Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 23:2 (2022) ► pp.204–244

Coherence in translation

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

ORCID logo | Radboud University
| Utrecht University

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.

Keywords: Bible translation, causality, comprehensibility, Mental Space Theory, subjectification, subjectivity
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
Published online: 31 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.18011.san
References
Aejmelaeus, Anneli
1986 “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (2): 193–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alter, Robert
1980 “Sacred History and the Beginnings of Prose Fiction”. Poetics Today 1 (3): 143–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Bill and John Choi
2003 A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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
Canestrelli, Anneloes
2013 Small Words, Big Effects? Subjective Versus Objective Causal Connectives in Discourse Processing. Utrecht: LOT.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Eve Sweetser
(eds) 1996 Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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
Hobbs, Jerry R.
1979 “Coherence and Coreference”. Cognitive Science 31: 67–90. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroon, Caroline
1998 “A Framework for the Description of Latin Discourse Markers”. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (2): 205–223. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Nord, Christiane
2005 “Making Otherness Accessible: Functionality and Skopos in the Translation of New Testament Texts”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 50 (3): 868–880. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O. and Elizabeth Traugott
2016 “Periphery: Diachronic and Cross-Linguistic Approaches”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (2): 163–177. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study in Language Use”. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panou, Despoina
2013 “Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (1): 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pit, Mirna
2003 How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2017 Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted
1997 “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context”. Discourse Processes 24 (1): 119–147. DOI logoGoogle 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
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren and Leo Noordman
1992 “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations”. Discourse Processes 15 (1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted and Eve Sweetser
(eds) 2009 Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoors, Anton
1981 “The Particle ki ”. Old Testament Studies 211: 240–276.Google Scholar
Sevenster, Gerhard
1936 “De Statenvertaling en hare kantteekeningen”. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 29 (1): 263–306. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”. Language 651: 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Subjectification in Grammaticalization”. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2005 “Constructions of Intersubjectivity”. Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
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
Weren, Wim
2005 “Lucas in de nieuwe Bijbelvertaling” [‘Luke in the New Bible Translation’]. Tijdschrift voor Theologie 45 (1): 75–87.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar