Post on 14-May-2023
1
A Brief Overview of the Origin, Development, and Application of the “Frames of
Reference” Approach in Bible Translating
To begin with, the conception and development of the Frames of Reference
model was the joint product of a UBS Triennial Translation Workshop by an
appointed special interest committee of TCs (ca. 1988; Noss, Wilt, Mojola,
Bascom, Ross, Ogden, Wendland).
Our project “brief” was to develop a new approach to Bible translating that
could be applied more broadly in actual practice.
This new method was intended to replace (or supplement?) the
TAPOT model by taking into consideration new developments in text
linguistic studies and cognitive linguistics, in particular the conceptual
semantic “frames” approach.
Various chapter outlines of the book to come were presented at the
Manchester University “Research Models in Translation Studies I”
Conference in 2000. This ultimately resulted in the text Bible Translation:
Frames of Reference (T. Wilt, ed., St. Jerome/Routledge, 2003).
This book offers a broad-based, interdisciplinary perspective on Bible
translation (but not CI!) in terms of academic areas foundational to the
endeavor: translation studies, communication theory, linguistics, cultural
studies, biblical studies, a-w-a literary and rhetorical studies (NB—Bascom
recognized David Katan’s important work on “frames” theory, 1999 > 2004).
The Bible translator is thereby encouraged to appreciate and better
understand various approaches to translation in view of the wide variety of
communicative, organizational, sociocultural, and linguistic situations in which
translation occurs.
2
A literary representation of the Scriptures, SL � TL, receives special
attention in this book since it was perceived to have been neglected in
earlier, influential works on Bible translation.
Two workbooks further develop the initial study of Bible Translation—Frames of
Reference:
1. Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation: A Coursebook for Bible Translators and
Teachers by E. Wendland, Manchester: St. Jerome, 2008, 321 pages (online).
This book provides a general introduction to the concept of frames which are distinct
culturally-conditioned cognitive perspectives that orient all of our perception,
evaluation, integration, and organization of conceptual and contextual data (chs 1-2).
Four distinct, but closely interrelated cognitive domains (sociocultural,
institutional, situational, and textual) are then individually described and
exemplified to provide a more detailed introduction to the subject (chapters 3-6).
Special attention is given in chapter 7 to the overt textual frame of reference as
this applies to the study of biblical documents, especially from a literary perspective.
These same four conceptual domains (sociocultural, institutional, situational,
and textual) must be accessed and assessed during the re-compositional activity of
Bible translation:
a) first when analyzing the source text for meaning (chs. 8, 11), and
b) second, when extracting the intended/textual meaning from its linguistic
form (whether Hebrew or Greek) in order to regenerate it relevantly in a
new communicative environment and cultural setting (chs. 9).
The importance of using a cognitive-culture-contextually “framed” approach is
applied also to the subsequent qualitative-evaluation of a translation (or draft, ch.10)
and also for teaching translators about this multifaceted subject (ch. 11).
2. Scripture Frames and Framing: A Workbook for Bible Translators (T. Wilt and E. Wendland, SUN
Media Press, 2008, online)
Scripture Frames & Framing expounds, illustrates, and further develops some of the key
ideas presented in Bible Translation: Frames of Reference.
3
This workbook features additional explanation and examples concerning the
various frames: cognitive, sociocultural, organizational, communication-situated,
textual, and lexical and offers numerous practical exercises for analyzing biblical texts
and communicating them to contemporary audiences.
Special attention is devoted to literary text analysis, translation, and assessment.
See also the article “Framing the Frames” in the Journal of Translation (6:1, 2010, online).
The “Contextual Frames of Reference” (CFR) approach in +/- greater detail:
The CFR method seeks to identify the various integrated conceptual
and situational factors that presumably influence the overall production of
a translation in a typically multifaceted setting of communication.
The ability to effectively and efficiently translate is influenced to a large
degree by a diverse assortment of contextual variables such as:
1. the translators’ understanding of the source text and its assumed
ancient conceptual world;
2. their understanding of the target language and its contemporary
conceptual world;
3. the project’s available human, financial, and scholarly resources;
4. a translation team’s ability to work independently, as well as
cohesively a unit; and
5. the degree of ongoing technical, logistical, and management support
from organizations sponsoring the publication of the work.
These and many other factors establish a broad hermeneutical and
organizational grid for translators and their sponsors—a conceptual and
4
perceptual framework that influences a project’s translation approach,
management structure, support system, publication strategy, and related
factors.
The impact of such conceptual-contextual frames may be (-) to constrain
translators during the decision-making process, or (+) serve to encourage
and empower them, with either influence potentially giving rise to
significant formal and/or semantic differences between the ST and the TT.
All these interrelated factors may be classified and analyzed (for convenience!)
as sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual frames of reference.
However, such mental constructs are artificial and idealized; thus, they
overlap or merge during any specific analysis due to their constant interaction
in practice and the fluid or fuzzy nature of their boundaries.
In any case, the CFR model presents just one possible methodological
framework that enables the analyst to more fully and precisely (in terms of
quantity and quality) discern and describe important general and specific
performance errors, potential problem points along with their causes—and
then to identify various means of preventing or solving them.
In summary, the individual CFRs are culturally-determined mental models
that constitute different aspects of the worldview, value system,
experiential setting, and primary set of goals of an individual, a project, a
social group, or society at large.
5
From a relevance theory perspective, these factors seek to specify diverse
facets and dimensions of the respective “cognitive environments” of ST
and TT participants. CFR considerations also help to identify more
precisely what determines “relevance” with regard to processing cost
versus conceptual gain in any given instance of text interpretation.
The four major frames that have been identified may be described in
somewhat more detail as follows:
1. Sociocultural Frames
The broadest, most influential frames are sociological in nature and
pertain first of all to primary ideological and/or religious beliefs and
related practices as well as a community’s internalization of them.
They are normally implicit but highly influential perceptual and
interpretive grids passed down formally or informally as “tradition” from
one generation to the next.
From a cognitive-linguistic (CL) point of view, sociocultural frames may
also be described as interconnected nexuses and networks of knowledge—
organized and stored in the mind as the result of enculturation, formal
learning, and everyday experiences.
They represent the inventory of so-called “encyclopedic knowledge” that
constitutes the basis of an individual’s or society’s worldview.
Worldview in turn can be defined as the fundamental cognitive
orientation regarding origin, knowledge/meaning, personal being,
6
existence, and destiny as held by an individual, a social subgroup, or
society as a whole.
The sociocultural frame includes distinct but interrelated conceptual
components such as these:
• Natural philosophy, traditional knowledge, norms, values, and
ethics;
• Cognitive models of persons, spirits, animate beings and their
associated objects, events, actions, and qualities;
• Social behavioral scenarios and their values, contingencies, feelings,
and states;
• Metaphorical and metonymical structuring of human thought; and
• All the subconscious assumptions or unstated premises of a culture.
2. Organizational Frames
Organizational frames occur as distinct facets within established socio-
cultural structures. From the perspective of Bible translation, they are
manifested in the major and minor, overt and covert influences from and
interactions among different stakeholder institutions (referred to as
“clients” in functionalist terms). (cf. “cultural turn” in TS – intercultural relations,
unequal influence and power dynamics within organizational structures and subgroups)
This would include the translators’ (or team’s) perception of their
obligations in relation to their job description and the external
management oversight of their work, as well as their sense of loyalty and
job satisfaction regarding their daily working environment.
7
These diverse perceptions and attitudes constitute the rights and
responsibilities of corporate “allegiance” which are part and parcel of
every social institution.
Organizational frames may seem impersonal, even unchangeable, but they
are cognitively created and modified in the same way that sociocultural
frames are. They are thus influenced by various situational factors, for
example, important annual customs and traditions, or the regular as well
as unexpected communal life experiences within the society.
A Bible translation project “framework” (including its “brief,” or job
commission) includes a diverse church community’s conceptions
concerning the Scriptures, its own translation and how it is related to other
versions, an appropriate methodology, main uses of the Bible, the role and
status of translators, their remuneration, and certain ethical factors (e.g.,
how much “borrowing” may be done from existing versions).
Ecclesiastical institutions exhibit distinct sub-cultures (e.g., Prot./Cath.)
that embody their distinctive histories, traditions, religious terminology,
objectives, prejudices, norms, ways of organizing and managing a
translation team, establishing their conditions of service, and so forth.
3. Situational (communication / conversational) frames
Situational frames pertain to the immediate physical and temporal
performance setting of a specific act of message transmission (exchange),
8
including the medium, codes, roles, and goals of all participants in that
communication event.
Such frames also incorporate significant variables that arise from the
respective communication contexts of the ST communicators and of the TT
translators.
For example, situational frames may be posited internally for the
various speech settings that are specified within the biblical ST itself, e.g.,
God—prophet, prophet—king, king—people (e.g., Jonah).
