|
Back
to Main Menu
Originally published
in Language and Life: Essays in Memory of Kenneth
L. Pike,
ed.
Mary Ruth Wise, Thomas N. Headland, Ruth M. Brend
(Dallas, TX:
SIL
International and The University of Texas at Arlington,
2003), 371-380.
Copyright
held
by the author.
Gender and Generic Pronouns in English
Bible Translation
by Vern Sheridan
Poythress
Elementary
translation theory instructs us to translate meaning,
not form. Gender in the linguistic sense (in
contrast to the biological categories of male and
female) is a grammatical category, that is, a "form," differing
from language to language. Some languages possess no gender-marked
forms. Others possess two, three, or more genders. They
differ also in the ways in which they draw the boundary
between different genders (Carson 1998:77-98). So
it is not only misguided but impossible to translate
gender in a one-to-one fashion. One might therefore
conclude from the elementary theory that gender is
irrelevant. But more advanced examination of
languages shows that form and meaning interlock,
so that the simple recipe of ignoring form overlooks
subtle meaning nuances. Kenneth L. Pike years
ago noted the complexities in the relation between
form and meaning and developed a distinctive emphasis
on the "form-meaning composite" to express
the complexities involved in such phenomena (Pike
1967:62-63, 516-517; Pike 1982:115-117).
We
may illustrate by considering the complex challenge
of translating sentences with gender-marked generic
pronouns. In English the issue comes to a head
only with the third-person singular personal pronoun,
because all the other pronouns are unmarked for gender. The
third-person singular has three genders, "he," "she," and "it." Until
recently the masculine forms, "he/him/his/himself," served
as default forms in generic statements. But
now some people frown on this use, and so-called
gender inclusive translations have sought substitutes.
Changing
from "he" to "you"
One
possibility they have tried is the use of the second
person "you" instead of the third-person singular. Consider
Proverbs 12:14. The New International Version (NIV) reads: "From the fruit of his lips a man
is filled with good things as surely as the work
of his hands rewards him." The
Good News Bible (GNB,
2d ed.) reads: "Your reward depends on what
you say and what you do; you will get what you deserve." The
NIV and the Hebrew, by using the third person, invite
readers to see a sample case "out there," and then
to apply the truth to anyone whatsoever. Certainly
each reader may apply to the truth to himself. But
he may also apply the truth to others whom he is
counseling, just as the father counsels his son in
the early chapters of Proverbs. By contrast,
the second-person in the GNB invites each reader
to apply the truth first of all personally. Applying
the truth to others by offering them counsel is an
afterthought. The directness of focus on application
to the individual reader is different in the two
cases. The same differences crop up again and
again in changes from third person to second person
in Proverbs.
Complexities in meaning
But
what difference does it make, since either wording
implies the same propositional generalization? Meaning
and communication involve more than abstract propositions. They
involve relations between author and reader, a reader
and his actions, a reader and other actors, and so
on. We must resist the temptation to reduce
meaning to a mere basic core.
We
must also resist arguments based on simplistic appeals
to the distinction between form and meaning. One
argument might go as follows. Pronominal systems,
like gender systems, differ from language to language. Pronouns
are forms, and what we are after is the meaning expressed
by whole sentences. Hence, changing from "he" to "you" in
a generalized statement changes form but preserves
meaning.
But
in fact the situation is more complex. The
forms that distinguish first-person, second-person,
and third-person pronouns vary from language to language. But
some of the meaning-functions remain similar across
languages, because all over the world people distinguish
speakers from addressees and addressees from third
parties. And all over the world statements
of general truths are not purely abstract, but anchor
themselves in the situational and personal realities
of one person making a statement to another, within
a certain personal, social, and temporal context. (Thus
Kenneth Pike considered the situation and culture
as a necessary context for linguistic analysis [Pike
1967:25-149].)The differences between first, second,
and third person have subtle but pervasive effects
on the orientation of people to the truths about
which they speak.
