*6. Psychological approach to literature

method of psychological
1.Experiment method
How this is done usually in the laboratory to conduct various experiments. Researchers have full control on the course of an experiment. That is determined to do anything on something that will be examined, when to do research, how often do the research, and so forth. In the experimental method, the nature of the subjectivity of the method of introspection will be addressed. In the method of pure introspection only researcher who becomes the object itself. But on the subject of many experimental introspection, that is people - people who dieksperimentasi it. With the extent or number of subjects the results obtained will be more objective
Scientific
2.Observation method
On scientific observations, a case in situations that are not caused deliberately. But the scientific process and spontaneously. Observations of this nature can be applied also to other behaviors, such as: the behavior of people who are in department stores, the behavior of motorists street highway, the behavior of children at play, the behavior of people in natural disasters, etc. .
3.method biographies
Person's life history can be a source of data that is important to further recognize the "spirit" of the person concerned, for example from the story his mother, a child who does not ride the class may know that he is not less intelligent but her interest was in music since childhood, so he was not serious enough to his education at his school. [4] In this method describes the keadaaa, attitudes - attitudes or other characteristics of the person concerned . In this method has advantages in addition also has a weakness, which is not uncommon these methods are subjective.
4.Interview
Is a question and answer interview the examiner and the person being examined. So that people can discover it checked out his heart itself, views, opinions and other such that the person interviewing can dig up all the information that dibutuhkan.Baik questionnaire or interview both have similarities, but differ in the way of presentation. Advantages compared with the interview questionnaire , namely:
1.Pada interview if there is something less obvious, it can be clarified
2.interviwer (requester) can adjust to the mood interviwee (respondents who were asked)
3.Terdapat direct interaction of face-to facesehingga expected to foster a good relationship when the interview conducted.
5. Angket
An interview questionnaire in written form. All questions have been collated in writing in the pages of the question, and the interviewee simply read the questions and answer them in writing as well. The answers will be analyzed to determine the matters under investigation.
6.inspection Psychology
In the language of popular psychology examination is also called the psychological method uses certain psikodiagnostik tools that can only be used by experts who had actually been trained. tools that can be used unntuk measure and level of intelligence to know the person, the person's interests, one's attitude, personality structure were a man, and others of the person who checked it.
7.Method Work Analysis
Done by analyzing the work of such pictures - pictures, diary or essay that has been made. This is because the work can be regarded as the originator of the state of one's life .
8.Methode Statistics
Commonly used by collecting data or material in research and conduct analysis of the results; which has been obtained .
Method of Developmental Psychology Psychology development from method has two methods, namely the general methods and specific methods. the methods of this general approach with the approaches used longitudinal, transverse, and cross-cultural. Of this approach is seen the data obtained as a whole or only some aspects of development, and can also see a variety of congenital and environmental factors, especially culture. While the particular method is a method that will be investigated with a process tool or a careful calculation and definite. In this approach may be used with experimental and observational approaches.

*5. Psychological approach to literature

HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY OVERVIEW
from Association for Humanistic psychology

Throughout history many individuals and groups have affirmed the inherent value and dignity of human beings. They have spoken out against ideologies, beliefs and practices which held people to be merely the means for accomplishing economic and political ends. They have reminded their contemporaries that the purpose of institutions is to serve and advance the freedom and power of their members. In Western civilization we honor the times and places, such as Classical Greece and Europe of the Renaissance, when such affirmations were expressed.

Humanistic Psychology is a contemporary manifestation of that ongoing commitment. Its message is a response to the denigration of the human spirit that has so often been implied in the image of the person drawn by behavioral and social sciences.

During the first half of the twentieth century, American psychology was dominated by two schools of thought: behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Neither fully acknowledged the possibility of studying values, intentions and meaning as elements in conscious existence. Although various European perspectives such as phenomenology had some limited influence, on the whole mainstream American psychology had been captured by the mechanistic beliefs of behaviorism and by the biological reductionism and determinism of classical psychoanalysis.

Ivan Pavlov's work with the conditioned reflex (induced under rigid laboratory controls, empirically observable and quantifiable) had given birth to an academic psychology in the United States led by John Watson which came to be called "the science of behavior" (in Abraham Maslow's later terminology, "The First Force"). Its emphasis on objectivity was reinforced by the success of the powerful methodologies employed in the natural sciences and by the philosophical investigations of the British empiricists, logical positivists and the operationalists, all of whom sought to apply the methods and values of the physical sciences to questions of human behavior. Valuable knowledge (particularly in learning theory and the study of sensation and perception) was achieved in this quest. But if something was gained, something was also lost: The "First Force" systematically excluded the subjective data of consciousness and much information bearing on the complexity of the human personality and its development.

The "Second Force" emerged out of Freudian psychoanalysis and the depth psychologies of Alfred Adler, Erik Erikson, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Carl Jung, Melanie Klein, Otto Rank, Harry Stack Sullivan and others. These theorists focused on the dynamic unconscious - the depths of the human psyche whose contents, they asserted, must be integrated with those of the conscious mind in order to produce a healthy human personality . The founders of the depth psychologies believed (with several variations) that human behavior is principally determined by what occurs in the unconscious mind. So, where the behaviorists ignored consciousness because they felt that its essential privacy and subjectivity rendered it inaccessible to scientific study, the depth psychologists tended to regard it as the relatively superficial expression of unconscious drives.

" An assumption unusual in psychology today is that the subjective human being has an important value which is basic; that no matter how he may be labeled and evaluated he is a human person first of all, and most deeply. " Carl Rogers, 1962

By the late 1950's a "Third Force" was beginning to form. In 1957 and 1958, at the invitation of Abraham Maslow and Clark Moustakas, two meetings were held in Detroit among psychologists who were interested in founding a professional association dedicated to a more meaningful, more humanistic vision. They discussed several themes - such as self, self-actualization, health, creativity, intrinsic nature, being, becoming, individuality, and meaning - which they believed likely to become central concerns of such an approach to psychology. In 1961, with the sponsorship of Brandeis University, this movement was formally launched as the American Association for Humanistic Psychology. The first issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology appeared as "The Phoenix" in December, 1963.

In 1964, at Old Saybrook, Connecticut, the first invitational conference was held, an historic gathering that did much to establish the character of the new movement. Attendees included psychologists, among whom were Gordon Allport, J.F.T. Bugental, Charlotte Buhler, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, Gardner Murphy, Henry Murray and Carl Rogers, as well as humanists from other disciplines, such as Jacques Barzun, Rene Dubos and Floyd Matson.

The conferees questioned why the two dominant versions of psychology did not deal with human beings as uniquely human nor with many of the real problems of human life. They agreed that if psychology were to become more than a narrow academic discipline limited by the biases of behaviorism, and if it were to study human attributes such as values and self-consciousness that the depth psychologists had chosen to de-emphasize, their "Third Force" would have to offer a fuller concept and experience of what it means to be human.

By this time the term "human psychology" was in general use. It reflected many of the values expressed by the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Renaissance Europeans, and others who have attempted to study those qualities that are unique to human life and that make possible such essentially human phenomena as love, self-consciousness, self-determination, personal freedom, greed, lust for power, cruelty, morality, art, philosophy, religion, literature, and science.

Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Rollo May, who had participated in the conference at Old Saybrook, remained the movement's most respected intellectual leaders for the decades that followed. Maslow( see Extracts from the writings of Abraham H. Maslow, Abraham H. Maslow Bibliography Compiled by Maurice Bassett and A Brief Biography of A.H. Maslow) developed a hierarchical theory of human motivation which asserted that when certain basic needs are provided for, higher motives toward self-actualization can emerge.

Rogers introduced person-centered therapy, which holds that intrinsic tendencies toward self-actualization can be expressed in a therapeutic relationship in which the therapist offers personal congruence, unconditional positive regard and accurate empathic understanding.

Thus Maslow and Rogers embraced self-actualization both as an empirical principle and an ethical idea. Their vision of human nature as intrinsically good became a major theme of the "human potential" movement, but was criticized by some other humanistic psychologists as an inadequate model of the human experience.

Rollo May represented the European currents of existentialism and phenomenology that became influential in humanistic psychology and emphasized the inherently tragic aspects of the human condition. His books provided an enduring philosophical perspective and much-needed insight into questions involving the enduring presence of evil and suffering in the world, the nature of creativity, art and mythology, and the value of the humanities as psychological resources.

Humanistic psychology expanded its influence throughout the 1970s and the 1980s. It's impact can be understood in terms of three major areas: 1) It offered a new set of values for approaching an understanding of human nature and the human condition. 2) It offered an expanded horizon of methods of inquiry in the study of human behavior. 3) It offered a broader range of more effective methods in the professional practice of psychotherapy.

The Humanistic View of Human Behavior
Humanistic psychology is a value orientation that holds a hopeful, constructive view of human beings and of their substantial capacity to be self-determining. It is guided by a conviction that intentionality and ethical values are strong psychological forces, among the basic determinants of human behavior. This conviction leads to an effort to enhance such distinctly human qualities as choice, creativity, the interaction of the body, mind and spirit, and the capacity to become more aware, free, responsible, life-affirming and trustworthy.

Humanistic psychology acknowledges that the mind is strongly influenced by determining forces in society and in the unconscious, and that some of these are negative and destructive. Humanistic psychology nevertheless emphasizes the independent dignity and worth of human beings and their conscious capacity to develop personal competence and self respect. This value orientation has led to the development of therapies to facilitate personal and interpersonal skills and to enhance the quality of life.

Since there is much difficulty involved in inner growth, humanistic psychologists often stress the importance of courageously learning to take responsibility for oneself as one confronts personal transitions. The difficulty of encouraging personal growth is matched by the difficulty of developing appropriate institutional and organizational environments in which human beings can flourish. Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. ,This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.

Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.



#Conclusion of this psychological approach
Humanistic Psychology is a contemporary manifestation of that ongoing commitment. Its message is a response to the denigration of the human spirit that has so often been implied in the image of the person drawn by behavioral and social sciences. There are many psychological approach in the literature, from Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Rollo May, who had participated in the conference at Old Saybrook, remained the movement's most respected intellectual leaders for the decades that followed.
according to Abraham Maslow that psychological approach in the literature divided into physical needs, needs the comfortable in our live, needs of (loving, loved), self esteem, and needs self realization.Thus Maslow and Rogers embraced self-actualization both as an empirical principle and an ethical idea. Their vision of human nature as intrinsically good became a major theme of the "human potential" movement, but was criticized by some other humanistic psychologists as an inadequate model of the human experience. and Rollo May represented the European currents of existentialism and phenomenology that became influential in humanistic psychology and emphasized the inherently tragic aspects of the human condition.

*4. Psychological approach

Critical Approaches to Literature

Described below are nine common critical approaches to the literature. Quotations are from X.J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia’s Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama, Sixth Edition (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), pages 1790-1818.

Formalist Criticism: This approach regards literature as “a unique form of human knowledge that needs to be examined on its own terms.” All the elements necessary for understanding the work are contained within the work itself. Of particular interest to the formalist critic are the elements of form—style, structure, tone, imagery, etc.—that are found within the text. A primary goal for formalist critics is to determine how such elements work together with the text’s content to shape its effects upon readers.

Biographical Criticism: This approach “begins with the simple but central insight that literature is written by actual people and that understanding an author’s life can help readers more thoroughly comprehend the work.” Hence, it often affords a practical method by which readers can better understand a text. However, a biographical critic must be careful not to take the biographical facts of a writer’s life too far in criticizing the works of that writer: the biographical critic “focuses on explicating the literary work by using the insight provided by knowledge of the author’s life.... [B]iographical data should amplify the meaning of the text, not drown it out with irrelevant material.”

Historical Criticism: This approach “seeks to understand a literary work by investigating the social, cultural, and intellectual context that produced it—a context that necessarily includes the artist’s biography and milieu.” A key goal for historical critics is to understand the effect of a literary work upon its original readers.

Gender Criticism: This approach “examines how sexual identity influences the creation and reception of literary works.” Originally an offshoot of feminist movements, gender criticism today includes a number of approaches, including the so-called “masculinist” approach recently advocated by poet Robert Bly. The bulk of gender criticism, however, is feminist and takes as a central precept that the patriarchal attitudes that have dominated western thought have resulted, consciously or unconsciously, in literature “full of unexamined ‘male-produced’ assumptions.” Feminist criticism attempts to correct this imbalance by analyzing and combatting such attitudes—by questioning, for example, why none of the characters in Shakespeare’s play Othello ever challenge the right of a husband to murder a wife accused of adultery. Other goals of feminist critics include “analyzing how sexual identity influences the reader of a text” and “examin[ing] how the images of men and women in imaginative literature reflect or reject the social forces that have historically kept the sexes from achieving total equality.”

Psychological Criticism: This approach reflects the effect that modern psychology has had upon both literature and literary criticism. Fundamental figures in psychological criticism include Sigmund Freud, whose “psychoanalytic theories changed our notions of human behavior by exploring new or controversial areas like wish-fulfillment, sexuality, the unconscious, and repression” as well as expanding our understanding of how “language and symbols operate by demonstrating their ability to reflect unconscious fears or desires”; and Carl Jung, whose theories about the unconscious are also a key foundation of Mythological Criticism. Psychological criticism has a number of approaches, but in general, it usually employs one (or more) of three approaches:
An investigation of “the creative process of the artist: what is the nature of literary genius and how does it relate to normal mental functions?”
The psychological study of a particular artist, usually noting how an author’s biographical circumstances affect or influence their motivations and/or behavior.
The analysis of fictional characters using the language and methods of psychology.

Sociological Criticism: This approach “examines literature in the cultural, economic and political context in which it is written or received,” exploring the relationships between the artist and society. Sometimes it examines the artist’s society to better understand the author’s literary works; other times, it may examine the representation of such societal elements within the literature itself. One influential type of sociological criticism is Marxist criticism, which focuses on the economic and political elements of art, often emphasizing the ideological content of literature; because Marxist criticism often argues that all art is political, either challenging or endorsing (by silence) the status quo, it is frequently evaluative and judgmental, a tendency that “can lead to reductive judgment, as when Soviet critics rated Jack London better than William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Edith Wharton, and Henry James, because he illustrated the principles of class struggle more clearly.” Nonetheless, Marxist criticism “can illuminate political and economic dimensions of literature other approaches overlook.”

Mythological Criticism: This approach emphasizes “the recurrent universal patterns underlying most literary works.” Combining the insights from anthropology, psychology, history, and comparative religion, mythological criticism “explores the artist’s common humanity by tracing how the individual imagination uses myths and symbols common to different cultures and epochs.” One key concept in mythlogical criticism is the archetype, “a symbol, character, situation, or image that evokes a deep universal response,” which entered literary criticism from Swiss psychologist Carl Jung. According to Jung, all individuals share a “‘collective unconscious,’ a set of primal memories common to the human race, existing below each person’s conscious mind”—often deriving from primordial phenomena such as the sun, moon, fire, night, and blood, archetypes according to Jung “trigger the collective unconscious.” Another critic, Northrop Frye, defined archetypes in a more limited way as “a symbol, usually an image, which recurs often enough in literature to be recognizable as an element of one’s literary experience as a whole.” Regardless of the definition of archetype they use, mythological critics tend to view literary works in the broader context of works sharing a similar pattern.

Reader-Response Criticism: This approach takes as a fundamental tenet that “literature” exists not as an artifact upon a printed page but as a transaction between the physical text and the mind of a reader. It attempts “to describe what happens in the reader’s mind while interpreting a text” and reflects that reading, like writing, is a creative process. According to reader-response critics, literary texts do not “contain” a meaning; meanings derive only from the act of individual readings. Hence, two different readers may derive completely different interpretations of the same literary text; likewise, a reader who re-reads a work years later may find the work shockingly different. Reader-response criticism, then, emphasizes how “religious, cultural, and social values affect readings; it also overlaps with gender criticism in exploring how men and women read the same text with different assumptions.” Though this approach rejects the notion that a single “correct” reading exists for a literary work, it does not consider all readings permissible: “Each text creates limits to its possible interpretations.”

Deconstructionist Criticism: This approach “rejects the traditional assumption that language can accurately represent reality.” Deconstructionist critics regard language as a fundamentally unstable medium—the words “tree” or “dog,” for instance, undoubtedly conjure up different mental images for different people—and therefore, because literature is made up of words, literature possesses no fixed, single meaning. According to critic Paul de Man, deconstructionists insist on “the impossibility of making the actual expression coincide with what has to be expressed, of making the actual signs [i.e., words] coincide with what is signified.” As a result, deconstructionist critics tend to emphasize not what is being said but how language is used in a text. The methods of this approach tend to resemble those of formalist criticism, but whereas formalists’ primary goal is to locate unity within a text, “how the diverse elements of a text cohere into meaning,” deconstructionists try to show how the text “deconstructs,” “how it can be broken down ... into mutually irreconcilable positions.” Other goals of deconstructionists include (1) challenging the notion of authors’ “ownership” of texts they create (and their ability to control the meaning of their texts) and (2) focusing on how language is used to achieve power, as when they try to understand how a some interpretations of a literary work come to be regarded as “truth.”

