Scenario Theory and Translation Problems

387

16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems

Since scenarios are experientially and culturally based and affect the grammar, lexicon, and discourse structure of both New Testament Greek and modern Parkari, a translation must take into account not only the linguistic differences between the source and target languages but also the experiential and cultural differences between the author and audience of the source text and the target audience of the translation. In this chapter I demonstrate the problems caused by scenario mismatch in translation, especially as regards the target audience’s ability to follow the flow of the text and understand it accurately.

16.1. Problems of scenario mismatch

Since scenarios contain interrelated chunks of information, including probabilities of certain events co-occurring, a mismatch of scenarios between source and target languages causes a mismatch of information communicated and a reduced ability to evaluate what is normal and what is contraexpectation. Since the grammar and lexicon in both Parkari and Greek is influenced by scenarios, a mismatch of scenarios between those languages will affect the grammar and lexicon used in translation. The most radical, and obvious, problem of scenario mismatch is when the target language and culture completely lack a scenario found in the source language. This creates classic translation problems such as “How do you translate camel for an Eskimo?” There are several standard approaches for translating unknown items, as listed by Beekman and Callow 1974 :191: EQUIVALENCE BY MODIFYING A GENERIC WORD Modified with features of form a statement of function both form and function a comparison EQUIVALENCE BY USING A LOAN WORD Modified with a classifier form or function or both EQUIVALENCE BY CULTURAL SUBSTITUTION Cultural substitution is “the use of a real world referent from the receptor culture for an unknown referent of the original, both of the referents having the same function” ibid .. To these one might add the use of a generic alone, if specific aspects of the source language referent are not focal in the context. For example, if English had no equivalent for ἅρμα ‘chariot’, in Acts 8:28 and Revelation 9:9, one might translate by using the following: A generic word e.g. vehicle A modified generic word e.g. horse-drawn vehicle form, war cart function horse-drawn war cart form and function vehicle like a tonga comparison A modified loan word e.g. vehicle called “harma” generic horse-drawn “harma” form, war “harma” function A cultural substitute e.g. carriage, cart 388 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation Note that ἅρμα belongs in two different source language scenarios—first class travel and war. Similarly, each word or phrase in the target language evokes its own scenario, which must be compared to the original source language scenario and co-text, to deter- mine its appropriateness. For example, English “chariot” fits both scenarios, but the “cart” scenario does not include “high-class”, and the “carriage” scenario does not include “war”. Therefore, such translation requires sensitivity to context. In Acts 8:28, ἅρμα represents a concept unknown in Parkari and is translated ɡʰoɽɑ ɠɑəi ‘horse cart’ meaning horse-drawn vehicle, whereas ἅρμα ‘war-chariot’ in Revelation 9:9 is a known concept through storytelling and is translated ɾətʰ, which refers either to a war chariot or a ceremonial vehicle for transporting deities. A common Parkari word for a horse-drawn vehicle, ʈõɠo, was avoided in both cases, as its scenario includes “available cheaply for hire” which is clearly inappropriate. If the missing scenario is a recurring theme throughout the text, it will be harder to translate, especially if it occurs both in historical contexts and in metaphorical language. For example, how might one translate John 10:11: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep,” for a culture where sheep are unknown? Different approaches have different advantages and disadvantages: Generic term with simile I am like a good herdsman, who lays down his life for his animals. This is fine here, but loses the clear connection with other “sheep” imagery since all would become generic. Different specific term with simile cultural substitute I am like a goat herder, who lays down his life for his animals. This is fine here, but causes problems elsewhere. What about separating sheep from goats in Matthew 25:32? Perhaps one could translate separating good goats from bad goats. What about historical references to sheep, e.g. in sacrifice, where “goat” is historically incorrect unless it functions as a generic term in the target language? Obviously, the issue needs addressing in terms of the whole Biblical corpus. Generic term plus loan word with simile usually from the language of wider communication: I am like a good herdsman of animals called “sheep”, who lays down his life for his animals. Although connection with other “sheep” passages can be maintained, the emphasis is skewed here. What is special about a herdsman of animals called “sheep” as opposed to other herdsmen? Direct statement I am the good teacher. I am ready to die for those who follow me. The meaning is clear, but there is no thematic link to other “sheep” passages, whether historical or metaphorical. Direct statement with generic simile I am the good teacher. I am ready to die for those who follow me. I am like a good herdsman, who lays down his life for his animals. In all cases, not only the target language words but their whole scenarios must be compared with the scenarios evoked by the source language words. Simply using a loan word in a metaphor is rarely communicative, since neither the literal nor metaphorical meaning is clear, for example treating Greek πρόβατον ‘sheep’ as a loan word: 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 389 Loan word as metaphor I am the good herder of probatons, who lays down his life for his probatons.

