Richard Brown

1. New Dimensions in Communicative Bible Translation       Dealing with contextual mismatches, conflicting worldviews, and the hermeneutical spiral… ...within the framework of inferential communication. Richard Brown 4 Nov 2003

2. The Intended Result of Bible Translation • For most of us, the intended result of BT is that • “In this and every generation, language communities worldwide have access to adequate Scriptures and related materials in the languages that serve them well, and motivated members of those communities are able to use them for personal growth… • Scripture is adequate when it is translated in a way that is accurate, natural and communicative [and] • it includes a selection of portions or passages from the OT and NT sufficient to address the basic spiritual needs of the community.” • (from SIL Ends Policy, as revised by SIL International Conference, 2002)

3. The Goal of a Bible Translation Project • “Our goal is to promote the highest quality of translation possible in each situation in terms of accuracy to the meaning of the original text, effectiveness of communication of the message to the new audience, and natural style of the receptor language.” (SIL Board 1995)

4. The Intended Result of Bible Translation • ‘Naturalness’ speaks to the quality of language used in the translation, and • ‘Accuracy’ speaks to the quality of exegesis reflected in the translation.

5. Communicativeness • The focus of this presentation is on communicativeness. It will have implica-tions for deciding what to translate, when to translate it, how to translate it, what supplemental helps to provide, how to test the whole product, and how to check it.

6. Communicativeness • Let’s use the term ‘Scripture product’ to describe a translated text with its supplemental helps (notes, etc.) • We can then say that a Scripture product is “communicative” to the extent that it enables open-minded receptors to have those assumptions (beliefs, values, and practices) which the original authors intended their original audiences to hold as a result of their texts.

7. Original communication process Original cognitive environment author’sstimulus(originaltext) contextual assumptions of original audience activated by text originalaudience activation mergedinput initialassumptionsof originalaudience resultingassumptionsof originalaudience originalaudience automaticinferencingby original audience cognitive effects(perceived message)

8. Composition of the original communication • Let’s look at the role of the original authors: • They lived in the cognitive environment of the original audience. • They knew most of the contextual assumptions shared by the original audience. • They shared many of these assumptions themselves, but they also held some new, stronger, or even contrary beliefs which they wanted the audience to share with them. • They produced a text to create in their audience the cognitive effects that would lead them to accept these new or contrary assumptions.

9. Composition of the original communication INSPIRED AUTHOR Authorcomposes efficient stimulus adequate toproduce the intendedcognitive effectswithin the contextof his audience Author activates a model of his audience’s contextual assumptions assumptionsintended by theauthor for hisaudience tohave as a re-sult of his text author’s resultinglinguistic stimulus(the original text) Author sets communicative goal for his audience

10. Composition and communication compo-sition Author’s model of audience’s contextual assumptions assumptionsintended bythe author forhis audienceto have activation of rele-vant contextual assumptions in original audience author’sstimulus(originaltext) Author’s goal for audience’s cognitive state AUTHOR mergedinput initialassumptionsof theoriginalaudience resultingassumptionsof theoriginalaudience originalaudience automaticinferencingby original audience cognitive effects (perceived “message” )

11. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions • Let’s look at the role of the exegetes: • They must realize that they do not share the original cognitive environment. • They must become consciously aware of their own worldview and assumptions and how they differ from those of the original audience.

12. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions They must study the text, including the characteristics of its author. They must become familiar with the cognitive environment of the original audience through reading their literature (and through experiences with similar assumptions in other cultures). author’sstimulus(originaltext)

13. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions They must figure out the essential contextual assumptions which the author must have assumed his text would activate in his audience (according to his model of them) They must predict the cognitive effects which the author could have expected his text to produce in his audience, given their context as he knew it. cognitive effects inoriginal audience

14. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions They must then figure out the set of assumptions which the author must have intended his audience to hold in response to the stimulus of his text within their context. intended resulting assump-tions

15. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions Study the original cognitive environment to reconstruct the author’s mental model of it. Study theauthor’sstimulus(originaltext). Deduce theassumptions(beliefs and values) thatthe authorintendedfor hisaudiences. Select contextual assumptionsrelevant to the original audience. Find clues re author, his style, diction, context, etc. mergedinput Exegete Find cluesto resultingassump-tions of theoriginalaudience. Find cluesto the initialassump-tions of theoriginalaudience. Predict the cognitive effects ( the original “message” ) Predict theinferences madeby the original audience.

16. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions • The main goal of biblical exegesis is to deduce the assumptions (beliefs, values, and practices) that the divine Author intended his audiences to hold as a result of this commu-nication (and the work of the Holy Spirit). • The main goal of a Bible translation project is that an open-minded receptor audience hold these same intended assumptions as a result of the translated Scripture product (and the conviction of the Holy Spirit).

17. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions • Exegesis demands considerable processing effort. Exegetes must become familiar with a world they do not live in. Even harder, they must resist their own automatic inferences and struggle to figure out the inferences that the original author must have expected his own audience to make.

18. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions • Due to the processing effort required, exegetes are unable to infer all of the explicatures and strong implicatures at one reading, even when they know about the original context. So they must repeatedly study the text and its context, as well as consult commentaries and analyses by others who have studied the original text and its context.

19. Exegesis of the Author’s Intentions • Note that exegesis is difficult and error-prone, not so much because it is cross-linguistic, but because it is cross-cultural, meaning that there are serious contextual mismatches between the exegete’s cognitive environment and that of the original interlocutors. • The exegesis of historical texts is especially difficult because the original cognitive environment no longer exists, and there are no living informants to explain it to the exegete.

20. Cross-cultural miscommunication • This leads us to a major problem that arises in cross-cultural communications, whether they are “interlingual” or “intralingual.” This is the problem that arises when the audience lives in a different cognitive environment from that envisaged by the original author and cannot access all of the essential contextual assumptions that the original audience were expected to access. And the real problem is this: they infer a message that is different or even contrary to that intended by the author.

21. Cross-cultural miscommunication Original cognitive environment Receptor cognitive environment contextual gap contextual assumptions of the receptor audience that are activated by original text author’sstimulus(originaltext) contextual assumptions of original audience activated by text mergedinput mergedinput inferentialprocessingby original audience inferentialprocessingby receptor audience differentresultingassumptionsof thereceptoraudience initialassumptionsof thereceptoraudience initialassump-tions of theoriginalaudience resultingassump-tions ofthe originalaudience unintendedcognitiveeffects intendedcognitive effects inferential gap

22. Bridging the contextual gap • If it is difficult for exegetes to cope with the cultural gap, how can we help receptor audiences to “bridge the gap”? • An ideal solution would be to adjust the cognitive environment of the audience so that they become exactly like the original audiences. They would then make the automatic inferences that the authors intended.

23. Bridging the contextual gap • For example, people could be converted into first-century Palestinian Jews and then be given the Gospel of Matthew to read! inferentialcognitiveeffects resulting assumptions as intendedby Matthew Gospel ofMatthew

24. Bridging the contextual gap • Unfortunately there are a variety of different biblical audiences, in different cultures, stretched over two thousand years. • There is also a certain irony in trying to convert people to worldviews that God, through the authors, is working to change! • Even more problematic, it is not possible (or even desirable) to completely remove an audience from its current cognitive environment and erase all memory of it.

25. Bridging the contextual gap • So we are forced to the conclusion that modern receptors can never make all of the automatic inferences that the original biblical audiences made, even if they read the texts in the original languages. • There are, however, measures that the translation team and its partners can take to help receptors bridge the gap.

26. Bridging the contextual gap • One measure would be to write into the text all of the intended inferences, both contextual assumptions (premises) and main points (conclusions). There are, however, strong objections to that approach! • An alternative approach is to make it as easy as possible for the receptors to exegete the passage themselves well enough that they can consciously and deliberately figure out most of the intended inferences. • Let’s look at this latter approach.

27. Developing mental models of the cognitive environments of the original audiences • To build a capacity for exegesis in the receptors, the team needs to help them develop mental models of the cognitive environments of the biblical audiences, since this is critical to exegesis. • Each mental model needs to include the elements of the worldview, assumptions, customs and environment of that particular of audience which must be accessed to make the intended inferences.

28. Developing mental models of the cognitive environments of the original audiences • Consider Matthew 21:8 below: • “Most of the crowd spread their garments on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.” • The first-century Jewish crowd laid things on the road to Jerusalem to show their welcome for Jesus. But in some cultures the people clutter the road to let an approaching visitor know he is unwelcome in their village, and they clear leaves and brush from the road to show their welcome. So there is a contextual mismatch, which leads to a false inference.

29. Developing mental models of the cognitive environments of the original audiences • One possible solution would be to adjust their contextual assumptions by convincing them that they too should spread leaves and palm fronds on the road to welcome visitors. As the custom took hold, a contextual overlap would develop, which would enable the receptors to make the same automatic inference that Matthew assumed his audience would make.

30. Developing mental models of the cognitive environments of the original audiences • But it is impractical (and morally dubious) to expect an audience to adjust their own context to one or more of the various background cultures reflected in the Bible, especially when there are several of them. • An alternative is to help the receptors adjust their mental model of an audience, in this case first-century Judeans, so that they will be able to figure out the intended inference. • So let’s do that.

31. Developing mental models of the cognitive environments of the original audiences • The use of a mental model of a biblical audience requires no disruption of the receptor culture, but it does require them to apply more effort to the process of exegesis. It requires mental effort for them to figure out the intended inference on the basis of their model of someone else’s contextual assump-tions instead of just accepting the inference that rises automatically to their own minds from the contextual assumptions of their own culture. These demands on the audience limit the number of inferences they can make.

32. Developing mental models of the cognitive environments of the original audiences • So how can we help receptors develop mental models of the cognitive environments of the various biblical audiences? • One way to help them develop these mental models might be to prepare a book that describes the worldviews, customs, and other assumptions of the biblical audiences. Unfortunately, most receptors are not likely to make the effort to read such a book because it does not immediately produce for them valued cognitive effects, i.e., it seems boring.

33. Supplemental contextual helps • An alternative is to provide contextual assumptions at the point where they are needed, via • contextual notes • cross-references • introductions to major sections, and • references to glossary entries.

34. Supplemental contextual helps • Contextual notes can be footnotes or marginal notes, or they can be placed on a facing page dedicated to that purpose. • A margin or facing page makes it easier for the reader to find the note. The next slide shows two pages from a UBS edition of the New Testament, in which contextual notes are in the margin. (It also notes strongly implicated conclusions.)

36. Supplemental contextual helps • Readers are more likely to use cross-references if they have confidence they will be rewarded with contextual assumptions that help them make inferences that produce valued cognitive effects, i.e., if they’re helpful. • To that end one can limit cross-references to those which actually help the receptors make the intended inferences. If other cross-references are added, they can be in a different font to show they have less value.

37. Supplemental contextual helps • Some contextual information can be provided in the introductions to whole books. • But if much contextual information is placed at the beginning of a large book, the readers may ignore it or they may forget it before they reach a passage where it becomes relevant.

38. Supplemental contextual helps • An alternative is to provide introductions to major sections of Scripture, in which the receptors are provided with general contextual assumptions they will need to access in the following section. • Introductions can also provide clues regarding the themes of the section, to help the readers or listeners infer the strongly implicated conclusions that the author expected them to infer.

39. Supplemental contextual helps • One advantage of introductions over footnotes is that they are more suitable for non-print delivery. Receptors in oral cultures are generally more willing to listen to the Scriptures than to read them and they can do so while working or traveling or enter-taining guests. It is not practical to include many notes in non-print presentations, but sectional introductions can be included. • An advantage of notes, however, is that they can state implicatures for specific verses.