The sociolinguistic acrostic S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G is often used to
summarise the different aspects of the situational frames of texts:
• Setting: the physical setting, including time, place, environment,
weather, and other factors that could either facilitate and enhance,
or on the other hand, disturb, distort, or even destroy
communication.
• Participants: speaker(s) and hearer(s) and their respective cognitive
environments, especially any contrastive or antithetical features in
their world-view, e.g., their social and psychological background in
relation to each other and the particular groups that they represent.
• Ends: the primary and secondary communication aims of the
message senders, hopefully including the views and wishes of the
intended audience or readership.
• Activity: the selection, arrangement and prioritizing of discourse
segments (speech acts), along with any accompanying non-verbal
aspects of communication.
9
• Key: the overall psychological tone, manner, attitude, or emotions of
the participants which characterizes the prevailing social atmosphere
in which an act of communication occurs (accommodating,
adversarial, neutral).
• Instrumentality: the sensory channel (medium) of message
transmission that is activated during the speech event, especially the
cases of oral or written communication, along with any
accompanying media like musical background, print formatting
devices, and illustrations.
• Norms: customs of interpersonal interaction and interpretation as
determined by the preceding factors as well as conventional speech
styles, special codes, registers, linguistic subtypes (dialect, sociolect),
and other influences.
• Genre: recognised patterns of natural, informal or formal spoken and
written discourse, along with their typically associated stylistic
qualities (e.g., distinctive structural features of a poem, folktale,
ballad, proverb, riddle, sermon, or political speech).
This model clearly has a strong sociolinguistic focus and seeks to discover
the initial cognitive context that presumably governed a given text’s
original conception, intention, representation and transmission.
The functional notion of speech (text) acts is crucial for gaining a deeper
understanding of communication-situation frames.
10
The S-A approach arises from the recognition that when a person speaks,
s/he usually intends his/her speech to perform one of several different
pragmatic actions such as asserting, evaluating, opining, stipulating,
requesting, suggesting, authorising, committing, and many others (“Have a
nice day”—inappropriate greeting, conclude lecture, farewell for the day, command?!).
4. Textual frames
Textual frames constitute the specific formal, semiotic, emotive, and
cognitive structures that are embedded respectively within the ST and TT.
Hopefully, these correspond in large measure; if not, a communication
failure occurs.
Texts (“text” = a sequence of interrelated signs) may consist of verbal and
nonverbal signs, such as music, illustrations, tables, text format, etc. in
written texts, or intonation and pitch, gestures face and body movements
in face-to-face communication.
In short, language encodes and externalises our thoughts by means of
diverse symbols, which may be spoken, written, or otherwise signed.
The most common signs of biblical texts are written linguistic categories
and their markers, that is, the orthographic, lexical, morphological,
syntactic, and discourse signs that we must discover, analyse, interpret,
translate, and transmit unto others.
On the other hand, significant signs can also be non-linguistic—that is,
visual, aural, even olfactory.
Examples of such non-verbal signs involved in scripture communication
are audio (e.g., audio Bibles), video (e.g., The Jesus Film), sign language,
11
drama, songs, preaching or interpreting gestures, photographs, art
sculptures, and paintings.
The textual frame of reference includes the wider identification of all
significant intertextual influences upon a specific text, on the one hand,
and the text’s manifold internal individual and associated lexical frames,
on the other.
The CFsoR model may be applied from top-down at the beginning of a
project, to help it to get foundationally off to a good start—or from
bottom-up, that is, at any stage of the translation process to evaluate
progress, or the lack of it—or at the end of the project, to assess relative
success or failure and the reasons for these results.
12
Case Study: a summary of Sidney Berman’s Dissertation (U—Stellenbosch,
2014): “Analysing the Frames of a Bible: The Case of the Setswana
Translations of the Book of Ruth”
This doctoral study seeks to explain how different conceptual frames might
have influenced each of the three Setswana translations of the book of Ruth.
It adds the perspective of relevance theory which asserts that
assumptions of what a speaker means can be inferred from his/her
utterance(s) within their manifold linguistic and extra-linguistic cognitive
communicative environments.
Berman’s aim is to investigate how the local contextual frames of
reference (CFRs) of the three extant Setswana Bibles – Moffat, Wookey and
BSSA (Bible Society of South Africa) – may have impacted on their renderings
of the book of Ruth.
The fact that the Bibles were translated within contexts that differed
greatly from those of the original Hebrew text of Ruth gives rise to the
assumption that some of these contexts or frames could have had a
significant influence on the decision-making process during translation.