*3. Psychological approach to Literature

Introduction to the Humanistic Approach
The Humanistic Approach began in response to concerns by therapists against perceived limitations of Psychodynamic theories, especially psychoanalysis. Individuals like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow felt existing (psychodynamic) theories failed to adequately address issues like the meaning of behavior, and the nature of healthy growth. However, the result was not simply new variations on psychodynamic theory, but rather a fundamentally new approach.
There are several factors which distinguish the Humanistic Approach from other approaches within psychology, including the emphasis on subjective meaning, a rejection of determinism, and a concern for positive growth rather than pathology. While one might argue that some psychodynamic theories provide a vision of healthy growth (including Jung's concept of individuation), the other characteristics distinguish the Humanistic Approach from every other approach within psychology (and sometimes lead theorists from other approaches to say the Humanistic Approach is not a science at all). Most psychologists believe that behavior can only be understood objectively (by an impartial observer), but the humanists argue that this results in concluding that an individual is incapable of understanding their own behavior--a view which they see as both paradoxical and dangerous to well-being. Instead, humanists like Rogers argue that the meaning of behavior is essentially personal and subjective; they further argue that accepting this idea is not unscientific, because ultimately all individuals are subjective: what makes science reliable is not that scientists are purely objective, but that the nature of observed events can be agreed upon by different observers (a process Rogers calls intersubjective verification).
The issues underlying the Humanistic Approach, and its differences from other approaches, are discussed more fully in the text, but the sources below provide useful supplementary information. One point worth noting: if you want to fully grasp the nature of the Humanistic Approach, you cannot consider it in abstract terms. Instead, you must consider if and how the ideas connect to your own experience--for that is how the meaning of behavior is derived!
Carl Rogers
Carl Rogers was not only one of the founders of the Humanistic Approach, but also arguably the most influential therapist in the 20th century: a number of surveys, including several done after his death, found that more therapists cited Rogers as a major influence on their thinking and clinical practice than any other person in psychology (including Freud). To understand this, one must know something about Rogers as a person, as well as his theoretical ideas.
I never met him, but have seen several videos of him, and have read a number of accounts, both biographical and anecdotal, by individuals who know him well. Consistently, what comes across is a person who was caring and respectful of others, a man who found value in all people, yet was humble about his own achievements--in many ways, he represented the fully functioning person which his theory describes!
In terms of his theory, there are two fundamental ideas which are particularly worth noting. (For a more complete discussion, see the text.) First, Rogers talked about healthy development in terms of how the individual perceived their own being. A healthy individual will tend to see congruence between their sense of who they are (self) and who they feel they should be (ideal self). While no one tends to experience perfect congruence at all times, the relative degree of congruence is an indicator of health. Some researchers have tried to measure congruence by using a self-assessment technique called a Q-Sort. (If you are interested in exploring this, click here for a version of a Q-sort I've created.)
The second fundamental idea is Rogers's concept of the conditions for healthy growth, and the role of a therapist in fostering healthy growth. Through a process Rogers called person-centered therapy, the therapist seeks to provide empathy, openness, and unconditional positive regard. These conditions for growth are discussed further in the text; for information on person-centered therapy, see the links below. (One note about person-centered therapy: originally, Rogers called his technique non-directive therapy, based on the concept that the therapist is simply a "mirror" who reflects the individual's thoughts and feelings. As his own research showed, no therapist is truly non-directive--and if they were, it would likely be poor therapy, as the following joke illustrates!)
Abraham Maslow
Like Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow is widely regarded as one of the founders of the Humanistic Approach. While less influential among therapists than Rogers, Maslow may actually be better known to the general public, because of his interest in applying psychological principles to areas like behavior in business settings. In this regard, his hierarchy of needs has been a basic concept in human resources and organizational behavior for several decades.
Maslow coined the term "the Third Force" to describe the Humanistic Approach, to emphasize how it differed from the Psychodynamic and Behaviorist Approaches, which dominated psychology (at least in North America) in the 1950's. His theory emphasizes motivation as the key to understanding human behavior (an emphasis which is somewhat reminiscent of Freud's theory, though the two models focus on very different types of motives). Nonetheless, it becomes the basis of a theory of personality (as discussed in the text, talking about motives implies a person who experiences those motives!), and ends up describing the characteristics of healthy growth in ways that are very similar to Rogers's "fully functioning person".
One difference between Maslow and Rogers is the emphasis that Maslow gave to peak experiences. Peak experiences are moments in life which take us beyond our ordinary perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. Typically, the individual feels energized, more "alive". In some ways, peak experiences are similar to the Zen concept of satori (literally "enlightenment"), which, like a peak experience, comes unexpectedly, and transforms the individual's understanding of themselves and the world. Because of the "mystical" nature of peak experiences, some psychologists are less comfortable with Maslow's theory than with Rogers's, which uses concepts more easily related to "mainstream" psychology. Possibly, this accounts for Maslow being viewed as less influential among therapists. In any case, there is no doubt that Maslow's ideas about motivation have become widely known and used, as the links below help to illustrate.
Existential Psychology
As in many areas of psychology, there are close linkages between the Humanistic Approach and philosophy. For example, Rogers's concept of the phenomenal field as the basis of defining the self can be linked to the ideas of phenomenological philosophers like Edmund Husserl. Similarly, the existentialist tradition began with European philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre. While its roots extend back to the turn of the 20th century (and some would say even earlier), it really gained momentum as a result of World War II, whose devastation and destruction gave a sense of immediacy to questions about the purpose of living. (For example, Albert Camus, a leading existentialist writer, was a member of the French Resistance.) Existentialists start from the premise that there is no absolute meaning to life, and hence that life in a purely rational sense is without purpose. Interestingly, however, from this bleak beginning, many arrive at interpretations that nonetheless affirm a value to life.
Asking about what life means to an individual provides an overlapping area of concern between existentialism and humanistic psychology, since the humanists seek to identify a positive model for human growth. As a result, while some psychologists prefer one term over the other, the theories often share a focus on similar kinds of issues, especially the questions of what an individual finds meaningful in life, and how individuals deal with the prospect of death. Among the psychologists who have developed theories related to existential ideas are Rollo May, Ernest Becker, and Viktor Frankl. Of these, Frankl is arguably the best known to the general public; his best-known book, Man's Search for Meaning, went through multiple editions and reprintings, and was translated into dozens of languages. Frankl, who began as a doctor and therapist in Vienna, was a prisoner in various Nazi concentration camps during the war, and it was partly his exposure to the horrors of the camps that contributed to his existentialist orientation. To learn more about him and other existential psychologists, and how their ideas relate to humanistic theories more generally, see the text or the following links.
Extending the Humanistic Approach
In recent years, a number of initiatives have appeared which, while influenced significantly by humanistic ideas and theories, have in new directions. Perhaps the most significant is positive psychology, a term coined by Dr. Martin Seligman when he was President of the American Psychological Association in 2000. Positive psychology, like the humanistic approach, focusses on enhancing human potential--but embraces research methods (e.g., surveys, group data) which humanists have traditionally avoided. Another area influenced by the humanistic approach has been coaching psychology. While the term originated in "personal coaching" in sports, it more generally refers to a focus on enhancing individual potential, and the field has gradually become a specific area within many psychology associations.
Applying the Concepts: Maslow's Hierarchy in the Workplace
Several researchers in the 1950s recognized the practical importance of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs to the working world. It was not difficult to establish that for nonmanagement workers, jobs mainly fulfilled the basic physical and security needs of the individual: if the work is done, the worker is paid and more-or-less assured of being paid for subsequent work. Higher order needs, such as social, esteem and self-actualization needs were not considered. Lyman Porter (1961) at the University of California at Berkeley, suggested that higher needs might be of more concern on the management level of an organization. He saw that people in most organizations received promotions from one job to another based on their technical qualifications, but nothing else. That is, it was assumed that because an individual could do the job, that job was the best one for him or her. There was no indication that anyone regarded the psychological satisfaction with a job as being an important factor. Consequently, people might sometimes be promoted out of jobs that gave them satisfaction into jobs that were less satisfying for them, potentially rendering them less effective in their work. Porter realized that for individual satisfaction and for organizational efficiency, it was necessary to discover how people perceived their jobs in terms of need satisfaction, as Maslow had outlined. Knowing this might allow organizations to match people to jobs that they were not only qualified for, but which would give them the most satisfaction as well.
In order to study this, Porter sent a fixed alternative survey to 228 people in three companies. These people worked at different managerial levels, from bottom level supervisors or foremen up to middle level management who were just below vice presidency or major department head. The survey studied 15 characteristics or qualities that Porter thought were connected with management positions and were relevant to Maslow's need hierarchy. For example, to determine whether esteem needs were being met by the job, Porter asked about the prestige of a managerial position; to determine whether social needs were being met by the job, he asked about the opportunities to develop friendships on the job; to determine whether self-actualization needs were being met by the job, he asked about feelings of self-fulfillment derived from the individual's working position. The respondents to the survey were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (with 1 indicating the lowest amount and 7 indicating the highest amount) first, how much of that quality was connected with the individual's management position; second, how much of that quality should be connected with the individual's management position; and third, how important that quality was to the respondent. So questions on the survey might look like this:
The feeling of self-esteem a person gets from being in my management position:
a) How much is there now? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max)
b) How much should there be? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max)
c) How important is this to me? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max)
Of the 228 people who were given the survey, 139 (61%) filled it out. While Porter attempted to give the surveys to a representative sample of low to middle management personnel, it cannot be claimed that the individuals who actually returned the survey constitute such a sample, so the results of this study must be interpreted with caution. Porter found that among these respondents, there was no difference in the amount of fulfillment of social needs, and that esteem needs are more often satisfied in middle management than in low management levels, not surprisingly. But in both low and middle management, the respondents indicated that self-actualization needs are of great importance to them, but there were few opportunities for these needs to be fulfilled at work. It seems, then, that among the people who answered this survey, at least, their work did not offer them a sense of self-fulfillment, or an opportunity for personal growth and development or a feeling of worthwhile accomplishment. It would be expected that in higher management, the level at which policy decisions are made, there may be a greater chance to find areas of self- actualization.
What are the implications of this study? While we must be careful in making conclusions since a survey cannot demonstrate a causal relationship and since we have no way of knowing whether the sample was indeed representative of the population, we may still make some tentative conclusions. Most of us spend almost 30% of our lives at work, and yet this work may not give us the opportunity to pursue what we find important: self-actualization. Our deficiency needs may be met to a greater or lesser extent, but our growth needs may not. What if our work gave us opportunity to fulfill growth needs, though? What if the organization we work for allowed us to help make the policy decisions that would affect the well-being of ourselves and others, for example? Orpen (1998) has found that among the respondents to his survey, job satisfaction is indeed greater when there is more opportunity for such decision-making. Did his respondents feel greater satisfaction because this gave them a chance to pursue self-actualization? We don't know, but maybe.

*2. Psychological approach to literature

from Nebo Literature English for everybody
During the twentieth century there has been a shift away from the “who done it “genre to the “why did he do it” Major writers have included Hermann Hess., Franz Kafka, James Joyce and Virginia Woolf.
In literary criticism some critics have abandoned the formalistic/aesthetic approach because of their limitations and inadequacies in coming to terms with the major concerns of modern literature. Rather than being “Art for Arts sake”, modern literature tends to be more exploratory and didactic. The emphasis is more on character and motivation than on form and structure.

The psychological approach to literary criticism is very controversial and is easily abused.
Some critics argue that it was already used by Aristotle in his Poetics in the 4 th century BC, when he defined tragedy as combining the emotions of pity and terror to produce “catharsis”.. These critics argue that this is merely a sub—conscious emotional response to literature.