16.2. Scenario mismatch causes information loss

As discussed earlier, scenarios are information chunks in the brain, and allow information to be communicated in chunks. So if the source language scenario is different from the target language scenario, the same chunk of information will not be communicated, e.g. the leprosy scenario: New Testament Greek Leprosy is a very bad disease. Leprosy causes ritual impurity and untouchability. Healing must be validated by a priest at Jerusalem. Parkari: Leprosy is a very bad disease. The word “leprosy” in the Greek New Testament opened up the whole content of the leprosy scenario for the original audience, due to the author and audience’s “mutual cog- nitive environment”. But for Parkaris the word leprosy merely communicates a serious disease. Consequently, certain focal information, which the author left implicit in the source text since the audience could supply it from their similar mental scenarios, must be made explicit in translation. Unless this is done • lexical items will appear unrelated to the open scenario and coherence will be lost • information marked grammatically as Hearer-old will appear surprising, and • facts needed to make inferences will be unavailable. Where scenario mismatch causes the loss of information needed for following the logic of the text, the translation will need to make this information explicit, for example: Luke 5:12 in Parkari information made explicit from the “leprosy” scenario is underlined In that very place was a man who had the disease of leprosy. Therefore, that man was ceremonially- unclean. When he saw Jesus, then having fallen at feet, having pleaded he said “Holyman, if it be your will, youp having made me fit and well can make me pure.” Similarly, in Luke 7:1–10 the word ἑκατοντάρχης ‘centurion’ might be defined as a military officer in charge of a hundred men. But the New Testament scenario for “cen- turion” includes prototypical ethno-religious information such as non-Jew, normally polytheist. This information is vital for understanding Jesus’s punch line in 7:9: “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” So again, if this essential information is missing from the target audience’s scenario, it must be made explicit in translation. Where implicit information is focal throughout a pericope, it may be made explicit in the title, for example: The title of Luke 7:1–10 in Parkari information made explicit from the “leprosy” scenario is underlined An army officer of another race trusts on Jesus 390 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation

16.2.1. Proper nouns

Proper nouns often cause information loss in translation, since the source language speakers frequently have a detailed scenario for a name, but the target language speakers have a very reduced one. For example, the scenario of a specific name in the target language may not include whether it refers to a person or a place. Even if sentence-level semantics clarifies that it is a place, it may be unclear whether it is a town, province, river, or mountain. In such cases, making explicit the generic category of a name’s referent gives the audience the same level of information as was available to the original audience, for example information made explicit from the open scenario is underlined: 1 Peter 1:1 RSV : To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia Parkari: … scattered in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia provinces, Acts 11:19 RSV : traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch … Parkari: some reached as far as Phoenicia area, some Cyprus island and some Antioch town. Acts 21:1 RSV : to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. Parkari: to the island named Cos. On the next day from there came to the island named Rhodes, and from there again having gone to Patara town we descended. If the category of the name as used in the text is different from the commonly known category, failure to make it explicit will lead to misidentification, for example: Luke 3:3a RSV : and he went into all the region about the Jordan… Parkari: Therefore, John having come to the surrounds of the Jordan River … Jordan commonly refers to a country. These categories should be made explicit when, and only when, they are not part of the target audience’s scenario for the name. Too much information is as disruptive to communication as too little, as noted by Grice Sperber and Wilson 1986 :33: 1 Make your contribution as informative as is required. 2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

16.2.2. Personal names

The scenario for personal names includes not merely “human”, but frequently the gender and ethnic origin of the referent, and also, in the case of identifiable referents, their role or status. Such information, where focal, should be made explicit in translation so that the new audience can file the name in an appropriate scenario slot, predict what might happen, and recognize conceptual and lexical cohesion, for example. 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 391

16.2.2.1. Gender

Colossians 4:15 RSV : and to Nympha and the church in her house. Parkari: and lady Nymphas, and the Christian circle which gathers at her house The name Nymphas indicates a female, as does the Greek pronoun. Since the name is unknown in Parkari, and Parkari pronouns show no gender, the gender is made explicit in the translation, otherwise the referent would be understood as male.

16.2.2.2. Ethnic origin

Acts 10:1 RSV : At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion … Parkari: In Caesarea town there was one person of another race named Cornelius. He was one officer of the army of Rome land, … The name Cornelius, together with his rank in the Roman Army, indicates that this man was a gentile. This name is unknown in Parkari, so the non-Jewishness is made explicit, since the fact that Cornelius in not a Jew is of key importance in understanding Acts 10:1–11:18, as shown by Acts 10:28.

16.2.2.3. Role in society

Luke 3:1 RSV : In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar Parkari: In the 15th year of the kingship of Tiberius Caesar king of Roman government Caesar’s status is significant here as the most important ruler of the time. His name is followed by a list of lesser local rulers. Luke 18:38 RSV : Jesus, Son of David Parkari: Jesus, descendant of King David David’s status is significant as “Son of David” is a title of honour. A literal translation would be understood as simply naming the father. In some cases, the person referred to is less well known than a different person of the same name, and this may lead to misidentification, and hence inability to see the lexical cohesion, e.g. JoshuaJesus: Acts 7:45 μετὰ Ἰησοῦ RSV : with Joshua Parkari: our ancestors … having taken that tent came here with Joshua Although the Greek form of the names Joshua and Jesus is identical, the original audience had the time frame of Jewish history to disambiguate the referent as Joshua. Fortunately, English and Parkari have different forms of the name for the different referents, so the translation is unambiguous. 392 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation

16.2.2.4. John the BaptistJohn the disciple

Luke 3:2 John the son of Zechariah Luke 5:33 The disciples of John Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water Luke 5:10 James and John, the sons of Zebedee Luke 6:14 Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John Acts 1:13 Peter and John and James and Andrew Here, although John the Baptist and John the disciple overlap in time, they are still distinguished by the scenario they belong to: • John the Baptist’s scenario including son of Zechariah, teacher, and baptized • John the disciple’s scenario including son of Zebedee and disciple of Jesus For target audiences where scenarios for these referents do not include these basic details, the translation would need to make the referent explicit, e.g. Luke 5:33: “The disciples of John the Baptist”. Occasionally the source text includes nonfocal information with a personal name simply to disambiguate the referent. This may require even more explicit disambiguation in the target language than in the original language, for example: Acts 13:14 ντιόχειαν τὴν Πισιδίαν RSV : Antioch of Pisidia Parkari: Antioch town of Pisidia area i.e. not Antioch in Syria John 14:22 ούδας, οὐχ ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης RSV : Judas not Iscariot Parkari: Judas, not Judas Iscariot but the other disciple named Judas This is the only mention in John’s Gospel of any Judas other than Judas Iscariot, so simply saying “not Iscariot” does not clarify the referent for the Parkari audience, even if they have read the Gospel throughout. Therefore, the translation makes explicit that this Judas was one of the disciples. Sometimes the source text includes contextually focal information with a personal name, which also disambiguates the referent. If the translation needs to be more explicit than the source text in order to disambiguate the referent, such explicit information should be contextually focal, for example: 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 393 Acts 14:26 ἀπέπλευσαν εἰς ντιόχειαν, ὅθεν ἦσαν παραδεδομένοι τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ RSV : they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God … Parkari: they set off back to their own Antioch town, where the Christians had given them into the care of God … cf., 13:1–3 Occasionally the source text uses a personal name metaphorically. Here again the translation may need to be more explicit than the original in order to open the correct scenario, for example: Matthew 17:12 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι λίας ἤδη ἦλθεν RSV : But I tell you that Elijah has already come Parkari: But I tell you with assurance that the one doing the preparation for my coming, whom one has called Elijah in Scripture, he indeed had come. Making John the Baptist explicit here would make nonsense of 17:13: “Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.” Jesus was apparently leaving the audience to think out who he meant, so Parkari makes explicit the contextually focal elements of the Elijah scenario which the original audience knew from Malachi 4:5.

