Science in Christian Perspective
Bible Translation and
Linguistics
KARL J FRANKLIN and
KENNETH A. McELHANON
Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.
Dallas, Texas 75236
From: JASA 31 (March 1979): 13-19
The purpose of this article is to acquaint readers with the field of
linguistics,
particularly as it relates to Bible translation.1 The paper sketches
the historical
background of Bible translation as a general context into which the description
of linguistics fits. The Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc. (SIL),
the largest
training organization for linguistics in the world, is described in
some detail.
Brief History of Bible Translation2
Bible translation has its origins in the antiquity of the Jewish people whose
literature is generally said to date from late in the second
millenium B.C. after
the conquest of Canaan. The Old Testament was written mainly in
Hebrew but there
are also portions in Imperial Aramaic and a few words in Persian and
Egyptian.
Although writing had been developed by the Sumerians more than a
millenium earlier,
and although bilingual education in Sumerian and Akkadian had existed
during the
second millenium (Wiseman 1970, 30), it seems likely that these
advances had little
direct influence upon the ancestors of the Jewish people. Writing
served primarily
to record the affairs of state, the exploits of rulers, legal
matters, business,
and the esoterica of religion. Such writing was confined largely to the centers
of power and there were few literates among the interior people apart
from formally
trained scribes who handled diplomatic correspondence. The language
of diplomacy
was an Akkadian lingua franca that stretched from Mesopotamia through
Palestine,
and the Canaanite scribes who wrote the Amarna letters
(14th cent. B.C.) reflected their own dialect in their use of it (Moran 1961,
54).
The biblical narrative of Jewish history begins with the patriarchs Abraham,
Isaac
and Jacob whose language has been regarded as a dialect of Old Aramaic (Black
1970, 1). It is also known as Amorite or East Caoaanite (Bauer 1926,
Landsberger
1954). Aibright regards it as one of five distinct dialects, not identical with
(South-) Canaanite nor proto-Aramaic (Moran 1961, 57). Moscati (1964, 4) cites
its status as being controversial. Although the linguistic data are subject to
varying interpretations, it is generally agreed that there were
numerous dialects
spoken in the fertile crescent and that the dialect of the patriarchs and their
descendants was distinct from those of the inhabitants of Canaan. The
linguistic
relationships as proposed by Moscati (1964) for the Semitic family are shown in
Table A.
Black (1970, 4) states that
the relationship between the members of this widely diffused family, each with its own distinctive features, is much the same as that within the Germanic group of languages, German, Nurse, Danish, Swedish, etc., or the Slavonic group, Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, Serbian, etc.
To this comparison one could add the Romance languages (Moscati 1964, 16).
It is well known that the fertile crescent has always been the scene
of population
movements and economic and military struggle. In the days of the
patriarchs such
struggles were between small nomadic groups, and theK. J.
Table A The Semitic Languages
Akkadian
Amorite
Canaanite
Arabic |
patriarchs and their descendants until Joshua (ca. 1800-1350 B.C.)
have been frequently
identified with the Apiru (Habiru) people from which comes the word
"Hebrew."
Anati (1963, 390) states that the Apiru were bands of people with a way of life
similar to that of the patriarchs and that they existed in Palestine throughout
the Canaanite period and ultimately took an active part in the
conquest of Canaan
under Moses and Joshua. Most scholars believe that the Jacobian
migration to Egypt
involved only a portion of the patriarehial community and that the descendants
of those who remained (the Apiru?) joined forces with their invading relatives
led by Moses.
The nomadic nature of the Canaaoites resulted in a high degree of
culture contact
so that by the time of Moses the Canaanites were familiar with at least eight
languages recorded in five completely different writing systems
(Mendenhall 1961,
50, n.23). These close linguistic relationships and contrasts of the
various groups
plus the presence of the Apiru undoubtedly enhanced the assimilation
of the invaders
who very quickly adopted the Canaanite language and alphabet, the latter giving
rise to the devlopment of the Early Hebrew alphabet about 1000 B.C. (Diringer
1970, 13).
Moses, who is considered to have written the Penta-teuch, received
his education
at the Egyptian court (cf. Acts 7:22) and is believed to have
appointed officials
to keep records during the exodus. The writercompiler of the
Pentateuch may have
had sources from a number of languages, but the only non-Hebrew words
in current
manuscripts are Lehan's Aramaic equivalent Jegarsahadutha for Jacob's
Hebrew Galeed
(Gen. 31: 47), the Egyptian form of Joseph's name (Gen. 41:43), and an Egyptian
exclamation (Gen. 41:45). Anati (1963, 389) states that Moses and other names
in Leviticus are of Egyptian origin.
Just what sources the writer of the Pentateuch drew from is an open question,
and various hypotheses reflect the conjecturer's presuppositions. Conservative
scholars would attribute a greater portion to original composition than their
less conservative colleagues, of whom some would go so far as to say
that portions
of the Pentateuch are translations of borrowed literature. For example, Kaiser
(1975, 26-7) suggests that as the Jews assimilated to the Canaanite way of life
they also entered into the area of major international literature.
The chief example
is the popular flood epic which is found in the fragmentary Sumerian Airahasis
epic and in the Akkadian Gilgainesh epic. Fragments have also een found in a Hittite translation. A cuneiform fragment of the
Gilga mesh epic
dating from the 14th Cent. B.C. found at Megiddo led Kaiser to
conclude that the
Canaanites were the intermediaries leading to the biblical accounts.
Accordingly,
some can then assert that portions of the Pentateuch are translations (but see
Ackroyd's (1970, 71) more cautious appraisal). Until recent discoveries proved
the antiquity of the Early Hebrew alphabet, many scholars accepted
the arguments
that cuneiform was used until 700 B.C. and one, A. Cowley, suggested a theory
that Ezra (about 400 B.C.) "translated the cuneiform documents
into Hebrew,
and wrote the results down in simple Aramaic characters" (Diringer 1970,
12).
Bible translation has occurred in the context of culture contact,
often resulting
either from people undergoing linguistic assimilation who desire to maintain a
basis for their historic faith, or from the attempts of a dominant or
victorious
people to convert their alien subjects. Neither of these situations arose until
after the Assyrian victory over Samaria in 722 B.C. when large
numbers of Samaritans
were exiled and replaced by people from Babylon and other areas. The nature of
the mixed population led to a translation of the Pentateuch into the Samaritan
dialect.
When the southern kingdom fell to the Babylonians in 596 B.C., the nobles and
wealthy people were taken to Babylon where many, such as Daniel, were educated
in Aramaic (the biblical 'Chaldean') for three years. Others fled to Egypt.
As a result of the Babylonian experience many Jews acquired the lingua franca
Aramaic as a second language. Translation must have been a regular
practice; Esther
1:22, 3:12 and 8:9 record that the edicts of King Ahasuerus were
translated into
every language, the last reference applying to 127 provinces from
India to Ethiopia
plus the language of the Jews. Moreover, the O.T, books composed
during this period
are those that reflect the acceptance of Aramaic; Daniel 2:4-7:28,
Ezra 4:8-6:18,
7:12-26, and Jeremiah 10-11 are written in Aramaic, and Daniel 5:25-28 contains
Persian words.
The demand for an Aramaic translation probably arose during this exilic period
or the Persian period following it, for by the 3rd century B.C.
Aramaic had replaced
Hebrew. Translation into Aramaic culminated in the Targunts. Those
which adhered
to the Massoretie text were official and claimed prestige whereas those which
were free and paraphrastic were unofficial.
The Jews that fled to Egypt ultimately established their community at
Alexandria.
As a result of the Hellenic influence, the Alexandrian community produced the
Greek Septuagint O.T, which was the first attempt to tranlate the O.T. into a
non-Semitic language. There were numerous translators working from texts based
upon both Early Hebrew and Aramaic. Generally scholars have focused
their attention
on the translation with a view to determining the veracity of the readings in
the Massoretic text rather than judging the qualitiy of the
translation, although
that of Isaiah has been regarded as quite inferior.
The next impetus for translation came in the Roman period following
the destruction
of Jerusalem in 70 AD., the resulting dispersion, and the spread of
the Christian
message. As a result of the Christian interest in the Septuagint there appeared
a number of minor Greek versions, of which many were attempts to harmonize the
Greek text to that of the Hebrew. Aequila's in 128, "was of the
most slavish
character, rendering the Hebrew word for word without regard for the exigencies
of the Greek language" (Suteliffe 1969, 99). Also literalism characterizes
the versions of Theodotion (100-33) and Symmachus (174). Origin's
Hexapla (c 240)
added confusion to the search for the original Greek version, and
there was such
a proliferation of "vulgar" texts that scholars now speak
of "text
families".
This textual confusion led to a focus upon reconstructing the precise wording
of the putative original text. In time the text was considered to be so sacred
that even the word order was thought to be of divine oriin, and many
translations
were judged to be faithful' t(; the degree that they conformed to the
word order
of the original language.
As Christianity spread out from the Eastern Mediterranean more major
translations
were completed. Tatian (160-180) produced the Syriac Diatessaron, the life of
Christ based upon a harmony of the four Gospels. Other translations include the
Old Syriac (c. 200), the Syriac Peshitta (c. 300), Philoxenian (508), Harklean
(616), and Palestinian Syriac (300-500). Latin versions include the Old Latin
(200) used in north Africa and the Vulgate of Jerome (405). Coptic
versions were
the Sahidic (350) and Bohairic (650). Other versions such as the
Ethiopic, Nubian,
Arabic, Sogdian, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Persian have been based upon
relatively late Creek texts or other translations. Most were markedly literal
such as Ulfilas' (350-380) Gothic translation which is said to have
followed "a
system of imitation which in his time was imposed by respect for the
sacred text"
(Hunter 1969, 343).
The single bright star during this period is Jerome who was a scholar of Latin,
Greek and Hebrew, spoke Syriac fluently and knew Aramaic and Arabic to lesser
degrees. He was well aware of the problems of translation and
formulated his own
principles to lead to a translation of sense to sense, not word to
word (cf. Sparks
1970, 519-26). His Vulgate, completed in 405 but not accepted by the
Chords until
the eighth century became the key to a correct interpretation of the
faith after
Latin passed not of use, and the hierarchy set tip indices which prohibited any
vernacular translations on the fear that they would undermine their authority.
Consequently in Italy, Spain and France translation was done apart
from the Church,
usually
by the Reformers. Ultimately in the eastern European countries, the
Church reluctantly
issued authorized translations based upon the Vulgate. As a result the Vulgate
which Jerome translated so as to express sense for sense became the basis for
more literal and sometimes incomprehensible translations.
There were so many bad translations in Europe during this time that
the few good
translations came to he revered. Such was Luther's Bible which became the basis
for translation into neighboring languages such as Swedish and
Danish. Other versions
in use for considerable periods were the Dutch version of 1637, the English of
1611, and the Czech Kralice Bible. Such is the conservatism which has affected
Bible translation.
The Impact of Linguistics Upon Bible Translation
Waterman (1963, 2) attributes the beginnings of linguistic
investigations to the
Creeks and the Indians, the former being characterized as those who speculated
about language and developed philosophical grammar, and the latter as those who
described language in detail both in grammar and in phonology. The
Indians, beginning
with Panini in the fourth century B.C., concentrated on describing
Vedie Sanskrit
and clarifying the Vedic hymns. The later influence of these
descriptions on European
linguistics was in the area of morphological analysis and guiding
principles for
the
paratists (see Rocher, 1975).
The European form of traditional grammar, however, is more indebted
to the Greeks.
Aristotle distinguished parts of speech and the Stoics carried on Aristotle's
study of case relationships. With the exception of two works about Latin, the
Greeks did not apply their method of linguistic description to the
scores of languages
spoken by their neighbors and by those under their suzerainty. Rather
it was the
Romans who passed on to Europe the grammatical model, in particular Prisciao's
Latin grammar which was used during the Middle Ages.
The growth of interest in languages and linguistic description was directly the
result of the missionary efforts of the Christian church. As the
Bible was translated
into the vernaculars, accompanying glossaries were prepared. With the invention
of printing, lists of vocabulary were distributed and scholars began
to recognize
language similarities. At this stage Bible translation was feeding a
growing interest
among scholars in language study.
The interests of these early linguists reflected the spirit of the
age. As biblical
scholars were obsessed with determining the most probable readings of
a putative
original text, so were linguists consumed with an interest in
defining the newly
recognized relationships of the European languages and reconstructing
a protolanguage.
This interest in historical linguistics persisted into the twentieth century,
and linguists said little that was relevant to the issue raised by the rapidly
expanding program of Bible translation.
The growth of interest in languages and linguistic description was directly the result of the missionary efforts of the Christian church.
The main influence of the scholastic world was the allegiance given
to the Latin
grammatical model in the description of exotic, i.e. non-European, languages.
In effect this led the analysts to impose the familiar categories of
the European
languages upon languages quite alien in both grammatical and semantic sructure.
The impact of this model persists today so that some missionaries still follow
it although most linguists abandoned it decades ago.
The first really productive influence of linguistics upon Bible
translation came
as the result of the development of modern structural linguistics. In effect it
freed the missionaries and other analysts from the classical model. It was now
the responsibility of the analyst to discover the categories relevant
to the grammatical
and phonological systems of the language being investigated and to describe its
structure.
Insights in the areas of grammatical and phonological analysis were
soon followed
by insights into semantic analysis. The distinctive features of
phonological analysis
were said to be paralleled by semantic features in semantic analysis.
Anthropologists
soon began to analyze semantic fields such as kinship systems, color
categories,
and flora. The goal of this type of analysis was to arrive at an emic
understanding,
i.e. an understanding of the cognitive order which the vernacular
speaker imposed
upon his world through his language. From these beginnings developed the field
of cognitive anthropology with its emphasis on ethnnstudies such as
ethnoscience,
ethnobotany, etc.
What this did for Bible translation was to make clear the methodology that good
Bible translators had
consciously used throughout history. It gave the translators the basis for an
explicit science of translation.
Early Textbooks
In general the methodology of modern linguistics as applied to Bible
translation
can he traced directly to the early textbooks of Nida (1947 and 1949) and Pike
(1947 in particular). Just as these two men received their linguistic
structuralism
from men such as Sapir (1921), Bloomfield (1933), and Fries (for
example, 1952),
so thousands of missionary linguists and translators have been influenced over
the past four decade, by Nida and Pike.
Several of Pike's and Nida's students have become noted linguists (for example
see the works of Grimes 1975, Longacre 1976 and Wonderly 1968) and
have continued
to teach and conduct field seminars for Bible translators. Pike's
general theory
of language and society (1967) has not received a wide linguistic audience, but
his pedagogical materials continue to be used widely, including the most recent
textbook which was written jointly with his wife (Pike and Pike 1977).
Recently,
Breod has edited a number of Pike's works as well as some major efforts of his
students and colleagues (Brend 1972, 1974. 1975).3
It is interesting to note that despite these early foundations in
structural linguistics,
there were also restrictions. Just as the so-called Latin model caused earlier
students of the language to adjust their grammars accordingly, the
structuralist
model caused later students of language to view non-grammatical
meaning cautiously.
Although Nida, as we mentioned earlier, has long been a student and scholar in
semantics, he has
not been an original theoretician. It took transformational grammar
(Chomsky 1957)
to outline formally the serious limitations of structural grammars based on the
analysis of constituent structure. Without the polemics and prodding of later
transformational scholars it is doubtful that today's teachers of
Bible translation
and basic linguistic methodology would have developed their present interest in
semantics. Bible translation would be the poorer because key concepts on kernel
sentences (Nida 1964:59-62), underlying or deep structure with a
generative device
for analyzing the process of decoding source text, are based on the
work of Chomsky
and his followers.
On the other hand good Bible translators and students of the exotic languages
have always been good anthropologists. The first courses of the S.I.L. included
topics on Latin American and Indian cultures (see the Hefleys 1974). There have
been excellent publications dealing with topics related to Christianity across
cultures (for example the journals Practical Anthropology (195472), Missiology
(1973 to date) and books such as Mayers 1974 and Nida 1960).
Enlightened missionaries
have always been conscious of their impact on other cultures.
One final area of contribution by linguists and Bible translators
should be mentioned:
that of language learning. All SIL linguists and many missionaries must learn
languages that do not yet have alphabets, grammars, or dictionaries.
The frustration
of such language learning has led to a series of excellent helps specifically
designed for learning a foreign language. One of the earliest and best was by
Nida (1957), followed by other books more specific in purpose.
Gudschinsky (1967)
aids those learning a language to pronounce it correctly; Larson and
Smalley (1972)
provide a complete learning program; Healey (1975) gives a day-byday
field manual
with programmed elicitation and numerous practical details; the
Brewsters (1976)
provide a simple text which gets the learner quickly and successfully
into a daily
schedule. Each of these books is built squarely on a linguistic
foundation, demonstrating
again the close link between areas of Bible translation and language study.
Although some linguists have been displeased with the relationship
between missionary
work (Bible translation) and linguistics,4 others have praised the
contribution
of missionary linguists.5 In 1955 Professor Kenneth L, Pike, president of the
SIL, began field workshops. Pike began to train counsultants on a
world-wide scale,
visiting virtually every country where SIL worked. On the basis of
the consultant
training program SIL members were encouraged to study for advanced
degrees, returning
to staff summer schoools and field workshops and adding an academic dimension
that has influenced the whole organization.6
Decisions of a Bible Translator
Any Bible translator who is also a linguist will soon be confronted
with several
aspects of the work that require a decision: (1) his view of language; (2) the
importance of the vernacular or mother-tongue; (3) what type of translation he
is aiming for and how this can he checked; (4) the social dimensions
of language
and translation use; (5) his view of the Scriptures.
Bible translators should have a high regard for language. God expressed himself in a natural, idiomatic language, and
his revelation
to us in the accepted canon of the New Testament was in Koine Greek, a dialect
which developed from the common circles of society and served as a
lingua franca.
This was in contrast to the then current prestige dialects of
classical literature.
It follows that God did not intend his message to assume the status
of a literary
artifact, retaining all of the obsolete (but often sacrosanct) pronunciations
inflections, lexical inventory, and word order of an ancient
language. The translator
views NT. Greek exactly as any other language: it has a structure particular to
the Greek of that period, and the linguistic methodology involved in the study
of its structure is in general no different from that in studying, let us say,
Kewa of Papua New Guinea.7
From the late 50's the linguist N. Chomsky has had a profound
influence on studies
on language, linguistics, and the philosophy of language. Chomsky (1968) argued
that present day structuralism has grown out of the abandonment of
certain important
concepts of Cartesian philosophy, in particular the theory of
universal principles
and rational explanations. This early rationalistic philosophy of language is
often most clearly associated with the "doctrine of innate
ideas' and contrasts
with logical positivism, where man uses words of explanation to somehow adapt
to and control the environment. Because the world is seen differently by each
person language is not to be trusted. This socalled behavioristic
view of language
led later to a thesis of linguistic relativity (Whorf 1940), where
observers are
not led to the same picture of the universe unless they have similar
backgrounds.
Although many linguists have disagreed with this basic thesis (Longacre 1956),
it nevertheless influenced certain early structuralists who, in turn,
taught many
of our present day peers in Bible translation theory and practice.8 We are now
in a post-Chomskyan era of reassessment with an emphasis on bridge disciplines
and in general a less hostile view of language data and the work of
Bible translators
who are also linguists.
Secondly, a Bible translator as linguist must have the conviction
that the vernacular
is an extremely in]portant and capable vehicle for God's Word. He observes that
God's Word in the vernacular not only makes an impression but that
the Holy Spirit
activates people through its truths. But people have questions, even
on the clearest
translation, or even to the most apparently obvious statements.
Witness, for example,
Thomas' response when Jesus said to his disciples, "You know the
way to the
place where I am going." In other words, all aspects and ramifications on
the translation of the Bible-as on any piece of literature-must be capable of
discussion in the very language into which it is translated.
Naturally, key words
(theological primitives, if you wish) influence the development of
the folk theology
of a given group. God has given every homogeneous group of people the capacity
to communicate in a language particular to that group, linguistically unique.
To preserve this homogeneity societies and sub-groups purposefully
create dialectal
features. Translating the Bible into this particular dialect
identifies the Scriptures,
and consequently the God which they reveal and exalt, with the society or
Good Bible translators and students of the exotic languages have always been good anthropologists.
sub-group. God is no longer alien; his truths are no longer irrelevant to the
problems of the group. In short, God speaks to the group in their
language. Unless
this obvious fact is held as crucial to a Christian's, and
consequently the church's
development, Bible translation is seen as peripheral to the so-called main task
of evangelism. Linguistics becomes an esoteric tool for those somehow gifted in
languages, an interesting hobby but hardly of any interest to the main work of
the church.
If the above importance of the vernacular is granted, it should be seen at once
that the kind of translation that we give to people is just as important as the
fact that they receive one. The controversy surrounding the introduction of The
Living Bible and earlier translations of parts of the Bible by the same author
will bear this out. For various reasons-and Taylor outlines why he
began his translations
of the Scriptures-this version has been either accepted or rejected
like nothing
since that of John Wyeliffe himself. There are arguments against the paraphrase
on the basis of exegesis, choice of English words and idioms, other figurative
language, and so 00, but it is read and understood by all age groups. Most lay
people are at a loss to explain or understand the controversy surrounding The
Living Bible and resort to the safety of the accepted version of their church
or denomination. This illustrates how church society, in particular
church leaders,
influences the acceptance or rejection of a translation. In the case
of preliterate
societies without any Scriptures there is no such educated clergy to influence
the masses, so the techniques of translation and the methods of
checking the translation
are of primary importance.9 If the translation is based squarely on linguistic
analysis and methodology it can be checked on the same basis. The whole range
of types of translations and related technical matters has been
treated extensively
by Woodcrly (1968). A recent 1)00k by Beekman and Callow (1974), with
an accompanying
manual (Larson 1975) and additional discussions on discourse (K. Callow 1975)
are used in eoursework at the SIL for instruction on the basics of
Bible translation.10
Any Bible translator 5000 realizes that there are important social dimensions
influencing the acceptability and use of the translation. For smaller language
groups bilingualism is an important consideration. Aspects such as
acculturation,
prestige dialects, cultural centers of communication and information
sharing will
determine the potential usage of the translated Scriptures. While these are not
purely linguistic, they do enter into an important area of study,
that of sociolioguisties.
Sociolinguistics is one of the so-called bridge disciplines (like
psycholinguistics,
mathematical linguistics, linguistics and logic, computational linguistics, or
educational linguistics) and, in part, uses certain established
sociological testing
procedures to determine linguistic variables and correlate these with class or
community values. There are many recent studies in this area, but
for Bible translation, Wonderly (1968) is the best treatment. Applications for
Bible translation have included determining attitudes toward languages, often including
variables of education,
sex, bilingualism, age, and other factors of cultural dynamics.
Finally, we might mention that the view of Scriptures that the translator has
will influence his motivation and contribution. The translator's view
of the inerraney
of the Scriptures needs to be carefully checked. This is an area in which there
is potential disagreement on the part of missionaries involved in the
translation
and distribution of the Scriptures.
The Future
It is interesting that at a time when the linguistic techniques of
Bible translation
have become quite specialized, more than ever before the national churches have
also become more motivated to participate in the translation task.
National Christians
feel that it is part of their moral responsibility to provide the
Scriptures for
fellow citizens. Courses are being offered on a regular basis in many countries
and in several languages to provide the methodology. A reevaluation of just how
much linguistics a national translator needs and just what kind it should be is
being made in many countries. This process of evaluation and feedback
will influence
the nature of the courses offered to nationals. But one thing is
certain: national
translators want to be involved and can do the job equally as well or
better than
their expatriate counterparts. It remains for linguists to adapt
their materials
to the needs of these national translators, not focusing on exotic terminology
and elaborate taxonomieal procedures but, rather, on the basic
linguistic principles
which underlie Bible translation, semantics, orthographies and the
study of language
in culture and society. This is the challenge of linguistics for the
future.
FOOTNOTES
1The historical sketch was written by McElhanon (SIL and the
Australian National
University) and the outline by Franklin (SIL). We then combined efforts on the
revision and synthesis which followed.
2Wonderly and Nida (1963) survey the development of language study
and Bible translation
from the early church through the twentieth century. They relate, in
particular,
to the influence of linguists on the language work of Christian missions. Also
see the 'Introduction' in Nida (1972).
3Brend did not include authors such as Merrifield (1967) who have deviated from
Pike's theory. For a brief history of the development of Pike's
theory see Waterhouse
(1974).
4For example, Trager (1963, 103). It would be interesting to see Trager's (or
other linguists') answers to the questions on language design, God
and world view
framed by Longacre (1976),
5Charles F. Hoekett (1955) commented on the valuable language
materials gathered
by SIL people.
6Nida and Pike were the
first to complete Ph.D. degrees. Although at the end of 1960 less than 20 SIL members had completed the Ph.D., by
the end of 1976 over 100 members had been awarded it. Some 20 of them
are no longer
with the organization including Nida who in the early years joined the American
Bible Society. His departure forms an important dimension of the professional
interplay between SIL and the Bible Society, as others have suggested
(e.g., Hymes
and Fought, 1975). Of course,many very capable linguists and translators have
no graduate degree, but this is only one method of quantifying any
advanced training
program. It should be noted that fully 50% of SIL members serve in
non-linguistic
capacities as educators, pilots,
mechanics, medical personnel, radio technicians, printers, carpenters, etc.