13
Non-corresponding frames were presumed to have led to formal and
semantic differences, termed “translation shifts,” between the three
vernacular versions and the Hebrew text.
These divergent frames were hypothesized to have arisen due to
disparate sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual
circumstances that pertained during the composition of the Hebrew text, on
the one hand, and each translation, on the other.
This study thus applies an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to
cognitive frame analysis via the CFR model.
The theoretical framework is further informed by established biblical
exegetical and hermeneutical practice coupled with contemporary
translation studies, thus merging insights from many other disciplines,
including text linguistics, conversational analysis, cognitive semantics, and
cultural studies.
The translators’ decisions, as revealed by formal and semantic shifts,
are thus comparatively evaluated on the basis of the heuristic notion of
“an exegetically justifiable rendering,” i.e., based on recognized Bible
commentary opinion.
14
From the cognitive viewpoint that language externalises our
thoughts, the study assumes that certain linguistic difficulties prevented
the translators from accurately re-capturing or adequately representing the
thoughts of the Hebrew text’s speakers, authors or redactors.
Such constraints may have arisen from variable influence or
interference from non-corresponding ST and TT lexical, syntactic, or
discourse frames.
Berman’s analytical procedure is to map convenient linguistic ST
segments against their associated units in the TT.
These segments range in size and scope from a lexical item, a phrase,
sentence, paragraph, or more, depending on the Hebrew structure that is
assumed to be causing a shift in the TT.
Berman hypothesises regarding what textual or other frames of
reference may have influenced the translators towards the rendering that
produced a certain shift.
Emphasis is placed on shifts that may be perceived as being
inaccurate or erroneous in terms of the original ST meaning, clumsy or
unidiomatic regarding TL form, and ambiguous or confusing in terms of TL
communication norms.
15
Berman sought to identify the many diverse shifts in the three
Setswana translations of Ruth which he hypothetically posits as resulting
from socio-cultural, organizational, communication-related, and textual
factors.
This study suggests that a comparative awareness of cognitive-
contextual frames of reference during actual translation work, or the
analysis and evaluation of translated texts, can contribute towards the
improvement of existing translations and the reduction of problematic
(erroneous, ambiguous, or confusing) textual shifts in new Bible
translation projects.
30
Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation: A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers by
Ernst R. Wendland, Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing, 2008, 321 pages, $55.00.
Wendland provides a general introduction to the concept of frames which are distinct culturally-
conditioned cognitive perspectives which orient all of our perception, evaluation, integration and
organization of data (chapters 1-2). Four distinct, but closely interrelated conceptual domains
(sociocultural, institutional, situational, and textual) are then individually described and exemplified to
provide a more detailed introduction to the subject (chapters 3-6). Special attention is given in chapter 7
to the overt textual frame of reference as this applies to the study of biblical documents , especially
from a literary perspective.
The author suggests that the same four conceptual domains (sociocultural, institutional, situational, and
textual) must be assessed during the re-compositional activity of Bible translation, first when analyzing
31
the source text for meaning (chapter 8) and then when extracting this from its linguistic form (whether
Hebrew or Greek) in order to regenerate it in a new communicative environment and cultural setting.
As an example of the latter set of circumstances, the case of translating meaningfully into Chewa
(Nyanja), a south-eastern Bantu language of Malawi and Zambia, is selectively considered (chapter 9).
The Chewa language examples illustrate the complex process of conceptual engineering whereby a
sacred literary text is expressed in a way that is relevant as well as acceptable to a specified target
audience and also supplemented by suitable techniques of extratextual cognitive enrichment.
The Apostle John's depiction of what he saw behind the "open door" in heaven (Revelation chapter 4) is
given more detailed attention with respect to how to produce a more adequately framed representation
of the original document in Chewa, using a combination of textual and paratextual strategies.
In chapter 10, the author summarizes a diversified method for assessing a translation, that is, evaluating
the overall quality of communication with regard to how much of the original meaning was lost or
distorted during its linguistic transformation. The goal is to identify and compensate for those inevitable
gaps and lapses that occur in our efforts to put meaning back together again.
In chapter 11, the author provides a series of question-driven exercises that focuses on Revelation 5 to
give readers a chance to further apply what they have learned during the analysis and translation of this
biblical passage into their language.
In chapter 12, the author concludes by giving some attention to ongoing efforts to better contextualize,
that is, provide a more adequate frame of reference for, the joint process of teaching and learning about
Bible translation in different situations.