16.3. Scenario mismatch reduces lexical cohesion

Where the scenarios of source and target languages do not match, a literal translation may provide less lexical cohesion for its own target audience than the source text did for the original target audience. For example, in Luke 10:13 “sackcloth” and “ashes” belong in the New Testament Greek scenario of “repentance”. However, they are not in the Parkari scenario of “repent- ance”, so the connection needs to be made explicit, otherwise textual cohesion is lost. In Parkari, sitting in dust or ash and wearing dark clothes are signs of grief, such as bereave- ment, so the Parkari “grief” scenario can be used to fill out the Greek “repentance” scenario, for example: Luke 10:13 RSV : they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. Parkari: the people of there would early having abandoned their bad works have done repentance, and having put on clothes made from goats’ hair have sat in grief on ash, and have gone on God’s matter. The Parkari word glossed “repentance” expresses an emotion, not a radical change of behaviour, so the action of abandoning wrong and embracing right behaviour, included in the Greek scenario of μετενόησαν, must also be made explicit “having abandoned their bad works … have gone on God’s matter”.

16.3.1. Metaphorical scenarios

If a source language metaphor, which is not used in the target language, is translated literally, lexical cohesion and logical coherence are lost. The reader is left confused, 394 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation since the metaphorical link to the open scenario is severed, and the literal meaning does not fit the context. For example, John the Baptist’s teaching in Luke 3:9, 17: RSV Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire… His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. Such language is never used metaphorically in Parkari, and the literal meaning has no relevance to the context of repentance. In translation, the meaning of such metaphors must be clarified, for example: Parkari But now God is about to punish men, as if someone is standing with axe poised at the stump of the tree. And just as in whichever tree there is no fruit, a person chops it down and throws it into the fire, so God will punish those who do not walk on his matter… As someone stands with his winnowing- fork on the threshing floor, and having cleaned his grain keeps it in his barn, but the chaff he burns in fire, so he [God] is about to judge people. He will keep those walking on God’s matter with him, but those not walking [on his matter] he will burn in such a fire as is never extinguished. The Parkari phrase “walk on God’s matter” means “obey God”. Sometimes, especially if the metaphor is not part of extended imagery, the best solution is to drop it altogether, for example: Luke 3:7 RSV : You brood of vipers Parkari: O evil minded [people] Occasionally, the source language metaphor is not used in the target language, but the literal meaning of the metaphor fits the open scenario. For example, in John 21:15– 18, Jesus asks Peter to “feed my sheep”. Since many Parkaris keep sheep, but “sheep” is not a Parkari metaphor for “followers”, the literal understanding of “feed my sheep” seems coherent. In translation, this miscommunication must be avoided, for example: John 21:17 Parkari: As a herdsman pastures the sheep, so you look after my people. Wherever lexical cohesion is achieved by mixing literal and metaphorical scenarios, there is always a potential translation problem. For example puns, where the same words have both literal and idiomatic meaning, cannot normally be translated Catford 1965 :94; Baker 1992 :70.

16.3.2. Name scenarios and wordplay

Similar problems occur in the New Testament when trying to translate wordplay on names. Names are generally used referentially, without any “sense” meaning. Conse- quently, names are usually transliterated, rather than translated according to meaning, so the scenario of the name in translation no longer contains the original meaning. Scripture, however, frequently connects the meaning of a name with the character or significance of the person so named, either based on the genuine etymology of the name, or by producing a new folk-etymology. Since the meaning of the name or its phonologi- cal connection to the folk-etymology was part of its Source Language scenario but is not 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 395 in the Target Language scenario, where context shows that the meaning of a name is implicit, it should be made explicit in translation, for example: Genesis 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, which means “living”, because she would become the mother of all the living. Genesis 4:1 she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. In the Hebrew language Cain sounds like “brought forth”. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” Matthew 1:21 you are to give him the name Jesus, meaning “the LORD saves”, because he will save his people from their sins. Philemon 10–11 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus … Although his name means “useful”, formerly he was useless to you. But now he really has become useful both to you and to me. Philippians 4:3 Yes, and I ask you Syzygus, loyal coworker as your name suggests, help these women …

