Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



When comparing old and new Bible translations, differences are striking at all discourse levels. This paper concentrates on variations in the representation of subjective cognition and reasoning of subjects in the discourse. A corpus-based analysis was conducted that compared the domains of use of causal fragments in Dutch Bible translations that were either old, contemporary and loyal, or “easy”. In a close comparison of Bible translations, differences between domains of use are analysed in more detail. In old translations, the character’s subjective reasoning is clearly separated from the narrator’s utterances. By contrast, in modern translations, causal reasoning is more intertwined between character and narrator, resulting in shared reasoning.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aejmelaeus, Anneli
    1986 “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of Biblical Literature105 (2): 193–209. 10.2307/3260389
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3260389 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alter, Robert
    1980 “Sacred History and the Beginnings of Prose Fiction”. Poetics Today1 (3): 143–162. 10.2307/1772416
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1772416 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, Bill and John Choi
    2003A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610899
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610899 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bastiaens, Jean
    2000 “Vertaal- en stijlkwesties in het Marcusevangelie” [‘Translation and Style Matters in Mark’s Gospel’]. InPaul Gillaerts (ed.), Effata: Beschouwingen over bijbelvertalen en stijl [‘Effata: Thoughts on Bible Translation and Style’], 101–116. Antwerpen: Katholieke Vlaamse Hogeschool.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Black, Stephanie
    2002Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: kai, de, tote, gar, oun and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse. (Studies in New Testament Greek Vol. 9). London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Britton, Bruce
    1994 “Understanding Expository Text: Building mental structures to induce insights”. InMorton Ann Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 641–674. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Canestrelli, Anneloes
    2013Small Words, Big Effects? Subjective Versus Objective Causal Connectives in Discourse Processing. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dancygier, Barbara
    2009 “Causes and Consequences: Evidence from Polish, English, and Dutch”. InTed Sanders and Eve Sweetser (eds), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, 91–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.91 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dayras, Solange
    1993 “The Knox Version, or the Trial of a Translator: Translation or Transgression?” InD. Jasper (ed.), Translating Religious Texts – Translation, Transgression and Interpretation, 44–59. London: The Macmillan Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑22841‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22841-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  10. de Jong, Matthijs
    2014Hoe vertaal je de bijbel in gewone taal: Uitgangspunten, keuzes, dilemma’s [‘How to Translate a Bible in Plain Language: Starting Points, Choices, Dilemmas’]. Heerenveen: Royal Jongbloed.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Degand, Liesbeth
    2004 “Contrastive Analyses, Translation and Speaker Involvement: The Case of puisque and aangezien”. InMichael Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture and Mind, 251–270. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Degand, Liesbeth and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2015 “Grammaticalization or Pragmaticalization of Discourse Markers? More than a Terminological Issue”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics16 (1): 59–85. 10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg [Google Scholar]
  13. Degand, Liesbeth and Henk Pander Maat
    2003 “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale”. InArie Verhagen and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch, 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dyvik, Helge
    1998 “A Translational Basis for Semantics”. InStig Johansson and Signe Oksefjell (eds), Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies, 51–86. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline
    2005 The Development of Dutch Connectives: Change and Acquisition as Windows on Form-Function Interactions. (PhD thesis.) Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT. Available online at: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/110_fulltext.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010 “‘Dus’ vooraan of in het midden? Over vorm-functierelaties in het gebruik van connectieven” [‘“Dus” Up-Front or in the Middle? On Form-Function Relations in the Use of Connectives’]. Nederlandse Taalkunde15 (2): 149–175. 10.5117/NEDTAA2010.2.DISC437
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2010.2.DISC437 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Liesbeth Degand, Benjamin Fagard and Liesbeth Mortier
    2011 “Historical and Comparative Perspectives on Subjectification: A Corpus-based Analysis of Dutch and French Causal Connectives”. Linguistics49 (2): 445–478. 10.1515/ling.2011.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1985Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fauconnier, Gilles and Eve Sweetser
    (eds) 1996Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heinsius, Jacobus
    1937 “De taal van de Statenvertaling” [‘The Language of the Statenvertaling’]. InNederlands Bijbelgenootschap De Statenvertaling 1637–1937, 85–108. Haarlem: Erven Bohn (2005 Middelburg: Gihonbron).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hobbs, Jerry R.
    1979 “Coherence and Coreference”. Cognitive Science31: 67–90. 10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoek, Jet
    2018 Making Sense of Discourse: On Discourse Segmentation and the Linguistic Marking of Coherence Relations. (PhD thesis.) Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT. Available online at: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/509_fulltext.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Keller, Rudi
    1995 “The epistemic weil”. InD. Stein and S. Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Knappert, Laurentius
    1936 “Enkele opmerkingen bij de geschiedenis der Statenvertaling” [‘Some Remarks on the History of the Statenvertaling’]. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis29 (1): 197–208. 10.1163/187124036X00189
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187124036X00189 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kroon, Caroline
    1998 “A Framework for the Description of Latin Discourse Markers”. Journal of Pragmatics30 (2): 205–223. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00025‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00025-3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levshina, Natalia and Liesbeth Degand
    2017 “Just Because: In Search of Objective Criteria of Subjectivity Expressed by Causal Connectives”. Dialogue & Discourse8 (1): 132–150. 10.5087/dad.2017.105
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.105 [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, Fang, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul and Ted Sanders
    2014 “Subjectivity and Result Marking in Mandarin: A Corpus-based Investigation”. Chinese Language and Discourse4 (1): 74–119. 10.1075/cld.4.1.03li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.4.1.03li [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Naudé, Jacobus
    2002 “An Overview of Recent Developments in Translation Studies with Special Reference to the Implications for Bible Translation”. Acta Theologica Supplementum21: 44–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nida, Eugene
    1976 “A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation”. InRichard Brislin (ed.), Translation, Application and Research, 47–91. New York: Gardner Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Niehoff, Maren
    1992 “Do Biblical Characters Talk to Themselves? Narrative Modes of Representing Inner Speech in Early Biblical Fiction”. Journal of Biblical Literature111 (4): 577–595. 10.2307/3267433
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3267433 [Google Scholar]
  32. Noordman, Leo and Wietske Vonk
    1997 “The Different Functions of a Conjunction in Constructing a Representation of the Discourse”. InJ. Costermans and M. Fayol (eds), Processing Interclausal Relationships: Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text, 75–93. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Nord, Christiane
    2005 “Making Otherness Accessible: Functionality and Skopos in the Translation of New Testament Texts”. Meta: Translators’ Journal50 (3): 868–880. 10.7202/011602ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011602ar [Google Scholar]
  34. Onodera, Noriko O. and Elizabeth Traugott
    2016 “Periphery: Diachronic and Cross-Linguistic Approaches”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics17 (2): 163–177. 10.1075/jhp.17.2.01ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.17.2.01ono [Google Scholar]
  35. Pander Maat, Henk and Ted Sanders
    2000 “Domains of Use or Subjectivity? The Distribution of Three Dutch Causal Connectives Explained”. InElizabeth Couper-Kühlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, 57–81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043-004 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2001 “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study in Language Use”. Cognitive Linguistics12 (3): 247–273. 10.1515/cogl.2002.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Panou, Despoina
    2013 “Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies3 (1): 1–6. 10.4304/tpls.3.1.1‑6
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.1-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pit, Mirna
    2003How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004458567
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004458567 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pym, Anthony
    2017Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315857633
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315857633 [Google Scholar]
  40. Renkema, Jan and Carel van Wijk
    2002 “Converting the Words of God: An Experimental Evaluation of Stylistic Choices in the New Dutch Bible Translation”. InLeona van Vaerenberg (ed.), Linguistica Antverpiensia: Linguistics and Translation Studies, 169–190. Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sanders, José
    2009 “Causal Connectives in Dutch Biblical Translations”. InTed Sanders and Eve Sweetser (eds), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, 61–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.61
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.61 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014a “Translating ‘Thinking’ and ‘Believing’ in the Bible: How Cognitive Linguistic Analysis Shows Increasing Subjectivity in Translations”. InJ. Green and B. Howe (eds), Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies, 253–276. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110350135.253
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110350135.253 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2014b “Geloof, vertrouwen en liefde: Strategieën voor begrijpelijkheid voor een Bijbel in Gewone Taal” [‘Faith, Trust and Love: Strategies of Comprehensibility for a Bible in Plain Language’]. Tekst[Blad]51: 6–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanders, José, Ted Sanders and Eve Sweetser