FREUDIAN THEORIES

1.Core theory — the unconscious aspects of the human psyche.

Most of our actions (mental processes) are motivated by psychic forces over which we have little control.
Mind is like an iceberg — its greatest weight and density lies below the surface.

Two kinds of unconsciousness
a) pre—conscious — latent not directly aware of something, however with effort. it can be retrieved
b) unconcious — something very difficult to revivte mocceesfully blocked or repressed. Comes out in perverse ways.
Ex Novel/Movie — “Marnie

2. Second theory (now rejected by most psychologists including Carl Jung, his disciple).

“All human behaviour is ultimately motivated by sexuality.”

3. Freud’s Three Psychic Zones

1. Id — reservoir of libido

— primary source of all psychic energy

— functions to fulfil the primordial life principle

— our basic drives (S)

— pleasure principle

— no rational order / organisation/ will

— impulse to obtain gratification of instinctual needs

no regard for social conventions — asocial

— no values — good/evil amorphous/ amoral

— source of all aggression desires

— lawless, self—destructive

— pre—Freudians called it the “devil” in man

2. Ego

regulating agency to curb the Id

— protects the individual and society

— rational, reasoning, logical

— partially conscious

— aware of reality

3.. Super Ego

— Largely unconscious

— moral censoring agent

— conscience, self—image, pride

— moral restrictions or repression of Id.

— blocks off or represses those drives which society regards as unacceptable.. operates on rewards and punishments

— an overactive S.E. creates unconscious guilt (complex).

Healthy person has a well balanced Pyche, while an imbalance of any one force causes mental stress — neurosis - today of called a syndrome or a disorder.

Id :pleasure principle animals

Ego :reality mankind

Super Ego :morality " angels

Applications of Frued’s theories
1) Symbolism — most images interpreted in terms of sexuality
a) concave images (ponds, flowers, cups, vases, caves, hollows, tunnels)
—female or womb symbols
b) long (erect) images (towers, snakes, knives, swords, trees, poles, sky scrapers, missiles)
— male or phallic symbols
c) activities (dancing riding, flying) symbols of sexual pleasure.
Of ten pushed too far — Little Red Riding Hood

2) Child Psychology
infant and childhood are formative years a period of intense sexual development and awareness.
First five years children pass through several phases in erotic development.

1)Oral 2) Anal 3) Genital

Frustration in the gratification of any of these: eating, elimination, or reproduction may result in an adult personality that is warped.
If a child’s development is arrested in any one of these phases, he may develop a “fixation”.
Fixation:
1. Oral — pre—mature weaning may result in cigarette smoking

2. Anal — overly strict toilet training — fastidious, fussy

3. Genital — close attachment to parent — may develop either an Oedipus or Electra Complex.
Psychological Defence Mechanisms
Our ego is very delicate and fragile and so we often use ways and means to try to protect it. In the face of confusion, disappointment, failure, conflict and frustration, our psyche needs help to cope. Without “psychological crutches” we become stressed or anxious. We can have three reactions to Anxiety or stress:

1) Attack problem and develop solutions.

2) Ignore the problem, hope it will go away.

3) Def end ourselves (our ego, self esteem, image)

Psychological Mechanisms,
I Substitution - Compensating
Overdoing one thing to cover up deficiencies in other areas.
conversationalist — good talker — not a doer.
II. Repression - Blocking
·Try to forget failures or unfortunate incident.
·we forget to perform unpleasant duties.

III. RATIONALISATION - Justifications
·we substitute a “good reason” for an action rather than the real one.
·wishful thinking — not reasoning

IV. REGRESSION - Reverting to former states.
·Reverting to childish behaviour or habits
·often covers up fact that we can not cope with problem.

V. SUBLIMATION
·Basic drives become expressed in socially accepted forms.
·hostility expressed in competitive sports.
·a blood thirsty individual becomes a butcher.

VI.IDENTIFICATION
·Role—playing — we take on characteristics of a person we admire. a Hero—worship or modelling (apeing)

VII. INSULATION
·Protective Shell
·being aloof, distant, unconcerned, cold, “don’t care”
·self-sufficient, detached “cool”.

VIII. SCAPEGOATIN Justification
·Blaming our own faults, deficiencies, inadequacies on others.

IX. INTELLECTUALISATION
·Trying to remain objective, analytical, untouched in an emotionally threatening event.

X. MALINGERING A Psycho-somatic disorder
·Adjusting through injury.
.Taking to your bed
·Having a headache
·Feeling sick to the stomach

XI. AGGRESSION -

Reacting rather than responding to a situation.

·You become overwhelmed by frustration and a sense of powerlessness or impotence to the extent that you react in a violent, vindictive and destructive manner.

Merits of Psychological Approach:

In the right hands, this approach can be useful in understanding motivation and causality. Psychoanalysis has helped us to understand human behaviour and many writers have explored this field to great advantage.
Freud’s contribution to the formative and impressionable childhood years has also assisted us in providing conditions to maximise children’s potential.

Limitations of Psychological Approach:
While beneficial, we have to realise that Psychoanalysis alone will not lead to a full understanding of a work of art. There are many other valid interpretations.

*1. Psychological approach to Literature

The Psychological Approach Freud
from A Handbook of Critical Approaches ot Literature, Fouth ed. Guren, et al

Aim of Psychological Approach:
Provide many profound clues toward solving a work’s thematic and symbolic mysteries
Abuses and Misunderstandings of the Psychological Approach:
In the general sense of the word, nothing new about psychological approach. Used as early as the 4th century by Aristotle.
During the twentieth century, psychological criticism has come to be associated with the psychoanalytical theories of Sigmund Freud and his followers. This association has resulted in most of the abuses and misunderstandings of this approach.
Abuses results from an excess of enthusiasm, which has manifested several ways:
Advocates push their critical theses to hard, forcing the psychoanalytical theory at expense of other considerations
The literary criticism of the psychoanalytical extremists degenerated into a special occultism with its own mystique and jargon used specifically for the in-group.
Results in widespread mistrust of the psychological approach in analyzing literature

Freud’s Theories:
Freud emphasized the unconscious aspects of the human psyche
Most of the individual’s mental processes are unconscious
All human behavior is motivated ultimately by sexuality (However, some of Freud’s own disciples have rejected this, including Jung and Adler)
Freud assigned mental processes to three psychic zones:
The id:
Reservoir of libido, the primary source of all physic energy.
The id functions to fulfill the pleasure principle.
The id has no consciousness or semblance of rational order; characterized by a tremendous and amorphous vitality.
Only has an impulse to obtain satisfaction for the instinctual needs in accordance with pleasure
In short, the id is the source of all aggression and desires
Two agencies to regulate the id:
The ego:
Protects the individual
Rational governing agent of the psyche
Lacks the strong vitality of the id, regulates the instinctual drives of the id so that they may be in released in nondestructive behavioral patterns
Ego comprises what we think of as the conscious mind
The superego:
Primarily functions to protect society
Largely unconscious, superego is the moral censoring agency, the repository of conscience and pride
Serves to inhibit or repress the id, to block off and thrust back into the unconscious those impulses toward pleasure that society regards as unacceptable (like overt aggression, sexual passion, and the Oedipal Instinct)
Examples of the Psychological Approach in practice:
The Oedipus Complex in Hamlet (Oedipus Complex is when a boy is sexually attracted to his mother)
Rebellion against the father in Huckleberry Finn
Id versus Superego in the short story “Young Goodman Brown”
The consequences of sexual repression in The Turn of the Screw
Love and Death in the short story “Sick Rose”
Sexual Imagery in the poem “To His Coy Mistress” (Most often use of sexual imagery is finding phallic and yonic symbols)
Morality over the pleasure principle in the short story “Everyday Use”

#7. Translation Theory

Translation Theory
By T. David Gordon, 1985. resource

While not everyone who drives an automobile needs to understand the theory behind the internal combustion engine, someone does need to know this theory. I may be able to drive my Pontiac without any knowledge of internal combustion engines, until the Pontiac breaks down. Then, I must find someone (presumably a mechanic) who does in fact know enough theory to get the Pontiac running again.
The same is true of translation theory. It is not necessary for everyone to know translation theory, nor is it even necessary for pastors and teachers to know everything about translation theory. It is necessary for pastors and teachers in the American church at the end of the twentieth century to know something about translation theory, for two reasons. First, it will affect the way we interpret the Bible for our people. If we are completely unaware of translation theory, we may unwittingly mislead our brothers and sisters in our interpretation. Second, there are so many English translations available, that no contemporary pastor will be able to escape the inevitable questions about which translations are superior.
It is not my intention to provide anything like an exhaustive approach to either translation theory or semantic theory (relax, I'll define this word later). Rather, I intend to discuss briefly the more important observations, which may be useful to the pastoral ministry.

1. Communication has three parties.
Translation theory shares a number of concerns with what is commonly called communication theory. Perhaps the most important observation which the communication theorists have produced for translators is the recognition that every act of communication has three dimensions: Speaker (or author), Message, and Audience. The more we can know about the original author, the actual message produced by that author, and the original audience, the better acquainted we will be with that particular act of communication. An awareness of this tri-partite character of communication can be very useful for interpreters. Assuming that an act of communication is right now taking place, as you read what I wrote, there are three dimensions to this particular act of communication: myself, and what I am intending to communicate; the actual words which are on this page; and what you understand me to be saying. When the three dimensions converge, the communication has been efficient.
If we know, perhaps from another source, what an individual author's circumstances are, this may help us understand the actual message produced. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letters from Prison" are better understood by someone who knows the circumstances under which they were written rather than by someone who is oblivious to mid-20th century American history. If we know information about the author's audience, this may also help us to understand the message itself. John Kennedy's famous, "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech is better understood if one understands the apprehensions which many West German citizens had about American foreign policy during the early 1960s (and, knowing the audience was German may help explain why he did not speak this sentence in English!).
Recognizing that in addition to the message itself, there are the two other components of author and audience, the interpreter attempts to uncover as much information as possible about the author and audience. This is why biblical scholars spend so much time attempting to locate the circumstances of a given epistle; they are trying to discover information about author and audience, which will help complete the understanding of the particular act of communication represented by the message.

