Signs for Words

Extracted text from Signs_for_Words.pdf:

Signs for words the possibilities for the literal translation in Finnish Sign Language Seppo Sipil, Finnish Bible Society A paper read at a UBS EME Symposium on Translation Principles, Crawley, 2008

Introduction Translation principles form an important topic to any translator, a Bible translator included. As the topic is important it is mandatory to discuss it. In this paper I shall look at the principles from the point of view of a Sign Language project. Further on, my paper will limit the discussion to the literal translation only. The literal translation, as I understand the issue, is an opposite of the meaning-based translation, at least in a sense that the meaning-based translation concentrates on meaning and the literal translation on words. In my concrete example of a translation project, the translation of the Gospel of Luke into Finnish Sign Language (FiSL), we have a problem with words. The concept of word is problematic, since sign languages do not have words, but signs. One cannot assume a one to one match between spoken or written words and signs in a Sign Language. This simple fact has far reaching consequences on the literal translation.

Literal translation Either because of my linguistic background or because of my training and research, the term literal translation is puzzling to me. What makes a translation literal and what makes it a non-literal one? When I once approached one of my teachers with this question, she said that any translation, which is not literal, is free one. Her answer does not, in fact, help a lot, but illustrates the problem. James Barr in his groundbreaking study Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations discusses the issue of the literal translation in a more helpful way.1 He points out that there are several ways in which a translation can be literal. He speaks about segmentation of the text, about additions and omissions, about consistency etc. However, his study is not often recognized out side of the circle of Septuagint 1

James Barr, Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations [MSU 15. Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht: Gttingen, 1979].

Sipil Signs for Words

scholars. Barr starts by noting that we normally use a simplified terminology when speaking about literal and free translations. When doing so, says Barr, we suppose that the terms are clear for everyone.2 But are they? Let us consider Gen 1:1 as an example: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (CEV, REB, TEV) Theo van der Louw classifies this English translation as a literal one.3 Somehow, my intuition says that it is not. In my mind the literal translation of the Hebrew into English would be something like in the beginning created God the heavens and the earth (note the word order). According to Douglas Robinson the literal translation means the segmentation of the source language text into individual words and target language rendering of these word-segments one at the time.4 Robinsons definition means that during the translation process the word order and the sentence structure of the source language remain untouched. So, we may say that the literal translation, as I normally understand the term, has two characteristics: a tendency to render source language words with fixed target language expressions (e.g. created and the heavens), and a tendency to follow the source language grammatical structure in the target language especially in cases where the normal target language idiom would be different.5 This paper will concentrate on the issues relating to the structure of the text, the second characteristic element of the literal translation. I think that there are important limitations for the literal translation. If the literal translation has to do with the structure of the text, and more precisely with the word order, it is possible only in case of two languages that are very similar in their word order and grammatical structure or in case where target language allows flexibility in the word order (like Finnish does)6. But if the target language uses a fixed word order 2 3

Barr, Typology of Literalism, 5-6. Theo van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint [Contribution to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 47; Peeters: Leuven, 2007], 64. 4 Douglas Robinson Literal translation in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [ed. M. Baker; Routledge: London and New York 1998] , 125. 5 See also Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto, Kopiointia vai kommunikointia? Johdatus knnsteoriaan . [3. ed. Finn Lectura: Helsinki, 2002], 27. 6 It is customary to say that in Finnish the word order is free even though this is not quite so. As Terho Itkonen, Kieliopas [6. Ed.; Kirjayhtym: Helsinki, 1997], 90 says the word order in Finnish is relatively free, but that does not mean that different possibilities would be equally natural in a given situation. Itkonen (p. 90-93) gives four general rules for the proper use of word order in contemporary Finnish mainly concentrating on the order of the subject and verb: a) the emphasised subject comes after the

2

Sipil Signs for Words

(like English does), the literal translation can be a theoretical entity at best, because the translator must follow the target language rules in order to allow the readers to understand the translation correctly. Typically in normal transitive clauses in English the subject precedes the object.7 Thus, the clause the banana ate the monkey in normal English would mean that the monkey was consumed. It is only our knowledge concerning the world around us that indicates that there is something odd in the clause; bananas do not eat. To illustrate the issues encountered with the literal translation it seems advisable to look at a language that is very different from the Biblical languages. I have selected Finnish Sign Language (FiSL) as an example of a language different from the Biblical ones.

