A Text Linguistic Study of Romans 8:1-17. comparing English and Chinese translations

Transcription

1 City University of Hong Kong A Text Linguistic Study of Romans 8:1-17 comparing English and Chinese translations A paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics and Language Technology by Lau Pan Ying Peony May, 2014

2 This paper is dedicated to God who is the author of all wisdom For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:36, NIV) 因為萬有都源於他, 倚靠他, 歸於他 願榮耀歸給他, 直到永遠 阿們! 聖經環球新譯本 ( 羅馬書十一十章三十六節 )

3 Abstract A German theologian Philipp Spener said if the Bible were a ring and Romans its precious stone, chapter 8 would be the sparkling point of the jewel (Godet, 1977:295). The book of Romans is one of Paul s epistles in the Bible. The first part Romans 8:1-17 deals with the significance of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers of God, resolving the problem raised in the previous chapter. However, the noticeably frequent occurrences of the reference of the Spirit in Romans 8 mark a discrete discourse unit within the epistle. In light of this, this study hopes to investigate the ideology and inner beauty of this passage through a functional linguistic analysis. Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) suggests that a text (language in use) serves to make meaning ideationally, interpersonally and textually. A text consists of functionally-significant text spans characterized by distinctive lexicogrammatical patterning (texture). The spans contribute to the meanings of the text. Span beyond clause is discourse; discourse structures are studied in Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). This study investigates Rom 8:1-17 from a functional semantic perspective in terms of such lexicogrammatical structures such Theme and transitivity. The New Testament of the Bible was originally written majorly in Greek, but has been translated into various languages. How translations of different languages make different meanings in reader s mind is also the other concern in this paper. It is illustrated by an English translation and a Chinese, with the New International Version (NIV) and the Worldwide Chinese New Version (WCNV) taken as textual bases. Note that this study is not a textual criticism, thus the analysis of translation equivalence is beyond the scope of this study. It is suggested that while the two translations behave in different ways, both reveal i

4 lexicogrammatical texture and rhetorical evidence that communicate text producers meaning to readers. ii

5 Acknowledgements I owe my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Jonathan J. Webster, for his guidance and support throughout my research. It is him who brought me to a whole new world of functional linguistics in my final year, and led me to see the beauty of language. I am also indebted to Xiran Yeung, who helped me with my Chinese text analysis and solved many of my problems. I really appreciate her assistance. Thanks to all my friends who gave me support and showed understanding during my tough times. My heartfelt thanks to my brothers and sisters in the church, whose messages, phone calls and encouraging words warmed my heart. Your prayers were not in vain. I want to express my deepest gratitude to my parents for their continuous love and encouragement. They never interfere with my studies but supported with prayers and actions. They do reflect the love of God. Last but not least, I give thanks to the Lord who has always been my wonderful counsellor. To Him be the glory. iii

6 Table of Contents Abstract... i Acknowledgements... iii 1 Introduction Preliminaries Bible translations Functional linguistics Biblical studies and linguistic studies Research Background Motivation Objectives Methodology Textual basis Halliday s SFL Framework Analytical frame for this study On Transitivity Process Participants Comparison of transitivity structure between NIV and WCNV On Theme iv

7 5.1 Theme Comparison of Theme between NIV and WCNV On Cohesion: Reference Personal reference Specified noun as personal reference Structural cataphora as demonstrative reference Other features Semantic opposites Conclusion Appendix A: Word clouds for Rom 8: Appendix B: Clause parsing of Rom 8: Clause parsing of NIV Clause parsing of WCNV Appendix C: Analysis of Rom 8:1-17 according to the transitivity structure Transitivity structure of NIV Transitivity structure of WCNV Appendix D: Analysis of Rom 8:1-17 according to the Theme-Rheme structure Theme-Rheme structure of NIV Theme-Rheme structure of WCNV Appendix E: Thematic progression of Rom 8: v

8 Thematic progression of NIV Thematic progression of WCNV References vi

9 1 Introduction Communication is a crucial purpose in language use. As the author of a book wants to communicate his thoughts to readers, so does the author of the Bible. When reading the Bible, God want us to understand and follow his thought. The Bible is translated in to different languages. It is important to know how the translations communicate Scripture message to a reader. Since that linguistic studies on English and Chinese translations of the Bible are seldom, discourse analyse are even rare, and that different language translations of the Bible may give different impressions to readers, this paper attempts to compare English and Chinese Bible translations, and investigate the Bible text in a systemic-functional way. The book of Romans is one of Paul's epistles in the Bible. It has long been regarded as a theological treasure. A German theologian Philipp Spener said if the Bible were a ring and Romans its precious stone, chapter 8 would be "the sparkling point of the jewel" (Godet, 1977, p. 295). In light of this, this paper hopes to investigate the ideology and inner beauty of Romans 8:1-17. The goal of an exegesis is to think an author's thoughts after him (Piper, 2003, p. 19). This attitude also applies to this study. By analysing the Bible in a functional approach, it is hoped that we can hear God s Word the way it was written and understand it the way it was meant. 1

10 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Bible translations The Bible, the sacred book in Christianity, the best-selling book of all time. As of 2013, it has already been translated into more than 500 languages ("The worldwide status," 2014). Significant translations of the Bible in English include the King James Version, the American Standard Version, the New International Version, etc. Prominent Chinese translations are the Chinese Union Version and the Chinese New Version. There are a variety of approaches to Bible translation. Eugene Nida (1964) proposed two fundamental principles: Formal equivalence (F-E) and dynamic equivalence (D-E). The former is a word-for-word translation, focusing on the message itself, in both form and content (Nida, 1964, p. 159), having rigid adherence to the the original grammatical structure (Gordon, 2003, p. 9), while the latter, renamed as functional equivalence afterwards, focuses on the function of the source text. Nida noted that F-E is the closest natural equivalent to the sourcelanguage message, where equivalent points toward the source-language message, natural the receptor language, and closest binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation (Nida, 1964, p. 166). 2.2 Functional linguistics Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) proposed three related features of language. First, language is a social process. Halliday (1978) thinks that language is the ability to mean. It is a meaning potential, that is, a speaker can mean in the context of situation (pp. 2

11 27-28). Being appropriate to the situation is an essential element in the ability to mean (1978, p. 34). Secondly, Halliday (1978) views language as a system, i.e., a set of options (p. 40). He thinks that the grammar of any language can be represented as a very large network of systems, an arrangement of options in simultaneous and hierarchical relationship. The network is open-ended (1976, p. 3). This is why the term systemic is used in SFL the fundamental concept in the grammar of language is that of the system (Halliday, 1976, p.3). Lastly, SFL also views language as functional. Halliday (2004) identified the three metafunctions of language: the ideational, to construe human experience; the interpersonal, to enact social and personal relationships; and the textual, to give substance to the other two, and create discourse (pp ). Language in use, i.e. the text, serves to make meaning ideationally, interpersonally, and textually. A text consists of functionally-significant text spans characterized by distinctive lexicogrammatical patterning (texture). These spans contribute to the meanings of the text. Span beyond clause is discourse. The structures of discourse are studied in Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). Halliday viewed text as a sociological event: The essential feature of text, therefore, is that it is interaction. The exchange of meanings is an interactive process, and text is the means of exchange: in order for the meanings which constitute the social system to be exchanged between members they must first be represented in some exchangeable symbolic form, and the most accessible of the available forms is language. (Halliday, 2002, p. 50) 3

12 Brown and Yule (1983) suggested a two-way communication which further elaborates Halliday s view: We shall consider words, phrases and sentences which appear in the textual record of a discourse to be evidence of an attempt by a producer (speaker/writer) to communicate his message to a recipient (hearer/reader). We shall be particularly interested in discussing how a recipient might come to comprehend the producer's intended message on a particular recipient(s), in definable circumstances, influence the organisation of the producer's discourse. This is clearly an approach which takes the communicative function of a language as its primary area of investigation and consequently seeks to describe linguistic form, not as a static object, but as a dynamic means of expressing intended meaning. (Brown & Yule, 1983, p.24) 2.3 Biblical studies and linguistic studies Since Biblical studies have long been seen as a unique and self-contained discipline in itself, and due to the traditional interest and technicality of modern linguistics, Biblical scholars have generally neglected or even resisted against linguistics ( 黃錫木, 1990). It was not until 1961 when James Barr wrote The Semantics of Biblical Language that Biblical studies and linguistic studies first integrated (Silva, 1994; 黃錫木, 1990). During 1980s, there was a discourse revolution. Linguists attempted to use linguistic knowledge to analyse texts. Their major findings were integrated by some Biblical scholars into Biblical studies ( 黃錫木, 1990). Discourse analysis is one of the recent trends of linguistics-based biblical interpretation. The analysis of discourse is the analysis of language in use, i.e., text. Scholars have started to value the humanity of the Biblical Languages, as how Silva (1990) remarks, God has in his 4

13 wisdom spoken to us in the Bible through human languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). If we ignore the character of human language, we will likely misunderstand Scripture (1990, p. 17). Just as Jesus Christ is inseparably true God and true man, the Bible is both divine and human ( 黃錫木, 1990; 黃朱倫, 1999). In spite of this, not much discourse analysis has been done on the Bible aside from the original Hebrew and Greek. Studies regarding translations of the Bible mainly focus on the perspective of translation history, translation theories, literature or culture, or biblical criticism. Previous SFL studies on English and Chinese translations of the Bible are rare. Here list some studies from Chinese scholars: Qiao ( 喬玉, 2007) wrote her master dissertation comparing the thematic structure of parable openings in Matthew and Luke. Ji wrote a journal paper on the mood of the English Bible text in 2007 and modality in 2011 ( 季紅琴, 2007, 2011). Wong (2010) studied transitivity and theme of John 1:1-14 from three English Bible translations, analysing how translators influence readers' interpretation. Qi & Pu ( 齊憲凱 & 樸日勝, 2010) wrote a paper studying the experiential function of Psalm 139. Wang ( 王汐, 2013) studied the relationship of God and men through the interpersonal function of Biblical language. Xia & Gao ( 夏志建 & 高潔萍, 2013) interpreted the interpersonal meaning of the imperative clauses in Job. Guo Jia ( 郭佳, 2011) studied the Song of Songs in Chinese Union Version from a text linguistic perspective. 5

14 3 Research Background 3.1 Motivation One remarkable work on discourse analysis of the Romans in the original Greek Bible is Paul s Gospel in Roman: a discourse analysis of Rom 1:16-8:39 by Lee (2010). In his paper, he examined Romans 1:16-8:39 from a functional perspective. In the preface he wrote: The major objective is to answer the three questions: Where is Paul's central point(s) or peak(s) in Rom 1:16-8:39? What is the content of the peak point(s)? And how can one identify the central point(s)? In order to investigate Paul's arguments, this study suggests a discourse analytic methodology principally based on the Hallidayan systemic-functional model. (Lee, 2010, p. xiii) According to Lee s (2010) analysis, it is the noticeably frequent occurrences of the reference of the Spirit in Rom 8:1-39 that marks it a discrete discourse unit within the epistle. The first part of the chapter is Rom 8:1-17, which compares the past and the present the old realm in flesh and the new realm in God. Lee (2010) concludes that Paul s main concern in Rom 8:1-17 goes to believers status and life in the Spirit (pp ). Romans being a theological treasure of the Bible which speaks of important issues of Christian s lives, what this paper is curious is the translations this great book. As Nida (1986) noted, the role of a translator as a secondary or immediate source involves primarily communicating the intentions of the original author (p. 32). Do the translations preserve and convey the same messages as the original source? What are Paul s main ideas in the translations? And how different translations contribute to readers perception? 6

15 In view of the above interests, this paper decides on the Hallidayan systemic-functional perspective to examine the texture hence meanings of Romans 8:1-17 in both English and Chinese translations, and compare their differences. 3.2 Objectives The aim of this study is to investigate the major motifs in Romans 8:1-17, and compare how the two translated text from NIV and WCNV differ in meanings and impressions they give, by analysing the texts from a functional semantic perspective in terms of lexicogrammatical structures such as Theme and transitivity. Note that this paper is not a textual criticism, thus the analysis of translation equivalence is beyond the scope of this study. The main interests of this study are: 1. What are the central theme(s) of Romans 8:1-17? 2. Do the two translations give different meanings to readers? How? 3.3 Methodology This paper will deal with Romans 8:1-17 in the New International Version (NIV) and the Worldwide Chinese New Version (WCNV) from a functional perspective. 7

16 3.3.1 Textual basis The corpora used in this paper is taken from the New International Version (NIV) ("Romans 8:1-17," 2011) and the Worldwide Chinese New Version (WCNV) (" 環球新譯本 : 羅馬書," 2011). The New International Version (NIV) is the bestselling Bible translation worldwide ( NIV remains the bestselling, 2013). Aiming at balancing transparency to the original with clarity of meaning ( Translation philosophy, 2014), NIV adopts mixed formal and dynamic equivalence (Gordon, 2003; Thomas, 1990), which is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought. It has a reading level of 7.8 ( Bible Translation Guide, 2014), which is readable for eighth-grade readers. The Worldwide Chinese New Version (WCNV) was a revised version of the Chinese New Version (CNV) published in the early 1990s. Its translation is based on the following principles: faithful to Scripture's original languages, preserving the original meaning, and based on easy-to-read-and-understand modern Chinese which is comprehensible by readers of middle school level. WCNV strives to achieve a best equivalence to the original text of Scripture, in order that Scripture meanings to the original readers can be clearly expressed in modern Chinese ( 環球新譯本 介紹, 2014). Both NIV and WCNV were translated directly from the original languages of the Bible text. Both of their translation work began within the past few decades, and are contemporary English and Chinese. They have similar translation philosophy: aiming at high readability while staying true to the meaning of the original text of the Scripture. Therefore, these two translations have been selected for textual analysis. 8

17 3.3.2 Halliday s SFL Framework This paper adopts notions from Halliday's SFL framework to analyse the texts. It will focus on two of the metafunctions of language the ideational and the textual. Ideational meaning can be divided into experiential and logical meaning. The experiential pertains to construing experience in the world. Transitivity is one of the realisation of the experiential function. Voice is the other, which will not be a main issue in this paper. The logical is concerned with interdependency and logical-semantic relation. Halliday noted the relational structure between any two linguistic units (2004, p. 373). Taxis is the degree of interdependency parataxis or hypotaxis. They will be studied in brief when clauses are parsed. Logical-semantic relations between linguistic units include elaboration, extension, enhancement, and projection. Textual meaning copes with structures that give a text texture. Texture is what makes a text into a coherent piece of language. Cohesion is one aspect of texture. It relates to intersentence texture. On the other hand, what copes with intra-sentence texture is Thematic structure, which will be discussed in the next section. Below is a brief introduction of transitivity, cohesion and theme, which will be mainly covered in this study Transitivity A clause has meaning as a representation of some process in ongoing human experience (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 59). According to Halliday (2004), experience consists of a flow of events, chunked by the grammar of the clause into quanta of change as a figure a figure of happening, doing, sensing, saying, being or having. We talk about these 9

18 "goings-on" under the system of transitivity, in terms of the set of process types, participants involved, and circumstances associated. Process is typically realized by verbal group, participant nominal group, and circumstance adverbial group or prepositional phrase. Process are categorized into different types, including material (doing or happening), mental (sensing), relational (being or having), verbal (saying), behavioural (behaving), and existential (existing). Their corresponding participants are in Table 1 below. Table 1: Process types and Participants Process type Material Mental Verbal Relational: attribution Relational: identification Existential Participant Actor, Goal Senser, Phenomenon Sayer, Target, Verbiage Carrier, Attribute Identifier, Identified Existent In transitivity analysis, the type of process, role of participant and attendant circumstances are identified. Transitivity analysis in this study will focus on process and participants Cohesion The system of cohesion is a system of cohesive resources, which integrate clauses to form a whole. Halliday and Hasan (1976) suggested five types of cohesive devices: conjunction, reference, ellipsis, substitution, and lexical cohesion. This paper will discuss the references in particular. Being a means of cohesion, reference marks the status of identifiability of an element. If an element is identifiable, it can be recovered by the reader in some point in the text. 10

19 For in-depth discussion of cohesive devices, please refer to Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, Chapter 9) Theme Thematic structure gives the clause its character as a message. In a clause, the first group or phrase that has some function in the experiential structure of the clause is the Theme. It is the element which serves as the point of departure of the message selected by the speaker (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p.64), and the remainder of the message is Rheme. Topical Theme (or experiential theme) is equivalent to the topic in topic-comment. It is one of the three experiential elements that make up the transitivity structure, i.e., either participant, process or circumstance. Interpersonal Themes can be vocatives, modals or finite verbal operators. Textual Themes are continuatives or conjunctives. Simple theme has merely topical element either phrasal or clausal. In multiple themes, there can be multiple semantic components, which are typically in the sequence of textual, interpersonal, and topical. Martin (1992) suggests the notion of paragraph Themes in English Text: Structure and System: Marco-theme and Hyper-theme (p. 437). He extended Daneš s (1974) term hyper- Theme to refer to the topic at paragraph level, whereas macro-theme is defined as Theme at discourse level, usually found in the introduction of a text. Apart from Theme and Rheme, another important concept contributes to the discourse development is thematic progression. Thematic progression is the skeleton of the plot (Daneš, 1974). It influences the information flow in a discourse. Daneš (1974) suggests three main types of thematic progression: linear, continuous, and derived (p ). 11

