“For She Loved Much”: Reason Clauses in Translation

Abstract

This article discusses translation issues that arise in dealing with reason clauses of the types introduced in English by the conjunctions because and for. Because, in its subordinating usage, introduces AT-ISSUE reason clauses, in which both the propositional content of the reason clause and the causal relation itself are part of the main point that is being asserted or questioned. Causal for introduces SUPPLEMENTAL reason clauses, which provide secondary or background-type information. An at-issue reason clause expresses a literal causal relation between two propositions (“real-world causation”), whereas supplemental reason clauses allow a wider range of uses, such as providing evidential/epistemic validation (Mark 14:70 “Surely you are one of them, for you too are a Galilean”) and speech act modification (Luke 12:17 “What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops”). Moreover, at-issue reason clauses can have ambiguous interpretations when the main clause is negated, questioned, or contains quantifier words like few and many. This kind of ambiguity does not arise with supplemental reason clauses. Because of these differences, translating a supplemental reason clause in the SL with an at-issue reason clause in the RL, or vice versa, will affect the information packaging of the verse, since the reason clause is interpreted as being part of the main point of the utterance in one type, but not in the other. This kind of substitution will also add to or restrict the range of possible meanings of the sentence. In some cases, this can introduce ambiguity into the RL that is not present in the SL. In others, it may even remove the correct, intended meaning of the verse as a potential reading of the RL version.

A Grammatical Error Analysis Produced by Google Translate

“…As a machine, Google Translate could not possibly work the same way as human translation does. If even a human could not possibly understand the intention of the original author (Kroeger, 2022) a machine such as Google Translate must be worse. Google Translate also could not possibly strive for a good translation result, which are clarity, accuracy, naturalness, and acceptability (Barnwell, 2020).…”

An Analysis of the Translation Procedures Used by Digital Happiness

“…Experience in translating, as Barnwell (2021) said, is a very valuable asset. While there is some disagreement over whether it is desirable to preserve some aspect in language, such as ambiguity in language since a translator could not possibly understand the intend of the original author (Kroeger, 2022), a translator should strive for clarity, accuracy, naturalness, and acceptability (Barnwell, 2020).…”