drenched with my tears.

769
6:4-5 – Though not composed as a refrain in Hebrew, these two verses are the main point of
the psalm and could be used as a refrain to each of the six line stanzas. Psalm 30:9 makes the same point
(ibid:loc cit).
770
“Wendland (2002:172) describes a Hebrew word-play between ‘shamed’ yeboshu in lines a and
b, and ‘they will turn’ yashubu in line b, where the change in the order of the last two consonants [b-sh 
sh-b] symbolizes the change in circumstances that David wants to see happen to his enemies. In POET this
effect is reproduced by having “face” appear in lines a and b, while the sounds of ‘safe’ [sef] phonetically
become ‘face’ [fes] when reversed, and the desired reversal of circumstances is made explicit lexically with
‘about-face’ in line b (ibid:loc cit).
771
In this translation I have tried to match the main macro-clues pertaining to poetic structure,
including the build-up to a climax at the end of each stanza. I have also attempted to duplicate the impact
and appeal of a selection of literary (artistic-rhetorical) features within the psalm’s micro-structure,
including a certain verbal euphony and rhythm to enhance public reading.
366
My eyes are all bleary with grief—
many enemies make it much worse.

Away with you, you wicked fellows! 8-10

God has heard my anguished weeping.
The Lord listens to these cries for help.
He will surely respond to my prayers.
All my foes will be turned right around;
So swiftly they’re shamed and shunned!

14.4.4 Conclusion

A literary-structural analysis enables one to probe the poetic form and content of a psalm from
a particular viewpoint—one that focuses on the artistic beauty and the emotive impact that is
expressed in the original composition. This type of study cannot give us the whole picture, but it
does offer an important perspective so often missing in many commentaries as well as
contemporary translations that fail to convey the rhetorical power of these ancient prayers of
faith. Indeed, the psalms often seek to persuade the pray-er as well as the divine Being to whom
they are addressed that such verbal worship activity is worthwhile—that covenantal fellowship
is implicitly restored or renewed. This happens as the very words of the psalmist are being uttered
(cf. vv. 7-8), whether recited, chanted, or sung in some public setting, or spoken silently to oneself
in a moment of personal need.

It is important during any detailed text analysis or the actual act of translating it into another
language not to lose sight of the ultimate theological message and purpose of the prayer at hand.
Instead, at some point one must pause for a moment or two in order to pull all the textual pieces
together again into some meaningful application to one’s own life. “The Sons of Korah,” an
Australian popular singing group offers an example of what I am referring to in their comments
on the significance of Psalm 6, which provide a fitting conclusion—a conceptual “synthesis” as
it were, of the outcome of my short and selective poetic study:772

“Psalm 6 is a typical lament psalm. Over half of all the psalms fall into this category
and…they are the most remarkable feature of the biblical faith. … Here there is a candidness
that expresses an intimacy with God that is truly moving. In these psalms we see the covenant
relationship between the Lord and believers tested, and indeed as it is tested we see it manifested
in its most passionate form. Here the psalmist reaches out desperately for God and in this there
is a powerful revelation of a person's absolute need for God.773 These psalms are particularly
notable for their interaction between joyful confidence and in God and the deathly grief which
occasions the psalms themselves. Possibly the most astounding aspect of many of the laments is
their movement out of sorrow into joy. Some of the most jubilant expressions of praise in the
book of Psalms are found at the end of lament psalms. This is a feature of this psalm and the
journey of the psalm itself to this point is a profound example of the kind of prayer that is most
appropriate for the covenant relationship.”

772
Cited from their website http://www.sonsofkorah.com/ at “Psalm 6” (accessed on October 4,
2016). I have lightly edited this quotation contextually for use here. The group’s acoustic guitar version of
Psalm 6 is also available on their website; this musical rendition clearly expresses the dramatic break in
tone and emotive shift that occurs in the final stanza of the psalm, vv. 8-10.
773
“No one who has not been profoundly terrified and forsaken prays profoundly” (Martin Luther
– cited in Goldingay, Psalms, 141).
367
 The preceding literary renderings seek, in Grossman’s words, to accomplish the lyric aim of
“maintaining “the tone, the emotional content, and the intimate, familiar, and sometimes
mimetic rhythms of the [original Hebrew] lines in a translation that feels like equivalent verse
in English” (101).774 It is a verbal recreation in which the biblical poet, David perhaps, and the
contemporary translator “have started to speak together—never in unison, certainly, but in a
kind of satisfying harmony” that in appreciably equivalent measure “speaks [or sings!] as the
author would if the author could speak English” (82-83). That is what LiFE translating is all
about!

774
One prominent disparity will be noted, as Grossman also experienced when translating Spanish
poetry into English, namely, that of rhythmic correspondence that is due to “the Germanic inheritance in
English of pounding monosyllabic words, generally absent in Spanish [as in Hebrew]. This difference
naturally affects the…rendering of tempo, since polysyllables in Spanish [Hebrew] often have to be
expressed by monosyllabic equivalents in English” (110).
368
 15. Insights from The Art of Literary Translation,775
with special reference to Bible Translation

The following is not a direct review of this excellent book; rather, it is indirect in the sense that
its citations below will hopefully serve to pique the interest of readers and encourage them to a
close perusal of the entire text. I have selected various quotes that illustrate the author’s insightful
approach to translation and relate in particular to my own interest in a “literary functional
equivalence” (LiFE) translation of the Scriptures.776 I have organized Wechsler’s observations into
a number of somewhat overlapping categories for ease of reference and possible application in
one’s own translation work (all page references are to the book under consideration). My personal
comments in response to the author and with reference to Bible translating are identified by
italics.

15.1 The nature of literary translation

“[Like a lawyer] the translator is representing his client, the original writer. … The translator
supplies not content, but form… His job, his fiduciary responsibility—to use legal jargon—is to
go through the process of re-languaging [a text]” (15).
In a much greater sense, the believing Bible translator “represents” his God, the initial inspirer of
sacred Scripture, which he faithfully “re-languages.”

“The joy that a reader experiences can be multiplied many times in the intimate act of performing
a writer’s work. … Few ever had to do this and, therefore, never know the joy of a translator
whose ongoing intimacy opens up beauties he never would have otherwise noticed” (49).
This experience is naturally similar for most Bible translators with respect to the semantic content
of Scripture; however, far fewer have benefitted with respect to the artistic beauty and rhetorical power
of the Word of God.777

775
Excerpted from Performing Without a Stage: The Art of Literary Translation by Robert
Wechsler (North Haven, CT: Catbird Press, 1998). “The translator’s problem is that he (she) is a performer
without a stage, an artist whose performance looks just like the original…” (7). Robert Wechsler is a
published author and an editor of book-length translations. A reviewer in the Washington Post had this to
say about Performing Without a Stage: “...a passionate, enthralling new book ... Throughout, the tone is
conversational, jargon-free, sometimes angry and frequently funny.... Above all, this book is quite
inspiring.” The book concludes with a “Recommended Reading” section (296-300), a listing of US
“Translation Award Winners” (to 1997, 301-305), “Endnotes” (306-313), and a short “Index” (314-317).
Though somewhat dated, Performing… is well worth a careful reading.
776
LiFE-Style Translating, 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2011). Wechsler too appreciates the
world-wide work of Bible translation: “Reformation leaders translated the Bible, and then missionaries
became language experts, translator-apostles. As a result, the Bible has been the first book to appear in
hundreds of languages, and it has radically affected nearly all of them” (59).
777
See my Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004), ch. 1.
369
“The first commandment of literary translation is, ‘Honor thy original and thy author’” (67).
And if this is true in the secular field of professional translating, how much more so in the scriptural
sphere?

“Translation is ‘a continuation of the creative process’ as well as ‘a critical act which cannot and
does not replace but rather complements the original, illuminating its strategies’” (citing Suzanne
Jill Levine, a “creatively faithful translator,” 93).
This creative, ever complementary, literary activity enables readers to better comprehend and
appreciate the divine content of the biblical ST as well as its functional forms.

“One’s literary culture forms the background, the information and experiential base, for the
translator’s decision-making process. … In terms of obligations, the other most important part of
a translator’s literary culture is his audience. … The translator has the obligation to communicate
the original at the level at which it was intended, or at least formulated, to be understood” (108-
109).
In addition to the literary culture and its verbal inventory, translators must also be cognizant of
their own traditional oral and oratorical correspondents, which in the case of many non-Western
societies may be far more substantial and influential than the former.

“‘The art of literary translation,’ Burton Raffel has written, ‘and above all the translation of
poetry, might almost be defined as the art of balancing different claims.’ The translator must
choose not only what is in the original to preserve and what to give up, but also what to add. All
the elements I’ve been talking about—rhythm, sound, vision, allusion, humor, effect, syntax,
familiarity vs. foreignness, ease vs. difficulty, ambiguity vs. clarity, meaning vs. form—not only
have to be dealt with, but they have to be balanced against each other, one preserved, the other
lost, two given up to keep one that is more important in the particular context” (139).
While this may be true when translating secular popular literature, there is the priority of
propositional content where the sacred literature of Scripture is concerned—after that then, a balancing
out of all the other elements of meaning that may be signified in the source text at hand. The point is
that “meaning” (in the wider sense) embraces a great deal more than the denotative content that most
translators seem content with preserving in the target language.

15.2 Attributes of a literary translator

“Like a musician, a literary translator takes someone else’s composition and performs it in his
[her] own special way” (7).

370
 And like a musical score, the text of the Scriptures is a polyphonic voice that resonates with
manifold timbres of “meaning” in the wider sense (i.e., not just semantic, but formal and pragmatic as
well). Who is competent or capable enough of playing such a rich and challenging verbal melody? Only
the best—and the best in corporate communion as fellow members of a diverse, well-organized and
managed translation team.

“A translator has to be able to read as well as a critic and write as well as a writer. … There are
so few who have all the talents which are requisite for translation” (9).
To function competently as a “critic” as well as a “writer,” the translator must be an expert in the
various source text (ST) and target text (TT) genres of literature that s/he is rendering—or s/he must
collaborate with other colleagues who are.

“The most eminent service one can render to literature is to transport the masterpieces of the
human spirit from one language to another” (23).
In the case of the literature of Scripture, translators work at the service and under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit.

“A translator…cannot write within himself; he has to write within somebody else. He has to find
a way to express in English [or language X] what somebody else has expressed, skillfully one
hopes, in another language” (28).
That “somebody else” is the original author, who must always be postulated, even if only as an
“implied” personage, with respect to the presumed content and intended intention of his composition.

“It takes a lot to be a first-rate translator. It requires knowledge of a foreign language and a
foreign culture, a wide-ranging knowledge of life, a wide-ranging knowledge of English [or of
language X] and of English-language literature, excellent judgment and interpretive abilities, a
good ear for language and thought, the ability to write not only very well but in a range of
styles…and a willingness to subordinate yourself to another’s creative work” (30-31).
Note again the requirement of compositional fluency in a broad range of target language (TL)
styles of literature—with the goal being essentially to match, with functional equivalence, those that are
found in the Scriptures, with respect also to their artistic and rhetorical excellence.

“It is translation’s apparent impossibility that attracts many of the best translators and gives them
the drive to do their best work” (59).

371
 Whether in the secular or the sacred realm of translation, it is certainly not the pay or the prestige
that is attractive to translators; of course, where the Scriptures are concerned, they are driven by a
higher, more compelling motivation.

“Translation is one of the most complete intellectual activities in the arts; to appreciate it, not to
mention practice it, requires a great deal” (86).
It is a great pity that the organizers of many Bible translation projects do not realize this, and either
attempt to carry out their complex endeavor without the services of fully qualified translators, or they
do not fully recognize (and adequately compensate!) qualified translators for their work.

“It is rare for a translator to not know what the original means, in the dictionary sense; what is
much more common is for a translator to not know how to express various types and levels of
meaning, how to evaluate the relative importance of preserving them, and how to write English
[or, the TL] well. The translator’s ability to read and write at a professional level is what reviewers
should be looking for instead” (270).
It is indeed rare for most Bible translation projects to engage translators with this level of literary
competence and compositional skill when it comes to communicating in their mother-tongue.

15.3 The problem of literal translation

“Words, in particular contexts, have unspoken values attached to them which do not necessarily
come across in literal translation” (60).
Such connotative values are typically enhanced inter- and intra-textually through lexical-semantic
resonances with the appearance of these same words in other, often quite different contexts and/or
cotexts.

“No translator can use a word fifty times in a novel and give it the same accumulation of meaning
it has in the original. … Always repeating a word when the author does so can actually undermine
the repetitive use of the word. Why? Because translation is not about words; no translator
translates strictly on the level of words, but rather deals with phrases, sentences, concepts,
sounds, tones, voices, dictions, etc.” (98).
As modern cognitive linguistics has informed us, words are not simply formal signs; rather, they
symbolize elaborate conceptual maps that differ greatly from one verbal cotext or combination to
another—and all the more so when distinct languages are compared.

372
“[Literalism] places the translator in the position of a transcriber rather than an artist.
Translation is interpretation, a series of decisions based upon the translator’s knowledge, skills,
and sense of judgment” (99).
The literalist also trans-forms the source text, but the result in the TL is inevitably a movement
more or less away from meaningfulness and the artistry and rhetorical dynamics of the original.

“So what does a translator do when face to face with [irony]? Well, the first thing he should do
is forget the idea of running and hiding behind a literal translation; it just won’t cut the mustard.
He has to be exceptionally creative, to transform the [irony] into something that works just as
well in English and that conveys pretty much the same idea” (135).
This is good advice to follow then when translating the irony that is prevalent in the speeches of
Job, for instance—or in the rebukes of the Prophets and NT epistle writers. Irony is a critical aspect of
these messages, and translators must try their best to find ways of conveying ironic speech in the TL,
perhaps by researching popular critical discourse, for example, as broadcast in radio talk shows or
published in local press editorials.

“A good translation is something that is not written in ‘translationese,’ that is, not in awkward,
overly literal language that clearly shows the translator’s incompetence. Nearly all inexperienced
translators write translationese” (270).
And not only is a literal translation easier to generate, by incompetent staff, but it is also much
quicker, hence cheaper to produce. While such work would not be tolerable in the professional secular
marketplace, it is all too often accepted where Bible translation is concerned, where the quantitative
factor (faster, less expensive), sadly, is more highly valued than the qualitative—the desire to have a
genuine literary-oratorical equivalent of the Scriptures in the target language!

15.4 Translating poetry

“‘Poetry is what gets lost in translation.’ … W. H. Auden had an excellent response to Frost’s
dictum: ‘Some would say…that what constitutes poetry, at least in the individual case, is exactly
what survives in translation: that which is so essentially poetic in a given poet’s voice that it can
be heard in any translation…’” (51, 62).
Of course, it must be pointed out that while poetic formal correspondences may indeed be “lost,”
it is generally possible to preserve functional equivalences in the TL, e.g., the impact and appeal of
dramatic imagery, idiomatic diction, rhythmic cadences, and attractive phonological combinations.

373
“Have you ever heard a musician say that it’s impossible, or destructive, to play music, or an
actor say it’s impossible or destructive to play roles? … Why is translation [especially of poetry]
plagued with the concept of impossibility, not just of the toughest works or of works that
particular translators would find impossible, but generally, philosophically, annoyingly all-
inclusively?” (52-53).
The supposed “impossibility” of translating poetry has prevented many a team from even attempting
to poetically render its presence in at least a third of the Old Testament—and many “poetically
fashioned” NT texts as well, e.g., in the Johannine literature.

“But to the translator-poet the untranslatable poem yields the best poem. One tests oneself
according to the resistance encountered, and so the untranslatable incites one, forces one, into
freedom and invention. If the poem is to be rendered, the imagination must soar” (citing Willis
Barnstone, 54).
I might add, one’s imagination in the case of Scripture is normally lifted, or inspired, to greater
heights by the very content being rendered.

“There’s nothing more depressing than an over-awed literalist at work on your own poetry. …
No one is more tolerant of a translation, I’ve found, than the poet translated” (citing the poet-
translator Ben Belitt, 102).
The successful translator of artistic writing, whether of prose or of poetry, must, among other
things, be a verbal artist and accomplished TL wordsmith herself!

“Rhythm and other aspects of sound, such as alliteration, assonance, and rhyme, are central to
poetry. Often a translator has to give up exact meaning to preserve a sound component” (131).
I would not go so far as to say, “give up” on the meaning; rather, translators must try their best to
render TL correspondents of the sound qualities of the original composition as well as its crucial content.
The sound normally enriches or sharpens the sense of the biblical poetic text.

“‘Perhaps the real “original” behind any translation occurs not in the written poem, but in the
poet’s voice speaking the verse aloud. … A translator may also pick up vocal tones, intensities,
rhythms, and pauses that will reveal how the poet heard a word, a phrase, a line, a passage. …
What translating comes down to is listening—listening now to what the poet’s voice said, now
to one’s own voice as it finds what to say’” (133).
Certainly this is excellent advice to any translator of the poetics texts of Scripture—Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and all the Prophets. It is indisputable that these works were

374
composed orally and intended primarily for public oral articulation. So that is how they should be
translated—and tested—also today!

“Poetry also requires re-reading. No single reading of any translation of the Iliad is going to be
enough to get it. It should be read several times in one’s life, even if in the same translation, but
preferably in multiple translations so that the experience changes a little, so that you can
experience more aspects of the original as they have been chosen over by various translators”
(151).
The same holds for the Bible—in the prose texts of Scripture as well as the poetic ones. This
procedure for “deeper reading” (alongside the original text, if possible) and hence understanding applies
to Bible students as well as translators who seek to develop a broader conceptual image of the range
and type of meaning presented by a particular text.

15.5 Fidelity in translation

“Fidelity is the basic ethical term in translation. Infidelity means a translator’s betrayal of the
original work and its author” (65).
In the case of Bible translation, deliberate “infidelity” when rendering the original text may also
involve a moral issue—a failure or error of even greater consequence.

“Fidelity to what? To the content or the form? To the literal meaning of the words or their
meaning as the translator interprets them, as Ezra Pound once wrote: ‘’Taint what a man sez, but
wot he means that the traducer has got to bring over’” (73).
And “meaning,” as already suggested, embraces so much more communicative significance than
pure semantic content.

“There is a continuum of fidelity to various forms of form and content” (74).

This continuum further varies in the case of Bible translation, depending on the book or text
concerned and the general translation style that has been adopted, whether more or less free, versus
constrained, in application.

“The ethical question of fidelity is…usually less important than the practical question of
competence” (79).
In other words, if a translator is not competent, there is little likelihood that s/he will be faithful
in her/his work.

375
“When the effect of repetition in the two languages is not the same, this sort of fidelity to words
is actually less faithful than a freer, more thoughtful approach” (98).
Thus, functional equivalence is to be preferred where comprehension and empathy are the aims of
the conceptual re-texualizing enterprise.

“Translation is not about betrayal, but rather about the balancing of, the impossible attempt to
fulfill, a variety of often contradictory obligations” (113).
On the other hand, this balancing act must involve a pre-established set of priorities that must help
translators to decide which choice to take when faced with such “contradictory obligations.” For
example, in the case of the Scriptures, the main priority is generally semantic content over verbal form,
except where certain poetic books are concerned, like Lamentations on the one hand or Song of Songs
on the other, where the pragmatic communicative function of the text takes precedence.

15.6 The importance of form

“[There is] a serious problem with fidelity to strict forms by today’s translators [in English]: most
are not capable of doing it well: They can write in a form, but few have the experience and
resources to do it beautifully” (77).
That was my experience too during forty-some years of Bible translation consulting; I had the
privilege of working with only one MT translator, a Catholic priest, who had the linguistic experience
and the literary resources to do the job beautifully in his language.

“When a work is form-focused, the translator should also be form-focused; and when a work is
content-focused, the translation should also be content-focused” (80).
The problem with this principle appears in the case of great literature, where an excellence of
artistic form is employed to enhance one’s impression of the text’s sublimity of content, as in the case
of the majority of Scripture. Wechsler later admits this: “In all the best literature, form and content
are inseparable” (82).

“If translation is a matter of working in form (since the content is a given), then the lack of
interest in form means a lack of interest in translation. The formlessness of contemporary writing
and the contemporary translator’s fidelity to content over form are related phenomena that have,
I believe, together led to the serious decline of poetry translation in America over the last three
decades” (84).
The serious neglect of literary form in the TL is also abundantly evident in most translations of
Biblical poetry. Perhaps the greatest barrier here is a lack of ability; less acceptable reasons are a lack

376
of perception for the literary beauty and power of the Scriptures—or pure laziness (it takes too long to
deal with this dimension!).

“The success of a translation…is nearly always dependent on the smallest words: prepositions,
articles. … There is probably no single sort of stone that trips up more translators more often
than prepositions” (118-119).
My experience would bear this out: A Bantu language has no definite article, so various
demonstrative pronouns, more precise than in English or Greek, must be used instead. As for
prepositions, it is difficult to match in a Bantu language (or Hebrew, for that matter) the great array of
prepositions available in Greek and English. The most problematic of all is the misleadingly-termed
“possessive” preposition “of” (the “construct” relation in Hebrew, or the “Genitive” case in Greek),
which masks a broad range of semantic relations between two nouns, or a noun and a pronoun.

15.7 The sound (oral-aural) dimension

“Sometimes what is expedient [sic, expendable?] can become what is essential. That is, what
could easily be left out—rhythm, alliteration, assonance—is often essential to achieving the right
effect and even the right meaning” (123).
This is certainly true when translating Hebrew poetry, as in the Psalms, where such sonic features
typically contribute a great deal to the artistry, rhetoric, and structural shaping of the original text.

“Like an adventurer, the translator can’t just rely on his vision. Some of the most dangerous
creatures in the jungle can only be detected by sound. … This ability is known as ‘having a good
ear’. … Having a good ear is a subset of having good instincts; that is, it’s having good instincts
for what sounds or seems appropriate in a certain context. It has, then, to do with sound in the
literal sense as well as ‘sounding right’ in terms of contextual propriety. It involves having a wide
range of alternatives at one’s fingertips… It involves knowing the many ways in which words,
sounds, and concepts interact: grammar, rhythm, and logic” (129).
This is an attribute—the Germans call it “Sprachgefühl”—that natural translators are born with,
an intuitive “feel,” or sense, for the right combination of sounds, or words, in the TL. It is an essential
characteristic to have when translating biblical poetry as well as many other, non-poetic but
oratorically-fashioned and aurally-shaped passages of Scripture.

“Having a good ear means not only having the experience behind you and the ability to put it
into practice. It also means listening carefully to the original and, especially, to the translation.
… Students often don’t read translations themselves, they don’t hear what they’ve actually

377
written because they’re still looking at the original. … ‘When you read [the text] aloud and all
of a sudden there’s something that doesn’t function, you hear it. Whereas a mute reading may
not provide you with that’” (citing Serge Gavronsky, 130-131).
One of the best—and always essential—tests of a Bible translation draft is to read it aloud,
repeatedly, to a group of colleagues or members of the target audience. Listeners will quickly hear and
react to sonic as well as related verbal infelicities—even the inappropriate use of, or combination of
words.

15.8 Translation teaching and practice

“Most inexperienced translators…tend to preserve the original’s syntax much more than English
can bear, not because they have any theoretical goals [i.e., adhering to a ‘foreignization’ policy],
but because they can’t make the leap between languages. [Experienced] translators have what
Richard Pevear calls an ‘inner editor’ to keep them from falling into translationese” (137).
The development of such an “inner editor”—in any language—takes a great deal of time, discipline,
research, practice, trial and error, plus a certain intuitive gift that comes naturally to only a few
practitioners of the art of translation.

“Most literary translators are largely self-taught or have learned informally at the feet of
experienced translators or editors who have critiqued their work” (168).
The first scenario in not the norm in Bible translation, and the second is relatively rare due to the
lack of “experienced translators or editors” who are genuinely familiar with the artistic-rhetorical
dimensions of the literature of Scripture and/or who are sufficiently practiced in the art of specifically
“literary” translation.

“Because of this focus on the original language, translation is presented as something linguistic,
word –oriented. It’s all about fidelity, getting the meaning of the words right, reproducing forms
rather than interpreting or creating something beautiful or equivalent in English” (171).
That is the potential danger, too, of having a source-language Hebrew or Greek “expert” (or
“exegete”) on a Bible translation team—without a corresponding target-language expert who is familiar
with the principles of meaningful composition. Even then, the problem is that the source-focused
specialist usually wins any argument because the team’s concept of “fidelity” is skewed in favor of the
ST wording, no matter how difficult, potentially erroneous, or meaningless a formal correspondence
rendering turns out to be in the TL.

378
“Translation stretches a young writer’s resources. As Christopher Middleton has said, ‘in all
translating of poetry, you’ve got to extend your own linguistic resources beyond their normal
limits so that you reach out with both hands and touch the original. … What you’re really doing
is exploring new possibilities’” (174).
Such an extension of verbal resources should be encouraged also when composing the initial drafts
of a biblical text. The variations may later be compared with each another, and with the original text
if possible, to select the one that fits a particular text linguistically, contextually, and also in terms of
its literary (artistic-rhetorical) dynamics.

“In the Renaissance, translation was seen as absolutely vital to the study of rhetoric and to the
study of language learning, just to educate people to a sensitivity for purely linguistic structure.
Rhetoric. Such an old-fashioned word. The effectiveness of writing, the appropriateness of a form
to express a poetic argument. Words and sounds being where they are for a reason. A movement
and purpose to writing. … What was the writer’s argument? What were his goals, what effects
was he hoping to have on the reader, consciously or unconsciously? Every writer can learn from
asking such questions, from becoming more conscious of his [linguistic] choices” (176).
In translator-training workshops, then, the reverse procedure is required—not to utilize translation
to learn rhetoric, but to employ rhetoric, that of the target language, to produce better translations—
those that are functionally closer in equivalence to the biblical texts being rendered, whether poetry or
prose. Without sufficient education or instruction in the principles of idiomatic rhetoric in relation to
the various TL genres of literature (and/or orature), translators are ill-prepared to recognize and to
utilize the inventory of stylistic choices that are available to them in their mother-tongue.

“The most important part of the translation workshop is the discussion [it generates]. … The
questions are, why did the translator make the decisions he made, and what are the alternatives
he had to choose from? … The discussion is focused on a few important issues with respect to
each translation. The translator is the one who recognizes them, raises them, and explains his
decisions. Then other students suggest alternatives” (181-182).
Where a Bible translation project is concerned, the discussion will also be guided by its chosen
compositional type, whether more or less functionally or formally focused, as well as by its Skopos—
the principal communicative function(s) that the translation aims to accomplish in relation to its
primary target constituency.778

778
For the notion of translation Skopos, see Nord, Functionalist Approaches Explained, 27-31, 140.
379
“Another type of collaboration between equals involves different specialists, none of whom is a
poet. This is typical in scripture translation and other areas where expertise is considered more
important than literary ability. … In fact, nearly all scripture translations are collective either in
the sense of people working together or in the sense of building on earlier translations” (204).
While the latter assertion is undoubtedly true, there is no reason why the former needs to be—that
“poets” should not be an integral part of every Bible translation team, especially the Old Testament.
Wechsler seems to agree with the assertion by Octavio Paz that “in practice, poets are rarely good
translators” (199), but I do not think that he has sufficiently substantiated this claim—certainly not in
reference to non-Western languages and the practice of Bible translating. Begin with an oral text and a
recognized MT poet having a familiarity with basic translation principles, and I suspect that one will
end up with a more than acceptable poetic rendition in the TL.

“An editor trains and retrains translators, happily informing and improving himself, if he is
fortunate. An editor must be yielding in his symbiotic relationship with a translator, but he must
also be firm when he is convinced that his vision and his understanding exceed that of the
translator temporarily in his care. … An editor is in a way a translator himself, or the translator
raised to the second power. He must deal with the translator in a diplomatic way, reasoning with
him, perhaps laughing with him at risible blunders, cajoling him, and congratulating him. … He
is initiator, receptor, director accomplice, beseecher, evaluator, disciplinarian, exhorter,
researcher, interpreter, and first and foremost he is a reader himself…” (citing Leslie Willson,
218).
Substitute “translation consultant” for “editor,” and “translators” for “translator,” and you have
a pretty accurate description of the multifaceted role of the TC where Bible translating and team training
are concerned.

“The problem is that few people understand translation, and even fewer are able to appreciate
it, to enjoy it as translation or to criticize it intelligently. … And translators are usually
condemned by people who don’t understand what they [the translators] are doing, who think
their work is about languages and words. … Of course [translation] looks like copying to
someone who doesn’t see past the translator’s palette!” (258-259).
Thus training—or better, education—also needs to be carried out widely among the target language
constituency, certainly in the case of Scripture, so that people better understand some of the crucial

380
choices that the Bible translators must make, the various options available, and the probable results in
the case of one type of version in contrast to those of another.779

“Knowing a language but not understanding translation can be even worse than not knowing
anything, because it gives the reviewer the illusion that he is qualified to criticize a translation”
(264).
As already noted, a careful, comprehensive education of the broader TL constituency regarding all
the different aspects of oral and written translating, Bible translation in particular, is essential for
effective current evaluation and future decision-making to be carried out.

15.9 Translation theory

“Modern [translation] theorists [e.g., Lawrence Venuti], as opposed to translators and

reviewers,…tend toward the formal end of the continuum. They feel that the reader must be
forced to approach the original, not in terms of meaning, but in terms of its forms of thought”
(81).
However, it is relatively rare to find a contemporary professional translator who embraces a
literalistic approach to her/his work.780

“One of the many problems with translation theorists today…is that they tend to see translation
as primarily an event concerning language. Translators, on the other hand, see translation as
primarily an event concerning literature” (107).
That is why applying the term “translation/translate” to all sorts of social interaction and
engagement other than verbal communication is, in effect, a gross bastardization of the concept.

“To determine an author’s thought processes, where they go beyond the conventions of his
language, a translator must also determine the author’s intent. But this is a thorny subject: critics
[and translation theorists, especially postmodernists] hate to get into it, and writers tend to say it
doesn’t exist, that a book is what it is, not what its author intended. But it’s hard to understand
a book without at least speculating about intent. … ‘An awareness of a book’s intended effect

779
Wechsler speaks to this point later: “What is rare is giving the reader background material and
a context from which to better appreciate the translation, or discussing alternative ways the translation
might have been done” (283; cf. 287). In the case of Bible translations, such background material and
discussions are more effectively carried out publicly, in face-to-face discussions between the translation committee,
including translators, and the community with whom they are seeking to communicate via their current version.
780
This strongly meaning-oriented methodology is promoted, for example, by the professional
translator, Edith Grossman in why translation matters (sic) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010).
381
upon its original reader is obviously necessary in order for us to understand the difficulties of
repeating that effect’” (citing Suzanne Jill Levine, 139).
Even in the case of those biblical books where the author is unknown (e.g., Ruth, Lamentations,
Hebrews), translators must try, on the basis of scholarly sources, to posit an “implied” author and a
likely temporal as well as situational setting in order to deal with the complicated, but essential issue of
communicative function(s) and thus to carry out their work effectively.

“Those [“foreignizers”] who favor en face [formal correspondence] presentations argue that it
draws the reader back to the original. And this is true, if the reader reads the original language.
But few will, and en face only benefits those who can read it but not very well. And it makes
translation too much about language and too little about literature” (147).
Here Wechsler is referring to translations in English; the problems of a source-oriented translation
are multiplied exponentially in the case of versions composed in a non-Western language, especially in
settings where the level of biblical literacy is rather low.

“It’s interesting how much the post-structuralist [and post-modern] theorists talk about
‘translation.’ They have made it a metaphor for all reading, for the fact that every act that
involves literature involves the interpretation and redoing of what’s already there. So
everything’s translation, which means that translation is nothing special. Translation becomes
even less than what it was, only a tiny subset of something with the same name. … But when
literature is nothing but a subset of translation, it’s all the same, and the world, the content,
becomes the central concern” (185).
I heartily agree: Why can’t these postmodernists exercise a little sustained creativity and come up
with a new term to talk about their pressing issues and subjectivist interpretations? Why dilute a perfectly
good term/concept like “translation” and reduce it to the point of semantic meaninglessness and
theoretical nonsense?

15.10 Ethics of translation

“The academics who believe in the death of the author see all literature as, in effect, ‘translation,’
that is, making literature out of what is already there; after all, nothing is new under the sun. …
Such academics see actual literary translation as only one of many forms of manipulating a text.
Affinity has no place in this scheme, because how can one feel affinity with another manipulator
of texts just because you happen to be manipulating the same texts?” (41).
Instead of “affinity,” Christiane Nord uses the term “loyalty”: “Loyalty means that the target-text
purpose [I would add, also its essential meaning] should be compatible with the original author’s

382
intentions.”781 However, this is not how many modern manipulators view their role as translators;
rather, they see themselves as “re-writers.”

“[Capturing] the original’s beauty and power…works only when the translator appreciates the
original, strives to find equivalent effects in English, has the talent to succeed, [with]…a
competent, intuitive balancing of all elements with an eye out for what is most essential” (79).
Note the use of “equivalent” as a crucial aspect of translation assessment; “equivalence” is a notion
that many modern theorists claim is dead,782 in contrast again to contemporary professional translators,
e.g., Grossman, why translation matters, 89.

“Authenticity reigns today [in professional secular translation], and authenticity is mostly about
content. … Authenticity is an ethical brother of fidelity” (82, added emphasis in italics).
To “authenticity-fidelity,” where Bible translation is involved, one must add the criterion of
“acceptability.” No matter how accurately and competently a translation has been prepared, it must be
acceptable—and used by—its primary target group.

“As an ethicist, I too see infidelity to form and content as betrayal. But the most ethical stance, I
feel, is to make sure the reader is told what he (sic)783 is getting” (90).
This is not always the case as English Bible versions multiply by the year, each claiming to outdo
the other on virtually all fronts. One of the most egregious is the English Standard Version’s assertion
that its “essentially literal” approach to translation results in “literary excellence”—occasionally
perhaps, but this is simply the exception which proves the rule that such “formal equivalence” versions
by and large manifest a style that is neither very clear nor natural.784
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will close with a critical comment on Wechsler’s bold suggestion that translation is better
characterized, not by the concept of “fidelity,” but rather that of “polygamy”: “Polygamy goes
beyond bigamous marriage to two languages; it includes obligations to the original work as well
as other obligations, for example, to the translator’s literary culture. Language is only the

781
Christiane Nord, Translating as Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained
(Manchester, UK: St. Jerome, 1997), p. 125.
782
Not all theorists; see Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories (London: Routledge, 2010),
chs. 2-3.
783
“‘The translator—like all interpreters—has to decide, within a given context, what function she
or he is trying to fulfill.’ [By the way, I hope you will forgive me for using masculine pronouns alone
instead of using both masculine and feminine (or grammatically awkward plurals); I just can’t bear to
write sentences that read like this last one.]” (the initial citation is from Suzanne Levine, 139).
784
Preface to the ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 19-20.
383
medium, the paint, the notes, the steps. What is more important to a translator’s obligations are
the literatures and the literary cultures he’s working in, with, and for” (107).

However, where the translator of sacred Scripture is concerned, I feel that the notion of “fidelity”
remains the most appropriate—in fact, it is demanded by the unique character of the source text
itself—the “Word of God.” Thus, in any and all instances where faithfulness to both ST and TT
cannot be maintained, where a choice one way or the other must be made concerning overall
“meaning”—with respect to the diverse aspects and combinations of form, content, implication,
association, motivation, intention, perspective, attitude, and/or emotion—then the biblical text
and its message must always be favored. After all, it’s not really about being “faithful” to one
text or another (ST/TT) anyway; for the evangelical translator of Scripture, it is about being
faithful to a divine personage—one’s God, from whom the inspired text has originated.

384
 16. Literary Translation—A Practical Guide:785
Some lessons to be learned, with special reference to Bible Translation

The following is not a typical review of this excellent book-length survey of the field of literary
translation. Rather, it is a selective overview that illustrates the author’s insightful approach to
professional translating and which relates in particular to my own interest in a “literary
functional equivalence” (LiFE) rendering of the Scriptures.786 I have retained Lander’s
organization, which is divided into a sequence of sub-topics that expand upon the three major
aspects of his wider subject: “The Fundamentals” (3), “Techniques of Translation” (49), and “The
Working Translator” (171; all page references are to the book under consideration). My comments
with reference to Bible translation that variously engage and reflect on the author’s practical
principles and procedures are identified by italics after each citation.
Landers keys readers to the serious but subtly humorous and subversive nature of his study
with a dynamic rendering of the equally vibrant Portuguese poem La Dernière Translation by
Milliôr Fernandes (viii):
When an old translator dies
Does his soul, alma, anima,
Free now of its wearisome craft
Of rendering
Go straight to heaven, ao céu,
al cielo, au ciel, zum Himmel,
Or to the hell – Hölle – of the great
traditori?

Landers, like the Brazilian author, does not give us an explicit answer to this crucial question (or
is it a riddle?), at least not a theological response. However, as one proceeds through this book,

785
Excerpted from Literary Translation: A Practical Guide by Clifford E. Landers (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters, 2001). Clifford Landers is a professor of political science and a published translator of Brazilian Portuguese.
Several reviewer praised the book for these reasons: “Mr. Landers, a prize winning translator of many books,
confidently answers questions instinctive to translators in a personal and friendly tone that puts the reader at ease.
This book serves as an excellent guideline for successful maneuvering while quenching my passion for literary
translation” (Diane Teichman); “No book exists that takes such a practical and comprehensive approach to the myriad
issues faced by translators of literature, and in sharing his wisdom in such an accessible way, … Cliff Landers has, in
his own charming, humble way, made an enormous contribution to our craft” (Kirk Anderson). The book concludes
with three very helpful complements: a topically divided “Bibliography” (200-205); a “Glossary” of key terms/concepts
(206-209); and a creative appendix, “Ethical questions in literary translation” (210-214). Though somewhat dated,
Literary Translation is well worth a careful reading by all serious Bible translators and their consultants.
786
LiFE-Style Translating, 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2011). Landers too appreciates the world-wide work
of Bible translation: “Reformation leaders translated the Bible, and then missionaries became language experts,
translator-apostles. As a result, the Bible has been the first book to appear in hundreds of languages, and it has radically
affected nearly all of them” (59).
385
one gathers that the implied resolution from a translational perspective is this: The former setting
will be the beatific residence of the creative literary traditor, whereas the latter is the locale of
all literalists.

16.1 Preface

“The translator possesses a working knowledge of a language pair – fluent English and a solid
grounding in the SL [Source Language]. Convincing arguments can be made that thoroughgoing
command of the TL [Target Language] is by far the more important of the two…” (ix).
I would agree, and my forty years of experience in the field of Bible translation taught me that a
competent, creative mother-tongue translator was a more essential resource for a team, if a choice had
to be made, than a supposed SL (biblical Hebrew/Greek) “expert.” The problem was that, generally
speaking, the latter person did not know very much about translation or, on the other hand, he did not
appreciate the benefits of a meaning orientated translation of the Scriptures.

“As a subfield of literature—and literature is indisputably an art rather than a science—

translation is subjective in essence” (x).
While I would afirm that (secular) literature is an art and the Bible, being literature, is “artistic”
in nature, it is also an ancient sacred text that requires the scientific principles of linguistics, contextual
anthropology, textual criticism, and related disciplines for its analysis so that its intended “meaning”
(including the artistry of its various literary forms) can be more accurately determined. “Subjectivity”
then enters the equation during the transitional process, as the translator must determine the appropriate
balance between “literariness” and “literalness” as s/he renders the text in the TL in view of a specified
target readership.

16.2 Why Literary Translation?

“Only literary translation lets one consistently share in the creative process. Here alone does the
translator experience the aesthetic joys of working with great literature, of recreating in a new
language a work that would otherwise remain beyond reach, effectively ‘in code’…” (5).
My assumption is that the Scriptures, by and large is comprised of Hebrew and Greek “literature”—
works of various genres that have been expertly and excellently composed.787 Artistically creative
translators actually do experience a great deal of “aesthetic joy” as they render these hallowed texts in
a functionally equivalent manner in their mother tongues—to complement and enhance the theological
and moral content that is being expressed. All too often a more literal rendition remains “in code” for

787
See Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004).
386
most TL receptors—familiar perhaps, due to repeated church usage, but not necessarily clearly or easily
understood.

“As for money, it has been omitted from these deliberations because if it’s your primary
motivation for doing literary translation, you should choose another field. Much greater
monetary compensation can be had in any of the other areas of translation…” (6).
While financial compensation is not usually the chief motivating factor in the work of Bible
translators, it is a concern that should not be ignored by the project organizers. If you desire a literary-
oratorical version that really speaks God’s Word idiomatically in the language of the people, then you
must aim to employ the most experienced, highly qualified translators available—and pay them
proportionately!

16.3 The uniqueness of literary translation

“One of the most difficult concepts about literary translation to convey to those who have never
seriously attempted it—including practitioners in areas such as technical and commercial
translation—is that how one says something can be as important, sometimes more important,
than what one says” (7).
Generally speaking, this principle is not true when translating the literature of Scripture, except in
the case of certain highly expressive and affective texts, such as the imprecatory psalms, the book of
Lamentations, the Song of Songs, or portions of Revelation. Elsewhere, however, the semantic
(theological, ethical) content must have the priority.

“Consider some of the capabilities that the literary translator must command: tone, style,
flexibility, inventiveness, knowledge of the SL culture, the ability to glean meaning from
ambiguity, an ear for sonority, and humility. Why humility? Because even our best efforts will
never succeed in capturing in all its grandeur the richness of the original” (8).
Speaking from the perspective of Bible translation and translators whom I have worked with over
the years, I would have to add several more competencies: (a) sufficient command of the source
languages to permit a comprehensive literary (artistic-rhetorical) analysis of the original text to
complement its accurate exegesis; and (b) the ability to effectively re-conceptualize and re-verbalize this
ST knowledge within the cognitive environment and linguistic framework of the target language.

“As John Bester has observed, as related to literature, translation denotes ‘the attempt to render
faithfully into one language (normally, one’s own) the meaning, feeling, and, so far as possible,
the style of a piece written in another language’” (10).

387
 And since “feeling” and “style” are so closely embodied within the form of a given language, it is
inevitable that one cannot preserve such features by means of a formally corresponding rendition, but
only virtually, through a functionally equivalent recreation in the TL.

“In the West, the Bible is the most universal example of the phenomenon of the slow decay of
semantic integrity” (12).
But this is true of Bibles not only “in the West,” but all over the world; hence it is imperative that
a new meaning-oriented, lexically updated version be undertaken every decade, at least—that is, for
the sake of every emergent teenaged generation in the society.

16.4 Getting Started

“It takes years and extensive exposure to another culture to become conversant enough with it
to translate its literature with confidence and accuracy” (13).
The problems are multiplied exponentially in the case of an ancient text like the Bible, the Hebrew
portion in particular, since very little other secular or religious literature is available for stylistic,
structural, and lexico-semantic comparison. On the other hand, Bible translators normally do not work
in isolation, but as teams, and they (should) have a large inventory of scholarly cultural and religious
information available to assist them in their work.

“As the invisible men and women of literature, literary translators learn to accept the notion that
a ‘good’ review of a translated work may expend thousands of words without once alluding to
the quality of the translator’s effort, as if the English text had somehow sprung into existence by
spontaneous generation” (23).
Things are much more challenging for Bible translators. In most situations, reviewers do not offer
their complaints or proposed solutions with much explanatory detail at all. Furthermore, it is rare indeed
to find a reviewer who is competent enough in the target language literature or orature to offer much
intelligent and critical commentary on the translation or its pre-publication drafts.

16.5 Preparing to translate

“At least since Matthew Arnold’s seminal 1861 work On Translating Homer, the majority view
among translators has been that a translation should affect its readers in the same way that the
original affected its first readers (or listeners, in the case of Homer)” (27; cf. 49).
A qualification needs to be made here: by “translators” Landers is referring to the professional
translators (not necessarily theorists!) of secular literary works. In the case of Bible translations, the
criterion of “listeners” also very much applies, perhaps even more so than “readers.” It is interesting to
note how close Lander’s recommendation is to the principle of “dynamic equivalence,” as espoused for

388
Bible translators: “Dynamic equivalence is…to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors
of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors
in the source language.”788

“It is unfortunate that there is no mentorship program for literary translators, and precious little
training is available for would-be literary translators at American colleges and universities. …
The good news is that very few successful literary translators learned their craft through formal
courses of study” (28).
The same is probably true in most parts of the world, except in Europe, where the EU makes all
types of translating a more viable type of professional activity. As far as Bible translation is concerned,
the mentorship approach is virtually the only way in which such training can be carried out effectively—
but that all depends on the rare instance of having a skilled TL literary translator on the team with
enough seniority and respect to mentor his (her) colleagues.

“Underlying everything else, the translator is a very careful reader; only through a close reading
of the text is it apperceived beyond the superficial level of the casual reader. … In this way you
begin with several advantages: a preview of the translational challenges in the more difficult
passages; a firmer idea of the time the project is likely to require; appreciation of any
foreshadowing in the original, which lets you begin searching for TL equivalents earlier;
avoidance of misjudging the scope of a project from a possibly unrepresentative sample…” (32-
33).
In the case of a biblical book, the translator must also be a careful researcher or student as well as
a reader—that is, in order to dig more deeply into the textual and contextual background of the text at
hand, in its entirety, before attempting to translate it. Such preliminary research will naturally take
time, sometimes quite a bit of it due to a book’s length or difficulty (e.g., Job, Ezekiel, Romans), but
this effort normally pays off in the end, as the translator begins to work on a passage with the “big
picture” (as well as a lot of little details) already in mind. In any case, this preliminary study should
enable a team to propose a much more reasonable date for completing an acceptable “first draft” that
can be confidently circulated to reviewers for critical comment.

16.6 Staying on track

“Translators too suffer their version of writer’s block. … Is your blockage the result of a
particularly difficult passage…if so, don’t let these hurdles derail you. One tactic is simplicity
itself: skip over them, marking them in some distinctive way (I use ####, making it easier to

788
Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), p.
24.
389
use search-and-replace to locate them later). Then proceed with the easier part of the translation.
When you finish, preferably after the entire remainder of the text is done, go back and put your
neurons to work on the task” (36).
Good practical advice! An alternative might be to simply do a rather literal translation of the
problematic portion and mark the place, as suggested, for revisiting and revising the text at a later stage.
The wider context of additional material translated in the meantime may well suggest some possible
solutions for the problems left behind.

16.7 A day in the life of a literary translator

“In dialogue virtually always, of course, Brazilian Portuguese has few contractions compared to
English, but there are other, often subtle indications of colloquial discourse. And the
conversations must sound natural. Fonseca has a marvelous facility for reproducing the way
Brazilians of all social levels speak, and it would be catastrophic to make him sound as if he had
a tin ear… So I’ll go with contractions unless trumped by considerations of emphasis, euphony,
or some other constraint. In other words, play it by ear” (38-39).
So where would the issue of “colloquial discourse” arise in Bible translation? In my experience, a
number of passages come to mind—the various speeches found in the narrative of Genesis, for example
(perhaps with a need for distinguishing the speech register of “God/Yahweh” from that of other
characters), or the quotations of the diverse personages that appear in the David story, the parables of
Christ, or the dialogues of John’s Gospel (e.g., the instructive, but idiomatic disputation of the recently
healed blind man and the self-righteous Pharisees in ch. 9). In all of these instances, a literary translator
and one who is also attuned to the patterns of natural speech, would instinctively express these different
exchanges in a manner that reflects the norms of socioculturally-influenced conversations in the TL.

16.8 Stages of translation789

“No translation can succeed without a thorough grounding in the SL text. An unaware translation
is ipso facto a bad translation, and ‘unaware’ means failing to have a firm grasp on the meaning
of the work, both at the surface level (words, phrases, idioms, culture) and at the underlying
level of deeper significance” (45).
So often Bible translators are either so anxious to get to work on a text, or they are so bound by
an externally imposed timetable or schedule of activities that they fail to do justice to this basic principle.
The problem is that not only does such preparatory work take time and energy, but it also leaves no
apparent record that translators can show to their supervisor. The only evidence—much more difficult
perhaps to detect—is the qualitative improvement in their work.

789
Landers suggests eight stages (45-46); I have cited just several of these, but they are all worth noting.
390
“Revise the manuscript, with emphasis on phraseology, fluency, and naturalness. At this stage it
should come as close as possible to reading as if it had been written originally in English. … Go
over the manuscript line by line with a native speaker of the SL who is also fluent in English.
Read it aloud while the other person follows in the SL text” (45).
This is another vital step that often gets left out in the rush to make a project deadline. The really
important aspect in the case of a Bible translation is its oral-aural naturalness, for more translations
are communally heard than silently read to oneself. Furthermore, a text that sounds natural will also
be more easily and accurately read aloud naturally, with the proper intonation, which is another
significant characteristic that should distinguish our use of the Scriptures.

16.9 Decisions at the outset

“Most translators judge the success of a translation largely on the degree to which it ‘doesn’t
sound like a translation.’790 The object is to render Language A into Language B in a way that
leaves as little evidence as possible of the process” (49).
Of course there will be new content involved in any translation—persons, places, customs, etc.—
that members of the TL audience will not be familiar with and which distinguishes the text of the
translation as having occurred at a different time and faraway place.791 But the point is, the form of
the language that is used to present such content should not mimic the forms of the ST. And where the
form is meaningful—in the case of poetry, punning, and phonological prominence—then the translation
will express that in a functionally-equivalent manner.

“While I have no quarrel with theorists, they work a different side of the street; I am first and
foremost a practitioner and have yet to meet a working translator who places theory above
experience, flexibility, a sense of style, and an appreciation for nuance. … Overly zealous
application of theoretical guides can wreak havoc with a translation. One example…is the
doctrine known as ‘resistance,’ whose best known advocate is Lawrence Venuti… The question
naturally arises: who other than scholars would want to read prose [or poetry] that bears the
heavy imprint of foreign grammar, idiom, or syntax?” (49-50).
Unfortunately, nowadays we hear far too much from the theorists and precious little from
professional translators, like Landers and Edith Grossman.792 In my opinion, this has led to an

790
“I remember Theodore Savory’s aphorism in The Art of Translation: ‘The original reads like and original;
hence it is only right that a translation of it should too’” (54). From the field of Bible translation: “The best translation
does not sound like a translation” (Nida & Taber, Theory and Practice, 12).
791
“Quite naturally one cannot and should not make the Bible sound as if it happened in the next town ten
years ago… In other words, a good translation of the Bible must not be a ‘cultural translation.’ Rather, it is a ‘linguistic
translation’” (Nida & Taber, Theory and Practice, 12-13).
792
Edith Grossman, why translation matters (sic) (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2010): “Our purpose is to re-create
as far as possible…the work we are translating. … Repeating the work in any other way—for example, by succumbing
391
unfortunate push-back in many older Bible translation agencies, away from the meaning-centered,
“dynamic equivalence” versions of the latter 20th century to more formal correspondence renditions,
supplemented by copious footnotes and other paratextual devices.793

“Resistance is the concept that a translation should patently demonstrate that it is a translation.
A less-than-perfect fit (the argument goes) is the ‘resistance’ of the SL culture and SL language to
being shoehorned into a dissimilar cultural-linguistic frame. … Smoothness and transparency are
therefore undesirable and even marks of a colonizing mentality. The reduced readability of the
final product is an indication of its fidelity to the source language and the culture in which it
originated. Advocates of resistance might be termed the radical fringe of literary translation”
(52).
Fidelity is there, to be sure, but this is a limited faithfulness to the forms of the source text, which
inevitably results in infidelity to its meaning in terms of semantic content and pragmatic intent. Who is
acting like a “colonizer” in such cases that produce generally unnatural texts of “reduced readability”
in the TL? And the only way in which matters of “culture” might enter the communication event in a
written publication is via supplements, such as sectional introductions, illustrations, and expository
footnotes.

“Did Pushkin, Baudelaire, or Ibsen sound strange in the original? Lofty, certainly; inspired,
absolutely; but not odd. A literal rendering of any world-class writer invariably makes that
individual sound tongue-tied, as if he or she were speaking a foreign language, and poorly at
that. ‘Resistance’ of this kind, I contend, often places cultural and academic considerations so far
ahead of literary and aesthetic concerns as to distort the TL reader’s perception of the author”
(53).
Indeed, the same questions could be raised about Moses, David, Isaiah, Luke, Paul, and the other
biblical writers: Do they “sound strange in the original”? Of course, some biblical critics, exegetes, and
theologians feel that these human authors of Scripture do sound somewhat odd simply because they
have not seriously studied these sacred texts from a literary (artistic-rhetorical) perspective. Indirectly
but ultimately then, such notions concerning the supposedly “foreign,” or “non-literary” nature of the
biblical text also reflect badly on the ultimate divine Author of Scripture. On the contrary, these in fact

to the literalist fallacy and attempting to duplicate the text in another language, following a pattern of word-for-word
transcription—would lead not to a translation but to a grotesque variation…” (10). “Translators are like actors who
speak the lines as the author would if the author could speak English” [or any other TL] (11).
793
Some of the newer, independent Bible translation agencies generally favor the contemporary meaning side
of the communication equation: In the version known as The Voice, for example, “Attention is paid to the use of idioms,
artistic elements, confusion of pronouns, repetition of conjunctions, modern sentence structure, and the public reading
of the passage. In the process, the writer or scholar [translator] may adjust the arrangement of words or expand the
phrasing to create an English equivalent” (“Preface” to The Voice of Psalms, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009).
392
are the theories and attitudes that need to be “resisted,” whether they emanate from scholars or, worse,
practicing translators of the Word of God.

“In summary, the goal is not to translate what the SL author wrote but what he or she meant, and
thought-by-thought is usually the superior vehicle for accomplishing this” (55).
“Usually” is a key qualifier here; there are certainly occasions when a word-by-word method needs
to be applied also in Bible translating, for example: in cases where the original text cannot be
unequivocally determined due to some text-critical issue—or where certain key terms, e.g., “grace,” are
concerned when used in different places with the same sense—or when a crucial segment of a passage
is judged by scholars to be deliberately ambiguous, allowing for more than one meaning—or when
dealing with a prominent portion of the text, which the target audience may be familiar with, or
theologically attached to, a particular wording.

“There are various categories of register [a socially-defined variety of language] – e.g., non-
technical/ technical, informal/formal, urban/rural, standard/regional, jargon/non-jargon,
vulgarity/propriety. … Register can be thought of as a continuum, ranging from informal to
formal, ‘lowest’ to ‘highest.’ … In any language virtually every utterance, and often a word in
isolation, conveys a set of associations that go beyond the literal denotation of the words
themselves. … The translation unit to be considered here is not the word, or even the sentence,
but the speaker’s entire idiolect.794 … What the reader unconsciously perceives as the
‘correctness’ of a translation hinges on many elements, including the crucial choice of the
appropriate word, both denotatively and connotatively. Register matters” (59, 60, 61).795
The factor of register involves another aspect of “meaning” in the wider sense that is often ignored
or overlooked by Bible translators, especially when it comes to rendering longer narrative passages that
include a lot of dialogue involving different speakers and changing socio-religious situations (such as
Genesis 37 or John 9). In many languages, the Bantu family for example, the issue of “honorifics” is
one important aspect of this—who is speaking to whom in what cultural setting—because this will affect
what types of pronouns, demonstratives, verbs, etc. are used. The lack of normal, idiomatic “markers”

794
Professional translator and theorist, Edith Grossman adds: “There is no such thing as a literal translation
– languages are entirely different systems and you can’t impose Spanish on English or vice versa. English has its own
structure and its own lexicon and Spanish has its own structure and its own lexicon, and they don’t occupy the same
space” (accessed on 30/07/2016 at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/24/subtle-art-of-translating-
foreign-fiction-ferrante-knausgaard).
795
George Szirtes: “We tend to think of translation in terms of dictionaries but that’s just the beginning.
Literary precision includes the idea of effect, pace, register, intensity and much else. There isn’t always an exact
equivalent for a word or phrase: it’s the effect of it that matters. Effect is partly a subjective judgment but so is writing”
(accessed on 30/07/2016 at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/24/subtle-art-of-translating-foreign-
fiction-ferrante-knausgaard).
393
of such distinctions when translating sections of direct speech will immediately brand a version as
“foreign” and/or its translators as “inexperienced” (or worse!).796

“By assigning a high priority to tone, the translator avoids such traps as a slavish fealty to literal
meaning that distorts the author’s intent. … By tone I mean the overall feeling conveyed by an
utterance, a passage, or an entire work, including both conscious and unconscious resonance. …
Tone can comprise humor, irony, sincerity, earnestness, naïveté, or virtually any sentiment. …
Tone violation occurs when the translator ignores requirements of tone, whether in dialogue,
description, or narration” (67-68).
Most Bible translations are guilty of many such “tone violations,” either because the translators
did not recognize this critical dimension of literary meaning, or they were unable to deal with it
satisfactorily in their language. Tone connotations embrace the entirety of the Scriptures, from Genesis
(e.g., the solemn, stately decorum of ch. 1) to Revelation (e.g., the exuberant communal rejoicing of
ch. 21), and thus failure to render at least certain prominent aspects of this feature constitutes a great
loss of signification indeed. Not only prose that Landers mentions, but poetry too is involved, perhaps
even more so due to the sonic musicality and associated expressiveness of the text—from blissful (Song
of Songs) to despondent (Lamentations). And how many translations routinely smooth over a multitude
of other attitudes and emotions being conveyed by the varied speech-acts of the original: rebuke,
frustration, warning, complaint, encouragement, comfort, and so on?797

16.10 What literary translators really translate

“It’s critical for a translator to establish reliable and authoritative native-speaker contacts (aka
informants) in the SL culture. Undeniable as it is that not all cultural allusions are gracefully
translatable, an unrecognized allusion cannot be properly translated. ... Any literary translator
frequently encounters reminders of the difference between knowing the language and knowing
the culture” (72-73).
Bible translators of course cannot fully follow this advice, but they do have a rather large and
diverse bank of scholarship at their disposal to help them ferret out the significant “cultural allusions”
in the source text. Where several recognized scholars or sources support such an allusion, e.g., to a
certain religious custom or ritual, the translator can be fairly certain that s/he will have to deal with it
in the text, whether through lexical supplementation or through an explanatory footnote. For any

796
For more detail with respect to one Bible translation setting, see E. Wendland, Language, Society, and Bible
Translation, with special reference to the style and structure of segments of direct speech in the Scriptures (Cape Town: Bible
Society of South Africa, 1985), chapter 3.
797
See Wendland, Language, Society, ch. 5.
394
competent translator, the language of the text and the culture of the context can never be separated,
whether in reference to the ST or the TT.

“Neology [the study of new words] always outpaces lexicography—a deep immersion in the SL
culture, if not indispensable, is highly desirable… [by becoming] steeped in the nuances of the
culture through reading, research, and other substitutes for firsthand experience” (74).
For Bible translators, “a deep immersion in the SL culture” IS indispensable, and Landers suggests
the general ways in which this may be done. However, “neology” is not really a factor that enters into
the scope of one’s research; rather, it is the new insights into the lexicography of the biblical languages
that must be explored as a result of recent archeological discoveries of inscriptions and ancient texts,
also in related Semitic languages of the Ancient Near East.

“Surprisingly, there are times when the best way of dealing with seemingly opaque items in the
source culture is not to translate them at all. This does not mean omitting them; rather it speaks
to the self-defining capacity of words in context” (79).
Leaving certain explicit information in the ST implicit in the TT may be a possible option where
even the scholars disagree on the precise meaning of “seemingly opaque items in the source culture”
that are referred to in the original text. Where the general nature of the item being referred to is known—
whether a geographical feature, a local custom, an item of measure, etc.—a generic classifier can be
used in the translation, with a scholarly “best guess” explanation as to its specific character relegated
to a footnote.

16.11 The care and feeding of authors

“Authors can be the translator’s greatest aid or biggest hindrance. In either case, it pays to
cultivate the relationship. A dash of humility can come in handy here: you need the author more
than he or she needs you” (88).
Most of this section (81-89) does not (cannot) apply to the translators of an ancient text.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting because it is true that Bible translators need to establish, as best they
can with the scholarly information available, who the original author was, when he lived, and in what
sort of socio-religious circumstances he was writing to an implied contemporary audience. Such
background knowledge will normally influence, to a greater or lesser degree, certain connotative aspects
of a text’s meaning—in particular, the emotive and attitudinal overlays that color its sequence of
“speech acts” within the discourse.

395
16.12 Style in translation

“In practice individual translators do have styles, which are impossible for them to avoid, as for
the SL author. Style, after all, can be defined as a characteristic mode of expression, and
consciously or unconsciously the translator displays one. In this respect, style is inextricably
intertwined with one’s idiolect, the way an individual normally speaks” (90).
However, style is largely a matter of language form, and since such linguistic forms cannot often
be reproduced correspondently in different languages with the same communicative functions, it is
inevitable that translators cannot precisely duplicate the styles of the biblical authors. Rather, it is the
functions that they seek to regenerate in the target text—informative, expressive, imperative, relational,
aesthetic, and so forth—using the forms that are appropriate in the TL for the particular genre
concerned.

16.13 Fiction and footnotes

“[Footnotes] destroy the mimetic effect, the attempt by (most) fiction writers to create the
illusion that the reader is actually witnessing, if not experiencing, the events described. Footnotes
break the flow, disturbing the continuity by drawing the eye, albeit briefly, away from the text
to a piece of information that, however useful, is still a disrupter of the ‘willing suspension of
disbelief’” (93).
The Bible is, for the most part, non-fiction, so this advice, though valid in certain respects does not
apply to the translation of Scripture. In fact, today’s serious readers of the biblical text actually look
for footnotes to help them understand a difficult portion of the translation, or to give them the necessary
background information to appreciate the author’s situation and why he wrote what he did. In place of
a “willing suspension of disbelief,” Bible readers seek to be encouraged to adopt a “willing application
of belief” in the truth, reliability, and relevance of a difficult text, especially one that runs contrary to
current ethical norms or contemporary belief systems, e.g., in the case of many OT narrative accounts.
Later on Landers does point out this fundamental difference:

“The translator of non-fiction enjoys several advantages: use of footnotes is not a deterrent,
allowing the translator to point out any problem words or phrases and explain cultural contexts;
… often, a translator’s foreword is permissible, providing a wider latitude for explanation of
translational choices made” (103).

“[Omission] does not refer to cutting out a portion of the work that presents difficulties—deleting
any part of the original text is the equivalent of unconditional surrender, an admission that a
certain word, phrase, or construction is beyond the translator’s ability to render. Rather, what is
omitted is the explanation, leaving the reader to his own devices” (95).

396
 No Bible translator worth his salt would ever deliberately omit a portion of the sacred text. On the
other hand, many do so inadvertently, when they render the original, in particular, some difficult
portion, concordantly—with the result being either misunderstanding or the lack of any understanding—
a semantic “black hole” in the text. Landers refers to the special difficulty of “money references,” but
these can be handled either by an equivalent concept, e.g., “a day’s wage” for “denarius” (Mt. 20:2),
or a footnote may be used to give the literal SL term along with an explanation of its contemporary
value.

16.14 Some notes on translating poetry

“Whatever the definition, the soul of poetry lies in the use of language in a figurative,
metaphorical mode of expression that transcends traditional semantic limitations of language. …
‘Poetry cannot be translated; it can only be recreated in the new language’” (citing Clement
Wood, 97).
Biblical poetry is somewhat different in that is usually incorporates a significant informative, or
propositional, component (stemming from a deep-seated belief system and associated ethical principles)
as well as a prominent imperative element, e.g., warning, rebuking, encouraging to some action or
attitude. Thus the “recreative” aspect of Scripture translation concerns mainly the formal literary
features of artistic and rhetorical expression in the TL.

“Must one be a poet to do poetic translation? No, though I am convinced that the translator must
possess a poetic sensitivity, even if he or she has never written a line of original poetry. A poetic
sensitivity encompasses, but is not limited to, an appreciation for nuance, sonority, metaphor
and simile, allusion; the ability to read between and above the lines; flexibility; and ultimately,
humility” (99).
While these facets of a “poetic sensitivity” are indeed critical, they usually come only with a great
deal of practice and experience. The problem is that Bible translators are rarely encouraged to apply
these gifts of composition since they do take time to perfect—and time is rarely, if ever, on a translation
team’s side. In addition, often a considerable amount of research needs to be carried out with respect
to the various TL oral and written genres, so that appropriate lyric styles for rendering the different
types of biblical poetry can be selected, practiced, and tested with the target constituency.

397
“Any translation should—make that must—be read aloud for sonority.798 Sound is paramount to
poets. … In any language, poetry is probably the most extreme instance of linguistic concision.
Every syllable counts” (100).
Landers here identifies two key features also of biblical (Hebrew) poetry. The oral-aural sonic
component is fundamental, and a perceptible rhythm, one that is consonant with the prevailing emotive
setting, is probably the most vital. Furthermore, the only way to accurately test a poetic draft is to recite
(chant, even sing!) it aloud, in front of an audience, so that a certain level of deficiency-revealing
volume is needed. “Concision,” or terseness, too, is essential—though it should not be implemented at
the expense of the clarity and comprehensibility of the text in terms of its essential semantic (theological)
content.

16.15 Other areas of literary translation

“The essence of theatrical translation, at least from the standpoint of the spectator, is its
‘speakability.’ … Actors have to be able to deliver the lines in a convincing and natural manner”
(104).
So what does this have to do with Bible translating, one might ask? Everything!—is the simple
reply. Not only were the Scriptures by and large composed orally (as in the case of all literature in
ancient times), but they were also fashioned “oratorically”—with a dramatic public delivery, or
“performance,” clearly in mind. So it is not only “speakability” that translators need to keep in mind,
but it is also “hearability”—how well (clearly, powerfully, attractively, etc.) will these texts be aurally
apprehended by a live audience? Any testing of draft versions must take this phonological dimension
very seriously.799

“In translating drama, whose very raison d’être is performance, the translator has unseen
collaborators: the actor and the director. … But in order for meaning to journey from paper to

798
Edith Grossman: “I often think of translation as an aural/oral practice. You have to be able to hear the
language of the original. You have to be able to hear the tonalities, what the language indicates about the intelligence
or class of the speaker. You have to be able to hear that, in my case in Spanish. And then you have to be able to speak
it in English” (italics added; accessed on 30/07/2016 at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/24/subtle-
art-of-translating-foreign-fiction-ferrante-knausgaard). In the preceding article, poet and translator George Szirtes
agrees: “My way with fiction generally is to read the first chapter or so then to get down to it. It is far from scholarly.
A kinder way of putting it might be that it isn’t pedantic. I listen intently for the timbre of the voice and seek a
comparable voice in English that might bring to English the experience a native reader might have in Hungarian.”
Similarly, from the same online article, translator Melanie Mauthner also underscores sound: “What is required? A lot
of reading, and a lot of listening to the rich variety of Englishes spoken today. As a translator, my task is to hear a text
with its flow, rhythm, syntax, register and diction, to hear it anew in my head. The work is to re-invent the text. I
want the new reader to hear the text the way I hear it when I read it in French, with its texture and colour, like
stepping into a painting, a land and soundscape.”
799
See E. Wendland, Orality and Scripture: Composition, Translation, and Transmission (Dallas: SIL International,
2013), ch. 1.
398
spoken word and gesture, the translator must provide extratextual clues through explanatory
notes” (105).
In the case of a general Scripture translation, the ultimate goal is not a public “performance” of
the text, but rather, as suggested above, its clear and convincing oral proclamation. However, it is
important to provide paratextual notes that call attention to those “meaningful” elements in the
translation that are sonically highlighted in the original for some purpose—topical focus, emotive
emphasis, pragmatic intensity, dramatic verisimilitude, or whatever. Such observations would reveal
these points of sonic prominence to readers, and guide readers as to their actual articulation.800

“Most of the challenges of translating literature for adults—for example, fluency, accuracy,
register, flexibility, a feeling for style, an appreciation of nuance, and transparency—are also
present in translating children’s literature. But in addition there are special needs in translating
works aimed at children… In kiddie lit, both vocabulary and tone are crucial. … If you translate
children’s literature in verse, rhyme is a sine qua non. Children, especially young children, are
unequipped to appreciate more sophisticated metrical formats like blank verse or free verse. In
addition, rhyme is a significant aid to memorization, and one of the purposes of literature for
children is to encourage, and sometimes teach, them to read” (106-107).
These are important observations to keep in mind also for those who are translating the Scriptures
for children, whether just a portion, like the Psalms, or the entire Bible. Not only does the vocabulary
and syntactic structure of the text need to be simplified in overall complexity, but the significance of its
sound qualities must always be kept in mind and manifested in various ways in the translation, even at
the expense of semantic explicitness in relation to the original, i.e., leaving certain more complicated
aspects of content implicit in order to preserve an easier reading and comprehension of the text.

16.16 Puns and wordplay

“The most frequently encountered use of metalanguage, and the one most likely to cause
translators sleepless nights, is the pun. … Not all word plays are puns; there are also alliterations,
coinages, malapropisms, hypercorrections, and a whole range of verbal resources that a skilled
writer marshals to convey character or define individuality. … It is a fact of life that many if not
most puns will be untranslatable. But, like other special uses of language (humor is one instance),
the effect can often be reproduced by transferring the word play into a different setting in the
same text. Maintaining the tone is the principal concern” (109-110).
Puns and many other related sound signifiers occur in the Scriptures and, as Landers notes, must
be duly attended to in translation to prevent meaning loss. There are many puns on the name of people

800
Wendland, Orality and Scripture, 344.
399
and places, especially in the Old Testament, and while it may not be possible always to render them
within the text, their meaning and purpose need to be revealed in a footnote. More often, however, the
literal and the contextual meaning already occur together in the text, the latter as an incidental
explanation of the former, and it is necessary only to make sure that sufficient verbal cueing is present
in the translation to ensure their recognition, for example, in the case of the meaningful names of Jacob’s
sons in Genesis 29-30.

16.17 Stalking the treacherous typo (Lapsus calami)

“A man who has a clock always knows what time it is; a man with two clocks never knows what
time it is. L. calami can be a devilishly tricky beast. While some variations are insignificant
because they become invisible in translation, others are substantive and serious change the
meaning: posterity vs. prosperity, ecstatic vs. static… And the subtle distinction between yellow
(amarelo) and yellowed (amarelado) is worth preserving. Literary translation lives by such fine
gradations of meaning” (114).
Too many typos in a Bible translation can mean the “kiss of death” as far as popular reception
goes in the community, and even a single mistake, where a key theological term is concerned, may be
equivalent to a large dead fly sitting atop one’s soup—it renders the whole bowl uneatable. Repeated
spell-checking can help, but it does not deal with homonyms (e.g., ‘chief’) or homophones (e.g., ‘new’
and ‘knew’). Reading a draft translation aloud to a colleague with the text in hand may help, but even
this is not foolproof since the eye often compensates for the meaning that the mind is in the process of
making.

16.18 The dilemma of dialect

“Dialect is always tied, geographically and culturally, to a milieu that does not exist in the target-
language setting. Substitution of an ‘equivalent’ dialect is foredoomed to failure. The best advice
about trying to translate dialect: don’t” (117).
Dialect issues are not a major concern, but they do occasionally arise, e.g., the “Galilean dialect”
spoken by some of Christ’s disciples, like Peter (Mt. 26:73). But the attempt to duplicate this effect
would certainly cause more difficulties than it would resolve (e.g., Aramaic or Greek?) and therefore is
better left implicit in the text. The matter of “register,” discussed earlier, is much more important and
cannot be ignored in many languages, e.g., the comparative formality of discourse when Christ dialogues
with Pilate (Jn. 18:28-38).

400
16.19 Special problems in literary translation

“[Subtext] is defined as the implicit or underlying meaning of a literary text. … Subtext differs
from allegory in that the latter often makes use of openly symbolic characters (Pilgrim’s Progress,
for one) while a work with a subtext is normally realistic on the surface. … Not all writing has a
subtext, and non-fiction is more likely than fiction to lack it. But where a discernable subtext is
present, the translator’s obligation is to choose words that best reproduce it. … Subtext is found
in both prose and poetry, and being attuned to it increases the likelihood of bringing the SL text
into English in all its richness and overtones” (126-127, 130).
The Bible would be a notable exception to Lander’s suggestion that non-fiction usually does not
manifest a subtext. The most prominent subtext that runs throughout the Scriptures, both Old and New
Testaments, is the divine Messianic strand—foreshadowings, allusions, and direct prophetic passages,
for example, in several of the Psalms (e.g., 2, 16, 22, 110). So how should the translator render these
familiar passages? Within the text, one would try to render any close intertexts as closely as possible—
not harmonizing them (e.g., an OT passage to agree with a NT verse that cites it), but on the other
hand, not translating them so freely, without reference to one another, that the salient correspondences
are lost. Footnotes may also be used to call attention to widely recognized passages that are reckoned
to convey a Messianic subtext.

16.20 Pitfalls and how to avoid them

“Errors of frequency, one variety of SL interference in the TL, occur when a grammatical feature
of the SL is allowed to influence the structure of the TL. … A common mistake of beginning
translators is the fear of ‘betraying’ the author by leaving out some shade of meaning from the
original—e.g., translating a repeating term like Portuguese sobrado as ‘two-storey house’ in its
second, third, nth appearance. We don’t do this in English…and to force the TL into the SL mold
is to do violence to both. A betrayal does occur, but it is the betrayal of the TL audience” (132-
133).
This is admirable advice for every Bible translator, certainly where ordinary lexical items are
concerned. In the case of theologically or culturally important “key terms,” however, a more
correspondent policy may be observed, except where a different sense of the word is patently involved,
e.g., “grace” (charis) in Jn. 1:17, Ac. 4:33, Ro. 1:5; Ro. 3:24, 1 Co. 3:10, Hb. 13:9).

“The translator has no right to introduce his or her own notions into the text, above all when
such accretion distorts the views of the author or warps the TL reader’s perspective of the SL
culture. … Few choices of words can have greater impact than those impacting race and

401
ethnicity. The literary translator must be constantly vigilant to select the term that conveys not
only denotation but connotation as well” (138-139).
Nowadays, Landers would have included “gender” along with “race” and “ethnicity.” Such issues
must be recognized, carefully strategized, and fully tested in Bible translation drafts as well so that any
potential offense can be avoided—if possible (it is not always so). He gives the following example when
translating from Spanish into contemporary English:

“To translate the sentence as ‘…has his or her value’ is not only a departure from the author’s
intent, but also does violence to the culture of which the writer is a product. While the original
statement may not have been consciously sexist, translating ‘his or her’ in this instance strongly
implies that avoidance of even the appearance of sexism was a consideration by the author,
which is most likely a distortion of reality” (138).

16.21 The all-important title

“Choice of a title is critical because, while a textual inaccuracy may be overlooked, an error in
the title will be there every time the book is referred to, and each mention will reinforce the
mistaken impression it conveys. Further, since readers usually assume the title is indicative of
the theme of the work, a bad title can color or even falsify their perception of its meaning. …
Like a huge wart at the end of one’s nose, an infelicitous title is hard to ignore…” (142).
Many of the titles of the book of the Bible are not part of the original text (e.g., the books of
Moses), but have been established by long church traditions. The problem is that these traditions vary
from language to language and from one church constituency or denomination to another, e.g.,
Protestant—Catholic. Therefore, the choice of a biblical book title must be the product of careful
negotiation and compromise. This principle applies also to the incorporation of “section headings” within
the text to guide readers and hearers concerning the content and/or main topic to come. Such headings
must not be simply copied out from some established version in a major language, and a modification
of, or a complete change from these is often required “because of cultural, linguistic, historical, or even
geographical disparities between the SL and TL (140).

16.22 Profanity, prurience, pornography

“With time, most literary translators run into a situation in which they are called upon to
translate words [phrases, clauses, etc.] that aren’t to be found in family newspapers, even as they
are heard more and more on cable television. When translators encounter material that they
realize will be disturbing to a portion of the potential readership if translated in all its earthiness,
their options are almost self-evident… Do the same conscientious job of translating as with any
other text.” (151).
402
 Pornography in the Scriptures? Where, pray tell? Try the Song of Songs for numerous samples, or
Ezekiel 16 and 23. However, in these biblical instances the sexual content is pretty well disguised by
means of euphemism and figures of speech (simile-metaphors). In these cases, as Landers suggests,
translate “conscientiously”—that is, through the use of functionally equivalent euphemistic and
figurative speech in the TL that would not be considered overly graphic, let alone offensive, when the
text is read during public worship. Above all, the main point of these passages should be conveyed—
denoting a powerful, intimate, appropriate love between a man and woman, on the one hand (SoS), in
contrast to a grossly immoral relationship figuring idolatry, on the other (Ezekiel, Hosea).

16.23 The crucial role of revision

“A draft consists of a complete translation of the text, printed on paper; it is difficult to edit any
but the shortest passages on a computer screen. As much as some like to think that the 21st
century will see the end of paper, for clarity and ease of use there is no substitute for sitting
down and making marks on a sheet” (159).
There was a time when I would have agreed with Landers on this issue—paper over screen;
however, use of the Microsoft Word’s “track-changes” with “comments” function has changed my mind,
both when reviewing the work of others and editing my own. Revision for me now is so much easier and
more efficient on the computer than it was using endless paper drafts. But whatever method a person
employs, the point is that revision (multiplied!) must be done—and for as long as it takes to produce
an accurate, appealing, acceptable final version of the original ST.

“Once a first draft is finished, the revision process entails several steps. … First read-through
(for mechanics). Correct typographical errors and misspellings… Make sure punctuation and
pagination are accurate. … Check paragraph division to conform to the SL text, unless you have
consciously opted to modify it. … Second read-through (for content). Fine-tune choice of
words… Check for inappropriate verbosity… Look for parallelism in sentence construction…
Where called for, tighten the colloquial sound of dialogue… Third read-through (for sonority,
rhythm, euphony). … Place emphasis on the way the prose [or poetry] flows. If you’re not lucky
enough to have someone to read it to, read it aloud to yourself. Only in this way can you detect
the tiny cacophonies that would mar an otherwise smooth translation” (160-161, original
boldfaced italics).801

801
Melanie Mauthner has this advice: “As with any piece of writing, the most difficult part of the job is editing
the drafts. This is slow work in order to ensure that the reader will not stumble or bump into a jarring word or clause.
I work straight through to produce a first draft, and then I rewrite until it feels as if it had been written in English”
(note again the emphasis on read-hearability; accessed on 30/07/2016 at:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/24/subtle-art-of-translating-foreign-fiction-ferrante-knausgaard).
403
 These are very helpful guidelines, and no doubt many translation consultants can add quite a few
more steps to follow where a Bible translation review is concerned. I have found that it is beneficial to
have a formal check-list of procedures that the team goes through when they check a draft version
together—and the final version must always be done together, for what one misses, another member of
the team will pick up and call attention to for discussion and possible revision. This would include what
Landers lists under his Final Steps…Verifying against the source language:

“The interlocutor, a native speaker of the SL, follows line by line as you read the translation
aloud…arguably the single most important step in perfecting a translation prior to submission.
… The other person alerts you to skipped words, sentences, and even longer passages. …
Infelicities or unclear choices in the translation are pointed out… The all-important element of
sonority is reinforced, allowing you…to hear the translation with your ears rather than your
mind’s voice. This is where you become aware of unintentional rhymes, inadvertent puns,
undesirable connotations, and other lapses that might slip by” (164).
These steps are especially important in the case of a literary rendition, where the translation aims
(according to its project Skopos) to utilize the full resources of the TL’s structural and stylistic inventory
to duplicate the artistic and rhetorical dimension of the biblical original text, whether prose, poetry, or
something in-between. Landers again rightly emphasizes “sonority”—the crucial oral-aural dynamics of
the text, for this is where real “literature” (“orature”) is first recognized and in the end, when done
well, greatly appreciated for its perceived impact and oratorical appeal that complements the divine
message being communicated.

Literary Translation includes several other chapters that are interesting but don’t directly concern
Bible translators working within the framework of an established team and project committee:
 Where to publish (periodicals, commercial presses, small presses, academic presses, self-
publishing, 165-167)
 The translator’s tools (references, how to use dictionaries, electronic vs. printed
dictionaries, internet dictionaries, 171-179)
 Workspace and work time (a good work plan, workspace, my first translation, 180-183)
 Financial matters (taxes, setting a contract price, other possible sources of income, 184-
190)
 Contracts (what to include, the © question, when contracts aren’t honored, )

Finally, in an Appendix, Landers puts together a series of ten “ethical questions in literary
translation” (210-212), for which he subsequently provides answers (212-214) that represent
“the opinions of the author of this guide, based solely on his own experience” (210). I will cite
just one of these as an illustration:
404
“You understand perfectly the meaning of a given SL phrase in a short story, recognizing also its
strangeness in the original. If you translate it faithfully, you will achieve one of two results,
neither especially desirable: either the author will sound awkward in English or the reader will
think that you are a poor translator. Do you retain the strange construction in your language?
Yes or No? (210)
[Lander’s opinion]: “There is no clear-cut answer. Your chosen solution depends on where
you stand on the author—translator—reader continuum. … Obviously, your feelings about the
desirability of ‘resistance’ also play a part.” (212)

However, Landers has already tipped his hand clearly in the direction of “No” just a page earlier
in his Glossary, where he has this to say about the translational practice of “resistance”: “…the
term refers to the conscious effort to indicate the non-native origins of a work through close
adherence to the source language and culture in the translation, deliberately promoting its
‘otherness.’ The result is often perceived as strange or even bizarre by many readers. … Most
translators, however, will encounter difficulties enough in achieving a readable text without
actively striving to introduce such elements into the translation” (209). I would heartily agree
with this opinion—and most everything else that Clifford E. Landers has to say in his superb
“practical guide” to Literary Translation. He offers a great deal of good advice that Bible
translators too can benefit from.