16.4. Scenario mismatch skews expectations

If the target language scenario does not contain the same elements as the source language scenario, then the audience will have different expectations as to what is likely to occur. This means that unexpected elements may appear normal, and normal elements may appear surprising or controversial. Since both Greek and Parkari grammatically mark Hearer-old expected information and Hearer-new unexpected information differently, failure to note scenario mismatch may result in information which is unexpected for the hearer being grammatically marked as expected. For example, a Prenuclear Aorist Participle in Greek is regularly translated by a Nonfinal verb form in Parkari, since both mark a prototypical event in the script of the Main Verb’s scenario. If, however, an event is part of the prototypical script in the source language, but not in the target language, use of a Hearer-old verb form miscues the audience, presenting what is strange to them as if they should have expected it. Somehow, the translation must show the target audience that this seemingly strange event was normal for the original audience. In Mark 14:63, the Prenuclear Aorist Participle marks that the high priest tearing his robe is a prototypical element of the scenario of declaring a blasphemy charge proven, for example: ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς διαρρήξας τοὺς χιτῶνας αὐτοῦ λέγει, Τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; The high-priest having.torn the clothes of.him says what yet need we.have of.witnesses And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses?” For Parkaris, tearing one’s clothes is not prototypical in any scenario except madness. The translation must, therefore, avoid presenting this as Hearer-old because it 396 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation is not part of the open Parkari scenario, yet present it as natural in the circumstances, not a sign of madness. To do this, Parkari uses a Main Verb and makes the purpose of this act explicit, that is: Then the chief priest to show himself grieved tore the robe he wore and said: “Now what need do weincl have of other witness bearers?” The Parkari translation is based on the exegesis that the appropriate response to blasphe- my is an expression of deep grief and horror that others have shown disrespect to God, yet the high priest is inwardly pleased at Jesus’s blasphemy as it seals Jesus’s fate. In support of this exegesis Cole 1989 :307 states that the “symbolic tearing of garments, by now traditional on hearing blasphemy, was in origin a sign of grief … e.g. Leviticus. 10:6. Here it had been distorted into a sign of joy at a wicked purpose successfully accomplished” cf., Hendriksen 1974 :612–613. Old Testament evidence for the prototypicality of tearing clothes on hearing blas- phemy is found in Numbers 14:6 where Joshua and Caleb tear their clothes because the people refuse to follow God’s leading, 2 Chronicles 34:19–21 where King Josiah tears his clothes because unwittingly his ancestors had not “kept the Word of the Lord”, and most significantly in Jeremiah 36:24 where King Jehoiakim systematically cuts up the scroll of Jeremiah’s prophecy and burns it, but “the king and all his attendants who heard all these words showed no fear, nor did they tear their clothes”. The author, by recording what people did not do, shows clearly that their actions were not prototypical. In all these cases people tore, or were expected to tear, their clothes on hearing that others had failed to show God proper respect. Compare also 2 Kings 18:37–19:1, again in response to blasphemy Davies and Allison 1997 :533. The charge of blasphemy against Jesus is presumably for “wrongly claiming for oneself divine prerogatives” as in John 10:36 Davies and Allison 1997 :533, here by implicitly claiming in Mark 14:62 to be “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One”. Similarly, the Greek article marks nouns as Hearer-old, i.e. prototypical elements of the open scenario. Where the Parkari scenario differs, not only may the referent need to be clarified, but the expectedness of the information may need to be explicit, for example: Luke 5:14 καὶ αὐτὸς παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ … ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῷ ἱερεῖ RSV : And he charged him … go and show yourself to the priest The article shows that the priest is prototypical in the open “leprosy” scenario. In Parkari culture there is no priest in the leprosy scenario, so this is unexpected. Moreover, priests are found at every place of worship, not just at a single centre. The Parkari translation makes explicit the location and identity of the priest: Then Jesus said to him … having gone into God’s house, show fut your body to the priest who should be doing the work of ritual-worship there … 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 397 Similarly: Matthew 9:23 Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ ησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς RSV : And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house, and saw the pipe-players The Greek article shows that the pipe-players are prototypical in the open “death” scenario. In Parkari culture there is no music when a death has occurred, so this is unexpected, indeed shocking. The Parkari translation makes explicit the rationale for their presence: When Jesus reached the house of the leader, there he saw those people who according to own custom were playing pipes on the death of the girl … Even where Greek has no grammatical Hearer-old marking, it may be necessary to make prototypicality explicit in translation, for example: Acts 16:3 περιέτεμεν αὐτὸν διὰ τοὺς ουδαίους τοὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐκείνοις· he-circumcised him because-of the Jews the[ones] being in the places those ᾔδεισαν γὰρ ἅπαντες ὅτι λλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν. knew for all that Greek the father of-him was Since Parkaris know circumcision as an Islamic practice, the translation makes explicit that it is also a Jewish practice and was performed here, not under duress, but to avoid causing offence: Therefore, he got Timothy’s circumcision done according to the rites and customs of the Jews, so that it would not strike the Jews as bad, because all the Jews of that area knew that his father was of a different race.