At this point, an important warning needs to be expressed. For students of literature whose original audience and author are not present (i.e., dead), we only have direct access to one of the three parties in the communicative process: the message itself. Whereas we would be profited by having direct access to author and audience ("Paul, what in the world did you mean about baptizing for the dead?"; or, "How did it hit you Galatians when Paul said he wished his troublers would castrate themselves?"), it would be incorrect to suggest that we must have such access for any understanding to take place. Frequently one encounters the extravagant statement to the effect that "one cannot understand a biblical book unless one understands the author's (or audience's) circumstances." The problem with such statements is that they imply that we can have no understanding without access to information which simply does not always exist. We haven't any idea who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, or why, other than what may be indicated in the letter itself. Does this mean that we can't understand it in any sense? I think not. We just have to recognize that information, which would assist the act of interpretation, is, in this case, missing.

Related to this warning is a second. For Protestants, scripture itself is authoritative. Our reconstructions, often highly conjectural of the historical circumstances under which a given biblical work was written and read, are not authoritative, by my understanding of Protestant theology. Those reconstructions may assist our understanding of the biblical text, but they are not, in and of themselves, of any religious authority.
Finally, we might add that the essential error of many exegetical theories is their exclusion of one or more of these three parties from consideration. While many important debates are continuing to influence interpretive theory, our evaluation of these debates would do well to retain a role for each of the three above-mentioned dimensions.

2. Formal and Dynamic Equivalence
One of the ongoing debates about translations revolves around the question of whether, and in what degree, the translation should reflect the syntax, or form, of the original language. All translators agree that the translation should reflect faithfully the message of the original, but all are not agreed on whether the translation should adhere closely to the grammatical forms of the original language.
Translations can be located on a spectrum, which would have, at one extreme, rigid adherence to the form of the original language (formal equivalence), and at the other extreme, complete disregard for the form (not the message) of the original language (dynamic equivalence). An interlinear would come the closest to the first extreme, followed by the NASB. At the other extreme would be the NEB and TEV. In between would be the RSV and NIV, with the RSV leaning more toward a formal equivalence, and the NIV leaning more toward a dynamic equivalence.
It is probably fair to say that most contemporary linguists favor the dynamic equivalence approach in theory, though they might be disappointed in the various attempts at producing one. The reason for preferring to reproduce the thought of the original without attempting to conform to its form is that all languages have their own syntax. While the syntax of one language may be similar to the syntax of other languages, it is also dissimilar as well. Thus, if we attempt to adhere to the formal syntax of another language, we reproduce forms which are abnormal or confusing, if not downright distracting in the target language.

For example, Greek tends to have very long sentences, whose various clauses are arranged in a logically hierarchical fashion. That is, there will be a number of dependent clauses connected to an independent clause. This type of sentence structure, perfectly normal in Greek, is called hypotactic (clauses are arranged logically under one another). English, by contrast, is not so comfortable with long sentences, and does not provide any easy way of indicating which clauses are dependent upon others. Our sentence structure is called paratactic (clauses are arranged logically alongside of one another). If we attempt to reproduce, in English, sentences of the same length as the Greek original, our audience will not be able to follow our translation. Ephesians 1:3-14, for instance, is one sentence in Greek, with well-defined subordinate clauses. If we attempt to reproduce a sentence of this length in English, the result will be so awkward that few, if any, English readers would be able to follow it. Consequently, translators must break the longer Greek sentences into shorter English sentences.

For the pastor and teacher, it is important to be able to recognize the hypotactic structure of the original language, because it is frequently of theological and ethical significance. For instance, there is only one imperative (independent clause) in the Great Commission -- "make disciples." All the other verbs are dependent. The other clauses help to describe what the commandment means. Most English translations, however, obscure this matter by translating the Great Commission as though it were a string of equivalent imperatives. What's worse, they tend to treat one of the dependent clauses as though it were the major (independent) clause ("Go"). So the teacher or pastor needs to be able to understand what is going on in the structure of the original language, without necessarily trying to reproduce it in an English translation.

There are other differences between the two languages. Greek typically uses passive verbs; English prefers active verbs. Greek typically makes nouns out of verbs (making "redemption" as common as "redeem''). Speakers of English are not as comfortable with these abstractions; we are happier with verbs. A dynamic equivalence translation will commonly reproduce the meaning of the Greek in a more natural manner in English. In 2 Thess 2:13, for instance, pistei aletheias, is translated "belief in the truth" (formal equivalence) by the RSV, but "the truth that you believe" (dynamic equivalence) by the NEB. The latter, while not any more accurate than the former, is a little more natural, and thus more easily understood.

A classic example of the difference between English and Greek syntax is evidenced by the difference in their respective employment of the participle. First, the Greek participle is much more common than the English. But the Greek participle is also used differently than the English participle. Greek commonly employs the participle in an attributive fashion, as a verbal adjective. This is very rare in English. James Taylor does sing about the "The Walking Man," but this is rare outside of artistic expression. We would normally produce a relative clause, "the man who walks." Because of the differences in the way the two languages use their respective participles, we simply cannot translate a Greek participle with an English participle in many cases, without being obscure or ambiguous. Dikaiothentes in Romans 5:1 should not be translated, "having been justified" (NASB: formal equivalence), but, "since we are justified" (RSV: dynamic equivalence).

There are problems, however, with dynamic equivalence translations. Since the translator is "freer" from the grammatical forms of the original language he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are formal equivalence translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong. For instance, in Romans 8:3, Paul uses the phrase: dia tes sarkos. A formal equivalent translation, the RSV, renders this "by the flesh," which is faithful to the original but somewhat ambiguous in English. The NIV renders this much more precisely, by the phrase, "by the sinful nature." Unfortunately, the NIV is precisely wrong here, because Paul is not talking about a lower nature, or a sinful nature at all. In fact, he is not speaking anthropologically, but redemptive-historically. In this particular case, I believe we would be better off with the ambiguous "flesh," and have to ask what, 'flesh' means for Paul, than to have the more precise but utterly un-Pauline "sinful nature."

Another problem associated with dynamic equivalence translations is related to their use as study Bibles. Since a given word may have a number of meanings, it is frequently impossible, and more frequently confusing, to attempt to translate a given Greek word with the same English word in every case. Consequently, the dynamic equivalence translation can give a more specific rendering in English, being unbound by an attempt to reproduce the same Greek word in the same English manner. This produces better understanding, frequently, of individual sentences or clauses. However, it does not permit the English reader to know when the same Greek word lay behind two different English words. Since the only way to know what a word means is by first examining its full range of uses, there is no way for the English reader to know what words are behind the English words found.

For instance, when Paul says he could not address the Corinthians as pneumatikoi, but rather as sarkinoi (1 Cor 3), he employs the adjectival forms of what we normally translate "Spirit" and "flesh." And, in Romans 8 (as well as elsewhere), it is clear that life in the Spirit is redeemed life; whereas life in the flesh is unredeemed life. If the adjectives in 1 Cor are translated "spiritual," and "fleshly," the reader can see the correspondence to other Pauline passages, and understand that Paul is saying, in effect, "I could not address you as redeemed people, but as unredeemed people." But the NIV construes sarx as "sinful nature" in Rom 8, and sarkinos as "worldly" in 1 Cor 3, with the result that the reader of this translation is not aware that in the original the same root form was employed. The conclusion of this is that the dynamic equivalence translation, when done well, renders in more precise and more vivid English particular expressions. However, it makes it more difficult to compare individual passages with parallel passages elsewhere.
In any given congregation, a variety of translations will be present. The teachers in the church must have the competence to discern which one represents the original most accurately in English in any circumstance. In my judgment, none of the contemporary translations is manifestly superior to the others. Each is a blend of strengths and weaknesses, due to the difficulty of the task.
From the pulpit, of course, some versions can be excluded rather easily. Paraphrases, while useful to illustrate a point, should never be used as the basic sermon text, because they reflect so thoroughly the opinions of the paraphraser. Also, children's Bibles, such as the Good News, and, to a lesser degree, the NIV should not be used as the basis of a sermon directed toward the entire congregation. The NASB should not be used, simply because its English is atrocious. Its rigid adherence to the formal equivalence principle, while making it highly useful in the study, renders it completely inappropriate in a setting where communication is important.

The NIV should not be used from the pulpit, in my judgment, because it is a sectarian translation. It is a self-confessedly "evangelical" translation, which excluded non-evangelicals from the translation process. It is therefore ecclesiastically unacceptable (it excludes from the outset people who don't call themselves "evangelical," just as the Kingdom Translation excludes people who don't call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses). In fact, even for study purposes, one will have to be cautious about the evangelical bias reflected in this translation, whereby the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of evangelicalism have not been offset by a more "inclusive" committee.

Specifically, the NIV shows many signs of being individualistic, experientialist, and revivalistic (I am speaking about the NIV New Testament; I haven't evaluated the NIV Old Testament thoroughly yet). At the same time, the NIV ought to be in the minister's study because it is a good illustration of the demands of a dynamic equivalence translation, and it is also very successful at many points. The RSV, reflecting the breadth of the church, a high style of English, and a reasonably accurate representation of the original text, is perhaps the preferred text for pulpit use.