The
changes also affect the genre of the middle section
of Proverbs, 10:1-22:16. Second-person exhortations
abound in Proverbs 1-9 and in some parts of the later
chapters of Proverbs. But the middle section
contains almost nothing but third-person sayings. The
strategies of the different sections make a difference. The
tone of the third-person middle section invites readers
to be wise observers of life. Yes, they will
discover in the end many concrete, practical applications
to their own lives. But the atmosphere begins
more with contemplation than with action. Proverbs
encourages us to learn something about the ways of
others, and to learn from observing the blessing
of the Lord on some and his punishments on others. Converting
third-person sayings into second-person sayings tends
to break down the distinctiveness of this middle
section of Proverbs, and makes English readers less
aware of its overall reflective mood.
Different
meanings of "dynamic equivalence"
The
GNB, the New Living Translation (NLT),
and the Contemporary English Version (CEV)
often change to second person in the Book of Proverbs. They
sometimes do so even when the change is not necessary
in order to eliminate a generic "he" (for example,
Prov 12:17 GNB; 12:24 NLT; 11:3 CEV). Some
of the changes seem almost random. One wonders
what reason there could be for such alterations. Were
the translators insensitive to nuances, so that they
did not realize that they were changing meanings? Were
they not aware of the distinct tone of the middle
section of Proverbs? Did they freely make changes
because all they cared about was some basic core
of meaning?
One
wonders. The GNB, NLT, and CEV share conspicuously
a pronounced commitment to dynamic equivalent translation. The
tradition of dynamic equivalent translation advises
us to translate meaning, not form. But everything
depends on how much one includes under the term "meaning." At
times it seems that dynamic equivalent translation
has become a broad umbrella. It can cover at
one end the meticulous attempt to reproduce as far
as possible every nuance of meaning. But it
can also be used as a fig leaf to cover questionable
practices that appear to ignore anything beyond a
minimal core meaning. Consider the following
example.
Proverbs 18:16
NIV: A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers
him into the presence of the great.
NLT: Giving a gift works wonders; it may bring you
before important people.
The
two translations express a similar meaning; each
indicates
that a gift may be effective in obtaining
an audience before a prominent person. Once
again the temptation arises to say that the meaning
of the two is the same, but the form differs. But
subtle differences in meaning accompany the changes
in form. Some of these differences arise from
the general paraphrastic policies of the NLT. For
example, the word "wonders" in the NLT introduces
the connotation of the marvelous, which is not expressed
in Hebrew or in the NIV.
But
what about the change to "you"? It also results
in a noticeable change in meaning. Just as
we observed in the earlier example, by using a third-person
statement the NIV invites the reader to start with
a sample situation involving a giver out there in
the world. This sample situation functions
as the starting point for generalizing about life. The
NLT, by using "you," invites the reader to think
of himself as the actor and then to generalize from
there. The resulting generalization may be
similar, in the two cases, but the starting picture
is different.
Some
further effects crop up in this example. The
NIV's third-person statement leaves open the question
of ethically evaluation. It merely observes
that giving gifts to obtain favor is an actual practice
among human beings. Maybe the practice is okay. But
maybe not. Maybe people should not be so readily
influenced by gifts. Granted that people are
so influenced, maybe an individual should give in
and follow the trend for purely pragmatic reasons. But
maybe also he should resist the trend and see the
use of gifts in this way as a form a manipulation. Neither
the Hebrew nor the NIV explicitly commit themselves
to answer these "maybe" questions about ethically
evaluating the process.
On
the other hand, when the NLT shifts to "you," the
proverb sounds more like shrewd advice. Because
it develops its sample case by means of the pronoun "you," it
invites the reader to think of himself as giving
a gift. And by inviting the reader to picture
himself in this way, it seems indirectly to invite
the reader to perform the
action suggested in the picture, because, after all,
the results may be advantageous. As long as
the sample picture is "out there" in the world, as
the Hebrew and the NIV have it, one can from a distance
raise questions about the rectitude of various aspects
of gift giving. Once the text pushes the reader
into more direct involvement using "you," the more
contemplative attitude recedes.
Changing
to plural "they"
The
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New International
Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI), as less
adventuresome translations, have sometimes shifted
to the second person. But more often, they
have preferred to change a third-person singular
statement with "he" to a third-person plural statement
with "they." Consider some examples.
1 Corinthians 14:28.
NIV: If there is no interpreter, the speaker should
keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and
God.
NIVI: If there is no interpreter, the speakers should
keep quiet in the church and speak to themselves and
God.
