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

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more