3. Translation is a theological task
It has become increasingly clear that translation cannot really be performed in a theological vacuum. When a variety of linguistic options present themselves, theological factors can influence the decision to choose one option over the other. In fact, such factors should influence the translation. The resolution of the translation question about how to translate telos in Romans 10:4 is resolved in large part by resolving larger questions about Paul's theology; how he understands the relation between the older testament and the Christ event, etc. Since theology is to be determined by the Bible, and since translating the Bible is determined, at least in part, by theological considerations, it is easy to see that there is something of a circle here. Fortunately, it is not a vicious cycle, because if one is willing to entertain sympathetically a variety of options, one can grow in the confidence with which one evaluates a given translation. One must never pretend, however, that translation is a step of "pre-exegesis" or "pre-interpretation." The first step of interpretation is translation. This step will influence all other steps, so it must be approached with the entire arsenal of theological tools.

Semantic Theory
It is appropriate now to move to some consideration of dealing with the meaning of individual words (commonly called lexical semantics). A lexicon in the hands of an over-imaginative preacher may be the deadliest of all human instruments. In terms of sheer percentages, more pulpit nonsense may be attributable to a misunderstanding of how words communicate meaning than any other interpretive error. Since the technical study of linguistics began in the early nineteenth century, a number of very valuable insights have been discovered by the linguists. What follows is an attempt at providing some of their most useful insights for those who want to teach and preach faithfully.

1. Semantic Field and Context
Most words can mean a number of things. Take the English word, "run." It can appear in the following (and many more) contexts:

The athlete is running.
Her nose is running.
We scored a run in the sixth inning.
I have a run in my stocking.
Does your car run?
My computer runs on Windows.
For how long is the movie running?
You want to run that by me again?
His sermons seem to run on forever.
She's running the flag up the pole.
Jackson is running for President.
Who left the water running?

Enough, already. It is obvious that most words can mean a number of different things. How do we know what a word means in a given circumstance? Well, we don't just choose the one we prefer. In fact there are two components to meaning: semantic field and semantic context.

By semantic field, we mean the full range of ways the word has and can be used (an example is the above, partial semantic field for "run"). By examining the "field" of possible meanings, we begin to narrow the options. Normally, there are still too many options, so we have to take another step. The second step is to determine the semantic context. If "run," for instance, can refer to rapid, bipedal locomotion in some contexts, we can eliminate that option in contexts where there are no legs or feet. If "run" can mean "flow," or "drip," it is a possible way of understanding it where noses and faucets appear, but not where liquids do not appear. In everyday speech, we do this kind of comparison to semantic context so rapidly and unreflectively that we are not normally aware of doing it. But we do it nevertheless, and normally with great accuracy. It is imperative that we do this with biblical literature as well. No word brings its full semantic field with it into any given context. Yet many fanciful pulpit statements are due to the attempt to do this very thing.

2. "Root" Meanings
Many people speak of "root meanings." Many people speak of ghosts. Neither exists. Apparently, when people speak of "root" meanings of words, they are attempting to find the distilled essence, or the common semantic range of the word in each of its contexts. This may, by dumb luck, work in some circumstances, but it won't work in most. What common "root" meaning is there in the word "run" which can account for the variety of uses listed above? Is it motion? Perhaps, for the athlete, the flag, even the nose (which doesn't move itself, but its contents do). But is there any "motion" involved in the statement that a person is running for an office? Is any motion taking place when a movie "runs" for six weeks? Is a "run" in a stocking a movement of some sort? I fail to see how there is, without redefining the word "motion" to include virtually everything. And if we do this, then we aren't learning anything specific about the term in question (This is the practical deficiency of the Componential Analysis approach to Semantics; if one finds an element common enough to be related to all the various uses, it isn't specific enough to be any real help in any given context). In actual fact, we don't really know why people use terms in such a broad range of ways as they do. But the answer certainly doesn't lie in the fact of some alleged "root" meaning, common to all uses. Thus, for interpretation's sake, it is better not to speak of "root" meanings at all. Just look at the entire semantic field, and then limit that field by the contextual considerations.

This doesn't mean that there are no similarities in the variety of a term's uses. If we return to "run," we can determine several "sub"-fields. We can see "run" used of liquids, to indicate they are flowing. We can see "run" used with machines to indicate that they are operating as they should. We can see it used in reference to putting one foot ahead of another repeatedly, in rapid succession, which would embrace the athlete, and, by extension, the "runs" in a baseball game (which are a short-hand reference to someone "running" around the bases). But these fields do not appear to be related to each other, and worse, these fields do not account for the stocking or the flag. Perhaps we ought to just bring "root" meanings out once a year, on October 31st, and then put them back for the rest of the year.

3. Etymologies and Semantic Change
Etymology is a perfectly valid field of study. Etymology is the study of the history of a word's usage. It has the historical benefit of demonstrating to us what a word might have meant in a given period. One thing etymologists have discovered, of course, is that words change over time. That is, people apparently use terms in an increasing variety of ways, extending known usages, and coining new usages. Thus, the history of a word's usage is not necessarily any help in determining its meaning in a particular context. And certainly it is not the case that the "earliest" known meaning is the "true," "real," or, need I say it, "root" meaning. "Gay," for instance, might well have meant "happy" or "carefree" in certain places in certain times. It most emphatically does not mean that today in San Francisco. Do not be misled; a "happy" hour at a "gay" bar may be a very miserable experience for a heterosexual teetotaler.

The biblical interpreter is not particularly interested in what a term may have meant several centuries prior to the time in question. Rather, the biblical interpreter wants to know what range of meaning a term had in the period in question. Etymology is not particularly helpful as a guide to the meaning of a term in any given context. Semantic context is the more reliable guide.

4. Polyvalency
You may run across (oops, another use of "run") this term from time to time, so you may as well know what it means. "Polyvalency" refers to the ability of a given term to have a number of meanings in any given historical period. "Run" is polyvalent. It is important for the interpreter to be aware of the full range of possible meanings of a given word, before determining what it means in its given context.

5. Words and Concepts
For the sake of clarity, it is helpful to distinguish between a word and a concept. Most words can be employed to denote a number of concepts, and most concepts can be addressed by using a range of terms. Thus, charis is a word; grace is a concept which can be labeled in a variety of ways. So, if you want to study, "The Grace of God in the New Testament," you would certainly include not only a word study of charis, but also passages which refer to God's gracious activity without employing that particular term. For instance, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard reflects God's gracious character, as those who come along late in the day receive equal recompense with those who have labored all day. God graciously gives the kingdom not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, who come on the scene a bit late, redemptive-historically speaking.

6. Semantic "Minimalism"
One of the best axioms to apply when attempting to discover the meaning of any given word was first coined by Ferdinand de Saussure and his followers. The best meaning of a given term is the meaning which contributes the least to the overall meaning of the sentence. In most communication acts, we do not "load up" a given word with a lot of meaning. Rather, we speak in paragraphs and sentences -- the individual words have little meaning in and of themselves, but much meaning when tied to one another. Many seminarians and preachers seem to be unaware of this, for they frequently interpret the Bible as though its individual words were almost magical, possessing great truths and mysteries in six or seven letters. There are very few technical terms in any language, which are more heavily "loaded" than most words.

Concluding Observations
If one were to state briefly the results of linguistic study in the last few generations, one would certainly have to refer to the importance of context. Linguistics has made us repeatedly aware of the fact that the fundamental communicative unit is the sentence, not the word. Individual words, removed from the context of a sentence, rarely communicate effectively. Words strung together, mutually supporting and interpreting one another, can communicate very effectively. For biblical students, this means that we must look at the larger unites of communication (the sentence and paragraph) at least as seriously as we look at individual words. We must be aware of the fact that a given word can signify a number of different things in a number of different contexts.

Personally, I would like to see more sermons on whole chapters of scripture, and even on entire books, and fewer sermons on a verse here or there. If a person can produce a single 20-minute distillation of Romans 1-11, he can certainly handle Romans 6:3 when it shows up. If the contextual emphasis of contemporary linguistics can help us see the "forest" of a biblical book, as opposed to merely the "trees" of individual words, it will have done us and God's kingdom a great service.

#6. Translation Theory

Some Principles of “Common-Language” Translation
by William L. Wonderly resource

The Bible Translator 21/3 (July 1970), pp. 126-37.

William L. Wonderly is UBS Regional Translations Coordinator for the Americas based in Mexico.

A number of readers of The Bible Translator are already acquainted with the writer’s book Bible Translations for Popular Use; 1 the present article is an attempt to summarize, in a non-technical way, some of the main principles outlined in it. For further details, both of theoretical basis and of concrete biblical examples, the reader is referred to the book itself.

We are here considering chiefly the matter of Bible translation into the so-called literary languages—languages that are spoken by relatively large numbers of people, which represent a complex and socially stratified society, and which have a literary tradition such that the well-educated or “cultured” person is expected to have a command of the language superior to that possessed by the uneducated person. In such languages, Bible translations have traditionally been made without much attention to the differing levels of language represented by this social stratification and have thus been, in effect, translations designed for the educated reader. Even in non-literary languages, where the factors of social stratification are absent or less marked, translators have frequently exploited the potential resources of the language at a level that tends to be above the reach of the average reader.
It is, of course, far easier to produce a translation in which no restrictions are made and in which the translator can draw upon the whole potential of the receptor language without regard to the level of preparation of his readers. For one thing, the translator himself is apt to be an educated person whose use of the language is superior to that of his intended readers; and unless he is both perceptive and willing to sacrifice some of his erudition in the interest of communicating the gospel, his line of least resistance is to produce a translation on a higher level of language than is familiar to his readers.
In order to explore some of the factors that must be taken into consideration in translating for readers of limited or non-specialized biblical background, we may think in terms of certain dimensions of language difference—that is, of factors that make the speech of certain groups different from that of other groups within the same major language. Leaving aside the matter of geographical differences, we may here consider the dimensions of (1) socio-educational level, (2) situational variety, (3) time, (4) in-group speech (including religious language), and (5) translationism or interference from other languages.