Structure in Finnish Sign Language As I cannot assume my readers to have much knowledge on FiSL, let me try to explain how it operates. In 1980s when I started to learn the FiSL, we were told that that the structure of the language was not known. People were using the language all the time, but theoretically it was not analysed properly. Some general rules could be established, but linguists did not understand details. Thus, the textbook of the time said [d]uring the present stage of the study of the Sign Language, no firm rule can be presented concerning the order of the individual signs under any given circumstance.8 However, we were told that the visual basis of the language, or iconicity, if you like, is the guiding general principle. That is to say that because FiSL, as any other SL, is based on visual perception things must be presented in a visually meaningful way.9 That was more than 20 years ago.

verb, b) if a subordinate clause precedes the main clause, the subject of the main clause precedes the verb, be it emphasised or not, c) the subject of the reporting clause following the direct speech comes after the verb, if it is not a pronoun, and d) emphasised words tend to be placed at the end of the clause. As he finally underlines, the rules given are linked with clause types that have a potential to mislead the reader, if the word order is not natural. In most of the transitive clauses, however, the word order used is SVO. 7 According to Sidney Greenbaum and Randolph Quirk, A Students Grammar of the English Language [Longman: Harlow, 1990], 207 the object follow the subject and verb. The few exceptions to this are related to negation (p. 224), wh-questions (p. 237-238), exclamatives (p. 244), and fronting (p. 407409). 8 Juha Palmu, Viito elvsti 2 [Kuurojen Liitto: Helsinki, 1983], 91. 9 Palmu, Viito elvsti 2, 90. Palmu does not specify what he means by visually meaningful way of organizing the information. I understand visually meaningful in a sense that the order of the signs makes it easier to visualize the action. As Terhi Rissanen, Viittomakielen rakenteen visuaalisuudesta ja ikonisuudesta, in Kden knteess. Viittomakielen kntmisen ja tulkkauksen teoriaa sek

3

Sipil Signs for Words

Today (2008), one may say a little more about the rules and structures in FiSL. When we speak about the structure of FiSL, we must start form the basic elements of the language. One may think that the signs would form the basis of a SL, but this is not quite true. Signs have structures just like words. It is becoming customary to speak about five elements that constitute signs in a SL. They are the hand shape, the location, the movement, the orientation, and the non-manual elements.10 These elements are not used in a haphazard way, and therefore SL is not a special form of mime. The sense or meaning of the sign often dictate what the elements are and how they are used. Also, the number of the elements used is limited. There are, according to the basic literature, only 39 different hand shapes used in FiSL.11 What is especially interesting is that in FiSL the hand shape and the visual appearance of the object in question are linked together. Thus, flat objects (like a book) are signed using a different hand shapes than thin and long objects (like a tree). The number of locations is even smaller, namely 17.12 Some signs are fixed on certain location(s), but many of them can appear in different locations. The signer then builds up the actual language by using these basic elements. He or she decides what signs to be used and in which order. The user of FiSL taking the full advantage of the fact that the form and the hand shape are connected can even combine several linguistic units into morphologically complex signs. These complex signs are called polysynthetic signs.13 They get their form and meaning from the context and they are formed on ad hoc basis.14 The signs in FiSL can be divided into two major classes: verb-like-signs and nounlike-signs.15 Verb-like-signs refer to space, event, process, or deed. Noun-like-signs, on their part, refer to person, object, or location. Besides these signs proper, the language uses a variety of pointers in its referential system. In FiSL the most common

Glosses for the signs follow the current standard dictionary of FiSL ( Suomalaisen viittomakielen perussanakirja [Kuurojen Liitto: Helsinki, 2002]). INDEX sign can point to any object in a certain location. OWN indicates that something belongs to a person in a given location. PERSON sign refers only to persons and operates almost like the INDEX sign, but the hand shape and movement are different from INDEX. 17 Terhi Rissanen, Suomalaisen viittomakielen lauseoppia in Viittomakieliset Suomessa [ed. A. Malm; Finn Lectura: Helsinki, 2000, 147-167], 150. 18 Rissanen, Lauseoppia, 151. 19 Rissanen, Lauseoppia, 157-158. 20 In FiSL (as in many other SLs) pronouns are mainly replaced by an INDEX sign (pointing a direction with the index finger) making a reference to a location in the signing space. In this case, the signer has placed the centurion to the location 6 (to the left from himself). 21 But as Rissanen rightly points out speaking about the subject and the object may be misleading. We do not know today are these terms meaningful enough, when we speak about FiSL; Rissanen, Lauseoppia, 148. 22 Concerning ASL on this, see e.g. Sandler and Lillo-Martin, Sign Language and Universals, 341.