Throughout the textbook, the author provides several examples and exercises in order to render the
discussion more interactive and contextually relevant for Bible translators and team supervisors or
instructors. There were some minor grammatical errors in the book. For example, on page 21, the
author states, "Do have any corrections or modifications to suggest that would augment or improve the
preceding classification of general assumptions.". I assume the author meant, "Do you have..." Also on
page 29, excessive was misspelled as `exessive'.
This book is suitable for students enrolled in translation classes in English speaking countries. Other
people, even lay translators, may find this book to be quite technical and academic.
32
Additional quotes from Sidney Berman’s Dissertation (U of Stellenbosch, 2014): “Analysing
the Frames of a Bible: The Case of the Setswana Translations of the Book of Ruth”
Differing socio-cultural CFRs represent the differing cognitive worlds behind the source language
and target language being studied. The differences tend to produce translation shifts. That is
because, in cognitive terms, words and experiences encountered in a translation setting are likely
to trigger a reactivation or recollection of certain bodies of knowledge that affect decision making
in translation. A translator, like all human beings, has to “call on [his/her] encyclopedic
knowledge in order to properly understand a concept” (Croft and Cruse 2004: 30).
My study hypothesises that differing socio-cultural factors between the Hebrew source culture
and the Setswana target cultures can be specified to explain some shifts between the Hebrew ST
and the three Setswana versions of Ruth. On the one hand, the book of Ruth presents the story
of people in a certain socio-cultural setting during the times of the Judges in ancient Israel
(Judges 1:1). The ST was written to communicate with that context as a frame of reference that
was largely presupposed for its intended audience. On the other hand, the TT audience,
translators and other influential stakeholders were brought up in, and influenced by their own
contemporary socio-cultural settings and a worldview that differ from those of the ST culture.
The differences pose “convention-related translation problems” (Nord 2005: 167). “Rich points
between cultures” as explained by Nord (2011: 45) are points of intersection between two
cultures in verbal and non-verbal behaviour, which can cause conflict or miscommunication
between the cultures.
In this thesis, the two cultures that are being compared and contrasted with each other are the
traditional Tswana culture and the culture of ancient Israel. In chapters three and six, I point out
specific similarities and differences between the two cultures. The differences could cause
misinterpretation of the ST by the TT translators and audiences, whilst the similarities may not
always have been easy to exploit for more accurate renderings. The general similarities also could
have distracted the translators from discovering semantic differences. Socio-cultural problems
(convention-related translation problems) contribute to the difficulty of finding the right
assumptions during the interpretation of the source text, considering that translation is secondary
communication. My study will investigate occurrences where Setswana renderings of Ruth
represent a translation shift when compared with the original Hebrew text, and hypothesise
33
concerning how socio-cultural factors (among others that will be explained below) could have
influenced the translators’ choices.
This study hypothesises that some translation shifts in TTs could be explained with reference to
the varied organisational frames of the different Setswana Bibles. Of particular prominence in
chapter six is the assumption that the translators of the Setswana Bibles consulted other earlier
Bibles either because it was stipulated by their sending institutions, or it was conventional. The
postulated Bibles include earlier versions of the Setswana Bible, European language versions and
versions in other Bantu languages. My study investigates which Bible versions may have
influenced translation decisions in the composition of the Setswana Bibles, and in what manner
(cf. chapters four and six).1
The communicative situational context can be broken down into lexical, syntactic and
extralinguistic contexts (or text, cotext and context respectively). Lexical context pertains to the
summarised meaning of the word observed by itself.2 Syntactic context considers the meaning of
the word in relation to other words in the same sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, or corpus by
the same author – a sentence specifies the most appropriate meaning, among several, for a word.3
Extra-linguistic context pertains to socio-cultural or life-application information associated with
the word.
In this regard, my study will investigate situational frames with respect to the Hebrew text and
TT so as to more fully analyse the meaning of the Hebrew unit and investigate how the meaning
of the TT compares with it. A clue to what a biblical text intended to communicate or do lies in
an understanding of its original context.4 A translator’s failure to determine the original context
of that communication can result in misinterpretation of the text. The various translation shifts
described in chapter six of this thesis illustrate this problem well.