The
NIVI has changed the singular "speaker" to plural "speakers," in
order to avoid the subsequent occurrence of generic "he" in
the form of "himself." But in doing so,
it has introduced an ambiguity. In the NIVI,
the verse may mean that all the tongue-speakers are
to go off together and speak "to themselves," that is, to one another
in their own private meeting, separate from the rest. Or
does the NIVI mean that each speaker is to go and
speak to himself rather than to anyone else? The
latter, not the former, is basically the meaning
of both the NIV and the original Greek. By
converting to plurals, the NIVI introduces an ambiguity
in English.
John 6:56
NIV: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and
I in him.
NIVI: Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood remain in me,
and I in them.
The
language of "eating my flesh and drinking my
blood" will suggest to many the picture of celebrating
the Lord's Supper. And the Lord's Supper surely
symbolizes the spiritual communion about which Jesus
speaks. The NIVI, because of its plurals, suggests
the picture of the church together eating
the flesh and drinking the blood (similarly, NRSV,
NLT). The idea of "remaining," both the church
in Christ and Christ in the church, then becomes
corporate. But then the individual focus of
John 6:56 is lost from sight.
John 15:5
RSV: ... He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me
you can do nothing.
NRSV: Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do
nothing.
As
with John 6:56, the NRSV's change to plural "they" shifts
the focus to disciples in their plurality. When
the text says "I in them" in stead of "I in him," it is no longer clear that Christ is dwelling in
each disciple rather than simply corporately in the
church, "them" as a group.
John 6:44
NIV: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
NLT: For people can't come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to
me and at the last day I will raise them from
the dead.
The
focus shifts from the individual in the NIV to the
group in NLT. In the NLT, we may think of crowds
coming to Jesus because the Father draws them. The
Father brings whole groups, but perhaps each individual
makes up his own mind within the group. It
is not clear whether the Father acts on any individual
in a way distinct from another individual. Perhaps
he just draws the group as a whole. The doctrine
of individual calling is lost from sight. The
group as a whole is raised at the last day, but perhaps
some people within the group have fallen away by
that time. The doctrine of individual assurance
of salvation is lost from sight.
We
find in John 6:65 the same problems as in John 6:44.
John 6:65
NIV: ... no one can come to me unless the Father
has enabled him.
NLT:
... people can't come to me unless the Father
brings them to
me.
The
subtle shifts in the meaning, and the ambiguities
between a corporate and an individual meaning, do
not seem to be merely random. Though at first
blush it might seem that a singular and a plural
form express the same meaning, a closer examination
shows subtle differences in meaning. The singular "he" is
not only singular in form, but has an effect on meaning. The
language suggests as a starting point a single individual
who becomes a sample case for the general truth. The
plural "they" is not only plural in form, but results
in a plural meaning: the starting point contains
a plurality of individuals, about all of whom together we
make the assertion in question. In the one
case, we derive a general principle from a single
starting case; in the other, we derive application
to each individual from a direct assertion with respect
to a plurality.
By
itself, this difference in starting point is a difference
in meaning. And it results in a further difference,
namely that what is explicitly in the foreground
in one case is derived in the other. But in
addition, the difference in starting point introduces
in some contexts a potential ambiguity between corporate
and individual interpretations. The singular "he" implies
unambiguously that the truth holds for each individual
within the scope of the general statement. The
plural "they" leaves open, in some contexts, the
possibility that the truth might apply primarily
or exclusively to the people as a group,
in their relations to one another or in their corporate
wholeness.
Thus,
changes in person and number in generic statements
involve not only changes in form, but subtle changes
in meaning as well. Therefore, these changes
are not in general acceptable in English Bible translation. (But
see Poythress and Grudem [2000:343-344] for one kind
of exception, in cases of unusual switches between
pronouns within a short piece of text.) We
should continue to use generic "he" whenever it is
needed, in order to preserve these nuances.
Does
generic "he" carry
male connotations?
All
this only serves to bring into focus the question
of whether we can indeed use generic "he." If
generic "he" were genuinely unavailable in English,
we would have to do the best we could without it,
and there might be no choice except to settle for
some approximation that unavoidably loses nuances
of meaning. What do we say here?
