Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 23:2 (2022) ► pp.204–244

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Coherence in translation

A domains-of-use approach to subjectivity and causality in Bible translations

ORCiD logo with link | Radboud University
 | Utrecht University
Published online: 31 January 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.18011.san
Abstract
When comparing old and new Bible translations, differences are striking at all discourse levels. This paper concentrates on variations in the representation of subjective cognition and reasoning of subjects in the discourse. A corpus-based analysis was conducted that compared the domains of use of causal fragments in Dutch Bible translations that were either old, contemporary and loyal, or “easy”. In a close comparison of Bible translations, differences between domains of use are analysed in more detail. In old translations, the character’s subjective reasoning is clearly separated from the narrator’s utterances. By contrast, in modern translations, causal reasoning is more intertwined between character and narrator, resulting in shared reasoning.
Article outline
  • 1.Coherence marking in Bible translations
  • 2.Bible translations: History, goals and target groups
  • 3.Representation of causal relations
  • 4.General corpus-based analysis
    • 4.1Sample
    • 4.2Analytical method
    • 4.4Results general analysis
  • 5.Corpus-based analysis in terms of “domains of use”
    • 5.1Sample and analytical method domain-of-use analysis
    • 5.2Results from the domains-of-use analysis
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Translations
  • References
References (68)
References
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. 1986. “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (2): 193–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alter, Robert. 1980. “Sacred History and the Beginnings of Prose Fiction”. Poetics Today 1 (3): 143–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, Bill and John Choi. 2003. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bastiaens, Jean. 2000. “Vertaal- en stijlkwesties in het Marcusevangelie” [‘Translation and Style Matters in Mark’s Gospel’]. In Paul Gillaerts (ed.), Effata: Beschouwingen over bijbelvertalen en stijl [‘Effata: Thoughts on Bible Translation and Style’], 101–116. Antwerpen: Katholieke Vlaamse Hogeschool.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, Stephanie. 2002. Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: kai, de, tote, gar, oun and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse. (Studies in New Testament Greek Vol. 9). London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britton, Bruce. 1994. “Understanding Expository Text: Building mental structures to induce insights”. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 641–674. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes. 2013. Small Words, Big Effects? Subjective Versus Objective Causal Connectives in Discourse Processing. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2009. “Causes and Consequences: Evidence from Polish, English, and Dutch”. In Ted Sanders and Eve Sweetser (eds), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, 91–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dayras, Solange. 1993. “The Knox Version, or the Trial of a Translator: Translation or Transgression?” In D. Jasper (ed.), Translating Religious Texts – Translation, Transgression and Interpretation, 44–59. London: The Macmillan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Jong, Matthijs. 2014. Hoe vertaal je de bijbel in gewone taal: Uitgangspunten, keuzes, dilemma’s [‘How to Translate a Bible in Plain Language: Starting Points, Choices, Dilemmas’]. Heerenveen: Royal Jongbloed.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2004. “Contrastive Analyses, Translation and Speaker Involvement: The Case of puisque and aangezien”. In Michael Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture and Mind, 251–270. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2015. “Grammaticalization or Pragmaticalization of Discourse Markers? More than a Terminological Issue”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1): 59–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Henk Pander Maat. 2003. “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale”. In Arie Verhagen and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch, 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1998. “A Translational Basis for Semantics”. In Stig Johansson and Signe Oksefjell (eds), Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies, 51–86. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2005. The Development of Dutch Connectives: Change and Acquisition as Windows on Form-Function Interactions. (PhD thesis.) Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT. Available online at: [URL]
. 2010. “‘Dus’ vooraan of in het midden? Over vorm-functierelaties in het gebruik van connectieven” [‘“Dus” Up-Front or in the Middle? On Form-Function Relations in the Use of Connectives’]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15 (2): 149–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Liesbeth Degand, Benjamin Fagard and Liesbeth Mortier. 2011. “Historical and Comparative Perspectives on Subjectification: A Corpus-based Analysis of Dutch and French Causal Connectives”. Linguistics 49 (2): 445–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Eve Sweetser (eds). 1996. Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinsius, Jacobus. 1937. “De taal van de Statenvertaling” [‘The Language of the Statenvertaling’]. In Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap De Statenvertaling 1637–1937, 85–108. Haarlem: Erven Bohn (2005 Middelburg: Gihonbron).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. “Coherence and Coreference”. Cognitive Science 31: 67–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet. 2018. Making Sense of Discourse: On Discourse Segmentation and the Linguistic Marking of Coherence Relations. (PhD thesis.) Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT. Available online at: [URL]
Keller, Rudi. 1995. “The epistemic weil”. In D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knappert, Laurentius. 1936. “Enkele opmerkingen bij de geschiedenis der Statenvertaling” [‘Some Remarks on the History of the Statenvertaling’]. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 29 (1): 197–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroon, Caroline. 1998. “A Framework for the Description of Latin Discourse Markers”. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (2): 205–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia and Liesbeth Degand. 2017. “Just Because: In Search of Objective Criteria of Subjectivity Expressed by Causal Connectives”. Dialogue & Discourse 8 (1): 132–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Fang, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul and Ted Sanders. 2014. “Subjectivity and Result Marking in Mandarin: A Corpus-based Investigation”. Chinese Language and Discourse 4 (1): 74–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naudé, Jacobus. 2002. “An Overview of Recent Developments in Translation Studies with Special Reference to the Implications for Bible Translation”. Acta Theologica Supplementum 21: 44–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene. 1976. “A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation”. In Richard Brislin (ed.), Translation, Application and Research, 47–91. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niehoff, Maren. 