405
 17. Poeticizing the Psalter in an African language:
From poetry into poetry, with special reference to Psalm 13 – “How long, O Lord…!?”

Abstract: This study illustrates the application of a literary methodology to the analysis and
translation of biblical poetry. The aim is twofold: first and foundational, to reveal salient aspects
of the beauty and power of Psalm 13 in the original Hebrew; and second, to experiment with
different methods of communicating the original meaning of the psalmist’s passionate prayer
with respect to lyric form, content, and function in Chichewa, a major Bantu language. After a
thorough examination of the principal structural and stylistic features of the biblical text, a
typical lament psalm, several published and unpublished Chewa translations are critically
discussed. The ultimate purpose is, as the title of this paper suggests, to produce an acceptable,
functionally equivalent, poetic version of the Hebrew text in the vernacular. In conclusion, the
main principles illustrated in this study are summarized in an effort to encourage more dynamic,
idiomatic, indeed melodic translations of the Scriptures in local languages, where circumstances
allow. “How long” must so many reader-hearers suffer under the burden of a less than
communicative version of the Psalter in their mother tongue?

17.1 Overview: From a Literary-Structural analysis to a LiFE translation

The purpose of this study is to utilize Psalm 13, “the shortest of the prayers for help in the
Psalter,”802 to illustrate a “literary-structural” (LS) type of text analysis and then to apply the
results to a “literary functional equivalence” (LiFE) manner of translation.803 With respect to the
source (biblical) document, a LS analysis seeks, first of all, to determine the text’s main structural
contours in terms of its sequence of primary structural units (poetic stanzas) and their inter-
relationships; secondly, to identify the text’s significant literary attributes—that is, its major
artistic (formal) and rhetorical (functional) features.804 The literary character and quality of the
source text (ST), once analytically determined, is then synthesized or reproduced along with its
“meaning” (content and intent), to the extent possible, by implementing a LiFE mode of translation.
This is a rendition which employs the functionally-equivalent macro-forms (genres) and micro-
forms (stylistic devices) of the target language (TL) to duplicate the overall communicative
impact and appeal of the ST. As will be demonstrated, the goal cannot be accomplished by means
of a mechanical verbal transfer process. On the contrary, translators must have exceptional
linguistic and literary competence in the source as well as the target languages and literatures,
plus a good measure of intuitive intercultural conceptual creativity, in order to produce a
successful outcome. This would be a text that is not only “acceptable” to the audience group for
which it is intended, but one that is also highly desirable and greatly appreciated by them—
hence usable for a variety of public and private worshipful activities.

802
Mays, “Psalms”, 77. Mays goes on to observe that “in spite of its brevity, the psalm is a virtual
paradigm of the essential features of such prayers” (ibid.: loc. cit.).
803
This mode of discourse analysis and approach to translation are both amply explained and
illustrated in Wendland, “Survey”, 2015, and in Wendland, “Studies”, 2016. Consequently, there is no need
to go into details regarding these methodologies here.
804
These are “communicative clues,” which are “features built into the text for the purpose of guiding
the audience to the intended interpretation…textual features which vary in degree of subtlety and which
are perceived to be particularly important for the intended meaning” (Hatim, “Translation”, 112).
“Meaning” includes both semantic content and pragmatic intent.
406
 I will begin with a close examination of the Hebrew text below, which is set out in putative
poetic line-forms (cola) below and grouped into three “stanzas.”805 This is accompanied by a
relatively literal (“formal correspondence”) English translation (my own), plus an assortment of
footnotes that elucidate various aspects of the original micro-structure (mainly text-critical,
lexical, grammatical, and intertextual features). Notable reiterated phonological characteristics,
including the repetition of key lexical items, are highlighted by gray shading in the Hebrew.
These diverse audible facets presumably served both to highlight selected aspects of content and
also to beautify the oral-aural soundscape of this prayer “of/for David,” thus helping to
distinguish it as “poetry” that is meant to be chanted, recited, or best—sung to the
accompaniment of an emotively sensitive, culturally contextualized melody. Although Psalm 13
seems rather short and simple on first reading, or hearing, there are a considerable number of
less obvious structural and stylistic qualities that both embellish and emphasize the poet’s
plaintive appeal to the LORD for personal deliverance. These items will be more fully described
after the source text of the psalm itself has been surveyed.

Conservative English Translation806 Psalm 13

Stanza A *********************************************** *******************************************************
For the director—a psalm for David
‫ַל ְמנַ ֵ֗צּ ַח ִמזְ ֥מוֹר ְל ָדִ ֽוד׃‬
1 How long, Yahweh;807 will you forget me
always?808
‫ד־אנָ ה ְי֭הוָ ה ִתּ ְשׁ ָכּ ֵ ֣חנִ י ֶנ ַ֑צח‬
֣ ָ ‫ַע‬
How long will you hide your face from me?809
‫ת־פּ ֶנ֣יָך ִמ ֶ ֽמּנִּ י׃‬
ָ ‫ד־אנָ ה׀ ַתּ ְס ִ ֖תּיר ֶא‬
ָ֓ ‫ַע‬
2 How long must I bear (this) pain810 inside?811
‫ד־אנָ ה ָא ִ ֪שׁית ֵע ֡צוֹת ְבּנַ ְפ ִ֗שׁי‬
ָ֨ ‫ַע‬

805
I will use the designation “stanza” instead of “strophe” since the former is more common in the
scholarly literature regarding this psalm.
806
The Hebrew text is that of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: with Westminster Hebrew Morphology
(electronic Logos edition); Stuttgart, German Bible Society; Glenside PA, Westminster Seminary, 2001. For
easier reference the verse sequence of English Bible has been adopted, rather than the Hebrew.
807
“The psalm speaks to God, using the name that God has given the people of God as self-revelation”
(Mays, “Psalms”, 78).
808
“The apparent logical contradiction between ‘how long’ and ‘always’ actually makes psychological
sense”—that is, “from the speaker’s tormented perspective” (Alter, “Psalms”, 38). The extension of time is
highlighted by the placement of these temporal expressions at the beginning and end of the line.
809
“The hiding of God’s face is an anthropomorphic expression for alienation and curse (cf. 30:7;
44:24; 88:14). The shining of God’s face signifies blessing (cf. Num 6:25-26; Pss 4:6; 31:16; 67:1; 80:3, 7,
19)” (VanGemeren, “Psalms”, 140). “The hiding of God’s face does not refer to His essential being but to
his activity” (Westermann, “Psalms”, 71)—that is, God’s visible actions in the world (or in this case, non-
action) in relation to humanity, individual or corporate.
810
The sense of the term ‫ ֵע ֡צוֹת‬is debated by commentators; I agree with those who preserve the
parallelism with v. 2b and interpret the meaning as involving intense “pain” or “anguish” (Craigie,
“Psalms”, 140; deClaissé-Walford, “Psalms”, 158; Terrien, “Psalms”, 159-160; contra Goldingay, “Psalms”,
203).
811
“Inside,” more precisely: “inner self” (‫)נ ֶפשׁ‬,
ֶ֫ which pairs with “heart” (‫)ל ָבב‬
ֵ in the next line to
embrace the psalmist’s entire psychological being and mental state—both of which are intimately linked
to his spiritual relationship with Yahweh.
407
 (must I endure such) daily sorrow in my heart?812
‫יוֹמם‬
֑ ָ ‫יָ ג֣ וֹן ִבּ ְל ָב ִ ֣בי‬
How long will my enemy be exalted over me?813
‫ד־אנָ ה׀ יָ ֖רוּם אֹיְ ִ ֣בי ָע ָ ֽלי׃‬
ָ֓ ‫ַע‬
Stanza B *********************************************** ******************************************************
3 Look upon,814 answer me,815 Yahweh my God!
‫ֹלהי‬
֑ ָ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫יטה ֲ֭ענֵ נִ י י‬
ֽ ָ ‫ַה ִ ֣בּ‬
Give light to my eyes816 lest I sleep (in) death,817
‫ישׁן ַה ָ ֽמּוֶ ת׃‬
֥ ַ ‫ן־א‬
ִ ‫ָה ִ ֥א ָירה ֝ ֵע ֗ ַיני ֶפּ‬
4 lest my enemy says, “I have overcome him!”818
‫אמר אֹיְ ִ ֣בי יְ ָכלְ ִ ֑תּיו‬
֣ ַ ֹ ‫ֶפּן־י‬
(lest) my foes rejoice because I’m shaken
down!819
‫ָצ ַ ֥רי ָי ֗ ִ֝גילוּ ִ ֣כּי ֶא ֽמּוֹט׃‬
Stanza C *********************************************** *******************************************************
5 But I, I do trust you820—in your faithful love;
‫וַ ֲא ִ ֤ני׀ ְבּ ַח ְס ְדָּך֣ ָב ַט ְח ִתּ֮י‬
821
may my heart rejoice in your deliverance.
‫ישׁוּע ֶ ֥תָך‬
ָ ֫ ‫ָי ֵ֤ ג֥ל ִל ִ֗בּי ִ ֽבּ‬
6 Let me sing (praises) to Yahweh—822
‫יהו֑ה‬
ָ ‫ָא ִ ֥שׁ ָירה ַל‬

812
“Some LXX MSS add the expected ‘and by night,’ which also turns the line into another neat 4—
4” (Goldingay, “Psalms”, 203), “but this is most likely a reflexive addition based on the common couplet
‘day and night’” (deClaissé-Walford, “Psalms”, 159; cf. Craigie, “Psalms”, 140).
813
The verb “be exalted over” may be construed metonymically as to “defeat,” or “be victorious over,”
someone. While it is possible to interpret “my enemy” (‫ )אֹיְ ִ ֣בי‬as a reference to death (Craigie, “Psalms”,
141-142; cf. v. 4a), “it is preferable to understand the enemies as [all] human beings who are opposed to
the psalmist and his God” (deClaissé-Walford, “Psalms”, 160).
814
“The verb implies far more than visual perception—a look of…concern” (Terrien, “Psalms”, 160).
815
“The second verb directly follows the first without ‘and,’ conveying a sense of urgency that ignores
politeness” (Goldingay, “Psalms”, 207).
816
The Hiphil of the Hebrew verb ‫אוּר‬, “when used elsewhere with ‘eyes’ as object, refers to the law
of God giving moral enlightenment (cf. Ps. 19:8), to God the creator giving literal eyesight to all people
(cf. Pr. 29:13), and to God giving encouragement to his people (cf. Ezr. 9:8). Here the psalmist pictures
himself as being on the verge of death. His eyes are falling shut and, if God does not intervene soon, he
will ‘fall asleep’ for good” (study note from the New English Translation [NET], accessed in Paratext 7.5).
817
Literally, “I sleep death” – “The intransitive verb may take an object in a complementary sense”
(deClaissé-Walford, “Psalms”, 159; cf. Goldingay, “Psalms”, 203, who prefers “acc. of place”). “The
antithesis between light for the eyes and the implied darkness of death is striking, and the poet uses a
jolting elliptical form, ‘lest I sleep death’ (not ‘the sleep of death’)…” (Alter, “Psalms”, 38).
818
“As elsewhere in the supplications, the pain of imagined death is made more bitter by the imagined
shadenfreude of the enemy, who will delight in this death” (Alter, “Psalms”, 38).
819
The verb ‫ מוֹט‬here “refers to dying…it suggests falling down to the ground and not getting up
again” (Goldingay, “Psalms”, 208).
820
In this context, the continuative sense of the perfect verb “may be better represented in English by
‘I am trusting’ or ‘I always trust’” (Bratcher & Reyburn, “Psalms”, 125).
821
“This is one of the passages in the Old Testament in which ‘unfailing love’ (chesed) is parallel with
‘salvation’ (yeshuah). If a distinction is to be made between them, then ‘unfailing love’ is displayed in God’s
acts of ‘salvation’ (Harmon, “Psalms”, 163).
822
The verb form of v. 5b is a jussive, while that of v. 6a is a cohortative; together they express the
psalmist’s strong vow-like resolve to thankfully worship Yahweh. Terrien suggests, somewhat
imaginatively, “that the whole choir will invite him to compose a song of praise to God” (“Psalms”, 161).
408
 Surely823 he has dealt fully well with me!824
‫ִ ֖כּי גָ ַ ֣מל ָע ָ ֽלי׃‬
17.2 A literary-structural summary of Psalm 13

Psalm 13 is a model Hebrew “lament” prayer—“the clearest, purest example of the genre.”825 It
manifests the three prototypical functional (“speech-act”) elements, one per stanza, in the
expected order of occurrence, as noted in the preceding display: Stanza A = Complaint (vv. 1-2);
Stanza B = Petition (vv. 3-4); Stanza C = Expression of Trust and Praise. Although relatively
balanced in terms of lineation, the lexical rhythm is somewhat irregular,826 and the psalm
gradually gets shorter as it perceptually proceeds to a thematic peak (v. 5) and a final emotive
climax (v. 6): A = 5 lines, 19 words (lexical units);827 B = 4 lines, 15 words; C = 4 lines, 11
words. “The sections become steadily shorter as the suppliant climbs step by step through
questions and laments via fears and pleas to expressions of trust and praise.”828

Except for the four reiterated complaint markers that emphatically begin the psalm (“How
long?” – ‫ד־אנָ ה‬ ַ 829 the text features a sequence of formal and thematic triads, revealed most
֣ ָ ‫)ע‬,
obviously in its three constituent stanzas and the three sequentially linked participants (or
groups) that appear as focal agents or experiencers in the first stanza (A):830

“you” (Yahweh) in v. 1 – God seemingly “ignores” the psalmist;

“I” (the psalmist) in v. 2ab – he feels great pain/sorrow in his heart;
“he,” the psalmist’s “enemy” (probably collective) in v. 2c – he “triumphs.”

In stanza B, the psalmist responds with three prayerful commands: “look”—“answer”—

“enlighten,” which reflect the threefold personal focus that was unfolded in the first stanza, that
is, with respect to Yahweh (v. 3a), the psalmist himself (v. 3b), and his enemies (v. 4). These are
accompanied by three motivational clauses introduced by the conjunction “lest” (‫)פּן‬. ֶ 831 Finally
in stanza C, three self-directed events characterize the psalmist’s ultimate spiritual and religious
state: “trust”—“rejoicing”—“singing,” all of which result from the Lord’s “steadfast love” (‫) ֶ֫ח ֶסד‬,
his “deliverance” (‫שׁוּעה‬
ָ ְ‫)י‬, and his “lavish goodness” (‫)גָ ַ ֣מל‬. The psalm’s principal character, the
LORD—the One to whom the psalmist prays and who is trusted to act on his behalf—is explicitly

823
Interpreting the initial conjunctive particle ‫ ִ ֖כּי‬as having an asseverative sense.
824
“Translations have ‘acted bountifully’ for gâmal, but the verb means to do all that should be done;
it is the context that decides whether the action is positive or negative” (Goldingay, “Psalms”, 204; cf.
Craigie, “Psalms”, 140; Bratcher & Reyburn, “Psalms”, 126). VanGemeren (“Psalms”, 142) suggests this as
a translation for vv. 5-6: “But since I trust n your unfailing love, may my heart rejoice in your salvation—
may I sing to the Lord, ‘He has been good to me!’”
825
Brueggemann & Bellinger, “Psalms”, 75. For a form-critical outline and overview, see
Gerstenberger, “Psalms”, 83-95.
826
Terrien, “Psalms”, 158. “Lexical rhythm” has reference, not to strict poetic meter, but to the relative
balance in the occurrence of accented word units within a sequence of poetic lines (cola).
827
Hebrew lexical items joined by a “hyphen” (maqqeph) in the Masoretic Text are counted as one
poetic “word.”
828
Goldingay, “Psalms”, 204.
829
One might argue that yet another (5th) occurrence is implicit at the onset of line 2b.
830
“The agenda of distress is threefold: trouble with God, with self, and with others. … Though the
three are distinct, they are not separable. Together they compose the full account of trouble that comes
upon faith. It is theological, personal, and social. … In the order of prayer, the trouble with God comes
first, because that is what matters most to faith” (Mays, “Psalms”, 78).
831
The second occurrence is left implicit (typical for poetry) in line 4b. These motivations form a
chiastic, topically inclusive structure: (a) lest I sleep in death – (b) lest my enemy should say… = (b’)
[lest] my foes should rejoice – (a’) because I shake and fall.
409
mentioned three times in the form of the revered covenantal name “Yahweh” (‫) ְ ֭יהוָ ה‬, namely, at
the beginning of stanzas A and B, but near the close of stanza C and the psalm as a whole.

Larger patterns of lexical, semantic, and syntactic correspondence help to further establish
the formal boundaries of the three stanzas and to create cohesion within them.832 The sequence
of rhetorical questions clearly delineates stanza A. In stanza B, the imperatives immediately
dominate (v. 3), as mentioned above, along with their motivation (v. 4). In stanza C we find a
conclusive chiastic arrangement where two perfect verb forms (“I have trusted…he has dealt
fully well”) enclose a pair of imperatival imperfects, specifically, a jussive (“may [my heart]
rejoice”) and a cohortative form (“let me sing”). More subtly then, we note a figurative reference
to facial features that occurs near the opening of stanzas A and B: “hide your face” (1b) –
“brighten my eyes” (3b), a type of disjunctive parallelism termed “aperture,” while references to
the psalmist’s adversaries end both of these stanzas (vv. 2c, 4b; a feature termed “closure”).833 A
pair of contrastive “reason” (‫ ) ִ ֖כּי‬clauses conclude stanzas B and C: “because I fall down” (v. 4b) –
“because he (YHWH) has acted fully for me” (6b). The close of stanza B is linked to the beginning
of stanza C (tail-head linkage) through contrastive uses of the same verb (‫)גָּ ַמל‬: foes rejoice – my
heart rejoices. And finally, we have another instance of paired structural “closure” markers in
the psalm’s very last word ‫( ָע ָ ֽלי‬Yahweh –“for me”), which dramatically contrasts with its sense
at the end of v. 2 and stanza A (enemy—“over me”)!

A hypothetical thematic arrangement in the form of a chiastic inversion (anastrophe) might

also be proposed for Psalm 13 as follows:834

A. Yahweh is absent, unresponsive (1)

B. The psalmist’s “heart” is pained and sorrowful (2ab)
C. The enemy appears to be triumphant (2c)
D. The psalmist appeals to Yahweh, “my God,” for a response (3a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D’ The psalmist prays for the “light” of life in the face of death (3b)

C’ The enemy prematurely boasts of his triumph (4)

B’ The psalmist’s “heart” is trusting and joyful (5)
A’ Yahweh has responded bountifully (6)

This suggested organization thus highlights the psalmist’s personal turning point in the
middle of the text,835 as he consciously turns to the Lord in prayer. From this perspective, element
C’ then is not an expression of doubt or despair, but rather a confident, almost ironic look into
the future when the psalmist’s enemies will have to “eat their words,” as it were, due to an
anticipated act of deliverance on the part of his God. In this understanding, the initial of ‫ וַ ֲא ִ ֤ני‬v.
5 is not so much a contrast (“But I…”) as it is a conclusion (“Thus I…”), as the psalmist prepares
to profess his faith and make his personal vow (v. 6). The preceding is not proposed as being the

832
We recall that there were no verse numbers in the earliest Hebrew manuscripts and little, if any
formatting at all. Thus, various formal linguistic and literary devices within the text itself were needed to
help demarcate the psalm audibly into thematic-structural units, especially for the vast majority who could
only access it aurally.
833
For a fuller discussion and illustration of these structural markers, see Wendland, “Survey”, 194-
204; “Studies”, chs. 1-2; “Translating”, 125-128.
834
Adapted from Terrien, “The Psalms”, 158-159.
835
There are 23 lexical units in vv. 1-3a (excluding the superscription) and 22 lexical units in vv. 3b-
6. However, this symmetry is somewhat misleading due to the fact that the word units in the first half of
the psalm tend to be longer, for example, five combinations formed by maqqeph as opposed to only two in
the second half.
410
dominant thematic-pragmatic arrangement of Psalm 13, which arguably moves progressively and
sequentially to a climax in v. 6. Rather, the concentric structure subtly underlies and
complements the predominant forward-moving development of the text, not only providing a
more clearly defined midpoint, but in the process also demonstrating the artistic compositional
skill of the prayerful poet.836

17.3 The psalmist’s rhetorical strategy

Being an essential part of Israel’s long worship and liturgical tradition the individual psalms
naturally give evidence of many typical features, such as:

 conventionalized formal discourse patterns (genres),

 syntactic structures (e.g., parallelism),
 religious themes and motifs (e.g., the absent God versus the ever-present enemy),837
 formulaic wordings (e.g., “How long…?”).838

And yet, with few exceptions (e.g., Pss. 14 and 53), there is relatively little exact repetition
between and among them.839 In fact, one is impressed to observe how much diversity of form
and content is manifested within the collection that the Psalter comprises. There are iterations
and echoes of many other psalms to be found in Psalm 13 as well,840 but none which manifested
sufficient common stock that it would be regarded as a twin or duplicate. For example, for
someone familiar with “book one” of the Psalter, the initial “How long…?” of Psalm 13 would
undoubtedly call Psalm 6 to mind (cf. v. 3). To be sure, there are some patent similarities, such
as the oppressive enemies on the scene (6:7, 8, 10), the extreme anguish of the psalmist (6:3, 6-
7), and the appeal to Yahweh’s chesed (6:4). On the other hand, we also note some clear
differences, not the least of these being that in Psalm 6 it sounds as if the Lord has already acted
on the psalmist’s behalf (6:8-10).

The rhetorically persuasive, petitionary development of Psalm 13 is prefigured within the

very arrangement characteristic of its genre as a “lament,” or psalm of petition. Thus, the
progression of poetic speech acts (each of which may be compounded) in this type of psalm is
relatively fixed, with an opening complaint proceeding to a prayerful appeal that leads, somewhat
surprisingly,841 to some expression of trust in God, hope that he will respond, and frequently even

836
Broyles aptly comments (“Psalms”, 87): “This psalm reveals an intricate, tightly knit structure that
moves logically from one verse to the next. When we try to pick out one poetic line, we find it attached to
every other line in the psalm.”
837
“The psalmist finds himself torn between two poles. On the one side is the “Lord,’ to whom he
addresses his lament; on the other side is the ‘enemy’ (v 3c) who…was exalted and appeared to have the
upper hand” (Craigie, “Psalms”, 141).
838
See also Pss. 6:3, 35:17, 42:9, 79:5, 80:4, 89:46, and 90:13.
839
Where there is such close thematic and semantic correspondence between adjacent psalms, it may
be employed as an argument that at one stage in their history of transmission, they existed together as one
psalm, e.g., Pss. 42-43.
840
Other prominent passages from the Hebrew Scriptures are also referenced or alluded to, for
example, the Lord’s “hiding his face” (i.e., punishment, or no response) as in Deut. 31:17—the contrast,
“turning his face towards” (i.e., in blessing), as in Num. 6:26, which is similar to the Lord’s “shining his
face” on someone (cf. Ps. 13:3b). Harmon notes the intertextual connection of Ps. 13 with Num. 14:10-25,
where “we have the same link made between ‘How long?’ and God’s covenantal mercy (v. 5)” (“Psalms”,
162).
841
A pragmatic “surprise” appears in the textual progression also for McCann, “Psalms”, 95. McCann
(ibid., 96-97) goes on to cite comments by James Mays on this apparent paradox within Psalm 13: “It
speaks to God in complaint and praise, speaks out of the experience of forsakenness and of grace, of
abandonment and salvation. … Luther in his exposition of the psalm calls the mood of the prayer the ‘state
411
a word of thanks and/or praise for an act of expected deliverance. It is important to recognize the
anticipatory “rhetorical movement,” or “structure of intensification,”842 in these psalms of
supplication, both implicit in the underlying generic organization, and actual in its textual
manifestation: “These prayers…move, so that everything is different at the end from what it was
at the beginning.”843 Yet on the other hand, from a religious, or spiritual perspective, and within
a canon-critical conceptual framework, we must assume that “the trust so evident in the
conclusion [of this psalm is] in fact the same trust that permitted the lament in the first place.”844

Therefore, according to the larger pragmatic development of Psalm 13, I consider the initial
lamentation (stanza A) to arise as a bold, assertive expression of fundamental faith845—a stylized
example of persuasive prayer that employs this formulaic mode of speech simply as a rhetorical
device to get God’s attention, as it were, not as an articulation of the psalmist’s doubts concerning
the Lord’s immediate covenantal presence or power to deliver.846 This psalm teaches us that “even
in the midst of the worst circumstances, it is still possible to talk to God—to have a relationship
with him.”847 Certainly, his situation in life was dire, as the repeated “How long…?” in stanza A
and reference to the possibility of “death” in stanza B would suggest (3b). But the fact that the
psalmist feels close enough to call Yahweh “my God” (3a)848 and seeks his “face” (1b)849 would
indicate that he believes that his Lord is right there on hand to act on his behalf to restore his
health and well-being (to put the light of life back into his eyes!).850 How long, Lord, before you
save me—and I know that you will!

The psalmist dynamically “mobilizes both the sense of sight and the sense of hearing”851 as
he initiates his compound petition in stanza B. There follows a subtle, implicitly expressed

in which hope despairs, and yet despair hopes at the same time…’ … The agony and the ecstasy belong
together as the secret of our identity”—that is, in, with, and under God.
842
Bratcher & Reyburn, “Psalms”, 122; “This short poem, which begins with a cry of distress, soars to
a song of praise to God. In six short verses the transformation has swiftly moved from suffering disaster to
confident trust and thanksgiving” (ibid., loc. cit.). How did this happen? Through the interrelational
(human—divine), transformative power of prayer (stanza B).
843
Brueggemann & Bellinger, “Psalms”, 77. Thus, “…it is the power and transformative agency of
YHWH that makes the dramatic movement possible. The issue finally is not literary or rhetorical but
theological” (ibid., loc. cit.). All practitioners of a LS methodology must keep that fact firmly in mind!
844
Brueggemann & Bellinger, “Psalms”, 77. “Prayer arises because God has first taken the initiative
to call forth faith” (Mays, “Psalms”, 78).
845
“It seems to be a paradox of hope and hopelessness” (Ross, “Laments”, 139) only if the psalm ends
with stanza A. But this is only the beginning, and the psalmist’s faith is progressively picked up from here—
by the very same Lord to whom he prays (stanza B) and in whom he trusts (stanza C).
846
In this understanding, the overt expression “will you forget” is the rhetorical equivalent of a more
gentle, “why don’t you remember,” that is, PLEASE act right now to relieve and restore my covenantal
relationship of fellowship with you. My interpretation thus contrasts with that of Terrien: “The poet accuses
Yahweh…of not caring for him anymore” (“Psalms”, 160; cf. also deClaissé-Walford, “Psalms”, 160;
Goldingay, “Psalms”, 205).
847
Howard, “Psalm 88”, 253. Furthermore, built into the beginning of such a lament is the forward-
looking assumption of faith that “praise is the normal mode of life, and [the psalmist] wants to return to
that mode” (ibid., 252).
848
“The prayer is based on the belief that the lives of those who belong to God matter to God. … The
psalmist says ‘my God’ as part of the people of God” (Mays, “Psalms”, 79).
849
This figurative usage may refer to some divine manifestation “in the secret sanctuary of his inner
life” (Terrien, “Psalms”, 159).
850
“The psalmist’s problems with his enemies and with his own self are also God’s problems”
(deClaissé-Walford, “Psalms”, 159). The point is that the psalmist was taking them directly to the only One
who could resolve this crisis in his life (stanza B), and in the end, he is more than amply satisfied (stanza
C).
851
Terrien, “Psalms”, 160.
412
argument to motivate his appeal in verse 4. Thus, if the enemy turns out to dominate,852 then not
only has the psalmist been defeated, but also the God in whom he trusted is shown to be
impotent—and this in full view of all “enemies,” including the ungodly.853 No such thought,
however, lingers in his mind, but instead, he proceeds in dramatic fashion to emphatically
underscore the strength of his faith in strophe C. He does this by verbally encouraging himself
to begin rejoicing with songs of thankful praise to a God that is so amazingly good that his
awaited act of deliverance may be viewed as having already been accomplished! Again reflecting
the triadic structure that frames this psalm, we see in verses 5-6 a significant threefold faith
perspective that serves as a model for believers of every age:854 “Looking backwards, the psalmist
acknowledges, in your hesed I have trusted. Of today, she confesses, my heart rejoices in your
salvation. And tomorrow, she adds her vow that she will sing to the Lord.”855

So how does literary-poetic structure relate to rhetorical purpose relate to biblical theology
relate to personal application? I cannot improve upon the perceptive summary of James Mays:856

The psalm leads those who read and pray it from protest and petition to praise; it holds
all three together as if to teach that they cohere in the unity of prayer. There is a coherence
that holds the apparently separate moments together. God is so much a God of blessing
and salvation that one must speak of tribulation and terror as the absence of God. Yet God
is so much the God of hesed that one must speak of God in the midst of tribulation and
terror as the God of “my salvation.”

17.4 Towards a LiFE-like, musical translation

A careful, comprehensive “analysis” of the biblical text, though time-consuming, is the essential
first step in the basic translation process according to the familiar three-stage method proposed
by Nida and Taber (N&T).857 This is not only a linguistic fundamental, but it also serves to create
an essential cognitive “frame of reference” that allow N&T’s second step of “transfer” to be
effectively carried out, whereby the analyzed material in terms of meaningful form, content, and
function is reconceptualized from the multi-faceted “mental space” of the source language and
culture, as evoked by the ST, into the closest corresponding mental space composite of the target
language and culture.858 This virtual framework of meaning, or “deverbalized mental

852
“There is no confession or statement of sin to suggest that the trial was a judgment deserved; the
urgency of the psalmist’s plea springs from a sense of profound anxiety, not penitence” (Craigie, “Psalms”,
142).
853
Joy on the part of the enemies would result not only “in the fall of the godly but also in God’s
failure to be faithful to his covenant promises” (VanGemeren, “Psalms”, 141). “It is this connection to
God’s reputation that provides an important context for the [psalmists’] bold prayers” (Ross, “Laments”,
149).
854
This pertains to the issue of “theodicy” and the relation between a loving covenantal Lord and the
suffering of those who love him: The theological basis of Psalm 13 presupposes “the deep conviction that
God is not removed from suffering, but is intimately bound up with suffering—God is involved both with
sufferers and also with the answer to suffering” (deClaissé, “Psalms”, 163) in the lives of his saints.
855
deClaissé, “Psalms”, 162; original italics and pronominal references. “The confidence which finally
comes (v 6) is based primarily upon a change of attitude, not a change of physical well-being. … And so
the personal threat afflicting the body was countered by memory of past trust (v. 6a) and anticipation of
future deliverance (v 6b)” (Craigie, “Psalms”, 143).
856
Mays, “Psalms”, 79.
857
Nida & Taber, “TAPOT”, 33-34. For a more detailed method of text analysis and translation, with
illustrations, see Wendland, “Studies”, chs. 1-4.
858
For further discussion, see Wendland, “Survey”, ch. 7.
413
representation,”859 is then progressively “restructured,”860 or formally re-expressed, in the TL
using the most appropriate (“relevant”), functionally equivalent structural arrangements (genres)
and literary (artistic and rhetorical) features available in view of the particular audience,
communicative purpose (Skopos), and setting of transmission envisaged.861

The following outlines a practical exercise in translation that was carried out in joint
consultation with the Chewa-speaking students of my seminary Psalms exegetical class.862 It
exemplifies some of the possibilities that a translator or translation team must consider and then
choose from and try out during their work with a source text, in this case, Psalm 13. The various
options are exemplified below in terms of four stages of dynamic development: (a) beginning
with an old, but still popular, relatively literal, “missionary” version, (b) moving to a more
modern “popular-language” translation, (c) pushing the literary register to approximate a
popular lyric style in Chewa (ndakatulo), and (d) finally the ultimate, aiming for the creation of
a hymned version in the vernacular, one that would be suitable for use in public worship. The
translational alternatives thus represent a continuum of goals and methods that range from the
literal (with a focus on ST form) to the literary (with a focus on TT form). The overall challenge
at each rendition is this: In view of the intended audience,863 how can one best express the main
formal, functional, and feeling-based communicative clues of the Hebrew ST (as noted in the prior
analysis) in a contemporary African (Bantu) TL?

The old Chewa864 translation of the Scriptures, entitled the Buku Lopatulika (BL, “Set-apart
Book”), is a Protestant “missionary version”865 that was first published as a complete Bible by the
British & Foreign Bible Society in 1922.866 Its rendering of Psalm 13 is given below, along with a
relatively literal English back-translation. (A back-slash marks a line break due to the narrow
dual column of print, while hyphens indicate words broken as a result of a right-hand margin
justification procedure.)

1. Mudzandiiwala ciiwalire, Yehova,/ kufikira Will you continually be forgetting me, Jehovah,/
liti? up until when?
Mudzandibisira ine nkhope yanu/ kufikira liti? Will you hide from me your face/ up until when?

859
The latter expression is derived from the “Interpretive Model” of Marianne Lederer (“Translation”,
9-13).
860
Nida & Taber, ibid., loc. cit.
861
These are the practical, target-group focused translation parameters defined in so-called Skopos
Theory (cf. Wendland, “Survey”, 35-38, 60-62).
862
Lusaka Lutheran Seminary (Zambia), September to May, 2016. There are 15 second-year students
in the class. During the first semester we surveyed the main poetic-religious genres found in the Psalter
and the principal stylistic features of Hebrew poetry, as exemplified in the Psalms. In semester two, we
study the basic principles of Bible translation and apply these to the evaluation of different English and
vernacular versions as well as composing meaningful poetic translations of selected psalms in their
respective mother-tongues. All students speak Chichewa as a first or second language so all important
principles and procedures can be also discussed using that medium of communication.
863
This decision about “which audience” to translate for—the familiar question “for whom” (Nida &
Taber, “TAPOT”, 1)—must be based on thorough research and prior constituency testing, not merely on
the preconceived opinion of project organizers and/or their sponsors (financers).
864
Chewa, technically chi-Chewa, is a Bantu language in the Nyasa Family (Guthrie Zone N) that is
spoken as a first or second language by an estimated twenty million people in Malawi, Zambia,
Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and parts of South Africa.
865
A “missionary version” is a translation that was established, guided, directed, and heavily
influenced by the philosophy and linguistic capabilities of expatriate mission personnel, in this case,
pioneer church planters and teachers working in Malawi (then Nyasaland).
866
A corresponding Catholic Bible, Malembo Oyera (MO, “Pure Writings”), was published in 1966. For
more historical background, see Wendland, “Buku Loyera”, 20-26.
414
 2. Ndidzacita uphungu m’moyo mwanga/ kufikira
liti?
Pokhala ndi cisoni m’mtima mwa-/nga tsiku
lonse?
Adzandiukira ine mdani wanga/ kufikira liti?
3. Penyani, ndiyankheni, Yehova/ Mulungu
wanga:
Penyetsani maso anga, kuti ndi-/ngagone tulo ta
imfa;
4. Kuti anganene mdani wanga,/ Ndamlaka;
Ndipo angakondwere otsutsana nane/ posunthika
ine.
5. Koma ine ndakhulupira pa cifu-/ndo canu;
Mtima wanga udzakondwera naco/ cipulumutso
canu:
6. Ndidzayimbira Yehova,
Pakuti anandicitira zokoma.
I will make counsel in my life/ up until when?
Being with sadness in my/ heart the whole day?
He will rise up against me, my enemy/ up until
when?
Look, answer me, Jehovah/ my God:
Look carefully at my eyes, lest I/ sleep the sleep
of death;
Lest my enemy says,/ I’ve proven too powerful
for him;
And then those who contend with me/ without
being concerned over me.
But as for me, I have hope in/ your mercy;
My heart will be happy in/ your deliverance:
I will sing unto Jehovah,
Because he has done pleasant things for me.

A brief evaluation of the BL version is as follows:

 The BL gives a fairly accurate picture of the verbal forms of the Hebrew text. This might be
helpful for some purposes, e.g., for theological students, pastors preparing an exegetical
study.
 The punctuation and formatting of the text on the printed page is problematic, making it
very difficult to read, e.g., small print, narrow double columns, hyphenization, awkward
line breaks, unhelpful use of the colon and semicolon.
 The translation is not demarcated into the three discourse units (stanzas) that appear to be
indicated in the source text.
 “Yehova” is the transliteration employed to represent the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, which
modern scholars feel is inaccurate; furthermore, it is found only in Protestant literature,
not in Catholic religious material, which replaces it with “Yahve” (also in the MO).
 There are frequent examples of unnatural syntax, e.g., Ndidzacita uphungu m’moyo mwanga
– “I will make counsel in my life” (v. 2a).
 Several examples of difficult or unintelligible expression also occur, e.g., Penyetsani maso
anga – “Look carefully at my eyes” (v. 3b).

415
  Virtually the entire text is non-poetic; it could be reformatted as a prose paragraph, and
the only distinguishing feature would be the awkward repetition, e.g., kufikira liti – “up
until when.”

The preceding translation may be compared (below) with the more recent interconfessional
(Protestant-Catholic), “popular language” version, entitled the Buku Loyera (BY, “Pure Book”),
which was published by the Bible Society of Malawi in 1998.867

1. Kodi mpaka liti, Inu Chauta? Till when, O Lord?

Kodi mudzandiiwala mpaka/ muyaya?
Kodi mudzandibisira nkhope/ yanu nthawi
zonse?
2. Kodi ndizivutika m’maganizo mwanga mpaka
liti?
Kodi ndiyenera kukhala ndi/ chisoni mumtima
mwanga/ usana ndi usiku?
Kodi mdani wanga/ azindipambana
mpakampaka?
Will you forget me till/ forever?
Will you always hide your face/ from me?
Till when must I trouble myself in my thoughts?
Should I remain with/ sorrow in my heart day
and night?
Must my enemy/ defeat me without fail?

3. Mundikumbukire ndipo/ mundiyankhe, Remember me and/ answer me,

Inu Chauta, Mulungu wanga.
Mundiwunikire kuti ndingagone tulo/ tofa nato.
4. Mdani wanga asati,/ “Ndampambana!”
Adani anga onse asakondwere/ poona kuti
ndagwa.
O Lord, my God.
Enlighten me lest I sleep/ the sleep of death.
My enemy must not say,/ “I’ve overcome him!”
All my enemies should not rejoice/ on seeing that
I have fallen.

5. Koma ine ndimadalira chikondi/ chanu
chosasinthika.
Mtima wanga udzakondwera/ chifukwa
mwandipulumutsa.
6. Ndidzaimbira Chauta,
popeza kuti wandichitira zabwino.
But as for me, I rely on your/ unchanging love.
My heart will rejoice/ because you have saved
me.
I will sing unto the Lord,
since he has done good things for me.

A brief evaluation of the BY version is as follows:

867
The Buku Loyera was published in two distinct versions: Catholic, including the Deuterocanonical
Books; Protestant, omitting the DC books. For information on the history, organization, and translation
principles that guided the BY version, see Wendland, “Buku Loyera”, 26-113. The Catholic Church has
fully adopted the BY, whereas many Protestant churches have been reluctant to do so, criticizing it as a
“Catholic Bible” that departs too freely from the verbal forms of the Hebrew text. Such groups favor
traditional (familiar) wording over the communication of meaning in natural Chewa style.
416
  The BY presents an accurate rendition of the essential content of the Hebrew text in natural
Chewa style.
 To render the Tetragrammaton, the indigenous name of the Chewa Creator God, Chauta,
is used.868
 The text font is larger, hence more legible, and there is no hyphenization.
 However, the narrow print columns necessitate frequent mid-line breaks (/), often in
unnatural places.
 While composed in acceptable (prosaic) Chewa style, the BY version is not really “poetic,”
nor does it evoke the rhetorical impact and aesthetic appeal of the original Hebrew psalm.

What might we do then to duplicate the stylistic quality of the ST in a more dynamic, oral-aural
oriented manner that is recognizably “poetic” in Chewa? The following is a version that
exemplifies a “genre-for-genre” representation of Psalm 13 in the poetic style known as ndakatulo
lyric poetry.869 This genre, selected after an extensive survey of Chewa oral and written poetry,
is particularly accommodating as a model for rendering biblical poetry because it embraces a
wide range of subjects (secular and religious), styles (with many sub-varieties), functions (from
serious to humorous), emotions (from sadness to happiness), and media of transmission (silent
reading, oral recitation, musical performance). Normally, a ndakatulo lyric is composed by an
expert individual, but in the case of the sample below, I was the initial drafter of the poem, and
my composition was subsequently revised and polished up in various respects by my students
after both a written and an oral review. I have highlighted selected, mainly phonological poetic
features in the Chewa text, its “sonority,”870 for those who may wish to follow along.

1. Haa! Mwandiwala ine, Inuuu Chauta!
Kodi mpaka liti mudzandikumbukira?
Mpaka liti mudzandibisira maso anu?
2. Ah, maganizo anga andiwawitsa n’thu!
Kodi chisoni chidzaleka liti m’mtimamu,
inde, kundipweteketsa usana ndi usiku?
Nawonso adani alipo, amandiyang’ana,
mpaka liiiti anthuwa adzandipambana?
Haa! You have forgotten me, OO Chauta!
So till when will you remember me?
How long will you hide your eyes from me?
Ah, my thoughts are truly paining me!
When will sadness cease inside this heart,
yes indeed, distressing me day and night?
They too, enemies, are present, gazing at me,
how looong will those people overcome me?

3. Ho! ndapota nanu, Inu Mulungu wanga— Ho! I’m begging you, O my God—
choonde, ndikumbukireni, mundiyanke. Pleease, remember me, answer me.

868
The use of Chauta was not only a compromise between Catholic (Yahve) and Protestant (Yehova)
preferences, it is also the closest natural vernacular equivalent of YHWH, being an ethnic Chewa-specific
reference to the High-God that falls under the generic term Mulungu (equivalent to El or Elohim). For a
detailed discussion of this significant translation issue, see Wendland, “Buku Loyera”, 115-121.
869
For more discussion and exemplification of ndakatulo poetry, see Wendland, “Buku Loyera”, 185-
189; “Studies”, ch. 7; “Translating”, 330-336.
870
Landers, “Literary Translation”, 100. “Sound is paramount to poets. … Although not all poems
(both translations and originals) that sound good are good, it’s a pretty safe bet that a translation that
sounds bad, is, well, bad” (ibid., loc. cit.). On the other hand, as a professional (secular) translator, Landers
suggests that “most [literary] translators judge the success of a translation largely on the degree to which
it ‘doesn’t read [sound] like a translation’” (ibid., 49).
417
 Ndiwalitseni maso, n’sagone tulo ta bii!
4. Mwamva adani akuti, “Tampambanadi!”
Asakondwe poona kuti ndili pansi pho!
Brighten my eyes, let me not lie down in the
sleep of darkness!
You have heard my enemies saying, “We’ve
completely overcome him!”
Let them not be happy seeing that I’m down flat!
on the ground!

5. Koma chikondi chanucho chosasinthika But that unchangeable love of yours

chili pha! mumtimamu, ndimachidalira.
Chimwemwe chili m’tsaya, mwalanditsa!
6. Ndidzakuimbirani Inu Chauta osalekeza.
Zoona, mumandichitira zabwino koposa!
is full up! in this heart, I’m relying on it.
Joy is in (my) cheeks, you’ve rescued (me)!
I will sing praises unto you O Chauta without
ceasing.
Surely, you always do for me surpassing good!

The preceding rendering of Psalm 13 exemplifies a number of the common stylistic (artistic-
rhetorical) characteristics of ndakatulo lyric poetry:

 balanced line length in terms of words/syllables871

 frequent internal and line-end rhyme
 variable syntax (normal: S-V-O) to create focus, emphasis, rhythm
 abundant use of demonstrative, emphatic, concordial, and pronominal affixes to create a distinct
tempo, fill out poetic lines, and create alliteration
 occasional use of ideophones, emotive exclamations, and intensifying particles (in boldface)
 various types of adjacent and displaced reiteration
 a preference for direct speech, including vocatives, emphasizers, etc.
 idioms (joys is in the cheeks, v. 5) and figurative language (e.g., “sleep of darkness” = death!, v.
3)
 condensation (e.g., n’thu for ndithu, v. 2) and ellipsis (e.g., mwa[ndi]landitsa, v. 5)
 rhetorical questions (already present in the ST!)
 phonesthetic appeal (alliteration, assonance, punning, rhyme, vowel elongation)

This translation also features several other notable departures in form from the original, for
example: changing the initial rhetorical questions of verses 1 and 2 into emphatic assertions,
which then highlight the following questions; lengthening several verses through repetition for
the sake of lineal balance (e.g., v. 2); changing the figure of “face” in v. 1 to “eyes” to match up
with the psalmist’s appeal in v. 3; reducing the word pair in v. 4 to one term (“enemies”). Other
formal modifications for artistic and rhetorical purposes should be evident from the back-
translation. This Chewa lyric version needs to be tested more widely of course to assess how
successful it will be in fulfilling its main function (Skopos) in view of its primary audience—that
is, to make available a more dynamic, oratorical rendition of the psalm, especially for church

871
Such interlineal balance is not a requirement of ndakatulo verse, but it is quite frequent.
418
youth groups, who often request such Scripture-based materials both for communal study and
performance.

There is one further—the ultimate—stage which might be considered during the translation
process, and that is, to compose a version that may be actually sung in public worship, whether
as a more formal “hymn” or a more flexible choir “chorus.” For either of these purposes, often a
mixed, literal-literary type of rendering is required since the main challenge is to smoothly wed
the words of the text to some newly composed, or already existing repeated melody in an
aesthetically appropriate manner. The following is the text of one musical version that emerged
from our Psalms class study and workshop. It was composed by Mr. Chilembwe Banda, who
conformed his Chewa version, a paraphrase of the original, to the melody of “Rock of Ages.”872
The hyphens in the Chewa text below indicate syllable breaks that correspond with the notes of
the familiar hymn tune, while double vowels roughly indicate a prolonged syllable, and an
apostrophe indicates a syllabic nasal (the result of an ellipsized vowel).

Ko-di m’dzaa-ndi-i-wa-laa, Say, will you forget me

mpa-ka lii-ti, Cha-u-taa? for how long, O Chauta?
Mu-dza-ndii-bi-si-ra ‘nee, Will you hide from me
nkho-pe yaa-nu, Cha-u-taa? your face, O Chauta?
Ndi-dza-chii-ta ma-ntha ‘nee, I will have fear, I will,
ntha-wi zoo-nse m’mo-yo-wuu. all the time of this life.

Mu-ndi-oo-ne, Cha-u-taa, Have a look at me, O Chauta,

M’lu-ngu waa-nga ndi-nu-dii. my God you are indeed.
Tse-gu-lee-ni ma-so ‘nee, Open up your eyes to me,
ku-ti ii-ne ndi-sa-fee, so I do not die,
ku-ti mdaa-ni wa-nga-yoo, so that enemy of mine,
a-dzi-wee wa-le-phe-raa! should know he’s failed!

Ko-ma ii-ne nda-pe-zaa, But as for me, I’ve found,

chi-fu-ndoo cha Cha-u-taa. the mercy of Chauta.
Mti-ma waa-nga wa-ko-ndwaa, My heart rejoices,
nda-pe-zaa mo-yo wi-naa. I’ve found another life.
Mwa-ndi-puu-lu-mu-tsa ‘nee, You have surely saved me,
ndi-dza-iimba mo-ko-ndwaa! I will sing so joyfully!

872
From my Psalms class of 15 students, nine of them felt confident enough to try and compose a
hymn based on Psalm 13 within our time limit of one week (this was after a week of exegetical and poetic
study of this psalm). Seven students composed in the Chewa language, one in Tumbuka, and another in
Tonga. Five students also composed their own melody to accompany their text, while the others matched
their texts to familiar English or Chewa hymn tunes. All of these students did an excellent job and were
rated highly by their peers (the six students who chose not to compose). However, I selected Mr. Banda’s
composition for an illustration because even those readers who are not familiar with Chewa, knowing the
familiar melody of “Rock of Ages,” can test the vernacular text out by singing the words. To hear his two
renditions, access at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA-glP2FP5c and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yka0ygfNGnU

419
17.5 Conclusion: From Poetry to Poetry—What Have We Learned?

The principal aim of this study was to illustrate the application of a literary-oriented
methodology to the analysis and translation of biblical poetry, with Psalm 13 being used as the
example. A careful examination of the Hebrew text revealed a rather simple structure on the
surface, but a much more elaborate poetic style was exposed underneath in terms of artistic
appeal and rhetorical power, both of which served to underscore different aspects of the
psalmist’s fervent appeal to the Lord for deliverance. So this is the first thing we can learn: Every
serious translator must pay due diligence to the original text so that s/he will stand firmly enough
on the semantic-pragmatic foundation of the source in order to produce an accurate (ST focus)
and acceptable (TT focus) rendering.873 Trying to accomplish this on the basis of a derived text—
another translation in a language of wider communication (LWC), such as English—is going to
be much more difficult. In short, the lesson is encapsulated in the Renaissance catch-phrase ad
fontes: “back to the sources”874—the ideal beginning of any literary translation of Scripture must
be the text in the language of original composition, whether Hebrew or Greek.

What then are we to do with the information that we have derived from our initial analytical
study? As suggested, this depends on a host of factors that pertain to the target circumstances of
use—who, when, where, why—for what purpose (Skopos)? The present study exemplified four
possible situations and associated translations: a) a more literal, traditional, and hence familiar
version for public worship in more formal church settings; b) an idiomatic “popular-language”
version for congregations that prefer the Scriptures to speak to them in a more natural way; c)
a dynamic “literary functional equivalence” rendering that models a vernacular genre which
might be more popular with the younger generation, for a mass-media presentation, or for
personal reflection; and finally, d) a musical version that permits the biblical text to be
communally sung, emotively, experienced, more easily memorized, and as a result, probably
engaged with more fully both cognitively and emotively. When carried out with care and
correctness, any type of Bible translation can serve a beneficial religious purpose in relation to
some specific setting. However, the primary intention of this essay is to encourage a more poetic
translation of the Psalms in the languages of Africa.875 This is because in my experience as a Bible
translation consultant and facilitator I have seen and heard so few examples that consistently
and extensively reflect what Nida and Taber refer to as “the genius” of the target language—
namely, the mother tongue of a majority of local Scripture consumers.876

To be sure, there are generally a number of significant barriers present that can prevent or derail
such an ambitious venture: a lack of time and resources allocated for the project, insufficient
prior research in the published literature and traditional orature of the target language, a lack of
education on the part of the local constituency (they simply don’t know about an idiomatic

873
The relationship between “accuracy” and “acceptability” is referred to by the Functionalist
translation theorist Christiane Nord as “intertextual coherence,” which she defines as “the relationship
between the source and target text within the framework of a Skopos-oriented translation (also ‘fidelity’).
The important point is that intertextual coherence should exists between source and target text, while the
form it takes depends both on the translator’s interpretation of the source text and the translation” (Nord,
“Translating”, 139).
874
This phrase is also found in the translation of Psalm 42:1 in the Latin Vulgate: “In the same way
that the stag is drawn to sources of water, so is my soul drawn to you, O God.”
875
This is because in all of the Bantu languages, at least, that I know of, the various poetic forms
found in the Scriptures—from the intense personal debates that permeate Job to the evocative love lyrics
of Song of Songs—can normally be matched functionally by well-known poetic forms in the vernacular.
876
“Rather than bemoan the lack of some feature in a language, one must respect the features of the
receptor language and exploit the potentialities of the language to the greatest possible extent” (Nida &
Taber, “TAPOT”, 4).
420
option), or the sheer inability of the translation team to fulfill such a commission.877 Then, we
must not forget the challenge of the overall formal, semantic, pragmatic, expressive, and affective
richness of the source text itself, which we might do well to remind ourselves of here at the end.
We will do this via a summary of Psalm 13’s structure, message, and spiritual significance penned
by the 19th century Lutheran theologian, Franz Delitzsch:878

The Psalm consists of…three groups of decreasing magnitude. A long deep sigh is
followed, as from a relieved breast, by an already much more gentle and half calm prayer,
and this again by the believing joy which anticipates the certainty of being answered. This
song as it were casts up constantly lessening waves, until it becomes still as the seas when
smooth as a mirror, and the only motion discernable as last is that of the joyous ripple of
calm repose.

In any case, for those capable translators who are willing to put forth the effort, and who
have the mandate to do so, it will turn out to be a rewarding communicative endeavor,
undoubtedly also an edifying personal experience, both for them and the members of their future
audiences.879 To return then to the initial query of the psalmist, now in a much different context:
How long will people need to wait before they can read and hear lyric translations of the Psalms
that truly reflect the familiar sounds and natural stylistics of African languages? But perhaps the
question should rather be this: how long should they wait? The position of this paper is simply,
as long as it takes—but hopefully the sooner, the better!

17.6 References

Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007.
Bratcher, Robert G. and William D. Reyburn. A Handbook on Psalms. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991.
Broyles, Craig C. Psalms (New International Biblical Commentary). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.
Brueggemann, Walter and William H. Bellinger, Jr. Psalms (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1—50 (Word Biblical Commentary). Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.
deClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of Psalms (NICOT). Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2014.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms, Part 1, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.
Goldingay, John. Psalms (Volume 1): 1—41. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
Harmon, Allen. Psalms (Volume 1): 1—72. Fearn, UK: Mentor, 2011.
Hatim, Basil. Teaching and Researching Translation (2nd ed). Harlow, UK: Pearson Educational, 2013.
Howard, David M., Jr. “Psalm 88: Praising God in the Bad Times,” in Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard, Jr.,
eds., The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, 247-254. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2013.
Landers, Clifford E. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2001.

877
For example, a professional practitioner recommends that the translator of poetry must have “a
poetic sensitivity…[which] encompasses, but is not limited to, an appreciation for nuance, sonority,
metaphor and simile, allusion; the ability to read between and above the lines; flexibility; and ultimately,
humility” (Landers, “Literary Translation”, 99). “Why humility? Because even our best efforts will never
succeed in capturing in all its grandeur the richness of the original” (ibid., 8).
878
Cited in VanGemeren, “Psalms”, 139.
879
“Only literary translation lets one consistently share in the creative process. Here alone does the
translator experience the aesthetic joys of working with great literature, of recreating in a new language a
work that would otherwise remain beyond reach—effectively ‘in code’…” (Landers, “Literary Translation”,
5; original italics).
421
Lederer, Marianne. Translation: The Interpretive Model. Manchester, UK: St Jerome, 2003.
Mays, James L. Psalms (Interpretation). Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994.
McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation (TAPOT). Leiden, NL: E.J. Brill, 1969.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK: St Jerome,
1997.
Ross, Allen P. “The ‘Thou’ Sections of Laments,” in Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard, Jr., eds., The Psalms:
Language for All Seasons of the Soul, 135-150. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2013.
Terrien, Samuel. The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
VanGemeren, Willem A. Psalms (Expositor’s Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.
Wendland, Ernst R. Buku Loyera: An Introduction to the New Chichewa Bible Translation. Blantyre, MW: CLAIM, 1998.
Wendland, Ernst R. Translating the Literature of Scripture. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2004.
Wendland, Ernst R. Survey of Translation Studies (electronic publication). Stellenbosch, SA: Centre for Bible
Interpretation and Translation in Africa, 2015.
Wendland, Ernst R. Studies in the Psalms; Analysis and Translation. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2016 (forthcoming).
Westermann, Claus; J. R. Porter, trans. The Living Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.

422
18. From ‘Death’ to ‘Life’—‘BLOOD’ in the Psalms: A Lexical-Translational Survey

ABSTRACT:
After a brief lexical-semantic summary of the principal senses of “blood” (‫ )דָּ ם‬in the
Hebrew Bible, our focus shifts to this word’s 21 occurrences in the Psalms: How widely
and diversely was the notion of “blood” employed in the psalmists’ manifold prayers to
the Lord? We then consider the practice of translation in two greatly contrasting
sociocultural settings—Western versus African: What are some of the main challenges that
translators confront when they attempt to convey the distinct “meanings” of ‫דָּ ם‬
meaningfully—with functionally equivalent content, intent, impact and appeal—in these
two disparate contexts? In a Western setting, as expressed in English, the biblical,
symbolically sacred understanding of “blood” is virtually non-existent, thus necessitating
significant paratextual supplementation, whereas in an African linguistic environment,
Chichewa for example, the ancient symbolical sense of “blood” and its contemporary
connotations remain so powerful that it requires great care in translation in order to avoid
possible misunderstanding or offense in the vernacular text. In the latter case and in
certain Psalmic passages, it turns out that instead of some expression relating to “death,”
one that rather conveys the notion of “life” may well be more accurate and acceptable,
especially when uttered in prayer or praise to the Lord.

“For by the blood* of Christ we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven” (Eph 1:7a, GNB; *

footnote: “Or ‘by the sacrificial death’”; cf. Rom 3:25, 5:9; Col 1:14; Heb 9:14).

18.1 ‫ ָדּם‬in Biblical Hebrew

There is essentially only one word that designates “blood” in the Hebrew Bible—‫— דָּ ם‬and, as one
might expect, it occurs frequently, some 360 times. There are two principal uses, or families of
usage, negative and positive in connotation: (a) the loss of animate blood due to violence, usually
resulting in death; and (b) the loss of blood as a sacrifice to God, always resulting in death. Thus,
“blood is an indispensable element in many sacrifices, and in this connection is regularly
associated with cleansing, consecration, and atonement for sin” (VanGemeren 1997:964). But,
on the other hand, when blood is manifested where it does not belong, outside of the living body
without due purpose (as in [a] above), it is harmful and always defiles or pollutes—people,
animals, things, even an entire nation and its land (Gen 4:10; Num 35:33-34).
There is an interesting debate among some theologians concerning the semantic
denotation of blood, especially in the context of ritual sacrifice: One proposal is that “blood
symbolizes life—the blood of the victim is the life that has passed through death”; the second

423
interpretation is that “blood in the OT denotes not life, but death, or more accurately, life that is
offered up in death” (Harris et. al. 1980:190-191, italics added). So how can the same word
signify two opposite notions—death and/or life? I would like to suggest in the present study that
this is exactly the case with ‫דָּ ם‬. It is not a matter of either one interpretation or the other being
the correct one, but rather that either one or the other sense may more readily apply in one
biblical context as distinct from another. In many passages, perhaps it could simply be a matter
of perspective: Both “death” and “life” might apply depending on how one looks at it, that is,
considers the word in its sociocultural and religious setting. This ambiguity is reflected in the
assertion cited above: “blood in the OT denotes not life, but death, or more accurately, life that
is offered up in death.” Thus, the claim that blood “denotes not life, but death” is contradicted by
the “more accurate” reflection “life that is offered up in death”—hence both at once; alternatively,
either-or, depending on the context or the interpreter’s chosen frame of reference.
But before we can come to any definite conclusion about this hypothesis, it is necessary
to survey some foundational data, first of all, the results reported by several experts in the field
of biblical lexicography, and second, an examination of all of the passages containing “blood” in
the book of Psalms.
The following is a summary of the principal senses of ‫ דָּ ם‬in the Hebrew Bible as identified
in several lexicons. The entire lexical range covered by this term is not the primary focus of my
study—only the 21 occurrences found in the Psalter. However, a general overview of the broader
lexical-semantic field may be instructive as a background for our more detailed analysis to follow.
To begin with, I summarize the distinct senses of ‫ דָּ ם‬which are listed in a recent draft of the
Semantic Domain Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, perhaps the most valuable of modern lexicons,
especially for Bible translators, which is currently being compiled and edited in an online edition
by Dr. Reinier de Blois (the initial boldfaced terms refer to the putative “semantic domains” for
a given sense).880

1. Parts: Creatures = red liquid that circulates in the arteries and veins of humans and
animals; ► used in rituals such as sacrifices, purification and covenant ceremonies, and
never to be eaten; ≈ regarded as the seat of life; human blood, when flowing from the
body, pollutes the body and the land - blood (GEN 4:10,11; 9:4; 37:31; EXO 4:9,25,26;
7:17,19,19,20; EZK 19:10a ...).

880
I wish to thank Dr. de Blois for providing me with this pre-publication draft of ‫( דָּ ם‬23/02/2016).
Note that the following is merely an outline for orientation; most of the examples of different constructions
for illustration have been omitted.
424
 2. Parts: Creatures > Liquids = red liquid, ◄ compared to blood because of its color -
blood > wine (GEN 49:11; DEU 32:14).

3. Parts: Creatures > People literally: blood; hence: = living human being, ◄ defined by
the blood flowing through their veins - blood > person (DEU 27:25; 1SA 19:5; PSA
94:21).

4. Parts: Creatures > Dead (Causative) = causative action whereby humans kill other
humans in a violent way, usually involving the shedding of blood, which brings guilt
upon the people committing these acts - blood > bloodshed (GEN 9:5,6,6; 37:22,26;
42:22; EXO 22:1,2; LEV 17:4,4; 19:16c; 2SA 1:16b ...).

The following then is a summary of the entry for ‫ ָדּם‬in Brown, Driver, Briggs (1978:196-197):

1. Blood of man or animal, = the life (nephesh), Gn 9:4.

2. Usually blood become visible,881 (a) as from a wound, 1Kgs 22:35; (b) often object of
shaphakh, spill, shed, Gn 9:6; (c) blood of slain, 2 Sm 1:22; (d) often of innocent blood, i.e.,
blood shed with injustice and cruelty, Dt 21:8-9; (e) avenger of blood, Nu 35:19; (f) plural
of abundance, blood in quantity, hence blood shed by violence, Gn 4:10-11; (g) guilt of
bloodshed, blood-guiltiness, Ex 22:1; (h) plural also in phrases, bloody man, 2 Sm 16:8; (i)
his blood is in (upon) him, he is responsible for his own death, Lv 20:9; (j) of judicial
process in case of bloodshed, Dt 17:8; (k) in phrase require blood at the hand of, exact
vengeance (for it) from, Ez 33:6; (l) of blood as defiling, e.g., a land, Nu 35:33; (m)
atonement for blood-guilt, Dt 21:8; (n) blood(-shedding) as connected with divine wrath,
Ez 14:19; (o) of water turned into blood, Ex 4:9, or appearance of blood in the sky, Jo
3:3.

3. Blood used with religious significance: (a) blood of Passover lamb, Ex 12:7; (b) blood
used in ritual, Lv 17:11.

4. Figurative of wine, Gn 49:11.

Finally, I give the subheadings under “blood” in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Ryken et. al.
1998: 99-101):

881
It is not clear why this description begins the definition, for it does not apply to many of the sub-
senses listed, e.g., e, g, i, and j.
425
  Blood as human life882
 Blood as death
 Blood as guilt
 Blood as impurity
 Blood as omen
 Blood as sacrifice and propitiation
 Blood as wine

In summary, “Blood is never a good sign. While blood is neutral, the sight of it is not. To the
ancients its red color, along with its mystical connection with life and death, made it a powerful
and ominous symbol of violence and wrong, guilt and coming punishment. Only in the
framework of sacrifice could blood portend good news” (Ryken et.al 1998:98-100). However,
with regard to the referential ambiguity noted above, we find no definite answer; in the words
of the preceding dictionary of imagery we have: “Blood as human life” [and also] “Blood as
death.” Apparently both meanings are applicable, depending on the context.883 We turn next to
the Psalter to see if its 21 occurrences of ‫ דָּ ם‬can lead us in one direction or the other in terms of
interpretation.

18.2 ‫ ָדּם‬in the Psalter

Below I have presented a table that summarizes the various appearances of ‫ דָּ ם‬in the Psalms. As
you will see, the distribution is quite dispersed, with occurrences being recorded in all five so-
called “Books.”

882
Perhaps “life force” is more precise: “In ancient times blood was considered a life force (Deut
12:23). … The draining of blood before eating meat was a way of returning the life force of the animal to
God who gave it life. This offers recognition that they have taken life with permission and are partaking
of God’s bounty as his guests” (Walton et. al. 2000:39).
883
After completing a draft of this study, I noted the following pertinent comments by Jill Carattini
in an online
Bible study: “Thought and practice in Old Testament times revolved around a similar understanding—
namely, the life is in the blood. It is this notion that informs the expression that ‘blood is on one’s hands’
when life has wrongfully been taken. When Cain killed his brother Abel, God confronted him in the field,
‘Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.’ For the ancient Hebrew, there was a general
understanding that blood is the very substance of our createdness, that in our blood is the essence of what
it means to be alive. There is life in the blood; there is energy and power. …
This notion of blood and its power can also be seen in the language of sacrifice and offering found
throughout Near Eastern culture. ‘And you shall provide a lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt
offering to the LORD daily; morning by morning you shall provide it’ (Ezekiel 46:13). Just as it was
understood that the force of life exists in the blood, there was a general understanding of the human need
for the power of perfect blood, a need in our lives for atoning and cleansing (http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-
infinity/the-dead-dont-bleed-4—accessed on 30/03/2016).
426
 English Standard Version Hebrew MT
You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors ‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫וּמ ְר ָ֗מה יְ ָ֘ת ֵ ֥עב׀ י‬
ִ ‫ישׁ־דּ ִ ֥מים‬
ָ ‫ְתּ ַא ֵבּ ֮ד דּ ְֹב ֵ ֪רי ָ֫כ ָז֥ב ִא‬
the bloodthirsty and deceitful man. (5:6/7)
For he who avenges blood is mindful of them; ‫א־שׁ ַ֗כח ַצ ֲע ַ ֥ קת ֲענָ יִ ֯ ֽ ים׃‬ָ֝ ֹ ‫אוֹתם זָ ָכ֑ר ֽל‬
֣ ָ ‫ִ ֽכּי־ד ֵ ֹ֣רשׁ ָ֭דּ ִמים‬
he does not forget the cry of the afflicted. (9:12/13)
The sorrows of those who run after another god shall ‫יהם ִמ ָ ֑דּם‬
֣ ֶ ‫ל־א ִ ֣סּיְך נִ ְס ֵכּ‬
ַ ‫בוֹת ֮ם ַא ֵ ֪חר ָ֫מ ָ ֥הרוּ ַבּ‬
ָ ‫יִ ְר ֥בּוּ ַע ְצּ‬
multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour ‫ל־שׂ ָפ ָ ֽתי׃‬
ְ ‫מוֹתם ַע‬ ָ֗ ‫ת־שׁ‬ ְ֝ ‫ל־א ָ ֥שּׂא ֶא‬
ֶ ‫וּֽ ַב‬
out or take their names on my lips. (16:4)
Do not sweep my soul away with sinners, nor my life ‫ם־אנְ ֵ ֖שׁי ָד ִ ֣מים ַח ָיּֽי׃‬
ַ ‫ם־ח ָטּ ִ ֣אים נַ ְפ ִ ֑שׁי וְ ִע‬
ַ ‫ל־תּ ֱא ֣סֹף ִע‬
ֶ ‫ַא‬
with bloodthirsty men… (26:9)
“What profit is there in my death (lit. blood),884 if I go ‫יוֹדָך֥ ָע ָ ֑פר‬
ְ ‫ל־שׁ ַחת ֲה‬
֥ ָ ‫ה־בּ ַצע ְבּ ָד ִמ֮י ְבּ ִר ְד ִ ֪תּי ֶ֫א‬
֥ ֶ ‫ַמ‬
down to the pit?...” (30:9/10)
Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? ‫תּוּדים ֶא ְשׁ ֶ ֽתּה׃‬
֣ ִ ‫ירים וְ ַ ֖דם ַע‬
֑ ִ ‫אוֹכל ְבּ ַ ֣שׂר ַא ִבּ‬
ַ ‫ַ ֽ֭ה‬
(50:13)
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my ‫שׁוּע ִ ֑תי‬
ָ ‫ֹלהי ְתּ‬
֥ ֵ ‫ֹלהים ֱא‬
ִ֗ ‫ַה ִ֘צּ ֵיל֤נִ י ִמ ָדּ ִ֨מים׀ ֱ ֽא‬
salvation, … (51:14/16)
… men of blood and treachery shall not live out half ‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ‫ַאנְ ֵ ֤שׁי ָד ִ ֣מים וּ ִ֭מ ְר ָמה לֹא־יֶ ֱח ֣צוּ יְ ֵמ‬
their days. (55:23/24)
…he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked. ‫ְפּ ָע ָ ֥מיו ִי ְ֝ר ַ֗חץ ְבּ ַ ֣דם ָה ָר ָ ֽשׁע‬
(58:10/11)
Deliver me from those who work evil, and save me ‫יענִ י׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫הוֹשׁ‬
ִ ‫ַ ֭ה ִצּ ֵילנִ י ִמ ֹ֣פּ ֲע ֵלי ָ ֑אוֶ ן וּֽ ֵמ ַאנְ ֵ ֥שׁי ָ ֝ד ִ֗מים‬
from bloodthirsty men. (59:2/3)
…that you may strike your feet in their blood… ‫ְל ַ ֤מ ַען׀ ִ ֽתּ ְמ ַ ֥חץ ַרגְ ְל ָ֗ך ְ֫בּ ָ ֥דם‬
(68:23/24)
From oppression and violence he redeems their life, ‫ִמ ֣תּוְֹך וּ ֵ֭מ ָח ָמס יִ גְ ַ ֣אל נַ ְפ ָ ֑שׁם וְ יֵ י ַ ֖ קר ָדּ ָ ֣מם ְבּ ֵע ָינֽיו׃‬
and precious is their blood in his sight. (72:14)
He turned their rivers to blood, so that they could not ‫יהם ַבּל־יִ ְשׁ ָתּיֽ וּן׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫יהם וְ ֝ נֹזְ ֵל‬
֑ ֶ ‫וַ יַּ ֲה ֹ֣פְך ְ ֭ל ָדם יְ א ֵֹר‬
drink of their streams. (78:44)
They [enemies] have poured out their [Israelites] blood ‫קוֹבר׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ֽרוּשׁ ֗ ִָלם וְ ֵ ֣אין‬
ָ ְ‫יבוֹת י‬
֤ ‫ָשׁ ְפ ֬כוּ ָד ָ֨מם׀ ַכּ ַ֗מּיִ ם ְ ֽס ִ֘ב‬
like water all around Jerusalem, and there was no one
to bury them. (79:3)
Let the avenging of the outpoured blood of your ‫ם־ע ָב ֶ ֥דיָך ַה ָשּׁ ֽפוְּך׃‬
ֲ ‫יִ וָּ ַ ֣דע ַבּגּיֹיִ ֣֯ ם ְל ֵע ֵינ֑ינוּ ִ֝נ ְק ַ֗מת ַ ֽדּ‬
servants be known among the nations before our eyes!
(79:10)
They band together against the life of the righteous and ‫ָי֭גוֹדּוּ ַעל־ ֶנ ֶ֣פשׁ ַצ ִ ֑דּיק וְ ָ ֖דם נָ ִ ֣ קי יַ ְר ִ ֽשׁיעוּ׃‬
condemn the innocent to death. (lit., ‘and the blood of
the innocent they declare guilty’; 94:21)
He turned their waters into blood and caused their fish ‫ת־דּגָ ָ ֽתם׃‬
ְ ‫יהם ְל ָ ֑דם וַ ָ֗֝יּ ֶמת ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ימ‬
ֵ ‫־מ‬
ֵ ‫ָה ַפְ֣ך ֶאת‬
to die. (105:29)
They poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons ‫שׁר ִז ְ֭בּחוּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫יהם ֲא‬
ֶ֗ ‫נוֹת‬
ֵ ‫יהם וּֽ ְב‬ ֤ ֶ ‫ם־בּ ֘ ֵנ‬
ְ ‫וַ ִ ֽיּ ְשׁ ְפּ ֨כוּ ָ ֪דם נָ ִ֡קי ַדּ‬
and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of ‫ַל ֲע ַצ ֵבּ֣י ְכ ָנ ַ֑ען וַ ֶתּ ֱח ַנ֥ ף ָ֝ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ַבּ ָדּ ִ ֽמים׃‬
Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. (106:38)
Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! ‫ם־תּ ְק ֖טֹל ֱאל֥ ַוֹהּ׀ ָר ָ ֑שׁע וְ ַאנְ ֵ ֥שׁי ָ ֝ד ִ֗מים ֣סוּרוּ ֶ ֽמנִּ י׃‬
ִ ‫ִא‬
O men of blood, depart from me! (139:19)

884
NET (www.netbible.com) notes are given in brackets: “What profit is there in taking my life [Heb. “What
profit [is there] in my blood?” “Blood” here represents his life.], in my descending into the Pit? [The Hebrew
term…shakhat… “pit”) is often used as a title for Sheol]; Can the dust of the grave [Heb. “dust.” The words “of the
grave” are supplied in the translation for clarification] praise you? Can it declare your loyalty?” [According to the OT,
those who descend into the realm of death/Sheol are cut off from God’s mighty deeds and from the worshiping
covenant community that experiences divine intervention (Ps 6:5; Ps 88:10-12; Is 38:18). In his effort to elicit a
positive divine response, the psalmist reminds God that he will receive no praise or glory if he allows the psalmist to
die. Dead men do not praise God!]
427
 There is at least one rather clear example in the preceding listing for each of the two polar
meanings that have been posited for ‫דּם‬.ָ For “death” we have: “What profit is there in my death
(lit. blood), if I go down to the pit?...” (30:9/10), where “death” (blood) is in semantic parallel
with “going down into the pit.” For “life” there is: “From oppression and violence he redeems
their life, and precious is their blood in his sight” (72:14), where “blood” is in parallel with
“life.” Analogous to the latter sense is 94:21: “They band together against the life of the righteous
and condemn the innocent to death (lit., ‘and the blood of the innocent [‫]דם נָ ִ ֣ קי‬
֖ ָ they declare
guilty’),” where again we observe the significant connection between “life-force” (‫ ֶ)נ ֶ֣פשׁ‬and
“blood” (‫)דָּ ם‬. Another passage similar to the preceding is found in 106:38a: “They poured out
innocent blood (‫) ָ ֖דם נָ ִ ֣ קי‬, the blood of their sons and daughters…,” where an innocent “life” (or
“lives” in context) is being referred to. In 26:9 we have the example of “blood” and “life” being
juxtaposed, again in close parallel with “life-force”: ‫אַ ל־תֶּ ֱאסֹ֣ ף ﬠִ ם־חַ טָּ ִ ֣אים נַפְ ִ ֑שׁי וְ ﬠִ ם־אַ נְ ֵ ֖שׁי דָ ִ ֣מים חַ ָיּֽי׃‬.885
These examples would appear to clearly establish “life” as the clear, meaningful translation
preference in certain instances at least—rather than the almost default concept of “death,”886
which a literal rendering of “blood” would suggest in many languages (as in English as well as
Chewa, see below).887
In addition to several non-controversial translation choices, such as the literal “sacrificial
blood of goats” (50:13) or the polluting substance in the Nile River having a “blood-red” color
(105:29), there are a number of what I would regard as being debatable, ambiguous cases. Of
course, the default rendering of “death” (or something related) for ‫ ָ ֖דם‬is the path of least
resistance, and a choice perhaps influenced by a modern western mental model (where one’s
“life” is not “in the blood,” Gen 9:4, Lev 17:14) and literalistic English translations (like ESV).
Consider Psalm 79:3, for example: “They have poured out their blood like water all around

885
Literally: ‘Do not gather up with sinners my life-force—with men of bloodshed my lives.’
886
See, for example, the Good News Translation: “…who plot against good people, and sentence the
innocent
to death” (94:21); “They killed those innocent children, and the land was defiled by those murderers”
(106:38).
887
After completing a draft of the present study, I discovered the following pertinent comments from
three topical-thematic study Bibles:
“Though blood occasionally refers to the literal fluid in human beings, the Bible uses it primarily as
a symbol of life and death, so that the phrase ‘shedding of blood’ means taking a life” (Verbrugge 1989:1374,
italics added).
“BLOOD: The symbol of life, which thus plays an especially important role in the sacrificial system of
the OT. The shedding of the blood of a sacrificial animal represents the giving up of its life. The ‘blood of
Christ’ refers to Jesus Christ’s obedient giving of his life, in order to achieve redemption and forgiveness”
(McGrath 1999:1883, italics added; cf. also 2 Samuel 23:17; Ezekiel 33:4-6; Hebrews chs. 9-10).
“In terms of the ransom picture of atonement, the animal’s lifeblood served as the ransom payment.
It was a gracious application of the ‘life for life’ principle of justice (Exod 21:23). When people forfeited
their own lifeblood because of sin, they were able to be ransomed by the lifeblood of a blameless
substitute—an animal—who took their place (see also important Jewish commentators such as Rashi or
Ibn Ezra on Lev 17:11)” (Carson 2015:2657).
428
Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them.” So what did the enemies “pour out” with the
“blood”—life or death? Life, of course, and the result was death for many people. In any case,
both life and death are integrally linked in the ancient mind set,888 such that translations like the
following would seem to involve a significant conceptual reduction: “They have killed the people
all around Jerusalem.”889 A similar idea is found later in this same psalm, 79:10: “Let the avenging
of the outpoured blood of your servants be known among the nations before our eyes!” Again, it
is not just a matter of “the killing of your servants” (Bratcher & Reyburn 1991:709), but much
more, the loss of sacred God-given life (‫ ָ ֖דם‬with ‫ )נֶ ֣פֶשׁ‬was concerned.890
The most common expression in the Psalter involving ‫ ָ ֖דם‬is “bloodthirsty man/men,” lit.
“man/men of bloods [pl.]” (‫)אַ נְ ֵ ֖שׁי דָ ִ ֣מים‬, as in 26:9.891 The GNT rendering “murderers” gets the
“death” component across, but the loss of revered “life” (in the blood) is left implicit (so would a
compound like “life-taker/s” be a possible option?). Perhaps this is not a major issue from a Western
perspective, but undoubtedly it is a matter to be seriously considered in translation when working
in any culture having a world-view similar in certain key respects to that of the ancient Hebrews.

18.3 “Blood” in English

We turn now to a cursory survey of the concept of “blood” from a Western perspective in English.
A much greater in-depth linguistic and sociocultural study is really required, but for our purposes,
a sense listing from two major dictionaries and a reliable website will have to suffice. First of all,
according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary “blood” has four principal senses (Soanes &
Stevenson 2006:147):
1. The red liquid that circulates in the arteries and veins, carrying oxygen to and
carbon dioxide from the tissues of the body.
2. Violence involving bloodshed.
3. Fiery or passionate temperament.

888
The association is very natural since a body that loses its blood quickly becomes lifeless. It is indeed
why we
can speak of ‘lifeblood.’ Significantly, sacrifices can atone because the animal’s lifeblood is offered” (Carson
2015:2657).
889
This is one translational recommendation in Bratcher & Reyburn 1991:707.
890
“The OT clearly asserts that the life of an organism exists within its blood. Blood is used
synonymously with
life in Leviticus 19:16, where a prohibition against doing anything that might endanger the life of one’s
neighbor is to be read literally: “the blood of your neighbor.” It is the blood [i.e., life] of the slain Abel
that cried out to Yahweh from the ground in the Hebrew Bible’s first use of this noun (Gen 4:10), and
blood and life are equated clearly in the post-flood prescription… (Gen 9:4; cf. Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 19:26)”
(Alexander & Backer 2003:88).
891
Similar to this notion is that of the “avenger of blood,” lit. “seeker of bloods” (‫ )ד ֵ ֹ֣רשׁ ָ ֭דּ ִמים‬in 9:12/13;
to be sure, God, the referent, will punish “murderers” (NET; GNT’s “those who wrong them” seems much
too weak). But the point is that such evil-doers or enemies will be punished with “death” because they
have consciously taken the “life” (“shed of blood”) of others, the innocent in particular (cf. vv. 5-6, 17).
429
 4. Family background; descent or lineage: she must have Irish blood.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary lists ten non-idiomatic or colloquial senses (Agnes
2006:157):
1. The usually red fluid, consisting of plasma, red and white blood cells, etc., that circulates
through the heart, arteries, and veins of vertebrates…
2. A comparable fluid, usually colorless or bluish, in many invertebrate animals.
3. The spilling of blood; murder.
4. Lifeblood.
5. The sap or juice of a plant.
6. Passion, temperament, or disposition.
7. Parental heritage; family line, lineage.
8. Relationship by descent in the same family line; kinship.
9. Descent from nobility or royalty.
10. Descent from purebred stock.

Finally, from the widely recognized website Dictionary.Com the following senses plus sample
usages and several common idioms involving “blood”:892
1. The fluid that circulates in the principal vascular system of human beings
and other vertebrates, in humans consisting of plasma in which the redblood cell
s, whiteblood cells, and platelets are suspended.
2. The vital principle; life: The excitement had got into the very blood of the nation.
3. A person or group regarded as a source of energy, vitality, or vigor:
It's time we got some new blood in this company.
4. One of the four elemental bodily humors of medieval physiology,
regarded as causing cheerfulness.
5. Bloodshed; gore; slaughter; murder: to avenge the blood of his father.
6. The juice or sap of plants: the blood of the grape.
7. Temperament; state of mind: a person of hot blood.

Idioms:
Get/have one's blood up, to become or be enraged or impassioned:
Injustice of any sort always gets my blood up.
Have someone's blood on one's head/hands, to be to blame for someone's affliction or death:
Though a criminal, he had no blood on his hands.

892
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blood?s=t, accessed on February 25, 2016.
430
In cold blood, deliberately; ruthlessly:
The dictator, in cold blood, ordered the execution of all his political enemies.
Make one's blood boil, to inspire resentment, anger, or indignation:
Such carelessness makes my blood boil.
Make one's blood run cold, to fill with terror; frighten:
The dark, deserted street in that unfamiliar neighborhood made her blood run cold.
Sweat blood, to be under a strain, to wait anxiously, to worry:
He was sweating blood while his friend was being questioned by the police.
Taste blood, to experience a new sensation, usually a violent or destructive one, and acquire
an appetite for it:
Once the team had tasted blood, there was no preventing them fromwinning by a wide margin.

As is evident in the preceding survey, the Hebrew notion of “blood as life” is not very
prominent in general cultural thought, hence popular usage, but the association of blood with
“death” or psychologically deadly feelings is quite common. This significant conceptual-lexical
difference needs to be kept in mind both when one is translating into English, and more
importantly perhaps, when referencing English versions during the preparation of a translation
in another language. The more formally-correspondent versions, in particular, which regularly
render ‫ ָד֖ם‬as “blood,” do not take into consideration the fact that a majority of their readers
(hearers) will automatically reference something to do with “death” and miss the vital connection
that the original text and context also had with “life.”893 Finally, it is important to keep in mind
another major difference in understanding that originates from disparate world-views: “Blood is
not to be identified with the family bond. While in English we speak of blood kinship or blood
relations, the OT speaks of someone as being of the same bone and flesh (…Gen 2:23; Judg 9:2).
Since dâm was regularly connected with violence or spilt blood, it was not a suitable word to
designate family relationships…” (VanGemeren 1997:964).

893
Such a connection is sometimes made in the expository notes of a “study Bible,” but all too often
it is ignored. The NET (www.netbible.com) is probably the most helpful in this procedure of paratextual
supplementation, for example, at 30:9/10: “Heb “What profit [is there] in my blood?” “Blood” here
represents his life.” While strangely missing in the various Psalms’ references cited above, the NIV Study
Bible does provide a helpful comment on “blood” at Genesis 9:4: “Lev 17:14 stresses the intimate
relationship between blood and life by twice declaring that ‘the life of every creature is in its blood.’ Life
is the precious and mysterious gift of God, and man is not to seek to preserve it or increase the life-force
within him by eating ‘life’ that is ‘in the blood’ (Lev 17:11)—as many pagan peoples throughout history
have thought they could do” (Barker 1985:18).
431
18.4 “Blood” in Bantu (Chewa)

In a Bantu setting of communication, the cultural factor greatly influences, hence complicates
the accurate re-conceptualization and verbalization of “meaning” in Bible translation. This is due
to the expanded and enriched “cognitive environment” evoked by the notion of “blood” in all of
its local speech situations and social contexts of use. The practice of translation, and indeed
biblical text interpretation in general, is thus complicated by a fertile, albeit often implicit,
symbolical usage in all of the Bantu language-cultures of central and southern Africa. This is
based on a world-view, or mental model, involving a perception of “blood” (as a conceptual
complex) that ranges in a broad continuum from the purely physical to the darkly mystical, the
latter frame of reference including diverse injurious forces, such as malevolent witchcraft and
sorcery, on the one hand, and a mechanistic system of taboo surrounding the female menstrual
cycle, on the other.
The following, for example, is a selection of assorted non-literal senses of “blood” (in
Chewa)894 derived from everyday local life to illustrate the range, and to suggest points of possible
conceptual “interference,” when ordinary readers/hearers encounter unfamiliar uses of this word
in passages of Scripture—like those found in the Psalter:895

 “We call a murderer wamwazi/wamagazi (‘someone-of-blood’).”

 “Mwazi is in his hands” (i.e., he murdered someone).
 “His great wealth is chamagazi” (‘a thing of blood’; i.e., derived from sorcery, magic, or
witchcraft).896
 “A feast where a lot of meat will be roasted and eaten is sometimes called chamagazi”
(‘something-of-blood’; note that this colloquial observation is possibly an allusive play on
the preceding example, where necrophagous, nocturnal witchcraft is involved).
 “They are amagazi amodzi” (‘of one blood’, i.e., consanguineal relatives have common
ancestors).897

Chi-Chewa is a SE Bantu language of wider communication spoken as a first, second, or trade language by
some 12-15 million people in Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. “In the OT, as in African
traditional religion, blood sacrifice was known in family worship. … The blood (life) of the sacrificial
victim was exchanged for that of the worshipper whose sin needed to be atoned for” (Cole 2006:139).
895
The different senses and contextual usages listed below, some translated from the original Chewa,
were volunteered (in writing) by the members of a Lutheran Seminary Psalms exegesis class. These
meanings greatly expanded on the senses supplied in the oldest (Scott 1892:411), as well as the newest
(Paas 2013:371) Chewa scholarly dictionaries. For example: “Mwazi, BLOOD; also temper, health, natural
life…the life and spirit of an animal or of man” (Scott ibid.: loc.cit.).
896
Keep this sense in mind below when we come to the Chewa translation of Ps 9:12 in the old version.
897
The connection between “blood” and the “ancestors” (mizimu) is very strong among the Shona
people of
Zimbabwe: “It is blood that connects a child with the tribe. … The spirits of the dead parents, or
grandparents, the vadzimu, help their descendants to beget children. … The heart is also the centre of the
432
  “This child is magazi anga (‘my blood’).”
 “These are the magazi (‘blood’) from my body” (i.e., my children).
 “Your blood is fat/thick (mwazi wanu ng’wopantha), Mr. Zimba” (i.e., Zimba has fathered
children who look like him by several women).898
 “His blood (i.e., reproductive capability) is powerful; he has many children!”
 “There will be much magazi there” (i.e., great bloodshed as in war or a mine disaster).
 “The ancestral spirits came to him in a dream and said that they want blood” (i.e., they
want the person to carry out a ritual sacrifice of “remembrance” in honor of the departed
spirit/s).
 “My wife is ill—she has thrown out blood” (wataya magazi, i.e., her menstrual flow is
unusually heavy or has lasted too long).
 “I want my blood (i.e., life or good fortune) to be the engine that drives this nation
forward.”
 “He has cold blood” (magazi ozizira, i.e., he is a very weak or a slow person).
 “He has bad blood” (magazi oipa, i.e., he has a bad character, especially a hot temper).
 “He brings new blood to the company” (magazi atsopano, i.e., he has fresh ideas or a new
plan; perhaps an English calque).
 “This fellow grows much maize with his blood” (i.e., he has a good crop because he is a
skillful farmer and/or he has supernatural help from his ancestors).

Though not found among the Chewa people, an initiation custom involving blood is commonly
found elsewhere in Africa: “Blood brotherhood or blood friendship is established by African tribes
by the mutual shedding of blood and either drinking it or rubbing it on one another's bodies.
Thus and by the inter-transfusion of blood by other means it was thought that a community of
life and interest could be established.”899 And here we may see an interesting connection with
the OT rite of circumcision: “The rite of circumcision is an Old Testament form of blood
ceremony. Apart from the probable sanitary importance of the act is the deeper meaning in the
establishment of a bond of friendship between the one upon whom the act is performed and
Yahweh Himself. In order that Abraham might become ‘the friend of God’ he was commanded

blood, and blood is another Karanga symbol for life. … Blood is the bond that ensures a state of continuity
between the ancestral spirits and the living” (Aschwanden 1982:3-4, 9, 22).
898
Some respondents suggested that in such contexts, magazi/mwazi may be used figuratively (i.e.,
life-giving)
to refer to male sperm.
899
From the online edition of Orr, J (ed.) 1915, Entry for BLOOD, International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia,
accessed online on 25/07/2016 at: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/blood/.
433
that he should be circumcised as a token of the covenant between him and God (Genesis 17:10-
11).”900
We turn now to several representative passages from the Psalms in Chewa simply to
illustrate some of the potential problems in comprehension that a formally correspondent
rendering poses (based on the 1922 “missionary version”),901 along with suggestions for
improvement (adapted from the 1998 “popular language” version).902 The difficulty arises
because, literally-speaking, “blood” suggests death rather than life. I accompany each version’s
rendition with a close back-translation into English.

Buku Lopatulika Buku Loyera

Munthu wokhetsa mwazi ndi wa cinyengo, Yehova Inu Chauta903 mumaipidwa nawo anthu onyenga ndi
anyansidwa naye. (5:6b) opha anzao.
A person who causes bleeding904 and is deceitful, You, O Chauta, you despise deceitful people and those
Jehovah is disgusted with him (her). who kill others.

Pakuti Iye wofuna camwazi awakumbukila… (9:12a) Paja Chauta amatetetza moyo wa ozunzika…
For He who desires sacrifice905 (lit. ‘a thing of blood’) As you know, Chauta protects the life of those who
remembers them… are afflicted…

M’mwazi wanga muli phindu lanji? (30:9a) Kodi mudzapindulanji pakutayika kwa moyo wanga?
In my blood is what sort of profit?906 Say, what will you profit from the loss of my life?

Anthu okhetsa mwazi ndi cinyengo masiku ao Anthu ochotsa moyo ndi onyenga sadzakhala ndi
sadzafika nusu. (55:23b) moyo wautali konse.

900
Ibid.:loc.cit.
901
“The term ‘blood’…is an important verbal symbol in the Scriptures, and due to its theological
significance, in certain passages at least, translators would normally be expected to make some attempt to
preserve the form in translation. But in the case of this word, certain problems develop due to cultural
associations in the Bantu languages of Central (sic) Africa. Here we find that ‘blood’ is such a strong symbol
of ‘life’ that to use it with reference to ‘death’ often causes a considerable degree of unnaturalness in usage”
(Wendland 1987:92-93).
902
Both versions, the older Buku Lopatulika (BL, “Set-apart Book”) and the more recent Buku Loyera
(BY, “Pure Book”) are currently published by the Bible Society of Malawi (Blantyre); see also Wendland
1998: ch. 1.
903
For background information regarding the selection of Chauta, the high Creator-God of the Chewa
people,
to render the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), see Wendland 1998:114-121.
904
The nature or severity of the action of literally “causing blood to flow” is not specified; it does not
necessarily
refer to death, and might (by the biblical illiterate) be understood as a derogatory reference to a woman
having her monthly period. A munthu “person” can refer to a male or female, and third person singular
pronominal references (here naye) may be masculine or feminine in reference (this will no longer be
displayed in the English translation).
905
It is not clear how this mistranslation got into the text, or why it was not corrected in later editions.
In any
case, we also note that the literal expression “thing of blood” might evoke the notion of sorcery.
906
This expression could be misunderstood as a reference to a blood-donor.
434
 People who cause bleeding and deceit their lives will People who take away life and (are) deceitful will not
not reach a little bit. have a long life at all.907

Adzaombola moyo wao ku cinyengo ndi ciwawa;
ndipo mwazi wao udzakhala wa mtengo pamaso pace.
(72:14)
He will redeem their life from deceit and rioting; and
their blood will be valuable before him.908
Mfumuyo idzawaombolera kwa owapsinja ndi
ankhanza, pakuti amayesa miyoyo yao kuti n’jamtengo
wapatali.
The king will redeem them from oppressors and violent
persons, because he considers their lives to be most
valuable.

…Namtsutsa wa mwazi wosacimwa. (94:21b) …nagamula kuti moyo wa osalakwa unyongedwe.

…They rebuke the one of sinless blood.909 …and judge that the life of innocent ones be executed.

Nakhetsa mwazi wosacimwa, ndiwo mwazi wa ana ao
amuna ndi akazi…M’mwemo analidetsa dziko ndi
mwaziwo. (106:38)
And they shed sinless blood, that is, blood of their
male and female children…In which way they dirtied
(polluted) the land with that blood.
Adathetsa miyoyo ya opanda milandu, magazi a ana
ao…choncho dzikolo adaliipitsa ndi imfa zimenezo.
They ended the lives of those without guilt, the blood
of their children…and thus they desecrated the land
with those deaths.

When comparing these two translation, we note that there is a lot more “life” in the
“blood” as rendered in the Buku Loyera version—overall, in six of the seven passages considered.
These do of course exemplify non-literal usages of the term. In certain contexts, another
translation was deemed more natural, e.g., “those who kill others” in Psalm 26:9 for “bloodthirsty
men” (‫)אַ נְ ֵ ֖שׁי דָ ִ ֣מים‬, while mwazi is retained where “blood” is being literally referred to, e.g., 50:13.
The reiterated use of mwazi in the Buku Lopatulika make most passages difficult, if not impossible,
to understand readily or correctly, as their back-translations into English would suggest.
It should also be noted that there are several other terms for “blood” in Chewa. Blood, from
a chicken or goat for example, that is cooked and eaten as a food is termed uwende. Chirope, on
the other hand, is used in reference to the blood of a living being, animal or human, which is
killed (murdered); this blood is mystically transformed into a spirit of vengeance, one of the same
name (chirope), that must be magically protected against by means of traditional “medicine”
involving blood lest it cause madness or a fatal illness.910 There are two words currently in
common use for “blood”—the similar sounding mwazi and magazi. Some respondents claim that
the former refers to human blood, the latter to the blood of an animal. Others say that the

907
This modified Chewa rendition highlights the notion of “life” by playing on two related senses.
The old
Chewa version, on the other hand, is nearly unintelligible, as is the case with the next example (106:38).
908
The result—reason connection expressed in this verse is lost due to a literal rendering of the waw-
connective.
909
This is another difficult-to-understand rendering.
910
“Chiropa (sic) has also the meaning of life, the first ritual bite of a slain animal, and the propitiatory
gift of
an animal to the spirits, in order to ward off diseases and death” (Schoffeleers 1997:139).
435
difference is simply dialectal. In any case, the fact is that mwazi occurs much more frequently in
the old Chewa Bible (BL) and magazi in the new Bible (BY). This gives many people a definite
ecclesiastically-based preference, many older Protestants, for example, claiming that mwazi is the
only correct word to use with reference to the blood of Christ.911

18.5 Strategies for Bridging the Linguistic-Cultural Gap in Translation

The following is a listing of some of the common translation strategies that may be employed
when confronting challenging terms, like ‫דָּ ם‬, and similar semantically-complex words in the
Scriptures. Any one of these methods might be helpful, especially where non-literal senses are
concerned, depending on the competency of the translation team and the translation brief (with
its Skopos) according to which they are working.912 Thus, one might utilize:

a) a literal rendering of the lexical item (“blood”) along with an explanatory footnote
that gives its context-determined meaning;
b) translate the non-literal sense alone (i.e., some expression involving either “death”
or “life”);
c) translate the non-literal sense, as in (b), but include a footnote that indicates the
original form, “blood”;
d) render both the form and the meaning through the use of a phrasal expression
(“crossing the translation river twice,” e.g., “life-blood”);
e) convey the content by means of some local idiomatic expression or figurative
cultural substitute (e.g., for “bloodthirsty men” [men of bloods] – “people with a
bad heart”).

The Good News Translation (GNT) often gives examples of (b), while the New English Translation
(NET) does the same for strategies (a) and (c). The UBS Handbook on Psalms (Bratcher & Reyburn)
frequently suggests renderings that are related to categories (d) and (e).
Finally, it may be helpful to summarize the sequence of analytical steps that may be
derived from this study’s journey from “death” to “life” when exploring the range of semantic
“motion” of ‫ דָּ ם‬in the Psalms, moving from Hebrew to English to Chewa:

911
The Buku Lopatulika was a Protestant (Presbyterian)-only translation that is still very popular
among mainline Protestants today. The Buku Loyera was an ecumenical translation, but several Catholic
priests were prominent members of the translation team, and the Catholic Church has adopted this version
for exclusive use in preference to an older one prepared by a missionary (Malembo Oyera “Pure Writings”).
912
The notion of a translation “brief,” or job description, and its Skopos, or primary “communicative
aim” in
relation to a specified target audience, is most thoroughly developed and exemplified in a so-called
“functionalist” approach to Bible translation, as practiced for example by Christiane Nord (for an overview
of this effective local audience-oriented methodology, see Wendland 2004:50-54).
436
 a) Conduct a personal in-depth, lexical-semantic study of the key term, e.g., ‫דָּ ם‬, in
Hebrew (SL), examining as many diverse contexts as possible (ideally all
occurrences within a given book).
b) Explore the various senses documented in scholarly literature on the term, e.g.,
in lexicons, Bible dictionaries, study Bibles, commentaries, etc., comparing
these results with your own as determined in (a); on this basis propose a
comprehensive set of distinctive senses.
c) Do a similar lexical-semantic study of the closest corresponding key term (or
terms) within the cultural framework of the language of wider communication
that translators may be using for scriptural and scholarly reference, e.g. English,
French, Spanish, Swahili.
d) Carry out another comparative lexical-semantic analysis in the language of
translation (TL), using all available published resources plus as much
corresponding oral research as possible in different literary and oratorical
genres.
e) Put together a “translational profile,” identifying specific ST usages of the key
term’s different senses in relation to suggested TL functional equivalents in
order to use this lexical-semantic grid as a flexible, context-sensitive guide
when translating (revising it as necessary through ongoing usage and related
lexical study).

By applying the preceding methodology (which is just one possible way of doing it), it was
discovered that, instead of “death,” the primary (prototypical) cultural-religious focus of ‫ דָּ ם‬in
the Scriptures, the Psalter at least, would seem to be “life.” This represents the divinely-given
“life-force” (nephesh) of a person or animal that was deliberately expelled (as symbolized by
“blood-shed”), whether for evil (murderous) or beneficial (sacrificial) purposes, resulting in the
state of “death.” Thus, the default figurative way of talking about such phenomena in the Hebrew
Bible appears to be through using the powerful imagery of “blood,” which communicates a
multifaceted, contextually defined semantic complex plus all the conceptual associations that are
related to it, including that of ritual sacrifice and “atonement.” To be sure, no translation can
verbally convey such a rich cognitive environment that is evoked by a key source language term
in a contemporary target language-culture. But by recognizing this unavoidable problem of
conceptual re-imaging and by consistently applying established translation principles, one can at
least limit the metaphoric “loss of blood,” translationally as well as theologically speaking, and
keep it to a manageable minimum.

437
18.6 References

Adeyemo T (ed.) 2006. Africa Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Agnes M (ed.) 2006. Webster’s New World College Dictionary 4th ed. Cleveland: Wiley Publishing.
Alexander T D & Backer D W (eds.) 2003. Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.
Aschwanden H 1982. Symbols of Life. Gweru: Mambo Press.
Barker K (ed.) 1985. The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Bratcher R G & Reyburn Wm D 1991. A Handbook on Psalms. New York: United Bible Societies.
Brown F, Driver S R, & Briggs C A 1978. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Carson D (ed.) 2015. NIV Zondervan Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Cole V B 2006. Blood, in Adeyemo 2006:129.
Harris R L, Archer G L, & Waltke B K 1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Bible
Institute.
McGrath A (ed.) 1999. The NIV Thematic Reference Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Paas S 2013. Chichewa/Chinyanja—English Dictionary: Mtanthauziramawu, 4th ed. Blantyre: CLAIM Mabuku.
Ryken L, Wilhoit J C, & Longman III, T (eds.) 1998. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.
Schoffeleers M 1997. Religion and the Dramatisation of Life, Blantyre: CLAIM Books.
Scott D C 1892. A Cyclopaedic Dictionary of the Mang’anja Language Spoken in British Central Africa. Edinburgh:
Foreign Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland.
Soanes C & Stevenson A (eds.) 2006. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VanGemeren Wm (ed.) 1997. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, vol.1. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan.
Verbrugge V D (ed.) 1989. The NIV Topical Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Walton J H, Matthews V H, & and Chavalas M W 2000, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Wendland E R 1987. The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation. New York: United Bible Societies.
Wendland E R 1998. Buku Loyera: An Introduction to the New Chichewa Bible Translation. Blantyre: Kachere Books.
Wendland E R 2004. Translating the Literature of Scripture. Dallas: SIL International.

438
Matthias Grunewald, Isenheim altarpiece, 1512-151 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isenheim_Altarpiece).

439
19. Overview—COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND TRANSLATION: Advances in Some
Theoretical Models and Applications

19.1 Introduction

This collection of scholarly studies913 consists of a “Foreword” by Mona Baker, an “Introduction”

by the editors, thirteen essays apportioned into five major sections (“parts”), and several helpful
indices (author information, author and subject, language). In my overview (not a formal
“review”), I will simply list the titles of the various chapters along with their authors and cite
several significant insights or applications from each one.914 In my opinion, this is one of the
most important texts in the field of “translation studies” to appear in recent years for two
principal reasons: (a) all authors write from the perspective of “cognitive linguistics,” which in
my opinion as a translation practitioner and consultant offers the best theoretical foundation for
this discipline; and (b) the writers do not muddy the waters by delving into arcane metaphorical
extensions of the concept of “translation,” which is unfortunately a rather common practice
nowadays.915

In her Foreword, Mona Baker provides a helpful summary of what readers may expect to
find in Cognitive Linguistics and Translation (CLT): “The current volume represents one of the few
sustained attempts to explore the interface between Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Studies
from a range of perspectives; it brings a wide range of voices to bear on this important area of
enquiry and features a series of detailed theoretical expositions and case studies” (xi). These
clearly interdisciplinary explorations often combine linguistic, literary, cognitive, social, and/or
political issues and concerns.

In their introductory essay (3-30), Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano present a broad
survey of “Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Past, Present and Future.” They overview the
varied relationships between linguistics and translation from the 1970 to the “21st century and
beyond” (9). This leads to a summary of essential CL principles (language as cognition, symbolic,
and motivated in “our bodily, physical, social, and cultural experience,” 11) and their relevance
for translation studies, for example: “The search for equivalence would no longer be the search
for identifiable linguistic features, but the search for a complex set of links in the translator’s
mind, and the aim of translation theory would be to explain aspects related to how these links
are cognitively represented or cognitively processed” (13) during the activity of re-creating (or
re-conceptualizing) a source text in another language and sociocultural setting.916 The individual
essays of this volume are summarized in terms of five “main research issues or areas” that are
foregrounded in CL studies: theory, meaning, “constructions,”917 culture, and psycholinguistic

913
Edited by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2013; paperback,
420 pages; currently $25 on Amazon.
914
Occasionally, I also offer a personal observation or critical comment.
915
For some documentation, see for example, chapter one, “Translating ‘translation’”, in
https://www.academia.edu/11318453/SURVEY_OF_TRANSLATION_STUDIES_3rd_edition.
916
Celia Martín de León adds: “Because meaning is not something inherent to the symbol system,
equivalence cannot be absolute; it can only be defined in relation to some aspect of the communication
process: it can be conceived of, for instance, as formal, dynamic, denotative, connotative, pragmatic, or
functional” (103). We note, however, throughout this book the continued use of the concept of
“equivalence” to discuss the many different issues that pertain to translational communication involving
a “source language” and “target language.”
917
Construction Grammar “does not assume a strict separation between syntax and the lexicon but
instead views them as a continuum… In this view, grammatical constructions are also capable of evoking
semantic frames. With respect to translation, a constructional view of language is advantageous because
grammatical constructions (pairings of forms with meanings) can function as a tertium comparationis that
make it possible to compare and contrast similar types of constructions across languages” (Boas, 137).
440
investigation (14). Salient related topics are also referenced: the role of the translator as “an
intercultural mediator” (19),918 conceptual metaphor and metonymy (21), the symbolic character
of grammar (22), cognitive “frames,” “rhetorical style,” the fundamental “role of culture” (23),
experimental lexical semantics (24), bilingualism and second language acquisition (25).

19.1 Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Theory

Part I of CLT consists of three articles that focus on “cognitive linguistics and translation theory.”
In the first study (33-73), Sandra L. Halverson summarizes her view of the “Implications of
Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” She begins with “theory development” and a CL
reinterpretation of such key notions as “discourse” (35-37), contrastive linguistics (38-41),
“equivalence” (42-45), translation “shifts” (46-48), and translation “universals” (49-50). This is
followed by an overview of the implications of CL for “methodology” (54) and “epistemology”
(59), including some prominent “approaches to defining ‘translation’” (62). In sum, “…a
cognitive linguistic theory of translation…takes the cognizing translator as the locus of the
situated event—the individual translator is taken as the source of the translated text, and the
theory [presumably its practice as well]919 must then account for the ways in which the text emerges
as a contextualized interpretation of an anterior text and a re-expression of it using alternative
forms” (65). One wonders, however, what happens then to the cognitive world referenced by the
original author of the anterior text using the source language; in the case of high-value texts such
as sacred scriptures (whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim), we are faced with a conceptual
corpus that cannot be casually ignored or decontextualized during this interlingual, cross-cultural
communication process.

In “More than a Way with Words,” Ricardo Muñoz Martín explores “The Interface between
Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Translatology” (75-97). “Translatology” is the technical term
denoting to the theory and practice of translating and interpreting, sometimes more informally
referred to as “translation studies.”920 In the first part of his essay Martín surveys several of the
major “contributions of cognitive linguistics to cognitive translatology” (76), including helpful
discussions of “prototype semantics” (76), “conceptual metaphor theory” (80), and “frame
semantics” (81), concluding: “Adopting a cognitive perspective implies precisely changing the
focus of attention from the text to the processes involved in its production and interpretation”
(83, citing Rojo). However, in the case of such a multifaceted and often sensitive activity as
translation, is it really possible to focus on just one of the many factors involved—thus, not only
the “translator/interpreter” (xi, 65), but also the original source text and context, the
contemporary target audience and setting, the medium of communication, and so forth? Rather,
the center of one’s attention must continually shift from one facet or feature to another, also
including the perspectives of other persons who are somehow involved in the overall
communication process. In part two of his study Martín suggests “what cognitive translatology
may do for CL” (84), for example, with respect to “translation universals” (85) and the nature of
“interference,” or “translationese” (87). The ultimate hope is that CL will provide the necessary
“cognitive scaffolding to develop [deeper, thicker, more well-defined] descriptions and explanations
of the cognitive aspects of translation and interpreting processes” (90).

In the third essay of Part I, Celia Martín de León poses the rather strange query: “Who cares
if the cat is on the mat?” to introduce her study of “Contributions of Cognitive Models of Meaning
to Translation” (99-122). She first considers the “classical paradigm” of meaning, which is
viewed as “arising from the syntactic combination of abstract symbols” (100). Next,

918
On this particular subject, it is hard to beat the study of David Katan, Translating Cultures: An
Introduction for translators, Interpreters and Mediators, 2nd ed. (Manchester: St Jerome, 2004).
919
Bracketed, italicized insertions within quotations from the text of CLT are my own.
920
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translatology.
441
“connectionist approaches,” such as “prototype theory” and “frame semantics,” are considered,
which view cognition as “the creation of dynamic patterns of activity in a network of
interconnected units” and patterns of information (104-110). In the final section, “embodied”
and socially “situated” approaches are explored—for example, “image schemas,” “conceptual
metaphor,” and Skopostheorie—which “ground meaning in bodily experience” and socially
situated functional actions (111-116).

19.2 Meaning in Translation

Part II of CLT zeroes in on the notion of “meaning” in relation to translation. First, Hans C. Boas
“examines how insights from Frame Semantics can be applied to translation, both by humans
and computers” (125-158), with special reference to the application of cognitive frame analysis
in the “creation of translation resources, such as electronic dictionaries” (125). After a brief
introduction to the theory of “Frame Semantics,”921 Boas introduces readers in some detail to the
“FrameNet project” (http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu), which is an approach to lexicography
that “identifies and describes semantic frames and analyzes the meaning of words by appealing
directly to the frames that underlie their meanings” (128). This CL-based methodology is then
explained in greater detail with considerable exemplification, that is, “using semantic frames for
translation purposes” (137), with special reference to “profiling particular aspects of semantic
frames” (138), “differences in lexicalization patterns” (141),922 “divergent translation equivalents
and zero translations” (144), as well as so-called “‘universal’ and ‘culture-specific’ frames” (149).
Boas concludes that “the frame-semantic approach to lexical organization makes it possible to
relate words across languages in a systemic way” (152).

We turn then to a CL discussion of metaphor in the study by Eva Samantiego Fernández

entitled, “The Impact of Cognitive Linguistics on Descriptive Translation Studies: Novel
metaphors in English-Spanish newspaper translation as a case in point” (159-198). After an
Introduction explaining the difference between “prescriptive” and “descriptive” types of “norms”
within DTS, the issue of “metaphor translation in Translation Studies” is overviewed, since
metaphor in the wider sense, i.e., including “metonymy” (162),923 is “a kind of ultimate test of
any theory of translation” (161, citing Holmes). A consideration of the relative “degree of
translatability of a metaphor” by means of various “translation procedures” (162-167), leads to
the author’s main focus on “cognitive approaches to metaphor translation” based on “conceptual
metaphor theory” (168) as influenced by specific “cultural models” (169) and “translator-focused
factors” (170).924 Through the application of various CL analytical strategies, it turns out that
“[m]etaphor is not a case of untranslatability, but a challenging phenomenon in terms of un-
packing SL information and re-packing it in the TL and culture” (173). The author then proceeds
to document the nature and results of her detailed case study, which dealt with “the role of novel
metaphors in the translation of newspaper texts” from English into Spanish (175-176). She
concludes that “by studying the strategies and the reasoning behind the way translators deal with
metaphors, and most of all, by analysing the effect and impact that specific transfers have on

921
“A ‘frame’ is a cognitive structuring device, parts of which are indexed by words associated with
it and used in the service of understanding” (126, citing Petruck).
922
Of particular interest in this section is a discussion of the “distinction between satellite-framing
languages in which the image schemas are included in verbs of motion as in English (e.g., [find] way +
in; [find] way + out), and verb-framing languages such as Spanish, in which image schemas are indicated
separately from verbs (e.g., entrar ‘enter’, salir ‘leave’…” (141).
923
This point is disputed in the next article (Brdar and Brdar-Szabó, 200-204).
924
Jiří Levý’s concept of the “minimax strategy” (1967) is briefly assessed for possible “relevance” in
accounting for “certain unexplained (or inexplicable) shifts in the renderings of metaphors and how they
may reshape the cognitive universe in the target culture. … As applied to TS, it refers to possible
[translational] solutions which guarantee a maximum of effect [contextual effects] with a minimum of effort
[processing cost]” (171, cf. 193).
442
target cultures, TS can greatly benefit from a descriptive approach to metaphor translation” (190-
191).925

The third essay in CLT’s section that focuses on “meaning” is “Translating (by means of
Metonymy” by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó (199-226). In their first major section, the
authors clarify the distinction between “metaphor” and “metonymy” in CL studies, detailing “five
marked points of difference” (200; cf. the preceding article). The principal distinction is that “a
metonymic mapping occurs within a single [conceptual] domain, while metaphoric mappings
take place across two discrete domains” (202). A sub-distinction within metonymy is also
helpfully pointed out: “Metonymization… involves the use of a lexical item to evoke the sense of
something that is not conventionally linked to that particular lexical item,” while “Facetization,
on the other hand, is the heightening of different facets or domains in a domain matrix…readings
within senses…conventionally activated by one and the same lexical item…” (203). The rest of
this article is then devoted to an illustration of “how and why something could/should be
translated by means of metonymic expressions” (205), with many illustrations provided when
translating from English into German, Hungarian, and Croatian. Special attention is devoted to
“translating a metonymy by means of a different metonymy” (212) and when “a metonymy [is]
not translated by metonymy” (215). In conclusion, “[i]t was shown that the degree of difficulty
in translating utterances with metonymic expressions may be linked to the type of metonymy in
question as well as to the degree of its regularity” (224).

19.3 Constructions and Translation

The three essays constituting Part III of CLT consider “constructions and translation.” In the first
study, Elzbieta Tabakowska investigates “(Cognitive) Grammar in Translation: Form as Meaning”
(229-250). In her opening “preliminaries,” the author reviews some of the outstanding issues
that confront translators as they approach their work from a cognitive and culturally-sensitive
perspective, with special reference to the vital activity of “visualization” (especially where poetic
figurative language is concerned) (231). The subject of conceptual “imagery” is then discussed
from a CL perspective,926 namely, the “dimensions,” or “viewing arrangement,” involving level
of specificity, figure-ground arrangement (trajector—landmark), and perspective (point of view,
subjectivity) (232-236). The remainder of this essay is dedicated to a detailed comparative
analysis of a short English poem by Emily Dickinson (“A Bird came down the Walk”) and its
Polish translation by Stanislaw Baranczak. This study “is an attempt to substantiate two claims:
firstly, that much of the meaning of a poem resides in its grammar, and secondly, that the poetry
of imagery is built on the prose of grammar” (237). In conclusion, “since grammar is choice and
style is choice, grammar is style” (248)—and, as CL has demonstrated, such grammatical-stylistic
form is eminently meaningful, hence also of significance during the translation process.

Next, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano and Luna Filipovic consider “Lexicalisation Patterns and
Translation” (251-281) with the aim of illustrating “the strategies translators follow when
adapting texts from languages belonging to different as well as similar lexicalization patterns”

925
The “descriptive” approach thus differs greatly from a “prescriptive” one, in which “[a]ny TT that
does not bear a faithfulness-based relationship of equivalence [however defined] to its ST should not be
called a translation but something else (adaptation, recreation, etc.)” (191). As a translator of the
documents of Scripture, I would maintain my strong preference for the “prescriptive,” or less pejoratively
perhaps, “controlled” translation method, whereby the interlingual communication process is motivated
and directed by the contextually-determined semantic-pragmatic potential, or inventory, of the sacred
source text.
926
“[T]he basic principle that underlies CG states that the human mind has the ability to construe the
scene, that is, the situation that is conceived, in alternative ways. This ability is called imagery” (232).
443
(252),927 with special reference to the differences in varied discourse contexts, e.g., narrative
versus exposition. The point is that “translators are the ones in charge of adapting the rhetorical
style of source languages onto that of target languages” (251). After an overview of “prescriptive
versus descriptive” approaches in TS (252) and the principles of “semantic typology” in relation
to lexicalization patterns (254), the authors embark upon the main focus of their study, which
concerns the expression and translation of “motion events” (258), as exemplified specifically in
records of “witness interviews” (268). A number of concrete examples from the two language
types are explicitly analyzed: satellite-framed (English, the main SL, also Dutch, German, Russian,
Serbo-Croatian) and verb-framed (French, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Hebrew, Turkish). The
factor of “dynamicity in translation” is given particular attention (272). One notable conclusion
with regard to rhetorical style is that “verb-framed translators, guided by the restricted Manner
vocabulary in their languages, tend to avoid Manner information in the target texts unless the
context requires it, but that even in these cases, the information they provide is poorer, less
expressive than that in the source text” (276). It would be interesting for researchers to test these
results, especially in comparison with those attributed to “satellite-framed translators,” who are
said to “do the opposite”—who “need more vivid and expressive Manner information, and
consequently, they add it up” in their TL renditions (276).

The third study of Part III focuses most specifically on its general theme of “constructions”:928
“Constructing Meaning in Translation: The role of constructions in translation problems” by Ana
Rojo and Javier Valenzuela (283-310). The authors begin with a statement on “the centrality of
meaning” that is rather disparaged in TS literature nowadays, but one which I thoroughly
subscribe to:929 “Translation is about communicating meaning. Independently of less central
modes of translation, the most basic definition of translation posits that engaging in translation
involves deciphering the meaning from a source text and recoding it into a target text using a
different linguistic code…[thus] recreating the process of meaning construction undergone by
the audience of the source text, in order to activate a similar process in the audience of the
translated text” (284). Of course, the re-constructed “meaning” will never be the same, for this
will always differ for TL respondents due to various reasons—the quality of translation, its
communicative purpose (Skopos), world-view disparity and the associated cognitive
environment evoked by the translated text, the sociocultural setting of reception, and so forth.
This article goes on to explore variations in the degrees of “linguistic and semantic equivalence”
(284) that are manifested in specific relation to “constructional mismatch” (289).930 An empirical
way of testing for such translational incongruity is described by the authors, namely, through
“eye-tracking techniques” (291), and the outcome of their limited experimentation is then
documented with special reference to the general hypothesis (and three corollaries) “that the
problems caused by constructional mismatch in translation would [result] in effortful cognitive
processing” (295) and the application of different translation strategies (304).

927
For example, “speakers of verb-framed and satellite-framed languages differ in their rhetorical
styles when describing the same motion event. Satellite-framed speakers tend to provide dynamic
descriptions of motion events, loaded with expressive details about directionality and Manner of motion,
whereas verb-framed speakers are said to provide static descriptions with less details about Manner and
directionality” (251).
928
“A ‘construction’ is defined as any pairing of form and meaning, which can range from simple
structures, such as morphemes (-s) or lexemes (cat), to more abstract and complex syntactic configurations”
(287), such as sentences and presumably larger constructions like paragraphs, etc. The theoretical point is
that in CL there is no strict separation between linguistic form and meaning; they are always analyzed and
interpreted together, in conjunction with one another.
929
Note the reference indicated in footnote #2.
930
The two basic lexical-syntactic forms tested were “Resultative” versus “Predicative” constructions
in the rendering from English (a satellite-framed language) into Spanish (a verb-framed language) (290,
294).
444
19.4 Culture and Translation

Part IV of CLT includes two essays devoted to the subject of “culture and translation.” In the first,
Enrique Bernárdez presents one of the most insightful studies of this collection on the subject of
“A Cognitive View on the Role of Culture in Translation” (313-338). The problem with many
“key cultural words…is not finding a more or less equivalent in another language, but
transmitting their cultural content” (313-314). One wonders then if the term “equivalent” in any
sense can be used in such cases. Bernárdez overviews some of the main strategies for dealing
with “conceptual metaphors” in translation (315-316), which leads to a consideration of several
special cases, namely, the actual cultural “non-equivalence of (apparently) equivalent
metaphors” (316) and the implicated “cultural values” or “conditioning” of figurative language
(319). Under the theme “culture is also present in the grammar,” a crucial assumption concerns
“the presence of (identifiable and falsifiable) cultural elements in language, especially in
linguistic structures and, still more precisely, syntactic structures” (322),931 for example, the
comparatively higher level of “metaphoricity” (metaphor and metonymy) found in English than
in Chinese (323). While one would agree that this is a “linguistic” as well as a “cognitive” issue,
it may be debated as to whether we are dealing strictly with a syntactic as opposed to a purely
lexical feature. An interesting “case study” considers the abundant use of personal pronouns in
English and Esperanto (which is “very much based on a few Western European languages,” 324)
in comparison with “Eastern and Southeastern Asian and Oceanic languages,” such as Chinese,
Japanese, and Indonesian in which “personal reference is usually kept to a minimum” for the
sake of politeness (324-329). In conclusion, the author underscores the pervasiveness of cultural
influence in language usage (330-333), which leads to the principle that in both the SL and TL
“[d]ifferent cultural domains have to be distinguished, and it is within these domains that
translators have to take their decisions” (334) with respect to figurative as well as more literal
texts.

The second article devoted particularly to cultural issues is “Cultural Conceptualisations and
Translating Political Discourse” by Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani (339-371). Following
the approach of “cultural linguistics,”932 the authors underscore the perception and sensitivity
that is required when facing “the complexities involved in translating key concepts in
international politics,” first of all with special reference to how terms such as “concession,”
“compromise,” and “jihad” are understood and translated in Persian as distinct from their
conception in English (340). The point is that “[w]ords and their translations are not just
interchangeable labels denoting some given immutable feature of the world but keys opening the
door to different configurations of the world…[including] connotations from the socio-political
environment in which they are used” (341, citing Cohen). The authors then direct their attention
to more problematic language for translators to deal with, such as “metaphors of conflict” (350)
and figurative language used in political discourse (352)933—“Iranian political discourse” in
particular (354), e.g., the “US deserves a punch in the mouth” (363). In conclusion, “since
language is socio-culturally and politically situated, the use and translation of figurative language
in international political discourse may entail considerable risks or produce substantial rewards,
depending on the context of translation” (368)—and of course the purpose for which it is
intended.

931
This has reference to so-called “ethnosyntax – broadly defined as the study of connections between
the cultural knowledge, attitudes, and practice of speakers, and the morphosyntactic resources they employ
in speech,” encompassing also the “diverse range of grammar-culture effects” (322, citing Enfield).
932
“Cultural Linguistics shares with Cognitive Linguistics the premise that language is grounded in
human conceptualisation, but it places a particular emphasis on the cultural nature of conceptualisations”
(340).
933
In such CL analysis the notion of “frame” and “framing” is important, that is, with reference “to
use of a particular word to evoke a particular schema,” thus “mediating,” or “shaping, pounding, distorting,
and/or constraining, the message for the audience” (353).
445
19.5 Beyond Translation

Part V of CLT consists of two articles that were apparently difficult to categorize in one of the
four preceding sections. In the first, “Experimental Lexical Semantics at the Crossroads between
Languages” (375-394), Michele I. Feist aims to “investigate issues of meaning and equivalence
with respect to spatial relational terms…[b]ecause this domain is pervasive in human
communication,” and therefore “virtually every translator will need to translate terms from this
domain” (376).934 As shown by many studies in the semantic typology of spatial language,
“spatial relational terms are among the most difficult to control” (376) during interlingual
communication because they “vary across languages not only in the distinctions that they
lexicalize along a given dimension…and in kind…but also in the dimensions that are important
to their meanings” (378). Feist then reports the results of some elaborate experimentation across
a number of different languages with respect to “the multi-componential nature of the meanings
of the English prepositions in and on” (380). The challenge posed is that “[b]ecause the meanings
of spatial relational terms draw on multiple semantic components, the meanings of potential
translation equivalents may align along some, but not all dimensions, resulting in subtle but
important differences in meaning” (382). The author’s experimental model then begins to
“provide a foundation for comparing the meanings of terms drawn from multiple languages
grounded in concrete choices to use the terms as descriptions of reality” (3910, thus indicating
a potential translational continuum ranging between closer equivalence and complete non-
equivalence.

In the book’s final essay, Anna Hatzidaki presents “A Cognitive Approach to Translation: The
Psycholinguistic Perspective” (395-414). In this study the author contrasts various past and
present “empirical and experimental methodologies used to examine translation and comments
on their weaknesses and merits,”935 including a review of “a number of psycholinguistic studies
where different approaches to translation have been employed” (395). She then surveys
experimental psycholinguistic techniques that explore “the role of translation direction in
language representation and processing” (399) as well as the “effects of linguistic and extra-
linguistic factors in conceptual and lexical access during translation at the lexical level” (401)
and also “the sentential level” (404). In a final section, the author reports on several experimental
methods that probe “what brain activity can tell us about cognitive processes involved in
translation” (407). Her conclusion is that “translation is not only an adequate research field that
offers ample opportunities to investigate Cognitive Linguistics postulates and test
psycholinguistic assumptions, but also fairly ideal to explore from a psycholinguistic perspective
to enrich the field of Translation Studies itself,” for example, with respect to salient factors such
as the scope of translation units, textual pragmatics, equivalence, text register, and bilingualism
(410-411).

While the various articles of this volume do not offer those who have carefully kept up
on translation theory and practice a great deal of new information about the importance of
“cognition” and “culture” in their craft,936 they do present a great deal of what we already know

934
“The job of a translator involves the extraction of meaning from a source language text and the
recreation on meaning in the target language” (376). This statement is later nuanced in more suitable CL
terms to read: “The translator’s task, then, becomes to reconstruct [as precisely as possible] the
‘representation of reality conceived of by [the] author’ of the source language text” (376, citing Hu)—
through the use of “equivalent” (the most appropriate) linguistic forms of the TL.
935
“The point of departure is the earliest psychological tool, Think Aloud Protocol (TAP), according to
which the mental processes that undergo the translation task may be revealed by being explicitly uttered”
(395-396).
936
Indeed, the key factors of cognition and culture complemented the many linguistically-oriented
books and articles of Bible translation pioneers of the mid-20th century, e.g., periodic studies that appeared
in the journal Practical Anthropology. For some differing, but often complementary pedagogical
446
from the consistent perspective of cognitive linguistics, which to my mind offers the best
contemporary framework for explaining what is going on in a cogent and coherent manner. There
is a certain amount of repetition which appears among the individual presentations, but such re-
expression is not necessarily a detriment to the book, since this complex theory, in some of its
deeper aspects at least, does benefit from varied formulations along with different examples to
increase one’s comprehension. In addition, the many disparate languages used for detailed
exemplification and case studies significantly enhance the value of this collection of well-
composed scholarly enquiries. I can therefore strongly recommend CLT as an essential reference
text for use in translation courses at the intermediate level and above—as well as required
reading for all secular and as well as Scripture-based translation teachers and consultants.

perspectives on these central issues in more recent times, see for example, Harriet Hill, Ernst-August Gutt,
Christoph Unger, Rick Floyd, Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a Relevant Way (Dallas:
SIL International, 2011); Timothy Wilt and Ernst Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for
Bible Translators (Stellenbosch: Africa Sun Media, 2008. It remains for CL theorists now to put together a
well-crafted didactic text that can teach the basic principles and procedures of their conceptual-form-
functional approach to translation practitioners at an elementary as well as a more advanced level.
447
 20. Overview of Translation: A Very Short Introduction

This compact book of 142 pages (including References with endnotes, recommended readings,
and a short topical index)937 presents a wide-ranging and informative survey of the ever-growing
field of Translation Studies. There are interesting as well as important facts regarding various
topically-related issues on every page with many helpful examples to illustrate the author’s points
as we proceed through the book’s seven, well-conceived chapters. Reynolds offers numerous
insights with respect to the nature, purpose, manner, and application of human communication
via “translation,” and he does so in a style of writing that is clear, captivating, and not
infrequently humorous as well. For anyone desiring a go-to book on the subject, this would be
my number-one recommendation. In the following overview (not a “review” per se), I will
undoubtedly convince readers of this opinion by simply listing the author’s topical headings
within each chapter along with a few accompanying quotes and personal comments (which seek
to highlight, but do not pretend to summarize the rich content to be found in each section). Some
topics will receive more attention than others due to my special interest as a Bible translation
consultant.

20.1 Crossing languages

What is translation?
In this opening section, Reynolds presents a number of different examples to illustrate the broad
scope of communicative events that are commonly termed “translation”—both oral and written,
inter- as well as intra-lingual in nature. His aim is “to show how nebulous the field of translation
is,” and why “we need to look at the range of ways of doing things with words that can be
thought of as translation” (2-3, all page references are to Translation, unless otherwise indicated).

The no man’s land between languages

Several, more extended examples are adduced to further demonstrate the rather wide referential
reach of “the territory of translation in different historical moments and places around the globe”
(3), including the overlapping character of Japanese and Chinese (3), the “translationese” quality
of Google Translate (4), and the importation of Latinisms into the English language (5). The point
is that “translation does not simply jump from one language to another—it also ‘crosses
languages’ in the sense of blending them” (5).

Diplomatic translation
The mediatory function of translation has been an essential aspect in diplomatic efforts to avoid
international and other interpersonal conflicts throughout the ages. In fact, “all translation
involves diplomacy” in the sense that it negotiates between two (or more) sources of power,
influence, and personal interest. Thus, “the aim of conveying what a speaker or source text is
saying has to be tempered by an awareness of what the listener or reader is prepared to take on
board” (6).

Crowd translation
The principle of “crowd translation” is illustrated, on the one hand, by the memorized oral
renditions of Buddhist holy texts and, on the other, by the collective translation of the King James
Bible by “forty-seven translators working in teams” (8). Whenever a significant work of

937 Matthew Reynolds, Translation: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2016; paperback;
ISBN: 978-0-19-871211-4).
448
translating is being undertaken, to one degree or another translators “arrive at their
interpretations in dialogue with other people,” and normally “feel some pressure from the
community of readers for whom they are doing their work” (9). Where this potential “crowd
effect” is not taken into consideration, whether pre- or post-production, the outcome is not likely
to be very successful.

Let me count the ways

In this concluding section of chapter one, Reynolds mentions a diversity of instances which
demonstrate his point that “translation” is a multifaceted concept that can assume a multitude
of forms and influences our daily lives in many different, often unseen ways. All of these are
examples of the use of “words to stand in for other words,” and so the aim of the next chapter
will be to explore how translation, viewed in a stricter sense, “relates to other kinds of re-
wording” (11).

20.2 Definitions

Translating ‘translation’938
After stating that “there is no exact translation of ‘translation’” since “every language has its own
terms which relate to ‘translation’ but never completely equate to it” (12), Reynolds presents a
number of interesting case studies to illustrate this claim—from Chinese, Igbo, Malay, Latin, the
KJV, and Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. In the play, for example, a weaver named
“Bottom” is partially transformed into a donkey (‘ass’), hence provoking the response from his
friend Quince: “Bless thee, Bottom, bless thee! Thou art translated” (14).939 This reiterates the
theme of chapter one that “because the activities we can call ‘translation’ are so varied, the word
‘translation’ keeps having to stretch or shrink to fit them—it keeps on being ‘translated’, in the
Bottom-like sense of shifting shape and meaning” to boot (15).

Other words
This refers to other verbal activities that are closely related to “translating” in the narrow sense:
“‘Translation’ has always had a complicated relationship with other words for re-writing, re-
arrangement, and explanation” (16). In this section, Reynolds briefly considers the work of
“interpreting” (spontaneous oral translation), subtitling and dubbing, website “localization,” as
well as John Dryden’s (1680) distinction among the activities of “metaphrase” (literal
translation), “paraphrase” (meaning-oriented rendition), and “imitation” (adaptation) (17). In
conclusion, the sense of “translation” will always vary according to various factors within the
setting in which it is used: “your historical moment and political situation, the genre of the text
you are talking about, its context and purpose, the features of it that seem to you most important”
(18).

Translation creates languages

What I have referred to above as “translating in the narrow sense,” Reynolds labels “Translation
Rigidly Conceived,” where “translation takes something called ‘meaning’, and transfers it out of
one thing called ‘a language’ into another thing called ‘a language’” (18). In other words,
“translation in the true sense of the word works across the barrier between languages” (19). But
this raises the question: “Where, exactly, is this barrier?” (19). I understand it to be positioned
closer to the formal side of the source language (SL) on the form/meaning continuum that

938 See chapter one of my Survey of Translation Studies (2017):

https://www.academia.edu/11318453/SURVEY_OF_TRANSLATION_STUDIES_version_4.1.
939 From a linguistic and humorously dramatic point of view, “Bottom is translated into an ass
because the word ‘bottom’ can be translated into ‘arse’” (15).
449
separates an original text from its translation, that is, with a translator’s primary aim being to
attain meaningfulness and stylistic naturalness in the target language (TL).940 Furthermore, this
interlingual barrier shifts in one direction or another according to the situational and linguistic
context and the type of communication that is taking place, thus bringing up the issue of dialects,
orthographies, registers, sociolects, borrowings (“loanwords”), government standardization
policies, politically-established distinctions, and so forth (19-22). In any case, “this is how
translation [broadly understood] joins in the creation of languages [broadly understood]” (23).

Is all communication translation?

What I have just noted as “translation broadly understood,” Reynolds labels as “translationality,”
which “spans many other varieties of transmission that take place as much within languages as
it does between them” (23). He rejects George Steiner’s notion that translation is implicit in every
act of communication and understanding (23) because this processes soon turns into a reductio
ad absurdum, for how would you then understand the “meaning” of anything: “You would have
to translate it in its turn—and so on…” (25). Rather, translation “is part of communication…we
reach for translation when we encounter an obstruction to understanding, when we realize that
the words that confront us are not entirely within our grasp” (25, original italics). However, the
preceding definition would include (in English) such concepts as “clarify,” “define,” “explain,”
and so forth. So for the sake of clarity, precision, and academic distinction perhaps, I would much
prefer to limit “translation” to the sense of being more “rigidly conceived,” that is, where distinct
languages (ethnographically-defined) are involved.941 In the case of all other usages of the term,
“it is important to see…that you are speaking metaphorically,” thus also “drawing attention to
divisions [in meaning] in the act of crossing them” (25-26; I have in a certain sense hijacked
Reynolds’ words here).

20.3 Words, contexts, and purposes

Does translation translate the meanings of words?

Reynolds embarks upon an interesting exploration of lexicography in this section, pointing out,
among other things, the difference between “propositional” (semantic) and “connotational”
(associative) meaning, as well as the importance of “transliteration” and “prototypes” when
discussing dictionary “meaning” (27-28). The fact that “the relationship between words and
meanings is very complex” within the same language has great implications for renditions in
another language, where translators all too frequently discover that while they may be able to
achieve “a reasonable overlap of propositional meaning … the expressive meaning and
prototypes are likely to differ,” for example, with regard to an English “scone” or an Italian casa
(29-30). What is the communicative solution for such instances of non-correspondence in
conceptual equivalence? It is simply, but significantly, “context,” the topic of the next section.

Words in contexts

940 I gather from Reynold’s mildly disparaging references to “Translation Rigidly Conceived” that he
understands it to refer to a more literalistic, formal correspondence manner of rendering a given source
text in another language (cf. 18, 102, 109-110). But translation “less-rigidly” conceived does not really
correspond to the freedom of “translationality,” as I understand Reynolds’ term. There must be more
allowance made, I believe, for some significant middle ground with respect to the degree of foreignizing
or domesticating allowed for a specified translation project (cf. Survey of Translation Studies, chs. 11-12).
941 For this reason then, I do not agree with Reynold’s example: “The child who writes ‘I done it’ in
a piece of schoolwork doesn’t need correcting. He (sic) needs translating” (26). To my mind, this child has
produced an error of (current) standard English usage, and therefore the work, assuming that it was written
for some educational purpose in school, needs “correction,” not “translation” as in Reynolds’ parlance. But
perhaps in making this rather dogmatic observation, I am simply revealing my age and social location.
450
A number of examples are presented to illustrate the fact that “when we translate, what matters
is not some notional meaning that a given word might have in itself, but rather the meaning that
it has in the sentence in front of us” (31). Thus, the series of distinct senses that we find in the
following expressions involving “run”: I am running away/a new company/some tests/for that
office/a few errands, etc., will need to be rendered by different verbs, and perhaps other
collocates, in another language (e.g., just a single word in Chichewa: ndikuthawa “I-am-running-
away/fleeing”). Furthermore, “when we translate, we don’t transfer something called meaning
out of one language and into another; rather, we find words [better perhaps: expressions, even
entire clauses] that are ‘interchangeable in a given situation’” (32, original italics). Thus, “where
an Italian would say torno a casa, I would say ‘I’m going home’” (32)—or in Chichewa: ndikupita
kwathu (“I-am-going to-our-place”). Idioms present translators with the greatest challenges—that
is, expressions in which “the whole has developed a meaning that is very different from the
combined meanings of the words that make it up” (33). For example, “to break a leg” does not
mean “to have good luck”; rather, “in a given situation, it can be used as a substitute for ‘good
luck!’” (33), like the Chewa saying ali ndi mphumi (“he-is with a- forehead”). “Idiomatic”
language—speech that first-language speakers consider most natural or appropriate for a given
social situation—is also difficult to reproduce with equivalent sense and effect in another
language; this would include the use of figurative language, rhetorical tropes, and formulaic
sayings like “yours sincerely” at the end of a formal letter (34; cf. Chewa: ndine wanu “I-am
yours”). Thus, “quite different phrases can count as translations of one another” if they are
“interchangeable in a given situation” (35, original italics).

Purpose
Since words and the utterances in which they occur are meaningful only in specific verbal and
sociolinguistic contexts, what can translators do when the latter—the corresponding signals and
situations—are lacking in the language-culture into which they are translating (36)? The use of
“contextual substitutes” is one possibility, for example, the specific “my older brother” (mkulu
wanga) or “my younger brother” (mng’ono wanga) in Chichewa for the more general “my brother”
in English. At other times, a more extensive “cultural transposition” is required, for example, “in
the translation of children’s books,” where it may be necessary to introduce “a situation which,
although necessarily different in many respects, has at least some elements in common” with
what is being said in the source text (ST) (37). But how far the translator can go in this regard
depends on many factors—the overall genre and character of the text being translated, the
immediate cotext of the unfamiliar or foreign term or referent, the text’s primary purpose (skopos)
and intended setting of use in the target language, as well as the possibility (or not) of using
paratextual devices, such as explanatory footnotes, diagrams, or pictures.

Purpose in subtitling, theatre, and advertising

In this section Reynolds provides examples of various types of verbal and non-verbal
communication in which the purpose of a text is of greater significance than its semantic content,
namely, “subtitles in films and TV programmes” (38), a theatrical performance (38-39), and
advertisements (39-42, where we have several helpful visual illustrations). Inevitably, “purpose
influences what particular kind of freedom or closeness a translation pursues”—in these
instances, generally speaking, the former approach predominates. In the case of a legal document
or an official news report, on the other hand, the opposite method would prevail. The discussion
of graphics and imagery here bridges over into the next chapter.

20.4 Forms, identities, and interpretations

Icons

451
How does one “translate” a picture or a symbol? That is the focus of the opening section, which
engages with the subject of “semiotics,” the science of signs. The good news is that “images are
usually more widely understandable than words” (44), especially when combined with the latter
in familiar social settings. The written, or “conventional,” forms “of some languages, like
Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese script, include markedly iconic elements,” and even a verbal
language like English “can take on at least a trace of the forms of picture-writing” (45). This
accommodation makes such pictograms translatable to a certain degree when combined with
creative uses of page formatting and the typography. Indeed, “we use words to form patterns and
shapes all the time,” for example, in the case of newspaper headlines and website animation (47).

Comics and verse form

“In comics and graphic novels, the interaction between writing an iconic patterning is more
intricate,” as visualized by writing in changeable print fonts within “speech bubbles,” which
themselves can be varied in size, shape, and sequence (47). Generally, “these visual patterns can
be left untranslated because they rely on conventions of understanding that are shared” among
literate communities (49). However, easy recognition and ready interpretation cannot be
assumed to occur in cultures where such conventions or modes of communication are not
common. The utilization of meaningful forms is also important in most poetic works. Thus, both
novel (e.g., isomorphic) and conventional structure “in poetry enables words and syntax to
collaborate with visual and aural patterns to produce complex meanings,” but “languages have
differing propensities for rhyme [and other poetic effects], so the same poetic form can feel quite
different in different languages” if rendered literally (50). This simply illustrates the central truth
that “translation never provides an exact reproduction of any element of the source text—it is
always a matter of shifts and alterations: a metamorphosis, not a copy” (51-52). And precisely
which formal (sometimes semantic or pragmatic) elements of the original are “given or taken
away” during the process of verbal transfer will depend on the functional goal(s) of the translated
text and the manifest competencies or skills of those who are preparing it.

Identity
It was a little surprising to me that, having just pointed out the “metamorphosis” which
characterizes all translation efforts (52), Reynolds would use this particular heading: There can
never be “identity,” of course, between a source text and its translation in another language;
there are only relative degrees of correspondence, or equivalence, with respect to form, content,
and/or function. In fact, that is what Reynolds goes on to illustrate in this section, namely, the
varying degrees of closeness or freedom, of “foreignizing” or “domesticating,” which every
translation manifests in one respect or another. “So all translations operate in conditions of
between-ness: they all inhabit a middle ground” (53); the only question is, as already mentioned,
whether that medial space is shifted in the direction of the formal features of the source text—
or towards those of the target language. There are many different linguistic qualities that must
be considered in any comparative evaluation, most of which have already been cited: dialects,
degrees of formality, registers, idioms, literary genres, and writing styles (54). Perhaps one other
influential factor might have been discussed in more detail, namely, the difference between
purely oral and written communication.

In any case, Reynolds focuses on the nature of “style” in this section: “the translator builds
a style in the receiving language which will have its own mix of distinctiveness and
conventionality”—of relative “foreignness” or “domestication”—in keeping with a given
translation’s context and purpose (55). This creates a certain “identity” for the text, and perhaps
also its translator as well: “The acts of reading and interpreting and judging and rewording that
make up a translation all play a part in defining the identity that the translation will represent”
(55). At this point, I realized that I had misunderstood Reynolds’ reference to “identity” in the
title a few pages earlier (i.e., as denoting the relative degree of correspondence between a source

452
text and its translation). Identity is rather to be defined strictly in terms of linguistic features and
literary categories of the target language—more specifically, the norms and defining
characteristics of its literary (oratorical) inventory, or “polysystem.”942 The socially-situated and
relationally-sensitive aspects of a translation’s “performance of identity” are diversely illustrated
with reference to “asylum interviews” and “Bushman (sic) ethnographic texts” (55-57).

An interpretation
This topic does not concern the distinct practice of “interpreting,” i.e., the extemporaneous oral
translation of speakers’ texts, usually in formal settings (15, 55), but in the first place to a
reviewer’s written assessment of a particular translation. Reynolds criticizes many professional
reviewers for failing to take the important dimension of “connotation” into sufficient and/or
perceptive consideration when carrying out their textual evaluations (57-57). He points out that
“the original has no tone or spirit in itself: it takes readers to imagine those qualities into being”
(59). However, any careful analysis of the source text will hypothesize (to the extent possible)
concerning what “tone or spirit” the author intended to convey in her/his work.

This leads to a discussion of the act of “interpretation” in relation to that of “translation.”

While in one sense it is true to say that “every translation is an interpretation,” the two activities
can, and must, be distinguished (60). Interpretation is prior and “focuses on opening out the
meaning of the source text,” which is subsequently then translated (61). Translation, then, “is a
mode of writing that tries to continue as much as possible of the source text’s performance [i.e.,
its formal, semantic, and pragmatic features] into another language” (61); on the other hand, “a
translation is a text that needs to be interpreted in its turn” (60). “Literary texts are open to a
great variety of interpretations” (60); however, in the case of religious literary (!) texts, such as
the Bible, the range of plausible or acceptable interpretation is generally controlled by a
recognized community or guild of scholars.943 Similarly, the official parallel texts produced in
and for multilingual international organizations, e.g., UN conference proceedings, must also be
carefully regulated “via a complex process of translation, comparison, and negotiation” (62).

20.5 Power, religion, and choice

Empires of interpretation
Reynolds begins by illustrating through the story of “a bad translation mistake” made by
Phaeneas, Greek ambassador to the Romans, in 161 BCE the point that “the choice of this or that
word matters less than the power to determine meaning” (65). Moving to more recent times, the
presence or absence of a definite article in UN Security Council Resolution 242 concerning the
negotiated outcome of the 1967 Israeli-Arab war reveals that “translation errors, or mere
differences, don’t matter much in themselves; their effects depend on how they are interpreted
and used” (65), in particular, by the powers that are in a position to do something about their
preferred interpretation.

Delayed action
“Translation differences can also have unexpected after-effects” (66), as exemplified by the
Treaty of Waitangi between the British colonialists and Maori chiefs of the North Island of New

942 Cf. the “norms” of Toury’s “Descriptive Translation Studies” and the position of “translated
literature” in the corpus of TL verbal art forms according to Even-Zohar’s “Polysystem Theory” (Jeremy
Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd ed. [London & New York: Routledge,
2008], 110-122).
943 See, for example, Timothy Wilt and Ernst Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for
Bible Translators (Stellenbosch: Africa SUN Media, 2008), chs. 2-6.
453
Zealand (1840), where alternative interpretations of the key term kawanatanga (approximately,
“governorship”) continued to produce political squabbles and central government decisions
disadvantaging the Maori people, which only in recent times have begun to be redressed.944 So
it is that “when the landscape of power, and therefore of interpretation begins to alter, slips and
differences in translation can be exploited” to the political, social, and often also economic
detriment of those who are vulnerable and unable to resist (69).

Words of God
This section provides several interesting examples that illustrate some of the challenges of Bible
translation, whether carried out more literally (“this is a book of the white man”) or more freely
(“give each other a hearty handshake”) (70). To be sure, “translations can matter hugely when
they encapsulate differences in doctrine” (70), e.g., with reference to the word used for “baptize,”
or when some key term provokes a division in the Christian community, e.g., the word for “God”
in Chinese (71). However, Reynolds is off the mark in claiming that “the dominant theorist of
missionary translation, Eugene Nida, recommends the use of anything that sounds natural in the
receiving language, with the cultural and doctrinal specifics of the Bible being downplayed
accordingly” – or that with this “permissive practice of translation…accessibility has been
counted more significant than the distortion which goes with it” (70).945 I am not saying that
such instances of “permissiveness” do (did) not occur in Bible translations—unfortunately, all
too frequently; however, the implication should not be given that this is the current policy or
practice of most contemporary Bible translation agencies (ever since the turn of the century).

Holy books
Following closely in terms of topic from the preceding section, this one deals with the varied
audience reception of several influential (Western) translations—the Vulgate, Martin Luther’s
German version, William Tyndale’s translation, which cost him his life, and the Catholic Rheims-
Douai Bible, which made “the Bible about as hard to understand for the everyday English readers
as any translation could be while still being called a translation” (73). Illustrating the point that
“translation choices matter insofar as they respond to the beliefs of an interpretive community”
(73), Reynolds discusses Luther’s controversial rendering alleine durch den Glauben (“by faith
alone”) for the Greek word πίστει in Romans 3:28 (cf. Thomas Aquinas’ translation in sola fide).
Although in certain Christian constituencies, a strong allegiance to a certain translation, like the
KJV, remains, nowadays an increasing number of Bible students have come to recognize “that a
range of different versions can be a good thing” (74). Finally, Reynolds touches upon the case of
the Qur’an, with respect to which “translations do not take the place of [the] source text; they
point towards it” (74); this is, in fact, the correct view that Christians, too, should have towards
their Scriptures and its translation.

Suffering censorship
After another reference to Tyndale’s Bible, Reynolds gives several examples of secular literary
works (or translation apps, e.g., Google Translate) that have in more recent times been severely
censored, either by religious or political authorities, for example, Salmon Rushdie’s novel, The
Satanic Verses, the 1948 film Arch of Triumph, as dubbed in Spanish, or anything published in
Germany during the Nazi regime. Indeed, censorship is “a complex, permeating web of
psychological pressure and misinformation as well as explicit rules” (76). On the other hand,

944 Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi_claims_and_settlements.

945 Like many secular critics, Reynolds depends rather superficially only on the early (1970s) writings
of Nida for his data and also ignores the wealth of material on the subject of “the theory and practice of
Bible translation” that has appeared since then. On these and related issues, see: Ernst Wendland and
Stephen Pattemore, “‘The Dynamic Equivalence Caper’ - A Response,” Old Testament Essays 26:2, 2013:
https://www.academia.edu/4535880/_The_Dynamic_Equivalence_Caper_A_Response.
454
“this sort of complexity in the workings of censorship creates particular expressive possibilities
for authors and translators” (77), for example, the translations of John Dryden and others in 17th
century England which were used “as a shield for political views” that could not be openly
expressed (77). In all such settings where the threat of political repression looms like a dark
cloud over the literary landscape, translators, like writers, must be clever and creative enough to
negotiate their works “between what the culture will accept and what they might otherwise have
liked to write” (78).

The burden of translation

To illustrate the sort of assistance that can help translators to define their role and
responsibilities, Reynolds makes reference to the “Irish Translators’ and Interpreters’ Association
(ITIA),” which has developed a written code of conduct, for example: Translators must try their
level best “to provide a guaranteed faithful rendering of the original text which must be entirely
free of their own personal interpretation, opinion, or influence” (79). The problem is that this is
an impossible goal, for as was already emphasized, “every translation includes an element of
personal interpretation which can be exercised more or less freely according to the genre of the
source text and the purpose of the translation” (79). However, in cases where a translator wishes
to remain as close as possible to the ST, it may be possible to utilize auxiliary aids, such as
introductions or end notes, to supply essential explanations or background information. Thus,
even in the most limiting of work situations, given the necessary experience and expertise, a
translator may still be able to contribute “a distinctly personal element of imaginativeness and
sensitivity in finding the right kind of language for a given context” (81).

Powerful choices
“A translator’s choices can promote one way of using a language over another,” for example,
with respect to terms or expressions that pertain to gender and sexuality (82). Translators can
also facilitate the introduction of new words, concepts, images, and ways of looking at reality or
of viewing people and customs of other cultures. Some theorists hold that “translators have a
responsibility to give a strong impression of the linguistic particularity, or ‘otherness’ of the
source text” (83). However, as has been stressed throughout this book, “the value of a
‘foreignizing’ style of translation is always dependent on context” (83). To this I would add the
expressed wishes and perceived needs of the principal target audience and, on the other hand,
especially in the case of “high-value” texts like the Scriptures, also the communicative intentions
of the original author. In the latter case, in my opinion, “loyalty” to the source text and context,
as Christian Nord puts it,946 always trumps some academic, idealistic principle.

20.6 Words in the world

In this chapter Reynolds gives examples of how “translation and power are most intimately
intertwined” in the public and commercial world to determine who is authorized to translate,
“how it is done, and which languages it involves” (84).

The book trade

The source language for most of the books translated in the world today is, not surprisingly,
English: “add three more languages—French, German, and Russian—and you have the origin of
three-quarters of all translated books anywhere” (85). Thus, “the trade routes of translated books
reveal a cultural hegemony centered in North America and Western Europe” (87). Reynolds
recommends two types of change, the first being the obvious solution that “more books from

946 Christiane Nord, Translating as Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (Manchester:
St. Jerome, 1997), 125-126.
455
more languages might be translated” (87). The inevitable funding issue that arises in this case is
not addressed. His second proposal is creative but rather speculative, namely, to encourage “more
plural modes of translation that release the multiple possible meanings of the source text rather
than offering just one equivalent (I call this ‘Prismatic Translation’)” (87), for example, the use
of mixed languages, or code-switching, different dialects, registers, and styles of writing. I
wonder, however, how original authors might view such innovative linguistic (and possibly
other) adaptation or modification of their published literary works.

Official channels
In multinational political and philanthropic institutions, such as the UN, EU, UNESCO, the Red
Cross/Crescent, and so forth, “translation tends to reinforce standard national languages,
together with the dominance of English as both a national language and an international lingua
franca” (89). What to do to change this is not suggested, but again the cost factor would
undoubtedly loom large—as would the economy of time, that is, how to organize projects and
produce translations in many other worthy languages in a timely fashion. Reynolds draws
attention to another common limitation of language usage in the translating work that is
normally done by these international agencies: it tends to be more or less restricted in terms of
linguistic register and complexity (for the sake of oral interpreters) as well as subject matter and
even genre (89).

The highways of global news

“Global news also has its official channels; and here too powerful standard languages combine
with conventions of genre and register to create an efficient, exclusive translation structure” (92).
The problem is that to report a news event in a given language, whether directly or via translation
“is to frame it in a world view, to adapt it to a set of perspectives and assumptions” (94). Thus,
at any point along what might be a rather long chain of message transmission, the text may be
modified to a greater or lesser degree by those writers, editors, and translators who are directing
the process. The editorial re-shaping, or “trans-editing,” of a certain text to accommodate to a
new audience in a different language often “reveals ideological shifts that play some part in all
translation but are especially marked in the translation of news” (94).

Machines, rules, and statistics

The fact that “translation involves translating language that, somewhere or other, has probably
already been translated…is crucial to the way computers do translation” (94). The preceding
introduction leads to an interesting discussion of some important aspects of computer-aided,
electronic translation, which is of two types, pre-programmed rule-based and corpus fueled, text-
based. The latter utilizes “statistical techniques to determine which of the possibilities [for
rendering a certain phrase] is likely to work best in the given context” (95). “The biggest
difference between statistical and rule-based approaches to translation is that statistical programs
[like Google Translate] can get better by themselves” the more they are used and accumulate
corrections (96).

Memories, localization, and cyborgs

Multinational companies and related agencies also develop software which employs statistical
approaches to create private, topically-specific corpora that aid in generating initial translations
and also help to “maintain terminology databases to ensure that key words are always translated
in the same way” (97). This is all part of a “localization” process whereby “a company adapts its
web presence so that it looks at home wherever it is operating” with respect to both website
design and actual translation work (97). In the end, while computers are increasingly able to
produce more effective translations, human beings (“cyborg translators”) are still needed to

456
program them, oversee overall website operation, and also to perfect (correct), where necessary,
any official texts that are generated by these cybernetic means (98).

Crowds, bootleg trails, and glocal languages

“Crowd translation” refers to situations, usually via some website, where “groups of human
translators can be assembled virtually to work on a shared project” (98), for example, pages from
a Wikipedia website, or “fansubbing” the videos of Japanese manga animations (99). Such
cooperative efforts create “unofficial ‘bootleg trails’, allowing people to access information that
otherwise would not reach them,” or to spread “awareness of translation difficulties, and of
tactics for overcoming them” (99). These are examples of “glocal translation,” in which people
interested in some specialized topic or burning issue gather together via the internet “into virtual
localities that can develop their own ways with language and practices of translation” (100),
usually involving “minority and dialectal tongues” (101).

20.7 Translational literature

National literatures
Reynolds begins by describing a seemingly faulty notion concerning the “use of literature as a
nation-building force” (103) that he attributes to “the West” (where else?) of “the 19th and 20th
centuries” (104). This pertains to the belief that a specific language expresses a particular culture,
and thus “the task of the literary translator must be to take a text that belongs in one literature-
language-culture and recreate it in another” by means of a “Translation Rigidly Conceived” (102,
cf. chapter 2). Reynolds then raises the question: “What if there are other ways of configuring
the global geography of imaginative writing?” (104).

Multilingual writing
One way to approach this limitation of obvious linguistic and cultural embeddedness in national
literatures would be to encourage authors (if they are able) to write in more than one language,
dialect, or register. Prominent instances of such multilingual composition are referenced—
Samuel Beckett (English, French), Vladimir Nabokov (Russian, American English), Rainer Maria
Rilke (French, German), Chinua Achebe (English, Igbo), Dickens (various English dialects), and
of course, the master, Shakespeare (English, Latin, Greek, Italian, French) (104-107).947 Now the
question is: “How does this [apparently, the fact of multilingual literature] matter to
translation?” (107).

Translaterature
Reynolds begins with a helpful overview of some of the main points that he set forth in the first
four chapters—the complex character of languages and the relationships between different
languages, along with the associated challenges of translating texts, which include the
expectations that are commonly attached to such efforts: “The meaning and character of the
source text are not simply there for the taking: they have to be conjured up, co-created by you
as you read” (107-108)—and then do the heavy-lifting of transferring the original into a TL form
that will “do a similar job or have similar effect” (108). Creative literature presents special
obstacles, especially poetry, which “pushes words together in new ways” (108) that may be
attractive and impactful in one language, but not in another. Here we again encounter Reynolds’

947 I have my own example in the radio dramas of Julius Chongo entitled Poceza m’Madzulo
(‘Evening Chatting Time’); his 20-25 minute performances in the Nyanja language also featured register
variations and snatches of English, Tonga, Bemba, and other Zambian Bantu languages (see
https://www.academia.edu/11866659/The_Dramatic_Genius_of_Julius_Chongo_Selected_Nyanja_Radio_Ta
les_with_English_Translations_and_Three_Text_Analyses).
457
notion of the “translationality” of literature, where the author’s words “are carried over into new
contexts, [and] ideas are rephrased in surprising ways” (108; cf. 23). The question is: How can,
or should, we handle such novelty of form, content, and related function in another language?
Reynolds does not come out and say so, but I gather from his discussion that he favors a freer,
rather than a more rigid rendering—a method that offers “particular opportunities for the literary
translator” (108).

He goes on to illustrate this by a more detailed consideration of Alexander Pope’s The Rape
of the Lock and his handling of certain “narrative episodes and turns of phrase” that are imported
from Homer’s Iliad and Virgil’s Aeneid (108) in comparison their treatment by John Dryden (109)
and in the Italian version by Viola Papetti (110). Great literature is a “wellspring” of formal
verbal as well as imaginative potential, and “in really brilliant translations, the energies of the
languages involved combine with the genius of the translator to create distinctive modes of
expression” (111), as illustrated by “Cathay, Ezra Pound’s collection of poem-translations from
ancient Chinese” (111-112), and by Anthea Bell’s translation of the German prose of W. G. Sebald
(112). These instances of compositional excellence illustrates What Reynolds calls
“translaterature”—translated works “which grow as they are translated, developing new
complexity and power” (113) and a literary existence all their own.948

The theatre of translation

“The theatre is an inherently translational form” because “each performance is vividly present,”
or live, and “each performance is also a repeat,” never exactly the same as the last (113). The re-
articulation, or “transadaptation,” of a great drama can take many forms, and such “theatrical
modes of recreation mingle translation, adaptation, and re-writing,” blended with “new
production ideas and acting styles” (114), including differences in diction and “the collaborating
presence of body language” (116-117). Clearly, a great deal of local contextualization must take
place as a given drama is transferred from place to place, from language to language, and perhaps
also from one purpose to another, for example, “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, performed
in Russian in Moscow in 2015 [as] a critique of abuses of power by” the current regime (115).
Reynolds draws attention to some of the outstanding similarities between a dramatic
performance and literary translation, both of which not only interpret a source text but also
become “new works of imagining that need interpreting in their turn” (118).949 They thus serve
to “connect the present to the past,” bridging “cultures and the people who inhabit them,
allowing contrasts and continuities of ideas, feelings, and instincts to be explored” (118).

Two futures
In conclusion, Reynolds imagines two different scenarios that seek to anticipate the direction of
future development in the field of translation. “In one future, machine translation is used more
and more as an efficient tool” that favors “global English, a jargon which lacks richness and
nuance because it belongs everywhere and nowhere”—“a universal translationese” (119). “In the
second future, the internet, migration, and other forces of globalization will make people more
aware of linguistic difference,” including regional differences in English itself, and “people will

948 When translating the Bible and other sacred texts, however, one would not wish to manifest too
much independence in relation to the content and intent of the sacred source text but, on the other hand,
would demonstrate her/his creative freedom more fully with respect to the idiomatic forms (discourse
structures and stylistic features) of the target language (cf. E. R. Wendland, Translating the Literature of
Scripture [Dallas: SIL International, 2004], chs. 1-2).
949 Again, in the case of high-value texts such as a people’s “holy book(s),” these contemporary
“interpretations” and any “adaptations” are normally not allowed to stray too far away from the cognitive
frame of reference established by the original source text and its ancient context, or from the succession
of reliable interpretive communities who have maintained the general parameters of a hermeneutical
tradition that determines relative degrees of fidelity—or abuse.
458
revel in multilingualism, using different languages for different purposes and moods…” (119). In
the end, Reynolds surmises that, in fact, the future of communication will incorporate a mixture
of both of his scenarios, with “each tendency [feeding] off the other” (119). In any case,
“translation needs to be at the heart of the way we use and think about language,” for “it reveals
and relishes difference while also bridging it” (120). This is the significant premise that Reynolds
has succinctly and incisively demonstrated in his “very short” book, which is, indeed, a multum
in parvo and well worth a read by anyone interested in the arts and literature in particular.

459
21. Literary Translation – A Selective Overview

Literary Translation by Chantal Wright (London & New York: Routledge Translation Studies,
2016) is a text that everyone who theorizes about and/or actually practices the art and craft of
translating will want to read—and rather carefully at that. Wright, a university professor of
“Translation as a Literary Practice” (Warwick, UK), is herself a recognized theorist as well as a
professional translator of literary works. In this comprehensive and insightfully composed, yet
accessible study, she critically surveys the broad interdisciplinary field of contemporary
translation studies, combining important theoretical observations with contextualized practical
examples that clearly demonstrate the relevance of the issues under discussion. Her progressive
analysis of models and methods goes well beyond immediate literary concerns to include also
linguistic, sociocultural, and even political aspects of the cases being considered, often revealing
features that are not often considered by inexperienced practitioners. Although intended
primarily as “a guidebook for all students of literary translation within advanced undergraduate
and postgraduate/graduate programmes in translation studies, comparative literature and
modern languages” (back cover blurb), this text would be a valuable resource for teachers too,
as well as anyone who is somehow interested or engaged in the sphere of translation.

The book (181 pages) consists of an Introduction (with Bibliography), which leads to three
rather lengthy chapters that aim to familiarize readers with: (1) What motivates the act of
translation; (2) How to read and critique literary translations; and (3) How to read for translation.
The discussion of each chapter concludes with a selection of sample Exercises, suggested titles
for Further Reading, and a Bibliography for that chapter. There is a brief Conclusion, followed
by an Appendix with two of Tzveta Sofronieva’s German-language poems (analyzed in chapter
3), a Glossary of selected key concepts in the domain of Translation Studies (with Bibliography),
and an Index of names and topics. The author has made available online an informative resource
for those who are exploring or wishing to begin a career in literary translation:
(http://documents.routledge-
interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9780415745321/how_to_get_started_in_literary_translation.pdf).

The sheer amount of significant material packed into this little book precludes an adequate
review of its impressive range of contents. The following overview is intended simply to walk
readers through the main subject areas by means of summaries, some informative quotes, and
personal comments from the perspective of Bible translation.