1. Socio-Educational Level: The “Vertical” Dimension
In a complex society, groups of different social level employ different dialects or varieties of language, even when the language is the “same”, as in the case of English, Japanese, Arabic, and so on. Since language proficiency has in itself been made a prime factor in education in these societies, these differences are correlated to a great extent (but by no means exclusively) with degree of education and reader experience; hence we use the term socio-educational level.
There is thus a gradation from upper or educated speech to lower or uneducated speech. At the upper level, the language contains erudite vocabulary and elaborate literary forms beyond the reach of the uneducated reader, while at the lower level it contains forms that are considered substandard or vulgar; but the important thing is that there is a common core or overlap in which are to be found the really essential features, of both vocabulary and grammar, of both upper and lower levels.
This overlap is diagramed in Figure 1, in which the whole bar represents the entire language in all of its levels; the upper levels (educated language) are represented by sections A and B, and the lower levels (uneducated language) by sections B and C. Section B, the area of overlap, is common to both levels. This central section represents the level of language that is used by educated persons and is also either used or understood by uneducated ones. Section A represents the resources of the language used only by the educated; section C, those that are used by the uneducated but not accepted by the educated. It is important to note that the dialect of any given person or group corresponds to a vertical segment of considerable extension on the bar, and not to a single point, and that in fact any given dialect or level of speech represents a substantial part of the whole bar. That is, people at any level use a large part of the total resources of their language. Note also that a wavy line is used to separate A and B, indicating that this boundary is quite flexible and depends on the degree of education of the speaker; whereas the boundary between B and C is relatively fixed due to standards of “correctness”.
It is the area B of overlap that makes effective communication possible across socio-educational dialect boundaries, and that makes these dialect levels all part of the same language. And it is this area of overlap that is the key to preparing Bible translations (and other materials) in what we shall call common language, by which we mean a level of language that is accessible to the lower group and at the same time acceptable to the upper group.
These twin criteria of accessibility at the lower level and acceptability at the higher level are especially important. If the materials are not accessible or within the reach of the reader, then reading will not be a fully rewarding experience, and the reader may become discouraged or lose interest; if, on the other hand, they are not on a level acceptable to the upper group, the lower group will not accept them either, as the standards of this group are based largely on the norms set by the more educated people.

2. Situational Variety: The Dimension of Functional Variation
The second dimension is that of situational variety. People behave, dress, and speak differently in different social situations, ranging from formal on the one hand to casual and intimate on the other. We shall not here attempt to define the specific differences, except to point out that the speech of a more formal occasion, with its more carefully worked out sentences and use of rather higher level vocabulary, differs widely from that appropriate in a casual situation among friends, with its greater proportion of slang, purposely incomplete sentences, and so on. People at any given socio-educational level thus have different situational varieties in their speech; the less formal varieties are no less “correct” than the more formal ones—in fact, to use a formal variety in a casual or intimate situation would be entirely inappropriate, and just as “incorrect” as to wear a tuxedo 2 on the golf course.
The dimension of situational variety is shown in Figure 2 as a left-to-right dimension, and by the use of the two dimensions now presented we may roughly classify any Bible translation or other piece of literature in contemporary language. In preparing a Bible translation that is accessible to inexperienced readers, we need not only to keep from going too high in level, but to avoid a style that is too formal. In other words, we shall keep downward and toward the left on our diagram, but without either going so low as to be unacceptable or so far toward informality as to be considered inappropriate for the subject matter.
On Figure 2 we have attempted to classify in terms of these dimensions, although highly impressionistically, the language used in the New English Bible (NEB), the J. B. Phillips version (JBP), and Today’s English Version (TEV).

3. Time: The Chronological Dimension
The Bible translations shown on Figure 2 are all in contemporary or present-day language. Since many of our translations date from earlier periods, they cannot be adequately classified in terms of the two dimensions presented above. The dimension of time must be added, since they are in an archaic or semi-archaic form of the language, depending upon when they were first produced. Even more recent versions, especially if they are direct revisions of earlier ones, frequently contain archaisms of one degree or another.
In Figure 3 we show the time dimension from front to back on the three­dimensional figure, with the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 as an example of an archaic version. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), not shown on the diagram, would lie somewhere between the front and back and be classified as semi-archaic.

4. In-Group Speech: Religious Language
Certain lexical and grammatical features are peculiar to restricted groups of speakers within a given language. Examples are slang, jargon, technical language (including theological language), and so on. Religious language is actually another case of language that is restricted to one group or another, and it is often possible to tell what religious in-group (e.g. Protestant or Catholic, conservative or liberal, etc.) one belongs to by the vocabulary and style he uses.
Much of the religious language of Christians is derived from the traditional versions of the Bible, with extensions to liturgical use, prayer, and speaking about religious matters. It therefore contains archaic features not used by people outside the group, and any effort to produce a Bible translation for the “uninitiated” should avoid such specialized forms. Bible translations for general use should not only be in language that is entirely contemporary but should avoid in-group restrictions.

5. Translationism: Interference from Other Languages
Our traditional versions of the Bible, and the in-group religious language that is in turn influenced by them, are not only archaic (using language forms that are no longer in current use); they also use language forms that never were in current use. This is due to the interference from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin features of vocabulary, grammar and style that has come about in the process of translating. We sometimes refer to this as translationism. It is most noticeable in the carrying over of Hebrew and Greek idioms into a language where they do not fit (blessing I will bless, die the death, son of perdition), but is more subtle (and perhaps a greater impediment to communication) in matters of style. For example, the style of the Pauline Epistles, with their heavy use of verb-derived nouns and of intricately related subordinate clauses, is carried over into many of our traditional Bible translations to produce a style which is really foreign to the genius of the receptor language. Of course, readers who have had considerable education or religious instruction can, with a certain effort, figure out a large proportion of the meaning that was intended; but this is far from the kind of translation which communicates to the reader what the original text communicated to its readers.
It may thus be said that the present-day speaker or reader who has mastered the style of language used in a traditional Scripture version has usually learned an in-group variety of his language that no one speaks or uses outside of religious situations. He has managed to learn it as a result of diligent church attendance or Bible reading, often enough because be has been reared in a religious environment. When persons not familiar with the religious variety of their language are confronted with such a traditional Bible translation, they must somehow adjust to this new language form before the content of its message can become really meaningful to them. Many people of course reject the special language form—and with it the message—rather than make the adjustment.

6. Reader Capacity and Overloading
Readers differ in the levels at which they can effectively utilize written materials. If we draw a graph in which the horizontal axis represents the flow of reading matter and the vertical axis the degree of difficulty of the materials (or technically, their communication load), we may use a horizontal line at a given height to represent the horizon of difficulty (or “threshold of frustration”) which a reader or class of readers may tolerate. In Figure 4, line A represents the horizon of difficulty of an educated middle class speaker, line B that of an inexperienced reader from a lower social dialect. The solid wavy line represents a piece of reading matter that is adequate for the educated middle class reader; it has peaks and troughs of difficulty, but fluctuates around the horizon of reader A in such a way as to be now challenging, now relaxing, now just on his level. The dotted wavy line represents a different piece of reading matter, designed for the inexperienced reader. Note that if the more difficult material is given to reader B, it will be above his horizon so much of the time that he cannot use it effectively and will become discouraged; conversely, if the easier material is given to A, it will be beneath his horizon so much of the time that he will soon lose interest. At each reader’s level, the reading matter must fluctuate in difficulty somewhere around the reader’s horizon, but should occasionally rise above it in order to challenge him. Without such challenge, even if the general level is satisfactory, the reader may lose interest; and with too many peaks above the horizon he may become discouraged.

If a Bible translation is to be accessible to the reader on the lower level, it should therefore be kept generally within his horizon of difficulty, but with occasional peaks to challenge him; however, the use of difficult words and expressions should be reserved primarily for (1) items in which the semantic content is such that no simple expression can be found and (2) places where the content is so easy that a higher level expression can be used for rhetorical effect without blocking communication. In the first instance it is frequently necessary to use the principle known in information theory as redundancy, whereby the unknown or difficult expression is made less difficult through building more familiar expressions into the context in a way that will either directly explain the difficult part or else help the reader to be able more nearly to guess what it means.
By this means one can avoid overloading the communication channel. That is, it is possible to increase the communication load (i.e. the difficulty) semantically (i.e. in terms of content) when tbe subject matter so requires, or to increase it in terms of lexical or grammatical structure for certain rhetorical purposes; but if one increases both factors simultaneously, overloading results, with consequent blocking or impeding of communication.

7. Producer Language and Consumer Language
Another factor to be considered is the difference between producer language and consumer language. Everybody can consume (i.e. hear or read) over a wider range on the vertical scale than he is able or willing to produce (i.e. speak or write). The producer language of a given reader is more familiar and comprehensible to him than his consumer language, and as a general practice one should seek to keep a Bible translation within the producer level in preparing reading materials. However, one should also utilize the resources of the reader’s consumer level from time to time, both to challenge him and to develop his reading ability. Frequently, therefore, it is best to operate within the producer level as a general norm but to have the resources of the consumer level as a reserve which may be tapped when the subject matter is such as to require it.