The
topic is too extensive for me to address here. I
must refer readers to the discussion in Poythress
and Grudem (2000:111-232). We shall have to
content ourselves with three observations.
First,
generic "he" still occurs in major secular publications
like The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, U.S.
News and World Report,
and Reader's Digest (see Poythress and Grudem 2000:203-210). It
is acknowledged as a reasonable usage in The
Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual (1994:94) and the latest edition of Strunk and White, The
Elements of Style (2000:60-61)
(see Poythress and Grudem 2000:210-211). Since
it is still in use, let us use it when we need it.
Second,
using generic "he" invites us to start not only with
a single sample case of the truth in question, but
to think to a certain extent of a male rather than
a female example for this sample case. Consider
the difficulty of the following sentence: "When a
typical American comes home from work, he wants to
be comfortable. He removes his coat, takes
off his panty-hose, and puts on slippers. A
specifically male detail such as "takes off his tie" would
be less jarring than the specifically female detail "takes
off his panty-hose."
The American
Heritage Dictionary perceptively
observes, "Thus he is
not really a gender-neutral pronoun, rather, it
refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative
member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The
traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical
convention; it also suggests a particular pattern
of thought" (1996:831). The "pattern
of thought" in question involves starting with
a male example in the picture when stating a general
truth. The masculine form of "he" turns out
not to be mere form, but to have meaning-connotations
even when used generically (Poythress and Grudem
2000:135-161).
Analogously,
third personal masculine singular generic masculine
nouns and pronouns are customary in biblical Hebrew
and Greek. This custom, too, may seem at first
glance to be mere "form." But careful
examination suggests that an analogous phenomenon
of starting with a male example occurs in Hebrew
and Greek. Leviticus 14, for example, discusses
the procedure for a person who is to be pronounced
clean from leprosy. Leviticus 13:29 and 38
have already clearly indicated that the regulations
for leprosy include both men and women. When
Leviticus 14 discusses the ceremony for cleansing,
it designates the leper with masculine singular forms,
and then in 14:9 says that "he must shave his head,
his beard,
his eye-brows and the rest of his hair" (NIV). At
this point the fact that male example is in view
comes to the surface (Poythress and Grudem 2000:142-146,
335-347). Thus in all three languages a meaning
component attaches to the use of the masculine form.
Third,
and finally, some writers adopt a style in which
they oscillate between using generic "she" and generic "he." This
oscillating use is not objectionable to feminists. The
oscillating use shows not only that people still
understand generic "he," but also that the real objection
is not to a single occurrence of generic "he." Rather,
the objection is to any pattern in which male examples
predominate over female ones. The objection
is to a pattern of thought. Authors writing
in English may of course adapt to the contemporary
scene as they see fit. But a translator, in
distinction from an author, is not free to change
the pattern of thought in Scripture, even if it should
prove offensive to some.
Interlocking of form and meaning
In
sum, the use of pronouns shows interlocking between
form and meaning. From these phenomena we may
generalize. Specific forms within a specific
context often carry meaning nuances that cannot be
completely reproduced by substitute forms. Translation
must indeed translate meaning, not merely form. But
meaning includes nuances, not just a basic core.
References
The American heritage dictionary
of the English language. 1996. Third ed. Boston/New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
The
Associated Press stylebook and libel manual. 1994. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Carson,
D. A. 1998. The
inclusive language debate: A plea for realism. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker.
Miller,
Casey, and Kate Swift. 1980. The
handbook of nonsexist writing. New
York: Lippincott & Crowell.
Pike,
Kenneth L. 1967. Language
in relation to a unified theory of the structure
of human behavior. Second revised edition. The Hague/Paris:
Mouton.
Pike,
Kenneth L. 1982. Linguistic
concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Poythress,
Vern S., and Wayne A. Grudem. 2000. The
gender-neutral Bible controversy: Muting the masculinity
of God's words. Nashville,
Tenn.: Broadman and Holman.
Strauss,
Mark L. 1998. Distorting
Scripture? The challenge of Bible translation Y
gender accuracy. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.
Strunk,
William, Jr., and E. B. White. 2000. The
elements of style. Fourth
edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
This
article is not to be reprinted in a print periodical
without the author's permission.
|