5

Sipil Signs for Words

pointers are INDEX, OWN and PERSON.16 I should mention here that other elements like conjunctions are very rare in FiSL. Even today the scholars say that the fundamental principle in using FiSL is its visuality. The signer must always pay attention to the visual appearance of things and issues.17 The need to organize the information in a visually meaningful way has a lot to do with the order of the signs in actual SL. In general, one may say that the verb is the core of a SL clause. Because one should start on how things look like, one tends to put the verb at the end of a clause and other element before it.18 This is natural because you first have to describe the participants, and only after that tell what they do. At the same time, this principle means that concrete things come before the abstracts. The visuality as the starting point seems to give preference to larger or bigger objects. So, the whole becomes before the parts and the bigger object before the smaller one. 19 On the other hand, the thematic element of the clause is placed at the beginning. For example in Luke 7:5 we find the following clause WE HUMAN GROUP INDEX-620 LOVE He loves our people (and not *our people love him) After what I have so far said one might think that in this case the group is placed before the individual, because of the principle that a larger entity precedes a smaller one. This is not the reason for the order. I have a feeling that in FiSL the object precedes the subject.21 So, the word order tends to be OSV. Also, it seems that the attributes precede the correlate, at least if they refer to the evaluation, size, or colour of the correlate.22 That explains the order WE HUMAN GROUP.

16

It is not uncommon that translators ponder from which direction characters approach the scene, because they must include that information into the text. In Luke 7:6 Jesus and his companions approach the house of the centurion from the left (audience perspective). This is natural, because Jesus is systematically located on the left hand side (the location 5) and other characters mainly on right hand side (the location 6). Luke 7:6 JESUS WITH TOGETHER-3>6 HOUSE-6 NEAR-3>6 Jesus approached the house together with others The system using space and fixed locations to encode information turns the whole structure of FiSL very different from spoken languages. Not only is there information in written text that is not expressed in FiSL, but there is also compulsory information that needs to be added to the SL translation not expressed in spoken languages. Also, the way the information is organized in FiSL clauses and paragraphs is based on what things and actions look like. This main principle means that possibilities in varying the order of signs are limited. One may therefore expect that when Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew is translated into FiSL several changes in word order are compulsory making it difficult to speak about the literal translations. The changes actually done can be seen when studying the result, the translated Biblical text. As an appendix for this paper, I have added glosses for Luke 7:1-10 in FiSL.

Literal translation into FiSL? I defined the literal translation as a translation where each word of the source language is rendered with fixed counterpart and where the word order of the source language is copied directly to the target language. The differences between Biblical languages and FiSL in word order, in the referential system, and in the way information is packed means that if a Biblical text is rendered into FiSL many changes must be made. It is neither possible to have a fixed rendering for each word in a Biblical text be it in Greek, or in Aramaic or Hebrew nor it is not possible to copy the structure of a Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew text into FiSL. Finally, I must add one important thing. Even though FiSL is very different from Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, or even Finnish, it is possible to sign spoken languages. In Finland spoken Finnish and Swedish can be signed in the sense that while signing the structure of the spoken language is indeed kept untouched. There are signs for words like conjunctions. There are signs even for main tenses and cases. But the result of using these signs is neither called FiSL nor Sign Language of any sort. The result is 7

Sipil Signs for Words

called Signed Speech. The reason for this is obvious. When signing follows the spoken language, the basics of the FiSL are violated and the language becomes broken. While the Deaf community makes a clear separation between Sign Language (proper) and Signed Speech, we should keep the same thing in mind. This is especially important because it has consequence when we speak about translating into FiSL. If we would try to do a literal translation into FiSL, the Deaf community would probably call the result as Signed Speech. This means that the term literal translation is impossible when we think about translations into FiSL. So, if the term literal translation is impossible when talking about translations into FiSL, we might want to use term only in restricted cases, where the structure of the source language can be reproduced in the target Language without much problem. In all other cases a better term is to be found.

