Coherence

Coherence and cohesion are closely related. At the Literary Features website, for a text to be coherent it must make sense. If it does not, it is, by definition, incoherent. One of the qualities that contributes to textual coherence is cohesion.

For further reading, consult the following:

Return to Index

Cohesion

Cohesion is the quality of well-formed discourses (texts) that gives them an internal unity, making them "hang together." Sentences flow smoothly from one to another within that discourse. There are appropriate interpropositional relations marked, either explicitly or implicitly. There is a unity of vocabulary. Pronominalization natural to the language enables the reader to know that he is reading about the same participant (topic) introduced earlier in that discourse. Halliday and Hasan were two linguists who published good studies of cohesion within English discourse. Every language has its own cohesion strategies. Those strategies must be followed for that language in order for a translation to be clear and natural, with a high degree of readability. The translator should not simply follow the cohesion strategies of the source text. For instance, if the source language repeats proper names for the same participant within a discourse, the translator should not simply repeat the same proper names in each instance, instead of changing the appropriate ones to pronouns for smooth topicality flow. Otherwise, in some languages, we may be giving the inaccurate message that each reiteration of the proper name introduces a new character with the same name as the previous one. More literal English versions of the Bible often lack appropriate English cohesion signals, and so they sound disjointed, "choppy."

Return to Index

Collocational clash

A collocational clash (see Baker 1992:14-15; Beekman and Callow 1974; Blight 1992:13-14; Larson 1984/1998) occurs when words are placed together which should not occur together, according to the rules or usage of a particular language. Languages treat the collocation of various words and concepts differently, so words which can properly occur together in one language may not properly occur together in another. Typically, a collocational clash is due to some semantic or pragmatic incompatibility between the words. Translators need to be aware of collocational clashes. They often occur when a translator preserves the collocation of forms which can properly occur together in the source language, but not in the target language.

In Spanish one can say "Voy a dar un paseo," literally, "I'm going to give a pass," which translates correctly to English as "I'm going for a walk." Spanish allows the collocation of "dar" ("to give") and "un paseo" ("a pass"). But in English we create a collocational clash if we translate this Spanish literally, since, unlike Spanish, English grammar does not allow the collocation of the verb "give" and noun object "pass."

In English the following words collocate acceptably in these idioms:

He's taking a trip.
He's taking a nap.
He's taking a chance.

But some similar words collocationally clash. We note the grammatical unacceptability with the standard linguistic symbol for such unacceptability, the asterisk (*):

He's taking a *jump.
He's taking a *sleep.
He's taking an *idea.

Collocational clashes sometimes occur in English Bible versions:

RSV Luke 21.15 "for I will give you a mouth and wisdom": It is appropriate in English to collocate "give" and "wisdom". But in English the verb "give" does not collocate with the noun object "mouth". To properly express the meaning of "give a mouth", a translator needs to find a synonymous wording, which will collocate properly, according to English lexical rules ("give" and "words" collocate for some speakers of English, and this happens to be the collocation used in the NIV, TEV, GW, and NRSV).

NIV 2 John 6: "his command is that you walk in love": "walk" and "love" do not collocate naturally in English, but they apparently did in Greek. If someone wishes to translate to English without collocational clashes, they would find a substitute for "walk" which will have the same meaning and can occur naturally with "love." Greek "walk" in this verse referred to how one lives, so the collocational clash can be easily resolved by substituting the word "live" for "walk". In addition, "in love" is not a very natural English phrase, so it would be better to substitute the equivalent adverb "lovingly" which can be used here naturally. A resultant natural rendering would be: "his command is that you live lovingly." (Because the Greek metaphor of "walk" meaning 'live' is so common in the Bible, many English translators choose not to remove this particular collocational clash.)

Return to Index

Colloquialism

An utterance which is characteristic of informal, typically spoken, language. Colloquialisms are often short-lived, fad sayings. It is appropriate that Bible versions avoid colloquialisms if they are intended for use by the general public. The reason they should be avoided is that they have a shorter lifespan than ordinary language and they often are used by only a limited portion of a language population. Some English colloquialisms are: bummer, cool, dude, spiffy, uptight, radical, and high on Jesus.