1992. “Do Biblical Characters Talk to Themselves? Narrative Modes of Representing Inner Speech in Early Biblical Fiction”. Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (4): 577–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noordman, Leo and Wietske Vonk. 1997. “The Different Functions of a Conjunction in Constructing a Representation of the Discourse”. In J. Costermans and M. Fayol (eds), Processing Interclausal Relationships: Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text, 75–93. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 2005. “Making Otherness Accessible: Functionality and Skopos in the Translation of New Testament Texts”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 50 (3): 868–880. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O. and Elizabeth Traugott. 2016. “Periphery: Diachronic and Cross-Linguistic Approaches”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (2): 163–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk and Ted Sanders. 2000. “Domains of Use or Subjectivity? The Distribution of Three Dutch Causal Connectives Explained”. In Elizabeth Couper-Kühlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, 57–81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study in Language Use”. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 247–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panou, Despoina. 2013. “Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (1): 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2017. Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan and Carel van Wijk. 2002. “Converting the Words of God: An Experimental Evaluation of Stylistic Choices in the New Dutch Bible Translation”. In Leona van Vaerenberg (ed.), Linguistica Antverpiensia: Linguistics and Translation Studies, 169–190. Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, José. 2009. “Causal Connectives in Dutch Biblical Translations”. In Ted Sanders and Eve Sweetser (eds), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, 61–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014a. “Translating ‘Thinking’ and ‘Believing’ in the Bible: How Cognitive Linguistic Analysis Shows Increasing Subjectivity in Translations”. In J. Green and B. Howe (eds), Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies, 253–276. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. “Geloof, vertrouwen en liefde: Strategieën voor begrijpelijkheid voor een Bijbel in Gewone Taal” [‘Faith, Trust and Love: Strategies of Comprehensibility for a Bible in Plain Language’]. Tekst[Blad] 51: 6–12.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, José, Ted Sanders and Eve Sweetser. 2012. “Responsible Subjects and Discourse Causality: How Mental Spaces and Connectives Help Identifying Subjectivity in Dutch Backward Causal Connectives”. Journal of Pragmatics 441: 191–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted. 1997. “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context”. Discourse Processes 24 (1): 119–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted and Wilbert Spooren. 2007. “Discourse and Text Structure”. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuykens (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 916–941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren and Leo Noordman. 1992. “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations”. Discourse Processes 15 (1): 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted and Eve Sweetser (eds). 2009. Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santana Covarrubias, Andrea, Wilbert Spooren, Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen and Ted Sanders. 2018. “Subjectivity in Spanish Discourse – Explicit and Implicit Causal Relations in Different Contexts”. Dialogue and Discourse 9 (1): 163–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoors, Anton. 1981. “The Particle ki”. Old Testament Studies 211: 240–276.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sevenster, Gerhard. 1936. “De Statenvertaling en hare kantteekeningen”. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 29 (1): 263–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smit, Joop. 2003. “Inleiding in de Nieuwtestamentische brieven”. In Jan Fokkelman and Wim Weren (eds), De Bijbel literair: Opbouw en gedachtegang van de Bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties [‘The Bible from a Literary Perspective: Structure and Reasoning in Biblical Writings and Their Mutual Relationships’], 49–59. Zoetermeer: Meinema.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert, Ted Sanders, Mike Huiskes and Liesbeth Degand. 2010. “Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study of Spoken Language”. In Sally Rice and John Newman (eds), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, 241–255. Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke. 2005. Causality Marking across Levels of Language Structure: A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Causal Verbs and Causal Connectives in Dutch. (PhD thesis.) Universiteit Utrecht. Utrecht: LOT.
Stukker, Ninke and Ted Sanders. 2012. “Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective”. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2): 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”. Language 651: 31–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. “Subjectification in Grammaticalization”. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification: A Reassessment”. In Hubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse and Lieven Vandelanotte (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas Jucker. 2015. “Twenty Years of Historical Pragmatics: Origins, Developments and Changing Thought Styles”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1): 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uit den Boogaart, Pieter. (ed.). 1975. Woordfrequenties in geschreven en gesproken Nederlands [‘Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken Dutch’]. Oosthoek: Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia. 1993. A Pragmatic Study of the Expression and Interpretation of Causality. Conjuncts and Conjunctions in Modern Spoken British English. (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Volume 1461.) Brussels: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul and José Sanders. 2012. “Streven naar begrijpelijkheid: Gevolgen voor causaliteit in Bijbelvertalingen” [‘Aiming at Comprehensibility: Consequences for Causality in Bible Translations’]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 34 (1): 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. “Constructions of Intersubjectivity”. Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vriezen, Theodoor and Adam van der Woude. 2000. “Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse literatuur” [‘Ancient Israeli and Early Jewish Literature’]. (Tenth revised edition.) Kampen: Kok.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenzel, Veronika. 2005. “Wie tutoyeert God? Aanspreekconventies in de moderne bijbelvertalingen” [‘Who is on First-Name Terms with God? Addressing Conventions in Modern Bible Translations’]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 27 (4): 299–314.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weren, Wim. 2005. “Lucas in de nieuwe Bijbelvertaling” [‘Luke in the New Bible Translation’]. Tijdschrift voor Theologie 45 (1): 75–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine and Liesbeth Degand. 2017. “Annotating the Meaning of Discourse Connectives in Multilingual Corpora”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13 (2): 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue