Abstract
In May 2007, the Bible Society of the West Indies (BSWI) announced its translation of the New Testament into Jamaican Creole. This paper examines the perceived weak point of the project, the issue of the “crudity” or “vulgarity” of the Jamaican language in the area of sexuality, which renders it unsuitable for the holy Scriptures. The project designed a set of focus-group instruments to test acceptability in the area of sexual terminology. Findings indicated that focus-group participants generally preferred the uses of English-like forms rather than the more natural Jamaican Creole ones when dealing with sexual concepts. They preferred prignant over briid or get beli, and vorjin over uman we neva tek man yet, and so on. The challenge to the project was how to manage the association of Jamaican sexual terms with vulgarity while remaining faithful to the language. The paper concludes with an account of how this was managed.
Keywords
Background
There have been different global undertakings to translate the Bible into the national language of various countries, the aim being to provide people with the word of God in their language, one that they know and can relate to. According to the Wycliffe Global Alliance (2020), 704 languages have a complete translation of the Bible and 1,551 languages exist with a complete New Testament, some of which also have Old Testament portions. These numbers will soon increase as translation projects are active or in preparatory stages for 2,731 languages in 167 countries (Wycliffe Global Alliance 2020). Although these statistics indicate that the number of translations is increasing, they are not accompanied by language attitude data to say how people feel about their native languages. Many native speakers do not endorse translation projects, because they do not have positive attitudes and ideologies about the language they speak.
In Jamaica, there are two coexisting languages, Jamaican Creole (hereafter JC) and English, the latter being the official language and the former the national (numerically dominant) language. Like other creoles throughout the Caribbean, though JC is the language of primary discourse for most Jamaicans, there often have been mixed attitudes towards JC and its speakers. Many individuals see JC as a signature of national pride and as such they make no apologies for using it. However, there are those—speakers and non-speakers alike—who see it as a “broken” form of English (cf. Bailey 1968, 3; Rickford and Traugott 1985, 252), thus considering it simple and without usefulness. Such people are in favor of moving toward the exclusive use of the language from which JC “originated,” that is, English.
Creoles are languages created out of contact situations between European and other—chiefly African—languages. They differ from other contact languages due to the restricted access that speakers of the respective languages, especially Africans, had to each other. Resulting from such restriction are notable features that characterize creoles, especially Atlantic creoles. These features, as discussed in Bickerton (1981), include, but are not limited to:
A three-way organization of the TMA [tense–modality–aspect] system into anterior tense, irrealis mood, and nonpunctual aspect. Use of a single negator as well as negative concord in negative sentences. A distinction between equative, attributive, and locative copulas. Invariant word order in statements and questions. The use of serial verb constructions in which serial verbs have a “casemarking” function, introducing directional, benefactive, dative, and instrumental.
The full complement of these properties is said to exist on a continuum, rather than in polarity, which helps to pinpoint variations in an individual's speech. According to Decamp, “there is a linguistic continuum, a continuous spectrum of speech varieties ranging from the ‘bush talk’ or ‘broken language’ … to the educated standard” (1971, 350). These characterizations are important, as they help to identify issues of variation, especially in cases of (Bible) translations where standardization is needed.
The Bible Society of the West Indies (BSWI) saw fit to provide Jamaicans with the Bible in their heart language. In May 2007, the society announced its translation of the New Testament into JC, and based on the aforementioned language attitudes, the emotion-filled responses with which the announcement was met were not surprising. Many were happy to have the holy word in their own language, while others considered the move blasphemous, because BSWI was interfering with the Lord's holy word (which should remain in English). In the middle, there were some individuals who were neutral, opting to reserve their opinions until they had had the opportunity to review the finished product. As a response to the announcement, one national paper, The Gleaner, produced a mock translation of the Christmas story. This translation confirms David Frank's statement, “Translation is more than the substitution of the words of one language with the words of another language” (2004, 1). In the newspaper's translation, the Holy Spirit briid Mieri, literally, the Holy Spirit “bred Mary.” Although the translation was not truly accurate, it had its benefits, zeroing in on the chief perceived weak point of the Jamaican Creole Bible Translation Project (JCBTP), the supposed crudity of the Jamaican language in the area of sexuality, which would make it unsuitable as a language of holy Scripture. In most, if not all societies, there is a social scale on which a particular word may be ranked in relation to another. Some words are deemed more appropriate than others, thus being more acceptable in a given context. In order to prevent any further public uproar, the project had to address this issue.
To address this issue and others that might have arisen, and to support and oversee the linguistic accuracy and appropriateness of its translations, the BSWI contracted the Jamaican Language Unit (JLU) as consultants and coordinators on the project. This move allowed the JCBTP to make the best translation choices from pre-focus-group options and those put forward by focus-group participants, all while capitalizing on the opportunity to address the skepticism that resided with the (churchgoing) public.
With these key challenges of the JCBTP as its foundation, the present paper aims to describe and discuss:
the response of the church, through focus groups, to the various options of sexual terminology presented to them; the choices made by the translators, being guided by the feedback from the JLU linguistic consultants to the BSWI; the final options chosen; the impact of the project.
The design
The foundation—key points to note and background to the methodology
Identifying possible weaknesses, the JLU/JCBTP team designed several focus-group instruments to test acceptability in the area of sexual terminology. The instruments were created from a test translation of the book of Luke and subsequent translations done by the BSWI translation team and presented to the JLU for vetting and feedback. An in-depth review of the translations was done, and a number of items were selected for testing. These items ranged from syntactic variables to sexual terminology. The researchers took the decision to have these elements tested in focus groups across the country to obtain detailed feedback to guide the selection and standardization phase of the project. Since the translation was being done with the general public in mind, the team felt it was important that such focus groups have the opportunity to comment and give insights on key areas of the project. Such feedback would help to ensure that the final product was representative of Jamaican speech and would increase the chances of it being accepted by Jamaicans.
The instruments
A careful review of the initial translation presented a number of questions which provided the basis for the focus-group instruments. These instruments, distributed in each focus group, were used to cover the full scope of the possible elements that needed attention and issues that needed to be addressed. The first instrument had three sections. The first section gave focus-group participants 1 the opportunity to complete their own sample translation. The sample chosen for translation was Luke 2, the story of Jesus’s birth. The aim was to have participants present the research team with their translation of the story. Participants were given the sole instruction to translate the story to mimic their own speech; the hope was that their translations would provide insights into word choice and syntactic context of use.
The second section of the instrument contained a prompt sheet which had lexical and syntactic variables and their variants, both present and absent from the passage, that needed testing. Though some items tested were present in the translation of Luke, they were also presented as prompts, since their variants were either items that were being considered by the research and translation teams or variants that were known to be used by the local and diasporic public. Participants were first presented with the original word from the translation and asked to comment on their level of comfort with it. They were then asked if there were any options that they were familiar with that would take precedence over the original. Thereafter, they were given the options from the prompt sheet and were asked to choose the one they were most comfortable with or thought most natural.
The final section of the instrument comprised a listening activity which required that participants pay keen attention to an audio excerpt. Here, participants were treated with an actual studio-prepared rendition of Luke 2 that served as a pilot recording. Informants were required to comment on the voicing style of the actors and actresses and the naturalness of the translation. Thereafter, they were asked to state what they thought contributed to the naturalness.
Subsequent instruments allowed informants to share their likes and dislikes of specific items, whether words, phrases, sentences, or stylistic concepts. Participants were asked to provide suggestions to replace items with which they were uncomfortable. The structure of the instruments was organized in a manner to achieve the goal of identifying the public's preferences relating to the translation of biblical concepts, specifically those that were of a sexual nature or those that were double entendres, one sense of which was considered ribald.
Focus group and markedness
In linguistics, the term markedness identifies a feature at any level, be it syntax, phonology, semantics, and so on, that is asymmetrically salient, or uncommon and infrequent in general society. 2 In a pursuit as delicate as a Bible translation project, it is of utmost importance that the final product be representative of the language spoken in the general public space, all while identifying marked features. The JLU/JCBTP team, keen on such a requirement, opted to form focus groups at strategic points across the island. Focus groups were selected from churchgoing populations representative of church denominations and urban–rural divisions. Groups consisted of pastors of selected churches and members of their congregation whom they chose, being guided by the need for a balance of gender across different age groups. These selection criteria were identified by the research team, who aimed to capture and represent the different dialects (varieties) of JC in pursuit of an authentic standardized or near-standard version. The team saw such a stage as necessary because of the existence of regional markedness of JC in Jamaican society. Put another way, because there are a few specific marked (uncommon) constructions in JC distributed among different regions of the island or different sociolinguistic groups, the research team had to ensure that these features were documented. It was their intent to account for these marked features and to determine their suitability of inclusion in the standardization process. To achieve this, the JLU/JCBTP team set out to capture all salient varieties from across the country during focus-group sessions, an objective which saw prompt sheets and instruments updated after each focus-group meeting in preparation to test new features in subsequent sessions.
The data
Addressing concerns—accessing responses
The JLU/JCBTP team hoped for successful and revealing focus-group sessions in an effort to have their presiding questions answered. At all sessions, there was a noticeably consistent element emerging from the question-and-answer session, the point during the focus group where participants asked questions of the JLU/JCBTP team member standing in the role as moderator. Participants were eager in their questioning, most frequently asking for the motives behind the BSWI's “interference with the Lord's words,” immediately making it clear that they, the churchgoing public, were not in support of such a move. After the moderator answered that and subsequent questions, in addition to providing clarity to their concerns, participants moved from a place of skepticism and reluctance to one of eagerness and enthusiasm. This significant milestone of the project occurred by way of the moderator explaining the aims and mission statements and details of the project, which helped in easing the doubts of the participants, one of which was about the general public's ability to read the finish product due to the inconsistency in the way JC is written, and another about the ability of many of the congregation members to read at all.
Faced with such concerns, the moderators dedicated a section of each session to explaining and demonstrating the team's awareness of the prospect of such an issue by demonstrating the ease with which JC can be read, an issue addressed and solved by the phonemic structure of the JLU/Cassidy orthography used in the translation (see Jamaica Language Unit 2009; Meade 2012). Upon being introduced to and even receiving JLU/Cassidy lessons, doubts were replaced by excitement. This excitement was even greater when participants were told of the audio disc that would be included as part of the final product. This section of the sessions created an overwhelmingly positive atmosphere, which resulted in total participation by each member, and increased receptiveness to the projected publication.
Responses
In the story of Jesus’s birth, specifically Luke 1.26-28, discussions arose with a focus on translation and suggestions for the sexual terms in the passage. One example was “virgin,” a word that is often used across all sectors of society but is not without clever alternatives. A few such alternatives were presented as options by participants; however, most opted to leave the word unchanged. As justification for their suggestions, participants stated that their aim was for naturalness or forms and expressions that were truly Jamaican. However, they made it abundantly clear that at no point did they forget that they were dealing with the holy Scriptures, and as such they requested constant checks for appropriateness of forms and expressions.
virgin
antoch uman—untouched woman waahn uman we neva hav seks yet—a woman who has never had sex* uman huu neva av a man—woman who has never had a man waahn uman we neva did toch—a woman who has never been touched waahn uman we neva tek no man yet—a woman who has never taken a man
Options (i)–(iv) were identified by participants as the most natural forms possible while maintaining appropriateness. However, option (v), although the most natural and most Jamaican, was considered too risky, as it had lewd undertones. The phrase in option (v), tek man, is often used in contexts accompanied by controversy and, as such, it may have been against this backdrop that participants quickly ruled out the option, classifying it as unsuitable. Option (ii), marked by the asterisk, though not the option in common use, was chosen for the official translations because it was the most frequently recommended option. This recommendation was made because of the retention of the word seks, the “loadbearing” determinant of being a virgin, and the fact that there was no need for a compromise since the expression was both natural and appropriate for biblical use.
References to pregnancy and being impregnated occurred at varying intervals throughout the project, although expressed differently in different places. The notions occurred in the story of Jesus’s birth directly, through the use of the phrase “be with child” and the word “conceive,” and indirectly, in Luke 1.35 where “the Holy Ghost came unto Mary.” This last expression, purposefully included as a prompt, had the following options:
the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee
Di Uoli Spirit a go kom tu yu—The Holy Spirit will come to you* Di Uoli Spirit a go kom dong pan yu—The Holy Spirit will come down on you
Here, option (i) was determined by participants to be more appropriate, though less natural. The second option was thought to contain lewd undertones in the expression, kom dong pan yu. In one particular focus group, an elderly member of the population stated that her choosing of (i) over (ii) separates a regular woman from the mother of Jesus.
The two concepts of “be with child” and “conceive/get impregnated” were presented as individual prompts. However, there were overlaps in the options presented.
be with child
briid—breed prignant—pregnant* ha beli—have belly bier chail—bear child pregnant—pregnant conceive
prignant—pregnant ha beli—have belly briid—breed av biebi ina beli—have baby in belly* baan—born
Discussions on these concepts led to several revelations. One such revelation resulted in the term briid being disregarded altogether, though it was the most natural option. Briid was noted as a derogatory term used in reference to a promiscuous female and, as such, could not be used in the Bible, even more so when speaking about Mary. As a result, the consensus stood with prignant as the option to represent “be with child.” Bier chail was later rejected because of comments made on the expression. Bier was unnatural in Jamaican society when it referred to animate objects, and especially human beings, and chail was identified as unnatural because it was seen as too anglicized. As a result, the entire expression was labeled illogical and unnatural. Ha beli, though used frequently, was later reconsidered based on its ambiguity in Jamaican society. The term indeed carries the meaning of being pregnant but in some rural areas of the country it also has the meaning of “carrying loathsome feelings” for an individual. From the options and the final selection, it was realized that appropriateness was ranked higher than naturalness to the participants. Participants dismissed some suggestions as being unnatural and not truly Jamaican, but they were more dismissive if an item was deemed inappropriate. Participants agreed that the final choices for the items above were unnatural and not truly Jamaican but were chosen because they were suitable, valid, and, most importantly, appropriate for the word of God.
According to Crystal (1985, 24–25), religious language always fails in its purpose when it draws too much attention to itself and thus takes attention away from the realities it attempts to convey. Many participants would be inclined to agree with Crystal, because they were often quoted as saying that, while they wanted the final product to be as natural as possible so that it could be easily understood, they did not want the message to be lost because readers were distracted by the language of the message. Often, individuals read the Bible but do not get a full understanding of what they read. Giving individuals the Bible in their language helps to clarify commonly misconstrued concepts and ideas. During focus-group sessions, participants often mentioned that the translation with which they were presented provided an avenue for them to grasp the concepts being conveyed. Prompts helped participants not only to present the options they thought more natural and appropriate, but also gave them the opportunity to be involved with translations that would find their way into the finished product. This process helped to provide a context of use and better inform the decisions they made as a group.
The presence of group dynamics and participants making decisions as a unit was observed in a few sessions where informants were prompted for alternatives for circumcision. Most participants suggested the reuse of the original term. However, in one particular focus group, options were presented as:
circumcise
sorkomsaiz—circumcise* kot aaf skin—cut off skin skin aaf di tap a di piinis—skin off the top of the penis
During discussions, members stated that the options presented were somewhat graphic and conveyed an explicit image, hence opting to go with the original term (i), which they saw as unnatural but more appropriate.
