Page 8

M. L. Strauss, "Literal Meaning" Fallacy

transferred from one person to another. Meaning ultimately resides not in words or
sentences, but in persons. Evangelical hermeneutics has historically associated the
meaning of a text with the authors intention. The meaning of Pauls letter to the
Galatians is discerned by exegeting the text to determine what Paul meant. Those
conversant with contemporary hermeneutical discussion will recognize that this is an
oversimplification, and that meaning must be seen as a dynamic interplay between
author, text and reader.

While such nuancing is necessary, evangelicals steadfastly

assert (a) that there is a meaning in the text, and (b) that this meaning has as its locus the
intentional speech-act of the historical author. For translation to be successful, the
intention not just the words of the author must be successfully transferred from one
person to another.

Functional equivalent translations are sometimes criticized for being thought-for-

thought rather than word-for-word. But all translation indeed all communication
through language begins and ends with thoughts, intentions and inferences. For
communication to be successful, the intention of the sender must be accurately inferred
by the receiver. Since translation is communication across languages, it is not merely the
transfer of symbols (words and sentences), but the transfer of meaning from person to
person.

Of course the search for intentionality has been under serious and prolonged attack

from advocates of the new hermeneutic, deconstruction, and reader-response approaches
to biblical interpretation. For years the author has been presumed to be dead, or at least
terminally ill. Yet recent communication theories have seen the resurrection of the
author. Speech-act theory,

Relevance Theory,

and pragmatics

have all given

renewed significance to speakers and authors, asserting the importance of intentionality
in all communication, both oral and written.

See especially Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998);

Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); idem, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of
Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Press, 1969). For application to literary works see Mary Louise Pratt, Towards a Speech Act Theory of
Literary Discourse (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1977); Sandy Petrey, Speech Acts and Literary
Theory (London: Routledge, 1990). With reference to biblical studies see Hugh C. White, "Introduction:
Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism," Semeia 41 (1988), 1-24 (this whole issue is devoted to speech
act theory and biblical studies); Kevin Vanhoozer, "The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and
Scriptures Diverse Literary Forms," in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds., Hermeneutics,
Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 49-104.

Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Oxford: Blackwell; 2

ed., 1995). A good summary of relevance theory may be found in Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber,
"Relevance Theory," in G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics (Oxford: Blackwell,
forthcoming), available at

http://www.dan.sperber.com/relevance_theory.htm

. For the application of

relevance theory to Bible translation see Ernst-August Gutt, Translation and Relevance: Cognition and
Context (St. Jerome, 2

ed. 2000).

Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983); Jacob L. Mey,

Pragmatics. An Introduction (Blackwell, 2

ed., 2001).