    2012 “Responsible Subjects and Discourse Causality: How Mental Spaces and Connectives Help Identifying Subjectivity in Dutch Backward Causal Connectives”. Journal of Pragmatics441: 191–213. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sanders, Ted
    1997 “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context”. Discourse Processes24 (1): 119–147. 10.1080/01638539709545009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sanders, Ted and Wilbert Spooren
    2007 “Discourse and Text Structure”. InDirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuykens (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 916–941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren and Leo Noordman
    1992 “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations”. Discourse Processes15 (1): 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sanders, Ted and Eve Sweetser
    (eds) 2009Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429 [Google Scholar]
  49. Santana Covarrubias, Andrea, Wilbert Spooren, Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen and Ted Sanders
    2018 “Subjectivity in Spanish Discourse – Explicit and Implicit Causal Relations in Different Contexts”. Dialogue and Discourse9 (1): 163–191. 10.5087/dad.2018.106
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2018.106 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schoors, Anton
    1981 “The Particle ki”. Old Testament Studies211: 240–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sevenster, Gerhard
    1936 “De Statenvertaling en hare kantteekeningen”. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis29 (1): 263–306. 10.1163/187124036X00251
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187124036X00251 [Google Scholar]
  52. Smit, Joop
    2003 “Inleiding in de Nieuwtestamentische brieven”. InJan Fokkelman and Wim Weren (eds), De Bijbel literair: Opbouw en gedachtegang van de Bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties [‘The Bible from a Literary Perspective: Structure and Reasoning in Biblical Writings and Their Mutual Relationships’], 49–59. Zoetermeer: Meinema.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Spooren, Wilbert, Ted Sanders, Mike Huiskes and Liesbeth Degand
    2010 “Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study of Spoken Language”. InSally Rice and John Newman (eds), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, 241–255. Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stukker, Ninke
    2005 Causality Marking across Levels of Language Structure: A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Causal Verbs and Causal Connectives in Dutch. (PhD thesis.) Universiteit Utrecht. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Stukker, Ninke and Ted Sanders
    2012 “Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective”. Journal of Pragmatics44 (2): 169–190. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  57. Traugott, Elizabeth
    1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”. Language651: 31–55. 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  58. 1995 “Subjectification in Grammaticalization”. InDieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2010 “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification: A Reassessment”. InHubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse and Lieven Vandelanotte (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  60. Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas Jucker
    2015 “Twenty Years of Historical Pragmatics: Origins, Developments and Changing Thought Styles”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics16 (1): 1–24. 10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa [Google Scholar]
  61. Uit den Boogaart, Pieter
    (ed.) 1975Woordfrequenties in geschreven en gesproken Nederlands [‘Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken Dutch’]. Oosthoek: Scheltema & Holkema.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Vandepitte, Sonia
    1993A Pragmatic Study of the Expression and Interpretation of Causality. Conjuncts and Conjunctions in Modern Spoken British English. (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Volume1461.) Brussels: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul and José Sanders
    2012 “Streven naar begrijpelijkheid: Gevolgen voor causaliteit in Bijbelvertalingen” [‘Aiming at Comprehensibility: Consequences for Causality in Bible Translations’]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing34 (1): 1–25. 10.5117/TVT2012.1.STRE419
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2012.1.STRE419 [Google Scholar]
  64. Verhagen, Arie
    2005 “Constructions of Intersubjectivity”. Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Vriezen, Theodoor and Adam van der Woude
    2000 “Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse literatuur” [‘Ancient Israeli and Early Jewish Literature’]. (Tenth revised edition.) Kampen: Kok.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wenzel, Veronika
    2005 “Wie tutoyeert God? Aanspreekconventies in de moderne bijbelvertalingen” [‘Who is on First-Name Terms with God? Addressing Conventions in Modern Bible Translations’]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing27 (4): 299–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Weren, Wim
    2005 “Lucas in de nieuwe Bijbelvertaling” [‘Luke in the New Bible Translation’]. Tijdschrift voor Theologie45 (1): 75–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Zufferey, Sandrine and Liesbeth Degand
    2017 “Annotating the Meaning of Discourse Connectives in Multilingual Corpora”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory13 (2): 1–24. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0022 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error