Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation

A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers

Ernst Wendland

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317640295
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Linguistica

Bible translation theory and practice rightly tend to focus on the actual text of Scripture. But many diverse, yet interrelated contextual factors also play an important part in the implementation of a successful translation program. The aim of this coursebook is to explore, in varying degrees of detail, a wide range of these crucial situational variables and potential influences, using a multidisciplinary approach to the task. Thus, in order to expand and enrich the field of vision, a progressive study of this complex process of intercultural, interlinguistic communication is carried out according to a set of overlapping sociocultural, organizational and situational cognitive orientations. These contextual factors provide a broader frame of reference for analyzing, interpreting and communicating the original Scriptures in a completely new, contemporary setting of transmission and reception. The three dimensions are then applied in a practical way to explore the dramatic "throne-room" vision of the Apostle John (Revelation 4-5) with reference to both the original Greek text and also a modern dynamic translation in Chewa, a southeastern Bantu language of Africa.

A variety of exercises and assignments to stimulate critical and creative reflection as well as to illustrate the theoretical development of Contextual Frames of Reference is provided every step of the way. Not only is translation per se discussed, but the teaching and evaluation of translated texts and versions are also considered from several points of view in the final three chapters. An Appendix offers a foundational essay by Professor Lourens de Vries on the subject of primary orality and the influence of this vital factor in the crosscultural communication of the Bible.

1. Contextual frames of reference

The mind’s construction of meaning

Analogy of an onion¹

Figure 1: Onion layers

A mature onion bulb is well-known for its distinctive taste, smell, and sharp effect upon the eyes, but also for its intricate, interlocking construction. One fleshy leaf is compressed within another to comprise the compact body as a whole. You cannot simply take an onion apart and put it back together again so that it looks and feels the same; it will have been completely undone. At the heart or core then of the onion’s concentrated concentric formal structure is located its radicle, the source of continued life and growth – if it were to be placed in some sort of nourishing environment such as the soil.

With reference to the topic of this coursebook, an onion bulb may be used as a limited concrete analogy to represent the cognitive notion of “context” as applied to any act of human communication. A verbal text, for example, may be likened to the central radicle, or embryo, that lives by virtue of the meaning that has been intentionally encoded within it and which grows when that text is transmitted in a favorable sociocultural environment. The text itself is enclosed within varied layers of supportive conceptual context which sustain and give it shape, allowing consumers to perceive, interpret, and apply its content. But take away all the outer contextual layers, and the text becomes unrecognizable (to the untrained eye), unstable, and ultimately unusable. It no longer has a sustainable, transmittable significance or a useful function. All of the layers operate collectively to perform this vital service of contextualization for the text, and if any individual one is examined or evaluated in isolation, it can give only a limited, and often distorted, picture of the text’s true nature and purpose.

The intricate layers of an onion are all very similar to each another in substance and shape. That is not the case when one considers the surrounding interpretive environment of a particular verbal text. The constituting conceptual categories and perceptual aspects of discourse are diverse, though they embrace and closely interact during communication. Despite their many complex interrelationships, it may still be helpful, as a heuristic exercise when exploring the idea of context, to distinguish one implicit cognitive layer from another, moving from more to less inclusive as follows: cognitive → sociocultural → organizational → situational → textual (i.e., various interwoven levels of conceptual structure).² I will begin by describing and illustrating the salient features of these distinct contextual dimensions, these relevant pragmatic frames of reference (Wilt 2003:ch.2),³ moving from the generic (“outer” layer) to the more specific and concrete (“inner” layer). The latter, the textual cotext, provides the immediate framework for understanding a biblical text such as that of Revelation 4–5. This composite model will then be applied as a means of facilitating our understanding and communication of St. John’s visionary record of the heavenly throne room scene.

The all-encompassing conceptual context is thus employed, first of all, as an essential element of one’s analysis of the original Greek text and its hypothetical extratextual milieu. This perspective is then transferred and extended to an interpretation and translation of the same text from the standpoint of an average Chewa (south-central Bantu) audience, living in their present-day linguistic, literary, and sociocultural setting. Several different paratextual and extratextual means of enhancing the overall dynamic communications process (piecing the onion together again) will be surveyed to highlight their important function in Bible translating. I conclude with a few thoughts concerning the need for a thorough qualitative assessment of the entire translation endeavor and some reflection on the implications as well as limitations of the present study, especially with regard to those aspects that need to be explored further in subsequent research, perhaps also from a more developed theoretical viewpoint. The periodic examples and exercises that I have included are an attempt to encourage readers to critically engage with the material presented (and, ideally, also with each other) in a practical way from their personal perspective so as to identify potential points of current application or places where this text needs to be corrected, modified, and/or supplemented.

EXERCISE-1

The onion example is just one of many analogies available for illustrating the vital nature and operation of “context” during the communication process.

Pick out the strong and weak points of this comparison: What, in your opinion, would be a better, or at least an additional, analogy that could be used for this purpose?