21.0 Introduction

Wright begins with a discussion concerning “the usefulness of theory for literary translators”
(1)950 since descriptive theory provides “a new view of the world, changing its reader’s
perceptions, broadening the mind” (1, citing Jean Boase-Beier), heightens one’s perceptions of
the “strengths and weaknesses” of literary practice (2), and acts to stimulate creativity while
resisting the constraints of a source text (2). More specifically, “the fruits of formal reflection on
translation – theorization of the translator as a subjective presence in the target text; a better
understanding of translation’s role as a mediator of foreign cultures; the conceptualization of
translation as a mode of reading and writing – have all had ‘impact’…in the ‘real world’” (3).
However, theory needs to be closely integrated with practice in translator training programs,
whether academic or commercial, so that their distinct roles and related benefits are clearly
understood and productively utilized (4). The author recommends a broader, communication-
oriented and multidisciplinary approach to the task, including a historical dimension, ethics,
literary and intertextual studies, as well as text (discourse) analysis (4). The notion of “literary”

950
All citations are from the book under consideration unless otherwise noted.
460
is comparatively qualitative and encompasses a wide range of genres, while “literariness” is not
confined to works of fiction,951 but rather “has much to do with the style of a text, with its marked
and distinct use of features such as voice, metaphor, ambiguity, repetition and defamiliarization”
(5).

Wright presents a handy summary of the three main chapters that follow. Chapter one
considers “the issue of the ethics of translation by asking why we translate,” with an emphasis
on a contemporary setting and the transnational “English-speaking world” (5-6). In short, we
translate for humanistic reasons, e.g., “to expose ourselves to difference and other ways of seeing”
(6-7), for ideological reasons, e.g., “to assimilate and to exert control” (7), for literary critical
reasons, e.g., “as a form of literary criticism or commentary” (7), from a creative impulse, “to
allow others the opportunity to experience [emotive and cognitive] effects through our
translations” (7), and, for some, even as “a spiritual endeavor” (7).952 In chapter two the focus
shifts to “how we read translations, or how we should read translations,” a task that will
necessarily be modified according to the type of text being translated and its cultural setting vis-
à-vis that of the target audience (7). Chapter three then presents Wright’s own experience as a
translator in order to demonstrate “how [one’s] reading encounters with texts shape the
translations that [one produces],” with special reference to the author’s two main areas of
expertise, namely, that translation of books written for children and young adults as well as
exophonic literature—source texts produced by non-native speakers (in this case, German) (8).
Wright offers a succinct description of the “performative” practice of literary translation: “The
translator’s linguistic knowledge combines with their sense of artistic and ethical purpose and
their intellectual preparation, which involves knowing which questions to ask and which
phenomena to look out for, and all of this is then brought to bear on the translation of a particular
text” (8).

In a concluding portion of the Introduction, “How to use this book,” Wright specifies her
rather broad target readership and principal aims, which is generally speaking, “to break down
the unhelpful boundaries between theory and practice, theoreticians and practitioners,” and
more specifically then, “to open up literary translation as a process and a product, from the
underlying motivations of the act, and the implications thereof for the practice, to the practice
of reading a text in order to translate it” (8-9).

21.1 Why do we translate?

21.1.1 Why do I translate? A personal response

Wright begins this opening section by situating her own motivation and position in the field of
translation studies as a teacher and literary translator, and in the process she describes a number
of the main challenges currently facing those who are engaged in such creatively intellectual,
intercultural linguistic activity (13-17). She summarizes her outlook as follows: “My global
reasons for translating, then, include giving other readers the opportunity to experience the same
enjoyment I get from reading, being intellectually stimulated, entertained and challenged” (17).
Furthermore, “I am keen to extend the audience for certain texts and authors, and for foreign
literature more generally, and I believe that translation is an act of witnessing to literary value
and a means of spreading ideas—books from other cultures can alter our way of seeing the world”
(18). From a work-related perspective, for all those involved somehow in the study of literature,
translation offers “an intense form of reading that might be described as a type of literary

951
Cf. E. Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004).
952
I would qualify this last point: It is not that “we strive for the divine” (7), but rather that when
translating, e.g., Scripture, we participate to one degree or another in some divine activity or higher
purpose.
461
criticism” (18). In short, as an essential function of her profession, Wright translates for
humanistic, ideological, and literary-critical reasons, each aspect of which has already been
previewed and is more fully developed in subsequent sections of this chapter (19).953

21.1.2 Why do we translate? The humanist response

The first, and perhaps most obvious response is that translation “makes world literature possible”
and thereby “also builds bridges between cultures” by helping “us to see differently, shifting our
perception of ourselves and others” (20). Wright discusses the potential benefit of this motivation
in terms of whether it serves a basically noble (altruistic) purpose or, on the other hand, a
nationalistic agenda in relation to the opinions of theorists such as Goethe and Schleiermacher,
for example, and also with respect to the contrastive translation approaches of “foreignizing”
(source-text oriented) and “domesticating” (target-text oriented) (20-22). Use of the latter
method becomes debatable when not only the language (structure, style) but also the culture
(content) of the original text is pushed via translation too far in the direction of the target setting,
e.g., with respect to proper names, places, customs, and other ethno-specific aspects of the
environment (23-24). Wright discusses the pros and cons presented by the “powerful position”
and “global influence” of English with respect to world translation, including its use as a
“bridging” or “relay” language when translating “between less common language pairings” (26-
27). Thus, while “translation motivated by humanist principles has an essential faith in
communication and hence in translatability” and its potential for good, the provocative question
is raised: “What if translation denies and eradicates difference rather than opening our eyes to
it?” (28).

The related issues of intention and ideology will be considered in the next section, but as a
bridge to that discussion, Wright briefly brings up “twentieth-century Bible translation as an
example of the fuzzy dividing line between Christian humanist and ‘ideological’ approaches to
translation” (29). For many believers, Muslims in particular, “the truth claim and divine
inspiration attributed to sacred texts means that the decontextualization that occurs in
translation, when the text’s message is separated from its original form, is problematic” (29).
Among Christians, the attachment is not so much to the biblical languages of Hebrew (Aramaic)
and Greek, but may be rather to a certain method of rendering the text, where “formal
correspondence” is perceived as the ideal (the “KJV factor”). The contrasting approach is that of
“dynamic equivalence” developed by Eugene Nida (and others) in the 1960-70s, which “can be
achieved by making formal adjustments so that the target text uses ‘the closest natural equivalent
to the source-language message’” (29).954 This is not the place to discuss the basic principles of
Bible translating,955 except to note that it is a pity that most contemporary translation theorists
tend to limit their research to the early days of “dynamic equivalence” and hence overlook the
developments in what I might term “biblical translation studies” that have taken place in the
intervening half-century.956 In any case, Wright correctly points out that “like many translators

953
Wright also mentions a more “esoteric” motivation that sort of runs as an underlying thread
throughout her ensuing discussion of specific topics: “Translation…[is] a metaphysical enterprise, a
spiritual endeavor and a dynamic practice that gives us an insight into the nature of language and thought”
(19).
954
This citation is from Eugene A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 166.
955
See Translating the Literature of Scripture, ch. 2; also LiFE-[Literary Functional-Equivalence]-Style
Translating, 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2011), ch. 3.
956
Source-text form is taken much more seriously in E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and
Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969), for example: “Translating consists in reproducing in the
receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning
and secondly in terms of style” (i.e., form), p. 12; also Jan de Waard and E. A. Nida, From One Language to
Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), for example:
“Changes of form can and should be made [in translation], but only under certain specified conditions,”
462
of secular texts, Nida’s commitment to the text [of Scripture] and the task at hand is rooted in a
belief that the message held by that text is worthwhile and, furthermore, communicable” via
translation in a manner which “provides readers with democratic access to a life-enriching”
message (30).957

21.1.3 Why do we translate” Ideological agendas

This is a crucial section of the book, for it discusses several controversial topics in translation
studies—the “ideological,” or why factor naturally influencing one’s methodology, that is, how
one translates (to be considered in more detail in chapters 2 and 3). The notion of “ideology”
can be understood in more general and a narrower sense. The former approaches what some
might term a “world-view” as determined by one’s sociocultural setting: “An all permeating
[conceptual] force of which we are partly or fully unaware and which colors not only our
behavior but our very perception of the world” (31). More specifically, then, an ideology “is the
imposition of a pattern—some form of structure or organization—on how we read (and misread)
political facts, events, occurrences, actions, on how we see images and hear voices” (30),958 an
example that Wright discusses being “Orientalism”—the colonial Western perception of and
attitudes towards the Middle East (30-31). Everyone has an ideology, whether one recognizes it
or not—a number of integrated ideological layers in fact—which inevitably influence one’s
translation in one way or another, the “why” thus affecting the “how” of it (31). Wright considers
several significant issues that pertain to ideology in this section.

21.1.3.1 Ideology in translation: colonialism

Contemporary translation studies devote a great deal of attention to investigating “how

translation intersects with ideology and power,” either to “further imperial interests or promote
decolonization” (33). Examples referenced are Sir Richard Burton’s 1885 English translation of
the Arabic short story collection Alf Laylah wa Laylah (The Book of the Thousand Nights and a
Night) (33-34) and Bible translation carried out as part of other missionary activities, which are
alleged to have served “colonial and neo-imperialist agendas” (34). Accusations of the latter sort
are debatable of course when in hindsight they impute nefarious motives without sufficient
concrete historical evidence or depend on supportive studies written by scholars with their own
contrary ideological agenda.

21.1.3.2 Ideology in translation: systems of thought

Translations may be used not only to reinforce “dominant systems of power such as colonialism”
but, on the other hand, also to weaken the development of new ideas or ideologies, an example
being that of “Simone de Beavoir’s seminal work of feminist philosophy Le deuxième sex (1949)”
(34). Wright gives another extended example to illustrate “how translation can affect systems of

namely, when a literal rendering would result in the wrong meaning, no meaning at all, obscurity,
ambiguity, and/or “bad grammar or style” in the target language,” pp. 37-38.
957
Lawrence Venuti sharply criticizes such a perspective since it “seeks to impose…a distinctly
Christian understanding of the Bible” (30; cf. The Translator’s Invisibility [New York: Routledge, 1995], p.
23); Anthony Pym, on the other hand, rightly counters this objection as being intolerant of “the
commitment of the faithful…when dealing with the translation of sacred texts” (30; cf. On Translator Ethics
[Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012], p. 110). The “cultural colonialism” that Venuti and others charge
contemporary Bible translators and theorists with (30) obviously ignores the great deal of serious
contextually-based, comparative sociocultural analysis that the latter scholars devote to the analysis of
ancient biblical texts as well as the modern cultural settings into which they are translating, e.g., E. A.
Nida and Wm. D. Reyburn, Meaning Across Cultures (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981).
958
Wright here cites M. Freeden, Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003), 3.
463
knowledge, whether emergent or established,” namely, with reference to the writings of Sigmund
Freud” (35-36).

21.1.3.3 Ideology in translation: textual decision-making

Wright devotes her attention in this section to a discussion of the work of two theorists who, as
an ethical (ideological) principle, strongly promote and practice the method of “foreignization”
in translation. For Antoine Berman, “the target reader should experience the full strangeness of
the foreign text, and the target language should be derailed by its collision with the source
language” (37). Furthermore, such rigid foreignness is meant to include “the stylistic otherness
of the individual literary [source] text as the fact of its existence in a foreign language” (38).959
This motivating principle is then illustrated by the contrasting practices of two English translators
(one a paired team) of Dostoevsky’s Russian works, one being more foreignized than the other
(38-40). The result is that “the two sets of translators give us a very different Dostoevsky,
and…over the course of a lengthy novel the sum of such subtleties [becomes] very significant
indeed” (40). One rendition is not necessarily better than another for they reflect different times,
places, goals, “and translational sensibilities,” including ideology (40).

Wright then turns to the more nuanced studies of Lawrence Venuti who argues against the
prevailing policy of “domestication” in “the English-speaking world,” which actively “assimilates
foreign literature to the literary norms of the target language, resulting in smooth, natural texts
that read as though they were originally written in English,” thereby reinforcing “Anglo-
American hegemony over the rest of the world” (41). Venuti advocates for a much more subtle
type of procedure that “draws upon the resources of the target language to foreignize by analogy”
in the effort to “create an artificial foreignness in the target text…that does not depend on the
foreignness of the source text for inspiration…using the resources that English makes available”
(42). In my opinion, the problem is that such a sophisticated methodology can be appreciated
and assessed only with reference to actual examples, which are not here adduced. Moreover, one
cannot envision great commercial success for such a creatively idiosyncratic strategy, except
among scholars, and only if the English foreignized translation is accompanied by a substantial
paratext in the form of footnotes to describe or explain what and why the translator is doing
what s/he did in her/his TL rendition with reference to the source text. Another critique of this
approach is that such “foreignization is not motivated by a textual ethics of respect for literary
integrity, and it may even falsely represent the Other in its attempts to disrupt dominant target
language values” (43).

21.1.3.4 Defining domestication

Having already introduced the subject, Wright delves more deeply into the what, how, and why
of the translation strategy of “domestication” in this section (also referred to as “localization” or
“rebranding”) (43). This procedure may be carried out on “a variety of levels” with regard to
content, e.g., “references to culturally specific elements such as social practices could be removed
or replaced, and/or form, e.g., “‘difficult’ texts might be made more readable by eradicating
foregrounded stylistic features, replacing unusual lexical items and turns of phrase with more
everyday language and normalizing syntax” (43). A certain degree of “censorship” might also be
involved, “with elements considered offensive or inappropriate in the receiving culture being
removed or rewritten, perhaps leading to substantial abridgement” (43). From a secular
translation perspective, domestication was initially viewed “as the prerequisite for readability

959
The French-language work of Berman is accessed by means of Lawrence Venuti’s translation of “La
traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger” (“Translation and the Trials of the Foreign”) (37).
464
and hence the route to commercial success” (43),960 but in more recent years, “prevailing
attitudes among readers appears to have shifted and the provision of local color, particularly in
genre fiction, is generally seen as exotic enrichment” (45). This shift pertains mainly to content,
and the issue of stylistic form and how much “imposition of target-language grammatical and
stylistic norms on the foreign text” remains more controversial since it is debatable in what way
or to what end certain distinctive forms of the source text are meaningful in another language.
For instance, among her typical array of illustrative examples, Wright suggests that “the
convoluted syntax in [Thomas] Mann’s [German] novel is iconic, i.e., performative of the
narrative’s overall sense of time” (48). The question remains as to whether a more formally
correspondent rendering in English would convey the same impression—or, on the other hand,
would simply suggest to the average reader that the original author, or the translator, was
stylistically incompetent.

21.1.3.5 Defining foreignization

In this section Wright explores “what might foreignization, as conceived by Venuti, might look
like in practical terms” by reviewing the English translation of a collection of “dark and surreal
interlinked [Japanese] short stories” (48). The contextual setting was foreignized, but the
dialogue was rendered in colloquial English, resulting in a “juxtaposition of domestic speech and
foreign cultural elements”—an obvious stylistic “heterogeneity” (49). “Thus, ironically,
domesticating aspects in a translated text can augment its foreignness by creating stark
juxtapositions and thematic or stylistic incoherences” (49-50). What effect this compositional
style might have on readers is not considered; perhaps the majority (other than literary critics)
would not even notice.

Another type of foreignization is a so-called “thick translation,” one “that seeks with its
annotations [footnotes] and its accompanying glosses [of SL italicized transliterations] to locate
the text in a rich cultural and linguistic context” (51). Adapting such a strategy to the practice
of Bible translating, one might envision a domesticated style within the text itself, other than the
frequent references to varied aspects of the biblical setting (persons, places, flora, fauna, customs,
technical religions terms, etc.), coupled with a foreignized paratext, where footnotes, for
example, would “give a voice to the translator” in her/his role as an exegetical interpreter and
also “confront the…reader [hearer] with the specificity and otherness of [biblical] history and
culture” (52). Wright correctly calls attention to the fact that in cases of good literary translation
the practice of either foreignization or domestication cannot be applied “with militant
adherence” (53). Rather, one method or the other must be creatively and caringly employed to
a greater or lesser degree in accordance with type of text being translated, its main
communicative purpose (Skopos), and primary target audience.961 Wright concludes that with
respect to “the stylistic integrity of the foreign text,” too much domestication conforms the text
“to the norms of the receiving language” so that “the ST might be assumed to exemplify the SL,”
whereas too much foreignization “is potentially guilty of a similar disinterest in the text’s poetics”
(53).962

960
As Wright later points out, domestication has been “championed” by “contemporary mainstream
Anglophone publishers” who are motivated “by a sense that translation works against a book’s
marketability” (82) and therefore needs to be naturalized as much as possible in order to maintain a style
that is most familiar to the reading public.
961
I have explored some of these issues with regard to translating popular radio drama in Chichewa,
a major Bantu language or SE Africa:
https://www.academia.edu/7953637/Variations_in_Translating_Poceza_mMadzulo_Radio_Narrative_Texts
.
962
My experience with Bible translations in a dozen different Bantu languages would lead me to
conclude that, stylistically speaking, the latter—an overly foreignized translation—presents the greater
barrier to both textual understanding and literary appreciation for most TL users.
465
21.1.4 Why do we translate? Translation as a mode of reading and writing

Wright now moves from her exploration of the textual effects of different ways of translating “to
consider the question [Why do we translate?] from the perspective of the cognitive and creative
gains of the translation process for the translator” (54). This involves viewing the activity of
translating as a means for enhancing both the “reading” and the “writing” process—on the one
hand, as “privileged explicators of their source texts,” on the other, as practitioners of “creative
writing” (54).

21.1.4.1 Translation as a mode of and a response to reading

This section begins with a discussion of what constitutes a “literary” text and how this might
differ from one that is “non-literary.” Thus, “literary texts…employ stylistic features such as
metaphor more frequently than non-literary texts; they do not straightforwardly reflect the ‘real
world’ (in fact, they often create fictional worlds); they ‘embody a state of mind’…to a greater
extent than other types of text; and because of this they require a greater investment from their
readers” (54). There are many other stylistic features on the macro- and micro-structure of
discourse that could be mentioned, of course, but it is important to point out that again a
continuum of possibilities is involved in this characterization of “literary” as distinct from “non-
literary.” In this connection, one might ask: Is the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) a
“literary” text? I would argue that it is, by and large, manifestly so963—except perhaps with
respect to the amount of “fictiveness” involved as well as the degree of “open-endedness” with
regard to the text’s author-intended meaning.964

In any case, I would agree with Wright’s assertion (following Boase-Beier) that “we
read/translate because reading/translating is a pleasurable activity that cognitively and
creatively engages us and has poetic effects,” the difference being that in the case of translating,
as distinct from other types of reading, a person must overtly pay a closer attention to the style
of the source text, at the same time anticipating how its functional effects may be expressed in
another language—in other words, listening during an analysis of the ST “for ‘echoes’ of its
translation” (55). The activity of translation is also a more complex sort of “reading” in that it
incorporates “the necessity of creatively negotiating certain external and internal constraints,
which can include the nature of the translation commission, the linguistic constraints imposed
by the forms of the source and target languages and differences in cultural norms” (55). Wright
illustrates the intensive process of a translation-oriented “reading” by considering J. Mark Smith’s
poem “Germans” with special reference to its possible rendering in the German language (55-
57). This turns out to be a more concentrated engagement of the source text than that
experienced by a literary-critical “close reading” (56) because the distinctive stylistic features of
the source text serve to alert a person to formal, semantic, and emotive “nodes of meaning” that
will need to be dealt with later in translation (possibly already by means of anticipation in the
translator’s mind as s/he reads a text for the first time). Thus, “the translator’s stylistically aware,
creative engagement with the [source] text should result in a target text that gives its reader
equal though not identical ‘possibilities for creative reading’” (57)—to which I would need to
add, from the perspective of Scripture translating, also the aim to achieve an “accurate” reading
and rendering in keeping with the postulated communicative intentions of the original author.965

963
See, for example, Translating the Literature of Scripture, passim.
964
This notion comes from the perspective of Relevance Theory (54); however, I would argue that the
relative degree and textual location of such “open-endedness” is quite debatable—certainly in the case of
literary texts that communicate significant religious, including propositional, content, as in the case of the
Scriptures.
965
The accumulated scholarly interpretive traditions of the religious community are also involved in
the case of an ancient “high-value” text. For different perspectives on the notion of “meaning”—authorial,
466
21.1.4.2 Documentary translation

Wright first describes the difference between what Christiane Nord (1997) terms a
“documentary” translation, as distinct from one that is “instrumental” in nature. In the former
case, the translator orients the text “towards documenting a source in metatextual fashion,” thus
“giving the target-language reader an indication of the nature of the (potentially) inaccessible
foreign-language text” (58). An “instrumental” version, on the other hand, aims to fulfill “a
function of its own in the target context,” thereby manifesting the source text’s “characteristics
and effects on the reader so central to the way literature works” (58). For all practical purposes
then, we are simply dealing with the contrastive approaches of foreignization and domestication
under different terms, but the respective technical descriptions and related discussions help us
to better distinguish these paired methodologies both in translation practice and assessment as
well. This is important because Wright, following Boase-Beier,966 perceptively argues that
“literary translation is both documentary and instrumental” (58)—in other words, a translators
will need to resourcefully apply both methods when rendering a literary text in another language.
Wright illustrates a deeply documentary method in Vladimir Nabokov’s footnote-dominated
English translation of Pushkin’s Russian novel in verse, Eugene Onegin (1964). In effect, this type
of literal translation cum commentary actually “functions as a fastidious form of literary
criticism” (59).

The use of a documentary translation as a literary critical tool is also advocated by Marilyn
Gaddis Rose, who suggests that this approach “opens up a space around the source text…‘a
circumference of interpretation’967…that highlights gaps, tensions and concordances between
source and target(s), thus provoking the reader’s investment and collaboration” (60). Wright
illustrates this approach by focusing on the English translation of the key verb gelten in Walter
Benjamin’s essay “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers” (“The Task of the Translator”) (60-62). The
significance and “crucial signifying power” of this verb “only becomes clear when we consider
its translation into English and observe the difficulty of finding an appropriate equivalent” (62).
Granted, this “documentary” application of translation can indeed serve as a helpful analytical
tool for literary critics and like-minded academics both to document the different kinds of
difficulty presented by interlingual communication and, on the other hand, to utilize examples
of the lack of concordance between source and target texts to illuminate the various layers of
meaning encoded in the former (62). The question left unanswered, however, concerns the
general reading public and whether they will really appreciate such ST-focused translations
probably “accompanied by skyscraping footnotes” (60).

21.1.4.3 Instrumental translation

Wright begins with a useful definition of the subject at hand: “A translation is a creative blend
of source and target that ‘multiplies the voices of the text, by adding the translator’s voice’ (Boase-
Beier 2011:57) and that negotiates the constraints imposed by the lack of equivalence between
languages and the need for a translation to document its source” (63).968 In contrast to a
documentary approach then, an “instrumental” translation is “primarily interested in translation

textual, readerly significance—see LiFE-Style Translating, 103-116. Christiane Nord terms this ST-based
concern “loyalty,” which “means that the target-text purpose should be compatible with the original
author’s intentions. … Sometimes a thorough analysis of intratextual function markers helps the translator
to find out about the communicative intentions that may have guided the author” (Translating as Purposeful
Activity [Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997], 125-126; cf. 140).
966
J. Boase-Beier, A Critical Introduction to Translation Studies (London: Continuum, 2011), 62.
967
M. Gaddis Rose, Translation and Literary Criticism (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997), 55.
968
I would prefer to qualify this statement by saying: “relative lack of equivalence”; if there were
absolutely no equivalence between languages, translation would be impossible.
467
as a literary activity in its own right” using the resources of the target language (63). In a rather
dense discussion, Wright describes Clive Scott’s “experimental” approach to translation, which
explores “the phenomenology of reading and its expression in writing” in order to foreground
“the subjectivity of the translator and his or her presence in the target text” (64).969 Further
examples are given to illustrate such experimentation in the form of “autobiographical input”
when translating (65-66), but I did not find these to be particularly instructive. However,
Wright’s summary of the literary goal is again helpful: “Translators hover between these two
positions, remaining faithful to the source text in the sense of fulfilling a documentary function
on the one hand, while acknowledging the translator as a subject, and thus claiming more status
and visibility for themselves on the other” (67), presumably by means of a creative use of the
linguistic and literary resources of the TL in their work.

21.1.4.4 Coda: Babel

After citing Robert Alter’s translation of Genesis 11:1-9,970 Scott’s “alternative reading,” an
“affirmative vision of translation” is suggested: “God’s pushing humanity back on its proper
course – the development of fruitful alterity” (2012:8), in which translation then becomes “a
questing, spiritual, fundamentally human endeavor through which we innovatively embrace our
‘creaturely condition’ (Alter 2004:58), exploring language and, through language, the divine
within and without” (69).971

21.1.5 Conclusions

After a summary of several of the reasons offered in this chapter to answer the question “Why
do we translate?”, Wright briefly takes up Anthony Pym’s ethical challenge: “Should I translate?”
(2012:103) (70). Regardless of how one might formulate an answer, the exercise would help the
translator to “develop a meta-awareness of the implications of the activity in which he or she is
engaged,” and “a more conscious approach to translation on the part of the practitioner cannot
help but create better conditions for the reading of translations” (70). Such pre-project
deliberative reflection is all the more necessary for anyone contemplating a translation of
Scripture, and Wright herself suggests several key questions that might be asked in such a self-
study, that is, in the second of her suggested “Exercises” (70-71), for example: “How does your
own context influence your reading” (understanding/interpretation) (71).

21.2 How do we read translations?

Wright begins by drawing attention to the lack of public recognition and even respect that
translators often receive as they practice their demanding interlingual, cross-cultural literary
craft, especially in publication settings that promote a policy of domestication. This second
chapter then “is concerned with how translations are – or should be – read, by book reviewers,
by students and scholars and by ‘everyday’ readers; for critique, for study and for pleasure” (83).

969
For example, C. Scott, Translating the Perception of Text (London: Legenda, 2012).
970
R. Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004),
8-9.
971
It is not clear in context whether the references to “spiritual” and “divine” in this quotation are to
be understood in a religious sense or not, and if so, from the perspective of which religion. Indeed, this
would be a good example of where a translator would need to have clarification from the author before
an appropriate “reading” of the text and its rendering in another language could be carried out.
468
21.2.1 Are literary translations special? Are they—should they be—read differently?

Wright correctly asserts that “a literary translation is a special kind of text” since an
“instrumental” with a “documentary” approach to the task (cf. 1.4.2-3 above), this dual function
resulting in a textual “blend,” as posited by cognitive-linguistic “mental space” theory (83).972
However, Wright does not distinguish the “generic” conceptual transfer space, or seemingly
recognize the compositional priority of the “source text/space” in the ultimate translational
“blend,” which is said to “enjoy dual authorship” (ibid.:84). This position would be problematic
of course in the specific case of Scripture translation, which is believed to be divinely originated.
Her characterization of the blended result in a target text, on the other hand, is quite accurate:
“In the process of rewriting the source text’s style using the resources of the target language, the
translator has facilitated a linguistic encounter which leaves traces in the language of translation”
(ibid.:84), namely, foreignized semantic elements in the form of references to ST persons, places,
environment, artifacts, customs, and so forth.

A translation then is “a blended or hybrid entity that is connected in a unique way to a

preceding text, a text that has multiple voices and that has undergone a process of mutation or
transformation” (85). The degree of “mutation” involved with regard to textual form, content,
and/or function will depend on nature (genre) of the text concerned, including the project Skopos
and whether the translator is a “foreignizer,” a “domesticator,” or a “blender”—someone who is
not ideologically or commercially bound to either one of the preceding two methodologies, but
who creatively seeks out the “middle ground between experiencing alienation and practicing
assimilation” in her/his work (85). When endeavoring first of all to “read” (recognize, discern,
analyze, etc.) and then also to recreate the “alterity” (otherness, difference, contrast, novelty,
etc.) of a given source text in translation, one would presumably wish to focus on the TL literary
forms that are functionally significant—in other words, the text’s “communicative clues.”973 The
aim would be to determine the degree to which a particular translation functions instrumentally,
“that is to say, as a literary text in its own right…, [in which case] its own literariness will be
paramount in any assessment of its success as a literary text” (88). In order to illustrate the point
that “the purpose of our reading [as reviewers, scholars, students, etc.] will also inevitably shape
our assessment of a translated text” (87), in subsequent sections, Wright presents a series of
“readings of several translations, positing different contexts for each reading” (88).

21.2.2 How do we, or should we, review translations?

To begin with, Wright examines several “reviews of translated books, considering the elements
that might constitute good and bad reviewing practice” (88), thereby demonstrating her own
considerable skill as a discerning literary critic and, in turn, a keen critical evaluator of published
translation reviewers, for example: “The review [under discussion] does not investigate its own
assumptions, nor sufficiently interrogate the interaction between the novel’s thematic focus and
its textual qualities” (90). Wright then illustrates best practices in such literary-critical work by
offering her “own review of a re-translation of Austrian writer Ingebord Bachmann’s [German]

972
See Peter Stockwell, Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction (London & New York: Routledge, 2002), 96-
99. I outline a “mental space” model of translation in a paper published on Academia (pp. 28-29):
https://www.academia.edu/2637817/Framing_the_Frames_A_Theoretical_Framework_for_the_Cognitive_N
otion_of_Frames_of_Reference_in_Translation.
973
“Communicative clues are thus not just any properties of the text, but [phonological, lexical,
grammatical, structural, pragmatic] features built into the text for the purpose of guiding the audience to
the intended interpretation…[and] perceived to be particularly significant for the intended meaning”
(Basil Hatim, Teaching and Researching Translation, 2nd ed. [Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2013], 112). Wright does
not give much detail concerning the analytical “how” to support this section’s emphasis upon “reading”
(interpreting) a given literary text, with special reference to its “alterity”—other than listing Venuti’s
general guidelines for “How to Read a Translation” (87; see Wendland, Translating the Literature, ch. 7).
469
poetry, entitled Enigma (2011), by considering what this new translation…has to offer a much
translated poet” (88). Among many notable critical reflections (94-98), is this observation:
“Paying attention to signifying networks not only intratextually but intertextually – from poem
to poem – must be one of the hardest of the translator’s tasks, and particularly hard in English,
where our literary unconscious tells us to avoid repetition and where the lexical richness of the
English language tempts us toward variation” (95-96).

21.2.3 How do we read a translation for scholarly purposes?

Wright proceeds to list several crucial issues to keep in mind “when reading translations for
scholarly purposes, employing three translations of Freud’s Bruchstück einer Hysterie-Analyse…,
popularly known as the Dora case” (88), to comparatively focus the discussion. As distinct from
a literary critic, who examines a translation in order “to make a value judgment,” a scholar (from
any academic field) is “either looking for information, or for evidence that supports a particular
argument or bolsters a theory” (98). The problem here seems obvious, but it is not always fully
taken into consideration: “Constructing an argument using evidence from a translated text” is
complicated by the fact that “the words on the page are not the author’s words; they are the
translator’s words” (98). Therefore, an argument or exposition cannot be based directly or solely
upon the translated text. If the scholar is completely unable to access the source text, s/he will
need to have her/his assertions and opinions supported by other means, e.g., by the works of
other scholars (e.g., other translations of the same text)974 or sources (e.g., reputable
encyclopedias or websites). Wright again underscores the relative subjectivity that is built into
translation reviews where the critic has no knowledge of the source language and hence cannot
recognize or comment competently on possible “transformations, refractions, insights, [or] gain
and loss” within the translation itself” (100). She helpfully mentions a listing of linguistic as well
as cultural issues that a reviewer who is familiar with the SL might explore in a translation (100),
and goes on to indicate the major benefit of having several translations of the same text at hand:
Important differences that come to light on the basis of a comparative analysis of the available
translations “will be suggestive of critical nodes in the source text itself and are likely to be
central to its meaning-creation” (100).

Wright next turns to her lengthy case-study of three “translations of Freud’s ‘Dora’ on the
couch’”—one early “standard” version (1953) and two more recent translations (2006, 2013).
The first issue to be considered is that of “errors in translation, looking at why they call attention
to themselves, what motivates them, and at their effects on the text and the reading experience”
(101). One aspect of this critical analysis that I found rather impractical and potentially
precarious for a critic to engage in is Venuti’s notion that “in the work of experienced translators
[why only those?], errors need not be seen simply as instances of carelessness, but may point to a
deeper psychological mechanism at work that has to do with the translator’s feelings toward the
text…[and] that this textual relationship can be psychoanalyzed” (102).975 However, this assumes
that translation critics are competent also in the practice of psychoanalysis; in fact, the exact
opposite may be true, and as Freud himself is often accused, so also the literary critic may find
himself guilty of manifesting “counter-transference – the phenomenon whereby the analyst
transfers feelings onto the analysand, just as the analysand transfers feeling onto the analyst…”
(103). More constructively then, although one must be “attentive to variations across translations

974
“Errors may become apparent as readers compare different translations…although consensus
across a number of translations does not necessarily prove any outlier wrong, as mistakes may be repeated
across several translations” (99). One could cite many examples of this from the history of Bible translation,
an obvious instance being words that change in meaning over time, e.g., “Jesus cried…and gave up the
ghost” (Mark 15:35, KJV).
975
Accordingly, apparent mistranslations “may have to do with the translator’s unconscious attitude
towards the text and which can be investigated by reading translations psychoanalytically…” (94).
470
and cautious when constructing an argument on the basis of close reading in translation” (104),
such a careful analysis of a translation, certainly when compared closely with its source text, can
reveal a great deal not only about the quality of the translation, but also the depth of meaning
resident in the original. Wright once more displays this again in the concluding portion of this
section, for example: “One aspect of the source text neglected by all three of the translations [of
Freud’s ‘Dora’] discussed here is the ‘charm, flexibility, and force of Freud’s Viennese expression
[which] differs markedly from the typical rigidity of his German counterparts’” (108).976

21.2.4 How do we assess the success of a literary translation?

Having just shown that “translations document their source texts idiosyncratically” (108), in her
final case study to illustrate the process of “reading” a literary translation, Wright examines
selected aspects of “success” (or “failure”) through a comparative analysis of two distinct English
translations, separated by nearly a half-century, of German novel Die Blechtrommel (The Tin
Drummer, 1959) by Günter Grass. Before that, however, she offers a constructive summary of
some of the features of literary translation that have come to the fore thus far (109-110):

a) First of all, “the re-translation hypothesis, a teleological view of translation proposed as necessarily
improving with each new version of a source text” is not necessarily true, and we can again
reference the history of Bible translating to exemplify that assertion.

b) Whether one chooses to consider apparent translation “errors” as being “motivated and worthy of
analysis depends on one’s knowledge of the material facts of the translation in question” and its
circumstances of production, including its principal communicative goal and target audience.977
Great debates arising from ignorance concerning historical background and current objectives
often occur, for example, with respect to certain Bible translations, especially in the transfer of the
text from a traditional print medium to a video version.

c) “[T]he ‘success’ of a translated text, rather than being a matter of accuracy – minor hiccups and
miscomprehensions notwithstanding – has to do with its success as a particularly complex type of
literary text rather than in terms of its relationship to its source.” One assumes that by “complex,”
Wright is referring to the multifaceted excellence of the text’s literary style in the TL. On the other
hand, where translations of Scripture are concerned the relationship of a translation “to its source”
is extremely important, and “accuracy,” as technically determined with reference to the ST and/or
popularly perceived, is of paramount importance.

d) Excellent literary translators make a concerted effort “to understand the unique literariness of the
source text, ‘being alert to its moods and directions, to the ways in which it makes its meanings’”978

976
Wright here cites P. J. Mahoney, Freud as a Writer (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1987), 18.
977
An approach to discover, organize, and assess such broad, project-related issues in translation is
described in T. Wilt and E. Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing (Stellenbosch: SUN Press, 2008).
978
Citing C. Scott, Translating Baudelaire (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000), 247.
471
 in order to duplicate these manifold meaningful effects in translation by capitalizing upon the full
literary resources of the TL.979

e) “The translator is both a highly attentive reader [i.e., analyst-interpreter] and a writer who
produces a text that ideally offers the reader the potential for cognitive gains” without—to apply
the parallel principle of Relevance Theory—demanding too great a cost in terms of cognitive text
processing.980

Wright then sets forth her comparative study of two English translations of a single chapter of
The Tin Drummer in order to “present a pertinent case study of how we might go about assessing
the literary qualities of different translations” (110). Her detailed analysis (111-115) is
interesting, informative, and illustrative of a “close-reading” method applied in the service of
literary translating. It clearly demonstrates the fact that the “complex literariness” of a given
source text “can be mined and mined again, and the translators who have done so show us that
translation is a unique form of reading and writing and should be appreciated as such” (116).
The application to renditions of Scripture is obvious with regard to the recognition and
appreciation that is certainly due (but rarely accorded to) proficient Bible translators and teams.
Similarly, what is not very frequently manifested textually is the corresponding “complex
literariness” (e.g., rhetorical power and artistic appeal) of a particular translation that to an
appreciable degree matches that of the sacred source.

21.2.5 Exercises

The following is a sample of one of the practical “Exercises” that Wright effectively includes at
the end of a chapter. This is one that could be easily applied further in a training course for Bible
translators: “Write a review of a new translation. Consider any paratexts created by the translator
or by other agents (publishers, scholarly experts, celebrities) that give the reader an indication
of why this text was selected for translation or re-translation [the latter would be applicable in the
case of Scripture] and what the translator’s general approach might be. Look at the style of the
translation and consider its success as an ‘instrumental’ text [cf. section 1.4.3], bearing in mind
its dual authorship. Investigate the context of the source text and the translation…” (116).

21.3 How do translators read?

Having dealt with how we “read” (i.e., analyze and interpret) translations,981 Wright turns her
attention to how translators “read” source texts as part of the translation process, the latter
exercise including the diverse influences of one’s subjective “ideology” and the current prevailing
context of communication (120). In particular, “an attentive translator will…be extremely
sensitive to the style of a literary text and to the poetic effects of this style” (120), that is, their
presumed functional (pragmatic) intentions. In this chapter then, Wright fully applies her “own
experience as a literary translator” to her two areas of specialty, namely, “literature for children
and young adults” as well as “German exophonic literature – that is, German literature written
by ‘migrants’ in the German language” (120-121). The goal is to describe her textual decisions
in relation to issues such as the translator’s motivations, understanding of genre, target audience,
stylistic features in the ST as retextualized in the TT, knowledge of the extratextual context, and

979
See Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating, passim.
980
“Contextual effects” versus “processing effort” (see Gutt, Relevance Theory, 24-25).
981
As a linguist, I find the term “read” rather too ambiguous for comfortable use in the context of
translating written texts.
472
hermeneutical procedure (121). Her approach seeks “to afford readers of the target text a literary
encounter in which they, like the readers of the source text, experience a range of specific poetic
effects,” fully recognizing that “the stylistic features that allow for these effects in the source text
may be displaced into different features in the target text – a strategy known as compensation”
(121).982

21.3.1 Reading for translation (1): literature for children and young adults

It may come as a surprise to learn that “the numbers of translated children’s books on the Anglo-
American market have become statistically pitiful,” despite the sociocultural importance of such
foreign-originated texts as a means of enabling children to “learn to map the world” (122).
Children’s literature encompasses several text types, for example, “picture storybooks, easy
readers, chapter books, young adult novels, crossover titles and even texts for young learners of
English, each of which carries its own set of challenges” (122). Wright selects for exemplification
several crucial aspects of children’s literature that present special challenges for translators—
sound effects, neologisms, the issue of censorship, and the need for cultural adaptation.

21.3.1.1 Sound

The inclusion of linguistically appropriate sound-effects—features such as rhyme, rhythm,

repetition, alliteration, assonance, and consonance—is especially important in picture storybooks
for younger children, where they play an audibly aesthetic role and also act “as mnemonic aids
in the narrative” (123). These phonic qualities “will almost certainly not translate one to one in
any text,” and therefore, where foregrounded, “reextualizing these effects is clearly desirable, for
example, “…and Isabella peeled potatoes, polished pans, plucked pheasants [for the original
German Hühner, ‘chickens’] and whipped the cream that her sisters liked to eat for breakfast”
(124). The advice that Wright gives when finally checking through a draft picture storybook,
actually pertains to the translation of any type of literary text: “I generally complete the
process…as I begin, by reading the target text aloud to ensure that it is successful aurally and as
a performance, even if foregrounded features in the source text such ad alliteration and sibilance
do not align exactly with foregrounded features in the translation” (125)—the overall auditory
impact and appeal being the primary objective.

21.3.1.2 Lexis and neologism

Discovering an appropriate lexis, supported by features such as rhyme and rhythm, is especially
important when translating texts “for young independent readers,” for this will serve to make
“the reading experience more enjoyable for the adult or older child who is doing the reading
aloud” (125). Wright has often found when translating “for the 8-11 age range” a particular
challenge in that “there is usually a key term, often a neologism coined by the juvenile
protagonist, which recurs throughout the text, and it is crucial to render this term in a convincing,
memorable and often humorous manner” (125-126). Furthermore, “the centrality of word play
and the fascination with sound in pre-teenage children’s literature reflect the fact that child
readers are actively building vocabulary in their daily lives and being socialized into and through
language” (127), in this case, texts that feature such innovative phonological-lexical
experimentation. Where the effect of such word play is amusing as well, it normally happens
“that the translator’s task moves from documentary translation [which obviously cannot work

982
It is interesting at this point to comparatively recall Nida’s approach: “Dynamic equivalence is
therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor
language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language. … It is
functional equivalence which is required, whether on the level of content or on the level of style” (Theory
and Practice, 24, 14; cf. section 21.1.2).
473
here!] to a much freer retextualization” (128). The greatest degree of creative reconstruction in
translation frequently appears in book titles, which immediately attracts the potential buyer’s
eyes and ears. Wright discusses the example of a German storybook for young readers (126-131),
originally entitled Rico, Oskar und die Tieferschatten (Rico, Oscar, and the Deeper Shadows), which
was reduced to The Pasta Detectives in the UK English translation—but changed to The Spaghetti
Detectives in the edition for young readers in the US “because spaghetti is considered more of a
children’s dish than ‘grown-up’ pasta” (131). This case study also illustrates a number of the
underlying contextual and cultural issues that need to be taken into careful consideration, not
only in texts written for children, but in literature of any type.

21.3.1.3 Censorship and cultural adaptation in literature for children and young
adults

In this section, Wright considers “the issue of how to deal with source-text material that is
considered age-inappropriate or that contravenes target-cultural norms,” for example, potentially
bad language, allusions to sexual activity, explicit acts of violence, or references to religious
practice (131). “For translators of children’s books, the act of reading for translation thus includes
identifying issues that may cause cultural offense or scare the publisher away from the project”
(132), and these may be dealt with either by cosmetically removing the offending material, or
rewriting the text “to tone down existing material or substitute it for something less offensive”
(133). Wright offers some helpful advice on how to deal with publishers and authors regarding
such delicate matters (131-133). “Beyond an awareness of culturally sensitive themes, the
translator also reads a source text with an eye to the prominence of cultural markers,” such as
local customs, holidays and traditions, famous personages, and well-known places (133). “When
deciding whether to maintain or domesticate cultural specifics, the translator will be guided in
part by editorial policy,” but experienced practitioners familiar with both source and target
settings “will also be influenced by their reading of the text” in the light of its intended audience
(134). Wright also discusses the special case of “English translations of contemporary classics for
young domestic learners of English,” where “the source text is already familiar to the audience,
who can read it alongside the translation if they wish…with the aim of extending their English
vocabulary” (134-135).

21.3.2 Reading for translation (2): German exophonic literature

“Exophony” has reference to “the phenomenon of writers adopting a literary language other than
their mother tongue,”983 and in this section Wright focuses on three works by Tzveta Sofronieva,
a first-language Bulgarian speaker, whose poetry she has translated from the original German
into English (136). In this introductory section, she surveys some of the difficulties faced by
exophonic authors as well as scholars who analyze and translate their literature, which
complicates “conventional notions of source and target text” (137). In addition to forcing a
deliberate “interrogation of source and target, exophonic literature is attractive to the translator
because it foregrounds how all literary texts function… [being] prompted by an awareness of the
fact of cultural and linguistic difference” (138). On the other hand, exophonic works are no
different from other types of literature—for example, “Sofronieva’s poems share in the elliptical
nature of poetry, requiring the reader to construct a narrative, to be attentive to signifying
networks, both intra- and intertextually, and to carefully consider the relationship of form and
content” (139) in relation to communicative function.

983
Wright is an expert on this little documented area in the field of Translation Studies; see her book,
Yoko Tawada’s ‘Portrait of a Tongue’: An Experimental Translation (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press,
2013).
474
21.3.2.1 Translating Tzveta Sofronieva’s poetry (1): ‘Attaining Citizenship on
Valentine’s Day’

Here Wright sensitively documents a number of examples which illustrate “the decision-making
processes involved in the translation of two of Sofronieva’s poems that explicitly or implicitly
engage with the theme of national identity and belonging…” (139-140; the German poems have
been reproduced in an appendix). Wright’s own “process of reading for translation, as modelled
in this discussion [140-146]…thus demonstrates how complex the concept of equivalence really
is and how foolish any attempt to view it as a matter of mere lexical fidelity” (146). On the other
hand, it may be important in this connection to note that it is still “equivalence” that Wright uses
in a relational sense when describing her efforts to retextualize the original German text in
English—not “correspondence,” “similarity,” or some other attribute.984

21.3.2.2 Translating Tzveta Sofronieva’s poetry (2): ‘Landschaften, Ufer’

The second example illustrates “how the translator [Wright] traces the development of signifying
networks through the text and how the translation is an interpretive process” (149), where, for
example, “given the range of potential meanings expressed by [a given German verb], an
alternative translation could have sent the English poem in a very different direction” (148).

21.3.2.3 Translating Tzveta Sofronieva’s poetry (3): ‘Korrespondenz mit Kappus’

The third and final example [150-155] highlights “the need for contextual research and the
importance of placing the [source] text into the [intertextual] hermeneutical circle it inhabits”
(149). In conclusion, Wright presents a handy summary of her approach to “reading for
translation,” first with regard to the lexical, rhythmic, imagistic, allusive, or hermeneutic
challenges of the literary source text at hand, which must be identified and weighed in terms of
their “translational possibilities” (155-156). Then one must go “beyond the text” to carry out
additional investigative procedures such as the following (156):
 “reading texts directly referenced by the source text;
 “reading texts that explore or will explain concepts or images central to the source text;
 “reading texts that provide points of comparison and contrast;
 “reading biographically;
 “reading other works by the same author that deepen the translator’s understanding of the writer’s
‘mind-style’.”

The subsequent “Exercises” suggest several important features of children’s literature that may
be explored as a way of developing one’s proficiency with respect to proper names, punning,
humorous neologisms, and “censorship” (156-157).

984
I have adopted, along with Anthony Pym, “the unpopular view that the equivalence paradigm was
and remains far richer than [contemporary] quick dismissals would suggest. It merits a serious place
alongside and within the more recent paradigms. … [W]hat we say in one language can have the same
value (the same worth or function) when it is translated into another language. The relation between the
source text and the translation is then one of equivalence (‘equal value’), no matter whether the relation
is at the level of form, function, or anything in between” (A. Pym, Exploring Translation Theories [London
& New York: Routledge, 2010], 6; cf. Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating).
475
21.4 Conclusion

Wright’s Conclusion (162-163) is short but to the point in suggesting some of the ways that
literary translators may contribute uniquely to the field of Translation Studies as well as to other
disciplines that relate to the study of literature in general. The success of our “textual endeavors,”
however, “will ultimately depend on our skill as readers and writers”; to be more specific: “The
ability to critically reflect on all aspects of the practice of literary translation, contextual and
textual, and to develop an appreciation of literary translation as a unique genre of writing can
only improve our practice and the texts we create” (163). That is an excellent summary of the
attitudes and attributes also demanded of all those who endeavor to translate the multifaceted
“literature of Scripture”—as well as those who review newly published translations of the
Bible.985

21.5 Glossary

The following key terms and expressions have been selected for more pointed description and
added exemplification in the Glossary: Domestication and foreignization (167); Equivalence
(168); Gloss (168); Interlingual, intralingual and intersemiotic translation (169); Literal
translation (169); Process and product (170); Source and target (170); Style and stylistics (171);
Translatability and untranslatability (171); Translation (171); Translation studies (172);
Translation theory (173). To close with a sample from the last item: “Theories of translation
attempt to account for how translation operates and may look at everything from what motivates
translation to how the process is carried out and how translation products are perceived. …
Theories are hypotheses…descriptive but not prescriptive, although they can influence
methodology” (173).986

This review of Chantal Wright’s well-written and exceptionally informative book also aims
to familiarize those who are participating in the domain of “biblical translation studies” with
many important aspects of contemporary secular Translation Studies. On the other hand, one
now looks for the day when literature written from the perspective of the latter, broader
discipline would include references to, and more detailed consideration of the theories, practices,
models, and methods of the former—that is, as derived from works produced by scholars and
practitioners engaged in the translation of Scripture.

985
For example, see LiFE-Style Translating, 406-441.
986
See, for example, Wilt & Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing.
476
477
22. LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE: Crucial Qualities of a Consummate Translation

22.1 Overview

After a brief historical introduction, eight characteristics that define Martin Luther’s monumental
German Bible translation are described and exemplified. Luther’s translation was, first of all,
confessional because Luther wanted his rendition to accurately express the truths of Scripture
based on a thorough exegesis of the original text. This made his version also controversial since
it presented an important vernacular alternative to the prevailing translation of that age, the
Latin Vulgate of the Catholic Church. The “Luther Bible,” as it came to be known, was eminently
communicative—intended to be widely understood by the common laity of the day—and creative,
in that Luther desired his text to “speak German” as idiomatically as possible. Thus, he often
departed from the dead literalisms of the Vulgate and earlier German versions and enlivened the
oral-aural quality of the text so that it could be easily proclaimed in public. Luther’s practice was
also comprehensive in the sense that it applied the craft of translation to all aspects of the biblical
text—from the individual words to the literary genres of entire books.

Four additional characteristics define Luther’s translation approach: It was contextual since,
in addition to his text-determined sensitivity to lexical selection, he supplied a variety of
paratextual aids to assist readers in their understanding and application of Scripture. Luther’s
work was collaborative, involving a closely-working team of exegetes and co-translators, and it
was also continuative in that Luther was never finished—he kept working on different editions of
478
his ever-improving Bible right up until his death. Finally, and now considerably broadening its
scope of influence, the Luther Bible was consequential: it served to significantly shape the nascent
German language, subsequent German translation history, later English translations, as well as
Bible translation theory and practice throughout the ages.

To round out this study, Luther’s translation of Psalm 23 is presented as an example that
illustrates many of the preceding qualities, along with a modern rendition in Chewa that it
inspired. Yes, Luther lives—in the thousands of translations throughout the world that his German
Bible broke ground for and helped plant the Seed!

22.2 Historical Introduction

Luther's Bible introduced mass media, unified a nation, and set the standard for future
translations. … No other work has had as strong an impact on a nation's development and
heritage as has this Book.987

It is difficult for someone who does not know the German language or the literary, social, and
political setting of Central Europe in the early 1500s to appreciate just how revolutionary Martin
Luther's translation of the German Bible was. Not that it always involves a radical departure from
the original; in fact, Luther's wording is often quite close. But this was his genius. He seemed to
be able to sense just how far he needed to push his mother tongue in order “to make these
Hebrew writers talk German,” as he put it,988 and yet at the same time preserve the essential
content of the Holy Scriptures.

The aim of this study is to focus on the features that made Luther’s translation “a literary
masterpiece against which all subsequent German Bibles would be measured.”989 This opening
historical survey will set the stage. It is followed by a more detailed overview of the qualities
that distinguished Luther as a skilled, sensitive, and Spirit-led interpreter and translator,
presented largely through what the Reformer himself had to say about his work and what may
be actually observed in his German translation. It will become clear that Luther's policies,
principles, and procedures presaged and accordingly influenced the approach of all meaning-
oriented translators that followed him in hundreds of languages that he never knew about.

987
Henry Zecher, “The Bible Translation that Rocked the World” (Notes on Translation 7:2, 12-15,
1993) 12. This article was originally published in Christian History 34 (Vol. XI, No. 2), and later republished
in Christianity Today 34, 1992 (available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-
34/bible-translation-that-rocked-world.html?share=bKZg2PB9reWoylX73Ay7NpksubMA2Yjh).
988
Arnold J. Koelpin, “Preparing a New Bible Translation in Luther's Day” (essay delivered at the
1977 WELS Synod Convention).
989
Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Between Text and Community: A Characteristic Feature of Jewish
Bible Versions,” (Open Theology 2:476-493, special edition on “Bible Translation,” 2016), 482. This
assessment of Luther’s work is even more significant in the light of the person who made it. Greenspoon
is the Klutznick Professor in Jewish Civilization at the Jesuit Creighton University (Omaha). He continues:
“Martin Luther produced his landmark German version of the Bible in the early sixteenth century, laboring
on the Old Testament from 1522 to 1534. . . . As part of Luther’s efforts to reform Christianity, he shaped
a German text characterized by forceful language and direct diction…” (ibid., 482).
Luther’s Bible translation “remains a literary and biblical hallmark” to the present day. … It has
been said that in most libraries, books by and about Martin Luther occupy more shelves than those
concerned with any other figure except Jesus of Nazareth. Though difficult to verify, one can understand
why it is likely to be true” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/theologians/martin-
luther.html; accessed 24/06/2016, no author listed).
479
 We look back then briefly to 1521. The theological revolution against Rome seems to be
defeated. Only the final “sacrifice” of its instigator, Martin Luther, is yet to be accomplished.
This, at the climax of his dramatic appearance before Emperor Charles V and the Imperial Diet
of Worms in April 1521, was his magnificent confession of faith:990

Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with
open, clear, and distinct grounds and reasoning-and my conscience is captive to the Word
of God-then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against
conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen.

Yes, the Holy Scriptures were the rock-solid foundation for Luther’s faith, and this fact also
suggests why their translation into idiomatic German remained a passionate and persistent aspect
of his ministry. In spite of his formidable word of testimony, however, Luther's powerful enemies
were unmoved. The imperial assembly formally declared him to be a public outlaw, and all the
might and resources of the Empire were now ranged against him. But they failed to take into
account the plan and purpose of God. So it happened that while Luther was on his way home to
Wittenberg, he was “kidnapped” by agents of his political patron, Elector Frederick of Saxony,
and taken to Wartburg Castle for safekeeping. Here Luther, dressed as a knight and armed with
a sword, became known as “Knight George.” But he never used the sword; for, as he demonstrated
throughout his life, the pen is far mightier. At first, the ever-active Luther was not very happy to
be confined in this place that he called “my Patmos.” “Here I sit,” he complained, “all day long,
lazy and full of food.”991 But Luther and laziness were incompatible. So it was that during his
ten-month stay at Wartburg he wrote and published a dozen works. He also had the opportunity
to continue with a crucial literary and theological endeavor that was going to occupy his
attention periodically for the rest of his life—a verbal transformation of the entire Bible into
German.

When he was forcibly seized from his wagon transport to be secretly taken to Wartburg
Castle, Luther had the presence of mind to grab his Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New
Testament. These became his constant companions as he embarked upon the translation of the
Scriptures.992 Luther realized that if his nascent religious reformation was going to succeed, it
had to have the right biblical footing. His aim was to make it possible for many others to perceive
and utter the same confession of faith that he had been so graciously led to proclaim. After all,
how could one's conscience be held “captive to the Word of God” unless that person could
actually read and understand the Scriptures in his or her mother tongue? But for the vast majority
of the population at this time, the Bible was either a closed book written in Latin or a book of
little meaning, a literal rendering from the Vulgate into dialectal German. Luther's was not the
first German translation, but all of its textual predecessors were either very wooden, hence hard

990
James M. Kittelson, Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg, 1986), 161.
991
Frederick Nohl, Martin Luther: Hero of Faith (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1962), 165.
992
This was not Luther’s first work as a Bible translator: “As early as 1517 Luther had already
translated parts of the Bible, such as the penitential psalms, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer
and the Magnificat. Melanchthon was astounded by the quality of the translation and persuaded Luther to
do a more systematic job” (“Martin Luther: Translator of the Bible,” accessed on July 8, 2016 at
http://www.museeprotestant.org/en/notice/martin-luther-translator-of-the-bible/; on this point, see also
Aaron C. Denlinger, “Luther the Bible Scholar,” in R. C. Sproul and Stephen J. Nichols, eds., The Legacy of
Luther [Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2016, 193-212], 194).
480
to understand, and/or provincial, thus well understood only in a limited region of the language
area.993

Luther set to work with typical zeal. Averaging more than 1,500 words a day, he translated
the entire New Testament in less than three months, from late December 1521 to March 1522.994
This “September Testament” as it came to be known, was published in September 1522. Hasty
though it was, composed in the white heat of evangelistic zeal, Luther's rendering was not
careless or loose. He produced a remarkably accurate version readily understood by the masses,
but also an exemplary literary work that came to play “a major role in shaping the modern
German language.”995

Luther, now assisted by a team of scholarly collaborators, took more time to produce the
Old Testament. This work was published in sections until the complete “Wittenberg Bible”
became available in September of 1534. However, Luther never considered his translation to be
final—his last word on the subject. He continued to make improvements whenever he had the
chance, revising the text right up until his death in 1546. It is believed that the last page of print
upon which Luther looked in this life was a printer's proof of the final revision of his translation
of Genesis.996 Luther knew that a new, vernacular translation of the Bible was absolutely essential
at this time. A return to the true teachings of Scripture required a meaningful rendering in the
language of the people; humanly speaking, the Reformation could not have continued without
it.997

993
Following upon the 4th century Bible translation of Wulfila (Ulfilas) in the east Germanic Gothic
language, partial translations of Scripture became available in western (Frankish) German dialects during
the time of Charlemagne the Great (ca 800) (Eric W. Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,” in Donald K.
McKim, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther [Cambridge University Press, 2003, 62-72], 62).
“Eighteen German translations in various dialects had been published since the time Gutenberg had
invented the printing press in the mid-1400s, but none gained wide acceptance. The German rendering
was poor. They were poor translations also because they were made from the Latin Vulgate, another
translation that was far from perfect” – Armin Schuetze, Martin Luther: Reformer, 2nd ed. (Milwaukee, WI:
Northwestern Publishing House, 2005), 81.
994
How could Luther complete this prodigious task so quickly? We remember that he was living
in virtual isolation during this time, and the Bible was his principal writing project. Furthermore, preparing
an understandable German Bible for his people was one of the most important goals that he wanted to
accomplish for the church during his lifetime, which, under the circumstances, could easily be ended at
any time. However, there is another theory concerning Luther’s rapid rate of progress, one that I have not
seen widely supported: “P. Schaff points out that Luther’s Bible was preceded by a Middle High German
translation based on the Vulgate made by unknown scholars during the fourteenth century, and that this
version was widely printed (Schaff, 1888:342). He also points out that the fact that Luther finished his
New Testament in three months indicates that he made use of the older translation (344), a fact that Schaff
points out was substantiated by W. Krafft in his 1883 work entitled: ‘Die deutsche Bibel vor Luther, sein
Verhältniss zu derselben und seine Verdienste um die deutsche Bibelübersetzung’ (340). This suggests a practice
that seems to have been a norm in the time of the Reformation, taking a previous translation and revising
it…” (Glenn J. Kerr, “Twentieth- and Twenty-First Century Bible Translation Theories: Synthesis and
Systematization,” PhD. Dissertation draft, 2016, p. 74-75; he cites Phillip Schaff, The History of the Christian
Church [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888]. Kerr presents a detailed text analysis of several passages
from the Luther Bible (Genesis 30:31-43, Judges 5:6-15, 2 Samuel 5:6-10, Job 36:26-33, and Daniel 9:24-
27; 79-87); he also adds a broad, “systemic,” contextual perspective on the translation using a “Frames of
reference” paradigm as well as a “Polysystem model” (88-92).
995
Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 305.
996
Morton A. Schroeder, Martin Luther: Man of God (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House,
1983), 50.
997
“The Bible played a key role in the unfolding of the Protestant Reformation…Recent scholarship
reaffirms that Scripture supplied the raw material from which medieval Christian theology was
constructed” – Robert Kolb, “The Bible in Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy,” in The Enduring
Authority of the Christian Scriptures, D. A. Carson, ed., 89-114 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 89.
481
 Martin Luther's German translation was no accident of history. It was the God of history and
Scripture who clearly had prepared the way (for example, through the prior invention of type-
printing about 1400), and whom God calls, he appropriately equips. Nowhere better is this
illustrated than in the life of the man Martin himself—his pastoral and scholarly training, his
personal temperament and interests, and his spiritual gifts. Luther himself spoke of the necessary
attributes as “artistry, industry, good judgment, and intelligence with regard to the practice of
translation”;998 but it further requires “a genuinely pious, faithful, diligent, God-fearing,
experienced, practiced heart.”999 Certainly Luther recognized this, as he said:1000

Because someone has the gift of languages and understands them, that does not enable
him to turn one into the other and to translate well. Translating is a special grace and gift
of God.

All this must be coupled with genuine humility. In Luther's words:1001

I have undertaken to translate the Bible into German. This was good for me; otherwise I
might have died in the mistaken notion that I was a learned fellow.

22.3 Methodology of a Master

We turn now to consider the key concepts and consequences of Luther's approach to translating—
allowing the superb practitioner to present the case in his own words as much as possible.1002 It
soon becomes evident that Luther's procedures are much in keeping with the modern principles
of meaning-oriented Bible translation, even though they pre-date them by five hundred years!1003

According to Schaff: “The German Bible of Luther was saluted with the greatest enthusiasm, and became
the most powerful help to the Reformation. . . . Hans Lufft at Wittenberg printed and sold in forty years
(between 1534 and 1574) about a hundred thousand copies—an enormous number for that age—and these
were read by millions. The number of copies from reprints is beyond estimate” (History of the Christian
Church, 350).
998
M. L. as cited in Ann E. Hirst, “Luther's ‘Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen’: His Theory and Practice
of Translation,” The Linguist 25:4, 1986, 2.
999
Ewald M. Plass, ed., What Luther Says: An Anthology, 3 vols., (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1959),
I:105.
1000
Cited in Ewald M. Plass, This Is Luther: A Character Study (St. Louis: Concordia, 1948), 333.
1001
Plass, What Luther Says, 105.
1002
For a somewhat wider frame of reference for the present study, see Ernst R. Wendland, “Luther’s
Insights on Language in relation to Translation, Mission, and Leadership Training,” essay presented at the
World Seminary Conference, August 7-11, 2006, Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. For many insightful
observations on Luther’s “controlled dynamic” translation methodology that complement and greatly
enrich my own, see Paul O. Wendland, “Bible Translations for the 21st Century, Lecture II: Formal and
Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation,” Bjarne Wollan Teigen Reformation Lectures, October 25-26,
2012, especially pages 13-19.
1003
These principles are abundantly reflected in the following basic books on the theory and
practice of meaning oriented Bible translation: Katharine Barnwell, Bible Translation: An Introductory Course
in Translation Principles (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1986); John Beekman and John
Callow, Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974); Eugene A. Nida and Charles R.
Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden, NL: E. J. Brill, 1969); Jan de Waard and Eugene A.
Nida, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating (Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson, 1986); Ernst R. Wendland, Language, Society, and Bible Translation (Cape Town: Bible Society of
South Africa, 1985). These characteristics have been abstracted from Martin Luther's methodology as
expressed in his writings on the subject and exemplified in his successive German versions from September
482
Eight complementary principles of evangelical Bible translation will be presented, all of which
were amply exemplified by Martin Luther. These qualities naturally overlap and merge at various
points, but they serve to provide a range of perspectives from which Luther’s genius might be
explored, evaluated, and emulated today.

22.3.1 Confessional

This first principle is the shortest, but undoubtedly the most consequential. “Confessional” Bible
translation has reference to the basic presupposition that every true translator brings with him
to the task—that he/she is handling the inspired Word of God.1004 This provide the translator
with an all-embracing framework and an ongoing perspective and guide to follow during the
translation process. Luther underscores the importance of this when he states: "I hold that a false
Christian or a sectarian spirit is unable to give a faithful translation."1005 Certainly an errant faith
and/or a misguided motivation will always adversely affect exegesis; for wherever one's
interpretation of the original is off the mark, the translation inevitably follows. “Luther believed
that the Holy Spirit played a vital role in translation work,”1006 and hence “Scripture alone” (sola
Scriptura) must be the concrete guide.1007 This inspired resource trumps all the revered church
fathers, for as he said, “I will take their books and go with them to Christ and his Word as the
touchstone and compare the two.1008

Luther, then, was passionately Christ-centered and evangelical in his approach to

hermeneutics. To him it was foundational to “have the understanding of Christ without which
even the knowledge of the language is nothing.”1009 Perhaps the best-known example of a
confessional, yet text-faithful rendering is in Romans 3:28, where he includes the word “alone”
(allein) to emphasize Paul’s point: “We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law,
by faith alone.”1010 Luther would argue that this is not a “Lutheran” rendering. Rather, the little
adverb allein is necessary in German to “convey the sense of the [original] text. [Furthermore] it
belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous.”1011 One’s confession of course has to
have a strong biblical and theological basis. In Luther’s case, there was never any doubt about
this matter; as suggested above, his perspective was completely Christological:

1522 to his death in 1546. It is indeed remarkable how many of these modern translation principles were
conceived of and put into practice by Luther so many years ago.
1004
“For [Luther] Scripture held unique, supreme authority in dispensing God’s Word and
delivering its life-changing impact to sinners. … This view of Scripture rested upon his belief that God’s
Word, as the agent of his creating power, established and still determines reality. … In Scripture and the
contemporary delivery of its message, human language stands under the creative direction of the Holy
Spirit… (2 Pet. 1:21)” (Kolb, “The Bible in Reformation,” 93).
1005
Plass, What Luther Says, 105.
1006
Milton L. Watt, “More on Luther’s Bible Translation Principles,” Notes on Translation 11:3 (25-
37), 27. “Luther maintains…only through trust in the flowing of the Spirit may God in His mercy grant
man the true understanding of His words” (Watt, ibid., 27, citing Werner Schwarz, Principles and Problems
of Bible Translations [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955], 199).
1007
See the section “Sola Scriptura” (193-194) in Marijke de Lang, “The Reformation Canon and
the Development of Biblical Scholarship,” The Bible Translator 67:2, 2016, 184-201.
1008
Cited in James R. Payton, Jr., Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 139. “The German Bible reflects [Luther’s] commitment to the
Reformation principle of sola Scriptura; it stands as a legacy of his desire to recapture the centrality of the
Word for the church” – Stephen J. Lawson, Martin Luther (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 53.
1009
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, ed. E. T. Bachmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 249.
1010
Luther, LW 35, 182. See the discussion in Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 199.
1011
Luther, LW 35, 188. In other words, Luther’s rendering was motivated by both semantic and
pragmatic (contextual) considerations.
483
 He regarded the entire Bible as a unit. … He believed that the Gospel message was
contained in the Old and New Testament… The story of the Cross, Christ and Him
crucified, was the central theme of the entire Bible, and this fact the translator must ever
keep in mind.1012

More specifically then, Luther appears to have worked with a guiding Law-Gospel hermeneutical
framework when carrying out his task:

If some passage is obscure, I consider whether it treats of grace or of law, whether wrath
or the forgiveness of sin, and with which of these it agrees better. By this procedure I have
often understood the most obscure passages.1013

Finally, we must appreciate the life-threatening public profession that Luther made in the very
words of his confessional translation—that is, in a day and age when for the church at large
throughout the Western world, “the Latin Vulgate was the authentic text, and any departure from
it was heretical.”1014 In a real sense then, with his German translation, Luther was publishing his
own death warrant.

22.3.2 Communicative

Every translation continually fluctuates between the two poles of “form” and “meaning.” It
encompasses an exegetical task that is made even more difficult in the case of Hebrew or Greek
because one must work with a sacred, “high value” document that is situationally (linguistically,
semantically, historically, and culturally) remote, yet whose contemporary translation is often
naively assessed comparatively on the basis of literalistic formalism. The principle that the
meaning of the biblical message has priority over the linguistic form whereby it is conveyed is
the foundation of a “functional equivalence” methodology (see below). Form, then, refers to the
overt and language-specific phonological, lexical, morpho-syntactic, and macro-structural
elements whereby a given oral or written message is conveyed from source to receptor. Meaning
embraces not only denotative (cognitive, referential, conceptual, propositional) content, but also
the connotative aspects of feeling, intensity, and beauty, as well as the intentional (illocutionary,
functional) facets that pertain to authorial purpose, for example, warning, rebuke,
encouragement, instruction, commission, and condemnation. Determining meaning in its fullest
sense further embraces a careful study of discourse structure, for the larger, genre-governed
linguistic forms of a language also become meaningful, in terms of impact and appeal, especially
when shaped by a wordsmith like Luther.1015

1012
E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), 661.
1013
Helmut T. Lehmann, “Table Talk,” LW 54 (trans. Theodore G. Tappert, Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1967), 35, cited in Watt, “Bible Translation Principles,” 31.
1014
Schuetze, Martin Luther, 86. “Jerome Emser [the chaplain and secretary of Duke George]
asserted in a written condemnation of Luther’s New Testament, that he could prove Luther guilty of 1,400
‘heretical errors and lies’” (ibid., 86).
1015
I highlight the meaningful aspects of biblical forms through a “literary functional equivalence”
(LiFE) approach to translation theory and practice, e.g., LiFE-Style Translating: A Workbook for Bible
Translators, 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2011), 95-115. The nature and extent of “functional
equivalence” to be applied in any given project may be determined by adopting the analytical framework
provided by Skopostheorie, as described by Christiane Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist
Approaches Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997), 15-26. The “Skopos” is defined as the primary
communicative “purpose” intended (and hopefully achieved) by a given translation (ibid., 28-30).
484
 Certain translations may be more form based or meaning oriented with respect to the source
language (SL) text than others.1016 A version that emphasizes form is referred to as a “literal”
translation, while one that strives to express the original meaning in natural receptor language
(RL) verbal forms is an “idiomatic” translation. An extremely literal version used for specific
scholarly purposes is termed “interlinear”; it attempts to reproduce all of the SL forms (except
the phonological) as closely as possible, but most of the text’s content is lost in the process. At
the opposite end of the spectrum is a “paraphrase”—a rendering that is so devoted to being
meaningful in a local language and cultural setting that it often drastically alters both the form
and the content of the original.

“As a translator, Luther was distinctly reader-oriented”;1017 he thus generally exemplifies a

“functional equivalence” approach to the translation of Scripture, as noted above.1018 This also
has reference to the “natural,” “idiomatic,” or “communicative” style of translating that Eugene
A. Nida and others pioneered in the early 1960s.1019 Originally called “dynamic equivalence,”1020
the method was later renamed in order to prevent misunderstanding and also to reflect a
somewhat broader conception of the strongly socioculturally influenced process of interlingual
communication. According to de Waard and Nida, the essence of translation may be summarized
as follows:1021

An expression in any language consists of a set of forms that signal meaning on various
levels: lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical. The translator must seek to employ a
functionally equivalent set of forms that will match, insofar as possible, the meaning of
the original source-language text.

With more specific reference to the special rhetorical features that convey the original in the
most meaningful way, these theorists add that the goal is:1022

To attempt to discover in the receptor language the closest functional equivalent of the
rhetorical structure in the source text. The particular set of forms used for different
rhetorical functions is largely language-specific, but the functions [that is, expressive,
cognitive, interpersonal, informative, imperative, performative, emotive, aesthetic, and
metalingual] … are universals, and it is for this reason that one can aim at functional
equivalence.

1016
As Friedrich Schleirmacher (1768-1834) puts it: “Either the translator leaves the author in
peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much
as possible, and moves the author towards him” – cited in Daniel Weissbort and Astradur Eysteinsson,
translation—theory and practice (sic): A Historical Reader (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 207.
1017
Weissbort and Eysteinsson, A Historical Reader, 57. More significantly though, Luther was
also “hearer”-oriented, that is, with reference to an oral-aural setting of communication (see below).
1018
Kerr concludes that, from a modern critical perspective, Luther tended to be rather more literal
in his renderings—generally a more of a “copyist,” at least in the Old Testament: “Even though Martin
Luther was a champion in his day of a more idiomatic style of translation, it was still a small move from
the copyist’s role, and would still clearly remain close to that heritage” (Bible Translation Theories, 89).
1019
On this issue, see Paul Ellingworth, “Translation Techniques in Modern Bible Translations,” in
A History of Bible Translation, Phillip A. Noss, ed., 307-334 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007),
314.
1020
Nida and Taber, Theory and Practice, 24.
1021
De Waard and Nida, Functional Equivalence, 36.
1022
De Waard and Nida, Functional Equivalence, 119, 25.
485
There is no doubt which side of this form-function polarity Luther favored. He vigorously
opposed literalism,1023 as he clearly asserts:1024

I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to
speak in the translation … Therefore I must let the literal words go and try to learn how
the German says that which the Hebrew [or Greek] expresses … Words are to serve and
follow the meaning, not meaning the words.

It is important to point out that the “meaning” that Luther focused upon during translation was
the essential content intended by the biblical author. Luther tried to imagine himself in the place
of the original writer and compose his text accordingly—in natural German forms.1025 He stressed
the fact that a literal rendering often turns out to be not only awkward and difficult to understand
in the RL, but also patently wrong. In his comments on Judas’ criticism of Mary in Matthew 26:8
and Mark 14:4, Luther says:1026

If I follow these literalistic asses [that is, his critics] I would have to translate it thus: “Why
has this loss of ointment happened?” But what kind of German is that? What German says,
“Loss of ointment has happened”? If he understands that at all, he thinks that the ointment
is lost and must be looked for and found again; though even that is still obscure and
uncertain … But a German would say … “Why this waste?” Or, “Why this extravagance
[schade]?” Indeed, “It's a shame about the ointment.” That is good German, from which it
is understood that Magdalene had wasted the ointment that she had poured out and had
been extravagant. That was what Judas meant …

In fact, if one takes the content of the Holy Scriptures seriously (as Luther did), then a literal
translation is really no option. In his preface to the Book of Job, he concludes:1027

If it were translated everywhere word for word … and not for the most part according to
the sense, no one would understand it. So, for example, when he [Job] says something
like this, “The thirsty will pant for his wealth” [Job 5:5], that means “robbers shall take it
[wealth] from him.” … Again, by “light” he means good fortune, by “darkness” misfortune
[Job 18:5] … We have taken care to use language that is clear and that everybody can
understand, without perverting the sense and meaning.

1023
Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther: Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia, 1965), 151.
1024
Luther, LW 35, 189, 193, 213. He also declared: “Sententia et phrasis dominator super omnes
leges et praecepta grammatica—meaning and expression hold sway over all laws and grammatical precepts”
(Tischreden 4764, as quoted in Reu, 269—P. Wendland, “Bible Translations,” 17).
1025
See the extended discussion of Romans 3:28 in Luther, LW 35, 95ff.
1026
Luther, LW 35, 190.
1027
Luther, LW 35, 252-253.
486
Thus, for Luther, a communication of the author-intended meaning of Scripture was the crucial
task and responsibility of the translator. To fail in this vital respect would be to make himself the
proverbial “traitor” (as per the Italian saying, traduttore traditore).

It was also Luther's desire to make his translation sound like the original text in German.
Plass gives a good summary of the result:1028

His translation is the German Bible rather than the Bible in German. The German language
was like clay in his hands, like a violin played by a virtuoso. The sighs and sobs of some
of the Psalms; the high hallelujahs of others: hymns to the God of salvation; the majestic
cadences of Isaiah; the lamenting notes of Jeremiah; the profound depth beneath the
simple diction of John; the tremendous power of the tense, stormy, telescopic style of
Paul—Luther's translation has all of these in German.

The rhetorical feature that Luther seemed to appreciate the most about the Scriptures was its
conciseness, a quality that tends to move its hearers to think more deeply about what is being
said—yet not always so easy to reproduce in a fulsome language like German. He said, for
example, concerning the story of David's life:1029

The words are few, but the import is great … That means we have to imagine David's
thoughts when he slew the lion, or when he had to fight Goliath: “What if I shall be killed?
But it shall not be so. My right hand is the hand of God.” That’s what you call rhetoric!

Luther was convinced that a person could not properly understand the Scripture “unless it
is brought home to him, that is, unless he goes through the same experience.”1030 So it was that
he translated the Bible as German literature with the purpose of providing better access to the
diverse feelings, emotions, and attitudes of the biblical participants. Thus the readers veritably
shudder when they read the soldiers' slander in Matthew 27:29: “Gegrueszet seiest du, der Juden
Koenig!”

For Luther, Christ—the living Word—was the most effective communicator of all: “He
combines heaven and earth into one morsel when he speaks.”1031 Therefore, the good Doctor paid
special attention to the explicit words of our Lord; he wanted Christ, if nobody else, to speak
German:1032

For example, Christ says …, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” [Matt.
12.34, Luke 6.46] … If I am to follow these asses [his critics], they will lay the original
before me literally and translate thus … Tell me, is that speaking German? What German

1028
Plass, This Is Luther, 336. See also the comments in Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word
of God, 24.
1029
Cited in H. G. Haile, Luther: An Experiment in Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1983) 331.
1030
Haile, Luther, 335.
1031
Haile, Luther, 331.
1032
Luther, LW 35, 189-190.
487
 could understand something like that? What is “the abundance of the heart”? No German
can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
magnanimous or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. For
“abundance of the heart” is not German, any more than “abundance of the house,”
“abundance of the stove," or “abundance of the bench” is German. But the mother in the
home and the common man say this, “What fills the heart overflows the mouth.” That is
speaking good German, the kind I have tried for—and unfortunately not always reached
or hit upon.

There are many other such examples of meaning-oriented correspondence in the Luther
Bible—all illustrations of Luther's profound grasp of the dynamics of discourse and how to
communicate it effectively from one language and literature to another.

On the other hand, as the Scripture message is being communicated, it must be continually
monitored, via various testing procedures, to determine how well it is “getting through” to the
intended audience. And not only the message, but also the medium needs to be closely evaluated
in this way. In the electronically-enhanced, Internet-captivated West, for example, what will
happen to “The Book”—the written “Scriptures” when nobody reads books anymore? However,
in many parts of the world, the problem is quite different—a case of where nobody, or very few,
can read, fluently.

That was the pressing issue in Luther's day. The level of functional literacy in one or another
of the many local dialects was very low and complicated by the fact that no regional dialect of
speech dominated Germany at the time.1033 Moreover, printed literature was so expensive that it
was beyond the means of most ordinary readers. Luther realized that most, by far, of his potential
audience would hear, rather than actually read, his translation. He therefore sensibly formulated
his text with this important factor in mind: How does the Word sound when it is read? This is a
prominent aspect of Luther’s “creativity,” which is considered next.

22.3.3 Creative

This broad topic will be treated in terms of four sub-headings expressing principles that
characterize different aspects of Luther’s “creativity” when translating the Bible.

22.3.3.1 Change the linguistic form whenever necessary.

In order to convey the meaning of the message in the source language (SL), its varied
linguistic forms in the receptor language (RL) often have to be changed so that God's Word sounds

1033
“The Bible - its events, teachings, and meanings - would have little impact on human
thought if no one read it. But after Martin Luther's Reformation people did read it - and, more
heretically, they debated its meaning. Consider that in 1525 in northern Germany, only 5 percent of
the population was literate - most from the learned classes. … Access to the Bible by large numbers
of ordinary people for the first time - one of Luther's reforms - is a key to these dynamics. Luther
demanded that all have direct access to the Word of God in their own language” (Robert Marquand,
“The Bible and Literacy,” Christian Science Monitor, November 13, 1991, accessed at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/1991/1113/13111.html).
488
clear and natural to an average audience.1034 This principle is actually implied by the preceding
one, “communicative,” but it is necessary to state the case plainly, lest there be any
misunderstanding. Something inevitably has to “give” in any translation: either the form of the
original (in the case of an idiomatic, functional-equivalence version) or the meaning of the original
(in the case of a literal version). That is why a translator always becomes a “traitor” in one respect
or another—s/he cannot have it both ways and so cannot, except in a relatively few fortuitous
cases, retain both form and meaning. Therefore, a priority of one or the other has to be
established from the beginning of the project.

Luther expressed himself quite frequently and forcefully on this issue. His various writings
on translation are permeated with the thought expressed below with reference to Psalm 68:1035

What is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which
one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew
style. Rather he must see to it-once he understands the Hebrew author [hence the need for
a careful exegesis!]-that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, “Pray tell,
what do the Germans say in such a situation?” Once he has the German words to serve
the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best
German he knows.

Luther cites Psalm 63:5 as one, among many examples, where he was forced to put this general
principle into practice:1036

“Let my soul be filled as with lard and fat, so that my mouth may make praise with joyful
lips.” By “lard and fat” the Hebrews mean joy, just as a healthy and fat animal is healthy
and grows fat, and conversely, a sad animal loses weight and grows thin … However since
no German can understand this expression, we have relinquished the Hebrew words and
rendered the passage in clear German like this, “It would be my heart's joy and gladness,
if I were to praise thee with joyful lips.”

Not even the smallest details escaped Luther's sharp, sense-focused eye, as we see in his handling
of Psalm 91:9:1037

We changed the pronoun mea into tua, making “your” out of “my”, because the verse is
obscure if one says, “For the Lord is my refuge,” inasmuch as throughout the psalm the
psalmist uses the word “your” and speaks to or about someone else … Now since an
ordinary German will hardly understand this sudden change in speaking [from second to
first person], we tried to put the matter clearly and plainly. After all, one is not accustomed

1034
There are always certain aspects of the biblical message that will not be familiar to many
readers/hearers—people, places, customs, foreign objects and practices, etc. But these should be rendered
in as natural a style as possible so that the form of the language itself does not present a barrier to one’s
understanding. Explanatory background for any potentially unknown content may be supplied in
introductions, footnotes, or a glossary.
1035
Luther, LW 35, 213-214.
1036
Luther, LW 35, 212.
1037
Luther, LW 35, 218.
489
 to speaking this way in German as in Hebrew We have made changes of this sort several
other times as well.

Observe next how Luther “Germanized” the blasphemous insult of the crowd, mocking Christ
beneath his cross (Mark 15:29): "Pfui dich, wie fein zerbrichst du den Tempel, und bauest ihn in drei
Tagen!" In place of the original Greek exclamation oua! (NRSV has “aha!”), Luther inserts the
idiomatic Pfui dich! He also considers the natural flow of speech and cuts the long sentence
spanning verses 29-30 into two. In addition, he expertly brings out the sarcasm implied in these
words by means of the initial connotative marker wie fein.1038

This manner of translation is not easy: first the meaning of the original must be accurately
determined, and then it must be expressed not only correctly, but also clearly in the RL. Luther
compares the job to farming:1039

One now runs his eyes over three or four pages and does not stumble once—without
realizing what boulders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along as over a
smoothly-planed board. We had to sweat and toil there before we got those boulders and
clods out of the way, so that one could go along so nicely. The plowing goes well when
the field is cleared. But rooting out the woods and stumps, and getting the field ready—
this is a job nobody wants.

In another place, Luther likens the work of translation to that of trying to teach a bird to sing a
new song:1040

We are now sweating over the translation of the prophets into German. O God, what great
and hard toil it requires to compel the writers against their will to speak German. They do
not want to give up their Hebrew and imitate the barbaric German. Just as though a
nightingale should be compelled to imitate a cuckoo and give up her glorious melody,
even though she hates a song in monotone.

Implicit in this comment is Luther's high regard for the literary excellence of the biblical text.
Even the best translation fell far short of the original Scripture in this respect.

As far as the overall RL style is concerned, Luther aimed to produce what is known nowadays
as a “common-language version”—one that is “characterized by a combination of popular speech
and poetic dignity.”1041 This may be defined as a sort of middle-of-the-road form of a given

1038
Cf. P. Wendland, “Bible Translations,” 19.
1039
Luther, LW 35, 188.
1040
Cited in Michael Reu, Luther's German Bible (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1934)
205. In particular, Luther wanted his Psalms to sing: “In his afterword in the revised Psalter edition, Luther
stresses his wish to be closer to the German…They should sound like songs in the mother tongue and in
the language of the context” – Dorothea Erbele-Küster, “Luther’s Poetic Reading of Psalms,” 261-270, in
K. Mtata, K-W. Niebuhr, and M. Rose, eds., Singing the Songs of the Lord in Foreign Lands: Psalms in
Contemporary Lutheran Interpretation (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), 269.
1041
Weissbort and Eysteinsson, A Historical Reader, 57.
490
sociolect that overlaps on its upper and lower ends with literary and colloquial variants
respectively.1042 Luther might well have called his translation a “market-language version”:1043

We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to speak German, as these asses
[the literalists] do. Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the home, the
children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their
language, the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. That way they will
understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

The style that Luther used in his translation was “common” with respect to dialect as well. In his
words, the linguistic variety he chose was widespread; it was:1044

not merely provincial (certam linguam)… [but] people from the upper and lower Germany
can understand me. My language is that of the Saxon chancellery, which all the princes
and kings of Germany imitate.

Thus, according to Zecher, Luther and his colleagues “used the court tongue as their base
language but flavored it with the best of all the dialects they could find in the empire.”1045 It is
important to note that Luther did have a popular vernacular available into which he could readily
shape the biblical message. Rather, he had to create his own formally appropriate, acceptable
style, and subsequently his translation had a significant influence on the future development of
the German language as a whole (see below).

22.3.3.2 Express selected implicit information.

It is frequently the case that elements of meaning which are implicit in the original text must be
stated explicitly in a translation. The reverse is less often true; however, a translator may
sometimes render a “specific” SL term with a “generic” RL term. Explicating implicit information
troubles many people, who may feel that this is “adding” something to the sacred text. The
problem has to do with one's definition of meaning and how it is expressed in language.

As suggested earlier, the “meaning” of a Bible passage encompasses everything that the
author intended to communicate to his original audience via the text itself. That includes not
only information, but also message-related feelings, attitudes, values, and intentions of how he
wanted them to act on the basis of his words. Meaning also includes important formal features,1046
as well as certain crucial elements that are implied, that is, not overtly expressed. An author
assumes that some aspects of meaning are already well known to the audience because of a

1042
For further information about a “common language” translation, see de Waard and Nida,
Functional Equivalence, 41; also William L. Wonderly, Bible Translations for Popular Use (London: United
Bible Societies, 1968), ch. 5.
1043
Luther, LW 35, 189.
1044
Cited in Plass, What Luther Says, 727. “Luther's translation used the variant of German
spoken at the Saxon chancellery, intelligible to both northern and southern Germans”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Translation_of_the_Bible, accessed on August 10, 2016).
1045
Zecher, “Bible Translation,” 13.
1046
The principle that the forms of a language convey meaning is highlighted in a Cognitive
Linguistic approach to translation; see, for example, Elzbieta Tabakowska, “(Cognitive) grammar in
translation: Form as meaning,” in Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarrestxe-Antunano, eds., Cognitive Linguistics and
Translation (Berlin: deGruyter, 2013), 229-250.
491
shared religion, culture, ecological setting, history, and interpersonal situation. Such shared
information does not need to be explicitly stated in the text. Furthermore, some things are better
conveyed indirectly or left unsaid; this can make a greater impression or avoid offense (as in
euphemism).

However, when a translator attempts to transmit the same content in a completely different
set of communicative circumstances, a considerable number of the original author's basic
assumptions and presuppositions concerning his audience's understanding are no longer valid.
For example, many elements relating to historical and geographical knowledge are not shared
between the biblical author and a modern-day audience. Nor are specific customs, social
institutions, values, figures of speech, idioms, and so forth. The crucial question then is: How
should such implicit material be conveyed to today's audience where it constitutes an essential
part of the intended message?

To do this, three major means are available, all of which were advocated by Martin Luther:
(1) a meaningful, functionally-equivalent text; (2) readers’ helps, such as illustrations, prefaces,
and paratextual notes; and (3) the supplementary instruction of the church. (We are concerned
here only with Luther's use of the first of these.)

The principle of making information that is implicit in the original explicit in the translation
was applied by Luther on several different levels of communication. In its simplest, hence least
debatable, form this would involve the use of a "classifier" to specify some point of reference in
the original text. For example, Luther explicitly classified Bethlehem as a city and Judea as a
country (“a land”) in Matthew 2:1; in 2:2 he specified that magi were “wise men” (die Weise, not
the misleading magi) and that the king they sought was “newly” (neu) born. Bluhm comments in
this regard:1047

Luther was bold and adventurous enough to insert a word when the spirit of a passage
called for it…as long as it did not transgress against essential meaning. Far from
transgressing. Luther at times by his very boldness brought out meaning, released implicit
meaning. It was as if he … read the mind and intention of the original writer.

Such usage is closely related to a translator's sense of what is natural in actual speech (a quality
which Germans themselves refer to as Schprachgefuehl). In his comments on the use of “alone”
(allein) in Romans 3:28, as noted earlier, Luther makes this very point:1048

But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which
is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein) along with the (negative)
nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say … “Did you allein write it, and nicht read it
over?” There are innumerable cases of this kind in daily use.

Many times it is necessary to make the intended meaning explicit in order to avoid uttering
nonsense or the completely wrong sense. For example, Psalm 65:8b, which in the KJV is rendered
very literally as “thou makest the outgoings of the morning and evening to rejoice” (ESV has
“you make the going out of the morning and the evening shout for joy”), Luther clarified to read,

1047
Bluhm, Creative Translator, 58.
1048
Luther, LW 35, 189.
492
“Thou makest joyful all that go about their business, both morning(s) and evening(s).”1049 He
thus made what he felt was the sense of the psalm as a whole explicit by personalizing and
specifying, rather than leaving it figurative and vague as in the KJV. Luther, in commenting on
this passage, further reveals his ultimate concern for contextually-based meaningfulness in
translation:1050

No one should be surprised if here and in similar passages we occasionally differ from the
rabbis and grammarians. For we followed the rule that wherever the words could have
gained or tolerated an improved meaning, there … we ran (the) risk, relinquishing the
words and rendering the sense.

We conclude this section with just one example of the opposite procedure-that of making
implicit what is stated explicitly in the original text for the sake of meaningfulness and/or
naturalness in the RL. Of Psalm 68:15b (v. 16 in his version), Luther says:1051

“a many-peaked mountain” … we have rendered in German as “a great (grosz) mountain.”

For the meaning is that … a mountain is properly called great in which many peaks are
joined together, one above another right up to the highest peak.

In this instance a more generic term (“great”) is used in place of one that might be semantically
misleading or poetically awkward to express in the RL.1052

22.3.3.3 Retain certain unnatural forms in critical places.

Sometimes the form of the original needs to be retained in a translation even though this results
in a rendering that is not the most natural or idiomatic.1053 This is the case with certain key
theological, symbolical, or cultural terms, such as “vineyard,” “shepherd,” “sheep,” “scapegoat,”
“passover,” “sabbath,” “bread,” “wine,” and “cross.”

Luther realized on the basis of his considerable biblical background, exegetical skill, and
translation experience that at times it is virtually impossible to convey the full sense or the precise
nuance of a particular Hebrew or Greek expression in German. Correspondingly, a concern for
vernacular naturalness must never be allowed to diminish or distort the intended meaning of a
given Greek or Hebrew term. As Luther explains it:1054

1049
Luther, LW 35, 212.
1050
Luther, LW 35, 212-213.
1051
Luther, LW 35, 215.
1052
“Correct TRANSLATION was never for L. a matter of grammar and philology alone. The
delicate art of translation could never be safely left by the church to grammarians, who understood the
form but not necessarily the substance of the text; nor was it a fit task for a clerical drudge or for translators
with a tin ear for the idioms and rhythms of their native tongue” – D. C. Steinmetz, “LUTHER, MARTIN,”
in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 2, John H. Hayes, ed., 96-98 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999),
97.
1053
Nord comments: “Many Bible translators have felt that the process of translating should involve
both procedures: a faithful reproduction of formal source-text qualities in one situation and an adjustment
to the target audience in another. … Martin Luther (1483-1546) held the view that there are passages in
the Bible where the translator must…keep ‘to the letter’ (Luther, Circular Letter on Translation, 1530); in
other passages [he] believed it was more important to ‘render the sense’…” (Nord, Translating, 4).
1054
Luther, LW 35, 194.
493
 I have not gone ahead anyway and disregarded altogether the exact wording of the
original. Rather with my helpers I have been careful to see that where everything turns
on a single passage, I have kept to the original quite literally and have not lightly departed
from it. For example, in John 6[:27] Christ says, “Him has God the Father sealed
[versiegelt].” It would have been better German to say, “Him has God the Father signified
[gezeichnet],” or “He it is whom God the Father means [meinet].” But I have preferred to
do violence to the German language rather than to depart from the word.

At other times Luther wished to preserve something of the vibrancy of the original thought as a
way of enriching, as it were, the German language and manner of conceptualizing things:1055

We at times also translated quite literally—even though we could have rendered the
meaning more clearly another way—because everything (that is, the precise sense of the
original) turns on these very words. For example, here in [Psalm 68] verse 18, “Thou hast
ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive,” it would have been good German to
say, “Thou has set the captives free.” But this is too weak, and does not convey the fine,
rich meaning of the Hebrew … On every hand St. Paul propagates such rich, glorious, and
comforting doctrine (cf. Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:54; Gal. 2:19; 2 Tim. 1:10). Therefore out of
respect for such doctrine, and for the comforting of our conscience, we should keep such
words, accustom ourselves to them, and so give place to the Hebrew language where it
does a better job than our German.

The preceding also illustrates the importance of maintaining intertextual “resonance,” that is,
the accumulated semantic significance of certain important expressions that recur in a number
of places in the Scriptures, especially when dealing with New Testament quotations of key Old
Testament texts.

Then there are those relatively few times where the original text is so difficult or its sense
so obscure that to attempt one meaningful rendering would result in the elimination of another
equally likely interpretation. (The use of footnotes to convey such alternatives was not an option
in those days.) Luther cites the example of Psalm 91:5-6, which he rendered literally, hence
ambiguously:1056

Therefore we tried to leave room for each person to understand (the words) according to
the gifts and measure of his spirit. Otherwise we would have rendered them in such a way
as to give fuller expression to our own understanding of the meaning.

1055
Luther, LW 35, 216. With regard to Luther’s methodology in these challenging cases,
Ellingworth notes that “Luther takes a pragmatic approach to translation, sometimes rendering the text
literally, but more often ‘rendering only the meaning’…” (“Translation Techniques,” 317).
1056
Luther, LW 35, 216-217.
494
22.3.3.4 Listen for the “sonority” of the text.

“Luther had an ear for the ringing, sonorous phrase,” asserts Bluhm,1057 as for example, in his
rendition of Matthew 5:16: Also lasset euer Licht leuchten vor den Menschen.” From alliteration in
the preceding passage, we turn to “a”-vowel assonance in Matthew 26:26: “Da sie aber assen,
nahm Jesus das Brot, dankte und brachs und gab es seinen Jüngern und sprach...” And listen to the
significant phonesthetics of Psalm 23:1: “Der Herr ist mein Hirte; mir wird nichts mangeln.”
Although we might not think of German as being a particularly “musical” language, Luther’s
translation did pay special attention to the beauty of the sound of the biblical text. According to
Burger:1058

While he was translating the Bible, Luther spoke his sentences out loud to himself, and his
sure sense of rhythm and melody never allowed any sentence to pass whose accents, pauses
and cadences, whose sequence of vowels and consonants, did not satisfy him entirely. …
Although Luther knew and often used earlier Bible translations, his was the first to give the
words of Scripture rhythm and melody in German.

Gritsch adds:1059

Luther expanded the use of consonants, and created new ways of pronunciation and
composite words like Sündenbock (scapegoat), Lockvogel (decoy-bird), Lückenbüsser (stand-
in) and similar words. In addition, he created new sentence structures with a tendency to
put the verb at the end of the sentence. Luther always had a conversation with the Bible
to let it speak to him with verve and rhythm.

This was not “euphony” or fluency purely for its own sake, but Luther wanted the sound of his
text, particularly in familiar passages, to “ring through all the senses into the heart” so that those
hearing it might “rightly conceive of the word(s) and the feeling behind (them).1060 Ewald Plass
provides some detail:1061

The Reformer translated for the ear no less than for the eye. He realized that “his” Bible
would be read aloud in church and in family devotion, wherefore he would make the very
sound of it pleasing to the ear. He therefore avoided all harsh constructions, all unbalanced

1057
Bluhm, Creative Translator, 65.
1058
H. O. Burger, “Luther as an Event in Literary History,” in Martin Luther: 450th Anniversary of
the Reformation [no editor listed], 119-34 (Bad Godesberg: Internationes, 1967) 124. Koelpin makes a
similar observation: “While Luther was translating the Bible, he constantly read his sentences aloud, testing
the accents and cadences, the vowels and consonants for their melodic flow. He did this because German
was really a language (Sprache). It was meant to be spoken aloud by the tongue (lingua), not written; heard,
not read; for a word has sound and tone. By Luther's own description, ‘The soul of the word lies in the
voice.’ Thus Luther constructed his translation with a view to the public reading of the book. By means of
sentence structure and meaningful punctuation, he makes the Bible a book to be heard” (“A New Bible
Translation,” 10-11).
1059
“Luther as Bible Translator,” 70.
1060
Burger, “Luther as an Event,” 125-126.
1061
Plass, This Is Luther, 336-337. Burger eulogizes: “Who among the German humanists—indeed
who in the whole course of German history and literature—wrote better German than Luther? For him
German is really a language—something spoken, not written, something heard, not read, resounding and
reverberant” (“Luther as an Event,” 123).
495
 sentences and disturbing subordinate clauses. The result was a rhythmic flow of language.
For instance, Ps. 33:18 Luther translated: “Des Herrn Auge siehet auf die, so [not 'die' again]
ihn fuerchten, die auf seine Guete hoffen.” In Matt. 5:44 he avoided a similar cacophony by
translating: “Bittet fuer die, so euch beleidigen und verfolgen.”

A sonically well-tuned text is also easier to memorize and remember—no small factor in the case
of a population that were generally not very well educated. If one is looking for a longer example,
“the Pauline description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 sounds like a poem in German.”1062

Luther's desire for an idiomatic sound in German appears to be a major factor in many of his
subtle stylistic flourishes. We see this, for example, in his rhymed version of Proverbs 8:14: “Mein
ist beides, Rat und Tat” (“I have counsel and sound wisdom,” ESV); or in the alliteration of Mark
14:33, where Christ is described as being “zittern und zagen” (“greatly distressed and troubled,”
ESV).1063 We see Luther’s sound sensitivity to a greater extent as he breaks up the long utterance
of Matthew 26:54 into two parts—an emphatic rhetorical question followed by a brief self-
responding assertion: “Wie wuerde aber die Schrift erfuellet? Es musz also gehen” (ESV rather
awkwardly renders: “But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”)

Koelpin presents a good summary of Luther's basic aim and the effect of his practical
oral/aural-oriented policy:1064

Luther aimed to produce more than a faithful translation. He wanted a text that was crisp
and pleasant to hear. By his own admission he read Holy Writ “as though it had been
written yesterday.” And he wished his translation to be read in the same way. He adapts
his language to any mood, to the tenderness of the Christmas story as well as to the terrors
of the Apocalypse. He employs all the skills of the poet’s craft: an added syllable for the
sake of rhythm, the use of alliteration, assonance, and rhyme. All is so naturally conceived
that it does not seem artificially contrived.

Luther also took sound seriously in connection with biblical genre. The Psalms, for example, are
ideally sung musically, as in their original worship setting:1065

1062
Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 70.
1063
These examples are taken from Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 200.
1064
Koelpin, “A New Bible Translation,” 12-13. With regard to any text of Scripture, Luther
recommends that “you should meditate, that is, not only in your heart, but also externally, by actually
repeating and comparing oral speech and literal words of the [text], reading and rereading them with
diligent attention and reflection, so that you may see what the Holy Spirit means by them” (“Preface to
the Wittenberg Edition of Luther’s German Writings, 1539,” in H. T. Lehmann, ed., Luther’s Works, vol. 34
[Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Press, 1960], 286).
1065
Plass, What Luther Says, 982. In this quote we also note Luther’s progressive, open-minded
perspective on the use of musical instruments during worship—in keeping with the principle of adiaphora,
freely utilize whatever is appropriate in the culture and liturgical setting concerned. And even more
broadly, in his opinion, “I would gladly see all the arts, especially music, in the service of Him who has
496
 The stringed instruments of [98:5 and] the following psalms are to help in the singing of
this new song.…All pious Christian musicians should let their singing and playing to the
praise of the Father of all grace sound forth with joy from their organs and whatever other
beloved instruments there are…of which neither David nor Solomon, neither Persia,
Greece, nor Rome, knew anything.

Indeed, Luther considered the Word of God, especially the Gospel, to be a living, audible word—
hence best communicated in living speech—a voice resounding into the whole world and publicly
shouted—or enthusiastically sung—aloud so that all can hear it.1066

22.3.4 Comprehensive

From “bottom to top,” and from “top to bottom”—Luther’s translation evinces a scholar’s
concern for all aspects of text analysis, which involves its individual sounds, as noted earlier, to
the different genres of entire books. Luther's high regard for the form of the original message of
Scripture had a number of important implications as far as his translation procedure was
concerned. In his eyes, a thorough knowledge of the biblical languages was essential so that a
translation could be based firmly upon the original text rather than on some other translation,
such as the Latin Vulgate, which had been the practice before Luther.1067 The effort Luther had
put into learning and teaching Hebrew and Greek undoubtedly influenced his estimation of their
supreme importance in exegesis. Accordingly, he gathered together men of scholarly ability to
serve as his “revision team” (see further below). In addition, according to Bachmann, editor of
Luther's Works,1068 “Luther … availed himself of the best (scholarly) aids of his time, inadequate
though these were, in order to ascertain the most accurate text of Scripture.”1069

A concern for form also meant that much careful and diligent research was needed in order
to come as close to the original concept as the lexical resources of German would allow. Luther
was an active, extensive researcher. When dealing with some of the more technical terms of
biblical vocabulary, he would go out in search of the most precise German words that he could
find. He investigated the court jewels of the Elector of Saxony to find names for the gems and

given and created them” (cited in Plass, What Luther Says, 980). Corinna Körting suggests four reasons that
Luther gave for promoting a singing of the Psalms: (a) following the biblical example, (b) functioning as
the community of saints, (c) for the comforting and strengthening of one’s faith, and (d) for appreciating
and apprehending God’s Word “affectively”—in the heart (“Singing, Praying and Meditating the Psalms,”
59-71 in Mtata et al, Singing the Songs, 60-62).
1066
Burger, “Luther as an Event,” 125; cf. also Luther, LW 35, 259 and his version of Psalm 23
below. “Because [Luther’s Bible] sounded natural when spoken as well as read, its cadence and readability
have made it a popular Bible in Germany to this day” (Zecher, “Bible Translation,” 14).
1067
Luther was also up to date with regard to his use of scholarly versions. He “worked from the
second, revised edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, published in Basel in 1519, when he translated
the New Testament into German. For translation of the Old Testament, he and his colleagues relied on a
copy of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures produced in 1494 by the Italian Jewish printer Gerson
ben Moses Soncino” (Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 197).
1068
LW 35, 230.
1069
Luther’s scholarly resources included “the first text-critical Greek edition of the New
Testament” (Erasmus, 1516) and “the Hebrew grammar and dictionary of the German humanist John
Reuchlin (1455-1522)” (Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 62-63).
497
precious stones listed in Revelation 21.1070 He examined rare coin collections in Wittenberg to
discover suitable equivalents for the various monetary terms of the Bible. One contemporary
reports that Luther once “had several rams slaughtered in his presence so that a German butcher
could tell him the proper name for each part of the sheep,”1071 thus enabling him to more
accurately render the elaborate details of the Levitical sacrificial system.

In a letter to his friend Spalatin, Luther describes his research into the birds and beasts of
the OT:1072

I am all right on the birds of the night-owl, raven, horned owl, tawny owl, screech owl-
and on the birds of prey-vulture, kite, hawk, and sparrow hawk. I can handle the stag,
roebuck, and chamois, but what in the devil am I to do with the taragelaphus, pygargus,
oryx, and camelopard [names for animals in the Vulgate]?

Those of us who work on translations in various African languages can certainly sympathize with
Luther on this point.1073 How far can one go in search of indigenous equivalents before seriously
distorting the sense of the original or adversely coloring biblical terminology with conflicting or
even contradictory local connotations? In a sense-oriented version, however, one must be
prepared to err more on the side of greater contextualization so that the message really means
something, rather than to use all sorts of obscure transliterations, loan words, made-up terms,
and semantic reconstructions. Luther's basic policy is described in this apt comment by Roland
Bainton:1074

If the French call a centurion a gendarme, and the Germans make a procurator into a
burgomeister, Palestine has moved west. And this is what did happen to a degree in
Luther's rendering. Judea was transplanted to Saxony, and the road from Jericho to
Jerusalem ran through the Thuringian forest. By nuances and turns of expression Luther
enhanced the graphic in terms of the local (that is, where no point of doctrine was
concerned).

But for an accurate, artistically composed rendition, attention to the individual words of a
text is not enough. In order for an accurate exegetical study to be carried out and a
correspondingly natural translation effected, even a careful verse-by-verse approach is
inadequate. What is needed is a broader, holistic approach. A complete discourse and genre-
oriented perspective must be adopted and applied with respect to both the SL text and the RL
text.

1070
But Luther did not aim to please purely a scholarly readership, for as he wrote to Spalatin
when enlisting his assistance: “But remember to give us simple terms, not those used at the castle or court,
for this book should be famous for its simplicity. To begin with, please give us the names and colors of the
gems that are mentioned in Revelation 21; or even better, get the gems for us from the court or wherever
else you can, so that we can see them” (Luther, LW 49, 4, cited in Schuetze, Martin Luther, 82.
1071
Johann Mathesius, cited in E. G. Schweibert, Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New
Perspective (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), 649.
1072
Cited in Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville, TN: Abingdon,
1950) 256.
1073
See, for example, Wendland, Bible Translation, ch. 7.
1074
Bainton, Here I Stand, 256-257.
498
 Any verbal composition, especially a literary one (which the Bible arguably is),1075 whether
oral or written, is composed of smaller segments that are combined to form larger ones and so
on up the hierarchical ladder of linguistic organization until the complete composition is
constituted. Such a discourse must therefore be viewed (both analyzed and evaluated) as a
whole—a harmonious unity that communicates more than, and is essentially different from, the
sum of its individual parts—with respect to form, content, function, and effect. A discourse
perspective includes also a concern for the various language-specific sociocultural text-forms, or
“genres,” in which the Scriptures are composed: narratives, parables, proverbs, songs, oracles,
letters, apocalypses, legislation, and many other subcategories of these.

Discourse analysis is the fruit of some relatively recent insights of literary and linguistic
science; therefore it is not surprising that Luther had little to write on the subject. But that he
intuitively recognized these principles is evident from the fact that his translation is not chopped
up into distinct verses. Rather, it consists of meaningful paragraphs of varying length-according
to his arrangement of the subject matter at hand.1076 Words are not connected to one another in
haphazard fashion, but they are carefully selected to conform to the meaning-environment into
which they are to be set. Luther often wrestled with this task, and when he himself did not have
the answer, he readily consulted others. Thus Luther adopted a text-holistic as well as a
contextually conditioned perspective on whatever passage he happened to be translating.
“Sensitive to literary genre, Luther could recognize what different authors were doing with
different literary forms in different passages.”1077 And such scholarly intuition is abundantly
manifested in the different biblical books of his translation

Luther recognized and appreciated good literature and could compose it himself, as his many
beautiful hymns attest.1078 He greatly valued the affective, connotative qualities of the Word of
God and strove to emulate the effect in German garb. He felt, for example, that “the language of
(Job) is more vigorous and splendid than that of any other book in all the Scriptures,”1079 but
that there was a problem on the German side:1080

We have so much trouble translating Job, on account of the grandeur of his sublime style,
that he seems to be more impatient of our efforts to turn him into German than he was of
the consolation of his friends … Either he always wishes to sit upon his dunghill, or else
he is jealous of the translator who would share with him the credit of writing his book.

Similarly with the Psalms, Luther perceived not only their great theological import—“a little
Bible,” in his opinion—but also their poetic beauty and emotive impact; and so he spent much
of his translation career trying to perfect his own German version of the Psalter. The dynamic
power of the Hebrew prophets too must have impressed Luther because he devoted a great
amount of his time to attempting to push them into preaching German! Even the foundational,

1075
Ernst R. Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004).
1076
Plass, This Is Luther, 331.
1077
Kolb, “The Bible in Reformation,” 94; for example, “His brief introduction to the Psalms,
penned in 1531, labeled the psalms by genre: “Trostpsalm” [psalm of comfort], “weissagung von Christo”
[prophecy of Christ], “Dankpsalm” (psalm of thanks], among others” (ibid., 94). See also Edward A.
Englebrecht, ed., The Lutheran Study Bible: English Standard Version (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009), 841-842.
1078
See Burger, “Luther as an Event,” 127ff.
1079
Luther, LW 35, 252.
1080
Luther in a letter to Spalatin, cited in Koelpin, “A New Bible Translation,” 1.
499
narrative-legal books of Moses did not escape Luther's attention; for the goal, as far as he was
concerned, was quite comprehensive:1081

I will get rid of Hebraisms, so that no one can say that Moses was a Hebrew. Good
translating means adapting the statement to the spirit of the (receptor) language.

But how does one duplicate or learn from Luther when working in the thousands of other
languages in the world? Just listen to his advice. It is something that all present and future
translators of God's Word need to keep in mind.1082

I am persuaded that without knowledge of literature, pure theology cannot at all endure,
just as heretofore, when letters [that is, literary study] have declined and lain prostrate,
theology too has wretchedly fallen and lain prostrate; nay I see that there has never been
a great revelation of the Word of God unless He has first prepared the way by the rise and
prosperity of languages and letters, as though they were John the Baptists … Certainly it
is my desire that there shall be as many poets and rhetoricians as possible, because I see
that by these studies, as by no other means, people are wonderfully fitted for the grasping
of sacred truth and for handling it skillfully and happily … Therefore I beg of you that at
my request (if that has any weight) you will urge your young people to be diligent in the
study of poetry and rhetoric.

22.3.5 Contextual

The internal linguistic context, or “co-text,” is a crucial factor in biblical exegesis. Any given term
must be understood and translated so as to fit the context, near and far. The external, situational
context must also be considered when doing exegesis—the study known in theological circles as
“isagogics.” This external setting includes such distinct but interrelated aspects as the historical,
cultural, social, economic, educational, philosophical, literary (oral and written), political,
environmental, and religious sectors.

There is no doubt that Luther translated with the linguistic context in mind. “Luther, never
a literalist, chose the more appropriate word according to the circumstances in which the term
occurs,” says Bluhm.1083 We have already seen instances of this above. Another example is
Luther's various translations of the Hebrew word chen, as the editor of Luther's Works points
out:1084

This Hebrew root may mean favor or grace, with respect either to form and appearance
or to speech; it may also mean the favor or acceptance one has in the sight either of God
or of men. Luther found that his favorite equivalent, Gnade, was not always adequate for

1081
Cited in Reu, Luther's German Bible, 269.
1082
Cited in Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs, eds., Luther's Correspondence, vol. 2
(Philadelphia: United Lutheran Publication House, 1918), 176ff.
1083
Bluhm, Creative Translator, 64.
1084
Bachmann in Luther, LW 35, 222.
500
 every form, context, and usage; he also utilized such terms as Gunst, lieblich, holdselig, and
others to render the word.

Luther never forgot the local sociocultural setting of his Bible translation work. For example,
“the shekel – currency of ancient Israel – became the Sibberling – the currency in Saxony at the
time of Luther.”1085 Several other interesting cases of Luther's practice of “contextual” (rather
than rote “verbal”) consistency in translation are provided by Plass:1086

His amazing wealth of vocabulary was an invaluable asset to Luther in translating…. [He]
uses no fewer than ten synonyms for the word Leid (sorrow). At the same time he does not
choose a different word merely for the sake of variety. The Professor carefully notes the
shade of difference in synonyms and makes his selections accordingly … [Thus] the Pferde
(horses) are held in with bit and bridle, but fiery Rosse (chargers) carry Elijah to heaven
in a fiery chariot, and it is the strong Gaeule (work horses) whose neighing is heard (James
3.3; 2 Kings 2.11; Jer. 50.11).

At times event-based situational cues merged with theological and linguistic concerns to
influence Luther’s rendering, as in the case of his insightful interpretation of Yahweh’s revelation
of his covenantal name when speaking to Moses before the burning bush (Exodus 3:14): “Ich
werde sein, der ich werde sein.”

On the other hand, Luther also realized that in certain domains of vocabulary, the Hebrew
or Greek possessed a wealth of lexical resources that simply could not be matched in German.
Koelpin cites an example, in Luther’s words:1087

[Hebrew] possesses many words for singing, praising, glorifying, honoring, rejoicing,
sorrowing, etc., for which we have but one. Especially in sacred and divine matters is it
rich in words. It has at least ten names with which to name God, whereas we have only
one word. It may therefore be rightly called a holy tongue.

As to the “external” situational context, we might point out first that this is a factor seldom
given the attention it deserves by Bible translators.1088 After all, the situational setting is not part
of the text per se, so some may feel that it can be dispensed with or largely ignored. It is also
difficult for today’s translators to put themselves into the biblical author's situation and then
attempt to express this perspective accurately (with reference to the SL text/context) and
appropriately (with reference to the RL text/context). But Luther was intuitively able to do just this,

1085
(“Martin Luther: Translator of the Bible,” accessed on July 8, 2016 at
http://www.museeprotestant.org/en/notice/martin-luther-translator-of-the-bible/).
1086
Plass, This Is Luther, 337.
1087
Koelpin, “A New Bible Translation,” 8.
1088
“Cross-cultural communication is more than linguistics. But no effective transmission of the
Gospel takes place across cultural boundaries apart from careful attention to the linguistic component. The
same can be said for indigenization and contextualization. And these missiological insights were not born
in the twentieth century. They were strongly operative in the Protestant Reformation, and especially in
Luther's pen” (Hans Kasdorf, “Luther’s Bible: A Dynamic Equivalence Translation and a Germanizing
Force,” Missiology 6:2, 213-234, from the article’s Abstract).
501
as has already been suggested.1089 He reveals his keen awareness of issues of a sociolinguistic
nature in his discussion of Luke 1:28:1090

When the angel greets Mary, he says, “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” Up
to now that has simply been translated according to the literal Latin (ave Maria gratia).
Tell me whether that is also good German! When does a German speak like that, “You are
full of grace”? He would have to think of a keg “full of” beer or a purse “full of” money.
Therefore I have translated it, “Thou gracious one” (du holdselig), so that a German can at
least think his way through to what the angel meant by this greeting … though I have still
not hit upon the best German for it. Suppose I had taken the best German and translated
the salutation thus: “Hello there, Mary” (Gott grusse dich, du liebe Maria)—for that is what
the angel wanted to say, and what he would have said, if he had wanted to greet her in
German.

So why then did Luther not render the greeting that way? Perhaps out of evangelical concern for
his former Catholic brethren. They, he says with tongue in cheek, “would have hanged
themselves out of (their) tremendous fanaticism for the Virgin Mary, because I had thus destroyed
the salutation.”1091

Another example, this one from the Old Testament, also reveals how closely language usage
is related to co-text, context, culture, and connotation. What sounds perfectly natural in one
setting may seem completely out of place in another:1092

Psalm 92[:14] says, “Even when they grow old, they will nevertheless bloom and be
fruitful and flourishing.” We know, of course, that word for word the text says this, “When
their hair is gray they will still bloom and be fat and green.” But what does this mean?
The psalm had been comparing the righteous to palm trees and cedars [verse 14], which
have no “gray hair,” neither are they “fat” (by which a German means an oily or greasy
substance [schmaltz], and thinks of a hefty paunch). But the prophet here intends to say
that the righteous are such trees, which bloom and are fruitful and flourishing even when
they grow old.

All mother-tongue speakers know such information instinctively and produce their utterances
accordingly when they talk in the varied interpersonal situations of life. The hard part is to
transform such knowledge into idiomatic verbal action when translating. That takes scholars
with the boldness to accompany their sociocultural acumen.

1089
“Luther’s Open Letter on Translation (1530) is an important text in the history of translation
theory, not only because it is intimately connected to a groundbreaking translation, but further because it
manifests vividly how the choice of words and expressions in a translation is sometimes intimately linked
to a whole ideological and institutional matrix” (Weissbort and Eysteinsson, A Historical Reader, 57).
1090
Luther, LW 35, 191-192.
1091
Luther, LW 35, 192.
1092
Luther, LW 35, 218.
502
 The “context” of a translation also includes its “paratext,” that is, supplementary material
that is intended to aid the reader. Luther’s version did not, of course, include many of the features
that today we call “readers’ helps,” because their great value has been learned and accepted only
in more recent years. Explanatory footnotes, selective cross-references, a glossary of important
terms and technical terms, suitable illustrations, prefaces to the individual books, section
headings, tables, summary charts-all of these facilitate understanding and further study.

But Luther prepared the ground for such extratextual aids. His Bible contained an index, and
later editions also provided an indication of the regular gospel and epistle readings for each
Sunday.1093 The most important of these helps was undoubtedly the series of explanatory prefaces
that he prepared for the Old Testament, the New Testament, and each of the individual books of
the Bible. Luther used these introductions to raise the abysmally low level of biblical knowledge
among his constituency, lay and clergy alike. One might raise some objections nowadays
concerning their theological narrowness—they tended to be rather catechetical and too
polemically Lutheran for a general church readership. But this depends on one's own
ecclesiastical persuasion, and of course the religious times have dramatically changed since
Luther's day. At any rate, few would deny that his prefaces contain many good theological
insights and are especially helpful in the area of practical pastoral application, as we see in the
following excerpt from the “Preface to the Book of Job”:1094

But this [book] is written for our comfort, that God allows great saints to falter, especially
in adversity. For before Job comes into fear of death, he praises God at the theft of his
goods and the death of his children. But when death is in prospect and God withdraws
himself, Job's words show what kind of thoughts a man-however holy he may be-holds
towards God: he thinks that God is not god, but only a judge and wrathful tyrant, who
storms ahead and cares nothing about the goodness of a person's life. This is the finest part
of the book. It is understood only by those who also experience and feel what it is to suffer
the wrath … of God and to have his grace hidden.

Along with the book introductions, Luther in some editions also “added comments on the margin
for the guidance of the common folk.”1095 We might regard such marginal expository “glosses” as
being an important forerunner of the annotated “study Bibles” so popular nowadays.1096

We might even view Luther's inclusion of the Apocrypha as a valuable supplementary help
for Bible readers.1097 While he considered this corpus to be inferior to the biblical canon, Luther
also felt that Christians could derive some real benefit from it, especially to gain a greater
awareness of the religious life and thought of ancient times. These extra-canonical texts can
provide a useful background to the 66 acknowledged books of Scripture. In those days of

1093
Koelpin, “A New Bible Translation,” 14.
1094
Luther, LW 35, 252.
1095
Koelpin, “A New Bible Translation,” 14.
1096
Luther began including such didactic supplements from the very beginning, starting with his
first revision of the New Testament. He “added marginal notes and prefaces to each book of the New
Testament, thereby producing something akin to what today might be called a study Bible. In this we see
Luther’s concern, from the very first, not just to grant people access to Scripture in language they could
understand, but also to guide them in their reading and understanding of Scripture” (Denlinger, “Bible
Scholar”, 202). For a detailed discussion of the various auxiliary “metatexts” as well as the general format
of Luther’s 1534 Bible, see Kerr, Bible Translation Theories, 75-79.
1097
“The bulk of the translation of the apocrypha was mainly done by Luther’s colleagues
Melanchthon and Justus Jonas” (Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 65).
503
deprivation with respect to scholarly helps and didactic aids, every additional study tool counted,
and it is to Luther's credit that he recognized this serious need and did something about it, using
the best materials at hand.

Another area in which the Luther Bible supplied special help to its readers (and nonreaders
as well) was through its magnificent illustrations. In this regard, Zecher observes:1098

Das Newe Testament Deutzsch was published in September 1522. [It was] a typographical
masterpiece, containing woodcuts from Lucas Cranach's workshop and selections from
Albrecht Duerer's famous Apocalypse series.

Such beautiful, graphically detailed illustrations, created by recognized masters of the day,
contributed to the impact and appeal of certain editions. This is evident in the very first complete
Bible that Luther provided for the German people—the 1534 “Wittenberg” version published by
Hans Lufft, which included 124 Cranach woodcuts.1099 However, the illustrators sometimes got a
bit carried away with the spirit of their own age.1100 Consequently, they regularly transculturized
the message visually—and hence also conceptually—as they transferred the setting from ancient
biblical times to contemporary northern Renaissance Germany. This was especially true in the
Book of Revelation. (But then again, why should the imagination not be allowed to run a bit more
freely in this book?) The whore of Babylon, for example, in chapter 17, is anachronistically
depicted in the September Testament of 1522 as wearing the official papal tiara.1101 Whatever
other purpose they served, the illustrations did help to localize the Bible and make people feel
“at home” when reading it. As Bainton notes: “Moses and David might almost be mistaken for
Frederick the Wise and John Frederick [his son].”1102

Luther's contextual concern for the medium of message transmission extended also to the
typography and format of the printed page. After all, how can a text be properly read aloud if it
has not been set out legibly in written form? His fashioning of the text into meaningful paragraph
units rather than a disruptive sequence of individual verses has already been mentioned. A
project undertaken late in life (perhaps so that he himself might benefit) was a special “large-
type” edition of the New Testament, prepared for readers with failing eyesight in mind.1103

More significant in terms of readability is the fact that “all prints of the Luther Bible down
to 1586 divided the text up … into rhythmical units and used punctuation [especially the comma,
or slash line] to indicate the pauses necessary for rhythmical diction, not as signs of grammatical
articulation.”1104 In respect of the oral-aural fluency and readability of his text, Luther was well
ahead of his times and established a model worth emulating even up to the present day. In fact,

1098
Zecher, “Bible Translation,” 12.
1099
Armin J. Panning, 1983. “Luther as Bible Translator,” in Luther Lives: Essays in Commemoration
of the 500th Anniversary of Martin Luther's Birth, 69-84, eds. E. C. Fredrich, S. W. Becker, and D. P. Kuske
(Milwauke, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 1983) 80. The precise number of woodcuts probably
varied according to the edition; Gritsch notes “117 woodcuts” in the 1534 Luther Bible (“Luther as Bible
Translator,” 65).
1100
“These illustrations, typical of Renaissance art, used sixteenth-century dress and setting to
illustrate biblical characters and events” (Nichols, Martin Luther, 53).
1101
Bainton, Here I Stand, 259.
1102
Bainton, Here I Stand, 257.
1103
Panning, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 82.
1104
Burger, “Luther as an Event,” 125.
504
in many cases things have actually regressed in the interests of economy and due to a highly
conservative tradition of Scripture publication.1105

Certainly more could and should be done to create a more “user-friendly” Scripture text
today. This might be achieved by more discourse-cognizant paragraphing; an unjustified right
margin; a single column of print on the page (each line a distinct utterance unit); large, clear
typefaces; more space between lines and along the margins; with form/content-shaped
indentation employed to reflect special syntactic structures or larger poetic patterns. These are
just a few of the more important formatting variables available as visual cues, which indirectly
assist hearers as well—when a pericope of Scripture is proclaimed aloud by sensitive readers
following a plainly legible text.

22.3.6 Collaborative

A diversified and well-organized translation team generally produces results that are more
accurate, effective, and acceptable to the RL audience than a translator working alone can
achieve. Although Luther completed his September Testament alone and in a hurry, that was due
to special circumstances and was certainly not his preference.

Panning provides a description of how Luther would often proceed when beginning to
translate a new Old Testament text:1106

Luther apparently always began from the original Hebrew. In a first pass, Luther would
translate literally and woodenly, even word for word. Often the first rough draft would be
in Latin. At times when Luther didn't know a Hebrew word, he simply transliterated it or
left a blank for the time being. The second stage was to fit the parts together lexically,
syntactically, grammatically. When he had determined … what the Hebrew said, then he
went at what it meant, trying to put the content into basic German, which was then
reworked and polished and refined in the painstaking search to find just the right German
words. After crossing out three, four, and even more attempts, a final decision would be
reached and the crabbed and cluttered manuscript would be sent to the longsuffering
typesetter.

It is indeed striking to observe how similar these procedures are to the basic three-step method
of text analysis, transfer, and restructuring that is recommended in some of the most popular Bible
translation manuals.1107

But Luther openly acknowledged that a one-man translation has its limitations, especially
where the Old Testament is concerned:1108

1105
There are some exceptions, the best overall format in my opinion being that of the New
International Version, which pays close attention to the larger (strophic) structure of poetic discourse,
especially in the Psalms.
1106
Panning, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 76.
1107
See for example, Nida and Taber, Theory and Practice, 33; Wonderly, Bible Translations, 52.
1108
Luther, LW 35, 249.
505
 I freely admit that I have undertaken too much, especially in trying to put the Old
Testament into German. The Hebrew language, sad to say, has gone down so far that even
the Jews know little enough about it, and their glosses and interpretations (which I have
tested) are not to be relied upon.

Therefore, Luther's subsequent revision of his initial New Testament version, as well as his
translation of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, was undertaken with the help of a scholarly
translation committee (collegium biblicum), which he affectionately referred to as his
“Sanhedrin.”1109 Luther, realizing his limitations, selected committee members who were
recognized scholars and specialists in their field, men like Philip Melanchthon for Greek and
Matthew Aurogallus for Hebrew. As Luther himself explained this important practical point:1110

Translators must never work by themselves. When one is alone, the best and most suitable
words do not always occur to him.

In his preface to the Old Testament, Luther acknowledges the help of his translation “team”:1111

If all of us were to work together, we would have plenty to do in bringing the Bible to
light, one working with the meaning, the other with the languages. For I too have not
worked at this alone, but have used the services of anyone whom I could get.

Even with such a highly qualified and close-knit committee, the work was not easy, mainly due
to the nature of the translation that Luther was trying to produce, namely, one that emphasized
the meaning of Scripture, rather than its linguistic form:1112

I have constantly striven to produce a pure and clear German in translating; and it often
happened that for two or three or four weeks we sought and asked for a single word and
at times did not find it even then. Such was our labor while translating Job that Master
Philip, Aurogallus, and I could at times scarcely finish three lines in four days.

An important member of the review team was its recording secretary, Georg Roerer, who
diligently made notes of the major decisions. In an extensive, sustained, and detailed project such
as this, it is essential to be able to refer back to past proceedings so that the same ground is not
plowed twice and also to encourage the development of a stable set of translation procedures.
That is exactly what happened as we see from the following descriptions by Johann Matthesius
of the committee in session:1113

1109
“Before dinner every Wednesday and Thursday, from the summer of 1539 to the beginning of
1541, he assembled a group of scholars…to assist him in revising his translation of the Old Testament”
(David B. Calhoun, “Luther in His Later Years” [in Sproul and Nichols, Legacy of Luther, 53-74], 58).
1110
Cited in Zecher, “Bible Translation,” 12-13.
1111
Luther, LW 35, 250.
1112
Cited in Plass, What Luther Says, 106. A literal translation is actually rather easy to produce,
in any language, though various degrees of “literalness” are possible, e.g., NASB versus NRSV.
1113
Matthesius is cited first in Reu, Luther's German Bible, 212-213, and secondly in Plass, What
Luther Says, 649. Gritsch mentions “three other colleagues…all former students and/or strong supporters
of Luther,” Justus Jonas, Veit Dietrich, and Bernhard Ziegler, who occasionally joined the group (“Luther
as Bible Translator,” 68).
506
 Then, when D. (Luther) had reviewed the previously published Bible and had also gained
information from Jews and friends with linguistic talents, and had inquired of old Germans
about appropriate words … he came into the assembly (Konsistorium) with his old Latin
and a new German Bible, and always brought the Hebrew text with him. M. Philip brought
the Greek text with him. D. Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to the Hebrew. The
professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text, with
which he was very familiar. Each one had studied the text which was to be discussed and
had examined Greek and Latin as well as Hebrew commentators.

Thereupon the president [Luther] submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn
and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about
the expositions of the ancient doctors. Wonderful and instructive discussions are said to
have taken place in connection with this work, some of which M. Georg (Roerer) recorded,
which were afterwards printed as little glosses and annotations on the margin.

22.3.7 Continuative

No translation is ever perfect or complete. That means critical and qualitative revision is
essential. It is, in fact, a never-ending process from one generation to the next. During the course
of a translation project, a team learns many things—about the original text, exegesis, consistency,
how to handle difficult terms or passages in the RL, and even organizational efficiency. Thus at
the end, they realize that, in view of what they have picked up along the way, they must now
begin all over again. They must undertake a careful revision in order to correct the inevitable
errors and to improve the wording wherever possible, based on their past experience and also
the feedback from the publication of selected portions.

In many cases, unfortunately, such an opportunity does not materialize. For one reason or
another the production team is disbanded and its members return to other pursuits. In Luther's
case, however, it was different. As has been mentioned, the translation and revision of the Bible
occupied Luther for most of his life. As soon as the “September Testament” of 1522 appeared in
print, Luther immediately set to work on a thorough revision (even as he was simultaneously
engaged in a translation of the Old Testament). Amazingly, a second and significantly revised
edition was published just three months after the first (the “December Testament”). This same
cycle was repeated for the OT books: analyze, translate, publish, and revise. In all, according to
Koelpin, Luther produced five major text revisions during his lifetime;1114 furthermore, his central
task in life never came to an end:1115

1114
Koelpin, “A New Bible Translation,” 3. “With the help of his colleagues, [Luther] ultimately
produced no less than five unique editions of the entire German Bible, the last completed in 1545, one
year before his death” (Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 199).
1115
Bachmann, in Luther, LW 35, 229. The final revised edition of the New Testament appeared in
the year of Luther’s death (Schuetze, Martin Luther, 85).
507
 He promoted the task of revision and improvement to the very end of his life, all of it done
in the recognition that final authority belongs only to the original text, and that Christ is
the unity of Scripture.

Luther's “Sanhedrin” supported him in this ongoing work. A supplement to secretary Roerer's
1552 notes gives us an insight into the cooperative endeavor:1116

On January 24, 1534, certain invited men started to revise the Bible anew and in many
places it was rendered into more distinct and clear German than before. They particularly
had trouble with the section of the Prophets from Jeremiah on as it was difficult to render
into good German. Isaiah and Daniel had been printed in German several years earlier.
The words of Jesus gave the commission great concern to render them into clear German.

As the group worked closely with one another meeting after meeting, they became aware of each
other's particular strengths and were progressively knit into an ever more competent and
cohesive team. Schweibert summarizes the change that took place:1117

The word-for-word searching in an attempt at a literal translation of the Greek and Hebrew
texts had been replaced by a spirit of freedom, an attempt to render the exact meaning of
the original in the idiom of the 16th-century German.

Luther noted this progressive shift in the direction of greater linguistic naturalness and expressed
his satisfaction at the result:1118

The former German Psalter is closer, in many places, to the Hebrew and further removed
from the German. This one (1531) is closer to the German and further removed from the
Hebrew.

The Professor himself remained the guiding light and principal motivating factor in the revision
process. He provided that essential continuity and set the desired standards so that a consistency
of style and method might be maintained during the long period over which the translation and
revision took place.1119

The initiative throughout came from Luther. He called the commission together, he largely
outlined the assignment for each session, he led the discussion and usually spoke the
deciding word [in cases of disagreement] … In other cases Luther made changes in his
entries, either during the meeting or afterward, as is apparent from a comparison of these
with Roerer's protocol and sometimes is evident in Luther's own copy.

1116
Cited in Schweibert, Luther and His Times, 653-654.
1117
Schweibert, Luther and His Times, 655-656.
1118
Cited in Reu, Luther's German Bible, 221.
1119
Reu, Luther's German Bible, 235.
508
 Of great assistance in the revision process was a set of notes that Luther personally recorded
in his Handexemplar, a special copy of the Bible reserved specifically for the purpose. Apparently
Luther and his “updated” annotated version were inseparable. Whenever he worked with the
German text, he tested it out either on his audience or personally on himself. Then he would
carefully write down any corrections and potential improvements in the margins. These jottings
would often serve as the basis for discussion during the meetings with his review team. Luther's
detailed notes performed the same service even after his death. They were incorporated into the
revised Bible that he happened to be working on right up to the end, a version that was published
later in 1546.1120 So it was that “for Luther there was always a ‘next’ edition. He ate, drank and
slept Bible translation.”1121 In fact, “the last printed page on which he ever looked was the proof
of the latest revision of his New Testament.”1122

22.3.8 Consequential

Luther's version can now be seen for what it was: a truly revolutionary achievement for his age,
linguistically, socially, translationally, and theologically.1123

It was the first time a mass medium had ever penetrated everyday life. Everyone read
Luther’s new Bible or listened to it being read.1124 German readers quickly adopted this
Bible as an indispensable, indeed fascinating, guide for life. That is why it became the
cornerstone for an enduring Lutheran culture in Germany.1125

“Luther created a linguistic work of art whose impact on the German language was incalculable
and can be felt to this day.”1126 “Through this Bible, Luther became the creator of the New High
German written language.”1127 De Waard and Nida, promoters of the functional-equivalence
method, point out its importance from the perspective of translation theory and practice:1128

Luther's approach to translation was certainly a communication breakthrough, thus setting

the stage for important departures for a tradition dominated by ecclesiastical Latin.

And even Luther’s Catholic critics admitted the stylistic superiority of his version:

1120
Schweibert, Luther and His Times, 656.
1121
Panning, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 79.
1122
Sproul and Nichols, Legacy of Luther, 58.
1123
“Eighteen editions of the German Bible had appeared before Luther’s version,” but his “was the
first to be based on the original texts, and was in much more contemporary and idiomatic German” (Paul
Ellingworth, “From Martin Luther to the English Revised Version,” in A History of Bible Translation, Phillip
A. Noss, ed., 105-139 [Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007], 110).
1124
Zecher, “Bible Translation,” 14.
1125
Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 65-66.
1126
Kerr, “Bible Translation Theories,” 74, citing E. Bernstein, “The Book of Books: The Luther
Bible of 1534—A Cultural-Historical Introduction,” Renaissance Quarterly, June 22, 2004. This opinion is
supported by Dr. Hal Lindsley, “Profiles of Faith: Martin Luther” in Knowing & Doing, Spring 2002, p. 2
(accessed on July 9, 2016, at http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/617).
1127
“Luther and the German Bible” accessed at http://www.luther.de/en/sprache.html on July 8,
2016. “If the German Bible had not become the most popular book in German households, a common
German language would not have been born” (Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,” 71)—at least not as
soon as it did.
1128
De Waard and Nida, Functional Equivalence, 183.
509
 The translation of the [German] Bible is a noble monument of literature, a vast enterprise.
The poetic soul finds in this translation evidences of genius and expressions as natural, as
beautiful, and melodious as in the original languages.1129

Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors
and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new
Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the
fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom.
In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed
to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests
and monks and doctors of divinity.1130

“Ironically, the very same…figures who criticized the accuracy of Luther’s translation of the Bible
into German ultimately provided testimony to the merits of Luther’s work” by frequently copying
his translation, “editing the text where appropriate to make certain passages sound less
supportive of Luther’s reforming ideas.”1131

Truly, Luther deserves the epithet bestowed by one of his contemporaries—the “father of
the German language,”1132 for his “word choices from the range of German dialects and his choice
of syntax profoundly impacted the development of modern German grammar.1133 Thus, as noted
by Haile:1134

The flurry of pamphlet reading in the early 1520s, reinforced by the general familiarity
with Luther's Bible, resulted in the normalization of German in accordance with his own
middle German dialect. The standard modern language takes its beginning there.

Luther's unifying influence affected not only the German language,1135 but to a greater extent its
literature as well, with respect to verbal style and persuasive rhetoric. In the words of one

1129
The French Catholic scholar Audin, cited in Plass, This Is Luther, 338.
1130
Phillip Schaff, citing “Cochlaeus, the champion of Romanism” (History of the Christian Church,
350). See also Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 201.
1131
Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 200. “‘The Papists steal my German,” Luther complained, “and they
do not thank me for it, but rather use it against me” (ibid.:loc. cit; cf. Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator,”
66-67).
1132
“Erasmus Alberus’s [1500-1553] comparison between Luther and Cicero is very apposite:
“Lutherus linguae Germanicae parens, sicut Cicero Latinae”—Luther is the father of the German language,
just as Cicero was of the Latin” (Burger, “Luther as an Event,” 124). “Luther’s German translation of the
Bible had more influence upon the German language than the King James Version had on English. Though
almost 460 years old, Luther’s translation is still sold and read widely” (Mark Galli, “Martin Luther’s Later
Years: Did You Know?” [Christian History 39, 1993;
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/martin-luthers-later-years-did-you-know/].
1133
Nichols, Martin Luther, 54.
1134
Haile, Luther, 338.
1135
See Ellingworth, “Translation Techniques,” 315-316.
510
professor of German studies, “His Bible…is the starting point and guiding principle of our modern
literature…”1136 For example:1137

The German classical and romantic authors learnt their language from the revised version
of the Luther Bible… From Luther Goethe learnt that the essence of language is to be found
in speech, not in writing… In “Beyond Good and Evil” Friedrich Nietzsche admits that
Luther’s Bible is the best German book. … His translation of the Bible is a living spring
from which German literature—to be understood as German linguistic art—has for
centuries drawn its purest life-giving water.

The sheer volume of his own literary production is indeed staggering. Hirst estimates that:1138

Roughly one-third of all German writing appearing between 1518 and 1522 [even before
he really got going!] bore Luther's name, while between 1534 [date of the publication of
the full German Bible] and 1584 Lufft's press in Wittenberg alone produced some 100,000
copies of Luther's Bible translation.1139

By thus “providing the decisive thrust for the creation of a single German language, the one
essential precondition of a national literature” was satisfied.1140 This development had important
socio-educational ramifications:1141

As the Bible became popular reading throughout northern Europe, a new age of literacy,
even of poetry, began to disperse the dank fog of barbarism. Thus Luther's Bible became
not just a legacy, but an important stage in the still gradually awakening consciousness of
man.

But what is of prime importance is the spiritual significance of all this literary, linguistic,
and cultural influence. Given its emphasis on Sola Scriptura, it is arguable that the Reformation

1136
Hermann Schneider, cited in Burger, “Luther as an Event”, 120, 134. “Among no nation has a
single person so shaped the language of a whole people as Luther has done. In fact, Luther’s language—
above all the language of his translation of the Bible—became the presupposition of understanding and
communication throughout the whole of the German language” (Oswald Bayer, “Luther as an Interpreter
of Holy Scripture,” in Donald K. McKim, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther [Cambridge
University Press, 2003, 73-85], 73). A more recent dissertation concludes: “The greatest contribution of
[Luther’s] translation was in its invigorating of German as a language by elevating it to a literary usage”
(Kerr, Bible Translation Theories, 92).
1137
Burger, “Luther as an Event”, 127.
1138
Hirst, “Sendbrief,” 4.
1139
“Scholars have calculated that between 1522, when Luther’s first German Bible was
published—his September Testament, and 1546, the end of his life, over half a million Luther Bibles of
one edition or another had been purchased” (David M. Whitford, ed., T&T Companion to Reformation
Theology [London: T&T Clark International, 2012], 39).
1140
Hirst, “Sendbrief,” 4.
1141
Haile, Luther, 329.
511
might have taken a rather different turn, theologically and otherwise, had it not been for Luther’s
translation.1142 Schweibert summarizes the revolutionized situation as follows:1143

The German Bible … became the center of the [worship] service and its message the daily
spiritual food for many a devout German home. It is impossible to evaluate its role in the
furthering of the Reformation, for its assistance in spreading the Gospel to the common
man was immeasurable.

This dual evangelistic and edificational effect extended far beyond Germany. Luther's Bible
served as a primary source for the translations produced later in Holland, Sweden, Denmark,
Iceland, and England.1144 The impact on English is particularly noteworthy:1145

Luther's strong influence on [William Tyndale] the father of the English Bible is
unmistakable. Since Tyndale’s English translation makes up more than 90 percent of the
King James New Testament and more than 75 percent of the Revised Standard Version,
Luther's legacy is still plain to see.

22.4 Conclusion

So what more can we say about a Bible translation that was (is) confessional, communicative,
creative, comprehensive, contextual, collaborative, continuative, and consequential—indeed,
consummate? Perhaps nothing needs to be added except a sample from the master translator
himself and those whom he has influenced and motivated centuries later in another language
and a very different cultural and communicative setting. I will close this essay with Luther’s
famous translation of Psalm 23 (already referred to above),1146 coupled with its poetic rendition
in Chichewa, the primary lingua franca of southeastern Africa (Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia,
Zimbabwe) and the principal language of the Lutheran Church of Central Africa.

1142
“The Reformation probably would not have happened without Luther’s translation into
German” (Karen Jobes, “Relevance Theory and the Translation of Scripture,” JETS 50:4, 773 (773-797).
Indeed, one could argue that Sola Scriptura (the original text primarily, but including all accurate,
confessional translations, such as Luther’s German Bible) is the foundation for the other two Reformation
age “solas”—“by grace alone, through faith alone,” the correct understanding of which must be based upon
a proper interpretation of Scripture.
1143
Schweibert, Luther and His Times, 643.
1144
Ellingworth, “From Martin Luther,” 112.
1145
Zecher, “The Bible Translation that Rocked the World,” 15; cf. Brian H. Edwards, God's Outlaw:
The Story of William Tyndale and the English Bible (Welwyn, UK: Evangelical Press, 99), ch. 5; James E.
McGoldrick, Luther's English Connection (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1979), 43ff. See also
Mark Schroeder, “God’s Outlaw,” Forward in Christ (June 2016), p. 8. Furthermore, “The first complete
Bible printed in English was the work of Miles Coverdale (1535). It was based on the Vulgate, Tyndale,
and Luther’s German translation” (David Lyle Jeffrey, “”Pre-KJV English Translations” [Christian History
100, 2011; https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/pre-kjv-english-translations/]).
“By the time Luther published his German New Testament, Tyndale was traveling to Wittenberg in order
to learn how to best translate the Scriptures into his own native language” (Steven J. Lawson, “Luther as
a Man of Conflict” [in Sproul and Nichols, Legacy of Luther, 32-52], 39).
1146
In order to better appreciate the poetic, sound-sensitive qualities of this translation, as Luther
intended it and probably composed it, one must actually read this text aloud—several times; or, if you do
not speak German, have a mother-tongue speaker read the text to you—again, several times, listening
carefully to a different feature each time: the shifting rhythm of the lines, the alliteration or assonance of
the words in flow, the overall pattern of intonation.
512
Psalm 231147 – Ein Psalm Davids1148

Der HERR ist mein Hirte;

mir wird nichts mangeln.
2
Er weidet mich auf grüner Aue
und führet mich zum frischen Wasser.
3
Er erquicket meine Seele;
er führet mich auf rechter Straße
um seines Namens willen.
4
Und ob ich schon wanderte im finstern Tal,
fürchte ich kein Unglück;
denn du bist bei mir,
dein Stecken und dein Stab trösten mich.
5
Du bereitest vor mir einen Tisch
im Angesicht meiner Feinde.
Du salbest mein Haupt mit Öl
und schenkest mir voll ein.
6
Gutes und Barmherzigkeit werden mir folgen mein Leben lang,
und ich werde bleiben im Hause des HERRN immerdar.1149

1147
Die Heilige Schrift, nach der deutschen Übersetzung D. Martin Luthers (London: The British and Foreign Bible
Society, 1950), 479. I have modified the script of this text and poetically rearranged its lines. Luther held a special
place in his heart for the Psalms: “The Psalter ought to be a precious and beloved book, if for no other reason than
this: it promises Christ’s death and resurrection so clearly and pictures his kingdom and the condition and nature of
all Christendom—that it might well be called a little Bible” (LW 35, 196). “Luther sees the Psalter as a primer in which
Christian faith is taught to praise, in so doing exposing anti-doxologies and the ways they obscure the living presence
of God’s tangible and accessible saving activity” (Brian Brock, “The Psalms and Luther’s Praise Inversion: Cultural
Criticism as Doxological Detection,” 191–212 in Mtata et al., Singing the Songs, 203. For more on “Luther’s appreciation
of the Psalter,” see John Brug, A Commentary on Psalms 1—72 (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 2004),
92-93; also “Luther on the Psalms,” Englebrecht, Lutheran Study Bible, 839-842.
1148
Luther has an interesting perspective on Psalm 23: “In this psalm, David, together with every other
Christian heart, praises and thanks God for His greatest blessing: namely, for the preaching of His dear Holy Word.
Through it we are called, received, and numbered into the host which is God’s communion, or church, where alone—
and nowhere else—we can find and have pure doctrine, the true knowledge of God, and the right worship of God.
Blessed David, however, lauds and magnifies this noble treasure most beautifully in delightful figurative and
picturesque language and also in metaphorical expressions taken from the Old Testament worship of God. … The
prophet accordingly applies many kinds of names to the Word of God. He calls it a fine, pleasant, green pasture; fresh
water; the path of righteousness; a rod; a staff; a table; balm, or the oil of gladness (Ps. 45:7); and a cup that is filled
to overflowing. This he does quite appropriately, for the power of God is also of many kinds” (Luther’s Works, vol. 12,
Selected Psalms I, J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, eds., accessed online at:
https://thefirstpremise.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/martin-luther-expounding-psalm-23-after-grace-at-the-dinner-
table/). “Thus L. set about to make David sing in German like a Christian because the theological meaning of the text
as he understood it required him to do so” (Steinmetz, “Luther,” 97).
1149
Bluhm comments effusively on Luther’s translation (Creative Translator, 112): “Luther’s translation of the
Twenty-third Psalm is, in the final version of 1531, a consummate work of art. Though it is and remains a translation
of course, it was artistically reborn in the gradual process of its complete vernacularization. It is still similar to, but no
513
 The following then is a poetic (ndakatulo style) dynamic equivalence rendering of Psalm 23
in Chichewa:1150

Mbusa wanga ngwokoma mtima. Herdsman of mine, he’s so good-hearted.

Chauta ndi dzina lake lochukadi.
Mwa iye, ine kusowa kanthu ayi.
Gonee! pa zobiriwira andigonetsa.
Malo opumulirako n’kumadzi odikha,
Moyo ine amanditsitsimutsa komweko.
M’njira zolungama amanditsogoleramo,
Malinga n’dzina lake lomveka—Chauta!
M’chigwa cha mdima bii! n’kayendamo,
Mantha onse balala! poti Chauta alipodi.
Inu Abusa, muli pafupi n’zida zotetezera,
Ine mtima pansi phee! nthawi zonsezo.
Kunena chakudya, ha! ndine mwana-alirenji.
Mwandikonzera phwando, adani angoti tong’oo!
Chiko changa cha madalitso chiri nde-nde-nde!
Kwanu inu mwandilandiradi ndi manja awiri.
Indetu, zokoma za chikondi chanu chosasinthika,
Zimandilondoladi m’moyo wonse wa pansi pano.
M’nyumba yanu yoyera, inu Chauta, sindichokamo, From inside your holy house, Chauta, I don’t leave it,
Nchito yanga n’kukutumikirani mpaka muyayaya!
Chauta is that most famous name of his.
In him, as for me—I lack nothing, not at all.
DOWN! on fresh greens he makes me lie down.
[My] resting place is at quiet waters,
My life he always revives it right there.
Along straight paths he leads me in them,
According to his well-known name—Chauta!
If in a deep dark valley BLACK! I happen to walk,
All [my] fear GONE! since Chauta is right there.
O Herdsman, you are close by with weapons for defense,
As for my heart, it’s completely QUIET! at all times.
Talk about food, ha! I’m a “what-can-a-child-cry-for.”
You’ve prepared me a feast, my enemies can just STARE!
My cup of blessings is full-up BRIM-BRIM-BRIMMING!
At your home you’ve welcomed me with both hands.
Yes indeed, the good things from your unchangeable love,
They really follow me during [my] whole life down here.
My work is to serve you right up until FOREVER-EVER!

So what did this little translation exercise teach us—my students and me? Three things in
particular:

longer identical with, the original Hebrew poem… One could hold that it has become a German poem of almost
independent artistic significance. The least one can claim for it is that it is integrally ‘new,’ having a structure of its
own which is perhaps not inferior to that of the marvelous original. The final product of Luther’s long struggle to find
an adequate German garb for this great psalm is somehow beyond the limits of even creative translation. It is
somewhere in the borderland between creative translation and ‘original’ composition…clearly a work of art of high
order.”
1150
For a discussion of this rendering and its distinctive poetic features in Chewa, a Bantu language,
see Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture, 330-335. I composed the initial draft of this text, which
was subsequently revised and polished up by the students of my Psalms exegetical class (Lusaka Lutheran
Seminary). The “final exam” for this course is the presentation of an exegesis and poetic translation of a
selected psalm in the student’s mother tongue; those who are able to produce a sung version of their
translation, one suitable for congregational/choir use, get “extra credit.” For a sample, you may hear two
musical renditions of Psalm 13 by Mr. Chilembwe Banda (a Malawian, March, 2016) at the following links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA-glP2FP5c and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yka0ygfNGnU.
514
  Energetic participation in Bible translation-related activities is essential for the
development of a dynamic, healthy church—the pastorate as well as the laity. Such
involvement may include actual translation and review work; the careful comparative
study of various translations plus how and why they differ; the consistent support of
Bible translation, publication, and distribution work, both at home and abroad—on the
mission field.1151

 It is important that the church promotes an accurate, meaningful, readily communicable

version for use in its diverse activities—preaching, teaching, singing (hymnody),1152
publications, etc. A literalistic version is not really helpful, no matter how familiar its
wording may be, or how much it may be used, if the average person, young or old,
cannot understand it clearly or correctly without pastoral assistance.

 The key concern here is Scripture usage: How is the Bible being regularly utilized not only
in church-related activities, but also at home—privately (e.g., personal and family
devotions) and publicly as an evangelism tool to share the Gospel in a meaningful way
with others, or on occasion to serve fellow Christians at their point of need, whether for
encouragement, consolation, instruction, or, if need be, for reproof.

It is highly unlikely that another “Luther” will arise, before the Lord returns, to make the
contribution that he did to Bible translation theory and practice. Nevertheless, there are many
today who by faithfully following Luther's principles (aided by computer-based and internet
technology) are together, in corporate cooperation, able to accomplish results that he never
dreamed possible. Commissioned and supported by worldwide mission agencies and umbrella
organizations, trained personnel are currently seeking to translate the Word of God accurately
and idiomatically in hundreds of non-Indo-European languages.1153

1151
In a country like the United States, there are more different types of Bibles, including the
various niche versions, than we know what to do with. But that is not true in most parts of the world
today, though the Internet is helping to break that barrier. However, many places still suffer from a lack
of Scriptures in the languages spoken, from the prohibitive cost of Bibles that are available, and/or a low
level of literacy that prevents Scripture access except by the spoken word. There are also the extreme
danger zones, like North Korea, where even the possession of a Bible is a capital offense. For thirty years
(1977-2007) the Lusaka Translation Centre, located on the campus of Lusaka Lutheran Seminary, was
instrumental in the production of 8 full Bibles and another 4 New Testaments in the Bantu languages of
south-central Africa.
1152
For example, “At Torgau, [Johann] Walter set many texts of Luther's German translation of
Scripture to music and put into practice Luther's goal of encouraging worshipers to participate more
actively in the service by singing the new German chorales. The powerful hymn texts and tunes became
popular” (Carlos Messerli, “Grace Notes,” [Christian History 95, 2007;
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/grace-notes/]). “Perhaps the best witness to
Luther’s accomplishment for those who do not speak German is the eighteenth century composer Johann
Sebastian bach, who set Luther’s German translation of Scripture to music in numerous pieces. So, for
instance, Bach’s St Matthew Passion comprises the exact text of Luther’s translation of chapters 26 and 27
of Matthew’s Gospel. … The congruity between Luther’s text and Bach’s music stems from the inherent
beauty of each” (Denlinger, “Bible Scholar”, 201).
1153
The current global Scripture statistics are as follows (31/12/2015):
The figures for the number of language speakers are based on the best available data which currently totals 6.5
billion, less than the actual world population: 563 languages (spoken by nearly 5.1 billion people) now have
a full Bible and a further 1,334 languages (spoken by 658 million people) have a New Testament. This
leaves 281 million people with only some portions of the Bible and a further 497 million people with no
Scripture translated in their language at all (accessed at http://ubscommunity.org/blog/2016/03/31/50-
new-scripture-translations-completed-last-year/).
515
 Under God’s blessing and the Spirit’s guidance, the cumulative effect of the Scriptures in
these many languages will turn out to be similar to what happened in Luther’s day, when a
spiritually needy population finally received the saving Word of life in a form that faithfully and
intelligibly reflects the divine intention of the sacred original—and at the same time “pulls the
heart-strings” (chichewa chokoka mtima) via their diverse mother tongues. Energetic communal
participation in Bible translation-related activities—as producers and/or recipients—anticipates
that wonderful beatific vision in the heavenly throne room, where there will be “a great
multitude that no one [can] count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing
before the throne and in front of the Lamb, [crying] out in a loud voice, “Heil sei dem, der auf
dem Stuhl, sitzt, unserm Gott, und dem Lamm!” (Revelation 7:10, NIV and Martin Luther).

Martin Luther, 1528 (Veste Coburg) by Lucas Cranach the Elder, gallerix.ru,
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38265052

516
23. Psalm One in relation to a Typology of Translation Solution Types

In this chapter I begin by presenting an annotated translation (NET) of Psalm one based
on the Hebrew text. This then acts as the framework for a comparative exercise which
applies Anthony Pym’s notion of a “typology” of available solutions when rendering the
original text in another language. Two different poetic renditions in the Tonga and
Chewa languages are employed as case studies to illustrate some of the possibilities
involved in this interlingual communicative endeavor.

23.1 Discourse outline with textual and exegetical notes

Strophe A (NET translation)

1 How blessed1154 is the one1155
‫י־ה ִ֗אישׁ‬
ָ ‫ַ ֥א ְ ֽשׁ ֵר‬
who does not follow1156 the advice1157 of the ‫ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר׀ ֥ל ֹא ָה ַל ְ֮ך ַבּ ֲע ַ ֪צת ְר ָ֫שׁ ִ ֥עים‬
wicked,1158

or stand in the pathway1159 with sinners, ‫וּב ֶ ֣ד ֶרְך ַ ֭ח ָטּ ִאים ֥ל ֹא ָע ָ ֑מד‬

ְ
or sit in the assembly1160 of scoffers!1161 ‫מוֹשׁב ֵ֝ל ִ֗צים ֣ל ֹא יָ ָ ֽשׁב׃‬
֥ ַ ‫וּב‬
ְ

1154
The Hebrew noun is an abstract plural. In such contexts the word refers metonymically to the peace and
contentment that God-given fellowship and security produce (see v. 3; Pss. 2:12, 34:9, 41:1, 65:4, 84:12, 89:15,
106:3, 112:1, 127:5, 128:1, 144:15).
1155
Literally, “[Oh] the contentment [of] the man.” As in the case of all ANE literature, Hebrew wisdom
texts often assume and reflect the male-oriented perspective of ancient Israelite society. However, the principle of
the psalm is certainly applicable to all people, regardless of their gender or age. To facilitate modern reference and
application, one may translate the gender and age specific “man” with the more neutral “one”; “person” would also
be possible. On the other hand, for stylistic reasons a generic “he” is employed in vv. 2-3. Since the godly person
described in the psalm is representative of all followers of God (note the plural form ‫“[ ַצ ִדּי ִ ֽ קים‬righteous, godly”] in
vv. 5-6), one could translate the collective singular with the plural “those” both here and in vv. 2-3, where singular
pronouns and verbal forms are utilized in the Hebrew text (cf. NRSV). However, here the singular form may serve to
emphasize that godly individuals are usually outnumbered by the wicked and must bear the social consequences.
Retaining the singular allows the translation to retain this common contrastive perspective.
1156
Lit., “walk in.” The three perfect verbal forms in v. 1 refer in this context to characteristic behavior in
contrast to that of others. The sequence “walk-stand-sit” appears to envision a progression, as figured by bodily
movement (or the lack of it), from relatively casual association with the wicked to complete identification with
them.
1157
The Hebrew noun translated “advice” most often refers to the “counsel” or “guidance” one receives
from others. To “walk in the advice of the wicked” means to allow their evil ideas to impact and determine one’s
behavior.
1158
In the psalms the Hebrew term ‫“( ְר ָ֫שׁ ִ ֥עים‬wicked”) describes people who are proud, practical atheists
(Pss. 10:2, 10:4, 10:11), who hate God’s principles and commands, commit sinful deeds, speak lies and slander (Ps.
50:16-20), and cheat or deceive others (Ps. 37:21).
1159
“Pathway” (‫ ) ֶ ֣ד ֶרְך‬here refers to the characteristic lifestyle of people, in this case, that of God-hating
sinners. To “stand in the pathway of/with sinners” means to closely associate with them in their sinful attitude and
behavior.
1160
Here the Hebrew term ‫מוֹשׁב‬ ֥ ַ , although often translated “seat” (cf. NEB, NIV), appears to refer to an
entire assembly of evildoers. The word also carries the sense of “assembly” in Ps. 107:32, where it stands in
synonymous parallelism with ‫“( ָק ָהל‬assembly”).
1161
The plural Hebrew noun ‫ ִליץ‬refers to arrogant individuals (Pr. 21:24) who love conflict (Ps. 12:4; Pr.
22:10) and scornfully reject wisdom and correction (Pr. 1:22, 9:7-8, 13:1, 15:12). To “sit in the assembly” of such
people means to completely identify with them in their proud, sinful plans, discourse, and behavior.
517
 2 Instead1162 he finds pleasure in obeying the ‫הוה ֶ֫ח ְפ ֥צוֹ‬
֗ ָ ְ‫תוֹרת י‬
֥ ַ ‫ִ ֤כּי ִ ֥אם ְבּ‬
LORD's commands;1163
he meditates1164 on his commands1165 day and ‫יוֹמם וָ ָ ֽליְ ָלה׃‬
֥ ָ ‫תוֹר ֥תוֹ יֶ ְה ֗ ֶגּה‬
ָ ‫וּֽ ְב‬
night.
3 He is1166 like a tree planted1167 by flowing ‫ל־פּ ְל ֫ ֵגי ָ ֥מיִ ם‬
ַ ‫ְ ֽו ָה ָ֗יה ְכּ ֵע ֮ץ ָשׁ ֪תוּל ַ ֽע‬
streams1168;
it yields its fruit at the proper time1169, ‫ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ִפּ ְרי֨ וֹ׀ יִ ֵ֬תּן ְבּ ִע ֗תּוֹ‬
and its leaves never fall off.1170 ‫וְ ָע ֵ ֥להוּ ֽל ֹא־יִ ֑בּוֹל‬
He succeeds in everything he attempts.1171 ‫שׂה יַ ְצ ִ ֽל ַיח׃‬֣ ֶ ‫וְ ֖כֹל ֲא ֶשׁר־יַ ֲע‬
Strophe B
4 Not so with the wicked! ‫א־כן ָה ְר ָשׁ ִ ֑עים‬
ֵ֥ ֹ‫ל‬
Instead1172 they are like wind-driven chaff.1173 ‫ר־תּ ְדּ ֶ ֥פנּוּ ֽר ַוּח׃‬
ִ ‫מּץ ֲ ֽא ֶשׁ‬
ֹ ֗ ‫ם־כּ‬
ַ֝ ‫ִ ֥כּי ִא‬

1162
The Hebrew conjunctive expression ‫“( ִ ֤כּי ִ ֥אם‬instead”) introduces a sudden contrast between the sinful
behavior depicted in v. 1 and the godly lifestyle described in v. 2. However, the same “righteous” person is being
referred to.
1163
Lit., “his delight [is] in the law of the LORD.” In view of the following line, which focuses on studying
the Lord’s “law,” one might translate, “he delights in studying the LORD’s commands.” However, it is important to
recognize that mere study and intellectual awareness are not ultimately what bring divine favor. Study of the “law”
(i.e., God’s covenantal instructions) is metonymic here for the correct attitude and behavior that should result from
an awareness of and commitment to God’s moral will, as expressed in God’s “word”; thus “obeying” is perhaps better
used in the translation rather than “studying”.
1164
The Hebrew imperfect verbal form draws attention to the characteristic behavior described here and
lends support to the subsequent hyperbolic adverbial phrase “day and night.” The verb ‫ ָהגָ ה‬means “to recite quietly;
to meditate” and refers metonymically to intense study and reflection, which in ancient times would often be carried
out orally, even by someone studying in isolation. This verb also occurs in Ps. 2:1, thus forming another lexical
connection between these two opening, agenda-setting psalms (cf. the inclusio of “blessing”—1:1, 2:12c).
1165
The translation “commands” is too limiting (and legalistic!) a rendering for ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ ; in this context,
“instructions” is closer to the original meaning, and even “God’s word” would also be broadly appropriate.
1166
The Hebrew perfect verbal form with vav consecutive here (‫ )ְ ֽו ָה ָ֗יה‬continues the sense of the imperfect
in the preceding verse. Thus, the one who studies and obeys (does) God’s commands typically prospers in life. The
subsequent imperfect verbal forms in v. 3 draw attention to the typical nature of the actions/states they describe.
1167
The passive participle ‫ ָשׁ ֪תוּל‬suggests an intentional “planting” (or “trans-planting”) at a particular
favorable place by some other agent, with God being implied (v. 6a).
1168
Lit., “channels of water”—as in a well-maintained irrigation system. “In the ancient world, the tree was
a symbol of divine blessing” (from beginning to end, cf. Gen. 2 and Rev. 22); “But equally important to the image of
Psalm 1 is the image of the stream of water… In the metaphorical world of the psalm, that stream is God’s
instruction…” (deClaissé et al. 2014:64).
1169
Lit., “in its season/time”.
1170
Or “fade/wither”. The author compares the godly individual to a tree that has a rich water supply and
consequently develops a strong root system and is filled with leaves and fruit. The simile suggests that the godly
have a continual source of life from God (implied) which in turn produces stability and uninterrupted well-being.
1171
Lit., “and all which he does prospers”, or “and all which he does he causes to prosper.” The simile of the
tree is suddenly applied to the godly person. The Hiphil verbal form (‫ )יַ ְצ ִ ֽל ַיח‬may be intransitive-exhibitive
(“prospers”) or causative (“causes to prosper”). If the verb is intransitive, then ‫“( ֖כֹל‬all, everything”) is the subject. If
the verb is causative, then the godly individual or the Lord himself is the subject and ‫ ֖כֹל‬is the object. The wording is
similar to that of Jos 1:8, where the Lord tells Joshua: “This law scroll must not leave your lips! You must memorize
it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper (literally, “cause your way
to prosper”) and be successful.”
1172
As in v. 2, the Hebrew expression ‫“( ִ ֤כּי ִ ֥אם‬instead”) is strongly disjunctive and introduces a consequent
disparity between the prosperity of the godly depicted in v. 3 and the destiny of the wicked described in v. 4.
1173
Lit., “[they are] like the chaff which [the] wind blows about.” The Hebrew imperfect verb draws
attention to the typical nature of the action described. In contrast to the impressive, well-rooted, and productive tree
518
 5 For this reason the wicked cannot ‫ל־כּ֤ן׀ לֹא־יָ ֻ ֣ קמוּ ְ ֭ר ָשׁ ִעים ַבּ ִמּ ְשׁ ָ ֑פּט‬
ֵ ‫ַע‬
withstand judgment,1174
nor can sinners join the assembly of the godly.1175 ‫וְ ַ֝ח ָטּ ִ֗אים ַבּ ֲע ַ ֥דת ַצ ִדּי ִ ֽ קים׃‬
Strophe C
6 Certainly1176 the LORD guards the way of the ‫י־יוֹד ַע ְי֭הוָ ה ֶ ֣דּ ֶרְך ַצ ִדּי ִ ֑ קים‬
֣ ֵ ‫ִ ֽכּ‬
godly,1177
but the way of the wicked ends in destruction.1178 ‫ֹאבד׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫וְ ֶ ֖ד ֶרְך ְר ָשׁ ִ ֣עים תּ‬
23.2 Literary-structural summary

In terms of genre, Psalm One is a good example of a “wisdom psalm,” based on the strong
distinction between the “righteous” and the “wicked” in relation to the LORD (YHWH) that runs
throughout the text. It is appropriate that the Psalter would begin in this manner, for the theme
of “blessings for those who righteously observe the ways of God” is the conceptual theological-
moral foundation that underlies all of the prayers, praises, and expressions of trust that appear
in the psalms that follow. Furthermore, the strong warning that all of the wicked will be judged
and punished in the end stands as an encouragement for all believers who happen to be suffering

described in v. 3, the wicked are like a dried up plant part (“chaff”) that has no root system and is easily blown
away by the wind. The simile graphically describes the destiny of the wicked (see vv. 5-6).
1174
Lit., “arise in,” but the verb is used metonymically here in the sense of “withstand”; “endure,” as in 1
Sam. 13:14 and Job 8:15. The context suggests a judicial setting in which the wicked lose their case/are judged
guilty. The definite article indicates a specific judgment in the mind of the speaker. This may refer either a temporal-
historical judgment, which the author anticipates, or to the final eschatological judgment. Periodically during the OT
period, God would come in judgment, removing the wicked from the scene, while preserving a godly remnant (see
Gen. 6-9; Ps. 37; Hab. 3). The LXX’s addition of “from the face of the earth” at the end of the preceding colon would
also suggest a climactic eschatological judgment.
1175
Lit., “and sinners in the assembly (or ‘circle’) of [the] godly.” The negative particle and verb from the
preceding line are assumed by ellipsis here (the wicked “will not arise/stand”). In contrast, the assembly of the
godly is insulated from divine judgment (cf. Ps. 37:12-17, 37:28-29).
1176
The translation understands ‫ ִ ֥כּי‬as asseverative (emphatic) as well as consequential. Thus, one could also
translate “for,” understanding v. 6 as a concluding theological explanation for vv. 3-5, which contrasts the respective
destinies of the godly and the wicked.
1177
Lit., “the LORD knows the way of the righteous.” To “know a way” means, in its most basic sense, “to
recognize-acknowledge a pathway, route, or prescribed way of life” (see Jos. 3:4, Job 21:14, Ps. 67:2, Isa. 42:16, Jer.
5:4-5). In the OT and a covenantal context, the verb has a relational implication: Yahweh in personal relationship
with his faithful people. Here the verb could also refer to the Lord recognizing the behavior of the godly and, by
metonymy, rewarding their godliness with security and prosperity (“the LORD rewards the behavior of the godly”).
The NET translation takes the verb in the sense of “mark out” (cf. Job 23:10), which has the metonymic sense of
“watch over, protect, guard.” In this case, the “way of the godly” is not their behavior, but their course of life or
destiny; a translation reflecting this would be “the LORD protects the lives of the godly”, or “the LORD watches over
the destiny of the godly” (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV). In any case, the Hebrew active participle ‫ֹוד ַע‬ ֣ ֵ (“knows”) has a
characteristic durative force.
1178
Lit., “but the way of the wicked perishes.” The “way of the wicked” may refer to their course of life (Ps.
146:9; Pr. 4:19; Jer. 12:1), their sinful behavior (Pr. 12:26; Pr. 15:9)—or both, with the latter means implying the
former inevitable result. The Hebrew imperfect verb probably describes here what typically happens, though one
could also take the form as indicating what will happen (“will perish”).
519
in life at the hands of the ungodly to persevere and motivates their appeals for help. Sooner, or
later, the Lord will act justly in behalf of his faithful people.

Structurally, Psalm One divides into three progressively smaller portions, or poetic “strophes.”1179
Strophe A (vv. 1-3) describes the “righteous” individual, who avoids sin (1), seeks God’s word
and will (2), and is “blessed” by God (3). From another perspective, this “righteous” person (cf.
vv. 5-6) is first defined in negative terms (what he does not do), then in positive terms (his/her
godly behavior), and thirdly in figurative terms (a fruitful tree). Thus, this godly person’s
character and conduct are in focus throughout—as is the “Law” (‫)תּוֹרה‬,
ָ or covenantal instructions
of the Lord (significantly repeated in the center of this initial strophe, v. 2ab).

Another sharp contrast (cf. v. 2) is introduced in the second strophe (B), as the “wicked” are now
briefly (a single colon), but graphically described (4) in agricultural imagery that forges a
contrastive connection with v. 3. A sonic similarity is also forged between the two nouns “tree”
(‫)עץ‬
ֵ and “chaff” (‫)מֹץ‬. The ultimate fate of the ungodly is then summarized in a communal, now
also judicial scene (5) that recalls that of v. 1. While the “wicked” (‫ ְ)ר ָ֫שׁ ִ ֥עים‬have been explicitly
referred to throughout, specific mention of their antithetical counterparts, the “righteous”
(‫)צ ִדּי ִ ֽ קים‬
ַ are strategically withheld until near the end (v. 5b, i.e., poetic “delay”). The single
righteous individual of vv. 1-3 is thus appropriately joined with her/his God-fearing
“community” (‫)ע ָדה‬
ֵ of faith.

The psalm concludes with a short summary strophe (C, v. 6) that only now introduces the
superintending divine agent (‫)י֭הוָ ה‬,
ְ whose guiding “Torah” principles govern everything in life
for all people—one way, or the other! “God—the ‘proper subject’ of all theology—finally is
named as an actor” (deClaissé et al. 2014:63). The verse proceeds climactically to distinguish
Yahweh’s attitude and actions with regard to the wicked and the righteous—a thematic antithesis
that is highlighted by the chiastic word order and syntax of this final verse:

A [positive]: transitive verb + subject (YHWH) – B: “way of the righteous” (object) //

B’ [negative]: “way of the wicked” (subject) – A’: intransitive verb.1180

1179
This proposal may be compared with that of Declaissé et al (2014:58), which observes a chiastic
structure in Psalm One: A—the way of the wicked (v. 1); B—the Torah of the Lord (2); B’—the prosperity found in
the Torah (3); A’—the judgment of the wicked (4-6). There are several problems with the preceding proposal. For
one, it is unbalanced, with three verses, half the psalm, placed into one structural panel. Second, the designated title
of panel B’ does not fit the content, for “the righteous” (also a key theme in the psalm) are clearly referred to by way
of contrast in vv. 5b and 6a. Thirdly, the title of panel A’ is incomplete since the focus is not only on the Torah per
se, but also on the “blessed person” (v. 1) who observes it.
1180
Through this subtle shift in syntax, the psalm suggests that “being the author of one’s own fate is to
march down the path of self-destruction. The wicked are their own lords… The way of the righteous, by theological
520
Many other phonological linkages involving similar sounds and repeated lexical items traverse
the psalm, thus knitting the text audibly into a harmonious lyric, pervasively didactic whole.1181

and grammatical contrast, is the object of God’s care. The righteous are [now in judgment] distinguished not by any
action of their own, but by an action of the Lord’s: God watches over them” (deClaissé et al. 2014:63).
1181 The following illustration was accessed on May 8, 2017 at: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-1-
3_Inspirational_Image/
521
23.3 Examples of a poetic translation—A pair of Bantu versions

23.3.1 Psalm 1 in Chitonga

The following Chitonga poetic piece was composed in the chiyabilo poetic style by Mr. Salimo
Hachibamba, a former Bible translator, who also supplied some personal insights regarding its
artistic style and structure (Chitonga is a SE Bantu language spoken by some three million people
in Zambia and Zimbabwe):

v. 1 Ooyo uukaka kulaya kwababi, m’muntu uulilelekedwe.

‘The one who rejects the advice of the wicked, he’s a blessed person’
Ngoyooyo nzila zyabasizinyonyoono uutazitobeli naaceya.
It is that one the way of sinners he does not follow even a little.
Aabo basikusampaula Leza, takkali aabo—pe, pe, pe.
‘Those who despise God, he does not sit with—no, no, no.’

v. 2 Uliboobo ulakondwa mumilawo ya Mwami Leza.

‘One like that rejoices in laws of the Lord God.’
Lyoonse buyo, kusiye buce, nkuyeeya majwi aakwe.
‘All the time, [whether] it’s dark [or] it’s light, [he] is thinking of his words.’

v. 3 Anga ndisamu likomenena munkomwe yamulonga,

‘Like a healthy tree growing on the banks of a river,’
muciindi ceelede lisakata micelo, bana balyo.
‘in the right time it is loaded with fruits, its children.’
Kuyuma matu aalyo? Peepe, taasoli naaceya.
‘To dry its leaves? No, not even a little.’
Ooyo uuli boobo, zyoonse nzyacita zilazwidilila.
‘The one like that, everything he does succeeds.’

v. 4 Atubone basizibi, taawu, tabali boobo pe.

‘Let us see the wicked, no indeed, they are not like that at all.’
Baide kupepaulwa amuuwo, mbuungu.
‘They are blown about with the wind, [like] chaff.’

v. 5 Mulandu muciindi calubeta? Leza uyoopa basizibi.

‘[As to their] case in the time of judgment? God will give [punishment] to the wicked.’
Kujanika mumbungano yabaluleme? Pee!
‘[Could they ever] be found in the congregation of the righteous? No-o!’

522
 Bayoozandulwa, basizinyonyoono, mbobabelele.
‘They will be separated, the sinners, all of them.’

v. 6 Bubambwa baluleme! Nkaambo Leza ulikuzi.

‘How the righteous are kept [safe]! Because God he knows how[to do it].’
Pele uyoobalobya basizinyonyoono, dooo!
‘But he will cause [all] sinners to perish, completely gone!’

The ciyabilo is a genre of Tonga lyric poetry that is highly expressive and personal. Traditionally,
it was chanted or sung, often to the beat of a drum, on many different sociocultural occasions,
usually by a popularly recognized artiste in the community. The typical ciyabilo poem features
idiomatic, aphoristic (frequently cryptic), and at times abusively critical language. All such
derogatory elements must of course be carefully avoided in the more restrained adaptation of
this genre to Bible translation, to Psalm 1 in particular. Since the ciyabilo is a type of vernacular
wisdom literature (or orature), its application in the Psalter would not sound out of place,
especially in an audio production. However, some preliminary oral explanation might be needed
to clarify for the audience the purpose of this novel translation and why it is appropriate for the
Scriptures. People who are familiar only with the old, literal, missionary-phrased Chitonga
version will especially need such an explanation.The following are the forms and associated
functions of the most distinctive features in this lyric rendition of Psalm 1 (a complete description
of all its stylistic and structural devices would take us well beyond the scope of this section):

 Repetition—Additional text material of a recursive nature is needed for rhythmic

purposes. It hopefully does not increase the total semantic inventory of the text. It serves
to highlight certain elements within the psalm, perhaps more than they would be
foregrounded in the original, for example, ‘All the time, [whether] it’s dark [or] it’s light’
(v. 2). Some of the following features also exemplify different aspects of the recursive
style that contributes to the overall redundancy in the Tonga translation.

 Figures and idioms—Localisms enable the key concepts of the psalm to reside
comfortably in the Tonga language. They contextualize the text verbally and in terms of
familiar imagery. An example is ‘it [a tree] is loaded [i.e., its branches bowed down] with
fruits, its children’ (3). This divinely favored tree is viewed as being blessed like a married
couple—that is, with many children.

 Negative emphasis—The independent negative particle in Chitonga, which is usually

some form of the particle pe, is frequently employed at line endings (less often at
beginnings in its longer form, Peepe, v. 3b) for the purposes of poetic ballast and/or to
stress the preceding predication. An example is ‘he does not sit with—no, no, no’ in v. 1.

 Syntactic movement—Selected grammatical units may be shifted in front of (sometimes

after) their usual position in the clause. This device is useful for rhythmic purposes or

523
 euphony as well as a means of focusing the listener’s attention on the concepts so
displaced. An example is ‘It is that one the way of sinners he does not follow * even a little’
(* marks the spot where the front-shifted [italicized] phrase belongs in ordinary Chitonga
syntax). This example also illustrates the use of the emphatic demonstrative ngoyooyo (its
gloss is underlined), which is common in Bantu poetry.

 Rhetorical questions—A rhetorical question functions as an attitudinal or emotive

qualifier of a given utterance and may also be used as an opening structural marker
(sometimes contrastive). An example is ‘[What about their] case in the time of judgment?’
in v. 5. This question initiates v. 5 and conveys negative overtones concerning the wicked,
who are the ones implicitly being referred to.

 Condensation—While redundancy is the norm in this genre of Chitonga lyric verse,

various kinds of shortening, such as ellipsis, may appear in order to stress a certain idea
or simply for the sake of the rhythmic flow of the text as it is being chanted or sung aloud.
An example is ‘God will give [punishment] to the wicked’ (v. 5). The notion of
punishment is clearly implied also in the verb -pa ‘give’ that is used here.

 Ideophones—These distinctive Bantu dramatic predicators create a visual or some other

sensory image to generate impact and appeal within any oral text. An example is ‘sinners
to perish, completely gone!’ (dooo, v. 6). Ideophones are frequently coupled with other
types of exclamatory utterance in the discourse, as in v. 6, ‘How the righteous are kept
[safe]!’—which is also an example of a condensed (verbless) utterance.

 Audience engagement—Many of the previously mentioned stylistic features, coupled with

direct speech, operate to overtly or covertly capture the interest and attention of a
listening audience. There are some other devices, however, that carry out this function
even more obviously. An example is ‘Let us see the wicked, no indeed …’ (v. 3).
Sometimes atubone ‘let us see’, an initial signal of attention, is used to demarcate the onset
of a new textual unit, as in the second half of Psalm 1 (v. 4). It sounds as though the poet
is actually addressing his hearers.

In this Chitonga rendition of Psalm 1, we have a text that has been completely poeticized
according to vernacular literary conventions, yet without losing very many of the primary
stylistic features of the original. Granted, the discourse has been augmented in form as a result
of all the lexical bits and pieces that were added to create the necessary colloquial style, rhythm,
and line length, but arguably not supplemented with respect to its essential content. As for any
critical variation in the intended communicative function(s) or the general emotive tone, I must
leave it to mother-tongue listeners to judge.

524
23.3.2 Psalm 1 in Chichewa

Psalm 1 in the Chichewa lyric style has many features in common with the preceding Chitonga
rendition—for example, lexical redundancy, idiomatic diction, a rhetorical question, syntactic
movements forward and backward, demonstrative highlighting, and frequent exclamatory
utterances. Several of these features appear to be accentuated in the Chichewa rendering of Psalm
1. Many more ideophones and exclamatives are dotted throughout the text, as is typical of the
ndakatulo genre of lyric poetry (see Wendland 1993, chap. 3). An example is angoti mwaa! basi,
watha mwai! ‘they go up MWAA! and away—that’s it, their fortune finished!’. At times the
ideophones occur in related pairs (e.g., ‘those who do good are THI! clasped in the hands of
Yahweh, but those who do evil He will cast them TAYU! completely away’). The rhythmic
dimension of the Chichewa text is also more pronounced; thus the poetic lines, many of which
are paired, manifest a more balanced length (the English back-translation is fairly literal).

Kudalatu munthu woongoka How very blessed is the straight person—

nzeru za oipa samverako,
m'njira ya ochimwa sayendamo,
onyoza Chauta sakhala nawo.
Koma kukhosi mbee! akamva mau,
ee, malamulo a Mulungu apo ndipo, yes, the laws of God, that’s where he’s at,
usana ndi usiku mtima amaikapo,
kusinkhasinkhatu salekezako.
Ameneyu afanafana ndi mtengo—
womera pa mtsinje wosaphwa.
Zipatso zili psa! pokhwima,
onse masamba ali biliwiliwili!
Pakutero ndiko kukhoza iyeyo,
zonse zidzamuyendera bwinodi!
to the wisdom of the wicked he pays no heed,
in the way of sinners he does not walk,
with the despisers of Yahweh he has no part.
But his neck is MBEE!—so clear, as he hears the words,
day and night his heart is placed there,
deep meditation he never abandons.
This sort of person resembles a tree—
one growing beside a drought-proof stream.
Its fruits are PSYA! fully ripe at the right time,
all its leaves are BILIWILIWILI! bright green.
Herein lies the success of that one,
everything will go just great for him!

Nanga oipa nkutero kodi? Now does the same thing happen for the wicked?
Ha! mpang'ono pomwedi! Ha! no, it’s not the least bit similar.
Kunena iwo, angonga gaga— As for them, they are like maize husks—
mungu wouluka ndi mphepo, like a piece of chaff carried off by the wind,
angoti mwaa! basi, watha mwai! they go up MWAA! and away—that’s it, they’re done!
Zimene adzaona nzothetsa nzeru. What they are going to “see” is quite shocking:
Tsikulo Mulungu mlandu adzawazenga, On that day God will surely indict them,
ciweruzo cidzawagwera onse pamo—psiti! judgment will befall them all toge—… PSITI
burned up!
Pampingo wa okhulupirika adzawachotsatu, From the congregation of the righteous
they’ll be expelled,
sadzakhala nawo pamsonkhano waodala. they will have no part in the assembly
of the blessed.
Conco, pali olungama ndi ochimwa: So, there we have the righteous and sinners:
ocita zabwino ali thi! m'manja mwa Chauta, those who do good are THI!
clasped in the hands of Yahweh,

525
 koma ochita zoipa Iye adzawataya tayu! but those who do evil he will cast them TAYU
completely away!
Tere anthu adziwe kuti alipo Mulungutu! Thus, people ought to realize that
there is indeed a God!

A few stylistic devices are quite distinctive in this formal correspondence translation. Most
noticeable perhaps is a restructuring of the entire text so that it is made up of two equal “stanzas”
of fourteen lines each (corresponding to vv. 1–3 and 4–6). The overall discourse organization of
the original is thus made to stand out in a more obvious way. On the microstructure of the
Chichewa version appears another artistic touch that is peculiar to it (and rather difficult to
reproduce in English), namely, the use of emphatic postclitics. For example, the very first and
last words of the opening stanza illustrate two common ones: Kudalatu … bwinodi! ‘How very
blessed … just great!’

Psalm 1 rendered as a ndakatulo lyric poem is as close to a genre-for-genre translation as is

possible in Chichewa. Yet many of those who evaluate this text solely on the basis of the English
back-translation may be inclined to judge it negatively—as pushing the original too far
stylistically in the direction of some alien discourse type or a new rhetorical motivation. The
Chichewa version might also sound as though it has been over-emotivized and is therefore not
quite appropriate as an equivalent for the more restrained Hebrew wisdom piece at the start of
the Psalter.
Another objection might be raised over what appears to be an addition to the Hebrew text,
namely, the last line, “Thus people ought to realize that there is indeed a God!” Where did that
come from? In fact, it stands as a climactic summary of the psalm in general and the final verse
(v. 6) in particular. Such a summary is a common feature of the ndakatulo genre and would not
be deemed out of place in the vernacular; rather, it provides a satisfying close, or “coda,” to the
piece. A final potential criticism could be for the loss of the conciseness of the Hebrew caused by
so much reiteration of form and content. Does this—or all of these issues—constitute an
unwarranted distortion of the biblical text?

Perhaps it does, but on the other hand it is not up to “outsiders” (non-mother-language speakers)
to make the final decision to condemn the Chichewa version on the basis of its stylistic form
alone. The ultimate assessment for or against—and in which respects or why—ought to be
rendered by the “owners” (eni-ake) of the language in keeping with the original Skopos statement
that was drawn up for this text in its envisaged setting of primary use (i.e., for oral performance
before a youthful audience). Furthermore, any evaluation of the relative adequacy (SL focus) and
acceptability (TL focus) of a given translation in terms of its communicative relevance (coupled
with its relative degree of functional equivalence) must be carried out in the light of a comparison
with the entire discourse, not just looking at its individual bits and pieces of structure and style.
Once a thorough program of systematic audience testing has been completed (preceded by some
explanatory instruction in the vernacular), then those features that are determined by the
majority to be inappropriate, misleading, or in error can be eliminated, revised, or corrected as
necessary.

To conclude this first study, readers might comparatively evaluate the Tonga and Chewa poetic
translations of Psalm One with each other and the original Hebrew text:

 What are the main similarities and differences?

 Do you have any improvements to suggest with respect to the translations?
 What type of target audience or setting of use might these “Literary Functional
Equivalence” [LiFE] versions be especially appropriate for?

526
  The poetic version above may be critically compared with the first two verses of Psalm
1 as translated, first in the “standard” Chewa Protestant version, known as the Buku
Lopatulika (‘Set-apart Book’ – published in 1922); and second in the more recent
“common-language” version, the Buku Loyera (‘Holy Book’ – 1998):
Wodala munthuyo wosayenda mu uphungu wa oipa Blessed that person not walking in the
counsel of evil ones,
Kapena wosaimirira m’njira ya ocimwa, Or not standing in a path of sinners,
Kapena wosakhala pansi pa bwalo la onyoza. Or not sitting down in the ground of
despisers.
Komatu m’cilamulo ca Yehova muli cikondwero cace; But now in the big law of ‘Jehova’ is his
delight;
Ndipo m’cilamulo cace amalingalira usana ndi usiku. And in his big law he thinks about day and
night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ngwodala munthu wosatsata uphungu wa anthu oipa, He’s blessed the person not following the
counsel of evil people,
wosatsanzira mayendedwe a anthu ochimwa, not imitating the way of walking of sinful
people,
wosakhala nawo m’gulu la anthu onyoza Mulungu, having no part with the group of people despising God,
koma wokondwerera kumvera malamulo a Chauta, but pleased to obey the laws of Chauta
[Yahweh],
nkumasinkhasinkha za malamulowo usana ndi usiku. and meditating on those laws day and night.

 Now try your hand at a poetic rendering of Psalm 1 in your “mother language”.

23.4 Applying Anthony Pym’s “Typology of Translation Solution Types”

In a recent report of several practical workshops for masters-level university translators, well-
known theorist and practitioner Anthony Pym describes a pedagogically-oriented typology of
translation solutions that, among other aims, provides “a list of ways to address problems that
cannot be solved using the norms of standard languages or ‘cruise’ mode translation
procedures.”1182 This typology is comprised of eight principal “solution types…that can be used
for conscious problem-solving…going from simple to complex, from low-effort to high-effort,
from close-to-the-text to greater translatorial intervention” (p. 3). I have listed and summarized
these admittedly overlapping types below (from Pym pp. 3-4), giving examples from the two
Chewa published versions illustrated above, plus the prior more dynamic, ndakatulo lyric

1182 Anthony Pym, “A Typology of Translation Solutions” (p. 1 of a paper submitted for
publication, 22 pages; a revision of the online study posted at:
https://www.academia.edu/7867875/The_pedagogical_value_of_translation_solution_types). See also ch.
12 in Translation Solutions for Many Languages (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016).
527
translation (poetic rendition [PR]; “formal correspondence” translation [FC]; “common
language” version [CL]):

1. Copying Words: This solution refers to the simple transliteration, or transcription, of ST

terms in the TL, whether phonologically, as in Yehova (FC, v. 1) for the English “Jehovah”
and Davide for “David” (FC, Ps. 3:1), or morphologically, e.g., “Melchizezek” [Hebrew: ‘king-
of-righteousness’] Mfumuwachilungamo “King-of-righteousness” [PR, Ps. 110:4]; “Sabbath”
[Hebrew: ‘rest’/‘seventh’] Tsikulopulumirapo “Day-resting-on” [PR, Ps. 92:1].

2. Copying Structure: In this case, syntactic contructions are copied from the ST in the TL
(termed a “calque”), which is typical generally of a more literal type of translation, e.g.,
wosaimirira m’njira ya ocimwa (FC, Ps. 1:1b) “one-not-standing in-the-way of sinners”
[Hebrew: ‘and-in-way-of sinners not he-stands’]; m’cilamulo ca Yehova muli cikondwerero cace
(FC, Ps. 1:2a) “in-big-law of Jehovah it-is his delight” [Hebrew: ‘in-law/instruction-of
YHWH/‫הוה‬ ָ֗ ְ‫( י‬is) his delight’].1183

3. Perspective Change: This category includes shifts such as point of view, verbal “voice”
(active <> passive constructions), word-order (perhaps altering pragmatic elements of
topic—focus), nominal versus pronominal reference, and positive—negative assertions.
Modifications in perspective can include the relative strength of reference, for example,
using an explicit rather than an implicit pronoun: Ameneyo afanafana “That-very-one he-is-
likened-to” (PR, Ps. 1:3a; Hebrew: ‘and-he-is-like’). This would also be an instance of
reinforced topic focus. The sudden perspectival shift back to “the wicked” in v. 4 (from their
initial mention in v. 1) is marked more graphically in the PR (than the FC) by means of a
rhetorical question: “Now does the same thing happen for the wicked, do you think?” to
match, with a certain degree of intensification, the emphatic negative construction in the
Hebrew: “Not so…!” (‫א־כן‬ ֥ ֵ ֹ ‫)ל‬. Another significant alteration of perspective is PR’s rendering
“laws” (malamulo, Ps. 1:2) in place of the singular “law” (Torah – ‫)תּוֹרה‬ ָ of the Hebrew, which
is mimicked in the FC version. Since the Hebrew term is of much broader reference than the
corresponding English collective noun “law” (and even the Chewa plural malamulo)—i.e.,
including teachings and instructions as well as specific “laws”—the PR first renders it by
“words” (mau – cf. the common expression “word[s] of God” – mau a Mulungu with reference
to the Bible in its entirety).

4. Density Change: This refers to a common technique whereby the translated text is rendered
either more explicitly—or less explicitly—in terms of surface content than the source text.
Comparatively speaking, there is a noticeable change in the amount of semantic information
available within a given textual space. Thus, translators can reduce textual density by using
solutions such as explicitation, generalization, or reiteration to spread ST content over a
greater textual space. Using devices for contraction, such as event nouns (e.g., judgement),
passive constructions, or pronominal reference (instead of nominal referents), will serve to
increase the semantic, hence also conceptual, density. The spatial semantic density is

1183 Much more difficult—and controversial—are translatorial efforts to reproduce ST phonological poetic
features in the TL, as for example, in the Schocken Bible by Everett Fox: “The [English] translation therefore tries to
mimic the particular rhetoric of the Hebrew whenever possible, preserving such devices as repetition, allusion,
alliteration, and wordplay. It is intended to echo the Hebrew, and to lead the reader back to the sound structure and
form of the original” (from the “Translator’s Preface,” The Five Books of Moses [New York: Schocken Books, 1995]), ix-
x). The book of Psalms has not yet been published, but a brief example of this technique is illustrated in Israel’s poem
of Genesis 49:8 (Fox’s transcription of the Hebrew text is given in brackets; ibid.:231; cf. also at Exodus 20:9, ibid.:337):
Yehuda, [yehuda]
you—your brothers will praise you, [atta yodukha ahikha]
your hand on the neck of your enemies! [yadekha al oref oyevekha]
528
 noticeably reduced in the PR version due to the greater amount of iterative poetic
embellishment that the text incorporates, for example in Ps. 1:5b a single Hebrew poetic
line is expanded into two in PR to convey the implication of the original more explicitly:
“From the congregation of the righteous they will be expelled; they will have no part in the
assembly of the blessed.” A different type of example is seen in Ps. 1:4c-d: “Its fruits are
PSYA! Fully ripe at the right time – all its leaves are BILIWILIWILI! bright green” (eight
words in Chewa as compared with the Hebrew original of seven words). On the other hand,
in the latter example the conceptual density of the Chewa version is considerably greater due
to the evocative pair of ideophones used: psya and biliwiliwili.

5. Resegmentation: In this solution, sentences or paragraphs are either divided or joined

together—or other, high-level portions of the ST are reorganized. This category thus overlaps
with that of “density change” above (4). An obvious example of this is seen in Ps. 1:2 of PR
where the initial single Hebrew poetic line (colon) is re-expressed as two lines in Chewa so
as to fill out the rhythm of the text: “But his neck is MBEE! – so clear [idiom + ideophone,
i.e., he is delighted], as he hears the words; yes, the laws of God, that’s where he’s at [idiom,
i.e., what is most important].” A clear case of resegmentation is also apparent on the
discourse level of Psalm 1 of the PR version, where the text is formatted as two distinct
stanzas (without verse numbers), rather than as six individual verses as in the Hebrew ST
and English translations. The second stanza (poetic paragraph) begins in the middle of the
psalm, where the focus shifts back to “the wicked”, as noted above. This type of formatting
is more in keeping with the ndakatulo style of Chewa lyric poetry that the poetic version
seeks to imitate.

6. Compensation: In this technique, some significant aspect of the ST is rendered at a different

linguistic level or in a different textual position in the translation. The ideophone in a Bantu
language is a compensatory device par excellence, for it can express a complete predication
with heightened visual and emotive evocation in a single word. This poetic-rhetorical
resource is available for semantic-pragmatic “compensation” at any point in the discourse,
e.g., the ideophone psa! conveys the implied notion of being “fully ripe” in Ps. 1:3b of PR
(Hebrew: ‘which its-fruit it-gives in-its-time’). Explanatory or descriptive notes, section
headings, prefaces, glossary entries, and cross-references (for Scripture) are para-textual
types of compensation for they provide background information and/or a cognitive frame-
of-reference that facilitates the interpretation of the TT, e.g., the heading “Two Ways” for
Psalm 1, or a footnote pointing out that Psalms 1-2 have traditionally been interpreted
together as a theological introduction to the Hebrew Psalter as a whole.

7. Cultural Correspondence: The application of this translational solution is naturally more

common in a “dynamic equivalence” version, especially one that aims for correspondence
of impact and appeal on an artistic and aesthetic level. We thus generate relative functional
partity, but there is a situational and conceptual shift in terms of figurative language,
idiomatic speech, or culture-specific items (such as, currency units, measures, temporal and
spatial specifics, and sometimes even proper nouns or personal names). The greatest instance
of such domestication in Psalm 1 (and the DE version as a whole) is the use of the local
traditional Chewa name for the “high [Creator] God”—Chauta—instead of the so-called
Tetragrammaton YHWH—“Yahweh” (‫—)יהוה‬found in Hebrew (Ps. 1:2a,6a; cf. the FC’s
transcription “Yehova”). Another instance of cultural adaptation is evident in the use of the
ideophone biliwiliwili “lush [plant] green color” to designate the Hebrew “and-his-leaf not-
it-withers” in Ps. 1:3c. This rendering would also exemplify a “perspective change” (cf. #3).

8. Text Tailoring: Finally, we push the boundary of “translation” to its limits with this
procedure, which involves the addition, deletion, or modification of the ST’s semantic form
and/or content in order to make the translation easier to understand, interpret, and
529
 appreciate (e.g., for its literary-artistic value). When Bible translating, such adaptation
would be commonly illustrated by the inclusion of important “implied” content within the
TT itself, rather than located in a footnote or glossary entry. A minor instance of this (also
overlapping with “density change”, #4) is the inclusion of Mulungu “God [generic]” in verse
1:5a of the PR to clarify whose “judgment” will be carried out against “the wicked”, i.e.,
divine, not human. However, we have a clearer example of “text tailoring” at the beginning
and ending of the Chewa poetic version: “How very blessed in the straight [i.e., ‘righteous’]
person” (v. 1a, to elucidate the theme of the psalm—what type of “person” it is about), and
finally: “Thus, people ought to realize that there is indeed a God!” (v. 6c, where the whole
line is an addition intended to underscore the underlying didactic theme of Psalm 1, namely,
the sovereign justice of God with regard to “the righteous” as well as “the wicked” of this
world!). Such a concluding thematic observation would sound quite natural in the ndakatulo
genre of Chewa oral and written poetry.

With regard to the purpose of his typology, Pym comments regarding “a serious
misunderstanding: some students saw the typology as purporting to describe everything in a
translation, or everything that translators do, rather than just a set of ways to solve problems
that occur in ‘bump’ mode, when the normal flow of translation activity does not provide a
solution” (p. 12); and “Something has to go bump before a solution type is called for.” (p. 16). I
would agree that not every potential challenging issue needs to be discussed. However, I would
simply change the focus here a little—from “bumps”, or problems, to points the special interest
or import—namely, to all “significant shifts” of form-content-function within the text as it moves
from SL to TL. In other words, one would not attempt to deal with all of the modifications carried
out when translating, but only those requiring a demonstrable degree of creativity and problem-
solving ability in view of the translation’s specified Skopos. During my application of this
“solution-type” method then, I first tried to find an example in the PR Chewa version for each of
the eight categories posited. I then went through the Chewa text again to see whether I had
examined and categorized what I considered to be all of its substantial “translational shifts.”
Thus, the actual translation process itself involved a back-and-forth rendering and revision aimed
at poetically expressing the Hebrew ST in an idiomatic vernacular style. We are probably talking
about the same thing, but I do wonder if to what extent one can identify a specific “cruise control”
mode or operation when one is seeking to meaningfully render a literary (artistic-rhetorical) text,
whether oral or written.1184

I found Anthony Pym’s “Typology of Translation Solution Types” to be a very helpful method for
carrying out a comparative analysis of three translations of Psalm 1 in Chichewa, based on the
original Hebrew source text. Thus, I have not yet employed this procedure as a pedagogical tool
for teaching advanced translators, which Pym describes in his papers.1185 However, I do feel that
it could be effectively used for this purpose, at a more basic level in conjunction with my own

1184 Pym comments with reference to this issue: “More generally, doubts about the cruise concept ensued
from an apparent desire to have categories that always preserve the same borders for all users. In the world of
translation, that is rarely going to happen. This is due not just to the complexities of translation as a speech event but
more profoundly to the way in which translation itself performs it borders. Just as the boundaries of cruise mode are
wherever cognitive processes go bump, so the borders between languages and between cultures are where translators
intervene to mark the two sides of their event” (p. 17).
1185 In his conclusion, Pym states: “It should be obvious that this typology should not be considered in any
way definitive. It is no more than a suggested teaching aid, open to adaptation to the students’ level, languages, and
the focus of each particular lesson. … The important point, in the classroom, is not that we discover the true categories
of the translating mind, or that we all submit to a fixed set of terms, but that we continue a dynamic discussion about
the types and modalities of what translators can actually do” (p. 18).
530
approach for training Bible translators.1186 I also heartily concur with Pym’s concluding words
with regard to what is perceived to be “new and exciting” developments of contemporary
Translation Studies. In my opinion,1187 this advice is also important for all those engaged in the
theory and practice of “Scripture translation studies”—harking “back to boring old linguistics”
indeed! (p. 19):

Contemporary translation theory has very little time for complex typologies of
what translators do. … That is, our students are learning about translation, or
about thought on translation, but not in a way that is in close contact with actual
translation practice. From that perspective, my concern with translation solutions
is definitely regressive: I am going back to boring old linguistics; I am returning
to a question on which virtually no empirical advances have been made; I remain
suspicious of over-theorization; I am turning my back on much that others now
see as new and exciting in Translation Studies. In sum, I feel decidedly retro when
writing about translation scholars from a by-gone age, pointing to a century or so
of tradition to build on. Sooner or later, though, someone will want to learn how
to translate. And a widened repertoire of translation solutions, with more than
just two major terms, is one of the most valuable aids we can offer them.

1186 I briefly describe the method that I used some years ago with Bible translators in the paper available
at the following website: https://www.academia.edu/3159458/_A_Form-Functional_Text-
Comparative_Method_of_Translation_Teaching_and_Checking_ .
1187 Cf. my forthcoming “Translating ‘Translation’: What/How Do Translators ‘Translate’?” (under review).
531
24. Review of a “New Old” translation of Genesis 1—11

Samuel L. Bray and John F. Hobbins, Genesis 1-11: A New Old Translation for Readers, Scholars,
and Translators (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2017); ISBN-13: 978-1-942697-37-4, x + 316 pages.

24.1 “To the reader”

The first important thing to note about this book is that it is much more than a “translation,” as
will be pointed out below. Second, the rather strange description “New Old Translation” is in
fact very appropriate, for this translation is obviously “new” since it has been just recently
produced; however, it is at the same time “old” in the sense that it seeks to preserve traditional
wordings (i.e., along the lexical lineage of the KJV) to the degree possible in English while
retaining adequate contemporary comprehension. “The Translation” itself, covering just twenty
pages, is preceded by a section “Before The Translation,” and it is followed by the largest portion
of the book, “After The Translation.” The former leads off with an introduction, “To the Reader,”
which requires a closer look.

Scholar-translators Bray and Hobbins1188 begin by asserting that “the Tyndale Bible and the King
James Version,” along with “other early modern Bibles,” such as the Revised Version (4), were
ideal in that they “held together three virtues that have since been pulled apart” in/by
contemporary English translations (3; all page references are to the book under review). In the
first place, these older versions “tried to reproduce not only the conceptual content of the
original, but also its form and content” (3). “Second, they had a strong preference for traditional
[lexical] renderings,” namely, those “of the existing English translations and of the Vulgate” (3).
And finally, “their translations were meant not only to be read, but also to be heard”; that was
because in those days, “the one universal experience of the Bible was an aural one” (3).

The authors admit that these three “virtues of close translation, traditional renderings, and aural
quality…are ambiguous” in that they result in renditions which manifest “losses” in terms of
fluency, freshness, and naturalness (4). They argue, however, that their chosen formal
correspondence method produces a more “unified” biblical text tradition that is better suited “for
reading in public or private worship” (5). Thus, careful attention in particular to the diverse
lexical and grammatical repetitions found in the Hebrew text, which “tie together the stories of
Genesis” (7), is what distinguishes this “new old” translation, and the authors proceed to make
a number of significant, some perhaps debatable, claims in favor of such a formally concordant
version.

For example, “[c]onsistent renderings…keep the reader from wondering what a difference
means” (8), and a translation that “sounds like a translation” is “better able to challenge the
reader’s own way of organizing reality” (8). Traditional usages “often lead to better rhythm” (9)
and more faithfully correspond to the “physicality” of the original text (10, 13). By generally
exchanging ease of “comprehension” for substantive “correspondence (12), this translation
distances itself from “English idioms of the moment” and is therefore “better able to hold together
a community of readers over time”—though, admittedly, those readers need to be “diligent and
determined” (13). The readers of the present review might begin to evaluate the validity of these
claims for themselves when sampling a familiar passage from Genesis 1 that is shown below.
Preceding the actual translation then is a brief explanatory section “On the Presentation,” which

1188
Samuel L. Bray is a professor of law at the University of California—Los Angeles (UCLA), and John
F. Hobbins is a parish pastor and biblical Hebrew scholar who has taught at the Waldensian Theological
Seminary in Rome and the University of Wisconsin—Madison. Both men are widely published academic
authors.
532
lists its principal typographical distinctions, such as the use of italics, chapter and paragraph
breaks, and the use of sectional titles (14-15).

24.2 “To the persistent reader”

The first section “After the Translation” is addressed “To the Persistent Reader” (41ff.),
apparently someone who has managed to read through the entire text of the translation—
although I suspect that this important explicatory discussion would be more effectively
positioned beforehand, that is, combined along with the initial material found in “To the Reader.”
The “persistent reader” section considers a number of critical topics that pertain to the distinctive
character of this “new old” translation. These headings are merely listed below along with a brief
quote or comment:

 “The Text” indicates that “the [consistent] basis for this translation is the Masoretic Text
(MT)” since “[t]he coherence of a textual tradition can be marred when emended with
readings from another textual tradition” (41-42).

 “Conjectural Emendations” are not allowed, and “where MT is obscure to the point of
unintelligibility,” the obscurity is carried over in translation along with a textual note
(42).

 The translation is intended to evoke a “Classical Feel” (better, “Sound”?) that corresponds
to the “prose and poetic styles contained in Genesis 1-11” (43). Thus, “just as the biblical
text stands distant in terms of its language and culture, so within this translation an
impression of distance is achieved using resources of English,” namely, its “diction and
syntax, even spelling (e.g. AEthiopia)” (44).

 As claimed to be the case in the KJV and related versions, this translation aims for
“Terrible Simplicity” in respect of “diction and syntax, thereby “following its original”
(44).

 It is also described as being “earthy,” thus exhibiting “Physicality,” for example, “‘green
shoots’ instead of ‘vegetation’ (1:11), ‘cleaves to’ instead of ‘is united to’ (2:24)” (45).

 It replicates “Fronting,” where “a subject or object is placed in an unusually early position

in a clause,” which “can be a way of introducing a new topic, selecting from existing
topics the one being carried forward, directing the reader’s attention, or indicating a
relationship” (46), e.g., “And flying things—let them fly” (1:20, original italics). Such
formal correspondence “slows the pace of a translation,” and “[s]ometimes it improves
the rhythm and makes a translation memorable” (47).

 A duplicating effort in the cause of equivalence is also applied to “Syntactic Operators,”

such as the feature where “clause after clause begins with a certain conjunction… ‘and’”
(incorrectly referred to as “the waw consecutive” construction) (47). Included here are
the pragmatic markers “‘lo’ (hen) and ‘behold’ (hinneh)” (48; e.g., “See, the man has
become like one of us…” in 3:22), as well as the conjunction ki, which is rendered
“according to context” but “concordantly where its repetition seems to have significance,”
e.g., “Because you…” in 3:14 and 3:17 (49).

 As far as “Gender” is concerned, “An honest translation should leave gender-specificity

where it is, e.g., “‘man’ in the sense of humanity” (49), including certain “gendered
pronouns” with reference to personifications, e.g., the “ground” (F) or “Sin” (M) (50).

533
 In the case of “Grammatical Subjects,” “this translation avoids” making “what is implicit
in the Hebrew text more explicit, such as the decision to specify which character is
speaking when the Hebrew does not” (50).

 The practice of “Double Translation” applies to instances where it is deemed necessary

“to translate a single term that has strong denotative and connotative functions with a
pair of terms,” like “smooth and shrewd” with reference to the “serpent” in Gen. 3:1 (51).

 Considerable attention is given to the description of “Sections” in the manuscript that

forms the basis for this translation, “Codex L,” which includes long and short blanks in
the text to mark divisions (52). Respectively then, “[o]pen sections are generally thought
to mark larger breaks, and closed sections, smaller breaks” (52). The authors cite evidence
from the Qumran manuscripts to support their procedure (53) and the general principle
that “a new section may begin with the onset of divine speech” (54).

 The preceding discussion is continued in the “Significance of Sections,” since “[a]s

recognized since antiquity, where the breaks fall in a text will shape the experience of the
reader” (55). For example, “[i]n Codex L,” the fact that “there is no break after Genesis
2” encourages readers to proceed with the narrative “that continues on to the man and
woman’s disobedience” (55).

 With regard to “Pericopes & Verses” (sedarim and pesuqim), the former are “not
reproduced in the layout of the translation” because there is “almost complete overlap
with the more ancient division into sections” (56). On the other hand, “[t]he verse
division of the Hebrew text is indicated in the margin” (57).

 Concerning the “Presentation as Verse,” the reader is somewhat surprised to learn that
“[o]nly one passage is formatted as poetry in this translation, Genesis 4:23-24” (57). On
the contrary, 1:27, for example (cf. also 3:15), would arguably seem to be another likely
candidate—that is, according to the “hallmarks of ancient Hebrew verse” summarized on
page 57, including (not mentioned) the absence of an initial waw in the 2nd and 3rd lines:
‫ת־ה ָא ָד ֙ם ְבּ ַצ ְל ֔מוֹ‬
ֽ ָ ‫ֹלהים׀ ֶא‬
֤ ִ ‫וַ יִּ ְב ָ ֨רא ֱא‬
and-he-created God the-man in-his-image
‫ֹלהים ָבּ ָ ֣רא א ֹ֑תוֹ‬
֖ ִ ‫ְבּ ֶ ֥צ ֶלם ֱא‬
in-[the]-image-of God he-created him
‫זָ ָ ֥כר וּנְ ֵק ָ ֖בה ָבּ ָ ֥רא א ָ ֹֽתם׃‬
male and-female he-created them

 “English Accents”: “In order to aid public reading, a few words are given accents to show
the stressed syllable” (57), for example, “Ráamah.

 “The Toledot Formula,” “These are the generations of x,” serves importantly to give “the
book a ‘reproductive’ framework” (57), and furthermore, “it connects Genesis to the rest
of the Pentateuch” (58).

 “The First Book of Moses,” a traditional title attribution for Genesis, is rejected on the
grounds that “Genesis was not in antiquity called one of the books of Moses, but rather
was considered to be part of ‘the book of Moses’” (58). Thus, “what the premodern readers
demonstrably did was to proceed to interpret the Pentateuch as a single coherent whole”
(59).

534
  The “Inclusion of Genesis 12:1-9” in a translation of Genesis 1-11 is justified as follows:
“In the manuscript [that] this translation follows (Codex L), Genesis 11:32 is not
separated from chapter 12 by the marker of a large textual division, an ‘open section.’
The next open section in Codex L falls after 12:9” (61).

 Regarding the diagnostic terms “‘Traditional’ & ‘Literal,’” the former has reference to “a
rendering characteristic of the Tyndale-KJV tradition,” while Nabokov’s definition for
“literal” is adopted, where the “aim is to render, ‘as closely as the associative and
syntactical capacities of another language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the
original’” (62).1189

 With respect to “Other Translations”: “Because translators work from different premises,
they reach different conclusions. Many of the divergences pointed out in the notes can be
fully explained on these grounds” (62-63).

The preceding explanation “to the persistent reader” is then followed by an extensive section of
“Notes” (135 pages worth), which “are meant to explain and justify choices made by the
translators … for many kinds of readers” in order to offer a scholarly “glimpse behind the
translation” (65). These informative and insightful expositions are clearly keyed to individual
verses or short sections of text and include many references to modern translators and
commentators, as well as to well-known ancient Jewish commentators, such as Rashi.

After the Notes section, the authors introduce us to the “Dramatis Personae” of Genesis, offering
a succinct description of each one—from “God” (201) to “Sarai” (206). This is followed by a
helpful “Glossary” that is subdivided according to the following subjects: “Hebrew Texts” (207),
“Translations” (208), “Interpreters” (215), and “Other Terms,” namely, “Ketiv and Qere” (222).
In a short section “On the Making of Books,” a few recommendations are made concerning what
Bray and Hobbins consider to be exceptional “Introductions & Commentaries” (223), “Readings”
(224), and “Translations” (225). The book’s concluding indices cover various “Abbreviations”
used within the text (226), a rather extensive listing of “Works Cited” (235), a useful categorized
“Index of Subjects” (268), an “Index of Ancient Sources” (287), “Index of Translations” cited
(297), “Index of Authors” (303), and a short, concluding “Index of Stories & Genealogies” (313).

24.3 Sampling the translation

Thus far we have considered what Bray and Hobbins aim to do in their new-old translation and
how they propose doing it; it is time to review an actual sample, though due to the limitations

1189
It is interesting to compare this definition with a version having similar goals, namely, the
“essentially literal” translation of the English Standard Version. “It means that a translation strives to find
the English word or combination of words that most accurately corresponds to the words of the original
text. It does not mean translating the original in a way that makes no sense in English” (58). “An essentially
literal…translation conveys as much as possible of what was said, and how it was said, in as near word-
for-word form as the target language allows, though inevitably with some difference and imperfectly” (82)
(W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter, Translating Truth: The Case for an
Essentially Literal Bible Translation, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005). Similar too is the perspective of
translator Everett Fox in his Schocken Bible: “The purpose of this work is to draw the reader into the world
of the Hebrew Bible through the power of its language. … I have sought here primarily to echo the style
of the original, believing that the Bible is best approached…on its own terms. So I have presented the text
in English dress but with a Hebraic voice” (ix) (The Five Books of Moses, New York: Schocken Books, 1995).
The respective responses of reviewers (on the back covers) are equally enthusiastic: “Reinvigorates some
of the most important verses of Scripture for a new generation of readers” (Bray—Hobbins); “A powerful
new translation that will…reward any reader with new appreciation, insights, and comprehension of the
original” (Fox).
535
of space, this can only be a small portion. However, it is a most memorable one: the first
paragraph of Genesis, vv. 1-5, is reproduced below as nearly as possible to how it appears in the
translated text (p. 19; the proportional spacing between words could not be duplicated):

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1

Now the earth was void and desolate, and darkness was 2
over the face of the Deep, and the spirit of God hovered
over the face of the waters, and God said, “Let there be 3
light.” And there was light. And God saw the light, that 4
it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And 5
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
there was evening and there was morning, a first day

The first thing that meets the discerning eye is the format of this text:1190 The solid block
paragraph with justified lines resembles that which is found in other translations. In its favor are
these features—a single column of print (instead of the usual two) without any disruptive line-
end hyphenation. On the other hand, much more could be done to format this text in a manner
that would accomplish its major objective of paying “close attention to how it fares when read
aloud” such that it fully realizes its “pervasive concern for rhythm, order, and pacing” (11-12).
Justified lines do not contribute towards such a goal, nor does the lack of consideration given to
normal utterance units, where each line (ideally) ends at a natural “pause point,” whether long
or short.

Another problem that relates to a natural reading of this text (resulting in a more ready hearing
of it) is the multiplication of “ands” (12 of them in 8 lines). The authors, as already noted, feel
that “in Hebrew narrative prose, the repeated conjunction appears to be a literary usage” (48),
but that position is questionable and depends on what one means by “literary.” In any case, the
repetition does not generate a functional equivalent in English; rather, it produces a somewhat
awkward, sometimes confusing style—as when “and/waw”-s that appear at a lower (e.g., phrasal)
as distinct from a major (e.g., verse-initial) syntactic level are not distinguished, for example in
v. 3: “…and [> And] God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And [>, and] there was light. …” (cf. v. 4:
“…and [>And] God saw the light…”).

While the authors pay close attention to word order and parallelism within the verse (e.g.,
“fronting,” 46-47) as well as Codex L-determined “open” and “closed” sections (52), the larger
arrangements of literary parallelism (or chiasmus) are not distinguished, for example, the seven-
fold pattern of slightly variable utterance sequence that runs throughout Genesis one:1191 (a) “And
God said…” – (b) “Let there be…” – (c) “And it was so.” – (d) Action Report [fulfillment of b] –
(e) “God saw…good” – (f) “And God called/ blessed…” – (g) “And there was evening/
morning…”

The preceding evaluation would lead to a structural and minor translational revision of the text
of Genesis 1:1-5 that may be displayed as follows:

1190
See E.R. Wendland and J.P. Louw, Graphic Design and Bible Reading, Cape Town: Bible Society of
South Africa, 1993.
1191
See a documentation of these patterns in the paper posted at:
https://www.academia.edu/6893871/A_Literary-Structural_Analysis_of_Genesis_1-
3_with_an_application_to_translation.
536
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1
Now the earth was void and desolate, 2
and darkness was over the face of the Deep,
and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
So God said, 3
“Let there be light,”
and there was light.
God saw the light, that it was good, 4
and God divided the light from the darkness.
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. 5
There was evening and there was morning, a first day.

Such a format would of course be more costly in terms of space and expense, but it would seem
to accomplish the translators’ objectives more completely with regard to the oral-aural character
of the English text in relation to the Hebrew original.

In conclusion, while I am unconvinced that this “new-old” translation produced by Bray and
Hobbins is quite meant for all “Readers” (as suggested in the book’s title), certainly not those
who are articulating the text aloud, it is undoubtedly a most valuable resource for “Scholars and
Translators.” The complementary “Notes” offer a precise, learned commentary on the Hebrew
original and its proposed English rendering—a version that readers may not always agree with,
but one by which they will be variously instructed as they follow the accompanying perceptive
argumentation provided by the translators. This version exemplifies one illuminating type of
“direct translation” as defined by van der Merwe: “an attempt to ‘interpretively resemble’ in good
idiomatic [English] all the communicative clues of the source text in the contexts construed for
the source text audience. This foreignising translation tries to let the Bible speak idiomatic
[English] in the time of the Bible.”1192 The degree to which the two translators have succeeded
in their innovative interlingual enterprise may be determined only by a repeated oral
performance of the venerable Genesis passage that they have regenerated in a language that
echoes loudly with a multitude of predecessors.

1192
Van der Merwe Christo H.J., 2016, ‘How ‘direct’ can a direct translation be? Some perspectives
from the realities of a new type of church Bible’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(3), a3233.
http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/hts.v72i3.3233.

537
538
25. Translation: The Basics – A Summary Review from the Perspective of Bible
Translation

This introductory, but extremely thorough and well-written text is included in the ever-
growing Routledge The Basics book series.1193 The author, Dr. Juliane House, is emeritus
professor of Hamburg University and Distinguished University Professor at Hellenic
American University of Athens. A world-recognized figure in the field of translation
studies, Prof. House is the author of many books and articles—most recently,
Translation as Communication across Languages and Cultures (Routledge, 2016). The book
under review consists of 210 pages, including an Introduction, four major topical
sections, a Glossary of key terms, an extensive Reference section, and an Index of
subjects and personages. The following content summary and evaluation will focus on
subjects, methods, and issues of special interest and relevance to the teaching and
practice of Bible translation.

In the Introduction, Prof. House states as her aim the desire to familiarize readers
“with some basic ideas and trends in the field of translation studies” (1). This is
followed by a handy summary of the book’s twelve chapters, each one a paragraph
long, except for the first which is somewhat more extensive. An exemplary feature of
the entire text is the transparent, easy-to-follow manner in which it is organized and
signposted throughout with helpful sectional summaries and in-chapter subheadings.

25.1 Basic Issues in the Field of Translation

Part I of this book consists of four chapters that deal with Basic Issues in the Field of
Translation, with Chapter 1, “What is translation?” efficiently laying the foundation
for what is to come. First and fundamentally, “How can we define translation?” (9, cf.
ch. 3).1194 However, I found the initial definition rather too general: “Translation is a
procedure where an original text, often called ‘the source text’, is replaced by another
text in a different language, often called ‘the target text’” (9, added italics). Thus, it
would be more precise to state that this process of textual “replacement” includes the
necessary qualification or proviso that any target text should bear a significantly
identifiable linguistic relationship with its source. I also found myself disagreeing with
the author’s somewhat negative characterization of translation as a type of “secondary
communication” that “clearly lacks originality” (10). Now in a sense this is certainly
true—that is, generally speaking with respect to overall semantic content. However, in
terms of target language (TL) form (stylistics) and occasionally communicative function
(rhetoric) as well, a translation may, depending on its purpose and desired setting of
use as well as the translator’s abilities, exhibit a great deal of artistic originality, even
in the case of sacred Scripture.1195
Translation, properly understood (as an interlingual, intercultural process) manifests a
vital “double-bind relationship” involving “semantic equivalence” as well as “pragmatic
equivalence” (10). The former, a “backwards orientation,” has reference to “the content
of the original text [that] needs to be kept equivalent in the translated text”; the latter,
on the other hand, is a “forward orientation” that “takes account of the style of the

1193
Juliane House, Translation: The Basics (London & New York: Routledge, 2018; ISBN: 978-1-138-01641-5); a
reasonable $23 on Amazon.
1194
For another attempt at defining this discipline, see Ernst Wendland, “Translating ‘translation’: What do
translators ‘translate’?” in Said Faiq, ed., Discourse in Translation (London: Routledge, forthcoming).
1195
For several elaborations of this theme, see Ernst Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL
International, 2004), 1-28; Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation (Manchester: St Jerome, 2008), 131-172.
539
translated text, its level of formality and the way its different parts hang together” (10).
In short, “the translated text is a [close] rendering of an [carefully] interpreted version
of the original” (10, my additions in brackets), which is a convenient way of putting it.
We note in passing the prominence of the notion of “equivalence” in House’s discussion
of these core concepts of translation; this emphasis continues throughout the book and
is a welcome departure from some recent avant-garde treatments of this subject.1196

House then offers “a brief glance at the history of translation theory and practice,”
which considers “the development of translation practices and theories from a Western
perspective” (10-11). In addition to covering some familiar ground (Cicero, Horace, St
Jerome, Luther, Schleiermacher), she importantly points out that “the same concerns
about ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translation can also be seen in the rich ancient translation
tradition in China and in the Arab world” (14).

Regarding “some recurrent issues: translation as art or science, and product or process”
(15, cf. ch. 7), House makes a rather sharp division between “literary texts,” where “the
linguistic form and the content are seen as a single inseparable unit,” and “‘pragmatic’
or non-literary texts” (15). But many types of modern advertising would appear to
disprove that distinction, especially in short ads displayed via public media such as on
attractive highway billboards or in catchy television commercials. Thus, many popular
adverts capitalize on linguistic-literary form in order to draw the attention of readers
and viewers to the content being simultaneously exhibited. In her presentation of
interlingual communication, House notes the distinction between “[written] translation
and [oral] interpreting” (16), but she views the latter as a topic best treated as a
separate discipline (2).

We move then from a helpful initial survey of “Human and computer-mediated

translation (17, cf. ch. 12) to “translation as a cross-cultural and an intercultural
phenomenon” (20, cf. ch. 4). Indeed, “computerized translation programmes can
relieve human translators of repetitious, boring and time-consuming tasks by giving
them access to large translation corpora and a variety of reference works and
terminological dictionaries” (18), while translation assistants like Google Translate and
the Bing Translator are continually being improved and “assisted by ‘deep learning’
from digital neural networks” (19). However, the human controller and corrector
cannot yet be done away with, especially when attempting to deal effectively with
stylistics and the crucial cultural component, where translators constantly need “to be
aware of differences in conventionalized meanings that derive from their cultural
embeddedness” (21). While it is true that “the idea of ‘difference’ lies at the heart of
translation” (20), the concept of “similarity” with regard to form, content, and function
is equally important, especially in the search for suitable translational equivalents.1197

The chapter concludes with a glance at “the growth of translation practices worldwide”
(21, cf. ch. 10), being stimulated by worldwide “globalization” on the one hand,
coupled with “localization” on the other (22-23).

Chapter 2 considers the diverse dimensions of “Translation competence,” the first

aspect being its “components” (24). Three fundamental skills are needed for competent

1196
See, for example, Anthony Pym’s important survey:
https://www.academia.edu/2024411/Anthony_Pym_EXPLORING_TRANSLATION_THEORIES_A_REVIEW_FROM_THE_
PERSPECTIVE_OF_BIBLE_TRANSLATION .
1197
On this issue, see further discussion at:
https://www.academia.edu/34871506/Whats_the_Difference_Similarity_and_Dissimilarity_from_a_Cross-
Cultural_Perspective_Some_Reflections_on_the_Notion_of_Acceptability_in_Bible_Translation ).
540
translating: “source text processing skills, transfer skills and target-related skills,” with
the “core translation competence” being that of message “transfer,” the medial activity,
or point of conceptual overlap and text-cultural convergence, including “knowledge
and awareness of the equivalence relationships between the two languages” (25).1198 “A
bilingual person is not automatically a competent translator,” since such an interlingual
wordsmith must possess the gift of an active and extensive “‘cognitive interspace’, i.e.,
a constant mental interaction of two linguistic systems” in one’s mind with the ability
to carry out “a constant monitoring of the similarities and differences at all levels of
language” (26).

Furthermore, translation competence is highly “context- and situation-dependent” (26)

since it “needs to be judged with reference to the demands made by the context of the
translation situation” (26), which “covers a multitude of items that can have an
influence on the act of translation and its reception by addressees” (27).1199 The factor
of “knowledge” also enters into the assessment process in relation to both the source
and target settings—technical, practical, socio-cultural, general, and field-specific (27).
House breaks the field of “knowledge” into a number of sub-categories: declarative
(what-is), procedural (how-to), explicit (theoretical and technological), implicit
(experiential), intuitive (Schprachgefühl), and meta-cognitive (the ability to self-monitor
and correct one’s errors) (28-29). The ideal outcome is a multifaceted, “highly
developed strategic competence” based on personal intelligence, learning, and
experience that allows a translator “to make optimal use of a combination of the
different knowledge types in the target text production in a specific translation
situation” (29). The various components of a “dynamic” (textual, communicative, and
functional) competence are currently being experimentally researched by “the PACTE
Group (Process of Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation)” (30),
presumably for inputting into current training programs and vetting systems.1200

In Chapter 3, House is concerned with “Looking at translation from different

perspectives” with regard to theory and practice (31).1201 To begin with, she surveys
some of the main contributions of “linguistics” to the field of translation, mainly in the
latter half of the 20th century: Roman Jacobson and his “intersemiotic” approach within
the “Prague School of Functional Linguistics” (31, 34); the Leipzig school of
“translation science,” which developed the fundamental concept of “equivalence” (32);
the pioneers of “text linguistics” such as de Beaugrande & Dressler and Hatim & Mason
(33); J.C. Catford and the notion of “translation shifts” (35); Nida & Taber’s “influential
early functional-linguistic theory of translation” (35-36). Most of this is familiar
ground, but situating this overview within a larger framework of the development of
translation studies is helpful, as is the concluding summary: “In linguistically oriented
translation approaches, the original text is important in that one needs to analyse it in
detail and systematically link its forms and functions to reveal the original author’s
motivated choices” (36).

1198
Regarding the conceptual mediating activity of “transfer” in the translation process, see E.A. Nida and C.R.
Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1969), 99-119.
1199
Various aspects of these contextual factors are discussed and exemplified in Timothy Wilt and Ernst Wendland,
Scripture Frames & Framing (Stellenbosch: African SUN Media, 2008).
1200
For a perspective on “competency” in relation to Bible translators and translation teams, see Eugene A. Nida,
Toward a Science of Translation (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964), 150-155; Katharine Barnwell, Bible Translation: An
Introductory Course (Dallas: SIL, 1986), 218-223; Wendland, Translating, 371-379.
1201
From the perspective of Bible translating, Wendland, Translating, ch. 2; also Philip A. Noss, ed., A History of Bible
Translation (Rome: Edizioni di Storia et Letteratura and Manchester: St. Jerome, 2007, 2011), ch. 10.
541
The focus of attention then shifts to a concern for the influence on translation practice
by “literary and cultural systems,” as exemplified by approaches such as “Polysystem
Theory” (Even Zohar, 37); “descriptive translation studies” (Gideon Toury, 38); the
“manipulation” of literary translation (Theo Hermans, 39); and the “hermeneutic
school of translation” (George Steiner, 39). We turn next to theorists and practitioners
that emphasize “the socio-cultural context of translation,” that is, to “post-modernist,
post-colonial, post-structuralist, and functionalistic views” (40). The ideas of Venuti, de
Campos (40), Benjamin, Derrida, Foucault, and von Flotow (41) are briefly reviewed,
along with a somewhat longer description of the more important Skopos functionalist
approach, where “function” is defined as “the real-world effect of a text in a certain
context” (42). To conclude this chapter, the view of “translation as an act of re-
contextualization” is considered from several perspectives, namely: Malinowski’s notion
of a text’s enveloping “context of situation” (43); “speech act theory” (43), in my
opinion, another sub-type of functionalism (42); “contrastive discourse analysis,” which
provides translators and translation evaluators with the necessary empirical foundation
for explaining changes in the target text” (44); and early “British Contextualism,”
which developed the familiar situational parameters of field, mode, and tenor (44-45).
Chapter 4 surveys the important role that is played by “Culture and ideology in
translation” (46). Regarding a description, “what is culture?”—two “basic views”
(humanistic, anthropological) and “four analytical levels” (general, national, social,
personal) are distinguished (46-47). House focuses on “the anthropological concept of
culture,” which “refers to the overall way of life of a community or society…a group’s
dominant and learned set of habits,” involving its fundamental “presuppositions,
preferences, and values” (47).1202 More specifically then, in relation to a traditional
approach to “culture and national characters, mentalities, stereotypes” (47), two
dominant aspects of culture are highlighted, with representative examples: “the
cognitive one guiding and monitoring human actions and the social one emphasizing
traditional features shared by members of a society” (48, added italics).

In more recent “post-modern” times and a globalized world, greater attention is being
given to “small cultures, communities of practice, [and] superdiversity” according to
the understanding that “the very idea of ‘culture’ is an unacceptable abstraction” (50).
“Cultures themselves are, on this view, mere ideologies…” and within any group there
exists a multitude of different “mental representations” on several levels of generality:
individual, public, and cultural (50). In any case, whether one happens to agree with
these modern distinctions or not, human language remains the most prominent
exponent of cultural expression, for it is “the prime means of an individual’s acquiring
knowledge of the world, of transmitting mental representations and making them
public and intersubjectively accessible” (51).

Zeroing in then on “the role of ideology in translation,” House points out the “recent
focus on culture as a site of ideological struggle, a view of translators as stimulators of
‘resistance’ of hegemonic influence, and a focus on how ‘meanings’ in texts serve to set
up and maintain relations of power and domination” (52-53).1203 This is a subject of
special interest in so-called “critical discourse analysis” (e.g., Fairclough 1995), where
the practice of translation “is regarded as a process that is inevitably influenced by the

1202
For a corresponding overview from the perspective of Bible translating, see Ernst Wendland, The Cultural Factor
in Bible Translation (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1987), ch. 1; Contextual Frames, chs. 2-3.
1203
“Ideology” is a matter of concern also in modern “Bible translation studies” (a field that is largely ignored in
House’s presentation); see, for example, Wendland, Contextual Frames, 23; Timothy Wilt, ed., Bible Translation:
Frames of Reference (Manchester: St Jerome, 2003), ch. 5; plus many references in Noss, A History of Bible Translation,
as well as several related entries in P. A. Noss, ed., Dictionary of Bible Translation (forthcoming).
542
power differences between [among?] participants” (53). Disparate ideological opinions
may also be abundantly manifested in the “paratextual material that is used to frame
the text, such as prefaces, afterwords and other interpretive ‘aids’” (53).1204 The issue of
ideology also becomes important when initially planning the various aspects involved
in “audience design” and the extent to which a translator (or team) needs to
accommodate, adapt, or annotate a given source text message in keeping with the
needs, expectations, and world-view of the intended target group (54-55).1205 House
observes that “many literary and scientific texts of historical importance may need to
be translated in such a way that their meaning is translated faithfully” (55)1206—a
position that would naturally also apply to a community’s sacred scriptures.

25.2 Some Much-Discussed Concepts in Translation Theory

Part II of Translation—The Basics deals with Some Much-Discussed Concepts in

Translation Theory (57), and the first of these (ch. 5) concerns “The possibilities and
impossibilities of translation,” in other words, “when and why is translation
impossible” (59). In my opinion, this is perhaps the most insightful chapter in the
entire book, for it discusses a subject that is not often treated in such depth and detail,
namely, the practice of translation in relation to the theory of “linguistic relativity”
(LR)—the belief that “language in its lexicon and grammar has an influence on its
speakers’ thinking, their ‘world-view’ and on their behavior” (59). House begins with
“an historical overview” of LR, surveying the ideas of early thinkers such as Wilhelm
von Humboldt, Edward Sapir, and Benjamin Lee Whorf (60-61). Then some more
“recent research on linguistic relativity and its impact on translation” is traced (62). In
an important discussion, House develops a credible argument that, contrary to the
relativist position, “translation is still possible,” for “all languages have the resources to
express any experience or state of affairs in a comparable manner” (63). Though
linguistic relativity certainly influences certain aspects of our thinking and behavior,
including verbal expression, it does not predetermine or overly delimit these human
capabilities. On the contrary, “there is always an escape from the trap of one’s
language – through language itself, through the creativity, dynamism, flexibility, as
well as complexity and basic similarity of individuals and of languages” (65).
In an interesting section on “culture, context and translatability,” the notion of
“linguistic-cultural relativity” is described, which refers to a normal person’s
“knowledge of the application that linguistic units have in particular situational and
socio-cultural contexts which makes translation possible” (65, original italics). Thus,
“even if the cultural distance between languages is great, cultural gaps can always be
bridged via ethnographic knowledge and insights or,1207 stated negatively,
untranslatability only occurs whenever such knowledge, such insights, such reflection
is absent” (66). Translation then involves a “bilingual [add ‘bicultural’?] mode” of
thinking and a process of “re-contextualization,” whereby an understanding (or, the
intended message) of the original text in its sociocultural context is restated in another
(target) language and situational setting. Furthermore, it is only by means of a “covert”

1204
For an extended biblical example of the use of paratextual devices with respect to the book of Revelation, see
Wendland, Contextual Frames, ch. 9.
1205
See also Lourens de Vries, “Bible Translations: Forms and Functions” (Wilt & Wendland, Scripture Frames, 178-
189.
1206
For a problematization of the concept of “meaning” in the practice of translation, see Wendland, “Translating
‘translation.’”
1207
See Wendland, Cultural Factor, 57-82.
543
(functionally-sensitive) approach “that linguistic-cultural relativity is built into the
translation process itself” (67).

With regard to the “true limits of translatability” then, House feels that there are but
“few exceptions to [the principle of] universal translatability” (68), one being the use
of “social and regional dialects” (69). However, I would go even further and remove
her apparent exception of “connotative meanings” with particular reference to the use
of recognized literary forms (68). Thus, why can these features too not be reproduced
in translation through “creative transposition” and a dynamic application of functional
equivalence?1208 To be sure, such artistic forms and their associated connotations would
not turn out to be the same in another language-culture, but why not sufficiently similar
in terms of both impact and appeal? However, any determination of the degree to
which such “translatability” is possible and successful (or not) would depend on the
theoretical perspective of the evaluators as well as the type of assessment model being
applied (cf. ch. 7).

From the possibilities of translation, House moves in chapter 6 to the question of

whether or not there are “Universals of translation” (70). But first, a related issue must
be addressed: Are there more general universals “of language”? After a consideration of
the typological “empiricist universalist tradition” represented by scholars like Joseph
Greenberg and Uriel Weinreich (71), the contrastive “top-down” approach of
“generative grammar” is discussed with reference to the theories of Noam Chomsky
and so-called “Universal Grammar” (72). House turns next to her preferred “functional
perspective,” where “the universals posited…are used to represent bottom-up
generalizations across languages,” with special reference to “the two essential functions
of language,” namely, “to convey information and to establish and maintain social
relations between human beings” (73). One might question, however, why only these
two functions, the informative and the relational, are deemed to be “essential,” to the
exclusion of other possibilities, such as the “expressive” and “affective” functions?1209

In any case, this survey concludes with a summary of Halliday’s influential “systemic-
functional” method, “which has proved to be most useful for the study of translation”
(73). His three proposed “metafunctions” are described in some detail: the ideational,
interpersonal, and textual. Thus, “ideationally, language reflects our human experience,
our interpretation of all that goes on around us, outside and inside” (73) and
everything associated with this cognition-generating and language-mapping capability.
“Interpersonally, language is a way of initiating and maintaining social relationships,”
while “textually, language involves the creation of information,” that is, “discourse, the
patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts” (74, added
italics). I wanted to suggest an additional necessary function, the “contextual,” but
Halliday (and House) apparently feel that this is still part of the “textual” dimension,
which includes the linguistic resources for “ensuring that each instance of text makes
contact with its environment,” whether cultural, situational, or co-/inter-textual (74).

House then turns to a stimulating discussion of “translation-,” as distinct from

“language-”, universals—the former referring to various postulated “universal
tendencies of the translation process, laws of translation and norms of translation,” for
example, explicitation, simplification, disambiguation, conventionalization,
standardization, the avoidance of repetition, and so forth (75). Her perhaps surprising

1208
Ernst Wendland, LiFE-Style Translating: A Workbook for Bible Translators, 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2011),
ch. 3.
1209
See, for example, Wendland, Translating, 215-217.
544
conclusion is that “there can be no universals at the level of performance [parole], i.e.,
no translation universals” (75), and she proceeds to give four reasons for adopting this
exclusive theoretical stance. For one thing, the types of linguistic phenomena listed
above are “NOT universals of translation per se, or sui generis universals, but simply
universals of language [langue] that apply to translation” (76). The other problem for
such supposed universal features is “that candidates of universality suggested for one
particular translation direction need not necessarily be candidates for universality in
the opposite direction” (76), and House submits her own extensive corpus-based
research into the “translations of children’s books from English into German and
German into English” to back up these claims (77).

Chapter 7 addresses the crucial issue of evaluation and “How do we know when a
translation is good?” (78).1210 This assessment process must be carried out with respect
to three distinct areas of relationship, namely, that between: (a) macro-structural
features of the original source text and its translation; (b) micro-structural features of
the source text and its translation;1211 and (c) the translation and “other types of
multilingual text production” in the TL (79). House then presents a review of the
“various approaches that are explicitly or implicitly related to translation evaluation: A.
Psycho-Social Approaches: Anecdotal and Subjective Views (79); B. Response-Based
Approaches: Behaviorist and Functionalistic Views (80-81); C. Text- and Discourse-
Oriented Views: Descriptive-Historical Translation Studies (82), Post-Modernist, Post-
Structuralist, and Deconstructionist Approaches (83), Linguistically-Oriented
Approaches (83).1212 While all the main schools of Translation Studies appear to be
included here, I found the categories as described to be rather blurred and somewhat
debatable, for example, why would a “post-modernist” methodology be combined with
“linguistically-oriented approaches” and listed under the general category of “text- and
discourse-oriented views” rather than “response-based approaches”?

We then move to House’s own “model of translation quality assessment, which is still
the only fully formulated one in existence” (79). This is preceded by a detailed
discussion of “the single most important concept in translation theory, that of
‘equivalence’…” because it “is also a fundamental notion for translation quality
assessment” (84). Though discounted by some modern theorists in translation studies,
the concept is strongly upheld in several recent studies,1213 including the rigorous
research of House.1214 For example, “Equivalence is the fundamental criterion of
translation quality—one of the aims of an adequate assessment is to specify the
equivalence relations by differentiating between different equivalence frameworks…”
from a semantic, pragmatic, and textual perspective (85). In particular, the shifting
pragmatic “context of situation” (field, tenor, mode, 87) is documented as a source text
passes from one language and sociological setting to another and the overall “textual

1210
Regarding the issue of Bible translation assessment, see Wendland, Contextual Frames, ch.10; also LiFE-Style
Translating, ch. 7.
1211
These descriptions are my own; I am not sure that I have clearly understood the distinction between categories
(a) and (b) as stated in the text since no clarifying examples are supplied (78).
1212
See Wilt, Bible Translation, 10-25.
1213
See Wendland, “Translating ‘translation’”. The evaluative principle of “equivalence” is also disputed by
proponents of “relevance theory”, e.g., E-A Gutt, Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context (Oxford: Blackwell,
1991), 12-14. In this connection, one notes that RT itself is not discussed under any theoretical category in this
chapter or the entire book. I would generally agree with House regarding the practical relevance of this approach for
critical assessment purposes in the case of Bible translation; cf.
https://www.academia.edu/1801664/The_Relevance_of_Relevance_Theory_
1214
See also her books Translation (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009); Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present
(London: Routledge, 2015).
545
profile” of the former is systematically and critically compared with the latter in order
to reveal any significant “mismatches.” These may be “dimensional” (pragmatic) in
nature or “non-dimensional,” that is, “errors with regard to denotative meanings in the
translation as well as breaches of target language norms” (86). In addition to “register,”
which “captures the connection between texts and their ‘micro-context,” another
important component of the House quality assessment model is “genre,” which
“connects texts with the ‘macro-context’ of the linguacultural community in which a
text is embedded” (88).

In conjunction with her method of evaluating translated texts, House discusses several
other important concepts, such as the difference between an “overt” (more literal) and
“covert” (more idiomatic) translations (89-91); a “cultural filter,” that is, “a means of
capturing socio-cultural differences in expectation norms and stylistic conventions
between the source and target linguacultural communities” (whether textually or para-
textually, 92); and the use of “corpus studies” in translation related research (96-97).
Several componential, flow-chart diagrams help readers to fit some of the key pieces of
her assessment model into place (for example, see p. 97),1215 but it would greatly help
one to follow this rather thick procedural description if specific examples to illustrate
the various aspects or parameters were periodically inserted into the discussion—or a
single all-inclusive practical illustration provided at the end.

25.3 Some Important New Trends in Translation Studies

Part III of this book considers Some Important New Trends in Translation Studies
(99), beginning with a survey of several popular methods for investigating “What goes
on in translators’ heads when they are translating” (chapter 8, 101).1216 The first type of
“translation process” research that is considered involves “studies using introspection
and verbal reporting” based on “interviews with translators, questionnaires or surveys”
(101) as well as the analysis of “thinking-aloud protocol (TAP) data” (102). House then
raises a number of “still unresolved questions with regard to translation-related
introspective and retrospective research methodology” (101), the most important issue
being “the nature of consciousness” and the initial need for “a comprehensive theory”
that is capable of dealing with the results that stem from research in this field (102).

Next, “translation process research using behavioral experiments” is described, namely,

“mostly computer-related technological” data derived from “experiments using
keystroke logging (or keylogging), screen recording, eye-tracking and various other
physiological measures” (104). One central research objective is “the quest for the
‘translation unit’ associated with cognitive effort expended during a translation task”
(105). However, important questions remain concerning such experimentation, for
example, “Can measurements of observable behavior (as provided in key-logging, eye-
tracking, etc.) [reliably] inform us about cognitive process that occur in a translator’s
mind?” (106).

Finally, “bilingual neuro-imaging studies” are discussed (107), but once again, there is
need for “theory with enough descriptive and explanatory potential before expecting
enlightenment” from such research (108). House concludes by pointing to a promising
“neuro-linguistic theory of the functioning of two languages in the brain” (108). In the

1215
House’s translation model may be compared with the recent “frames of reference approach” in Bible translating,
as outlined in Timothy Wilt, “Translation and Communication,” in Wilt, Bible Translation, 27-80; cf. also Wilt and
Wendland, Scripture Frames & Framing, passim.
1216
This issue is not a very great concern in Bible translating since most work is done as interactive teams.
546
absence of some illustrative examples or a case study, it is difficult to comprehend this
rather complicated theoretical discussion, the aim of which is to investigate how the
bilingual person’s “implicit linguistic competence (‘the grammar’) constrains the
encoding of the [translated] message and the pragmatics component makes selections
in terms of styles, registers, discourse norms, speech act directness, politeness, etc.”
(110). Although I do not fully understand all of the components of this complex theory,
intuitively I felt the urge to query these interrelated conclusions: “Expert translators
often do not need to access the conceptual system as they move [how?] directly from
the source language to the target language” (111), and therefore, the claim can be
made that “covert translation is psycholinguistically simple since only one pragmatics-
cum-linguistics representational network – the one for the target language – is being
activated in translation” (112, added italics). But how can this be so if in covert
translation “the function of the original text is maintained” (178)?

In chapter 9, House presents a more detailed description of “using corpora in

translation studies”—“corpus” being defined as “a body of computer-readable texts
analysable (semi-)automatically and sampled in a principled and transparent way”
(113). Two basic types of corpus are productive in translation studies: “comparable
corpora consisting of two collections of texts in the same language”—original texts and
translations from other languages (113). On the other hand, “parallel corpora [consist]
of original source language texts in one language and their translated texts in another
language” (114).1217 Such translation-oriented corpora “provide a reliable tool for
clarifying hypothesized equivalences and for establishing reliable patterns of
translation regularities”; in other words, “equivalence in translation can be made open
to generalization and intersubjective verification through the use of parallel corpora
and comparable corpora” (114). Corpus-based data can then be used along with other
qualitative and quantitative tools, such as introspection, observation, textual and
ethnographic analysis to “provide a [research] framework for finding out what sort of
questions should be asked about translation and about language used in different ways”
(115).

The chapter concludes with two examples of the use of corpora in conjunction with
“House’s translation quality assessment model” (117, cf. 96-97). The first, “a corpus-
based translation project” (115) investigated the degree to which “English-German
translations in the field of popular science would allow more and more importations of
conventions and norms from the English source text, which would then also gradually
find their way into German comparable, monolingually produced (non-translated texts”
(119). The second example is that of “a corpus-based case study of translation” (added
italics), one carried out by the author herself involving several aspects of discourse
differentiation between German and English texts with respect to “linking
constructions” (e.g., “for example,” “for instance”) (120-121), devices indicating
“spokenness” or informality in popular science texts (122-123), and a comparative
study of the use of the transitional particle “so” in corresponding German and English
texts (124-126). In conclusion, House observes that “much more longitudinal corpus-
based research is needed, taking account of a host of different factors that influence
language variation and change through language contact in translation” (127).

“Translation in the age of globalization and digitalization” is the heading for chapter
10, which also considers “the role of English in its function as a global lingua franca”

1217
Corpus text analysis is a field that would be worth exploring more fully with reference to Bible translation in
conjunction with electronic software such as paraTExt (http://paratext.org/node).
547
(128).1218 Globalization “involves a variety of processes – economic, technological,
social, cultural and political – which have for some time now denationalized” (129)
many different types of international engagement and exchange throughout the
world—mostly for the better (e.g., commerce and communication), but in some
respects also for worse (e.g., “global terrorism”). The linguistic aspects of globalization
occur “at different levels of language,” which are then briefly described; for example,
“at the pragmatic and discourse level, globalized norms of written discourse in various
genres seem to ‘drift’ towards English-based rhetorical structures” (130), undoubtedly
greatly facilitated by “computer-mediated communication and Internet domains” (131).
Globalized linguistic signs “lead to the creation of new globalized multilingual
landscapes” (130) and translation-oriented initiatives, such as “eco-translatology”
which originated in China (132).1219

The remainder and bulk of this chapter takes up “the role of English as a global lingua
franca for translation…[and] the use of which in different locales results in the
employment of different, particular forms of discourse” (133). “The most important
features of English as a lingua franca [ELF] today are its enormous functional
flexibility, its immense variability and its spread across many different linguistic,
geographical and cultural areas, as well as the readiness with which linguistic items
from different languages can be, and in fact are, integrated into the English language”
(134). The use of ELF is especially prominent in domains such as science, technology,
engineering, medicine, academics, and scholarly publications,1220 but speakers tend to
strongly prefer their own mother tongue [MT] for more affective, culturally-based
purposes and in more informal, domestic settings. Thus, the “globalization process that
boosted ELF use have led to a continuing massive increase in translations worldwide,”
both into and out of English (135). With regard to the latter, there is “a growing
demand for translation in localization industries,” for the production of a “localized,
i.e., culturally filtered and translated, version of a product is essential for opening up
new markets,” whether through some type of printed version or via the World Wide
Web (136). The converse of this would be “internationalization,” where businesses and
other agencies design their products, including texts for advertisements, in a more
generalized manner that is more readily adaptable to different linguacultures (138,
182). Furthermore, as globalization and translation become even more closely and
widely intertwined around the world, there is a concomitant “increase in translation
projects in the digital economy, which are carried out by teams of professionals under
the supervision of a project manager,” but involving the participation of ELF translators
alongside MT editors (139-140).

25.4 Translation in the Real World

Part IV, Translation in the Real World (141), leads off with a consideration of “The
role of translation in language learning and teaching” (chapter 11, 143). The discussion
begins with an overview of “The history of translation in foreign language learning and
teaching” (144), beginning with the traditional “grammar-translation method” (145).
The long-standing control of the classical pedagogy of language learning was finally
broken in the 20th century and almost completely overtaken by the so-called “direct

1218
For a somewhat corresponding perspective from the field of Bible translation, see Edesio Sánchez-Cetina, “Word
of God, Word of the People: Translating the Bible in Post-Missionary Times,” in Noss, A History, 387-408; cf. Simon
Wong, “Digitization of Old Chinese Bibles (pre-1950s),” The Bible Translator 68:1, 11-19).
1219
Unfortunately, I cannot further describe this particular enterprise, since its description—in the absence of any
examples—was difficult to comprehend.
1220
We might add the great influence of English and English versions in worldwide Bible translation work.
548
method” of instruction, which features “the exclusive use of the foreign language and
the abolition of any form of translation” (145), more recently enhanced by the
dialogue-based “Audio-Lingual Method” (146). Today, however, another turn has been
taken in the preferred approach, namely, a “bilingualization process,” in which
“foreign language learning and teaching is no longer seen as an entirely monolingual
undertaking, but a bilingual one” (146) that features a significant use of translation and
pragmatic inter-cultural sensitization in the methodology. House presents several good
reasons from this major shift in perspective, the major one being that “translation
promotes explicit knowledge about the foreign language and awareness of similarities
and differences [including relevant form-function “equivalences”] between the native and
foreign language systems as well as conventional uses of these situations in different
situations, genres and text types” (147).

The second half of this chapter is devoted to a survey of some “New alternative uses of
translation in pedagogic contexts,” thus making “a virtue out of what has often been
considered a vice in language teaching circles” (149).1221 For one, when teaching any
foreign language, it is advisable that “a whole range of ‘para-translation activities’
should be included,” especially for more advanced learners, for example, the “explicit
comparisons of linguacultural phenomena in the source and target languages” (148).
House then offers a helpful sample of the various types of translation-based exercises
that might be incorporated within such a pedagogical program, in particular, language-
cultural “contrastive activities,” which are “useful for sensitizing learners to the
different repertories of linguistic means through which a particular textual function is
realized in learners’ mother tongue and in the foreign language” (149), as well as
learning how to effectively recognize and correct linguistic “mismatches” (150). Even
in the teaching and learning that occurs in other academic disciplines, “translation is
now more often seen as an omnipresent general interpretative activity that plays an
important role in realizing pragmatic meaning within and across languages” (152).

Finally, in chapter 12, House considers “Translation as a social practice in real-life

situations,” first of all then “in multilingual institutions,” such as the European Union
(154).1222 “Institutional translation concerns organizational, ideological and historical
aspects of an institution in which translations habitually occur, as well as the impact of
an institution on translators and the process and product of their professional output”
(154). In terms of practice, institutional translations “routinely involve teams of
translators who draft the translations collectively [and anonymously!] in working
groups and committees” (156) in an effort to create “the illusion of equality” (155). In
order to promote such equality, the EU has idealistically adopted “the principle of
equivalence…to make EU texts function smoothly in the discourse of the institution,
both internally and externally with the public at large,” a policy that does not often
work out as intended in actual practice due to various other inequities within the
organization (155).

With regard to “Translation in multilingual and multicultural societies” (156), it is now

recognized that “a monolingual perspective is no longer tenable and should be replaced
by a multilingual perspective in education and many other domains of contemporary
life” (157). This trend is being manifested in societies all over the world with the result

1221
This is an important caveat for many modern instructors of biblical languages, namely, those who promote the
exclusive use of a “direct method” in the teaching of ancient Hebrew and NT Greek, which, at least in my
experience, produces inferior exegetes of the text of Scripture—good speakers, perhaps, but rather poor
grammarians! See Contextual Frames, ch. 12.
1222
Surely, all worldwide Bible translating organizations and agencies would be included here, e.g., United Bible
Societies, Wycliffe Bible Translators.
549
that “translators and interpreters are now in more demand than ever before [since]
they play a crucial role in avoiding linguistic and cultural misunderstandings” (157),
for example, in settings where migrants seek to adapt to a foreign environment and
host societies are under pressure to try to understand and accommodate them.

This final chapter concludes with a survey of a diversity of other technical as well as
practical service areas in today’s world where translation is either developing new
skills and practices, or where the field is facing ongoing challenges: “Micro-history in
translation,” where the work of past and present translators is more thoroughly
documented (157); “The working environment of translators,” which nowadays “is
characterized by an intensive interaction with a computer” (158) and “computer-
assisted tools” (CAT) along with the increased practice of cultural adaptation, or
“localization” (159); “Ethics in the practice of translation,” including the development
of a “heightened transcultural consciousness” (160) that “takes [greater] account of the
norms and conventions of the culture into which the original’s translation is ‘entering’
(161); “Translation and conflict in the practice of translation” (167), especially in
settings of warfare and social or interethnic strife, where the “politics of translation”
becomes relevant and the ideological “framing’ of news and other crucial information
(168); “Audiovisual translation as a site of collaborative practice,” due to the complex
“multimodality” of the texts involved and their “semiotic complexity” (170),1223 for
example, with respect to practices such as “subtitling” and “revoicing” (171); finally,
“Digitalization and the rise of a new participatory culture in translation” (173), where
digital, especially audio-visual and interactive web-based technologies are currently
“effecting lasting changes in the production, distribution and consumption of digitized
media,” often involving the participation of “ordinary citizens,” active “consumers,”
and volunteer or amateur translators (174) in what may be viewed as “co-creational,
networked cyber communities” (175).

As already noted, in addition to a listing of References (189) and a subject-person Index

(200), Translation—The Basics concludes with a helpful Glossary of key terms and
concepts (176-188); several salient examples follow:

Connotation: Cultural and/or affective shades of meaning carried by a word or phrase

(see also Denotation) (177)
Cultural filter: A procedure used in covert translation (see above) by a translator in
order to make the translation compatible with target culture discourse norms and
preferences (178)
Framing: A process of embedding events, themes and texts in a subjective frame of
interpretation (180)
Intentionality: Refers to the purpose of a text’s author (182)
Localization: A procedure in which a translated text is adapted to the local, socio-
cultural norms of the target culture (183)
Overt translation: A type of translation in which the original text is, as far as possible,
preserved such that the linguistic forms and structures of the original often “shine
through” the target text (184)

I can highly recommend this book to all theorists, translators, teachers, and trainers as
being a highly successful general introduction to the contemporary field of translation
studies. While I would have appreciated more illustrative examples to clarify some of
the more technical issues, along with a selection of references to what is currently

1223
See Ernst Wendland, Orality and Scripture: Composition, Translation, and Transmission (Dallas: SIL International,
2013), 49-52.
550
going on in “biblical translation studies,”1224 I recognize that when one is dealing with
“the basics,” a rather difficult decision must be made regarding what information on
the subject to include or leave out. Perhaps to fill these occasional gaps the author
might in future consider preparing a “workbook” to accompany the present instructive
text, one that would elucidate and/or provide practice exercises for the more difficult
concepts discussed and guide readers into additional relevant publications in the field.

1224
For starters, see Noss, History; Wilt, Bible Translation; Wendland, Contextual Frames.
551
26. Fundamentals of Translation – A summary and review

26.0 Introduction

The author of Fundamentals of Translation,1225 Sonia Colina, is Professor of Hispanic

Languages at the University of Arizona, where she specializes in linguistics and
translation. This student-friendly textbook consists of an introductory Preface, seven
integrated, progressively developed Chapters that explain and practice the basics of
professional translation work, an Answer Key to the exercises included at the end of each
chapter, a Glossary of key terms, Bibliography, and a topical Index. The text is very well
organized and clearly signposted and presented, with each chapter following the same
basic format: introduction; 4-8 topical sections, with many included examples,
elucidatory diagrams or charts, and guided “practice” exercises (each one often followed
by a brief explanatory “commentary”); concluding summary; key word listing; various
work-exercises (individual and group-discussion); and several “further reading”
suggestions. My review, which is more of a summary, notes the main topics and sub
points considered in each chapter along with a selection of significant illustrative
quotations, and occasional critical or supplementary observations,

In her Preface, Colina first outlines the “purpose of this book,” which is threefold,
depending on the readership concerned (cf. xxi): “to offer a basic, easy-to-read
introduction to concepts essential to translation practice”; to “reach out” also to readers
“who work in fields that can benefit from informed knowledge about translation” (xv);
and to contribute to “a better understanding of translation among language students and
other language specialists” (xvi). Fundamentals of Translation (FoT) is not intended to
cover all possible subjects of interest in the field of contemporary “translation studies,”
but is rather intended to function as “a basic college-level textbook about translation
concepts and about the content knowledge needed to practice translation in the twenty-
first century” (xvii). It is a book that is viewed as falling in the academic domain of
“applied translation studies and translator education, rather than translation theory…”
(xviii) and, on the other hand, its “non-literary focus” concentrates on the “basic concepts
of translation, rather than a manual of translation techniques, strategies, or tips” (xix).
The Preface concludes with a previewing summary of each of the seven following chapter
units (xxiii-xxv).

26.1 Defining “Translation”

Chapter 1 deals with “The term ‘translation’: Concept, definitions and usage” (page 1).
After the opening “introduction,” which provides a handy preview of the chapter, the
core concepts of “translation studies” (2) and “translation” are discussed. The latter is
defined in a preliminary way as referring “to the process of, or the product resulting
from, transferring or mediating written text(s) of different lengths (ranging from words
and sentences to entire books) from one human language to another” (3). This initial
general definition is stated more precisely later. It is also noted that when the medium
of communication is oral-aural, “the term used is interpreting or interpretation” (3).
Colina rightly points out that translation, in the narrow sense, must be distinguished
from other, closely related communicative activities, such as “paraphrasing, gisting,
adaptation, localization, etc.” (12). She then proceeds to offer a more specific definition:
“Translation can be understood at the process or the product of transforming a written

1225
Sonia Colina, Fundamentals of Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015; ISBN: 978-1-107-64546-
2); cf. also her book Translation Teaching: From Research to the Classroom (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003).
552
text or texts from one human language to another which generally requires a significant1226
degree of resemblance or correspondence with respect to the source text” (12, my
highlighting). Such essential correspondence may apply at one or more communicative
levels: “structural (lexical and grammatical), meaning/content, symbolic, ideological,
textual, etc.,” with some societies being “more tolerant of differences between the source
and target texts” (12-13).1227 The notion of “equivalence” and its usage when defining
or evaluating translation must normally be applied to different aspects of the total textual
transfer process, for example: meaning (semantic), effect (pragmatic), function
(functional) (16). The problem is that reading comprehension is a highly complex
cognitive activity that “can rarely be considered equivalent across readers” (17), let alone
languages and cultures, and hence one must determine more exactly “what constitutes
the necessary degree of equivalence or resemblance,” and what are the criteria to be
used” (18)?

Different methods of describing the nature of the correspondence along the translation
continuum between a source text and its translation are surveyed, e.g., dynamic—formal,
covert—overt, interlinear (19-20), and several different types of “translation-related
activities” are defined, e.g., gist, sight, paraphrase, adaptation, pseudotranslation (21-
23). Various aspects of “translation in a professional context” (23) are considered:
“globalization” (24), “internationalization,” “machine-translation,” “computer-assisted
translation” (CAT) (25), “revising/reviewing,” and “language for specific purposes” (LSP)
(27). In conclusion, “it is essential for translation students to be aware of the significance
of specialized text types and genres for translation practice and, specifically, for
accomplishing the purposes of the translation” (31). Finally, the critical issue of
“translation competence” is discussed (31) and how to determine or evaluate this, with
Colina’s functionally-oriented goal being as follows: “Transfer competence [is] the ability
to understand and implement the translation requirements,” including the specific task’s
“contextual needs” along with a reliable method of determining “the necessary degree of
precision/equivalence” between the ST and its translation (32).1228

The following is an edited sample of one of the exercises that Colina provides at the end
of Chapter 1 to encourage readers in their review and practical application of the
instructional material already provided—Exercise 4 (36); a portion of her suggested
response in the “answer key” is also given (267-268):

1. Find three definitions of translation…and write them down along with their
sources. … Indicate whether they refer to translation as a process or a product.
“The process of translation between two different written languages involves the
translator changing an original written text in the original verbal language into a written
text in a different verbal language.” (Process – Munday 2001:5)

1226
Following from the author’s functional perspective, the qualifier “significant” is changed to “necessary”
later (18), but I prefer the original wording.
1227
Colina states that “interlinear translations are the closest to the source, with the highest degree of
resemblance” (13); however, it should be noted that this resemblance is primarily with respect to formal
linguistic features, not necessarily any of the other communicative elements of the source text (ST). This
important differentiation should also be explicitly applied to the first “practice” exercise on p. 15.
1228
With apparent deference to the dictates of “Descriptive Translation Studies” (DTS), Colina asserts that
her definition of and approach to translation is non-“prescriptive” in nature, but reference to requiring “a
necessary degree of resemblance to or correspondence with the source text” (34, added emphasis) would
seem to contradict that assumption, and quite rightly so, in this reviewer’s opinion.
553
 “Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one
language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).” (Process –
Catford 1965:20)

2. Identify the sections of those definitions that refer to how translation is to be

performed (underlined above).
In Colina’s opinion, “Munday’s definition is rather objective, along the lines of the
one presented in this book; Catford’s…requires equivalence and sameness” (268).
In my opinion, however, Munday’s definition is too vague; thus, even a brief
summary of the ST in the TL would thereby qualify as a “translation.” Also the
words “changing…into,” at least, should have been underlined as an indication of
how the translation was “performed.” On the other hand, the notion of
“equivalence,” as Colina herself points out in her book, is not the same thing as
“sameness.” When clearly defined, as Colina points out needs to be done,
“equivalence” can be expressed in a much more nuanced manner and is therefore
more helpful as a guide to translators than Munday’s definition.

26.2 Functionalism

Chapter 2 takes up the subject of “The functions of translation: Functionalism,” which is

a translation approach, often referred to as Skopos (purpose) theory, “that argues that
the translation process is guided by extra-linguistic factors, more specifically by the
function of the translation” within a specific sociocultural setting (43). Among the key
“situational features” to be considered in any translation project are these: function—the
purpose the text is intended to accomplish; the target audience, or readership, and their
chief characteristics; the designated medium of communication, whether oral, written,
visual, or mixed; the motive, or reason for producing the text; the ideal time and place of
message reception (45). These “situational factors affect and shape texts in all languages”
(51)—all the more so when a given text must be translated into another language and
cultural setting. Accordingly, all these factors must be initially specified and explained
in what is known as the “translation brief,” or job commission, which aims to answer
questions such these: “Who is the translation for? What is the readers’ educational level?
What age are they, and what are their cultural beliefs? What do they know about the
content of the text” (53)—and so forth. In other words, the translation brief, as defined
by the project “commissioner” (69), must clearly identify the situational features that are
needed to enable translators to make their various text-based decisions (60).1229 This
would include the explicit and implicit “translational norms within a certain culture and
society” (69). Colina helpfully discusses a selection of diverse, graphically enhanced
examples to “illustrate the effect of situational factors on the source text, how these
change in the context of translation, and how they shape the target text” (53, 52-68).

1229
Colina has in large measure adopted Christiane Nord’s functionalist approach (e.g., Translating as a Purposeful
Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained, Manchester: St Jerome, 1997). However, Nord’s notion of “loyalty,” as
distinct from “faithfulness,” is much more of a “bilateral” comparative activity, involving both the ST and the TT along
with their respective settings, in contrast to Colina’s perspective (72, compare Nord 1997:125-126, 140).
554
The “summary” of Chapter 2 (73) includes this significant observation: “Although a
significant degree of equivalence/similarity with respect to the original [text] is central
to the notion of translation, the exact measure cannot be determined a priori without
referring to the translation brief, which is the set of instructions that allow the translator
to determine the extra-linguistic factors associated with the target text,” including
prevailing local “norms,” that will help govern the process of interlingual textual
transformation. We note in particular and in passing here the positively toned inclusion
of “equivalence,” i.e., “similarity,” in this description, that is, in contrast to occasional,
sometimes misleading and rather negative characterizations and implications regarding
this term elsewhere in the book (e.g., 107, 268, 295), which are bound to cause some
confusion among readers. In any case, the following is an exercise that puts into practice
certain aspects of the material presented in chapter 2—Ex. 12 (abridged, 77-78, 275):

An interlinear translation “is not the type of translation that professional translators
usually come across; however, functionalism can explain this word-by-word
approach on the basis of the translation brief. … Provide a complete brief for an
interlinear translation:
“Please translate this sentence [given] into English for a linguist. She is
researching this language and has found this sentence, which is crucial to test one
of her hypotheses on how the morphemes and syntax works. She wants to know
what each word means, and what each part of the word means. She would like to
have it as soon as possible so that she can continue her study.”
This brief incorporates the following “situational features”: Audience,
Function, Place of reception, Time of reception, Medium, and Motive (“the linguist
is doing research on this language”).

26.3 Pragmatic Functions

In close relationship with Chapter 2, which dealt with “textual” functions, Chapter 3 now
considers “pragmatic” functions and related issues, with “pragmatics” being defined as
the communicative discipline “that investigates language use in its social and cultural
context” (79), in particular, the implicit meaning that texts often convey due to extra-
linguistic, situational factors. The study of pragmatics is deemed relevant for translation
studies because it “emphasizes the importance of the function of translation; helps
articulate why and how culture is crucial to the translation process; and contributes to a
better understanding of the role of equivalence in translation” (81). Equivalence is
viewed as a “complex, multilayered (linguistic, pragmatic, textual, etc.)” concept that as
a result needs to be applied with discrimination in practice and with the understanding
that “in most cases some level of equivalence will have to be compromised in favor of a
more important demand on the target text (e.g., function, social adequacy, politeness)”
(81). While grammatical functions may be relatively easy to recognize and explain by
most educated speakers of a language, the same is not true for unmarked pragmatic
functions, especially when engaged in translation, since “a specific syntactic function in
one language has a pragmatic function in another,” for example, word order and the
explicit use of subject pronouns in English in contrast to Spanish (82). Thus, while a
literal translation may turn out to be formally acceptable in another language, the
pragmatic meaning of the original may be distorted or even radically changed, resulting
in varying degrees of miscommunication (87).
Pragmatics includes a study of “speech acts,” which refer to the communicative activities
that we carry out by means of human discourse, whether spoken or written, e.g.,
informing, requesting, commanding, promising, advising, or refusing. A speech act is
comprised of three aspects, which when translating may be specified as follows: “The

555
locutionary act [is] the linguistic form; the illocutionary act [is] the function intended by
the writer or the translator on the basis of the translation instructions [“brief”]; and the
perlocutionary act [is] the effect the act has on the reader/listener of the source speech
act and that of the target text” (89, added italics). Cross-cultural sociolinguistic
differences always complicate the task of meaningful translation; for example, whereas
in English requests are often made indirectly via a rhetorical question, “Chinese has a
preference for direct requests with the imperative, …deference being expressed through
other methods, such as address terms, lexical forms, etc.” (93).

In the case of unconventional speech acts, where the linguistic form of the text gives no
indication of the intended communicative implication, the interpretation will necessarily
depend on extralinguistic elements (situation, participant relationships, background
knowledge) and on “implicatures.” The latter arise in conversation when the so-called
“cooperative principle” is overtly violated with respect to one or more of the associated
“maxims,” or social conventions, of quantity, quality, relevance, and/or manner (96). The
fact that these maxims may have a Western bias simply reinforces the fact that the
possible influence of cultural differences upon communication needs to be very
thoroughly investigated in contrastive terms (SL—TL) before undertaking any significant
translation exercise (97), for example, with respect to any and all issues that pertain to
required levels of “politeness” (honorific forms) in discourse (98). The aim is to achieve
“pragmatic competence,” which is a much more difficult facility to acquire in another
language-culture than linguistic competence since it depends so much on circumstantial
“extra-linguistic knowledge and implicit cues” (98).1230

Presuppositions are another aspect of pragmatics that feature in translation since they
must be recognized and accounted for during the message transfer process. A
presupposition is an “implicit assumption about the world or background knowledge
shared between the writer and the reader” (from the Glossary, 298).1231 Colina presents
a number of instructive examples to illustrate the point that “in cross-cultural situations
[as in the case when translating], presuppositions rooted in the source culture that do
not match those of the recipient culture may result in misunderstandings or incomplete
comprehension” (99; another adverse possibility would be: erroneous communication).
Such “mismatches” and the resultant conceptual confusion or lack of coherence occur
most frequently in the case of “specialized texts (expert knowledge) or culturally bound
texts” (100), such as the Scriptures. All translators must therefore take into studied
consideration, and with respect to both the source and target settings, the entire
“communicative [non-linguistic] context, the participants, and their characteristics and
knowledge [world-view], beyond textual and linguistic form” (102). Thus, “pragmatic
competence is always at stake in translation regardless of directionality, whether in
connection with the comprehension of the source text or in the creating of the target
text” (106).1232 Exemplifying presuppositions and their possible mismatch in translation
is carried out in the combined Exercises 8-9 (abridged, 109, 278):

1230
Where matters of politeness are concerned, Colina suggests that “equivalence is definitely trivial in such
cases” (99). But why does this conclusion necessarily follow? Does this not simply exemplify the principle
that was already established, namely, the multifaceted nature of equivalence and the need to set up a scale
of priority during translation, in keeping with the given brief, that indicates which aspects of this complex
notion are to be emphasized in the process, with “pragmatic equivalence” obviously being near the top of
the list in most cases.
1231
The definition initially given in the text would seem to be misleading, if not in error: “presupposition
refers to knowledge shared between the writer and the reader that is marked as given in the text” (99).
However, if it is formally “marked” in a text, then the information is technically not “implicit.”
1232
Several times in this discussion Colina again unfortunately depreciates the allegedly “simplistic notion
of equivalence,” claiming that it “reveals itself as an overgeneralization, too simple and general to be of
556
 Identify the presupposition in the following sentence [of an advertisement] … and
discuss whether that could, in some situations or cultures, create difficulties for
translation, and to what extent: “Sleep better on a bed that adjusts to both of you.”
Presupposition: “Your quality of sleep needs improvement. You [normally]
share your bed with someone else.”
Potential mismatch: In some cultures, the reference to sleeping together may
not be acceptable in print. The source may need to be changed to reflect other
selling points/advantages of an adjustable bed.

26.4 Translating “Texts”

“Texts and translations” is the subject of Chapter 4, with the discussion focusing on how
different types of texts and genres are normally composed in a manner that assists
readers/hearers in their interpretation through the use of devices that manage and mark
how meaning is conveyed and connected throughout, e.g., “topic maintenance and
continuity, information structure, coherence and cohesion” (112). “Textual competence”
is a crucial skill that all translators must have, or acquire, including the ability to
distinguish well-formed from non- or poorly-composed texts, since “textual features
normally have to be re-created according to the translation brief and textual norms and
features for the target language” (113). Colina then considers a number of the most
important “textual features” that translators need to recognize and know how to
manipulate when moving from a source text to its functional correspondent by
translation in another language:

 “coherence,” the semantic and pragmatic relations that give a text unity,
significance, and purpose (114);1233
 “cohesion,” the explicit linguistic techniques that enable a reader or hearer
to “establish the coherence necessary to make sense of the text” (115; cf.
also 133-137);
 the introduction, maintenance, and shifting of different “topics” within a
text “to produce a certain [semantic] orientation”—i.e., a specific “theme,”
which may also be organized in terms of time (115) or place (116);

use in real translation tasks” (106-107). Of course, it is the translation theorist that is concerned here, not
the concept itself, and Colina herself creates unnecessary perplexity by such remarks since she has already
pointed out the importance of recognizing the complex, multilayered character of equivalence and has
provided several apparently acceptable synonyms, e.g., similarity, resemblance, correspondence (18, 81).
In this case, the Glossary entry for “equivalence” is not helpful either: “Under some approaches to
translation, the requirement that the target text be as equal to the source as possible” (295). However, it
is not a matter of gross “equality” at all, but rather of equivalent functional “communicative value” with
respect to designated aspects of the ST’s overall meaning potential, for example, form (in the case of an
artistic work), content (an informative document), and/or function (a pragmatically imperative text).
1233
Colina categorially states that “coherence is not a linguistic concept, but a pragmatic one” (133).
However, this depends on one’s definition of “linguistics,” which for many scholars includes pragmatics,
as the Glossary definition appears to suggest: Pragmatics is the “discipline that investigates how language
is interpreted by users beyond the literal meaning of the actual words used. It considers the effects of
linguistic and non-linguistic context on said interpretation” (298, added italics).
557
  identifying and tracing participants in an extended text (120), noting that
the formal means for doing this, as in the case of other textual features,
often differs between languages (122), resulting in brief-breaking
“mismatches” due to literal translations (123, cf. 138-140);
 distinguishing “old” (known, given) from “new” (provided) information in
discourse (125), through devices such as deictics (demonstrative words),
pronouns, definite articles, repetition, word order, intonation and stress (in
oral texts) (126-127).

Colina also discussed the results of a coherent and cohesive verbal composition in the
form of “text types and genres” (140). Thus, “text types are usually related to speech acts
and, therefore, to the writer’s intentions: trying to convince the reader of a viewpoint
(argumentative), offer information (expository), express feelings (expressive) or make
someone behave/react in a certain way (instructional, operative),” with various subtypes
and mixed combinations possible as well (141). “Genres,” then, are the language and
culture-specific applications of text types and refer to “the labels used to classify texts
according to the contexts in which they occur; they are conventionalized forms of texts
that reflect features of a social occasion (audience, time, place, medium)” (142). The
linguistic markers that identify a particular genre in one language may be quite different
from those that are diagnostic in another language. For example, the genre-specific
textual features of recipes in English are these: omission of articles and prepositions, the
presence of zero anaphora/ellipsis, the use of imperatives and sentences linked by
coordination; in contrast, Spanish recipes feature prepositions and articles, no zero
anaphora, hypotactic constructions (subordination), and frequent use of the se-passive
construction (144-148).
As always, translators need to do extensive cross-linguistic research in order to develop
“an intuitive awareness of these features,” for example, “through textual analysis,
parallel-text analysis and corpora [comparisons]” (148). “Parallel-text analysis consists
of examining a corpus of target-language texts (referred to as ‘parallel texts’),
independently produced (not translated), and of the same type and genre as the one
assigned to the target text, in order to isolate common features of organization and
textual markers” (149). In contrast, but equally helpful in one’s research, are
“background texts” that “share the same content as the target text, rather than genre and
audience,” as well as “translated corpora,” which are “collections of translated texts in
which the source and target texts are aligned, or presented side by side on the page” for
ready contrastive comparison (152). Of course, such corpora of texts are normally
available only in languages that have a large database of available publications.

Practice Exercise 7 asks: “How are parallel texts different from dictionaries? (155).

Answer: “Dictionaries provide information on lexical items and some phrase-level

collocations. Parallel texts contain information about texts, textual features, use
and frequency” (282).

558
26.5 Reading Translations

In Chapter 5 the subject shifts to “Reading and translation,” and the importance of the
former when practicing the latter due to the complex, interactive nature of “reading,”
the activity of which is considerably problematized both formally and conceptually when
the text to be read must be stated in another language and cultural context (157-158).
There are two basic models of reading comprehension, “bottom-up,” constructing
meaning from smaller to larger linguistic units, and “top-down,” when a reader “relies
on world knowledge (i.e., background knowledge), contextual information and other
higher-order processing strategies to understand a text” (158). “Background knowledge”
encompasses different kinds of information, namely, “general world knowledge, where
‘world’ can refer to a specific culture, language or situation or … specialized, expert
knowledge”—whether lower-level “fixed expressions,” such as syntactic structures,
words orders, and common lexical collocations, or higher-level conceptual organizers
known as “schemata” that facilitate the comprehension of a given text “by helping the
reader to form a [familiar] mental picture” of what is being described (159). A good
example of the latter is provided by a short text selection that is very difficult to
understand—until it is revealed that is accompanied by a scenario-setting, frame-creating
title: Doing Laundry (160).

Genuine comprehension is viewed as being “interactive” in reading (as in hearing) a text

because in the effort to “construct a coherent mental representation” of the text in order
to understand it, “the reader brings in his/her background knowledge and schemata to
discover and build logical connections marked in the text through [its] cohesive devices”
(162). Due to individual differences, no single reading-understanding will be the same
as that of another person, and yet “successful textual comprehension happens, among
much variation, due to a common core of [socioculturally based] representations shared
by the reader and the writer” (163).1234 One way to conceptualize these important issues
in communication generally and more specifically in translation is by using the theory
of “frames-and-scenes semantics.” “In this model, words are the frames that activate
mental scenes or pictures related to past experiences and world knowledge, [and] for
comprehension to take place, frames must activate the proper [most contextually
‘relevant’] scenes, i.e., those that fit into the mental representations of the text” (164).
When translating then, “translators must choose between a range of frames available to
them and locate one that will activate the necessary scene for the target text” (166)—
that is, by using the appropriate, functionally equivalent linguistic resources of the TL.

1234
Somewhat strangely, once more in this discussion, Colina includes a censorious characterization of
“equivalence,” a concept that she previously had helpfully nuanced in more sophisticated terms for use in
translation studies (81): “If textual comprehension and communication are subject to variation so that two
readers’ understanding of the same text is never exactly the same, the goal of equivalence and equivalent
effect in translation seems an idealistic, prescriptivist target, with no empirical or descriptive basis to
support it” (163). But this is not true of any general concept that one wishes to use when describing the
complex relationship between a ST and a TT and the communicative goal(s) that a translator seeks to
achieve when carrying out her/his interlingual, cross-cultural text replacement exercise—that is, if one
desires to distinguish a narrow definition of “translation” from other, freer types of textual transmission,
e.g., paraphrase, adaptation? Compare Colina’s definition: Translation is the “process or product of
transforming written text(s) from one human language to another. It generally requires a (necessary)
degree of resemblance to or correspondence with the source text” (300). Now is the latter assertion any
less “prescriptivist” than most definitions of “functional equivalence” in translating? For further discussion,
see Ernst Wendland, “Translating ‘translation’: What do translators ‘translate’?” in Said Faiq, ed., Discourse
in Translation (London: Routledge, forthcoming).
559
To conclude this chapter, Colina discusses several salient issues that pertain to the
conceptually interactive, top-down/bottom-up process of “reading and directionality in
translation” (170-171). This includes not ignoring “the writer and his/her role with
regard to the reader” (171), for example, when considering the initial intention or goal
of the text in its original setting compared with that of the target setting. Translators
must be alert for any possible differences in comprehension regarding the respective
cognitive and contextual environments and adopt “the use of strategies to make up for
them,” for example, filling conceptual gaps by comparatively researching relevant
background knowledge, providing necessary information in TL footnotes, focusing one’s
attention on “the major points over the trivia,” and contrastively investigating various
text-type and genre differences through parallel-text and corpora studies (174-177). The
key ideas of this chapter are brought together in the question of Exercise 2 (179):

How are background knowledge, schemata, world knowledge, prior knowledge and
expert knowledge similar or different?
They are all types of knowledge stored in the reader’s mind and which he/she
contributes to reading. Background knowledge, world knowledge and prior
knowledge are general terms to refer to knowledge possessed by the reader on
approaching the text. Expert knowledge is background knowledge specific to a
certain field of expertise, and schemata refers to knowledge that is organized in
an established, well-known fashion, often in connection with an order of events
or a particular situation with various players and roles (283).

26.6 Translating in Society

Chapter 6 takes up various issues that pertain to the “Social aspects of translating,” such
as sociolinguistics, language variation, and language change—with specific reference to
how these affect the activity of communicating texts interlingually in different social
settings (182). Language change is always very gradual and normally preceded by subtle
variations that are not generally noticed (183) unless written and spoken forms are
closely compared. Reactions to such changes, especially where there is a long literary
tradition, tend to be critical because “writing, a more permanent and stable medium, is
frequently associated with education, formality, higher economic status and more
prestigious forms of language” (184). However, due to the many different types of genres
and settings that require interlingual communication, “a translator would be well advised
to base his/her selection of language variety for the target text on the basis of the
translation brief and [its] specifications, rather than on social perceptions of the status
of specific varieties,” for example, “contact and border varieties” (186). Since the work
of translating is always concerned with the contextual use of language in specific social
settings, “understanding language variation provides for a better understanding of the
translation instructions [in a brief], and how these and the [local] context influence the
target language” with regard to the most suitable variety to use (189).
In contrast to a “dialect,” which is “the type of variation observed in language due to
geographical (and sometimes political and demographic) reasons” (190), “the term
‘language’ is reserved for the abstract notion that captures the collective speech and
writing behaviors of a community” (191), as normally communicated via media having
a certain prestige value, for example, standard newspapers or news broadcasts and
educational or government publications. In any case, “the translator needs to be aware
of how the social views regarding a particular dialect of the target language affect the
translation brief, whether explicitly stated therein or not, because “dialect awareness is
key for acquiring the ability to use informed, objective argumentation skills” (193) when
preparing a target text for a specific use, such as health education, commercial

560
advertising, and most crucially when interpreting for defendants during judicial court
proceedings. The diverse sociological varieties of language based on socioeconomic
status, education, age, and gender also need to be taken into consideration along with
genre-based differences and cultural norms, depending on the type of communication at
hand and the nature of the audience or readership being targeted, whether overtly in an
internet advert or implicitly via the characters within a popular novel. However, in the
case of “everyday communicative texts (e.g., brochures, government communications,
[and commercial] product instructions)…a more dialectically ‘neutral’ variety [of the
language] tends to be used” in order to attract and sustain a wider audience (195).

“Registers” are varieties of language that differ in terms of the subject area, or “field” of
use (e.g., specific occupations, professions, trades, etc.)—the medium, or “mode,” of
communication (e.g., oral/written, radio/film, novel/newspaper)—and the level of
formality, or “tenor,” of the text with respect to the various social relations between and
among participants or addressees (198-204). Of course, many types of communication
may involve all of these aspects at once, a situation which may then strongly impact
upon a translation due to significant sociocultural differences between the source and
target settings, for example, an official letter composed in English when rendered in
Spanish, where a greater degree of formality is required (205-207), or in Arabic, the
written form of which must normally reflect the older, classical form of the language,
which contradicts the informal style of speech required in movie subtitles (207-209).
Things become even more complicated in multilingual societies, where translators need
to make themselves aware of “the social role played by various languages” within the
wider speech community along with various “social purpose(s) of translation” as a
professional occupation in conjunction with the specific communicative goals of
individual formal or informal translation tasks in varied cultural settings (211-215).

Exercise 16 (218) closely relates to a multilingual speech community, but from

yet another perspective: What is diglossia? How does it affect translation?
“Diglossia is the linguistic relation between two languages in which one of
them is restricted to use in specific contexts, such as the home (e.g., heritage
languages). Diglossic situations affect translation in the realm of individual
bilingualism and translation competence, since native speakers whose register and
textual competence may be lacking, could (and often do) end up working as
translators, for a variety of reasons” (288). The work of these translators will
therefore always need to be reviewed and probably revised in various respects by
more experienced or highly qualified, bilingual text examiners before publication.

27.7 Translation Quality

Finally, all of the topics and principles previously discussed in this book come together
in Chapter 7 and a consideration of “Translation quality”—its importance for the
profession, basic concepts involved, various approaches, typical difficulties encountered,
and the author’s proposed functionalist methodology, which is then exemplified (220-
221). This is not an easy subject to tackle since “translation quality evaluation is probably
one of the most controversial, intensely debated topics in translation scholarship and
practice” (230). One begins with the fundamental premise that “how we view quality in
translation is ultimately tied to how we understand translation” (220) and its practice.
Furthermore, “one needs to be clear about the object (what?) and the purpose (why and
what for?) of evaluation” (222). “Formative evaluation” normally occurs in some type of
educational environment where feedback, whether formal or informal, is continually
given “so that it can be incorporated and used in the future (for improving future
translations, for learning and developing translator competence, etc.)” (225).

561
“Summative evaluation,” on the other hand, aims to give an overall evaluation, whether
specifically criterion-based or more subjectively norm-referenced, for example, as in
professional translation competence exams (225). Most translation assessment tools and
methods fall into two major groups: practical or theoretical, that is, experience- or
research-based (227), but according to Colina, they all fail to pass muster because they
are difficult to apply and tend to “focus on partial aspects of quality, whereas assessment
needs to include a wide range of issues, balancing different interests and tensions” (229).
As a result and in sum, currently “no common standard exists in the industry or in
academia for the evaluation of translation quality” (230).

The remainder of Chapter 7 is devoted to Colina’s suggestions for remedying the situation
described above with an overview of a “user-friendly way to assess translation products”
by means of her Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) tool (231; cf. 237).1235 Besides being
“easy to apply…for raters of different backgrounds (teachers, professional translators,
bilinguals),” the TQA approach features four essential characteristics (232-233); it is:

 Componential, utilizing four specific areas of assessment: Target

Language, Functional and Textual Adequacy, Non-Specialized Content
(Meaning), and Specialized Content and Terminology;
 Descriptive, classifying texts into four basic criteria-defined, rubric-style
assessment categories ranging from unacceptable to ideal;
 Theoretically grounded, that is, upon explicit functionalist theory as
defined and applied in a specific translation brief for every project;
 Testable, by empirical means whereby the entire approach itself as well as
its various components (tool, rubric, etc.) may be assessed by means of a
mathematical “testing design” (234).

The TQA tool then explained and exemplified in greater detail with regard to its various
functional components and their respective descriptive sub-categories (235-261; see 261
for a listing of the general “competencies that are relevant to each component”).
Probably the most obvious item to illustrate is “the degree of adequacy of the language
in the target language as an example of target language in use” (238), which is categorized
in terms of four descriptors, from which the evaluator, or “rater,” is to select one (239):

1. The text is extremely difficult to read, bordering on being incomprehensible. The

translation reveals serious language proficiency issues…
2. The text is hard to comprehend… The structure of the source language shows up
in the translation and affects its readability.

1235
See also Sonia Colina, “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist
Approach,” The Translator 14(1) 2008:97-134; “Further Evidence for a Functionalist Approach to
Translation Quality,” Target 21(2) 2009:215-244. This assessment methodology may be fruitfully
compared with that of Juliane House, Translation—The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2018), in particular,
ch. 7: “How do we know when a translation is good?” (pp. 78-98); cf also Basil Hatim and Jeremy Munday,
Translation—An Advanced Resource Book (New York: Routledge, 2004).
562
 3. Although the target text is generally readable, there are problems and awkward
expressions resulting, in most cases, from unnecessary transfer from the source
text.
4. The translated text reads similarly to texts originally written in the target language
that respond to the same purpose, audience and text type as those specified for
the translation in the brief.

Of course, this method is rather easy to carry out since it appears to depend a great deal
upon the sociolinguistic intuition and experience of the evaluator; thus, the question
arises as to how such a general tool can be supported, or justified, in “problem cases,”
for example, where the translator (or student in training) wants concrete evidence as to
why s/he received such a low (1-2) rating. In such instances, the only solution would be
some variation of the old method of textual review where “the raters can recommend
edits” and corrections (255), ideally accompanied by associated reasons. The same
concern regarding the specificity of the evaluative criteria applies to the other three areas
of assessment: “functional and textual adequacy” (241), “non-specialized content”
(248),1236 and “specialized content and terminology” (253). In any case, it is important
to point out that the TQA tool is intended to be quite flexible and can therefore be
situationally customized, or “adapted to reflect a range of priorities…by modifying
numerical scores for components and descriptors” (256).

Exercise 7: List [some] reasons why evaluation is important to the field of translation
(264).
In a professional context [qualitative assessment] helps to determine whether a
product meets standards; serves to assess translator competence; helps to make
well-informed and objective employment decisions; is useful for self-monitoring
and for incorporating feedback from colleagues; serves as a common, objective
framework for translation criticism and discussion; [and] can contribute to
education and professional development (rubric methods) (291).

26.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, this textbook effectively achieves its stated goal of providing “a non-
technical introduction to the basic and central concepts of translation theory and
practice” and reinforces these by means of numerous exercises, practice activities,
“examples, figures and text extracts from a wide variety of world languages” (i). Though
explicitly intended to serve “practicing translators, language students, and language
industry professionals” (ibid.), it would be equally helpful for the worldwide company
of Bible translators, consultants, trainers, reviewers, and project commissioners as a way
of introducing them to the broad field of contemporary “translation studies”—indeed,
from a functionalist perspective, which is my own preference based on some years of
experience in Africa and elsewhere. Having pointed out the utility of this book for those
engaged in the work of translating the Scriptures, I might close with a related criticism,
namely, the obvious lack in this text of any serious engagement with the specific field of

1236
In this section the “idealized notion of equivalence” is seemingly rehabilitated: “We understand and
measure equivalence as the necessary degree of equivalence required by the instructions, the purpose of
the translation and the audience” (249).
563
“Bible translation studies,”1237 which has always paralleled secular practice—often
learning from, but also in many ways also contributing to the discipline.1238 Perhaps in a
future edition, Colina might enhance the value of her admirable introductory overview
by addressing this rather conspicuous omission.

Ernst R. Wendland, Stellenbosch University – May, 2018

1237
The early work of Eugene A. Nida (1964) is briefly mentioned in passing, but why was his major work
from a functionalist perspective totally ignored (with Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another:
Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986)?
1238
For example: Timothy Wilt, ed., Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Manchester: St Jerome, 2003); Ernst
Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004); T. Wilt and E. Wendland, Scripture
Frames & Framing (Stellenbosch, SA: SUN Media Press, 2008); E. Wendland, LiFE-Style [Literary Functional
Equivalence] Translation, 2nd ed., (Dallas: SIL International, 2011).
564
27. On the Importance of Words—Translation Too!

27.1 The Importance of Words

Slovenly language corrodes the mind. — John Q. Adams.

Words, when well chosen, have so great a force in them that a description often gives us
more lively ideas than the sight of things themselves. — Joseph Addison, The Spectator,
No. 416 (June 27, 1712).

There is a certain Coldness and Indifference in the Phrases of our European Languages,
when they are compared with the Oriental Forms of Speech; and it happens very luckily,
that the Hebrew Idioms run into the English Tongue with a particular Grace and Beauty.
Our Language has received innumerable Elegancies and Improvements, from that Infusion
of Hebraisms, which are derived to it out of the Poetical Passages in Holy Writ. They give a
Force and Energy to our Expressions, warm and animate our Language, and convey our
Thoughts in more ardent and intense Phrases, than any that are to be met with in our own
Tongue. There is something so pathetick in this kind of Diction, that it often sets the Mind
in a Flame, and makes our Hearts burn within us. How cold and dead does a Prayer appear,
that is composed in the most Elegant and Polite Forms of Speech, which are natural to our
Tongue, when it is not heightened by that Solemnity of Phrase, which may be drawn from
the Sacred Writings. — Joseph Addison, The Spectator, No. 405 (June 14, 1712).

If the way in which men express their thoughts is slipshod and mean, it will be very difficult
for their thoughts themselves to escape being the same. — Alford.

By words the mind is winged. — Aristophanes.

Charles V used to say that "the more languages a man knew, he was so many more times a
man." Each new form of human speech introduces one into a new world of thought and life.
So in some degree is it in traversing other continents and mingling with other races. As a
hawk flieth not high with one wing, even so a man reacheth not to excellence with one
tongue. — Roger Ascham.

Our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing,
and the connexions they have found worth marketing, in the lifetimes of many generation;
these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the
long test of thee survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and
reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs
of an afternoon-the most favoured alternative method. — J. L. Austin, 'A Plea for
Excuses', Philosophical Papers,1961.

Men suppose their reason has command over their words; still it happens that words in
return exercise authority on reason. — Francis Bacon.

There are also idols formed by the reciprocal intercourse and society of man with man,
which we call idols of the market, from the commerce and association of men with each
other; for men converse by means of language, but words are formed at the will of the
generality, and there arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful
obstruction to the mind. Nor can the definitions and explanations with which learned men
guard and protect themselves in some instances afford a complete remedy— words still
565
manifestly force the understanding, throw everything into confusion, and lead mankind
into vain and innumerable controversies and fallacies. — Francis Bacon, Novum
Organum, I, 43.

All words have the "taste" of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular work, a
particular person, a generation, an age group, the day and hour. Each word tastes of the
context and contexts in which it has lived its socially charged life... — Mikhail Bakhtin
in The Dialogic Imagination.

Thinking cannot be clear till it has had expression. We must write, or speak, or act our
thoughts, or they will remain in a half torpid form. Our feelings must have expression, or
they will be as clouds, which, till they descend in rain, will never bring up fruit or flower, So
it is with all the inward feelings; expression gives them development. Thought is the
blossom; language the opening bud; action the fruit behind it. — H.W. Beecher.

The language denotes the man; a coarse or refined character finds its expression naturally in
coarse or refined phraseology. — Christian Bovee.

How did the surgeon acquire his knowledge of the structure of the human body? In part
this comes from the surgeon's firsthand experience during his long training. But what made
this experience fruitful was the surgeon's earlier training, the distillation of generations of
past experience which was transmitted to the surgeon in his anatomy classes. It has taken
hundreds of years and millions of dissections to build up the detailed and accurate picture
of the structure of the human body that enables the surgeon to know where to cut. A highly
specialized sublanguage has evolved for the sole purpose of describing this structure. The
surgeon had to learn this jargon of anatomy before the anatomical facts could be effectively
transmitted to him. Thus, underlying the 'effective action' of the surgeon is an 'effective
language.' — I. D. J. Bross, "Languages in Cancer Research," in Murphy, Pressman, and
Mirand, eds., Perspectives in Cancer Research and Treatment (New York: Alan R. Liss,
1973), p. 217.

Those who write as they speak, even though they speak well, write badly. — Comte de
Buffon, Discours sur le style, 1753.

A very great part of the mischiefs that vex this world arises from words. — Edmund Burke.

A blow with a word strikes deeper than a blow with a sword. — Robert Burton, The
anatomy of melancholy I.2.4.4.

Language is called the garment of thought: however, it should rather be, language is the
flesh-garment, the body, of thought. — Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, Book 1, Chapter
11.

The coldest word was once a glowing new metaphor. — Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present,
1843.

Language is not merely a means of expression and communication; it is an instrument of

experiencing, thinking, and feeling ... Our ideas and experiences are not independent of
language; they are all integral parts of the same pattern, the warp and woof of the same
texture. We do not first have thoughts, ideas, feelings, and then put them into a verbal
framework. We think in words, by means of words. Language and experience are
inextricably interwoven, and the awareness of one awakens the other. Words and idioms are
566
as indispensible to our thoughts and experiences as are colors and tints to a painting. —
William Chomsky (died 1977), Hebrew: the Eternal Language (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1957), p.3. William Chomsky was Professor of Hebrew at Dropsie
College and one of the world's foremost Hebrew grammarians. He was the father of Noam
Chomsky, the famous linguist.

Language is properly the servant of thought, but not unfrequently becomes its master. The
conceptions of a feeble writer are greatly modified by his style; a man of vigorous powers
makes his style bend to his conceptions ... a fact compatible enough with the
acknowledgement of Dryden, that a rhyme had often helped him to an idea. — Clulow.

Language is the armory of the human mind, and at once contains the trophies of its past
and the weapons of its future conquests. — Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

For one word a man is often deemed to be wise, and for one word he is often deemed to be
foolish. We should indeed be careful what we say. — Confucius.

Give me the right word and the right accent and I will move the world. — Joseph Conrad, A
personal record.

He who wants to persuade should put his trust, not in the right argument, but in the right
word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense. — Joseph
Conrad, A personal record.

Language is not only the vehicle of thought, it is a great and efficient instrument in
thinking. — Sir H. Davy.

The individual's whole experience is built upon the plan of his language. — Henri
Delacroix.

All translation, I suppose may be reduced to these three heads. First, that of metaphrase, or
turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language into another... The
second way is that of paraphrase, or translation with latitude, where the author is kept in
view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed as his
sense ... The third way is that of imitation, where the translator (if he has not now lost that
name) assumes the liberty not only to vary the words and sense, but to forsake them both
as he sees occasion; and taking only some general hints from the original ... work as he
pleases. — John Dryden, Preface to Ovid's Epistles, 1680.

For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the
same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the
rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. —
Ecclesiasticus, The Prologue.

How can we appraise a proposal if the terms hurled at our ears can mean anything or
nothing, and change their significance with the inflection of the voice? Welfare state,
national socialism, radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary and a regiment of others ...
these terms in today's usage, are generally compounds of confusion and prejudice. If our
attitudes are muddled, our language is often to blame. A good tonic for clearer thinking is a
dose of precise, legal definition. — Dwight D. Eisenhower.

567
Though the origin of most of our words is forgotten, each word was at first a stroke of
genious, and obtained currency because for the moment it symbolized the world to the first
speaker and to the hearer. The etymologist finds the deadest word to have been once a
brilliant picture. Language is fossilized poetry. — Emerson, The Poet .

Poetry is what is lost in translation. — Robert Frost, Quoted in Robert Frost: a Backward
Look by Louis Untermeyer (1964).

So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was
their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin
tongue. — Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, II.

Who does not know another language does not know his own. — Goethe, Sprüche in Prosa.

The pressure to conform to 'politically correct' speech is primarily a pressure not to use
certain expressions. But when our freedom to use certain expressions is taken away, then
our ability to think in certain ways is also curtailed. — Wayne Grudem, What's Wrong with
Gender-Neutral Bibles 1997.

Words ... so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for
good and evil they become, in the hands of one who knows how to combine them! —
Nathaniel Hawthorne, American Notebooks, 1841-1852.

Languages happily restrict the mind to what is of its own native growth and fitted for it, as
rivers and mountains bond countries; or the empire of learning, as well as states, would
become unwieldy and overgrown. — Hazlitt, 'On Old English Writers and Speakers', 1825.

Most wonderful of all are words, and how they make friends one with another. — O.
Henry.

The first author of speech was God himself, that instructed Adam how to name such
creatures as He presented to his sight... — Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, I, 4.

The most noble and profitable invention of all other was that of speech, consisting of names
or appellations, and their connexion; whereby men register their thoughts, recall them
when they are past, and also declare them one to another for mutual utility and
conversation; without which there had been amongst men neither Commonwealth, nor
society, nor contract, nor peace, no more than amongst lions, bears and wolves. — Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan, I, 4.

A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of a living thought and
may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is
used. — Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Language is a solemn thing: it grows out of life ... out of its agonies and ecstasies, its wants
and weariness. Every language is a temple in which the soul of those who speak it is
enshrined. — Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Language is the blood of the soul into which thoughts run and out of which they grow. —
Oliver Wendell Holmes.

568
Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall. — Oliver Wendell
Holmes.

Why then should words challenge Eternity, When greatest men, and greatest actions die?
Use may revive the obsoletest words, And banish those that now are most in vogue; Use is
the judge, the law, and rule of speech. — Horace, Ars Poetica.

Words may be either the servants or masters. If the former they may safely guide us in the
way of truth. If the latter they intoxicate the brain and lead into swamps of thought where
there is no solid footing. Among the sources of those innumerable calamities which from
age to age have overwhelmed mankind, may be reckoned as one of the principal, the abuse
of words. — George Horne.

Some hold translations not unlike to be the wrong side of a Turkey tapestry. — James
Howell, Familiar Letters, Book I, Letter 6.

Language is by its very nature a communal thing; that is, it expresses never the exact thing
but a compromise ... that which is common to you, me, and everybody. — T. E.
Hulme, Speculations, 1924.

Der mensch lebt mit den Gegenständen hauptsächlich, ja ... sogar ausschliesslich so, wie die
Sprache sie ihm zuführt. [Man lives with the world about him principally, indeed ...
exclusively, as language presents it to him]. — Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1767-1835.

Words are tools which automatically carve concepts out of experience. — Julian Sorrell
Huxley.

The poor and the affluent are not communicating because they do not have the same words.
— Peter Jennison.

The common people do not accurately adapt their thoughts to objects; nor, secondly, do
they accurately adapt their words to their thoughts; they do not mean to lie; but, taking no
pains to be exact, they give you very false accounts. A great part of their language is
proverbial; if anything rocks at all, they say it rocks like a cradle; and in this way they go on.
— Samuel Johnson.

As any custom is disused, the words that expressed it must perish with it; as any opinion
grows popular, it will innovate speech in the same proportion as it alters practice. —
Samuel Johnson, Preface, Dictionary of the English language, 1755.

Every quotation contributes something to the stability or enlargement of the language. —

Samuel Johnson, Dictionary of the English language.

Language is the dress of thought; and as the noblest mien, or most graceful action, would
be degraded and obscured by a garb appropriated to the gross employments of rustics or
mechanics, so the most heroic sentiments will lose their efficacy, and the most splendid
ideas drop their magnificence, if they are conveyed by words used commonly upon low and
trivial occasions, debased by vulgar mouths, and contaminated by inelegant applications.
Truth indeed is always truth, and reason is always reason; they have an intrinsic and
unalterable value, and constitute that intellectual gold which defies destruction: but gold
may be so concealed in baser matter, that only a chemist can recover it; sense may be so
hidden in unrefined and plebeian words, that none but philosophers can distinguish it; and
569
both may be so buried in impurities, as not to pay the cost of their extraction. — Samuel
Johnson, "The Life of Cowley," English Poets (1779).

Poetry cannot be translated; and, therefore, it is the poets that preserve the languages; for
we would not be at the trouble to learn a language if we could have all that is written in it
just as well in a translation. But as the beauties of poetry cannot be preserved in any
language except that in which it was originally written, we learn the language. — Samuel
Johnson.

Words borrowed of Antiquity do lend a kind of Majesty to style, and are not without their
delight sometimes. For they have the authority of years, and out of their intermission do
win to themselves a kind of grace-like newness. But the eldest of the present, and newest of
the past Language, is the best. — Ben Jonson, Discoveries.

In the commerce of speech use only coin of gold and silver. — Joubert.

Despite the great wealth of words which European languages possess, the thinker finds
himself often at a loss for an expression exactly suited to his conception, for want of which
he is unable to make himself intelligible either to others or to himself.
— Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Dialectic.

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. — Rudyard Kipling,
Speech, Feb. 14, 1923.

Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world and how we
relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our
everyday realities. — George Lakoff.

Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally
metaphorical in nature. — George Lakoff.

Learn the value of a man's words and expressions, and you know him. Each man has a
measure of his own for everything; this he offers you inadvertently in his words. He who
has a superlative for everything wants a measure for the great or small. — Johann Kaspar
Lavater.

Most of our expressions are metaphorical ... the philosophy of our forefathers lies hidden in
them. — Lichtenberg, Aphorisms, 1764-99.

Regardless of how primitive or abbreviated language may be, it is pivotal to cognition: by

means of it we designate numbers, perform mathematics, calculations, analyze perceptions,
distinguish the essential from the nonessential, and form categories of distinct impressions.
Apart from being a means of communicating, language is fundamental to perception and
memory, thinking and behavior. It organizes our inner life. — A. R. Luria.

I have undertaken to translate the Bible into German. This was good for me; otherwise I
might have died in the mistaken notion that I was a learned fellow. — Martin Luther.

Hardly any original thoughts on mental or social subjects ever make their way among
mankind or assume their proper importance in the minds even of their inventors, until aptly
selected words or phrases have as it were nailed them down and held them fast. — John
Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the
570
Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1858), p. 426.

Bad words are as influential as the plague and the pestilence. They have wrought more evil
than battle, murder, and sudden death. They creep through the ear into the heart, call up all
its bad passions, and tempt it to break God's commandments. A few bad words got into the
ear of the mother of mankind, and they led her on to eat the forbidden fruit, and thus to
bring death into the world. — G. Mogridge.

The word is half his that speaks and half his that hears it. — Montaigne, Essays III.xiii.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-
view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [English Socialism], but to make all
other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted
once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought--that is, a thought diverging
from the principles of Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is
dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very
subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express,
while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect
method. This was done partly by the invention of new words and by stripping such words
as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings
whatever. — George Orwell, 1984.

"You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston ... The Revolution will be complete
when the language is perfect." — Syme, explaining Newspeak to Winston in George
Orwell's novel, 1984.

What is originality? To see something that has no name as yet and hence cannot be
mentioned although it stares us all in the face. The way men usually are, it takes a name to
make something visible for them. Those with originality have for the most part also
assigned names. — Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science 1882-7.

Expression is the dress of thought, and still

Appears more decent as more suitable.
A vile Conceit in pompous words express'd
Is like a clown in regal purple dress'd
For diff'rent styles with diff'rent subjects sort,
As sev'ral garbs with country, town, and court.
Some by old words to fame have made pretence,
Ancients in phrase, mere moderns in their sense.
— Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism (1711)

A foreign tongue is spread not by fire and the sword but by its own richness and
superiority. — Alexander Pushkin, on a translation of Krylov's Fables,
cit. Pushkin on Literature, ed. Tatiana Wolfe.

According to Solomon, life and death are in the power of the tongue; and as Euripedes truly
affirmeth, every unbridled tongue in the end shall find itself unfortunate; in all that ever I
observed I ever found that men's fortunes are oftener made by their tongues than by their
virtues, and more men's fortunes overthrown thereby, also, than by their vices. — Sir
Walter Raleigh.

571
For myself, I am so aghast at the increasing difficulties which present themselves, and so
well convinced of the almost demonstrable impossibility that languages should owe their
original institution to merely human means, that I leave, to any who will undertake it, the
discussion of the difficult problem, which was most necessary, the existence of society to
the invention of language or the invention of language to the establishment of society. —
Rousseau, Origin of Inequality.

We may appropriately speak of a language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident
that the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinctively religious mode of
expression out of the language of the country which it has chosen as its sphere, and
transforming the linguistic elements which it found ready to hand, and even conceptions
already existing, into a shape and form appropriate to itself and all its own. — Richard
Rothe, Zur Dogmatik (Gotha, 1863), p. 238.

A language will often be wiser, not merely than the vulgar, but even than the wisest of those
who speak it. Being like amber in its efficacy to circulate the electric spirit of truth, it is also
like amber in embalming and preserving the relics of ancient wisdom, although one is not
seldom puzzled to decipher its contents. Sometimes it locks up truth, which were once well
known, but which, in the course of ages, have passed out of sight and been forgotten. In
other cases it holds the germs of truths, of which, though they were never plainly discerned,
the genius of its framers caught a glimpse in a happy moment of divination. — George
Augustus Sala (1828-1895).

All language is rhetorical, and even the senses are poets. — George Santayana, The letters
of George Santayana.

Words are weapons, and it is dangerous in speculation, as in politics, to borrow them from
the arsenal of the enemy. — George Santayana, Obiter Scripta.

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social
activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language
which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to
imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language
is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection.
The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon
the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be
considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies
live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see
and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our
community predispose certain choices of interpretation. — Edward Sapir [1884-
1936], Culture, Language and Personality.

So close is the connection between intelligence and speech, between thought and word, that
the one may be called the inward speech, or speech concealed, and the other the outward
thought, or thought revealed. … In the same degree in which the mind produces thoughts it
also clothes them in words of some kind, although they may not be expressed or uttered. If
a man thinks he knows a thing, but cannot say it, his knowledge is to the same extent
defective; the idea may be begotten, but it is not born until it assumes shape and form in
some word or words, or some symbolic signs, however imperfectly they may convey the
meaning. — Phillip Schaff, “The English Language,” in Literature and Poetry: Studies on
the English Language; the Poetry of the Bible; etc. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1890), pp. 1-2.

572
Syllables govern the world. — John Selden, Table Talk: Power.

England and America are two countries separated by the same language. — George Bernard
Shaw.

It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth, without making some other
Englishman despise him. — George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion, Preface.

No man fully capable of his own language ever masters another. — George Bernard Shaw,
Maxims for Revolutionists.

The success and enduring influence of any systematic construction of truth, be it sacred or
secular, depends as much upon an exact terminology, as upon close and deep thinking
itself. Indeed, unless the results to which the human mind arrives are plainly stated, and
firmly fixed in an exact phraseology, its thinking is to very little purpose in the end. 'Terms,'
says Whewell, 'record discoveries.' [History of Inductive Sciences.] There may be the most
thorough analysis, and the most comprehensive and combining synthesis; the truth in its
deepest and most scientific form may be reached by the individual mind; and yet the public
mind and after ages be none the wiser for it. That which was seen it may be with crystal
clearness, and in bold outline, in the consciousness of an individual thinker, may fail to
become the property and possession of mankind at large, because it is not transferred from
the individual to the general mind, by means of a precise phraseology, and a rigorous
terminology. Nothing is in its own nature more fugacious and shifting than thought; and
particularly thought upon the mysteries of Christianity. A conception that is plain and
accurate in the understanding of the first man becomes obscure and false in that of the
second, because it was not grasped, and firmly held, in the form and proportions with
which it first came up, and then handed over to other minds, a fixed and scientific quantity.
— William G.T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1865), pp. 362-3.

God gave man speech, and speech created thought, which is the measure of the universe. —
Shelley, Prometheus Unbound II.iv.

It is with words as with sunbeams ... the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn. —
Robert Southey.

We next went to the School of Languages, where three Professors sat in Consultation upon
improving that of their own Country. The first Project was to shorten Discourse by cutting
Polysyllables into one, and leaving out Verbs and Participles; because in Reality all things
imaginable are but Nouns. — Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels.

We are armed with language adequate to describe each leaf of the field, but not to describe
human character. — Henry David Thoreau.

Colors fade, temples crumble, empires fall, but wise words endure. — Edward Thorndike.

Language is the amber in which a thousand precious thoughts have been safely embedded
and preserved. It has arrested ten thousand lightning-flashes of genius, which, unless thus
fixed and arrested, might have been as bright, but would have also been as quickly passing
and perishing as the lightning. — Trench.

573
The Church today is concerned about communicating with the contemporary world and
especially about the need to speak in a new idiom. The language of the Church had better
be the language of the New Testament. To proclaim the Gospel with new terminology is
hazardous when much of the message and valuable overtones that are implicit in the New
Testament might be lost forever. 'Most of the distortions and dissentions that have vexed
the Church,' observed the late Dean of York, 'where these have touched theological
understanding, have arisen through the insistence of sects or sections of the Christian
community upon using words which are not found in the New Testament.' True, we must
in our preaching employ the speech of the factories and homes of our century, or we will
not preach at all. Here comes the clash of the two languages, the Biblical and the secular.
We must translate. Else we shall continue to speak Greek. But our peril is that of
succumbing to modern language and failing to preach the Gospel because we have made
not only its language but its message 'modern.' — Nigel Turner, Christian
Words (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980), p. viii. Turner quotes Alan
Richardson, Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (SCM Press, 1958), p. 217.

I had perceaved by experyence how that it was impossible to stablysh the laye people in any
truth, excepte the scripture were playnly layde before their eyes in their mother tongue. —
William Tyndale.

The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference
between lightning and the lightning bug. — Mark Twain.

An idea does not pass from one language to another without change. — Miguel de
Unamuno y Jugo (1864-1936), Spanish writer, in The Tragic Sense of Life (1913).

Many a treasure besides Ali Baba's is unlocked with a verbal key. — Henry van Dyke.

While there are a good many reasons for the growth of the Church during the first five
centuries, it appears that the sacred Scriptures in the language and in the hands of the laity
had a good deal to do with it. — Morris Watkins.

Language as well as the faculty of speech, was the immediate gift of God. — Noah Webster.

Not in books only, not yet in oral discourse, but often also in words there are boundless
stores of moral and historic truth, and no less of passion and imagination laid up, from
which lessons of infinite worth may be derived. — Whately.

We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types
that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every
observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of
impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the
linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe
significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this
way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the
patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its
terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the
organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. — Benjamin Lee
Whorf [1897-1941], Language, Thought and Reality.

A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years. — Wendell L. Wilkie, Town hall
debate, 1938.
574
The knowledge of words is the gate of scholarship. — John Wilson.

The limits of my language stand for the limits of my world. — Ludwig Wittgenstein, quoted
in Karl Kraus by Harry Zohn.

(http://www.bible-researcher.com/language-quotes.html ;
https://builttobrag.com/importance-of-words/ )

27.2 Excerpt from “Why Translation Matters”

by Edith Grossman

Why translation matters: the subject is so huge, so complex, and so dear to my heart that I
have decided to begin my approach to it by answering the implicit question with another
question, using the technique of query-as-response—a traditional, perhaps time-honored
method of indicating the almost impenetrable difficulty of a subject, and certainly, as every
pedagogue knows, a good way to delay and even confound the questioner until you can
think of an acceptable answer that has at least a glimmer of coherence. My variation on that
traditional ploy consists of breaking the question into still smaller components in order to
refocus the inquiry and ask not only why translation matters, but also whether it matters at
all, and if in fact it does have importance, who exactly cares about it.

The answers that emerge may really depend on how the questions are formulated: Why, for
example, does translation matter to translators, authors, and readers? Why does it not
matter to most publishers and book reviewers? What is its relevance to the literary tradition
in any number of languages? What is its contribution to the civilized life of the world? My
attempt to devise a response to these various elements constitutes a kind of preliminary
appraisal of some of the thorny, ongoing, apparently never-to-be-resolved problems that
surround the question of literary translation, beginning with the old chestnut of whether it
is possible at all, and moving on to what it actually does, and what its proper place in the
universe of literature should be.

I believe that serious professional translators, often in private, think of themselves—forgive

me, I mean ourselves—as writers, no matter what else may cross our minds when we
ponder the work we do, and I also believe we are correct to do so. Is this sheer
presumption, a heady kind of immodesty on our part? What exactly do we literary
translators do to justify the notion that the term “writer” actually applies to us? Aren’t we

575
simply the humble, anonymous handmaids-and-men of literature, the grateful, ever-
obsequious servants of the publishing industry?

In the most resounding yet decorous terms I can muster, the answer is no, for the most
fundamental description of what translators do is that we write—or perhaps rewrite—in
language B a work of literature originally composed in language A, hoping that readers of
the second language—I mean, of course, readers of the translation—will perceive the text,
emotionally and artistically, in a manner that parallels and corresponds to the esthetic
experience of its first readers. This is the translator’s grand ambition. Good translations
approach that purpose. Bad translations never leave the starting line.

As a first step toward accomplishing so exemplary an end, translators need to develop a

keen sense of style in both languages, honing and expanding our critical awareness of the
emotional impact of words, the social aura that surrounds them, the setting and mood that
informs them, the atmosphere they create. We struggle to sharpen and elaborate our
perception of the connotations and implications behind basic denotative meaning in a
process not dissimilar to the efforts writers make to increase their familiarity with and
competence in a given literary idiom.

Writing, like any other artistic practice, is a vocation that calls to deep, resonating parts of
our psyches; it is not something translators or writers can be dissuaded from doing or
would abandon easily. It seems strikingly paradoxical, but although translators obviously
are writing someone else’s work, there is no shame or subterfuge in this despite the peculiar
disparagement and continual undervaluing of what we do by some publishers and many
reviewers.

As William Carlos Williams said in a letter written in 1940 to the art critic and poet Nicolas
Calas (and my thanks to Jonathan Cohen, the scholar of inter-American literature, for
sharing the quotation with me):

If I do original work all well and good. But if I can say it (the matter of form I mean)
by translating the work of others that also is valuable. What difference does it make?

The undeniable reality is that the work becomes the translator’s (while simultaneously and
mysteriously somehow remaining the work of the original author) as we transmute it into a
second language. Perhaps transmute is the wrong verb; what we do is not an act of magic,

576
like altering base metals into precious ones, but the result of a series of creative decisions
and imaginative acts of criticism.

In the process of translating, we endeavor to hear the first version of the work as
profoundly and completely as possible, struggling to discover the linguistic charge, the
structural rhythms, the subtle implications, the complexities of meaning and suggestion in
vocabulary and phrasing, and the ambient, cultural inferences and conclusions these
tonalities allow us to extrapolate. This is a kind of reading as deep as any encounter with a
literary text can be.

For example, consider fiction. Dialogue contains often nuanced though sometimes
egregious indications of the class, status, and education of the characters, not to mention
their intelligence and emotional state; significant intentions and sonorities abound in the
narration and in the descriptive portions of the work; there may be elements of irony or
satire; the rhythm of the prose (long, flowing periods or short, crisp phrases) and the tone
of the writing (colloquialisms, elevated diction, pomposities, slang, elegance, substandard
usage) are pivotal stylistic devices, and it is incumbent upon the translator to apprehend the
ways in which these instrumentalities further the purposes of the fiction, the revelation of
character, the progress of the action.

To varying degrees, all attentive readers do this, consciously or unconsciously. Certainly

students and teachers of literature attempt to achieve this kind of profound analysis in every
paper they write, every lecture they give. How, then, does the endeavor of the translator
differ from that of any careful reader, not to mention harried students and their equally
hard-pressed instructors? The unique factor in the experience of translators is that we not
only are listeners to the text, hearing the author’s voice in the mind’s ear, but speakers of a
second text—the translated work—who repeat what we have heard, though in another
language, a language with its own literary tradition, its own cultural accretions, its own
lexicon and syntax, its own historical experience, all of which must be treated with as much
respect, esteem, and appreciation as we bring to the language of the original writer.

Our purpose is to re-create as far as possible, within the alien system of a second language,
all the characteristics, vagaries, quirks, and stylistic peculiarities of the work we are
translating. And we do this by analogy—that is, by finding comparable, not identical,
characteristics, vagaries, quirks, and stylistic peculiarities in the second language. Repeating
the work in any other way—for example, by succumbing to the literalist fallacy and

577
attempting to duplicate the text in another language, following a pattern of word-for-word
transcription— would lead not to a translation but to a grotesque variation on Borges’s
Pierre Menard, who rewrites his own Don Quixote that coincides word for word with
Cervantes’ original, though it is considered superior to the original because of its
modernity. Furthermore, a mindless, literalist translation would constitute a serious breach
of contract. There isn’t a self-respecting publisher in the world who would not reject a
manuscript framed in this way. It is not acceptable, readable, or faithful, as the letters of
agreement demand, though it certainly may have its own perverse originality.

To cite Walter Benjamin in his essay “The Task of the Translator,"

No translation would be possible if in its ultimate essence it strove for likeness to the
original. . . . For just as the tenor and significance of the great works of literature
undergo a complete transformation over the centuries, the mother tongue of the
translator is transformed as well. While a poet’s words endure in his own language,
even the greatest translation is destined to become part of the growth of its own
language and eventually to be absorbed by its renewal. Translation is so far removed
from being the sterile equation of two dead languages that of all literary forms it is the
one charged with the special mission of watching over the maturing process of the
original language and the birth pangs of its own.

And as Ralph Manheim, the great translator from German, so famously said, translators are
like actors who speak the lines as the author would if the author could speak English. As
one would expect from so gifted a practitioner of the art, Manheim’s observation on
translation is wonderfully insightful and revelatory. Whatever else it may be, translation in
Manheim’s formulation is a kind of interpretive performance, bearing the same relationship
to the original text as the actor’s work does to the script, the performing musician’s to the
composition. This image of performance may account for the fact that, surprisingly enough,
I always seem to conceive of and discuss the translating process as essentially auditory,
something immediately available to other people, as opposed to a silent, solitary process. I
think of the author’s voice and the sound of the text, then of my obligation to hear both as
clearly and profoundly as possible, and finally of my equally pressing need to speak the
piece in a second language. Especially in the translation of poetry, this practice is not purely
metaphorical. It is, instead, an integral part of my actual approach to the interpretation of a
poem in Spanish and its rendering into English. In my case, the work tends to be done viva
voce.
578
We read translations all the time, but of all the interpretive arts, it is fascinating and
puzzling to realize that only translation has to fend off the insidious, damaging question of
whether or not it is, can be, or should be possible. It would never occur to anyone to ask
whether it is feasible for an actor to perform a dramatic role or a musician to interpret a
piece of music. Of course it is feasible, just as it is possible for a translator to rewrite a work
of literature in another language. Can it be done well? I think so, as do my translating
colleagues, but there are other, more antipathetic opinions. Yet even the most virulent,
mean-spirited critic reluctantly admits on occasion that some few decent translations do
appear from time to time. And the very concept of world literature as a discipline fit for
academic study depends on the availability of translations.

Translation occupies a central and prominent position in the conceptualization of a

universal, enlightened civilization, and, no small accomplishment, it almost defines the
European Renaissance. The “rebirth” we all have studied at one time or another began as
the translation into Latin and then the vernacular languages of the ancient Greek
philosophy and science that had been lost to Christian Europe for centuries. Poets of the
late fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries—for example, the Spaniards Garcilaso
de la Vega and Fray Luis de León—routinely translated and adapted classical and then
Italian works, and these versions of Horace or Virgil or Petrarch were included as a matter
of course in collections of their original poems.

Translation is crucial to our sense of ourselves as serious readers, and as literate, educated
men and women we would find the absence of translations to read and study inconceivable.
There are roughly six thousand extant languages in the world. Let us hypothesize that
approximately one thousand of them are written. Not even the most gifted linguist could
read complex literary texts in one thousand languages. We tend to be in awe of the few
people who can read even ten languages well, and it clearly is an astonishing feat, although
we have to remember that if there were no translations, even those multilingual prodigies
would be deprived of any encounter with works written in the 990 tongues they don’t know.

If this is true for the linguistically gifted, imagine the impact that the disappearance of
translations would have on the rest of us. Translation expands our ability to explore
through literature the thoughts and feelings of people from another society or another time.
It permits us to savor the transformation of the foreign into the familiar and for a brief time
to live outside our own skins, our own preconceptions and misconceptions. It expands and
deepens our world, our consciousness, in countless, indescribable ways.
579
The translation of their works is also of critical importance to writers around the world,
promising them a significant increase in readership. One of the many reasons writers
write—though certainly not the only one—is to communicate with and affect as many
people as possible. Translation expands that number exponentially, allowing more and
more readers to be touched by an author’s work. For writers whose first language is limited
in terms of how many people speak it, translation is indispensable for achieving an audience
of consequential size. For those whose first language is spoken by millions, though a
decisive number of them may be illiterate or so impoverished that buying books is not an
option, translation is also an imperative. It is one of the preposterous ironies of our current
literary situation that despite the pitifully low number of translations published each year in
the United States, the United Kingdom, and the rest of the English-speaking world
compared, say, with the industrialized nations of western Europe or Latin America, the
English-language market is the one most writers and their agents crave for their books.

English is the world’s lingua franca in commerce, technology, and diplomacy, and it tends
to be spoken in places where literacy is prevalent and people are prosperous enough to
purchase books, even though the number of book buyers seems to decrease steadily. Some
years ago Philip Roth estimated that there are four thousand people in the United States
who buy books, and he went on to say that once you have sold your work to them and the
libraries, your run is essentially ended. On optimistic days, I assume Roth was being
characteristically sardonic. At other times, I am not so sure.

One of the double-edged canards about the Nobel Prize is that no writer who has not been
translated into English can hope even to be considered for the prize in literature, because
English is the one language all the judges can read. This notion actually seems to be true for
the use of the book in other media, such as film. A book that has not been translated into
English has little likelihood of ever being made into a widely distributed movie.

Translation affects creative artists in another, perhaps less obvious but much more
important and extraordinarily consequential way—one that goes far beyond questions of
financial reward, no matter how significant that may be. As Walter Benjamin indicates in
the passage cited earlier, literary translation infuses a language with influences, alterations,
and combinations that would not have been possible without the presence of translated
foreign literary styles and perceptions, the material significance and heft of literature that
lies outside the territory of the purely monolingual. In other words, the influence of

580
translated literature has a revivifying and expansive effect on what is hideously called the
“target language,” the language into which the text is translated.

In 1964 Robert Bly wrote an essay entitled “The Surprise of Neruda,” in which he speaks
directly to this issue:

We tend to associate the modern imagination with the jerky imagination, which starts
forward, stops, turns around, switches from subject to subject. In Neruda’s poems,
the imagination drives forward, joining the entire poem in a rising flow of imaginative
energy. . . . He is a new kind of creature moving about under the surface of
everything.

Moving under the earth, he knows everything from the bottom up (which is the right
way to learn the nature of a thing) and therefore is never at a loss for its name.
Compared to him, the American poet resembles a blind man moving about above the
ground from tree to tree, from house to house, feeling each thing for a long time, and
then calling out “house,” when we already know it’s a house.

The impact of the kind of artistic discovery that translation enables is profoundly important
to the health and vitality of any language and any literature. It may be one of the reasons
that histories of national literatures so often seem to exclude supremely significant
connections among writers. “National literature” is a narrowing, confining concept based on
the distinction between native and foreign, which is certainly a valid and useful
differentiation in some areas and under certain circumstances, but in writing it is obviated
by translation, which dedicates itself to denying and negating the impact of divine
punishment for the construction of the Tower of Babel, or at least to overcoming its worst
divisive effects.

Translation asserts the possibility of a coherent, unified experience of literature in the

world’s multiplicity of languages. At the same time, translation celebrates the differences
among languages and the many varieties of human experience and perception they can
express. I do not believe this is a contradiction. Rather, it testifies to the comprehensive,
inclusive embrace of both literature and translation.

One example among many of the fruitful exchange among languages brought about by
translation is the ongoing connection between William Faulkner and Gabriel García
Márquez. When he was a young man, García Márquez had an insatiable appetite for

581
Faulkner’s fiction and devoured his novels in Spanish translations, along with the books of
many other authors writing in other languages. Over the years he has spoken often of
Faulkner as his favorite English-language author—the subject of a long conversation
between the Colombian and former president Bill Clinton (who had claimed that One
Hundred Years of Solitude was the greatest novel of the past fifty years and called it his
favorite work of fiction) at a dinner in William Styron’s house on Martha’s Vineyard in the
summer of 1995. Carlos Fuentes was also present, and when he said that his favorite book
was Absalom, Absalom, Clinton stood and recited from memory part of Benjy’s monologue
from The Sound and the Fury.

In Living to Tell the Tale, García Márquez’s reading of Light in August runs like a leitmotif
through his narrative of the trip he makes with his mother to sell the family house in
Aracataca: “I already had read, in translation, and in borrowed editions, all the books I
would have needed to learn the novelist’s craft. . . . William Faulkner was the most faithful
of my tutelary demons.” Then he goes on to say: “I stayed in my room to read . . .books I
obtained by chance and luck. . . . These [were] like bread warm from the oven, printed in
Buenos Aires in new translations after the long hiatus in publishing because of the Second
World War. In this way I discovered, to my good fortune, the already very-much-discovered
Jorge Luis Borges, D. H. Lawrence and Aldous Huxley, Graham Greene and Gilbert
Chesterton, William Irish and Katherine Mansfield, and many others.”

Of James Joyce’s Ulysses he writes: “It not only was the discovery of a genuine world that I
never suspected inside me, but it also provided invaluable technical help to me in freeing
language and in handling time and structures in my books.” And finally, this is how he
describes the effect of reading Kafka for the first time: “I never again slept with my former
serenity. The book was Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, in the false translation by Borges
published by Losada in Buenos Aires, that determined a new direction for my life from its
first line, which today is one of the great devices in world literature.” He may have called
the translation “false” because, as he describes what he learned from Borges, all an author
had to do was to write something for it to be true. In any event, in these brief passages, this
remarkable novelist memorably evokes the breadth and vividness of a young writer’s
education in the craft of writing fiction, an initiation that would not have been possible
without the existence of literary translations. These books, and all the other books he read,
had a defining impact on his formation as a writer and allowed him to read as an apprentice
to authors who in fact served as long-distance mentors.

582
Someone once called Faulkner the best-known Latin American writer in English, a
description that may be more than a mere witticism. He seems to have inherited and then
transferred into English the expansive Cervantean style that has had so profound an
influence, both positive and negative, on all subsequent Spanish-language writers.
Moreover, Cervantes created the form and shape of modern fiction, a genre transformation
of fundamental importance regardless of the fiction writer’s language. The development of
the novel in Europe, especially in eighteenth-century England and in the seminal work of
Henry Fielding, grew directly out of the model of Don Quixote, which was translated
almost immediately after publication. Thomas Shelton’s English version, published in 1611,
was the first translation into any language of the first part of Cervantes’ novel, which
appeared in 1605. The speculation that Shakespeare intended to write a play based on the
adventures of Cardenio, the protagonist of one of the interpolated narratives in the first part
of Don Quixote, or actually did write the play, though it unfortunately has been lost,
becomes especially intriguing for our purposes because of the presence and success of
Shelton’s translation in England, which initiated the long, multifaceted history of Cervantes’
influence on the growth of the novel, on the way novelists write, and certainly on the way
Faulkner wrote.

There is no question that in the mid-twentieth century, Faulkner was the most important
contemporary English-language writer in Latin America. His sonorous, eloquent, baroque
style with its Cervantean resonances felt familiar to Spanish-speaking readers, but I believe
that even more decisive for his profound importance to the development of the Latin
American novel, above all to the literary phenomenon called the Boom, was Faulkner’s
mythic, megahistorical, multigenerational vision of the land and the people who live on it.
Not only García Márquez but Carlos Fuentes, Mario Vargas Llosa, and a host of other
contemporary Latin American novelists owe a serious debt to Faulkner (and certainly to
Cervantes). None of this rich literary cross-fertilization could have happened if Cervantes,
Faulkner, and so many others had never been translated.

By the same token, it is impossible to conceive of the contemporary novel in English

without taking García Márquez into account (not to mention Jorge Luis Borges and Julio
Cortázar). The influence of García Márquez’s writing—presumably in translation, as
Faulkner’s influence in Latin America undoubtedly took place for the most part in
Spanish—is evident in a gamut of prominent writers like Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie,
Don DeLillo, and Michael Chabon, to name only a few. It is wonderful to contemplate, isn’t

583
it: the freedom García Márquez discovered in Joyce, and the structural and technical lessons
he learned from him and from Faulkner, have been passed on to a younger generation of
English-language fiction writers through the translated impact of the Colombian’s writing.

The innovative process of discovery that has allowed major writers to flex authorial muscles
beyond the limitations of a single language and a single literary tradition would not have
been possible without access to translated books. Translation is, in fact, a powerful,
pervasive force that broadens and deepens a writer’s perception of style, technique, and
structure by allowing him or her to enter literary worlds not necessarily found in one
national or linguistic tradition. Far beyond essentially pernicious anxieties of influence,
writers learn their craft from one another, just as painters and musicians do. The days of
direct apprenticeship are over, for the most part, except, of course, in formal, academic
settings (creative writing programs, studio courses, or conservatory study, for example), but
artists can find mentors in other ways. The more books from more places that are available
to fledgling authors, the greater the potential flow of creative influence, the more irresistible
the spark that ignites literary imaginations. Translation plays an inimitable, essential part in
the expansion of literary horizons through multilingual fertilization. A worldwide
community of writers would be inconceivable without it.

Goethe believed that a literature exhausts itself and its resources become vitiated if it closes
itself off to the influences and contributions of other literatures. Not only literature but
language itself thrives as it makes connections with other languages. The result of the
linguistic infusion of new means of expression is an expansion of vocabulary, evocative
potentiality, and structural experimentation. In other words, the broadening of horizons
that comes with translation does not affect only readers, speakers, and writers of a
language, but the very nature of the language itself. The more a language embraces
infusions and transfusions of new elements and foreign turns of phrase, the larger, more
forceful, and more flexible it becomes as an expressive medium. How sad to contemplate
the efforts of know-nothing governments and exclusionary social movements to first invent
and then foster the mythical “purity” of a language by barring the use of any others within a
national territory. The language they wish to preserve would eventually be worn away,
eroded and impoverished by a lack of access to new and unfamiliar means of expression and
communication, if it were not for irresistible, inevitable surges of enriching intercultural
and multilinguistic currents across the world.

584
From Why Translation Matters. Copyright 2010 by Edith Grossman. Published 2010 by
Yale University Press. By arrangement with Yale University. All rights reserved.
(https://www.wordswithoutborders.org/article/from-why-translation-matters )

27.3 Ten Ways Translation Shapes Your Life

By Nataly Kelly

Each year on Sept. 30, a holiday is observed by people all around the world that has been
celebrated since 1953. It’s a feast day that was originally designated for a patron saint (Saint
Jerome), but it has grown to transcend all barriers of religion or geography. This year, I am
personally sending out greetings to thousands of people in 70 different countries in
observance of this important day — that’s far more than I send out for any other holiday.

Yet, if you’re like the majority of people, you’ve probably never heard of this cause for global
celebration until now. It’s International Translation Day. You might not think about how
translation affects your everyday life, but in reality, there is hardly anything in your life that
isn’t touched in some way by translation. As I explain in my new book, Found in
Translation (co-authored with Jost Zetzsche), here are 10 reasons why translation is so
significant:

1. Translation saves lives. Did you know that right this very minute, a massive translation
project is scanning the international news to catch words that help identify and contain
global health outbreaks, protecting the lives of you and your loved ones? And, countless
medical interpreters work in health care facilities, whether it’s a wealthy patient visiting
from overseas and paying for treatment at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic, or a refugee
who is being treated after surviving violence and other horrors.

2. Translation prevents terror. Intelligence gathering is critical for terror prevention, but no
matter how helpful the information obtained, it is useless if no one can understand it and
analyze its potential impact. Just consider the fact that the words “Tomorrow is zero hour”
were intercepted in Arabic on Sept. 10, 2011, but were not translated until Sept. 12, the day
after the 9/11 attacks. As you read this message, foreign media analysts are scanning all
kinds of information from Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other important hotbeds of
potential conflict. They translate that information in order to help prevent terrorist attacks
from actually being carried out.

585
3. Translation keeps the peace. International diplomacy would simply not be possible
without translation. The interpreters and translators at the United Nations and the
Department of State do far more than just convert speeches and official documents.
Translators are often involved in helping draft the exact wording to be used in peace treaties
so that it will be agreeable to both sides. Interpreters are involved in conversations and
communications between world leaders, and have the power to nurture relationships,
providing insight and guidance to prime ministers and presidents, preventing them from
making cultural faux pas and helping them to make the best possible impression for
themselves and the nations they represent.

4. Translation elects world leaders. In many countries — such as the United States, where
one out of every five people speaks a language other than English at home — translation
plays a significant role in politics. It’s no accident that both Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney have translated versions of their websites in Spanish, and routinely rely on
interpreters to communicate with voters who speak other languages. The U.S. government
also requires precincts with large percentages of non-English speakers to provide ballots in
other languages. These language specialists have the important task of safeguarding
democracy by helping people vote correctly, even in situations where a term like “hanging
chad” can barely be understood in English.

5. Translation creates jobs. The translation market is worth $33 billion in 2012, as a recent
report from Common Sense Advisory shows. There are more than 26,000 companies
throughout the world that sell translation and interpreting services. Most of these are small
businesses, a vital contributor to any healthy economy. Not only do these companies
employ translators, but people who work in finance, sales, technology, marketing, project
management, and even engineering.

6. Translation fuels the economy. Global businesses cannot sell their products and services
without translation. Pick any Fortune 500 company, visit their website, and chances are it’s
multilingual. If not, those companies are likely to employ workers who speak other
languages, even if they only cater to domestic markets. Without translation, these
companies would be unable to meet the expectations of customers — and shareholders.

7. Translation entertains us. Whether you’re a fan of soccer, baseball, hockey, or some other
sport, just look at your home team, and chances are you’ll find an interpreter or translator

586
on the field or the court. Sports are becoming more international than ever before, and
geography is no barrier to recruiting the best possible athletic talent, but language is. That’s
why professional athletes rely on interpreters when moving from country to country. But
other important sources of entertainment, like movies and books, also require translation.
How successful would The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo have been if everyone were forced
to read it in Swedish?

8. Translation tests our faith. Many people read a translation every night before they go to
bed, in the form of a sacred text. While some holy books are read in their original language,
most followers of religions are not able to access those sources of spiritual information
without translation. Indeed, translation is often the source of controversy in religion,
whether it’s a discussion of whether the Quran should be translated or left in its original
Arabic, or whether a new translation indicates that Jesus was married.

9. Translation feeds the world. The people who work in the fields where food is grown often
speak different languages from the people who buy the produce picked by their hands. The
same is true of meat processing plants. And, major food and beverage companies like
McDonald’s, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks sell their products globally, but only thanks
to translation. All of these businesses rely on translation to communicate with workers who
speak other languages, which means that human resource manuals, training software —
and sometimes, worker’s compensation cases — must be translated to put the food on the
table.

10. Translation makes us fall in love. Yes, people fall in love thanks to translation. Whether
it’s thanks to a translated love poem by Pablo Neruda or a translated Hallmark greeting
card, translation can help ignite a spark between two people. Having worked as an
interpreter for countless “cupid calls,” in which two people in love defy the odds by
engaging in sweet talk across languages, I can attest that love knows no barriers — as long
as there is translation to hold people together.

And speaking of love, this word seems to be an appropriate way to describe the translation
profession. When we polled translators and interpreters for our book, we saw that they love
their jobs — 96.4 percent of respondents reported that they were satisfied with their work.

587
So, to do your part for International Translation Day, take a moment to consider this
profession that is often overlooked, but critical to society as we know it. And perhaps even
say thank you to a translator or an interpreter. They’re out there, each day, touching your
life in ways that are unseen, but that truly make the world go ‘round.

(https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nataly-kelly/translation-shapes-your-life_b_1921015.html )

27.4 Why Literature in Translation is Super-Super Important

10 December 2013 | Kaija Straumanis

Most everyone who reads this blog has a good grasp on the importance of literature in
translation. You learn about other cultures, their writing styles, what drives them spiritually
and politically, what kinds of house pets they may or may not eat or wear occasionally as
clothing, how they really feel about things like Speedos or public intoxication (note: OR,
not AND), etc. But let’s whittle that down a step or two, make the direction this is going in
more specific. What is also important is to realize the specific significance of translating
world literature into wider-read languages, in this case English.

All arguments about how English being the prime international language of choice aside,
translating world literature into English is a way to immediately introduce great works to a
much, much broader audience. An audience that may read the English translation, say
“OMG MY COUNTRYMEN NEED TO READ THIS,” and then go on to bring said work of
world literature to their country, which may in turn make the book available to more
audience in much the same way. “Audience” applies both to general readers and publishers.

A few days ago we at Open Letter received an email from Hohe Publishing, an Ethiopian
publishing house, asking for information on Latvian author Inga Ābele’s High Tide: they
had read the English translation, enjoyed the book, and now were interested in acquiring
rights for an Ethiopian edition. A few days after that, we received an email from the Latvian
publisher, Dienas Grāmata, that Hohe Publishing had made an offer, and that they were
planning on translating from the English version of the book . . .

This is an example of two very significant purposes for getting world lit translated, and
translated into English. Not only does this English language version of the book allow the
Latvian press to shop it around to other foreign publishers (much in the same way a
translation sample does, except times 500), but it also gives rights-interested foreign presses
another source language option from which to translate the book. How many Latvian-to-
Amharic translators are there? Probably only one. Somewhere. BUT—how many English-
to-Amharic translators are there? Probably more than one.

I don’t mean to imply that, in the case of High Tide, the Swedish translation of the novel is
without benefits—the Swedish translation would obviously open doors to other
Scandinavian countries. But again . . . how many Swedish-to-Amharic translators are there?
It’s with good reason that we ask foreign publishers for French, German, or Spanish
language samples of books in the event an English sample is not available. What English
(and these other languages) does is function as kind of an infinite hour-glass shape: it first
expands the readership, which then slowly narrows back down and trickles through to
“smaller” languages, which in turn opens back up and expands yet again to a new group of
readers. And so on and so forth. The course these metaphorical grains of sand take will
vary, and though their destinations do as well, there’s no real “point of disembarking”
588
because we’re talking about the general lifespan of a work, of which the grains are an
integral part, and which, in this infinite-hourglass-shape in my brainspace, will take part in
a never-ending, forward-moving cycle.

The importance and benefits to getting world literature into translation are countless. For
Inga Ābele, it means that her book will be read by yet another audience that would have
otherwise remained, most likely, unreached. It seems completely random and it kind of is,
because ETHIOPIA, but things like this wouldn’t be possible without literary translation (or
the awesome publishers that help bring these books to more readers around the world).
Translated literature not only opens the door for readers of a respective language, but it also
points the way to myriad other doors leading to other languages.

(http://www.rochester.edu/College/translation/threepercent/index.php?id=8872 )

27.5 The Importance of Translation Studies for Development Education

CREATING NEW ECONOMIC PARADIGMS: THE ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION--Spring 2012

In this Perspectives article, Anna Bernacka considers the role of the translator as a mediator
between cultures. Rather than merely supplanting one form of words for another, the
translator has the capacity to enhance our understanding of development issues and
indigenous cultures by mediating ideas across cultural and national boundaries. The article
presents case studies where translation has played a crucial role in bringing new learning and
wider understanding to rich, indigenous cultures in India and South Africa thereby enabling
languages to become more widely ‘utilized and promoted through education, working
towards formal protection by the respective state constitutions and curricula’.

Introduction
Translation is not merely an interlinguistic process. It is more complex than replacing source
language text with target language text and includes cultural and educational nuances that
can shape the options and attitudes of recipients. Translations are never produced in a
cultural or political vacuum and cannot be isolated from the context in which the texts are
embedded (Dingwaney and Maier, 1995:3). As David Katan in Translating Cultures puts it:
‘...the translator is a bilingual mediating agent between monolingual communication
participants in two different language communities’ (2004: 16). Therefore translators not
only have to be intermediaries between different language systems, but also have to be
intercultural mediators – or as it has been stated by Aniela Korzeniowska and Piotr Kuhiwczak
in Successful Polish-English Translation Tricks of the Trade – they have to be both ‘bilingual
and bicultural’ (2006: 71). Thus, translation performs a crucial role in our understanding of
the cultural ‘other’.

589
The role of the translator in mediating source ideas across cultural and national boundaries
places him or her in a unique position in particular for understanding a range of development
issues. Translating narratives from the global South is an invaluable source of knowledge
about unfamiliar languages, indigenous cultures and experiences, and is immensely useful for
gaining an understanding of non-European societies. Moreover, translation can also have a
critical influence in politics and can act as an agent for reconciliation or social
integration. Translations can therefore have a distinct effect on how global and human rights
issues can be conveyed and communicated.

The aim of this article is to emphasise different aspects of the translation process that are
often misunderstood during a mainly linguistic and uncreative operation where one set of
textual material is replaced by another. I will firstly focus on ‘unifying’ aspects of translation
in view of the current situation in South Africa where there are eleven official languages
recognized by the constitution, but where English has become a dominant
language. Secondly, I will discuss the newly discovered Koro language and the difficulties
that accompany its translation, a perception based on the Whorfian hypothesis that language
is shaped by the world in which we live. This is where the translation of a language will allow
us to open the doors to unknown cultural and linguistic environments. The results will
arguably introduce rich developing world reference points to translation methodology and
development education. Finally, in summary, I will stress the translator’s creative role, which
often involves creating a new vocabulary in order to successfully convey the message of the
source text. In doing this the interaction between the disciplines of translation studies and
development education will become more apparent.

Interpreting Meaning

Translations are never a product of a cultural void and there is a general agreement between
translation scholars that ‘in seeking to transport words (and sentences and texts) from one
language to another, the translator cannot merely search for equivalent words in the target
language to render the meaning of the source’ (Dingwaney and Maier, 1995: 3). Therefore,
as stated by Aniela Korzeniowska and Piotr Kuhiwczak, translators not only have to be
intermediaries between different language systems, but also have to be intercultural
mediators. The role of the translator is to mediate source ideas across cultural and national
boundaries placing him or her in a unique position to understand various development
issues. Thus translating narratives from the global South is an invaluable source of

590
knowledge about unfamiliar languages and cultural experiences and is immensely useful for
gaining an understanding of different societies for development education purposes in
particular.

In the case of South Africa, the social as well as political need for translation is immense. At
present, there are eleven official languages confirmed by the constitution in South Africa, not
two as in previous years, although some critics would argue that official multilingualism is a
façade given the dominance of English. The government has been ill prepared for a complex
linguistic project where all the indigenous languages could coexist simultaneously on an equal
basis. In consequence, English has regularly become the only means of communication in
everyday political, business and educational life. The other languages, most prominently
Zulu and Xhosa, have become neglected in the social, cultural and political spheres as well as
‘the historically compromised Afrikaaner population’ which is still is ‘witnessing the decline
of Afrikaans’ (Tonkin and Frank, 2010: 17).

The urgent need for the translation of indigenous books and other forms of literature in South
Africa was the central topic of scholarly debate in 2009 at the Institute for Comparative
Literature and Society at Columbia University (Ibid: 17). At this symposium Antije Krog,
Rosalind C. Morris and Humphrey Tonkin discussed an ongoing initiative to translate African
literature into English. They all concurred that in such a multilingual country, the translation
of African literature and culture should be treated as a matter of primary national importance
in that it would contribute to spreading the knowledge about lesser known social and
linguistic groups such as Zulu or Xhosa. Furthermore, such a project would ‘not only make
other voices heard but also… broaden the cultural base of English, the other cultures and
peoples of South Africa in a multilingual discourse’ (Ibid). Translation can be seen in this
context as an act of mediation and ‘a form of reconciliation’ between the periphery and centre,
the dominant and aspiring cultures.

This translation initiative encompasses not only the translation of African literature, but also
introduces and incorporates indigenous African languages into the South African education
system. When implementing the project, which comprised of work ranging from African
poets to astronomers, the scholars identified some frequent difficulties with the absence of
equivalents and a vocabulary ‘gap’ in Afrikaans in particular. One of the linguistic difficulties
encountered was the translation of the term ‘black hole’ that literally ‘in a direct Afrikaans

591
translation would be “swartgat” – the infamous derogatory term for indigenous Africans’
(Ibid: 18). Antje Krog, who was in charge of the translation into Afrikaans, had to create new
words borrowed from Dutch and to incorporate them into the target language.

Moreover, she identified a similar phenomenon in African languages such as Xhosa and Zulu
related to scientific vocabulary. The absence of words describing not only the universe and
the planetary system, but also the key terms used in maths or geography would restrict the
implementation of these languages into the South African educational system. In
consequence, the team of translators used their creative skills and constructed new words
instead of ‘simply Zulu-ifying the English word’ (Ibid: 19). However, the concept of the
vocabulary gap does not only occur in the translation of English terms into African
languages. It can also be observed in the reversed process where the English language lacks
an equivalent term as in the case of the Afrikaans word ‘mede-menslikheid’ which literally
means ‘fellow-human-ness’.

Some scholars in South Africa claim that ‘the officialization of the various African languages
was more a gesture than anything else’ (2010: 21), that it was politically motivated rather than
culturally enhancing. Officially African languages were supposed to be treated equally, but
in practice nothing much was being done to popularise lesser known African
languages. Currently, however, scholars such as Antje Krog, Rosalind C. Morris and
Humphrey Tonkin are undertaking an initiative to promote the translation of African
languages – such as Zulu or Xhosa – in order to spread a better knowledge of these cultures.

Innovative
Innovative Translating for Cultural Understanding

Another example where translation facilitates the understanding of global South cultures is
in the case of the newly discovered Koro language, an indigenous language that linguists have
stumbled upon while researching Aka and Miji – two minority languages spoken in
India. Koro was discovered during an expedition in 2008 that was a part of National
Geographic’s ‘Enduring Voices’ project (Morrison, 2010: 1). The linguists reported that the
newly found language distinguished itself from the widely known ones in terms of words,
sounds and structure. What is even more interesting is that it would appear that the
territorial proximity of the Aka tribe has not influenced Koro to a significant extent and that
the differences in sounds between the two languages can be compared to the difference
between English and Japanese. Linguists have expressed concerns over this endangered

592
language spoken only by an estimated one thousand people, especially because of the fact
that Koro does not have a written form (Ibid). This crucial feature might also appear to be
one of the prime difficulties that translators will have to face in this regard.

However, the challenge of translation in this case amounts to more than the lack of the written
form. Gregory Anderson, who stressed that Koro depicts ‘reality in very different ways’,
stated that Koro ‘uniquely codes knowledge of the natural world in ways that cannot be
translated into a major language’ (Hotz, 2010). One of the possible reasons for this
interesting means of describing the surrounding world and environment might be the
isolation of the Koro speakers who as a community have been ‘hidden’ from external
influences. Therefore, from a linguistic point of view, Koro could be a great example of the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language is strongly influenced by the reality we live in. Koro
words reflect the unique perception of the surrounding world by this north eastern Indian
tribe. Thus, the translation of this indigenous language can be seen to be an invaluable source
of knowledge about this fascinating culture and their existence. The language could provide
an invaluable insight into their world view, their values system and their perception of the
environment in which they live. In effect, sensitive and culturally appropriate translations
can act as methodology for development in its most innovative sense. The role of translation
in development education becomes self-evident as K. David Harrison, who introduced Koro
to the rest of the world, suggests: ‘Language revitalization will prove to be become of the
most consequential social trends of the coming decades. This pushback against globalization
will profoundly influence human intellectual life…’ (2010: 12).

Conclusion
Conclusion

As these two examples have shown, translation can play a number of different roles such as
a ‘unifying’ or constructing new words but also, most crucially, as a source of knowledge
about foreign, lesser known cultures. Thus, translation is not merely a linguistic process, but
can also make a political and social impact - as in the aforementioned cases in South Africa
and India. The translation process can be viewed as a way of introducing linguistic as well as
cultural equality by enabling Xhosa, Zulu, or Koro, to become languages utilised and
promoted through education, working towards formal protection by the respective state
constitutions and curricula. Moreover, translation can act as a ‘bridge’ between the global
North and the global South. If it were not for the translators’ investigations and research into

593
Asian indigenous languages we would never have heard about the Koro language. Indeed, it
is through translation that we will eventually be able to become acquainted with the world of
the Koro. The translation of this language will allow us to open the doors to an unknown
cultural and linguistic world. It will also introduce a rich developing world reference point
to translation methodology and development education alike.

References
Budick, S and Iser, W (1996) The Translatability of Cultures, Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Dingwaney, A (1995) ‘Introduction: Translating “Third World” Cultures’ in A Dingwaney and
C Maier (eds.) Between Languages and Cultures, London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hotz Lee, R (2010) ‘Rare Find: A New Language’ in Environment and Science ,
available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703843804575534122591921594.
html (accessed 9 January 2011).
Korzeniowska, A and Kuhiwczak, P (2006) Successful Polish-English Translation Tricks of
the Trade, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Krog, A, Morris C R, Tonkin H (2010) ‘Translation as reconciliation. A conversation about
politics, translation, and multilingualism in South Africa’ in H Tonkin and M E Frank
(eds.) The Translator as Mediator of Cultures, Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing
Company.
Morrison, D (2010) ‘Hidden Language Found in Remote Indian Tribe’, National Geographic
News, available: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-lost-language-
india-science/ (accessed 9 January 2011).
Harrison, K D (2010) The Last Speakers: The Quest to Save the World’s Most Endangered
Languages, Washington DC: National Geographic.

Anna Bernacka has a BA degree in English Philology at Szczecin University and an MA in

English Literature from Dalarna University, having graduated with distinction. In
2010 she graduated with merit from the University of Surrey with an MA in Translation. She
was awarded a scholarship from Dalarna University to take part in a Narration and Migration
Intensive Programme in Krosno, Poland. She is currently working as a translator for a
company in London; her working languages are English, Swedish and Polish. Her main areas
of interest are translation in cultural, social and political contexts and previous articles have
dealt specifically with the translator’s role as a mediator between cultures.
Citation:
594
Bernacka, A (2012) ‘The Importance of Translation Studies for Development Education’,
Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 14, Spring, pp. 113-118.
(https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-14/importance-translation-
studies-development-education )

27.6 The Importance of Translation

Imagine that you are on a space voyage in the star trek era. You are the ultimate warrior of
human race, who is leading the human exploration. On earth you have mitigated world peace
and are revered no less than a demi-god. You are now heading towards a newly discovered
planet X, which boasts of intelligent life. As your spacecraft alights, a crowd of inhabitants
looking like little blue babies gather around the landing site. The town head comes to the
front as you open the door, raise your hand and say “Hello”. SLOP!!! A ray of blue light hits
you and your whole self is now just a pair of eyes drifting in a pool of slime and your
conscience. You fail to understand anything while your crew quickly wipes you up and escapes
the planet. You spent the rest of your life in a jar in the space research lab only to realize years
later that in planet X’s language “hello” sounds like “I will destroy you”. May be that’s why
they have translator devices in all sci-fi flicks. Something you missed? Slime ball!!

On a serious note, translation is one of the most critical jobs in modern society. As the whole
globe is coming together based on information sharing and communicative advances, it is
only natural that there has been a constant demand and an unprecedented need for
translation of ideas from one language to another. Translation plays a vital role in the
performance of international companies and governments alike. We have had incidences in
human history, where entire wars were initiated just because of misinterpretations and
business relations severed due to failure of communications. Translation is no longer just the
process of translating words, but has evolved into the transformation of meaning and
intentions. Here we have listed some points relating to importance of translation.

Significance of Translation

Vital for Multinationals

For companies which operate in multiple countries, translation is inevitable. Sometimes they
need to pass information or collect data from all the employees or branches across the world.
In this scenario, it is necessary that they translate the information to and fro. Moreover, in
scenarios where they need to negotiate terms with international governments or other local
companies for tie-ups, they need to have proper translation of proposals and demands.

External Affairs of A Nation

In today’s world, international diplomacy is the most important of all external affairs. Many
a times the world leaders are expected to present their ideas on situations arising in other
parts of the world. It is important that those ideas are translated properly when expressed;
else they can result in major catastrophes. Moreover, international dialogues on different
matters rest heavily on successful translation.
Cultural Interchange
Translation of various art forms like music, films and literature from a region is necessary for
global understanding of a region and its life. The plight of Palestine refugees, the poverty in
Brazilian streets, the colorful life in Spanish cities and the myths and legends of ancient India
are spreading across the world, riding on the shoulder of good translation. Translated films
and subtitled films generate more revenue for global film industry, while translated music

595
and literature provides added royalties to the artists. Recognition from the world stage and
international fame is an added bonus.

Transfer of News
World events can only be transmitted accurately if the correct information is received by news
agencies. This involves proper translation of news coming from local bodies and regional
centers. Unless proper translation is done, the news will be ambiguous and unreliable. An
example for this can be seen when the government of China recently banned international
news agencies from entering local regions for covering a major problem. However,
information was still passed on to the world. Insiders covered all the important news, which
was later translated and presented to the world.
For The Realization of Global Village
Village
The global citizenship can only be achieved through sharing and caring. We need to be able
to communicate our ideas and thoughts without delay or ambiguity. Different people around
the world use different languages and are most comfortable handling their online activities
in their own regional languages, but they translate their thoughts in English, so that global
friends can understand them.

To Boost Tourism
Tourists around the world complain of being short-changed and tricked, as they are
unfamiliar with the destinations. The primary reason for such negative experiences is the
absence of proper translation. When we can offer proper translation to tourists along with
genuine guidance, we assure the quality of our region as a tourist friendly destination and
ensure success. This not only makes the country as a popular tourist destination, but also
helps in increasing the revenue of the country men and the country as a whole.

(http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/importance-of-translation-10922.html Read more at

http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/importance-of-translation-10922.html#EMqL6iY6dBSMMkU8.99 )

27.7 Why Translation is Important in a World Where English is Everywhere

(July 27, 2016/9 Comments/in Language Blog /by Alison Kroulek)

In a world where English is everywhere, is translation still important? Is it even necessary?

English is the third most widely-spoken language in terms of native speakers, of which it
has at least 330 million. But if you count the people who speak it as a second language, it’s
the most popular language in the world. So, why is translation so important? Here are
5 reasons why translation is important and will remain so, despite the growing ubiquity of
English.

Translation is Important Because Not Everyone Speaks English

Sure, English is the most commonly spoken language. But that doesn’t mean you can
overlook all the people who don’t speak it! Even England is home to significant populations
of foreign and minority language speakers.

596
And just because a person can speak some English, that doesn’t mean they can speak it well
enough to cope in all situations. For example, a 2012 survey from the European
Commission found that only a quarter of Europeans were able to understand English well
enough to follow an English-language news broadcast. Holding a basic conversation is one
thing. Easy and effective communication is another.

Translation is Important Because People Prefer Their Native Language

English is the most-widely spoken language. But, that’s only if you take second-language
speakers into account. And therein lies the rub. Almost without exception, people respond
better to the language they grew up speaking. To effectively sell to people, it’s not enough
to speak a language that they understand (especially if their understanding is limited). You
must speak to them in the language their heart speaks.

Dale Carnegie may have been right when he said “a person’s name is to that person the
sweetest and most important sound in any language.” But the next sweetest sound is their
native language. Babies as young as 5 months old have been shown to recognize and prefer
it.
Adults prefer it, too. A study from Common Sense Advisory found that 75% of
customers “prefer to buy products in their native language.” And a study from Indian
market research company JuxtConsult found that “almost three-quarters [of Indian
consumers] prefer and seek out content in their first languages.”

Translation Connects the Global Economy

There’s a reason demand for translation services is booming. While English has been
periodically crowned as “the language of global business,” translation and interpreting
services remain a vital part of doing business around the world. For example, as of
November 2015, 880,000 British small businesses were expected to expand overseas by
2025. It will be interesting to see how Brexit will affect those plans. But it’s unlikely that the
need for translation services will suffer too much. As Clare noted in her post on how Brexit
might affect international packaging regulations,

“International growth is still key to increased revenues and profitability and companies will
always seek to trade with overseas markets. Products launched beyond home borders will
still need to meet the relevant packaging and labelling standards …”

And that means they’ll still need to be translated.

597
Emerging Markets Mean Emerging Languages
English may be on top of the world now, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way forever.
Other languages are growing in importance as developing countries take their places in the
global economy and more of their citizens gain Internet access. For example, most of the
world’s web content used to be in English. That is no longer the case. And remember, even
people who speak English as a second language generally prefer to read, watch and shop in
their first language. Want to know which languages matter most right now? Check out
our visualisation of the world’s most influential languages. And what about the future?
Check our list of top languages to learn. It showcases the languages English will most likely
share the stage with in years to come.

Translation Spreads Ideas and Information

What’s the number one reason translation is so important? It allows ideas and information
to spread across cultures. In the process, translation changes history.

Need some examples? Consider the following:

 Arabic translators kept the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers alive throughout the
Middle Ages.
 The Bible has been translated into at least 531 languages. No matter what you believe,
the impact on history is undeniable.
 Translation is helping sports teams and organisations overcome language barriers
and transcend international boundaries.
 TEDTalks’ OpenTranslation project makes the talks understandable to people around
the world.

There’s no denying the power of the English language. That said, the Tower of Babel isn’t
coming down anytime soon. Translation is important, and will remain so for both
individuals and businesses in the foreseeable future.

When translating for your business, it’s important to get it right the first time. Choose
qualified human translators to ensure your outreach efforts don’t end up a word salad.
Our translation services will help you communicate with your customers in the languages
they prefer to use, and our transcreation and localisation services will ensure your message
stays relatable and effective worldwide.
(http://www.k-international.com/blog/why-translation-is-important/ )

598
28. LITERARY FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE TRANSLATION
“Literary functional equivalence” translation (LiFE for short) is a methodological
extension, or practical application of de Waard and Nida’s “functional equivalence”
approach (1986).1239 This translation procedure is based upon the assumption (supported
by various types of discourse and esthetic analyses, e.g., Wendland 2004, 2013, 2014; Wilt
2005a, 2005b) that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, by and large, exemplify literary
texts of comparatively high quality, and therefore any interlingual rendition should
manifest a corresponding level of excellence (to the degree possible under the prevailing
circumstances of text production). As the well-known literary scholar, critic, and
translator, Robert Alter states: “My fundamental assumption is that the Hebrew Bible
comprises a set of finely wrought literary texts, even if the ‘content’ of the literary vehicle
is religious, and that in order to see what is going on you have to pay attention to the fine
articulations of the Hebrew. … I wanted to try to get something of the stylistic power and
beauty of the Hebrew into English, which was something previous translators hadn’t
done.”1240

1239 Several major works by professional translators that promote as well as practice a literary

approach to translation are these: Edith Grossman, why translation matters (the title as published, New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2010); Robert Wechsler, Performing Without a Stage: The Art of Literary
Translation (North Haven, CT: Catbird Press, 1998); Clifford E. Landers, Literary Translation: A Practical
Guide (Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, and Sidney: Multilingual Matters, 2001); David Bellos, Is That a Fish
in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything (London: Faber, 2012); Esther Allen and Susan
Bernofsky, eds., In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What it Means (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2013).
The notion of “equivalence” in the translator’s toolkit of terms is also current in the works of
recognized authorities in the field of “translation studies,” for example, Juliane House, Translation—The
Basics (New York & London: Routledge, 2018, passim); Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies:
Theories and Applications, 2nd ed. (London & New York: Routledge, 2008), 36-54; Anthony Pym,
Exploring Translation Theories (New York & London: Routledge, 2010), 6-42); and Mona Baker, In Other
Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 2nd ed. (London & New York: Routledge, 2011], passim; see also
Monika Krein-Kühle, “Translation and Equivalence,” In J. House, ed., Translation: A Multidisciplinary
Approach (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014:15-35).
Munday states that some translation theorists (e.g., Gentzler 2001) “reject the notion [of
equivalence] more or less entirely,” whereas others (e.g., Baker 1992—also in the 2nd edition, 2011) “see it
as a helpful tool in translation theory and teaching” (2009:185). A recent Cognitive Linguistic perspective
on translation studies recognizes the problems inherent in the term “equivalence” but freely rehabilitate the
concept through careful contextualized redefinition (cf. Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano,
“Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Studies: Past, present and future, in Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-
Antuñano, eds., Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in Some Theoretical Models and
Applications (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013). For example, “…the translator’s goal is to create an
‘experientially equivalent target-language text…[as] determined by the way the translator construes the
source-language text…[based upon] a cognitive and linguistic analysis…[and] mapping that meaning to
target language terms” (Michele I. Feist, “Experimental lexical semantics at the crossroads between
languages,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:391 [375-394]).
1240 From an email interview (italics added) that previews his soon to be published new version, The

Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (posted at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/scholars-

coveted-bible-translation-22-years-in-the-making-set-to-hit-shelves/ on 30 November 2018). Alter
asserts that “he hopes readers will come away with a renewed sense of the literary beauty of the original
work that inspired it: ‘I would add that the beautiful cadences, the elegant and pointed choice of words, the
expressive use of syntax, the vividness of the language of the dialogues, are all essential elements of the
reading experience of the Bible, and I’ve done my best to preserve them in English’” (ibid). I agree with
Alter’s assessment of the literary quality of the biblical text (NT as well as OT), but differ with regard to
599
The term “literary”1241 conveys a twofold emphasis, namely, upon the artistry (forms) and
rhetoric (functions) of the original biblical documents as well as any derived vernacular,
or “target language” (TL), translations (cf. Wendland 2011). Artistic techniques include
both macro- and micro-structural and stylistic features such as patterned recursion,
chiastic arrangement, imagery and figurative language, distinctive word orders (new
topic, focus), rhythm, euphony, and other purposeful sound effects, plus the integrated
use of assorted forceful devices (e.g., rhetorical questions, hyperbole, irony, exact
repetition, direct speech insertions, and so forth).

The preceding concerns are factored into the following definition of “translation”:
Translation is (a) the conceptually mediated verbal re-composition of (b) one
contextually framed, inferentially interpreted text (c) within a different cognitive
and communicative setting (d) in the most relevant, (e) functionally equivalent
manner possible, (f) that is, stylistically marked, more or less, (g) in keeping with
the designated job commission (h) that has been communally agreed upon for the
TL project concerned.1242
The sequence of these core constituents may be more fully described as follows:1243
a) The conceptually mediated, inferentially guided re-composition: The
translator (or team) acts as a “mediator,” or verbal “foreign-exchange
broker,” who must fairly represent all his “clients,” that is, the original
author and his communicative intentions as well as the needs and desires
of the target audience.

b) One contextually framed, inferentially interpreted text: “Context” is the

total cognitive-emotive-volitional frame of reference, or “cognitive
environment,” that influences and inferentially guides the perception,
interpretation, and application of a given text.1244

c) Within a different cognitive and communicative setting: The translator

negotiates a re-formulation, that is, a verbal re-signification, of the
original text within a new language, mind-set, and sociocultural
environment.

d) The most relevant: The aim is to achieve the greatest number of

beneficial conceptual, emotional, and volitional effects for readers
without their expending excessive or extraneous processing effort.

the focus of reproduction in translation; for him, it is the artistic and rhetorical forms of the ST, for me, it
would be the functionally-equivalent linguistic resources of the TL.
1241 The term “oratorical” is probably more precise than “literary,” given the importance of the oral-

aural factor in the analysis and translatorial application of the LiFE approach.
1242 For a much more detailed Cognitive Linguistic exploration of the diverse challenges of

translation, see the informative essays in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013.

1243 Cf. E. Wendland, Translating the Literature of Scripture (Dallas: SIL International, 2004), p.

85.
1244 For a “frame-semantic approach” applied to the lexical field of translating, see Hans C. Boas,

“Frame Semantics and Translation,” in Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2013:152-153 [125-158].

600
 e) The most functionally equivalent manner possible: The target text,
supplemented by its paratext, wherever necessary, should manifest a
sufficiently acceptable degree of similarity, or correspondence to the
original in terms of the meaning variables of semantic content, pragmatic
intent, connotative resonance, emotive impact, artistic appeal, auditory
effect, and/or rhetorical power in accord with its literary genre.

f) Stylistically marked, more or less: The degree of stylistic domestication

(i.e., reflecting the genius of the TL) versus the degree of foreignness
(reflecting the “otherness” of the SL text) must always be assessed with
respect to the linguistic and literary norms, conventions, and
expectations of the TL audience.

g) In keeping with the designated job commission: A TL text’s level of

accuracy and acceptability is defined with respect to the translation
project’s brief, which includes its general terms of reference, primary
communication goal(s), or Skopos, staff experience and training,
available resources, quality-control procedures, community wishes and
requirements, administrative and management procedures, time-line
and desired completion schedule.

h) Agreed upon by the TL community for the project: The communicative

framework of the TL social and religious setting is determinative for
establishing the job commission, which needs to be first carefully
researched, then agreed upon by all major sponsors and supporters, and,
finally, closely monitored, evaluated, and, if necessary, revised on a
systematic, ongoing basis until the task has been successfully completed
(including the text’s pre-publication audience-readership testing).

We might add the following observations to elaborate upon the eight basic components
of the complex process of communication that translating entails, as stated above and
from the special perspective of a Scripture rendition:
1. Bible translators do not, ideally, work in isolation, but rather as part of a team
of mutually supportive co-translators, editors, reviewers, technical specialists
(exegetes, annotators, literary artists, computer keyboarders, text-
formatters)—along with various consultants, coaches, advisers, guides, and at
times mentors (factors [g-h] above).
2. Each communication setting incorporates interacting levels of extratextual
influence that together affect all aspects of text representation – its paratextual
annotation and publication, i.e., text processing for a particular medium of
transmission (factor [b]). Thus there are diverse cultural, institutional
(including ecclesiastical), religious (traditional and modern), environmental,
interpersonal, as well as personal (psychological and experiential), factors that
affect the overall communication context either directly or indirectly. These
varied and variable “frames of reference” all merge to form the respective

601
 collective cognitive framework of the SL or TL communities – and the
individual viewpoint of each individual of which the group is composed.1245
3. The perspective, opinion, and needs of the current “consumer” audience, which
needs to be clearly specified at the outset, is the determinative features (factor
[h]) in drawing up an organizational brief, or job commission. This is the
defining and guiding document that outlines the primary purpose (Skopos),
principles, procedures, and provisions for a given translation endeavor.
4. The translation of a literary version, for example, a “literary functional
equivalence” (LiFE) translation (Wendland 2011), is one that utilizes the full
stylistic (artistic-rhetorical-oratorical) resources and structural (text-linguistic
forms of the target language. It too is implemented with respect to the general
principle of psychological relevance (factor [d] above, focus on the TL text),
which governs the project-specific practice of functional equivalence (factor [e],
focus on the SL text), as particularized or delimited by the agreed-upon Skopos.
5. The specific LiFE method is applied with respect to the content and intent of
the original text, but also in view of, and guided by the genre-determined
stylistic features of the host language (factors [f-g]), which range from the
target text’s significant phonological and lexical forms to its primary discourse
arrangements (cf. Ibarretxe-Antuñano and Filipovic 2013; Tabakowska 2013).
Another type of translation – for example, a formal-correspondence version for
liturgical, or public worship purposes – may be defined in much the same way,
except for specifying a different qualifier for the term “relevant” (i.e., factor [e]).
6. To some degree, whether more or less, stylistic domestication (factor [f]) is
always called for. Even a relatively literal translation needs to be stylistically
marked in a discernible and appreciable manner, at least phonologically, with
regard to naturalness, for this is perhaps where a translated text’s style is most
immediately perceptible. How the text reads aloud, how it actually sounds in
the vernacular, is a criterion of utmost importance for “literariness.”
7. Finally, it is important to remember that every translation, no matter what
kind, will always occasion a certain degree of communicative loss, or mismatch,
with respect to content, intent, connotation, or some other type of significance
(e.g., marking “topic” and “focus” reference or prominence). This fact, which is
supported by the principles of cognitive grammar, argues against both an
overly-free, dynamic-equivalence approach (DE) and also an overly-rigid,
formal-correspondence approach (FC).
With regard to DE, it is not possible to change linguistic forms, even
phonological forms, without altering the original meaning in some way. With
regard to FC, if the SL forms are not changed in the transfer process, the
meaning in the TL text is inevitably altered. In other words, a literal rendering
changes the intended sense and significance of the message as much as a

1245 See Wilt and Wendland 2008. To avoid terminological confusion, one might distinguish

between the notions of “context” as a specific, external, perceivable reality and of “frame” as one individual
or collective cognitive organization, or mental representation. The sum total of frames of reference that are
relevant to the interpretation of a given text constitutes its overall conceptual framework.
602
 dynamic-equivalence rendering, in fact, more so. In either case, as mentioned,
certain types of lost or distorted information may (indeed, must!) be supplied
para-textually by devices such as footnotes, introductions, section headings,
illustrations, cross-references, or a glossary. Such descriptive or explanatory
information may also be supplied extra-textually by means of supplementary,
context-enriching publications that complement the translation.

Wright (2016, 58) discusses the semiotic balancing act presented by translation in terms
of Christiane Nord’s (1997) distinction between a “documentary” version, as distinct from
one that is “instrumental” in nature. In the former case, the translator orients the text
“towards documenting a source in metatextual fashion,” thus “giving the target-language
reader an indication of the nature of the (potentially) inaccessible foreign-language text”
(58). An “instrumental” version, on the other hand, aims to fulfill “a function of its own
in the target context,” thereby manifesting the source text’s “characteristics and effects on
the reader so central to the way literature works” (58). In the end, insightful, innovative
“translators hover between these two positions, remaining faithful to the source text in
the sense of fulfilling a documentary function on the one hand, while acknowledging the
translator as a subject, and thus claiming more status and visibility for themselves on the
other” (67), presumably by means of a creative and sustained use of the available
linguistic and literary resources of the TL in their work.

Basic literary-functional analysis techniques are given more precision through the
application of “speech act” and “schema” (or cognitive “frames”) theory (Wendland
2008). Particular attention is given to the TL and the search for oral and written (or
mixed) genres that may serve as functional equivalents to those found in the Hebrew and
Greek Scriptures, the “source language” (SL). Different degrees of LiFE application are
possible, depending on considerations of “relevance” (cognitive-emotive “gain” versus
text-processing “cost”) in relation to a given translation project’s foundational “job
commission” (brief). This would include the major communicative goal[s] (Skopos) of the
present version in view of its envisaged audience or readership, the primary setting in
which it will be used, the project’s management and support system, the everyday working
procedures and relative competence of the translators. The goal may range from a
complete genre-for-genre (SL to TL) “oratorical” transposition to a more basic and limited
amelioration with respect to the text’s typography and page format and/or the utterance-
based phonological (e.g., rhythmic) structures of a relatively literal “liturgical” version.

Thus the intended situation of use is of major importance when preparing a LiFE
translation, and this projected scenario may be effectively researched, activated,
monitored, and evaluated through the recursive application of an interdisciplinary,
cognitive “frames of reference” methodology—that is, involving the complex interaction
of flexible, overlapping sociocultural, organizational, conversational (situation-specific),
and textual (including intertextual) referential contexts (cf. Wilt 2003, Wendland 2008,
Wilt & Wendland 2008, Wendland 2018).

It is recognized that complete (“total”) communication via translation is utterly

impossible—only partial, selective degrees of formal, semantic, and pragmatic
correspondence can be attained, that is, in keeping with the project’s brief and depending
on the overall competency of the production agents involved. As noted above, the
preparation of a LiFE translation normally requires, in addition, the inclusion of various
supplementary paratextual tools (such as explanatory notes, cross-references, sectional
introductions and/or headings, illustrations, a glossary, etc.), accompanied by creative
features of textual design and formatting (e.g., indentation, spacing, typography. Two
603
recently published examples of LiFE translations of the Psalms in English are Boerger
(2009) and Wilt (2012). Recent dissertations that apply a LiFE methodology are Pluger
(2014, NT proverbial sayings), Watt (2015, selected psalms), Dickie (2016, Zulu praise
psalms), and Yu (2018, selected psalms in Chinese).

Selected Bibliography:

Boerger, Brenda H. 2009. Psalms (Poetic Oracle English Translation). Dallas: Self-published.
Pluger, Chris. 2014. “Translating New Testament Proverb-like Sayings in the Style of Nsenga
Proverbs.” MA Thesis—Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics (Dallas, Texas).
de Waard, Jan and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional
Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Dickie, June. 2016. “Zulu Song, Oral Art—Performing the Psalms to Stir the Heart.” PhD
Dissertation (University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa).
Watt, Milton. 2015. “Re-Sculpting a Poetic Text: Towards an Acceptable Poetic Translation of the
Psalms—Exemplified by Psalms 131 and 150.” PhD Dissertation (University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa).
Wendland, Ernst. 2004. Translating the Literature of Scripture: A Literary-Rhetorical
Approach to Bible Translation. Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, Ernst. 2008. Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation: A Coursebook for Bible
Translators and Teachers. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Wendland, Ernst. 2011. LiFE-Style Translating: A workbook for Bible translators (2nd ed.).
Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, Ernst. 2013. Lovely, Lively Lyrics: Selected Studies in Biblical Hebrew Verse. Dallas:
SIL International.
Wendland, Ernst. 2014. Prophetic Rhetoric: Case Studies in Text Analysis and Translation (2nd
ed.). Dallas: SIL International.
Wendland, Ernst. 2018. “Translating ‘translation’—What do translators ‘translate’?” in Said Faik,
ed., Discourse in Translation. Routledge.
Wilt, Timothy L. 2003. “Translation and communication,” in T. Wilt (ed.), Bible translation:
Frames of reference. Manchester: St. Jerome. 27-80.
Wilt, Timothy L. 2005a. “Literary Functional Equivalence: Some Case Studies.” Journal of
Biblical Text Research 10, 82-116.
Wilt, Timothy L. 2005b. “Translation Principles for LiFE, Inductively Derived,” in Philip Noss,
ed., Current Trends in Scripture Translation: Definitions and Identity. Reading: UBS,
215-223.
Wilt, Timothy L. 2012. Praise—The Book of Psalms Translated from the Hebrew. CreateSpace:
Self-published (available from Amazon).
Wilt, T. and E. Wendland. 2008. Scripture Frames & Framing: A Workbook for Bible
translators. Stellenbosch: SUN Press.
Yu, Hui-Er. 2018. Translating NEPHESH in the Psalms into Chinese—An Exercise in
Intergenerational, Literary Bible Translation. Carlisle, UK: Langham Monographs.
Wright, Chantal. 2016. Literary Translation. London & New York: Routledge

[Revised 07/12/2018]

604
605
Below: Buddhist Diamond Sutra, translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva: world's oldest
known dated printed book (868 CE)
By The colophon, at the inner end, reads: Reverently [caused to be] made for universal free
distribution by Wang Jie on behalf of his two parents on the 13th of the 4th moon of the
9th year of Xiantong [i.e. 11th May, CE 868 ]. - Zoomable image from the British Library's
Online Gallery. Originally uploaded to en:Wikipedia (log) in January 2008 by Fconaway
(talk) and in November 2009 by Earthsound (talk)., Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6925162

606
St. Jerome—translating; public domain: Domenico Ghirlandaio - http://www.artunframed.com/, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=178941

607
Index of Subjects

“missionary” version, 73 author’s intentions, 172, 210

acceptability, 199, 226, 272, 420, 562 authorial role, 87
accuracy, 185, 471 authorial voice, 188
adaptation, 31, 38, 43, 47, 63, 66, 73, 183, 219, authority, 186
243 auxiliary aids, 455
aesthetic parity, 256 background knowledge, 220, 559-560
alliteration, 495 back-translation, 28, 39, 212
analogy, 183 Baker, Mona, 69, 440
analysis procedures, 209 balancing act, 376
analysis—transfer—restructuring, 67, 76, 244 Bantu language, 176, 523-526 (poetic features)
analytical steps, 436 Bantu setting, 432
anastrophe, 410 beauty (artistic), 159, 185
Anglophone publishers, 465 Berman, Antoine, 464
aperture, 206 Bible translation, 148, 220, 260, 265, 454, 462
apex, 208 Bible translation studies, 15, 31, 35, 61, 78, 80,
application (Scripture engagement), 263 159, 165, 244, 564
applied linguistics, 62, 84, 85, 86, 89 biblical poetry.
appropriateness, 272 biblical songs, 225
Arabic, 561 biblical translation studies, 462
argument structure analysis, 219 biblically literate, 19
argumentation, 193, 211, 220 blood, 423
argumentum ad hominem, 249 blood as life, 431
art of literary translation, 370 Boer, R., 239, 244, 249
art of revision, 347 Boethius, 346
art of translation, 224 break points, 308
artistic dimension, 264 brief, translation 195, 221, 554-555
artistry, 159, 210, 272 Brown, Driver, Briggs, 425
aspects of sound, 374 Buku Lopatulika, 414
assessment (critical), 185, 200, 562-3 Buku Loyera, 416, 435
audience location, 343 censorship, 455, 464, 474
audiomedial function, 68 centrality of meaning, 444
audiovisual translation, 30, 78, 550 challenge (of translation), 187
Augustine, 162 Chesterman, Andrew, 14, 27, 39, 42, 57, 67, 71,
aural markers, 258 78, 79, 81, 82, 175, 184
authenticity, 383
author’s intent, 394

608
Chichewa, Chewa, 28, 32, 39, 42, 93, 94, 101,
102, 103, 146, 149, 151, 215, 216, 218, 219,
220, 222, 259, 260, 325, 330, 417, 512, 525
children’s literature, 399, 473
Chinese, 452
choice (strategy), 172
Christological, 483
classical paradigm of meaning, 441
climax, 208
close reading, 466
closure, 206
code (literary), 172
co-framing, 130
cognitive environment, 23, 89, 128, 130, 131,
135, 179, 180, 217, 275, 437, 444
cognitive linguistics, 31, 49, 51, 56, 57, 79, 89,
94, 124, 129, 135, 147, 154, 155, 251, 337
Cognitive Linguistics and Translation, 440
cognitive linguistics and translation theory, 441
cognitive schema, 133
coherence, 88, 557
cohesion, 557
collaboration, 380
comics, 452
common language, 166
common-language version, 490
communication, 15, 20, 136, 450
communication frames, 262
communication framework, 288
communication principles, 212
communicative clues, 33, 67, 86, 88, 98, 100,
111, 113, 114, 278, 353, 414, 469
communicative correspondence, 197, 292
communicative functions, 322
communicative intentions, 455
communicative value, 256
comparative (critical) approach, 184, 187
comparative analysis, 211, 212
comparative method, 267
compensation, 177, 473
competence (communicative, translational),
182, 201, 540, 553
componential analysis, 38, 64
compositional fluency, 371
compositional structure, 208
computer-assisted translation, 32, 540, 550, 553
concentration, 207
conceptual blending, 141, 142, 144, 154
conceptual frame of reference, 14, 99
confessional translation, 484
conjectural emendation, 533
connotation, 181, 402, 498
connotative meaning, 22, 23, 27, 28, 39, 65,
123, 129, 130, 141, 142, 143, 149, 150, 176,
202, 255, 261
consilience, 79
constraints (on translation), 186
constructions, 444
constructions and translation, 443
constructivism, 51
consumer, 24, 33, 130, 131, 136, 221, 222, 256,
270
Contemporary English Version, CEV, 258
context, 23, 86, 100, 195, 203, 355
context of usage, 199
contextual assumptions, 179
contextual effects, 194, 201, 217, 272
contextual implications, 114
contextual substitutes, 451
contextualization, 204, 226, 458
contextualized communication, 259
continuity, 206
continuum (translational), 196, 197, 198, 553
continuum of fidelity, 375
conversational analysis, 211, 216
corpus linguistics/analysis, 78, 88, 145, 547,
558
cost (text-processing effort), 201
609
cotext, 203, 305, 500 dialects, 456
covenant, 102 Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 425
covert translation, 546 dictionary sense, 372
creativity, 167, 175, 186, 280, 488 direct quotation, 136
critical assessment, 197 direct translation, 19, 40, 41, 66, 67, 89, 100,
critical linguistics, 86 108, 111, 113, 537
cross-textual correspondences, 320 directional equivalence, 38, 42, 51
crowd translation, 448, 457 discontinuity, 206
crowded stage, 207 discourse analysis, 38, 69, 91, 94, 130, 163,
cultural context, 204 214, 215, 226, 499
cultural hybridity, 54 discovery procedures, 267
cultural linguistics, 445 disjunction, 206, 308
cultural translation, 54 distortion (translational), 261
cultural turn, 12, 72, 87 documentary translation, 19, 28, 40, 41, 45, 56,
culture, 388, 542-543 69, 88, 171, 214, 467
culture (influence on translation), 172, 176 domesticated translation, 87, 263, 265
culture and translation, 445 domesticating, 28, 40, 88, 96, 99, 149, 199,
de Beaugrande, 177 263, 265, 462
de Blois, Reinier, 424 domestication, 17, 23, 25, 74, 80, 102, 104,
de Waard, Jan, 166 129, 173, 194, 195, 256, 284, 464, 468
Deconstruction, 13, 19, 77, 82, 115 donor, 136
deconstructionist, 87 double translation, 534
deductive reasoning, 220 drama, 398
deep structure, 181 dramatic dialogue, 211
defamiliarization, 297 Dryden, John, 449
defamiliarized, 104 DTS, Descriptive Translation Studies, 16, 17, 45,
definition (translation), 194 46, 47, 48, 62, 71, 72, 88, 173, 175, 184
de-framing, 129 dynamic equivalence, 25, 43, 48, 96, 97, 98,
deictic forms, 205 166, 239, 250, 388, 462, 473, 485
deictic shift theory, 328 dynamicity in translation, 444
Delisle, J., 181 dynamism, 86, 89, 91, 176
demarcation, 207 editorial team, 380
Derrida, J., 13, 14, 52, 77, 81, 87 education, 271
Descriptive approach, 173 efficiency (in communication), 167
descriptive theory, 45 emergent structure, 144
descriptive translation studies, 16, 71, 72, 173 emotion, 180
determinism, 50 encyclopedic entry, 112
deverbalization, 181 encyclopedic meaning, 21, 96, 123, 131, 150,
dialect, 400, 560 179

610
English, 334, 344, 462, 548, 583 fidelity, 14, 44, 63, 77, 172, 184, 200, 246, 355,
English translations, 185 375, 383, 392
epistemological skepticism, 49 field, tenor, and mode, 69
equivalence, 25, 26, 28, 30, 36, 49, 86, 108, figures of speech, 311
149, 182, 336, 355, 445, 467, 475, 545, 553, Fillmore, Charles, 123
555, 556, 559, 563 flouting, 217
equivalence frameworks, 86 fluency, 18, 75, 98, 104, 188
equivalent, 18, 445 focalization, 206
errors, 470, 471 folklore, 343
Esperanto, 445 FOLTA, 16, 241, 242, 243
ethical issues, 468 footnotes, 110, 220, 396
ethical questions, 404 foregrounding, 192
ethics, 335 foreignization, 17, 74, 130, 169, 176, 187, 465
ethics of translation, 382, 461 foreignized, 87, 464
ethnocentrism, 93, 95 foreignized translation, 75, 265, 338, 464
euphemism, 403 foreignizers, 382
euphony, 191, 495 foreignizing, 17, 28, 40, 74, 77, 93, 96, 98, 99,
evaluation of translation, 270, 545 101, 103, 104, 462
evaluative discourse, 175 foreignizing style, 455
exegesis, 197 foreignness, 338
exegetical accuracy, 292 form in translation, 376
exegetical aids, 260 formal boundaries, 410
exophonic literature, 461, 472 formal correspondence, 165, 199, 259, 354
exophony, 474 form-functional approach, 291
experimental translation, 116 form-functional matches, 324
explanatory footnotes, 327 format, 536-537
explicitation, 184 formulas, 206

Exploring Translation Theories, 26, 35, 56, 57, 58, Fox, Everett, 168, 169, 170

61, 82, 239, 253 frame, 122, 123, 126, 134, 137, 195

expository discourse, 176 frame of reference, 33, 413

expressive (emotive) function, 181 Frame Semantics, 123, 135, 441

extratextual aids, 503 frame-based approach, 124

extratextual influence, 194 framed, 137

extratextual setting, 172 frame-fillers, 133, 224

facetization, 443 FrameNet project, 442

faithfulness, 159 frames of reference, 10, 24, 27, 28, 39, 46, 48,

felicity conditions, 216 49, 50, 57, 89, 96, 98, 101, 106, 119, 120,

feminist paradigm, 87, 89 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129,

feminist philosophy, 463 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139,

611
 140, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, German language, 465, 472, 475, 479, 487,
154, 155, 156, 157, 186, 195, 222, 223, 224, 494, 509
227, 243, 245, 266, 267, 273, 335 global English, 458, 583
framework, 20, 23, 24, 35, 48, 62, 72, 84, 90, global lingua franca, 334
91, 95, 98, 104, 119, 121, 128, 130, 131, globalization, 31, 53, 78, 79, 458, 547-548, 553
133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143, 147, 150, 171, glocal translation, 457
172, 177, 179, 189, 194, 195, 199, 219, 221, good translation, 336
223, 224, 225, 251, 260 Goodwin, Philip, 107, 117
framing, 122, 127, 129, 135 Google Translate, 31, 340, 456
framing model (analysis), 223, 559 graphic novels, 452
freedom (of translator), 185 Greco-Roman rhetoric, 323
Freud, Sigmund, 470 Grossman, Edith, 10, 16, 56, 57, 562
fronting, 533 Gutt, E. A., 40, 199, 259
functional approach, 43 Halliday, M.A.K., 69, 70, 544
functional equivalence, 23, 33, 109, 167, 171, Hargreaves, C., 162, 166, 168, 185, 186, 187
193, 195, 256, 274, 278, 286, 373, 473 harmony, 209
Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, Hatim, Basil, 11, 84
FOLTA, 59, 64, 83, 241, 252 Hatim, B. and I. Mason, 15, 38, 70, 175, 176,
functional literacy, 488 195, 198, 199, 200, 216, 217, 256, 259
functional parity, 198, 199, 293 hearing the text, 412
functional profile, 287, 302 Hebrew literary devices, 296
functional theories, 67 Hermans, T., 173
functionalist approach, 170, 178, 220, 274, 554 hermeneutical analysis, 475
functionalist translation, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 88, hermeneutical frame of reference, 144
96, 172, 184, 190, 195, 221, 224, 227, 251 hermeneutical process, 333
functionally equivalent translation, 259 hermeneutics, 51, 135, 165, 214
functionally-equivalent methodology, 98 Hindi, 343
functions of communication, 171, 198, 200, 246 historiography, 76
Gaddis-Rose, M., 184 Holy Marriage, 107, 108
gain (communicative effects), 202 Holy Scriptures, 181, 193, 480
gendered translation, 87, 533 homologous translation, 256
Genesis, 169, 532 host language, 341
genre, 17, 23, 24, 45, 70, 71, 72, 86, 89, 90, 91, House, Juliane, 539, 545
98, 121, 131, 134, 140, 164, 166, 172, 174, hymn, 419
175, 181, 183, 187, 193, 195, 197, 198, 201, hypertext, 136, 141
204, 210, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, 440
248, 262, 263, 265, 267, 269, 409, 557-558 identity, 452
genre-for-genre translation, 197 ideological factor, 17, 73, 74, 75, 87, 89, 94,
German Bible, 478 123, 175, 219, 225, 463

612
ideology, 87, 89, 463, 542 intertextuality, 86, 89, 134, 136, 163, 179, 180,
ideophone, 192 203, 276
idiomatic translation, 485 Introducing Translation Studies, 12, 56, 58, 60,
illocution, 210, 218 82, 239, 253
illustrations, 53, 504 intuition, 183
imagery, 186 Isaiah 6.8–10, 302
implicature, 41, 70, 88, 130, 179, 203, 216, isomorphic equivalent, 111
217, 556 Jakobson, Roman, 29, 52, 63, 163, 175, 183,
implicit information, 491 192, 195, 248, 252, 256
implicit meaning, 203 Japanese, 344, 345
In Translation, 334 Job, 134
inclusio, 205, 208 Job 28.23–28, 330
indeterminism, 50 job commission, 22, 23, 24, 32, 68, 69, 88, 90,
India, 344 97, 103, 137, 272
inductive reasoning, 220 John 1, 29, 137
inference, 275 Katan, David, 125
infidelity, 375 key terms, 209
information (structure), 158, 558 King James Version, KJV 99, 107, 448
innovation, 177 knowledge of language, 371
instrumental translation, 19, 29, 40, 45, 69, 88, koine Greek, 259
171, 247, 467 Lakoff, George, 121
integrity factor, 265 Lamb of God, 119, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142,
intended audience, 474 144, 146
intended meaning, 50, 98, 100, 130, 133, 164, lament, 409
224 Landers, C., 187, 188
intention, 462 Landers, Clifford, 385
intention (communicative), 171 language knowledge, 381
intentional fallacy, 172 language manipulation, 183
interference, 441 Language of Wider Communication, 260
interlingual communication, 12, 13, 21, 32, 72, Leitwörter, 115
90, 96, 105, 119, 182, 199, 200, 227, 259, levels of style, 259
261, 266 Levy, Juri, 66
internationalization, 52, 53 Lewis, C. S., 162
interpretation, 15, 453, 467 lexical entry, 112
interpreters, 337 lexical semantics, 446
interpreting, 61 lexicalisation patterns, 443
Interpretive approach, 181 lexical-semantic study, 437
interpretive relevance, 111 lexicography, 96, 112, 145, 244, 424
interpretive resemblance, 109 liberation, 336

613
LiFE, (Literary Functional Equivalence) 10, 24, literary functional equivalence (LiFE), 254
106, 156, 221, 222, 243, 250, 251, 253, 254, literary functional equivalence” (LiFE), 262
258, 262, 263, 268, 272, 273, 334 literary functional equivalent, 10
LiFE approach, 258 literary genre, 307, 499
LiFE principles, 263, 272 literary musician, 370, 374
LiFE translation, 289, 300 literary text, 466
life-death, 423 literary texts, 453
life-force, 426, 428, 437 literary translation, 174, 184, 190, 193, 254,
LiFE-style translation, 303, 599 256, 287, 357, 369, 385, 386, 460
limits of translatability, 544 literary translator, 56, 75, 182, 187, 189, 370,
lineation, 169 387, 471
lingua franca, 456 literary version, 198
linguistic charting, 315 literary-poetic structure, 413
linguistic context, 500 literary-rhetorical analysis, 160, 202
linguistic-cultural gap, 436 literary-structural analysis, 406, 519
linguistic relativity, 543
literature, 161, 162, 174, 185, 386
linguistics, 546
literal meaning, 394 literature of Scripture, 255, 370
literal translation, 18, 25, 70, 75, 91, 115, 176, liturgical translation, 257
190, 191, 194, 198, 241, 264, 372 liturgical version, 166
literalism, 115, 373 localization, 10, 31, 32, 36, 52, 53, 78, 79, 222,
literalist, 374 456
Literalist approach, 168 localization theory, 52
literalist fallacy, 354 locution, 98, 218, 220
literalistic formalism, 484 logical entry, 112
literalness, 355 Lord, Albert, 343
literariness, 171, 174, 178, 185, 264 loss (translational), 159, 196
literary, 460 lost in translation, 373
literary analysis, 160 loyalty, 172, 200, 382, 455, 467
literary approaches (methodologies), 168, 255 Luke, 111
literary critic, 469 Luke 1-2, 116
literary criticism, 161, 184, 461 Luke’s Preface, 111
literary culture, 370 Luther Bible, 478
literary dimension, 263 Luther, Martin, 2, 51, 63, 162, 331, 478
literary equivalence, 199 Luther’s translation approach, 478
literary features, 160, 163, 165, 190, 192, 195, Luther's procedures, 482
196, 256 machine translation, 456
literary form, 261, 281, 376 managing, 89, 136
literary functional equivalence, 51, 274, 350, Mandelstam, Osip, 342
369, 385, 406, 420 manipulation, 52, 65, 73, 87, 183, 242

614
manuals of translation, 50 model (translational), 212
marked element, 70 model of translation, 259
marked forms, 175 monitoring, 53, 86, 89, 225
markedness, 86, 91, 175, 198 motion events, 444
market-language version, 491 Muilenburg, James, 161
matches (functional), 161 multilayered coding, 192
Matthew 25.31–46, 304 multilingual composition, 457
Maxey, James, 80, 82, 216, 223, 226 multimedia translation, 31, 79
maxims (of conversation), 216 multimodal translation, 30, 36, 79
maxims, Gricean, 41, 70, 216, 217 Munday, Jeremy, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,
meaning, 16, 21, 166, 225, 256, 261, 263, 281, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 45, 53, 56,
442, 451, 484, 486, 491 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,
meaning package, 210 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 168, 216,
mediation, 193, 198 217, 239, 253, 554
mediatory function, 448 Murakami, Haruki, 344
medium of communication, 213 music, 346
memorability, 185 musical text, 496
mental model, 432 musical version, 419
mental representation, 414, 559 mutation, 469
mental space theory, 57, 135, 137, 142, 143, natural equivalence, 37
146, 147, 148, 469 naturalization’, 18, 75
mental spaces, 133, 135, 141, 142, 144, 146, naturalness, 493
147, 149, 155, 223, 318, 339, 413 ndakatulo lyric poetry, 298, 326, 331, 414
mentorship, 389 ndakatulo style, 514
metafunctions, 69 negotiation, 97, 132, 200, 223, 266
metamorphosis, 452 network model, 133, 141
metaphor, 179, 442 Neufeld, D., 93, 95
metaphoricity, 445 new media, 12, 29, 31, 60, 78
metaphrase, 449 New-Old Translation, 532
metatext, 87, 194 Nida E.A. and Taber C.R., 37, 38, 43, 47, 67, 97,

methodology, 181, 202, 262 121, 165, 166, 167, 181, 191, 240, 241, 242,

methodology (L-R), 202 244, 249, 250

metonymy, 443 Nida, E. A., 67, 109, 165, 166, 239, 244, 247,

micro-structure, 407 249, 462

minimax strategy, 66 nodes of meaning, 466

mismatch in translation, 558 Nord, Christiane, 68, 172, 170, 173, 200, 221,
missionary version, 434 256, 467
mistranslations, 470 norms, 175, 198, 221, 442
mnemonic aids, 473 norms of translation, 47, 48

615
Nyanja, 279 philosophical approaches, 76
omission, 396 phonesthetics, 495
options (translational), 159, 160, 196, 200 phonological significance, 257
oral models, 258 Pilkington, Adrian, 179
oral overlay, 162 pitfalls in translation, 401
oral/aural-oriented, 496 placement (positioning), 207
oral-and-aural factor, 225, 536-537 poetic features, 207
oral-aural dimension, 163, 169, 185, 195, 204, poetic function, 163, 192
213, 262 poetic language, 160
oral-aural effect, 225 poetic sensitivity, 397
oral-elocutionary envelope, 258 poetics, 161, 164, 264
orality, 12, 15, 61, 192, 214, 215, 218, 223, poetry, 337, 341, 348, 356, 375, 397, 407
224, 225, 226, 227, 255, 262, 269, 271 Polish, 348
oratorical, 22 politeness strategies, 556
oratorical discourse, 264 political discourse, 445

oratorical resources, 272 polyfunctionality, 177, 210

oratorical translation, 255, 259, 262, 264, 357 polysystem, 16, 46, 70, 71, 72, 87

oratorical version, 256 popular language, 166, 199

oratory, 257 popular-language version, 259, 414, 416, 434

Orhan Pamuk, 342 postcolonialism, 60, 72

original author, 354 postulates of translation, 47

overt translation, 546 power relations, 463
otherness, 455, 469 pragmatic competence, 556
outline (of discourse), 208 pragmatic resemblance, 199, 259

Oxford English Dictionary, 429 pragmatics (turn), 88, 555

paradigm, 36 Prague School, 66

para-framing, 130 prepositions, 377, 556

parallel text analysis, 558 pre-project planning, 268
parallelism, 205 prescriptive approach, 62
paratext, 262, 503 priest, 112
Paratext, 31, 32, 53, 56, 79, 80, 101, 149, 260 principle of relevance, 33, 41, 131, 136, 143,
participants in discourse, 558 149, 180, 199, 200, 217, 223, 259, 278
patterning of discourse, 205 problematic issues, 209
peak, of discourse, 208 process model, 86
pedagogy, 20, 42, 90, 91, 552 processing cost, 130
performance, 453 professional norms, 90
performance criticism, 224 project commission, 268
performance setting, 212 project coordinator, 269
perlocution, 98, 218, 220 project management, 271
persuasion, 264 projection, 207

616
propositional analysis, 202, 208 Relevance Curve, 110
propositional meaning, 450 relevance theory, 40, 49, 66, 67, 86, 88, 96, 98,
prosody, 345 100, 101, 105, 136, 178, 190, 195, 199, 217,
prototype semantics, 441 222, 245
Psalm 1, 517 Relevance Theory, RT, 19, 33, 40, 57, 66, 67,
Psalm 13, 357, 406 81, 108, 110, 113, 117, 178, 179, 180, 183,
Psalm 23, 300, 332, 512 195, 217, 245, 251, 252, 270, 275, 282
psalm of petition, 411 repetition, 114, 205, 309
Psalms, 202, 426, 499 replication, 309
psychoanalysis, 470 research, 91, 159, 173, 182, 221, 558
psycholinguistic studies, 446 resemblance, 20, 33, 40, 41, 67, 100, 199, 250
publishing, 404 resistance, 391
pun, wordplay, 399 retextualization, 474
purpose, 451 Revelation, book, 179, 276, 280
Pym, Anthony, 26, 28, 35, 44, 51, 56, 463, 527 reviewers, 269, 352
quality assessment, 69, 88, 561-562 reviews of translations, 469
quality of translation, 270, 561 revision, 347, 403, 507
Qur’an, 454 revision process, 403
readability, 392, 504 re-writing, 449
reader of the text, 389 Reynolds, Matthew, 448
reader-friendly display, 326 rhetoric, 167, 192, 272, 327, 379
reader-oriented, 485 rhetorical analysis, 167
readers’ helps, 492, 503 rhetorical criticism, 161
reading a translation, 471, 559-60 rhetorical dimension, 264
reading translation, 466 rhetorical features, 210, 311, 485
reasons for translating, 461 rhetorical movement, 412
re-composition, 260 rhetorical power, 256
re-conceptualization, 260 rhetorical strategy, 411
recreation, 354 rhetorical style, 444
recursion, 170, 205, 309 rhetorical-argument, 220
recursive patterns, 310 Rhoads, David, 216, 224, 226
referential framework, 317 risk taking, 186
reformulation, 183 ritual function, 191, 194
re-frame, 130 Rohrbaugh, R. L., 93, 96, 98, 101
re-framing, 129 Rojo, Ana, 440
register, 211, 393, 561 Russian Formalist School, 247
register analysis, 70, 561-562 Ryken, Leland, 163
relevance, 23, 109, 180, 195, 199, 200, 259, satellite-framed language, 444
272 scenario theory, 128

617
schema mapping, 133 sound features, 353
schemata, 133, 135, 154, 223, 559-560 sound patterning, 258
Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 97, 338 sound structure, 263
scholarship, 339 sound-effects, 473
Schprachgefuehl, 492 source language features, 198
scribality, 227 Spanish, 341, 342, 356, 558, 561
scripts, 129 speakability, 398
Scripture, 471 speech acts, 54, 98, 134, 139, 174, 197, 210,
Scripture engagement, 272 218, 219, 226, 322, 555-556
Scriptures, 260 Sprachgefühl, 377
sections, 534 stages of translation, 390
Semantic Domain Dictionary, 424 Stalin, 342
semantic fields, 318 stanza, 407
semantic representations, 89 stereoscopic reading, 184
semantic typology, 444, 446 Strategic Frame Analysis, 125
semiotics, 452 structural-thematic outline, 209
shift in expectancy, 206 structuration, 177, 192
significance, 180 structure of speech acts, 218
signs, 133 style, 165, 192, 347, 353, 391, 452
similarity, 42 style in translation, 91, 396
situational context, 501 styles of translation, 265
Skopos, 18, 23, 43, 68, 178, 195, 268, 270, 271, stylistic (technical) assessment, 192
284, 289, 404, 420, 436, 465, 542 stylistic analogue, 345
Skopos theory, Skopostheorie, 44, 87 stylistic devices, 167
170, 195, 221, 442 stylistic features, 261, 466
social (popular) assessment, 191 stylistic techniques, 311
social sciences, 93 stylistically marked, 23, 195
social-scientific criticism, 204 stylistics, 161
sociocultural perspectives, 219 subtext, 401
sociocultural setting, 262, 440, 501 supplementary devices, 262
sociolinguistic factors, 192, 212, 560 syntactic operators, 533
sociolinguistic register, 103 syntactic-semantic analysis, 316
sociosemiotic approach, 97 systems theories, 70
sola Scriptura, 483 systemic-functional theory, 544
Song of Songs, 294 target audience, 272, 465

Song of Songs 8.5b–7, 298 target language, 386

sonority, 188, 189, 397, 417 target language L-R analysis, 211

sonorous interaction, 341 Teaching and Researching Translation, 84, 85, 91

sound dimension, 377 ten-step exegetical methodology, 303

tertium comparationis, 29, 38, 65, 195, 256

618
testing, 213 translation, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 54, 61,
testing a translation, 378 121, 260, 279, 337, 339, 387, 448, 552-553
testing procedures, 488 translation as a metaphor, 382
text markers/features, 557-558 translation assessment, 265
text type approach, 67 translation choices, 428
text typologies, 91 translation commission, 68
text, discourse, genre, 88, 557-558 translation consumers, 271
text-linguistic approach, 175, 177 translation continuum, 265, 553
text-processing procedures, 330 translation loss, 265
textual competence, 557
Translation Management System, 53
The Bible Translator, 13, 31, 56, 58, 59, 72, 80,
translation--"new old", 532-535
81, 82, 154, 156, 179, 241, 242, 244, 251, translation norms, 47, 71
252, 253 translation procedures, 212, 269
theatre, 458 translation process, 293
theme-dynamics, 69 translation research, 546
theories of semiosis, 52 Translation Rigidly Conceived, 449
theories of translation, 476 translation shift, 37, 45, 86
theorists, 391 translation shifts, 45, 66
theorization, 460 translation strategies/solutions, 436, 527 (Pym)
theory, 460 Translation Studies, TS, 10, 11, 60, 440, 448,
thick translation, 465 552, 563
Think Aloud Protocols, 90 translation support, 271
title, 402 translation teaching, 378, 548-548 (bilingual)
tonalities, 353 translation team, 23, 24, 47, 146, 147, 176,
tone, 394, 399 187, 189, 193, 199, 201, 224, 226, 243, 260,
Tonga, 522 266, 267, 269, 270
topicalization, 206 translation testing, 270
topical-thematic summary, 313 translation theory, 270, 381
Toury, Gideon, 16, 17, 45, 46, 47, 58, 62, 71, translation usage, 202
72, 83, 88, 90, 173, 174, 254 translation universals, 544
tradition (of translation), 187 translation workshop, 379
traduttore traditore, 261, 282, 285, 336, 487 translation, definition, 17, 280, 282, 352, 357,
training, 389 539-540
trajector—landmark, 443 translational blend, 469
trans-editing, 456 translational continuum, 290
transferre, 339 translational modification, 196
transformation, 193 translational profile, 437
transformations, 470 translationality, 450, 458
translaterature, 458 translationese, 373, 378, 441, 448, 458
translating for performance, 226 translatology, 441

619
translator training, 29, 65 98, 101, 103, 104, 106, 189, 243, 253, 338,
translator’s foreword, 396 345, 391, 463
translator’s tools, 404 verb-framed language, 444
Translator’s Workplace, 31, 80 voice (translator's), 176
transubstantiation, formal, 260 Wechsler, Robert, 369
treacherous typo, 400 why translation matters, 350, 562, 572, 576, 582-
typography, 504 583
typology of literature, 328 Wilt, Timothy, 331
typology of translation solution types, 527-530 Wittenberg Bible, 481
UBS Handbook, 113 Wonderly, Wm., 166, 199, 256
UBS Translator’s Handbook, 150, 312 word play, 473
uncertainty theory, 49 worldview, 21, 38, 41, 100, 102, 121, 122,
unity, 209 131, 219, 222, 223, 232, 260, 266, 432
universals, 45, 46, 47, 60, 90, 167 world-view, 131, 135
untranslatability, 442 Wright, Chantal, 460, 476
untranslatable, 374 writer’s block, 389
Venuti, Lawrence, 14, 17, 18, 29, 40, 62, 66, written vs oral literature, 257, 560
68, 70, 74, 75, 77, 81, 82, 83, 87, 95, 96, 97, Zambia, 10, 28, 39, 53, 93, 99, 102, 146

620
 The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1563)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel#/media/File:Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Vienna)_-
_Google_Art_Project.jpg)

621
(The first page of the poem Beowulf, written in Old English in the early medieval period (800–1100 AD).
Although Old English is the direct ancestor of modern English, it is unintelligible to contemporary English
speakers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#/media/File:Beowulf.firstpage.jpeg )

622
(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/318277898652097903/ )

623
624
(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/327285097905751745/ )

625
 (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/d5/89/26d58923309bcaef02bf6bb775b8ef2a.jpg )

Together, the eight countries in red contain more than 50% of the world's languages. The areas in blue are the
most linguistically diverse in the world, and the locations of most of the world's endangered languages.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language; below:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Primary_Human_Language_Families_Map.png )

626