Relevance theory makes explicit the problems implied by the above paragraph for the translator
(Gutt 2000). As already observed in subsection 2.4.2, the translator may fail to recognise the
author’s intended assumptions (from the primary communication situation) and instead use other
1 From the perspective of chapter four, such a collection includes the King James Version, the Afrikaans Bible, the
Good News Bible and the Pedi Bible (but a reliable link could not be established with the Afrikaans and Pedi Bibles,
at least for the book of Ruth). 2 Recent developments indicate that this concept is flawed because it is impossible to describe a word by itself without
accounting for contexts of usage and the encyclopedic knowledge that it activates (Cf., e.g., Geeraerts 2006: 1). 3 Cf. again the example of the word “safe” in section 2.4.2. 4 In so far as communicational frames of reference pertain to lexical concepts embedded in a specific socio-cultural
context, they overlap and interact with socio-cultural and textual frames.
34
assumptions (secondary communication situation), which would lead to mistranslations.5 The
original author’s intended assumptions derive from the primary communication situation,
namely, the context of the source text’s communication, whilst assumptions not intended by the
original author may be ascribed to the translator’s present translational cognitive context,
referred to as a secondary communication situation (Gutt 2000: 76). Another difficulty stems
from the fact that there are often implicit meanings in the text, that is, meanings intended but
not explicitly stated by the author (Gutt 2000: 83). For example, the meaning of a sentence like
“The LORD is my shepherd” could be difficult for the translator to express if s/he deems that the
audience will be clueless about shepherds and the implications of the sentence. Yet another
difficulty stems from the fact that natural language allows the twisting (or skewing) of linguistic
forms in conveying meaning (Gutt 2000: 85). For example, the rhetorical question, “what is Sam
doing?” may seem to the reader to be normal inquiry, whereas the speaker may have meant that
Sam’s neighbour should advise Sam to stop what he was doing, or the speaker just wanted to
convey his/her disapproval of Sam’s actions. The problem for translators is that linguistic forms
do not usually indicate what the speech act is or how the form is to be interpreted. This fact often
leads to misinterpretation.
Various exegetical and encyclopedic tools were consulted for an investigation of the
communication situations in the Hebrew text of Ruth in the form of commentaries such as De
Waard and Nida (1991) and Bush (1996), Bible background sources like De Vaux (1974) and
lexica such as Botterweck and Ringgren (1977) (cf. chapters five and six). However, since the
Setswana Bibles were also made in their own distinctive socio-cultural settings, it is important to
subject each translation to the above-described type of analysis in order to interpret it correctly.
In that regard, the study depended on archival searches at Bible Society of South Africa,6
materials on Tswana history and culture, the history of Bible translation in Setswana, Setswana
grammars and Setswana-English dictionaries. Only after comparatively investigating the
5 In the case of ancient texts, it is often not easy to extract the intended assumptions of the communication situation.
Hence, it should be expected that the book of Ruth (being an ancient text) will not be easy to interpret. 6 The archives of the Bible Society of South Africa (BSSA), in Cape Town, historically a branch of the British and
Foreign Bible Society from 1820-1965, contain information on all of the Setswana Bible Translations and the extent
to which these organisations were involved in the translation and publication of the Setswana Bibles. South Africa
and Botswana used to be one large country administered primarily from Cape Town before being divided by border
lines. The three translation projects were carried out within the large area surrounding the border shared by the two
countries that is occupied by the Batswana tribes, the majority of whom currently fall within the South African border.
The population of Setswana speakers in South Africa is roughly double that of Setswana speakers in Botswana (cf.
the section “The Origin of the Batswana” in chapter three). Several facts from this reality contribute to the
organisational frames of the three Setswana Bible projects as follows: Firstly, when Robert Moffat served as a
missionary among the Setswana-speaking tribes, his centre of administration was in Cape Town; secondly, Botswana
Bible Society could not have much influence on Setswana Bible translations because it came into existence as an
extension of BSSA long after the publication of the three Bible translations.
35
communication situation that pertains to each translation would one be able to critically examine
the various equivalence relationships between BHS text and TT.7 This procedure would also
enable one to make informed hypotheses about the translation shifts occurring between the
Hebrew text and TT of each of the Setswana translations. However, room must be left for the
fact that it may at times be impossible to reconstruct the original setting of the Hebrew text
and/or the TT.