Wares (1974) lists over 4,300 items published by SIL members ranging
from simple
prereading vernacular materials through practical suggestions for
applied linguistics
to complex theoretical statements.
7Although NT. Greek is no longer spoken, the discourse types,
sentence patterns,
relationship of elements within clauses, range of word building roles,
and so on,
are not unlike those of every language. Wooderly (1968) outlines the rationale
and methodology for translating the Bible into the "common" language
of the people. He is concerned that the translation be common to speech of both
the higher and lower socio-educational levels. His book is clear and extensive
and anyone concerned with the socio-linguistie dimensions involved in the types
of Bible translations that exist should consult his work,
8This is not to imply that translators follow "linguistic relativity."
Eugene A. Nida has been most influenced by developments in semantics
arising out
of the early 60's. See the review of his main studies on semantic structures,
language structure and translation, and eomponeniial analysis by A.
Lehrer (1976),
9There are numerous helps available for translators, particularly in the area
of the exegesis of the best Greek texts. Other materials include a
series of handbooks
on particular books of the N.T., (e.g. Brateher and Nida 1961), as
well as commentary
compilations, theoretical volumes on translation (Nida 1964; Nida and
Taber 1969)
published by the United Bible Society, back translations, Notes on Translation,
and a textbook (Beckman and Callow 1974) published by the Wyeliffe
Bible Translators
and the Summer Institute of Linguistics.
10The first text-oriented book on translation was by Nida (1947) in
which he established
sets of correspondence between languages. For a historical review of
translation
in relation to structural linguistics, ethnology, mechanical
translation, communication
theory, psychology, and the philosophy of language see also the work
of Nida (1974).
Incidentally, Nicla perpetuates a slip when he states ( 1974: 1050
and elsewhere)
that the SIL is "also known as the Wyelifte Bible Translators." The
two are separate legal entities: both are incorporated, with different charters
of purpose, but overlapping membership. They have different
presidents and vicepresidents
and usually only SIL is legally and formally recognized in the countries where
SIL members work. WBT is the home division entity, responsible for maintaining
a relationship with the Christian churches and public.
REFERENCES
Aekroyd, Peter B.
1970 "The Old Testament in the Making," in Aekroyd and Evans (eds.)
pp. 67-113.
Aekroyd, Peter H. and Christopher F. Evans, eds.
1970 The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1, From
the Beginnings to Jerome. Cambridge: University Press.
Anati, Emmanuel
1963 Palestine Before the Hebrews, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Baner, Theo.
1926 Die Ostkenoonder, Line Philologiaeh-historische Untersuehung
hber die Wenderschieht
der
sogenonnten "Amoriter" in Bobylonien. Leipzig.
Beekman, John and John Callow
1974 Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zendervnn.
Black, Matthew
1970 "The Biblical Languages," in Aekroyd and Evans (eds.)
pp. 1-10.
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Brateher, Robert C. and Eugene A. Nida
1961 A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark.
Leiden: H. J. Brihl.
Brend, M. Ruth, ed.
1972 Kenneth L. Pike: Selected Writings. The Hague:
Mouton,
1974 Advances in Togmemies, Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.
1975 Studies in Tone and Intonation. Basel: S. Karger.
Brewster, E. Thomas and Elizabeth S. Brewster
1976 Language Acquisition Made Practical. Colorado Springs. Lingua House.
Callow, Kathleen
1975 Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of Cad. Grand
Rapids: Zstndervan.
Chnmsky, Nnam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co.
1968 Language and Mind. New York: Hareourt, Brace and World, Inc.
Diringer, David
1970 "The Biblical Scripts," in Ackroyd and Evans (eds.) PP
11-29.
Fries, Charles C.
1952 The Structure of English. New York: Harcnurt, Brace and Co.
Crimes, Joseph E.
1975 The Thread of Discourse. Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 207. The
Hague: Mouton.
Cudschinsky, Sarah
1967 Hate to Learn an Unwritten Language. New York: FIolt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Healey, Alan, ed.
1975 Language Learners Field Guide. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Hefley, James and Marti Hefley
1974 Uncle Cain: The Story of William Cameron Townsend Founder of the Wycliffe
Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Waco: Word
Books.
Hackett, Charles F.
1955 A Manual of Phonology. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and
Linguistics, Memoir Ii.
Hunter, M. J.
1969 "The Gothic Bible," in C. W. H. Lampe (ed.) pp. 338.362,
Hymes, Dell and John Fought
1975 "American Structuralism," Current Trends in
Linguistics, Vol. 13,
Historiography of Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. pps. 903-1176.
Kaiser, Otto
1975 Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. John Sturdy). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Lampe, C. W. H. ed.
1969 The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 2, West from the Fathers to the
Reformation. Cambridge: University Press.
Landsberger, B.
1954 "Assyrisehe Konigsliste und dunkles Zeitalter,"
Journal of Cuneiform
Studies VIII, pp. 3145, 47.73, 106-33.
Larson, Donald N. and William A. Smalley
1972 Becoming Bilingual: A Guide to Language Learning. South Pasadena: William
Carey Library.
Larson, Mildred
1975 A Manual for Problem Solving in Bible Translation. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Lehrer, Adrienne
1976 "Review of Exploring Semantic Structures; Language
Structure and Translation;
and Caniponetttial Analysis of Meaning; all by E. A. Nida," Language 52,
972.6.
Longacre, Robert E.
1956 "Review of Language and Reality by Wilbur M. Urban and Four Articles
an Metslinguistics by Benjamin Lee Wharf," Language 32, 298-308.
1976 An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Lisse: The Peter deRidder Press.
Mayers, Marvin K.
1974 Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for CrossCultural Evangelism.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Mendenhall, George E.
1961 "Biblical History in Transition," in C. Ernest Wright (ed.) pp.
32.53.
Merrifield, William R.
1967 "On the Form of Rules in a Generative Grammar," Monograph series
on languages and linguistics, No. 20, pp. 43-55. Georgetown U. Press.
Moran, William L.
1961 "The Hebrew Language in its Northwest Semitic Background," in C.
Ernest Wright (ed.) pp. 54-72.
Mnscati, Sabatino, ed.
1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Porta
Linguannn Orientalium N.S. VI. Wiesbaden; Otto Harrassowitz.
Nida, Eugene A.
1947 Bible Translating. New York: The American Bible Society.
1949 Morphology. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
1957 Learning a Foreign Language. New York: Friendship Press.
1960 Message and Mission. New York: Harper & Brothers.
1964 Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. 3, Brill.
1972 ed. The Book of a Thousand Tongues. Revised Edition. London: United Bible
Society.
1974 "Translation," Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 12,
Linguistics
and Adjacent Arts and Sciences. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 1045-1070.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles Taber
1969 The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Pike, Kenneth L.
1947 Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
1967 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of
Human Behaviour.
The Hague: Mouton.
Pike, Kenneth L. and Evelyn Pike
1977 Grammatical Analysis. SIL publications in linguistics and related fields,
No. 53. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Roeher, Rosane
1975 "India," Current Trends its Linguistics, Vol. 13, Historiography
of Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. pp 3-67.
Sapir, Edward
1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcaurt Brace
and Co.
Sparks, H. F. D.
1970 "Jerome as Biblical Scholar," in Aekroyd and Evans
(eds.) pp. 510-541.
Sutclifte, E. F.
1969 "Jerome," in C. W. Lampe (ed.) pp. 80-101.
Trager, George L.
1963 "Review of Outline of Khmu? Structure by William A.
Smalley," Studies
in Linguistics 17, 103-04.
Wares, Alan C., Compiler
1974 Bibliography of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 1935-1972. Huntington
Beach: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Waterhouse, Viola C.
1974 The History and Development of Taginemics. Janua Linguarum,
Series Critiva,
16. The Hague: Mouton.
Waterman, John T.
1963 Perspectives in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wharf, Benjamin L.
1940 Science and Linguistics. The Technology Review, Vol. XLII, No. 6.
Wiseman, D. 3.
1970 "Books in the Ancient Near East and in the Old
Testament," in Ackroyd
and Evans (eds.) pp. 30-66.
Wonderly, William L.
1968 Bible Translations for Popular Use. (Helps for translators, Vol.
VII), London:
United Bible Societies.
Wonderly, William L. and Eugene A. Nida
1963 "Linguistics and Christian Missions," Anthropological
Linguistics
5( 1) pp. 104.44. Reprinted in a slightly revised farm in The Bible Translator,
Vol. 15, 1964.
Wright, C. Ernest, ed.
1961 The Bible and the Ancient Near East. London: Rontledge &
Kegan Paul.