20 In simple linear progression, each Rheme (R) becomes the Theme (T) of the next utterance. The new-as-rheme in the current clause becomes the given-as-theme in the next. T1 R1 T2(=R1) R2 T3(=R2) R3 Continuous thematic progression has the same theme repeated along clauses. T1 R1 T1 R2 T1 R3 Derived themes are themes are derived from a hyper-theme, which is a superordinate topic. T T1 R1 T2 R2 T3 R3 According to Hu et al. (2005, p ), there is one more type of thematic progression which is a crossed type. The current Theme is the previous Rheme, while the previous Theme is the current Theme. 12

21 T1 R1 T2 = R1 R2 = T1 The choice of theme contributes to the coherent development of the text. Analysing the thematic progression helps us to examine both the rhetorical development of the text. We will later discuss it in the text chosen. Chinese linguistic scholars such as Z. L. Hu ( 胡壯麟 ), Y. S. Zhu ( 朱永生 ), D. L. Zhang ( 張德祿 ), Q. L. Cheng ( 程琪龍 ), and Mark S. K. Shum ( 岑紹基 ), studied functional linguistics in Chinese and applied Halliday s SFL model into Chinese. Many scholars hold the same view, that for ideational and textual function of language, Chinese is similar to English, such that the transitivity, voice, Theme, and the cohesion system of English can be used in Chinese ( 岑紹基, 2010; 程琪龍, 1994; 胡壯麟, 朱永生, & 張德祿, 1989; 胡壯麟, 朱永生, 張德祿, & 李戰子, 2005). Hu et al. (2005) noted that the ideation function is not confined to English or Chinese, rather, it is universal (p ) Analytical frame for this study The first step in a SFL analysis is to carry out clause parsing. Embedded clauses are put in single parentheses. For the sake of readability, the basic structure of the two texts will be presented differently. Normally one line is for one clause. In case a clause is too long, it will be segmented according to phrasal unit. Parsed text in NIV will be formatted according to the 13

22 logical structure, i.e., parataxis or hypotaxis. Within a sentence (which is marked by a period), elements in a paratactic relation have the same indentation, while the second clause in a hypotactic relation is indented. Content of the WCNV text will be glossed in English. It has been decided on a simple mechanical layout without indentation for logical relations, which is derived from the inspiration from the Chinese Analytical Layout Bible edited by Patrick Y. Tang in 2003, based on the Chinese Union Version (CUV). For details of the layout method used in this Bible, please refer to (Tang, 2005). As aforementioned, the purpose of this study is to understand what Rom 8:1-17 is about, i.e., the main thought or emphasis of the author, and to compare the meanings given by the English and the Chinese text. In practice, this paper take the analytical frame for topicality in Jae Hyun Lee s (2010) book, Paul s Gospel in Romans: A Discourse Analysis of Rom 1:16-8:39, as a reference. Topicality refers to the about-ness in a discourse unit. The topic of a text should be decided by tracing the topical elements from the clause level to the discourse level. Lee s (2010) framework for the analysis of topicality includes Halliday s three semantic components ideational, interpersonal, and textual. This study will focus on ideational and textual meanings. Ideationally, transitivity analysis will be performed. Same as Lee, this study mainly uses the information about the processes and participants. This study also adopts Lee s second analysis to investigate the semantic domains of the text chosen. As far as textual meaning is concerned, one of the cohesive devices, reference, will be discussed, Theme-Rheme structure and thematic progression will also be examined. 14

23 4 On Transitivity In other to understand what experience the selected texts construe, we are going to examine the transitivity of the two texts in this chapter. First, the process component will be discuss, followed by participant, and finally a comparison between the transitivity of the English and Chinese texts. 4.1 Process In this section, we will examine the process element, in other to understand what experience the selected texts construe. Table 2: Distribution of process types in NIV and WCNV Process type NIV WCNV Total Material 15(35%) 19(37%) 34 Mental 3(7%) 5(10%) 8 Behavioural 6(14%) 4(8%) 10 Verbal 1(2%) 1(2%) 2 Relational 17(40%) 22(42%) 39 Existential 1(2%) 1(2%) 2 Total Table 2 shows the processes by type and by translation. From the table, we can see that process types in NIV and WCNV have similar distribution. In both translations, each of relational processes (being) and material processes (doing) make up more than one third of the processes. The two types together constitute more than 70% of all the processes in non-rank- 15

24 shifted (not embedded) clauses. The only verbal process and existential process in both translations respectively lie in v. 1 and v. 15. We can conclude that both translations of Rom 8:1-17 are generally relational- and material-oriented. In other words, it is believed that what Paul wants the original readers know is mainly something about relationships and doings or happenings. 4.2 Participants Here, we will analyse the participants involved in processes. The breakdown of process types by participant as Actor (doer) is shown in Table 3. Table 3: Distribution of participants in NIV and WCNV God Christ Spirit we you others N W N W N W N W N W N W M % 16% 7% 20% 21% 13% 11% 7% 40% 53% N % 20% 100% 60% B % 25% 33% 75% 1 1 V % 100% R - - 6% 5% 18% 9% 24% 5% 6% 5% 47% 77% 1 1 E % 100% t. 5% 8% 5% 2% 14% 12% 16% 10% 14% 4% 47% 65% Key: (N)IV, (W)CNV, M(aterial), me(n)tal, (B)ehavioral, (V)erbal, (R)elational, (E)xistential 16