Finally, the linguistic visual8 aspects of a Bible (or any other printed text) include both its lexical
and visual components. The formatting of the book of Psalms, for example, if different from that
of Genesis, could communicate how it is to be interpreted or used. The first two translations
(Moffat and Wookey) presented the Psalter in prose whilst the third translation presented it in
verse. Encountering the Psalms in verse is likely to evoke a regard for them as songs or poems,
which is more appropriate for psalms than encountering them in prose and approaching them
the same way as approaching Genesis narratives. As another example of visual semiotics, the
black cover and red edges of the Setswana Bible customarily communicate its identity, value,
contents and use, among others. Apparently all Setswana Bibles have traditionally been published
with a black hard cover and red edges. Such consistent packaging has made the Setswana Bible
a promptly identifiable religious object. On the one hand, Batswana non-users of the Bible (in
secular circles) derisively call it thamaga – an indigenous label for the red and black colour
combination – a name which personifies such a Bible and which reflects their dislike and fear of
it. On the other hand, users of the Bible seem to find this familiar colour combination an
affirmation of the sanctity of the Bible. It would be interesting to observe the changes in attitude
towards the Setswana Bible, were it to be suddenly presented in different colours. The focus of
this study is on the three Setswana Bibles which are printed texts and, therefore, instances of
linguistic visual communication.
The study of textual frames stems from several observations, the most important of which is that
languages are structurally different from each other. According to Nord (2005: 166), this
difference is the cause of “linguistic translation problems.” ST and TT segments are likely to yield
shifts when paired together. In the case of Bible translation, the ST and TT languages (in my
study, Hebrew and Setswana respectively) are quite different and far removed from each other
in time and culture. In addition, languages cannot be separated from their cultures, and ancient
7 Each translation was separated from its successor or predecessor by more than 50 years (see Smit 1970). Thus, the
times, spaces, cultural outlooks, print devices, participants, goals and many other components were unique to each
translation. 8 “Linguistic visual” pertains to written language.
36
cultures differ from the TT cultures (Katan 2004: 100). Whereas there are many similarities
between ancient Hebrew culture and Bantu African cultures, my study postulates that the Hebrew
texts still embody many significant mismatches between the culture of their origin and African
cultures; that is one of the fundamental reasons why translating the Hebrew text into a Setswana
TT is likely to yield important translation shifts.
My study also hypothesises that many shifts occurred because of the lack of explanations of
certain “loaded” concepts, viewing words and other linguistic units as being “tips of encyclopedic
icebergs,” or as significant signs of culture, context and cognition (Van Wolde 2009: 51-56).9 An
understanding of the world behind a given word, phrase, sentence and other units in the Hebrew
text will contribute towards a more accurate interpretation of the text. Similarly, when analysing
translations, an understanding of the world behind the target text segment should enable the
analyst to identify and hypothetically explain a translation shift from the corresponding source
text. The use of explanatory footnotes in a translation can contribute towards eliminating many
shifts.
Summary of the Frames of Reference Model—an extract from an unpublished dissertation by
Milton Watt (Stellenbosch, 2015): “Re-sculpting a Sacred Text: Towards an acceptable
poetic translation of the Psalms, exemplified by Psalms 131 and 150”
Cognitive frames of reference
Bible Translation: Frames of reference (Wilt, 2003b) – analyzes translation theories from a
holistic “frames of reference” cognitive perspective. Eight major contemporary translation
approaches are presented as being important for translators: FE, Skopostheorie/functionalist,
descriptive, text linguistic, RT, postcolonial, literalist, and “foreignization vs. domestication”.10
A ninth approach, LiFE, is presented by Wendland (2003:179-230)11.
A frame is a flexible cognitive metaphor that allows for a multifaceted viewpoint of translation.
A frames of reference perspective conceptualizes a more global view of the translation task.
Wendland (2010) presents a theoretical framework for a cognitive frames of reference approach.
9 This statement accounts for the fact that culture and worldview are not conveyed or understood through language
alone (Palmer 1996: 113). For example, drama, art, events and other non-linguistic behaviour could be investigated
for an understanding of socio-cultural frames, worldview and so on. 10 These are actually derived from Wendland (2004:47-82). 11 The LiFE approach is more fully developed in Wendland (2004; 2011). These nine approaches are not all of the
approaches that are available to a Bible translator, but they are major ones and need to be studied and
understood well.
