{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02115211521152115, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.912234042553192, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discourse Analysis and Bible Translation

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND BIBLE TRANSLATION Dr. WlUlam A. Smalley is Professor of Linguistics at Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota. A good part of the impetus toward the present widespread production of new and more meaningful translations of the Scriptures into many of the languages of the world has been made possible by the development of the theory of dynamic equivalence translation, particularly in the work of Eugene A. Nida.' The theory has been formulated from insights in the fields of linguistics, anthropology, communication theory, and other studies. Its emphasis is not only on translations which are more meaningful to modem readers than are older translations, but on ones which at the same time remain faithful to the original meaning, at least on the levels of words and sentences in their immediate contexts. One of the most significant contributions of the theory of dynamic equivalence translation is that it provides some measure offaithfulness. We can assess, for example, whether or not "it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (RSV) and "It is God's power to save all who believe" (TEV) are equivalent in meaning; we can also know whether either or both of them is equivalent to the meaning of the Greek which they translate. We are therefore able to translate with an assurance which would not be possible otherwise. The great strength of the theory of dynamic equivalence translation, then, is in the way in which it helps translators with the meanings of words and sentences in immediate context and gives tools for translating them. It is being fruitfully extended also into the logical relationships between sentences so that some of these relationships can be stated more explicitly,' although we still have a long way to go before translators can use all of this research with full confidence and understanding. But there are many aspects of the larger organization of "discourse" on which the present theory is not very helpful; vague generalizations apply rather than precise, explicit understanding. "Discourse analysis" is one of the terms often used for efforts to study such larger organization of texts,' and it is an