25 Note that others includes clause without an Actor (doer). In a broader sense, participants mainly fall into either of two groups of semantic domain a sacred group or a human group. The sacred group includes the Trinity, i.e., God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Taking all nominal groups into account, the references to God in NIV appear twelve times, Christ eight times, the Spirit sixteen times. In WCNV, God is mentioned thirteen times, Christ nine times, the Spirit sixteen times. The Holy Spirit as participant occurs more than the other two in both translations. Thus we can jump to a conclusion that, in terms of the participation of the Trinity in all events in this passage, the Holy Spirit s participation is what Paul wants to stress on. For the human group, apart from we and you, others fall into one of these two categories: those who live according to the flesh ( 隨從肉體的人 ) or those who live according to the Spirit ( 隨從聖靈的人 ), in NIV s wordings. Pronouns as participants are also common. The plural you and we occur the most, but they are used for different people. Their associating contexts will be distinguished in Chapter 7.1. Of the seven occurrences of we in NIV, four occur in the Actor (doer) position with a relational process. The four occurrences of the plural pronoun you in NIV with a behavioural process are also remarkable (v.13). The processes occurred with them are live and die, which are matters of life and death. On the other hand, only three pronouns occur in WCNV with a relational or behavioural process. Moreover, use of pronoun in WCNV is less than that in NIV. This can be explained by the nature of Chinese as a pro-drop language. Examples will be discussed in Chapter 7.1. Now we can attempt to relate the analysis of process types with that of the participants. In the previous section, we expect that the passage wants to communicate some relationships 17

26 and happenings or doings. Now that we have come to know that the participants involve human and God, we can narrow down the content of Paul s message: it is relevant to God-human relationship, and probably the works of God. One thing noticeable is the participant body in vv Throughout the passage, Paul does not mention the body except in these two verses. Another clue is the presence of all three divine participants within vv These remarkable features may distinguish these verses as a span out of the whole passage. We will discuss this again in due course. In sum, as regards to the participants, semantically, there are two groups: sacred and human. In the sacred group of, the Spirit stands out for its highest frequency of appearance in the Scripture. As for the human group, two sub-groups are recognized, one of which connected to the flesh, another connected to the Spirit. 4.3 Comparison of transitivity structure between NIV and WCNV Among different translations, translators may have different choices in transitivity. This section aims to investigate how these differences give readers different impressions. We shall study the differences of choices of transitivity in NIV and WCNV by selecting some samples for discussion. First, consider v. 5. Note that <c 4a> and <c 4d> in NIV, as well as <c 3a> and <c 3c> in WCNV, are paratactic. NIV: <c 4a> 5 Those [<c 4b> who live according to the flesh] have their minds set on [<c 4c> what the flesh desires]; <c 4d> but those [< c 4e> who live in 18

27 accordance with the Spirit] have their minds set on [<c 4f> what the Spirit desires]. WCNV: <c 3a> [<c 4b> 5 隨從肉體的 ] 人, 關注肉體的事 ;<c 3c> [<c 4d> 隨從 聖靈的 ] 人, 關注聖靈的事 Here, the two versions have the same choice of process type, but different choices of participant. As far as the predicate is concern, NIV and WCNV use different verbs and complements in the mental processes of the parallel construction. In the English translation, the two Sensers in <c 4a> and <c 4d> has an embedded clause what the flesh / the Spirit desires as the Phenomenon. For the Chinese translation, instead of using an embedded clause, a simple noun phrase 肉體 / 聖靈的事 (matter of the flesh / the Spirit) is used. Without embedding, the two Phenomena are more directly expressed. However, speaking of the word choice in the Phenomena, the verb desire in English, gives a sense of a thirst for the flesh or the Spirit, which is stronger than the general noun 事 (matter) in Chinese. Let us take a look at v. 8. In this case, the same verse is realised by different process types in English and Chinese. NIV: WCNV: <c 7a> 8 Those [<c 7b> who are in the realm of the flesh] cannot please God. <c 5g> [<c 5h> 8 屬肉體的 ] 人無法得到神的喜悅 NIV uses a mental process, please, while WCNV uses a material one, 得到 (receive). The English translation is concerned with pleasing as a mental event, in which God is a human-like Senser being endowed with consciousness, and people in the old realm 19

28 are the object of consciousness. This expression gives a more emotive reading. The Chinese translation, however, has chosen a transformative process of doing, in which God s satisfaction or love (possession) cannot be transferred to people belong to the flesh. In fact, Chinese has a counterpart for please, which is 取悅, so the clause can be written as 屬肉體的人無法取悅神, as exact in English. In the contrary, one can choose a material process in English, such as those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot receive God s love. After all, it is all about the writer s choice to construct a clause. Now, consider v. 9, the voice of all five clauses are the same for both translations. NIV: <c 8a> 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh <c 8b> but are in the realm of the Spirit, <c 8c> if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. <c 9a> And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, <c 9b> they do not belong to Christ. WCNV: <c 6a> 9 但你們 <c 6b> 如果神的靈的確住在你們裡面 <c 6c> 你們 就不屬肉體,<c 6d> 而屬聖靈了 <c 7a> 如果任何人沒有基督的靈, <c 7b> 這個人就不屬於基督 Although all clauses are relational, they are of different types. NIV takes the attributive relational process for the first two clauses, possessive for the last two. However, WCNV uses possessive process for that four clauses. The verb 屬 (belong to), which indicates a possessor-and-possessed relationship, is used consecutively in <c 6c> and <c 6d>, along with the interpersonal function of the clause-initial second-person plural pronoun 你們, readers may have a more strong sense of belonging, in that they do not belong to the flesh, but belong 20