The JLU/JCBTP team, especially the translators, struggled to choose between functional and formal equivalence in the translation process, especially when dealing with concepts relating to sexual deviance, specifically “orgy” and “sexual immorality.” Paul Wendland distinguishes between the two types of translation as follows: In a formally equivalent translation, a translator seeks to preserve, as much as he [or she] can, the structure of the original. This approach seeks to achieve consistency in translating the same Greek or Hebrew word with the same target-language word, as much as this is possible. It aims to make the original text transparent to the target reader, in some cases even to the point of preserving the word order and syntax of the original. A functionally equivalent translation, by contrast, seeks to communicate above all the meaning of the original, using the most natural forms, words, structures, and idioms of the target language. (Wendland 2012, 2)
In creole linguistics, rarely is there a one-to-one mapping of a lexifier form and a creole counterpart because of the poly-semanticity of, for example, English words that are borrowed directly into creoles. To disambiguate lexical items, functional equivalence is preferred over formal equivalence, resulting in (often lengthy) phrases replacing minimal forms (one- to two-word expressions). This was the case with “orgy” (e.g., Gal 5.21; 1 Pet 4.3), which participants deemed too unnatural and uncommon.
3
However, while formal equivalence was rejected, functional equivalence was not easily achieved. Participants struggled to find suitable options for the term, especially in cases where the meaning of the word was not immediately present because of its uncommon everyday use in the Scriptures. After lengthy discussions and theological consultations between pastors and their colleagues within the diocese, two options emerged:
orgy
wail paati—wild party wail seks paati—wild sex party* sexual immorality
sliip roun sliip roun wid evribadi aahnn evriting—sleep around with everyone and everything unable to have children
baren—infertile myuul—infertile kyaahn hav pikni—infertile*
After further discussions, (ii) was greenlighted because of the semantic clarity that accompanied the inclusion of seks. In the case of “sexual immorality,” there was a single option given, which, though not minimalistic in length, was unanimously determined to be clear and appropriate.
JC is known to be a very expressive language, capable of communicating a range of ideas. This creative trait is often manifested through creative compounding or semantic broadening (expansion of meaning). However, these methods sometimes create problems because their use is restricted to specific contexts. This was the situation when participants were prompted to choose between terms to refer to Elizabeth's inability to have children. They were presented with the options baren and myuul, but these options were seldom chosen. Baren, which some participants associated with a plot of land, was said to be “too English” and therefore not able to effectively communicate the true meaning of the term. Similarly, only a few informants chose myuul, because, while its use is commonplace, its negative and degrading connotation rendered it inappropriate for biblical use. They instead decided on kyaahn hav pikni “infertile,” which they cited as unambiguous, effective in conveying the true meaning behind the concept, and, most importantly, both natural and appropriate.
The complex nature of translations of any kind is evident in this situation where participants chose a verb phrase to replace an adjective (baren) and a noun (myuul). The previously mentioned creative trait of JC is on full display here, where syntactic “irregularities” are acceptable and grammatical.
Final decisions
A notable observation arising from focus-group exercises was the clear and resolute stance of participants against the transmission of secular meanings and connotations into a context of reverence. Participants wanted the holy Scripture to retain its purity and therefore chose less natural options, all while expressing their desire to have the final product be authentic and a true representation of Jamaican speech. The problem here, however, is deeply rooted in the choices and suggestions that were given. In an effort to maintain reverence and uphold the sanctity that is deemed mandatory for the word of God, authenticity was given secondary importance. This is observed in the case of prignant being selected over biebi ina beli or briid, which are more natural. The issue of naturalness versus appropriateness created a very delicate situation. If the JLU/JCBTP team chose authenticity over appropriateness there would be a huge backlash from the religious community. However, if appropriateness were chosen over authenticity, the final text would be stripped of its literary value, the very feature which could possibly promote and popularize the finished product.
The consultants from the JLU examined the focus-group data with the intention of settling the dilemma of the final selections, and often referenced the need for the integrity of JC to be maintained. In so doing, a number of the options that were not favored by the focus-group participants were selected. This is seen in the case of the concept of being pregnant, where many participants opted for prignant but a more natural option was found in av biebi ina beli, which was also used to mean “be with child.” Although not a single lexical item, the selection ideally captured the concept, thus staying true to JC, while preserving the reverence participants anticipated.