The degree to which a writer will keep within the producer level will also depend upon the purpose of the reading material itself. Since the primary purpose of a Bible translation is to communicate basic information, the surest way to accomplish this is to keep as nearly as possible within the producer language; on the other hand, when one is dealing with literature whose main purpose is to give the reader added experience and to raise his level of reading ability and use of the language, he will naturally introduce words and expressions that will serve this purpose, while still keeping within the bounds of tolerance of the horizon of difficulty of the intended readers.

8. Techniques to Maintain a Common Level: Vocabulary
Various specific techniques may be mentioned for producing materials that are at once accessible and acceptable. In terms of vocabulary, when there is a choice between synonyms of a higher and lower level (e.g. purchase: buy: grant: give), one may choose the lower one so long as it is within the limits of acceptability and translational fidelity. In the case of terms which have no one-word equivalent on the popular level, descriptive phrases may be used (e.g. blaspheme: talk against God; divination: guessing the future). Frequently it is necessary to use qualifiers or other contextual definition alongside certain words that would otherwise be difficult or ambiguous (e.g. law is ambiguous in biblical usage, but Today’s English Version frequently translates it unambiguously as Law of Moses).
It should be pointed out here that the use of vocabulary lists based on word-frequency is of quite limited value in preparing literature at this level. These lists are of some use in preparing materials on a more elementary level, to train the beginning reader to recognize words that he will encounter frequently; but they do not necessarily reflect the ease with which a given word will be recognized in a particular context. This is due to various factors. (1) Frequency lists are usually based on written rather than spoken materials, and hence do not directly reflect people’s overall acquaintance with words. (2) High frequency of words is usually due to the frequency with which people have to use them, not necessarily to their actual knowledge of such words (bread is more frequent than onion, but both are well known). (3) Many words occur with a high frequency precisely because they are highly ambiguous and can be used in so many senses, including senses unfamiliar to the reader. For example, a list would fail to tell us that mad, though frequent enough, is seldom used popularly in its literary sense of “crazy”. High frequency words often have meanings in upper-level speech that are not the same as the meanings attached to them by readers at lower levels. (4) Perhaps the most serious difficulty with word lists is that they are based upon gross or overall frequency and not upon the frequency with which a word appears in a specific context. What makes for readability is not so much the use of words that are well known per se, as the use of words that are normal for their specific contexts. A vast multitude is a more readable expression than a vast woman; even though woman is no doubt a more frequent word, it is less likely to appear (and is therefore stranger) in this particular context.

To achieve optimum readability or accessibility for the inexperienced reader, the writer should therefore use words in their natural or expected combinations, rather than using (purposely or otherwise) unusual lexical combinations. Such unusual combinations, if employed by skilful writers, may be quite effective ways of heightening interest when it comes to experienced readers, but they should be used sparingly in materials for inexperienced ones.
This same principle applies to figurative language, which is in fact a special case of the use of unusual combinations. Studies of reader ability have shown that good readers have little difficulty with figures of speech, but that poor readers have great difficulty. It is therefore important to keep figurative language to a minimum and to limit it primarily to figures that are in common use or that fit within the normal patterns of figurative speech in the receptor language.

9. Techniques: Grammatical Structure
In the area of grammar, there are certain types of constructions that are less frequent at the lower socio-educational levels than at the higher ones. In English these include, among others, the so-called past perfect tense, the passive voice, and the use of non-restrictive clauses introduced by who or which. Although not entirely inaccessible in terms of consumer language, such constructions should be used sparingly, with an attempt to keep their overall frequency from differing too widely from the overall frequency with which they appear in the producer language of the intended readers.

Another basic factor, and one which employs insights derived from recent developments in transformational linguistics, is the use of grammatical constructions that to a greater or lesser degree approximate kernel sentences. 3 By kernel sentences we mean, rather non-technically, those basic constructions from which derived constructions can be formed by grammatical transformation. In English, the active transitive verb construction John hit Bill is, for example, one kernel form; from it the passive construction Bill was hit by John may be derived. Although writing exclusively in kernel sentences would result in a choppy and childish style, the judicious employment of a high proportion of kernel or near-kernel constructions makes for a high degree of accessibility for the new reader. This is seen in several ways.

For one thing, the use of near-kernel constructions results in events being expressed as verbs rather than nouns (e.g. accept instead of acceptance), and abstract qualities as adjectives or adverbs rather than nouns (e.g. good instead of goodness); certain psychological studies have indicated that this not only provides a closer correspondence between linguistic forms and the real world but may also be much closer to the way people actually think. The use of verbs instead of verb-derived nouns also forces the writer to specify the participants (subject and object), thereby adding concreteness and increasing readability. Contrast, for example, forgiveness of sins with God forgives us our sins. Or, with adjective instead of noun, contrast happiness was everywhere with everybody was happy. Specifying the participants not only adds concreteness, but may often be used to heighten interest by making the style more personal, yet still within the limits of what is implicit in the source language text.

Still another factor is the use of straightforward constructions. The inexperienced reader tends to read slowly and laboriously, from left to right, without being able to scan back and forth as the experienced reader does; hence he must hold in his memory the first part of a sentence until he gets far enough along in it for it to hang together and make sense. If he has to read sentences that are “front-heavy”, he is subjected to a greater memory burden than if he is given materials that can be “unraveled” in strictly left-to-right order, making sense at each step. Sentences with long subordinate constructions at the beginning, for example, are front-heavy. Note the following: In order to secure from the man who had arrived the day before the information he needed, John came early. Here the main clause is John came early; but the reader must wade through a long and complex subordinate expression before he has any idea of this. The sentence may be rewritten more straightforwardly as: John came early in order to secure the information he needed from the man who had arrived the day before.

As a general rule, when we have a complex expression made up of two parts, with one part noticeably longer than the other, and if the language structure permits the parts to occur in either order, a more straightforward and readable form will result from putting the shorter part first. This is especially important if the longer part is a subordinate construction which depends upon the shorter part to complete its sense.

Furthermore, one should avoid heavy embedding of constructions, whether front-heavy or not. In embedding, a subordinate construction appears within another construction in such a way as to interrupt the latter, and sometimes this type of embedding consists of several layers. Consider the following sentence: The man who spoke to the girls who had arrived after the show featuring the actor who had come from France was over was a very good conversationalist. Here we have a number of layers, one within another. The entire expression who spoke … was over is a subordinate clause modifying man; but embedded within it is another subordinate clause who had arrived … was over, modifying girls. Still further, within this embedded clause there is another subordinate expression featuring … France, modifying show; and within this is the subordinate clause who had come from France, modifying actor. This would obviously be a very difficult sentence for an inexperienced reader to unravel. In the first place, it attempts to pack entirely too much information into one sentence; and in the second place, it does so in a way that creates a heavy memory burden for the reader who has to retain all these structural layers and keep them in their proper relationships until he finally arrives at the main predicate expression, was a very good conversationalist. For proper readability, the material would need to be presented in smaller “doses”, each capable of being assimilated before the next one is given.

Most of the foregoing techniques for increasing readability through attention to grammatical factors may be summarized by saying that the translator or writer should, within the grammatical constructions that are familiar to his readers, use simple and straightforward phrase structure and present the relationships between words and phrases in a way that will be clear and unambiguous at each step. At the same time, however, he should avoid a childish style such as would result from too short and choppy sentences, and should seek to make his style conform to the normal discourse structure found in writing designed for adult readers.

10. The Translation Process
In the above sections we have assumed that the translator knows the meaningful content of the source language and that his problem is one of how to express this content in the receptor language. But in reality the translation process begins with the decoding or analysis of the source language text, whose content obviously can be transferred to the receptor language only after it is adequately decoded and understood by the translator.

This, therefore, involves us in a three-step process: (1) analysis or decomposition of the source language text, to determine its basic semantic components and the relationships between them in terms of kernel sentences of the source language; (2) transfer to equivalent components and relationships in terms of kernel sentences in the receptor language; and (3) restructuring or recomposition in the receptor language in terms of the normal grammatical and discourse structure of this language. Details of this approach will not be discussed here, inasmuch as they are available elsewhere to readers of The Bible Translator. 4

This three-step process, although perhaps never carried out in full and explicit detail in the actual procedures of translation, provides us with a concept leading to dynamic equivalence (i.e. equivalence in terms of the decoding process on the part of the receptors) instead of static equivalence (i.e. equivalence in terms of formal correspondence between items in the source and receptor languages). It also provides a recourse for the translator in his approach to syntactically difficult passages in which events appear in the source text as nouns (repentance, justification), abstract qualities as nouns (greatness, riches), etc.; or in which the semantic relationships do not parallel the relationships of surface structure in the source text (Father of glory, riches of his grace).

Furthermore—and of special importance in considering “common­language” translations—the concept of a three-step process permits us to decide what level of complexity we shall choose for our final restructuring in the third step. We can reconstruct on any of the levels shown in Figure 1 that we choose to, within those levels that are generally acceptable, thereby producing a translation which is accessible to readers of whatever level we are intending to reach. A reconstruction within the level represented by section B of Figure 1 is that which gives us a “common-language” translation, intended to reach a wide spectrum of readers, including those with limited education. Reconstructions on a higher level, drawing from both sections A and B, lead to translations of a more literary nature, intended chiefly for readers with greater educational preparation.

The following reconstructions of Ephesians 1 : 7 in English 5 will illustrate three different levels:
(1) Quasi-kernel level (too low for general acceptability): “We sinned. But Christ died; therefore God sets us free and he forgives us. This is because God shows great grace toward us."
(2) “Common-language” level (Today’s English Version): “For by the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven. How great is the grace of God … ”
(3) Literary level (The New English Bible): “For in Christ our release is secured and our sins are forgiven through the shedding of his blood. Therein lies the richness of God’s free grace … ”