16.5. Scenario mismatch prevents correct inferences

If the target language scenario does not contain the same elements as the source language scenario, then the specific facts needed for making correct inferences may be unavailable. Where the author intends the audience to infer information which is not explicit in the text, such information is called an implicature. These implicatures will need to be made explicit in translation, otherwise the target audience will either miss the inferences altogether, or make false inferences on the basis of the contents of their own scenarios. for example: Matthew 27:34 wine … mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. Intended implicature: He would not drink because it was an anaesthetic and he needed to be conscious. Apparent implicature: He would not drink because it tasted foul. Parkari translation: the juice of grapes … in which bitter drug was mixed for reducing pain. But having tasted that he refused to drink in order to remain in consciousness. Wine is unknown in Parkari culture, hence the translation “juice of grapes”. 398 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation Matthew 4:4 It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone … Intended implicature: It is written in Scripture and, therefore, is authoritative. Apparent implicature: This is someone’s opinion, written down. Parkari translation: It is written in Scripture … Luke 6:1–2 His disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands … “Why are you doing what it is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” Intended implicature: The disciples are “working”, which is forbidden on the Sabbath. Apparent implicature: The disciples are stealing, which is forbidden on the Sabbath. Parkari translation: His disciples were plucking heads of grain, and rubbing them in their hands eating their grains … “Why are you doing work like harvesting today? In ourincl religion one should not do any work on the holy day.” John 12:34 We have heard from the law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man? Intended implicature: The “Son of Man” is not the “Christ”. Apparent implicature: The “Son of Man” is not Jesus. Parkari translation: Weexcl have heard from Scripture that God’s chosen saver Christ will remain alive for ever. And we indeed are understanding thus that the son of the human race and the saver Christ are one and the same. So then why are you saying, that I the son of the human race having been raised high will go from the world? If the meaning of the son of the human race is not Christ, then what is its meaning?