8

Sipil Signs for Words

Appendix The Healing of a Centurions Servant (Luke 7:1-10) - FiSL glosses with English back translation and Greek text Numbers attached with glosses refer to locations in signing space. The system I use here follows the one introduced e.g. in Tommi Jantunen, Johdatus suomalaisen viittomakielen rakenteeseen [Finn Lectura: Helsinki, 2003], 40.

The English text gives a rough back translation of the SL behind the glosses, since I cannot assume that my readers can deduce the meaning of the text from glosses only.

7:1 JESUS TELL HUMAN GROUP HEAR>5 Jesus spoke and people listen READY JESUS GO-1>2 CAPERNAUM INDEX>6 After he had finished Jesus went to Capernaum (break) 7:2 ONE SOLDER LEADER OWN>6 SERVANT SICK NEARLY DIE A servant of a military leader was sick and dying LEADER INDEX>6 SEVANT PERSON-1 RESPECT That leader respected his servant (break) 7:3 INDEX>6 HEAR>5 JESUS He heard about Jesus PERSONx>5 ASK JEW HIGH-POSITION HUMANx-6 BRING-5>1 JESUS He asked the respected Jewish men to bring Jesus to him 9

Sipil Signs for Words

    SERVANT PERSON-6 SAVE to save the servant       (break) 7:4 JEW HIGH-POSITION HUMANx-6 JESUS MEET>5 The respected Jewish men met Jesus       BEG>5 SAY>5 Beging and asking:      (break) ASK MALE INDEX>6 NEED OWN>5 HELP Please, that man needs your help      (break) 7:5 WE HUMAN GROUP INDEX>6 LOVE He loves our people      ALSO WE OWN>1 JEW CONGREGATION For our Jewish congregation INDEX>6 ALREADY BUILD HOUSE He has built a house [= synagogue]       (break) 7:6 JESUS WITH TOGETHER-3>6 HOUSE-6 NEAR-3>6 Jesus approached the house together with others       LEADER SEND-4>5 OWN>6 FEW FRIENDx The leader sent some of his friends              MEET-4>5 To meet Jesus:  ,

10

Sipil Signs for Words

(break) LEADER INDEX>6 SAY This leader says: LORD INDEX>5 TROUBLE CLOSE-5>1 DO-NOT>5 Lord, do not trouble to come to me , , 7:7 (no break) ALSO INDEX>1 CLOSE-1>5 CANNOT As I did not come to you (break) [the rest of the verse moved to the end of verse 8] 7:8 COMMAND INDEX-h3>1 INDEX>1 OBEY I am subject to command from above ALSO SOLDER INDEX>2 INDEX>1 COMMAND INDEX-1>2 And I command solders , INDEX-2 OBEY And they obey (break) OWN-1 SOLDER INDEX-2 INDEX-1 SAY If I say to this solder of mine: , INDEX-2 GO>2 Go! , COMPLETE LEAVE-1>2 He will leave , INDEX-5 COME-5>1 Or to another: Come! , , COMPLETE COME-5>1 He will come ,

11

Sipil Signs for Words

(break) ALSO SERVANT PERSON-2 INDEX-1 SAY And if I say to this servant: , DO INDEXx-2 Do this! , COMPLETE DO He will do it. . (break) ANDx ALSO OWN>1 SERVANT PERSON-6 INDEX-5 ORDER-5>6 So, please, order this servant of mine , HEAL And heal him. . (break) LEADER INDEX-6 WELCOME-6>5 The leader asked Jesus to do this to him 7:9 JESUS SURPRISE>6 Jesus was surprised TURN-6>5 HUMAN GROUP He turned to people SAY And said: , LEADER OWN>6 FAITH COMPARE SAME JEW HUMAN GROUP INDEX-1 NEVER SEE-1>d I have never seen the same faith among Jews than this leader has , . (break) 7:10 FRIEND INDEXx-2 BACK-1>2>1 HOUSE-6 NEAR>6

12

Sipil Signs for Words

When the friends returned to the house of the leader SERVANT PERSON-6 ALREADY HEAL That servant was already healthy. .

13