The final decision made by the JLU/JCBTP team about the terms or expressions was not based solely on the naturalness of the item, but took other criteria into consideration. For example, “conceive” shared options with “pregnant” and “be with child” so it would have been a less technical decision to choose av biebi ina beli as the underlying expression, 4 especially since it was a popular choice in focus-group sessions. However, when context of use was introduced, av biebi ina beli would not fit all scenarios. Thus, baan and get biebi ina beli were retained as final selections for specific contexts to mean “conceive.” Luke 2.21 tells of the actual birth of Christ and references the fact that he was named Jesus, which the angels called him before he was conceived in the womb; here, “conceive” was translated as baan. However, in Luke 1.31 when the good news is foretold to Mary by the angel Gabriel, he tells her that she will conceive in her womb and bring forth a son. This contextualization of “conceive” was translated as get biebi ina beli, thus resulting in three choices for the original term: av biebi ina beli, baan, and get biebi ina beli. Context of use was an important criterion in the standardization process. However, participants’ decisions were included in the process and their choices were added to the pool of options—with their varying degrees of naturalness and appropriateness—from which forms were drawn. Context of use was only introduced when the suitability of an option was questioned. Easier decisions can be seen with di Uoli Spirit a go kom tu yu, which was used as the translation in Luke 1.35 for the Holy Spirit being bestowed upon Mary. This option fit the context well and was one of the few options that emerged from focus groups as being both appropriate and natural.
JC, at various times during several focus groups, was labeled as harsh and crude. The cases which elicited such opinions were examined during the standardization process, and participants’ feedback was always at the center of each discussion. The JLU/JCBTP team, when deliberating the options for “barren,” agreed that myuul was an insensitive choice since it is a very common term used to refer to the female who is unable to get pregnant and also a donkey, but even more, because the term does not have a positive connotation in any circumstance in which it is used. Thus, although very natural and common, the term was deemed inappropriate. Likewise, the original term, baren, was ruled out because of its infrequent use in natural JC speech. As a result, the team finally decided on kyaahn hav pikni.
Similarly, to remove the graphic image which may accompany the skin aaf di tap a di piinis and kot aaf skin, the team chose sorkomsaiz as the working option. Although not truly natural, the team sided with participants in stating that appropriateness carried more weight than naturalness. The same was the case with the final choice for “virgin.” The most natural option would have been waahn uman we neva tek no man yet, but it carried negative connotations and was thus eliminated, leaving uman we neva sliip wid no man yet as the final choice, not a far cry from the most natural form. The translation for “orgy” was more straightforward based on the options with which the team was presented. The sole discussion about the options was whether an orgy could exist without sex. Wail paati and wail seks paati were the two options and the final decision went with wail seks paati because of the missing sexual meaning in wail paati. Sexual immorality had a single option in sliip roun sliip roun wid evribadi an evriting, which was natural, to the point, and appropriate for biblical use.
At the end of this phase of the project, the consensus was that the decision between naturalness and appropriateness would never be an easy one, especially when the decision hinged on one or more additional factors. In this phase, context of use was an integral addition to the standardization process and its inclusion helped to maintain the integrity of JC that the team sought, and also the reverence for which the focus-group participants lobbied.
The impact
The undertaking of the JCBTP provided the opportunity for the JLU and the BSWI to build a rapport with the public. It was at the same time a chance to educate the public on the aim of the project and remove the misconceptions that existed. The project helped to create language awareness and helped to increase the public’s appreciation for JC, all while laying the foundation for future work. The ideologies of naturalness, appropriateness, context of use, and semantics were introduced as points of reference and consideration, which eventually did influence the final decisions and allowed the JLU/JCBTP team and the BSWI to give the people of Jamaica the Bible in their heart language.