29 to the Spirit, or possessed by the Spirit. Thus, with respect to this verse, WCNV s translation generate a more personal relation between readers and God than NIV s. The clause below from v. 10 is also notable. NIV: <c 10b> then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, WCNV: <c 8b> 雖然你們身體因為罪的緣故是死的, Here, NIV has chosen a material process with a passive construction, while WCNV has opted an attributive relational. In addition, the part-of-speech of the participants are also different. In the Chinese text, 是死的 (is dead) being an adjectival phrase, 你們身體是死的 (your body is dead) is more of a plain statement, rather still. Contrarily, the clause your body is subject to death gives a more dynamic reading of what sin has done to us. Finally, let us look at the last example in v. 15. NIV: <c 15a> 15 The Spirit [<c 15b> you received] does not make you slaves, <c 15c> so that you live in fear again; <c 15d> rather, the Spirit [<c 15e> you received] brought about your adoption to sonship. WCNV: <c 12a> [<c 12b> 15 你們領受的 ] 聖靈, 不會使人成為奴隸 <c 12c> 再 次懼怕 ;<c 12d> 相反,[<c 12e> 你們領受的 ] 聖靈, 使人得到兒子的 名分, 21

30 What is interesting in this verse is the different choice in the expression of participants. NIV uses the plural reference you consistently, in a total of five times including the possessive determiner. On the other hand, WCNV uses the second-person plural pronoun only for people who received the Spirit, but for who the Spirit does His works to, 人 (man) is the participant. So a reader may ask, What is the Spirit to me? Didn t I receive the adoption to sonship? This distinction of participant choice is really noteworthy. Taking the view of Romans as a letter, which aim is to communicate readers what Paul wants to deliver, NIV relates the works of the Spirit to readers themselves more than WCVN. The deeds of the Spirit and me sounds more distant in WCNV s translation. Apart from participants, the two texts adopt different process types. For <c 15c> in the NIV text, it focuses on living as a behaviour, further introducing fear as the location of living. As for WCNV, it places the sense of fear more directly. In <c 12c>, the verb 懼怕 (fear) itself is the mental process, creating an emotive sense. Speaking of the adoption to sonship, NIV puts the emphasis on the causer by choosing an identifying clause, to identify it is the Spirit who made your adoption to sonship happen. WCNV, however, maintains the paratactic relation on the two clauses which speak of the work of the Spirit. <c 12a> says what the Spirit does not do, whereas <c 12 c> says what the Spirit does in contrast. Both of these parallel clauses focus on doings to be specific what the Sprit does. From the above observations, we can see how different impressions and feelings the translation can give by opting different processes and participants. 22

31 5 On Theme Apparently, the flesh and the Spirit themselves are important topics. This claim can be supported by the word clouds for Rom 8:1-17 (see Appendix A). As reflected in the word clouds, other than the word 人 (person) in WCNV, the two other most prominent words are Spirit / 聖靈 and flesh / 肉體. This being the case, we can be certain that the flesh and the Spirit are significant topics. To get deep into the topics of our Scripture, we shall analyse the Theme of the texts. Afterwards, we will compare how the two texts differ in thematic structure and text flow. For thematic progression of the texts, please refer to Appendix E. 5.1 Theme First of all, we will discuss the topics with reference to Theme. Let us take a glance at the proportion of the three types of Themes at the clause level. Table 4: Theme by type and by translation NIV WCNV Textual 36[35] (84%) 33[26] (63%) Interpersonal 4[4] (9%) 5[4] (10%) Topical 40[38] (93%) 43[43] (83%) Note: Displaced Themes are counted in the total number and percentage. The number in square brackets is the number of non-displaced Themes. 23

32 Based on the simple statistics above, textual Themes occur in about half of the simple clauses in both translations. Within all textual Themes, some frequent occurrences are recognized. Of the themes in the NIV text, eight appearances of if and six instances of but are noticeable. For WCNV, 如果 (if) is found seven times, including one displaced, while 但 (but) only occurs twice. If being a subordinating conjunction, shows hypotactic relations of clauses. The conjunction but shows concession or paratactic extension. Yet, these data on the frequencies of conjunctions do not imply that the Chinese Scripture is not quite paratactic. In fact, paratactic constituents in WCNV occur as much as that in NIV, just that some are without conjunctions, as observed from the parsed texts presented (see Appendix B). On account of the prevalence of conjunctions as textual Themes, these elements help Rom 8:1-17 to achieve cohesion between clauses. Interpersonal Themes are quite rare in Rom 8:1-17. Two of them are vocatives from v. 12 and v. 15. We shall note the one in v. 15. It is a cry of believers to the heavenly Father, which reveals a close relationship between believers and God. Other interpersonal Themes are modal comment Adjuncts, including indeed / 的確 in the NIV, as well as 其實 (actually) and 必定 (certainly) in WCNV. With regard to topical Themes, it is obvious that they have a close relation to the participants in the transitivity system. More often than not, it is a God-typed or a human-typed entity that occupies a topical Theme position. For the God-typed Themes, the Spirit occurs the most in both translation. For Themes of the human group, they normally come with three types: those who are in the old realm, those who are in the new realm, or personal pronouns. Let us note vv What is remarkable here is the occurrences of all three divine participants and the frequent appearance of semantic opposites such as life and death. Please refer to the Appendix E for the repetition of Themes and thematic progression. 24