16.6. Scenario mismatch means the source text may lack information required by the target language

Since scenarios are culturally-based, both the real-life experiences they contain and the categorization of those experiences will differ from culture to culture and language to language. A particular problem for translation is the level of hierarchy at which lexical items are formed and used in text. If the source text uses a generic term where the target language only has a specific, or would naturally use a specific, then the translator needs more information than is in the text. For example, Greek has a generic term δακτύλιον ‘ring’. Parkari has no generic term, but three specific terms—one for • a plain band • a ring with a stone, and • a ring made of coiled wire. When a “ring” is put on the prodigal son’s finger, Parkari must specify what kind of ring it was. Exegesis, based on the apparent function of this ring within the parable as signify- ing restored status as a son, together with extra-textual historical evidence about the form of rings, favours a ring with a stone, possibly used as a signet ring of authority. Hence: 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 399 Luke 15:22 δότε δακτύλιον εἰς τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ RSV : put a ring on his hand Parkari: put him a signet-ring on hand The point is, one cannot just translate “ring” into Parkari. “Rings” exist in Parkari culture, but the different types are not categorized as one kind of thing, except at the higher hierarchical level of “jewelry”. There are actual rings, but there is no single mental scenario for “ring”, only three distinct scenarios, one for each type. Parkari kinship terms are also very specific. Whereas English “uncle” may mean the brother of one’s father or mother, or the husband of the sister of one’s father or mother, each of these four types of “uncle” has a distinct kinship term in Parkari, with no generic term “uncle”. Consequently, Greek kinship terms frequently give insufficient information to identify which Parkari term is correct, for example: Colossians 4:10 Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ RSV : Mark the cousin of Barnabas Parkari: Mark, who is Barnabus’s brother in relationship Parkari has no generic term “cousin”, but four distinct terms: “brother” or “sister” qualified by an adjective showing whether the relationship is through the father’s or mother’s brother or sister. Since the exact relationship is unknown here, Parkari uses a vague term indicating “not true brother”. Similarly, Greek υἱός refers to a descendant regardless of the number of intermediate generations. The Parkari word for son, however, only covers a single generation difference, so υἱός must be translated contextually, for example: Matthew 26:37 υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου RSV : sons of Zebedee Parkari: sons of Zebedee Matthew 1:1 υἱοῦ βραάμ RSV : son of Abraham Parkari: descendant of Abraham Greek ἐγέννησεν ‘begat’ also seems to include any number of generations. Thus, in the genealogies in Matthew 1:1–17 and in Luke 3:23–38, regardless of whether the relationship is lexicalized or not, it is not always certain how many generations separate consecutive names in the list Hagner 1993 :8; Davies and Allison 1988 :166; Hendriksen 1974 :116, 119. Since the Parkari word for son only applies to one generation removed, the genealogies in Parkari are translated using the term “descendant”, which covers any number of generations, for example: 400 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation Luke 3:23 ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, ωσὴφ τοῦ λὶ RSV : being the son as was supposed of Joseph, the son of Heli, Parkari: According to people’s understanding Jesus was Joseph’s son. He was the descendant of Heli Matthew 1:2 βραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν σαάκ, … RSV : Abraham was the father of Isaac, … Parkari: Abraham’s descendant was Isaac. … Sometimes the Greek text uses a generic term where the equivalent generic term in Parkari is inappropriate. For example, the good Samaritan puts the injured man on his κτῆνος ‘beast’. Parkari has a generic word for “beast”, z ənɑʋəɾ, but “humans ride them” is not a prototypical element of this scenario. Moreover, in Parkari a generic term would not be used to refer to a single specific animal. Extra-textual evidence suggests “donkey” as the likely referent. Hence: Luke 10:34 ἐπιβιβάσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον κτῆνος RSV : he set him on his own beast Parkari: having lifted him onto his donkey Again, scenario mismatch means that the translator needs specific information which is not explicit in the text. Personal pronouns and affixes Scenarios relate not to reality, but to perceptions and categorizations of reality. This is apparent in the pronouns and affixes of a language. For example, the degree of respect due to certain people affects both lexicon and grammar in Parkari. When addressing a religious leader as “guru” it is obligatory, unless one intends disrespect, to add the honorific particle “ji”. Similarly, when addressing an individual who is due greater honour than oneself, a Parkari uses the second person plural pronoun and verb forms. In other words, the Parkari scenario linked to second person plural pronoun and suffixes includes both plural referents, and singular referent plus respect. The problem in translation is not just that singular and plural forms are mismatched where respect is a factor, but also that the source text may not mark whether respect is intended or not. As Catford 1965 :91 comments: An English youth may easily address his father in casual style; an oriental youth on the other hand may have to use honorific forms in such a situation. Both respect and affection may be present in the situation, but respect may not be a stylistically relevant feature for the English son, while it is relevant for the Asian son. Thus, when translating into a language which marks respect, one must look for clues as to the relationship between the characters involved in dialogue. First one should establish the expected social relationship between the characters and then decide whether any 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 401 character deliberately shows disrespect or exaggerated respect. The choice of pronouns depends on these exegetical decisions. Often relative status can be deduced from the source text due to age, kinship