Skip to main content

Domains in Linguistics and Translation Companies

 I just put this chart together:


(click on the picture to make it larger)

It shows how interrelated all the disciplines in SIL (or any linguistics and translation organisation) are. This has several implications:

  1. We all rely on the research carried out at a high level by those working in a particular domain
  2. Most of us end up being jack of trades, master of none
  3. There's a huge danger of siloisation (which I talked about in an earlier blog) i.e. that we don't talk to each other enough
I deliberately put translation under 'SE & Translation', and SE before Translation, as these days we think through the Scripture Engagement goals of a project before getting to far in planning its scope. The latter is actually inseparable from the former, as how a translation will be used, and in what format, and by whom (which audience), will very much influence how the translation project moves forward, including decisions about how to translate in a given verse of Scripture.

Also note that language development feeds into translation as much as SE does. Or almost as much. It is false economy to try and cut out these early stages of a project when the language is being developed. This early work pays off in spades, and makes the latter stages go forward much more quickly and easily. Communities need to make their own decisions about how to develop their language, as much as they need to make them about kingdom goals. SIL translation advisors and consultants can act as catalysts in this process, however.

Anthropology is central. It is often neglected, but when this happens projects are the poorer for it, as they haven't thought through some of the ways different cultures view the world. It is essential for SE and translation.

So, important as our own domain of specialisation is, we need to remember we're part of a bigger picture, and very much dependant on others. Each part of the body does its bit for the wider good.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asking the Right Questions in Bible Translation and Scripture Engagement Planning

If you want to get useful answers you have to ask the right questions. Do you agree? Yes, of course you do. In the Bible translation world we often ask a very narrow question when planning for the next stage of work: 'What would you like to see translated next?' Now, if you simply want to translate, and that's it, that question is fine, but what if you want to see some kind of result from your translation work? What if, for instance, you want to see transformation occur? Then a more powerful question to ask the community and positive stakeholders in the project would be: 'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?' These kingdom goals should meet felt needs of the community - they should solve problems that are apparent to most or all in the community. See below on how those can be met. If that's too abstract, then try, 'What kinds of things, in your extended family, do you tend to worry about?' This will help establish some felt needs, from which...
7 comments
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more