37
In his development of this approach he creates ten mini-frames that can be used in the analysis of
biblical and other texts.12 He applies the framework to John 1:29. To try to explain the
complexity of the model he (2010:48) proposes using the analogy of windows (as in the
computer usage) and other metaphors such as “entrance ways” to more easily conceptualize the
ideas. In Wilt (2003b) there is a pertinent application of the cognitive frame to the major
disciplines involved in the translation task as follows:
1. Communicative – Various frames can be considered from a communicative perspective:
Cognitive (structured mental associations developed through experience and
reflection),
Sociocultural (external sociocultural practices and relations as well as internalized
conceptions of them),
Organizational (external influences such as finances and group social pressure as well as
the team’s or individual’s perception of the organization), and
Communication-situational (typically a speech situation with factors such as the
situational setting, participants, etc.).13
2. Cultural – The language of the translation is imbedded in a culture, and multiple
cultures can be evident in a translation project:
Culture of the text (which itself can have multicultural influence, such as hebraistic
Greek),
Cultures of the project participants (e.g., local translator or translation consultant),
Culture of the language of communication on a project – a national language with its
own cultural perspective can influence a project, and
Interlingual influences between the languages in focus (e.g., a local language) and other
languages spoken in the region (e.g., a major language like French, English, or Arabic).14
3. Linguistic – Various linguistic models can be applied to the translation task as seen in
the first perspective (e.g., structuralism, generative grammar, tagmemics, universalism
vs. relativity, typological, cross-cultural semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and
discourse analysis).15
12 The ten mini-frames are: spatial, locutionary, attributive, substantive, eventive, logical, social, intertextual,
generic, and temporal (Wendland, 2010: 37, 40-42). 13 See Wilt (2003a:27-80). 14 The interlingual influence by itself could be considered a frame, or a sub-frame of a linguistic frame. See Bascom
(2003:81-111) for more details. 15 See Ross (2003:113-151) for more details.
38
4. Theological – Various exegetical, interpretive, or interdisciplinary frames can be used:
(e.g., lexical and grammatical, historical-critical, textual criticism, archeological, source
criticism, redaction criticism, canonical, intertestamental, ideological, and
postcolonial).16
5. Literary – Literary frames comprise a wide variety of ways to analyze sacred texts (e.g.,
rhetorical criticism, canonical, poetic, narrative, linguistic, functional equivalent, and
literary functional equivalent).17
6. Social relationships – Some of the translation team members are part of the local
society, so there is a socio-cultural factor. Organizations involved in the project have
guidelines or organizational perspectives that must be considered in the overall project.
Traditional ethnic factors and the community’s expectations of a sacred text also must
be considered.
Hill (2005) reviews Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Wilt, 2003b) and states (2005:77)
that it “provides a long-needed update on current trends and thought relating to Bible translation
in recent years”. He acknowledges that there are certain brief references to RT, but his main
critique is that RT is not presented more fully. However, the emphasis in the Frames book (Wilt,
2003b) seems right to me because the cognitive frame perspective includes RT but is much
broader, and RT is presented more fully in other works. The LiFE model presented in section 3.4
and the re-sculpting model presented in section 4.4 both embrace RT as well as other cognitive
models.
The practicality of the frames of reference perspective will be seen later in the dissertation as the
terms contextual frame, conceptual frames, situational frame, and linguistic frame are mentioned
in various contexts.
Another example of a cognitive model applied to translation is one proposed by Zixia (2009) that
combines RT and Verschueren’s (2000) model of “adaptation”. He claims that RT-guided
translation studies are overly biased (one-sided) toward the interpretation of the ST, while the
adaption-guided translation studies are overly biased (one-sided) toward the production of the
16 See Ogden (2003:153-177) for more details. 17 Frames of the text can be on a macro-level, micro-level, or general level. See Wendland (2003:179-230).
Wendland’s discussion concerns Biblical texts, but it can be broadened to concerns of any sacred text.
39
TT.18 Cognitive models are often multifaceted and complex (like Zixia’s model) which reflect
the nature of the translation task.
In conclusion, the cognitive frame is the most embracing perspective of all the models or
approaches that have been presented; a cognitive linguistic perspective frames the other frames.
Notice how a frame like socio-cultural (which is itself an interdisciplinary term) can be part of
many of the other frames listed above. This is because most disciplines today incorporate an
interdisciplinary emphasis. For example, theology is not just a discipline apart; it incorporates
insights from anthropological studies, sociology, historical analysis, computer analysis,
communication theories such at RT theory, and various branches of linguistics studies such as
cognitive semantics as mentioned above.
Zixia’s (2009) cognitive-pragmatic model of translation and Wendland’s (2010) cognitive frames
of reference theoretical framework describe two comprehensive models that employ a cognitive
perspective. Such models incorporate an inferential model of communication (Perspective 4), but
are much broader than RT alone.
18 The cognitive models of Perspective 5 show promise for a more comprehensive approach to translation
(Wendland, 2010; Wilt, 2003b; and Zixia, 2009).