rela- tionship, or social role. The attitude of the speaker can usually be deduced from the immediate co-text of what is said, and the wider co-text of their character and other actions. The appropriate use of respectful forms in the translation depends on the natural usage in the target language. Here are some Parkari examples, where use of plural for a singular addressee shows respect means greater than, less than, = equal to: Singular, with normal respect Mary to Jesus mother child Luke 2:48: Son, what is this you have done to us? … God to Jesus using the fatherson analogy, father son Luke 3:22: You are My dear Son. I am very happy with You. Jesus to Peter teacher disciple Luke 5:10: Fear not Philip to Nathaniel friend = friend John 1:46: Come along and see for yourself Singular, with disrespect Satan to Jesus Satan God’s Son Luke 4:3: If you are God’s Son … Demons to Jesus demons God’s holy one Luke 4:34: What relationship have you with us? Plural, with respect Disciples to Jesus disciple teacher Luke 22:9: What is yourpl wish that we make preparation where? Jesus to Pilate subject ruler Luke 23:3: As youpl are saying I am. Jesus to Centurion religious leader secular leader in secular sphere Matthew 8:13: Gopl home. Centurion to Jesus secular leader religious leader in religious sphere Matthew 8:8: Holyman, I am not such that youpl should come into my low-caste home. It is too simplistic just to note the social relationship between speaker and addressee, or even the speaker’s feelings about the addressee. In some cases the speaker is deliberately disguising their real feelings, for example: 402 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation Plural, with pretended respect Spies to Jesus ordinary people religious leader Luke 20:21: we know indeed that whatever youpl say and teach … Similarly, there is mismatch between Greek and Parkari first person plural pronouns. Parkari has two first person plural pronouns, ɑpe ‘we inclusive’, i.e. speaker and addressees, and əme ‘we exclusive’, i.e. speaker and some others, but not the addressees. Thus the first person plural scenarios include different combinations of first, second, and third persons, that is: Greek scenario we = 1st singular and any others Parkari scenarios we inclusive = 1st singular and 2nd singularplural we exclusive = 1st singular and 3rd singularplural Before translating, therefore, the referents of Greek first person plural forms must be determined from the scenarios of potential referents, for example: We inclusive Crowd to each other Luke 5:26: Today weincl have seen astounding works. Disciples to Jesus Luke 8:24: Guru ji, o guru ji, ‘weincl are drowning’ Jesus is also liable to drown. Father to prodigal son Luke 15:23: Weincl having eaten will make merry We exclusive The crowd in their own minds Luke 3:8: Do not reckon thus ‘Weexcl indeed are descendants of Abraham’ … John is verbalizing the thoughts of the crowd. Thoughts have no second person addressee. Peter to Jesus Luke 5:5: Guru ji, ‘the whole night weexcl indeed cast nets’ John’s disciples to Jesus Luke 7:19: Are youpl God’s chosen saver …, or should weexcl wait for someone else? These exegetical decisions are often more complex in the Epistles, where even in one verse the first person plural may have different referents, for example: 16. Scenario Theory and Translation Problems 403 Romans 3:8a Greek: καὶ μὴ καθὼς βλασφημού μεθα καὶ καθώς φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὅτι Ποιήσω μεν τὰ κακὰ, ἵνα ἔλθϮ τὰ ἀγαθά; NIV : Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Parkari: If someone were to say thus, that would be just an excuse that “Let usincl by all means do evil works, so that good result may come out.” Some people criticizing usexcl accuse usexcl of this that weexcl ourselves teach thus. But weexcl indeed do not say thus. Here “we” who are criticised, must include Paul and may include “other apostles” Moo 1996 :195, but does not include the addressees of Paul’s letter. The “we” in “let us do evil”, however, is inclusive, since this is an encouragement for the hearers to accept the speaker’s viewpoint and join in doing evil. Sometimes it is necessary in translation to clarify the referents even further, especially if the identification depends on extra-textual knowledge of the scenarios of speaker or audience, for example: 1 Corinthians 8:5b–6a Greek: ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν … RSV : as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”, yet for us … Parkari: and there are many such things which people call God and Lord, nevertheless for usincl Christians … Romans 3:9a Greek: Τί οὖν; προεχό μεθα; οὐ πάντως· RSV : What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all Parkari: So then what should weincl Jews understand? Are weincl Jews better than other race folk? No no, absolutely not. Exegesis here depends on both the co-text and the original interpersonal and cultural con- text of the letter. On this basis, “we” is best understood as “we Jews”, rather than “we gentiles”, “we Christians”, “we apostles”, or “I” Paul himself cf., Moo 1996 :199; Morris 1988 :164. Some argue that Greek first person plural can also refer to first person singular, e.g. in Romans 3:9b προϮτιασάμεθα, which RSV translates ‘for I have already charged’ cf., Morris 1988 :166. If so, this would be yet another mismatch between Greek and Parkari first person plural forms. Lack of a grammatical category does not mean unawareness of that category. For example, English speakers are well aware from contextual clues whether “we” includes or excludes the person addressed, and when in doubt, can ask for clarification. However, the presence of a grammatical category shows a clear awareness of it, and failure to use an appropriate category in translation results in miscommunication.

16.7. Chapter summary

Scenario mismatch between source and target cultures causes potential miscom- munication in translation. This includes 404 Section 4. Scenarios and Translation • loss of information • reduction of lexical cohesion • skewing of expectations • inability to make correct inferences, and • insufficient textual evidence for exegetical choices required by the target language’s grammar or lexicon. Consequently, unless these issues of scenario mismatch are addressed, a translation will fail to be accurate, clear, and natural and will not be correctly understood by its intended target audience. 405

17. Scenario Theory and Translation Principles