Return to Index

Commentary

A commentary explains the meaning of a text. Those who study the Bible often use commentaries to help them understand the meaning of various parts of the Bible.

Following are some online commentaries on the Bible:

Return to Index

Committee translation

Translation done by a group, rather than a single individual. Some English versions made by a single person have been The New Testament In the Language of the People (Charles B. Williams), The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips), The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Kenneth S. Wuest), The New Testament: A New Translation (William Barclay), Living Bible (Kenneth Taylor), and The Message (Eugene Peterson). Translations done by a single individual often have better style, since their stylistic features of creatigve individuals are not "leveled out" by committee work. But committee translation has distinct advantages, also, especially in increased accuracy that comes from the checks and balances process of committee work. Vernacular translations produced under the United Bible Societies are typically committee translations.

Return to Index

Common language translation (CLT)

A common language translation is a version of the Bible which is in the "plain", ordinary language of the average speaker. It follows an idiomatic translation approach. The vocabulary and grammatical constructions are chosen carefully to ensure that they are in common usage by ordinary speakers of the language. A common language translation for English would be in Plain English. The TEV and CEV are common language translations. The book Bible Translations for Popular Use, by William L. Wonderly, was about common language translation. A common language translation in Spanish is titled Dios Llega al Hombre ("God Comes to Man"). A number of other common language translations have been produced in the past three decades. The United Bible Socities, with national offices in many countries, often lead the effort to produce common language translations in national languages, such as Korean, Polish, Norwegian, and Ilocano. See Vernacular translation.

Return to Index

Communicative accuracy

As used in this glossary, communicative accuracy refers to the degree to which the original meaning in a source text is understood by the users of a translation. It is possible for a translation to be technically or exegetically accurate, and yet be worded in such a way that the original meaning is not communicated to the users of a translation. Communicative accuracy depends on naturalness in translation, but naturalness by no means guarantees communicative accuracy: a translation can be worded naturally yet not be accurate.

Communicative accuracy is relative to the background that any particular audience or individual brings to a translation. For instance, seminary professors are often well-versed in the metaphors and idioms of the biblical languages. They can understand literal translations of those metaphors and idioms more accurately than can someone who is not familiar with them.

Return to Index

Community testing

Field testing a translation among fluent speakers of a wide range of ages, educational backgrounds, social levels, and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Bible. The process tests a translation for accuracy to the original, naturalness in the target language, comprehension, and clarity of understanding. All translations should be community tested, including those which are done in majority languages, such as English, French, and Spanish, by theologically trained fluent speakers of those national languages. Every translation should be tested by speakers other than the translators themselves or anyone else on a translation committee. Following initial community testing, a translation is revised and further tested until the desired meaning, clarity, and naturalness levels are reached.

Return to Index

Complete equivalence (CE)

Complete equivalence (CE) translation is a relatively new term and not often used in discussion of Bible translation approaches. The NKJV claims to be a CE translation. In the Preface to the NKJV CE is defined as seeking "to preserve ALL (emphasis theirs) of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form".

The Bible being produced by the Original Bible Project is also said to be of the CE translation approach, which seems to be regarded as synonymous with "literal translation" at the OBP website.

The book Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), by James Price, argues for CE translation.

Return to Index

Comprehension check

One of the checks during community testing. A comprehension check tests to determine what speakers understand the meaning of a translation to be. The understanding desired is the same as the meaning of the original text.

During comprehension testing, the examiner should avoid using yes/no questions, that is, questions which can be answered with a "yes" or "no," such as "Did you understand this?" Such yes/no questions often yield little useful information to the translator. Sometimes those being questioned will answer "yes" because they feel it is the socially polite response, or because they do not want to disappoint the persons who have worked hard on the translation. Instead the tester should use content questions. Some useful content questions are:

Tell me in your own words what this means.
What are the main points you got from that?
What do you think Jesus meant when he said that?
Who was that about?
What kind of person was he talking about?
What is the connection between the last part of what I read to you and the first part?
When would you use that word?
Who do you think would normally say that word?