Summarize your application to what you see as the most important aspects of contextual influence as it pertains to the overall activity of communication in general and Bible translation in particular. Alternatively, you may feel that no analogies are appropriate – that they only confuse the relevant issues. If that is the case, explain your position from the perspective of the communication model that you work with.

Evaluate the accuracy or usefulness of the following minimal definition of context. Does it work for now, or would you like to propose a revision: “Context can be thought of as anything outside of an utterance itself that is relevant for its production or interpretation” (Dooley 1995:19).

Do the same for the following, more complex definition: “CONTEXT – The multi-layered extra-textual environment which exerts a determining influence on the language used. The subject matter of a given text, for example, is part of a context of situation. The ideology of the speaker, on the other hand, would form part of the context of culture. Finally, context of utilization caters for such factors as whether the translation is in written form, orally done (INTERPRETING) or as SUBTITLING/DUBBING, etc.” (Hatim and Munday 2004:336). The preceding needs to be distinguished from the “CO-TEXT – The other lexical items that occur before and after a word” (ibid: loc cit).

EXERCISE-2

Consider the relationships involved in Figure 2:⁴

We observe that in the case of such a collective nesting, whether combining artifacts or some other type of implement (e.g., chairs, tables, boxes), each item in the set is usually exactly the same as another, except for a possible difference in size. Next consider a verbal sort of nesting, namely, a generic-specific lexical set, in which the more specific term includes all of the generic features of the superordinate term, but then adds a number of specific components of meaning, e.g., living being → animal → canine → dog → Doberman → “Samson.” In this section of the coursebook, I will be discussing a disparate cognitive (not a neatly related concrete) set of included frames in which the enclosed domains manifest some, but not necessarily all, of the generic features of the frame that classifies it. Furthermore, these frames will be seen to complement and interact with each other in many different ways. For this reason, it is important to take note of all the potentially relevant sociological and communication-related characteristics that are evident in the particular setting of usage to which a given frame is applied.

Figure. 2: A “nested” Russian doll set

What is the significance of important similarities and/or differences that are manifested during frame-analysis when applied to human communication from more than one perspective? Give an example that comes to mind – or try this if you are in a group or class setting: What are the principal differences that emerge between your participant frame of reference and that of your course instructor or group leader?

Why do we have to pay so much attention to such matters when carrying out a certain task of Bible translation? What makes this verbal activity so complicated – one of the most complex (and potentially controversial!) types of communication? Suggest three issues that give us cause for concern regarding the quality of interlingual communication where “Scripture” is concerned.

What do you think of the notion of frames of reference (cf. Wilt 2003:43–58) when studying different communication events? As in the case of the “onion” metaphor, is there a better analogy that you know of that could model the manifold nature and influence of “context” during the process of communication? Note that the expression frames of reference is variously termed in the literature of cognitive linguistics (semantics), for example: cognitive frames, semantic domains, conceptual fields, mental representations, mental spaces, world-view categories, (mental) schemata – scenarios – scripts, etc.

A possible advantage of the term frame is that it can be used as a verb to express the dynamic, fluid, progressively developed, etc. aspects of cognitive perception, construction, and evaluation. Thus “to frame” a thought is to indicate, demonstrate, or delineate how one entity, idea, action, or quality relates to another (or others) within a larger mental structure in relation to a particular social setting. Does this help you to better understand the notion of “frames” and “framing”? Tell why or why not. If so, try to give an example of “frame” from an active, verbal perspective with respect to some specific act of communication. If not, suggest what in your opinion is a better alternative.

Dr. Robert Bascom (personal correspondence) offers the following thoughts on the subject of “framing” and how to express this in another language. Comment on these reflections in relation to translation:

I think what I am aiming for is not so much frames as flexible as much as frames as rapidly changeable. [W]e select and negotiate the frames we want to use and discard the ones we do not want or need. Or we transform them, or even break them. So frames are indeed rigid (even brittle), but not unchangeable and permanent. That can be seen as a flexibility of sorts, but the idea for me works better with the images of changeability. The two (“static”) elements I like the most about frames/framing are the facts that they set limits and provide s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Preface
• 1. Contextual Frames of Reference: The mind’s construction of meaning
• 2. The Context of the Mind: Cognitive frames of reference
• 3. Why We Do Things the Way We Do: Sociocultural frames
• 4. The Rights and Responsibilities of Allegiance: Organizational frames
• 5. Situational Frames: Communicating in different circumstances
• 6. Textual Frames of Reference: The pervasive influence of intertext
• 7. Intratextuality: A Text’s internal frame of reference
• 8. Framing John’s Vision of the Heavenly Throne Room (Rev. 4)
• 9. Sharpening John’s Vision for Contemporary Chewa Text Auditors
• 10. Evaluating the Overall Quality of Communication Via Translation
• 11. Framing the Text of Revelation 5 for Its Analysis and Translation
• 12. Creating a Contextualized Framework for Teaching and Learning
• Appendix: Bible Translation and Primary Orality
• References
• Index