33 In sum, the repetitions of certain textual Themes in Rom 8:1-17 contribute to the cohesiveness of the text. While interpersonal Themes seldom occur, the vocative in v. 15 is noticeable. As for topical Themes, they are connected to the two groups of participants God and human, of which the Spirit is especially emphasized. 5.2 Comparison of Theme between NIV and WCNV As a translator can have choices in transitivity elements, they can also opt different choices of Themes. NIV: <c 4a> 5 Those [<c 4b> who live according to the flesh] have their minds set on [<c 4c> what the flesh desires]; <c 4d> but those [< c 4e> who live in accordance with the Spirit] have their minds set on [<c 4f> what the Spirit desires]. <c 5a> 6 The mind [<c 5b> governed by the flesh] is death, <c 5c> but the mind [<c 5d> governed by the Spirit] is life and peace. <c 6a> 7 The mind [<c 6b> governed by the flesh] is hostile to God; <c 6c> it does not submit to God s law, <c 6d> nor can it do so. WCNV: <c 3a> [<c 4b> 5 隨從肉體的 ] 人, 關注肉體的事 ; <c 3c> [<c 4d> 隨從聖靈的 ] 人, 關注聖靈的事 <c 4a> [<c 4b> 6 關注肉體 ] 就是死, <c 4c> [<c 4d> 關注聖靈 ] 就是生命和平安 25

34 <c 5a> 7 這是 <5b> 因為 [<c 5c> 關注肉體 ] 就是 [<c 5d> 仇恨神 ], <c 5e> 因為肉體既不服從神的律法,<c 5f> 其實也不能服從 ; The difference in thematic elements used in vv. 6-7 are also noticeable. Regarding the choice of theme in vv. 6-7, NIV uses the mind governed by the flesh / the Spirit, while WCNV has chosen to use 關注肉體 / 聖靈 (pay attention to the flesh / the Spirit). The English text focuses on the mind as the Subject, while the Chinese uses a mental process as a clausal theme. Moreover, the thematic clause occurs repeatedly in vv. 6-7 has the same verb 關注 as in the parallel predicates in v. 5. While 關注肉體 / 聖靈的事 and 關注肉體 / 聖靈 have similar meanings in fact, it shows a continuous thematic progression along the clauses from vv In light of the above observations, we can see the significance of Theme. The choice of Theme can greatly affect the information flow and logical cohesion of a text, hence influencing reader s perception. 6 On Cohesion: Reference In this chapter, we will discuss three kinds of references found in Rom 8:1-17. First is personal reference, which will be covered in detail. Another two kinds of references to be mentioned are specified nouns as marked personal reference, and structural cataphora as demonstrative reference. 26

35 6.1 Personal reference According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, p. 554), personal reference items are either determinative or possessive. If determinative, they are personal pronouns (e.g., he, you ) serving as Head. If possessive, they are possessive determiners (e.g., his, your ). In both texts, no occurrences of the first-person singular pronoun I are found. Thirdperson masculine singular pronoun he occurs twice in NIV and three times in WCNV, of which all are anaphors referring to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Third-person plural pronoun they in NIV occurs once, their twice, but none in WCNV. Relatively speaking, the occurrences of we and you in the two translations are considerably high. The number of occurrences of first- and second-person pronouns by translation is as shown in Table 5. Reference items are grouped under their grammatical person. Table 5: Use of first- and second-person pronouns throughout Rom 8:1-17 NIV WCNV Total 1PL we/us our SG/2PL you your Total The total number of simple and embedded clauses of NIV and WCNV are 67 and 72 respectively. By simple calculation, the use of pronouns over the total number of ranking and rank-shifted clauses in NIV is 39%, exceeding that in WCNV, which is 28%. This can be 27

36 justified by the frequent pro-dropping in Chinese. Take v. 13 as an example. The second-person plural pronoun you is used four times in NIV: <c 13a> 13 For if you live according to the flesh, <c 13b> you will die; <c 13c> but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, <c 13d> you will live. However, it is used only once WCNV: <c 10c> 13 因為你們如果隨從肉體而活, because 2PL if according flesh to live, <c 10d> 就必定死 ; then must die <c 10e> 但是, 如果靠著聖靈治死身體的惡行, but, if by Spirit make.die body GEN evil.conduct, <c 10f> 就會活著 then will live This verse means exactly the same with three repeated pronouns added (in boldface): <c 10c> 13 因為你們如果隨從肉體而活, because 2PL if according flesh to live, <c 10d> 你們就必定死 ; 2PL then must die <c 10e> 但是, 你們如果靠著聖靈治死身體的惡行, 28

37 but, 2PL if by Spirit make.die body GEN evil.conduct, <c 10f> 你們就會活著 2PL then will live Also consider vv , where we is used the most frequently. In NIV, there is a pronoun in every clause: <c 17a> 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit <c 17b> that we are God s children. <c 18a> 17 Now if we are children, <c 18b> then we are heirs heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, <c 18c> if indeed we share in his sufferings <c 18d> in order that we may also share in his glory. On the other hand, WCNV adopts pro-drop in <c 14a> and <c 14b>. Similar to the previous case, these three verses can also have two first-person plural pronouns added (in boldface) while meaning of the text is preserved: <c 13a> 16 聖靈親自向我們的心靈證實 Holy.Spirit personally towards 1PL GEN spirit confirm <c 13b> 我們是神的兒女 1PL is God GEN children <c 14a> 17 我們如果是兒女, 1PL if is children <c 14b> 我們就是 [<c 14c> 承受產業的 ] 人 1PL then is inherit heirloom GEN person 29

38 <c 14d> 是 [<c 14e> 承受神產業的 ] 人, is inherit God heirloom GEN person <c 14f> 也就是 [<c 14g> 和基督一起作 [<c 14h> 承受產業的 ]] 人 also then is with Christ together be inherit heirloom GEN person <c 14i> 只要我們和基督一起受苦, as.long.as 1PL with Christ together suffer <c 14j> 這是 this <c 14k> 神 is God 為 要 for.the.purpose.of want <c 14l> 我們和基督一起得榮耀 1PL with Christ together get glory From Table 5, we observe that the use of second-person pronouns surpasses first-person plural pronouns. Of the seventeen second-person pronouns you in NIV, seven occur in vv In WCNV, there are nine out of thirteen instances in that section. Such distinctive texture can be another evidence to show that vv is a span, as we has proved in Chapter 6.1. The location of the appearances of we is also noteworthy. In the text, the first-person plural reference is first appeared in v. 4 in the form of possessive determiner: in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh. The second is in v. 12, where Paul addresses the readers as brothers and sisters. Other instances of we occur within vv All we references are used for those who are in the new realm, i.e., the new life in the Spirit, hence it is marked form. In contrast, all personal pronouns used in relation to the old realm, or the flesh, is the second-person reference you. 30

39 In sum, due to the nature of Chinese as a pro-drop language, personal pronouns in WCNV are less than NIV. Of the pronouns used, most are first- and second-person plural, we and you. They refer to different groups of people. We is particularly concerned with the new realm, while you is more general. 6.2 Specified noun as personal reference Besides personal pronouns and possessive determiners, a specified noun can also be used to achieve anaphoric reference. It is either a proper noun or a common noun modified by a demonstrative determiner as Deictic. It is the marked form of personal reference used only if there is the need to indicate a new span or further elaborate the reference when there are alternative antecedents around in the discourse (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 554). One instance of this anaphoric strategy is in v. 9 in WCNV: <c 7a> 如果任何人沒有基督的靈, if any person not.have Christ GEN Spirit, <c 7b> 這個人就不屬於基督 this-cl person then not belong.to Christ Here, the specified noun strategy is used, where a common noun, person, is modified by a demonstrative determiner, this. This sentence is read as If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, then this person does not belong to Christ. The unmarked form is to use he instead of this person. According to the footnotes of Rom 8:9 in WCNV ( 環球新譯本 : 羅馬書, 2011), the reason for this strategy is to put an emphasis in that person as how the original Biblical text did. 31

40 6.3 Structural cataphora as demonstrative reference Structural cataphora is a type of endophoric reference which is common (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 552). Here a Deictic the or that / those is used, followed by a Qualifier. Within the defined nominal group where the reference item appears, the reference is resolved. Five of such references appear in NIV: <c 1a> 1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those [<c 1b> who are in Christ Jesus], <c 4a> 5 Those [<c 4b> who live according to the flesh] <c 4a> have their minds set on [<c 4c> what the flesh desires]; <c 4d> but those [< c 4e> who live in accordance with the Spirit] <c 4d> have their minds set on [<c 4f> what the Spirit desires]. <c 7a> 8 Those [<c 7b> who are in the realm of the flesh] cannot please God. <c 14a> 14 For those [<c 14b> who are led by the Spirit of God] are the children of God. In sum, the use of various types of reference are found in our texts, including personal reference and structural cataphora. With reference, links are created between elements, cohesion achieved (Appendix E displays the links between references in the two texts). 32

41 7 Other features 7.1 Semantic opposites In the text, we can find several pairs of semantic opposites as shown in Table 6. Table 6: Semantic opposites in Rom 8:1-17 Verse Old realm of the flesh New realm of the Spirit v. 5 v. 5 v. 6 v. 6 v. 9 v. 13 Those who live according to the flesh 隨從肉體的人 Have their minds set on what the flesh desires 關注肉體的事 The mind governed by the flesh 關注肉體 Death 死 In the realm of the flesh 屬肉體 Live according to the flesh 隨從肉體而活 Those who live in accordance with the Spirit 隨從聖靈的人 Have their minds set on what the Spirit desires 關注聖靈的事 The mind governed by the Spirit 關注聖靈 Life and peace 生命和平安 In the realm of the Spirit 屬聖靈 by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body 靠著聖靈治死身體的惡行 33

42 8 Conclusion To conclude, this study suggests a functional linguistic perspective on analysing translations of the book of Romans 8:1-17. In this paper, we have investigate the transitivity structure of NIV and WCNV, in particular on the two main components, process and participants. We have also analysed the Themes of the extracts. Inspecting all these structures and lexicogrammatical patterns, we observe that the flesh and the Spirit are two main ideas. On one hand, both translations puts the focus on the relation of the Spirit and believers, mentioning Spirit as the agent that gives lives to believers and bring about the adoption to sonship. On the other, both translations highlight the significance of the works of the Spirit in believers lives, by the contrast of some semantically-opposite motifs such as life ( 生命 ) and death ( 死亡 ), and the mind governed by the flesh and the mind governed by the Spirit. It is also suggested that the new realm of the Spirit who gives lives is the central point in Rom8:1-17. As shown in the thematic analysis, most of the occurrences of the plural pronoun we, which suggests the group who live according to the Spirit, are in the last few verses. Lastly, this paper suggests that transitivity and thematic choices in translations play a significant role in affecting readers perception. Via comparison of the transitivity structures and Thematic structures of the two translations, we have noted differences in the choice of functional elements, and explored the differences in the meaning made by those choices. In sum, the study has examined the textual patterns in Rom 8:1-17, and compared the NIV and WCNV translations. According to the study, the central theme is the realm of the Spirit who gives lives, and that choices of functional elements in Bible translations may give different meanings to readers. 34

43 Appendix A: Word clouds for Rom 8:1-17 Figure 1: Word cloud for Rom 8:1-17 in NIV Figure 2: Word cloud for Rom 8:1-17 in WCNV 35