Return to Index

Concordance

Concordance is when a translator seeks to translate a word of the original by the same word in the target language wherever it occurs. Sometimes concordance reduces accuracy in translation, because it does not take into account the differing senses of meaning that a word has in varying contexts. This is one of the difficulties with literal word-for-word translations.

Return to Index

Connotation

See the following website:

Compare Denotation.

Return to Index

Construction

Construction refers to any language form, or structure, in other words, some particular way that language parts relate to each other. Linguists essentially use the terms construction, form, and structure as synonyms.

English usually indicates possession with a noun phrase consisting of possession marked by a possessive suffix on the possessor followed by a noun, the object which is possessed, as in:

John's book

In Cheyenne, possession is marked on the object possessed, not on the possessor:

John he-môxe'êstoo'o
John his-book

This construction means, literally, "John his-book".

To indicate possession, Greek uses a genitive construction, in which the genitive case is marked as a suffix on the possessor:

biblivon Iwavnn-ou
book John-of.him

Formally, the Greek would correspond to English "book of John", which is a literal translation of the Greek construction. This, however, would not be the best translation for English, since English possession would normally be indicated with the possessive noun phrase "John's book." Use of the English possessive phrase is the most accurate and natural (therefore, idiomatic) translation of the Greek genitive possessive.

Return to Index

Context

Context refers to the environment or setting in which an utterance occurs. There are various contexts which are crucial for a translator to be aware of. The immediate linguistic context consists of words, phrases, and sentences which surround the utterance in question. This is discourse or textual context. The linguistic context also includes the situational context, that is, the social context in which the utterance was made. This includes the identity of speaker and addressee, their relationship, and the purpose of the utterance in the mind of the speaker. This social context is the concern of pragmatics. Ultimately, the pragmatic context also includes the time, place, and culture in which the utterance was made. So a translator must be aware of the historical, anthropological, and sociological environment in which the utterance he is translating was made.

Return to Index

Critical apparatus

A critical apparatus is a section of a text which gives information on variants found in manuscript copies of its own textual history, which are relevant to determining the most likely form of its original text.

Return to Index

Critical text

Text of the Greek New Testament determined through textual criticism. There are two main New Testament text traditions today (with various subtypes), the critical text, based on the text types which have the oldest copies available today, and the Majority Text, which gives priority to the text types with the largest number of text copies available today. The critical text is also known as the eclectic text. The main critical text of the New Testament used today is the Nestle-Aland text, which appears in another edition as the UBS text. See Textus Receptus.

Return to Index

Cultural clash

A cultural clash occurs when something in culture of the source language has a distinctly different cultural value from the same thing in the culture of the target language. In such cases, the translator should keep the original meaning by adjusting the form of the cultural symbol or adding enough background information to indicate to the target language users what the original cultural value was. Otherwise, the users of the translation will get the wrong meaning, and preservation of original meaning is the highest priority for a translator. Here is an example: a Jewish man who had taken a Nazirite vow would cut his hair to indicate the end of that vow. But a Cheyenne man (of the North American Indian tribe) cuts his hair to indicate that he is in mourning. The same symbol, cutting one's hair, has different cultural meanings. So when one translates that a man cut his hair (to show the end of his Nazarite vow), the meaning of the cutting would need to be made clear in Cheyenne translation. If not, Cheyenne readers could easily assume that the original man cut his hair in mourning. Such adjustments are NOT adding any meaning to Scripture. They are simply making explicit meaning that was implicit to the original hearers. In fact, if we do not make such implicit information clear, when it is not understood by current readers, we are actually taking away part of the original meaning.

Return to Index

Cultural substitute

Use of a different translation term for an item from the source language text which is unknown to the target language hearers. Translators must be prudent in the use of cultural substitutes. They should not introduce anachronisms. A cultural substitute should have the same function in context as the original item, be as similar in form as possible, and be compatible with Biblical culture. (Blight 1992:19)

In Matt. 26.20 it was legitimate for the KJV translators to use the cultural substitute "sat down" for the original term "reclined" (a prone position, used for eating in Jesus' day). The two terms are not literally the same, but the two bodily positions have the same function in the context of eating within the original and target cultures.

Compare Transculturation which is a different phenomenon from cultural substitutation. Return to Index