40. Supplemental contextual helps • People in oral cultures do not generally use lists or organize things by alphabetical order or define them abstractly, so a traditional glossary may be foreign to their learning style. • A more effective approach may be to organize the key terms by semantic domain and then introduce the members of the domain in a concrete, narrative style, such as A visit to the temple or How the Romans ruled Judea. People are more likely to read or listen to this kind of “glossary” than to a list of definitions.

41. Supplemental contextual helps • Some strongly implicated contextual assump-tions can be stated in the text itself if they yield significant cognitive effects that lead to intended assumptions. In the absence of footnotes, this approach can be essential for making non-print Scriptures communicable. • In printed texts, such additions can be marked with italics or brackets, as below: • “No one puts fresh grape juice into old wineskins; if he does, the ⌊gas from the fermenting⌋ juice will burst the ⌊brittle⌋ skins.”

42. Supplemental contextual helps • The implication of all this is that the scripture product must include not only translated text but also supplemental contextual helps. • These notes should provide the contextual assumptions that the author expected the original audience to access in the process of making the automatic inferences that he intended them to make. • The receptors can use these contextual helps to figure out the intended inferences.

43. Bridging the contextual gap Original cognitive environment originaltext initialassump-tions of theoriginalaudience resultingassumptionsintended bythe author cognitive effects intended by the author cognitive effects intended by translators contextual gap initialassumptionsof thereceptoraudience Communicative Scripture Product translatedtext pluscontextualhelps Receptor cognitive environment

44. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • The degree to which a translation team can put contextual clues in the text instead of in the supplemental helps depends on the kind of interpretive resemblance which the community wants the product to have. • In translations that are more “direct”, essential contextual assumptions are provided almost exclusively through the provision of supplemental contextual helps, with few of them included in the text.

45. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • Here is an example of a more direct translation product (or at least a more traditional one): • “No one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins” • Note on Mark 2:22: A “wineskin” is a leather bottle used for storing liquids. “New wine” is the juice of freshly squeezed grapes. It ferments and produces gas. New wineskins stretch under the pressure of the gas, but old wineskins are brittle and burst from the pressure.

46. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • Translations that are more “indirect” include some of the essential contextual assumptions in the text. • These assumptions would have been evoked in the minds of the original audience, and explicating them in the text can increase the communicativeness of the text by enabling the receptors to make more of the intended inferences. • On the negative side, they make the passages somewhat longer and they reduce the degree of formal resemblance.

47. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • Here is an example of a more indirect translation: • “No one puts fresh grape juice into old leather bottles; if he does, the ⌊gas from the fermenting⌋ juice will burst the ⌊brittle⌋ leather.” • In this particular case, some strongly implicated contextual assumptions have been explicated in the text. If anything, this enhances its interpretive resemblance. • These explications of assumed information have been marked as such with italics. Half-brackets could have been used as well.

48. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • It is important to note that these explications have been worded in a way that does notimply that they were unknown to the audience. To do otherwise would imply that Jesus was teaching people how to store wine, which was not his intent. • (Note: There is a fuzzy line between some “contextual assumptions” and lexical content, e.g. ‘new wine’ could be defined as “fermenting grape juice,” and “fermenting” involves the biological genesis of gas.)

49. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • So a more direct translation has a shorter text but needs to include more extensive contextual helps in order to be communicative, while a more indirect translation has a longer text but needs somewhat fewer contextual helps to achieve equivalent communicativeness: ←more direct more indirect →

50. Kinds of interpretive resemblance • The important thing is for the stakeholders to understand the options and to agree on the kind of interpretive resemblance they want. • The important thing for the translation team is for them to explain in the introduction the kind of interpretive resemblance they have sought and then to maintain that kind of resemblance consistently throughout the Scripture product.