Parataxis and Hypotaxis: What They Mean and Why It Matters (Hint: It's About the NIV)

Languages are distinguished by many features. One of these distinguishing features is the way that the syntax is typically arranged in a sentence. A paratactic language arranges independent clauses side by side and connects them with coordinating conjunctions (para--beside; taxon--order). Note the following representative sentence:

I am playing a game and I am kicking a ball at a net and I am receiving a point for every goal and I am not very good and I am not scoring many points and I am losing.   

This sentence does not reflect natural, contemporary English. We might forgive a 2nd-grade classroom essay that sounds like this, but were we to submit it for publication, it would not be accepted. It's too choppy.

A hypotactic language arranges sentences by subordinating several dependent clauses under a single independent clause, connecting them with a variety of devices such as adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions of both the coordinating and subordinating variety, participles, infinitives, etc. (hypo--under; taxon--order). Note the following representative sentence:

I am playing a game in which I receive a point whenever I kick a ball into a net; however, because I am not very good I am not scoring many points, whereupon I am losing. 

This sentence reflects better English than the first one, but it still isn't very good. (And please don't ask me to diagram it!) People just don't write like this today. True, this sentence can be understood as it stands. But it's not natural, contemporary English.

Perhaps a happy mediating rendition would look something like this:

I am playing a game in which I receive points for kicking a ball into a net. Because I am not very good I am not scoring many points. I am losing.

Of what value is this discussion? Precisely this: The Hebrew language is a highly paratactic language, Greek is extremely hypotactic, and American English is somewhere in between. And this means that not only the words, but also the sentence structure must be translated if one wants to create a natural English translation.

In order to render Hebrew into natural English, the relentless stream of ands (waw), must be interpreted and shaped into meaningfully complex sentences for maximum understanding. Sometimes the and becomes then or so or but or because. At other times the and becomes a semicolon or a period. Still other times the and is simply omitted as an unnecessary deterrent to understanding. The result is that the single Hebrew sentence that is Genesis 1, for instance, becomes a series of normal, readable paragraphs made from variegated English sentences.

In order to render Greek into natural English, the massive web of clauses, phrases, transitional and connecting devices must be untangled and simplified in order to qualify as excellent English. The result is that the single Greek sentence that is Ephesians 1:3-14, for instance, becomes a normal, readable paragraph of variegated English sentences.

In doing this, English translations subject themselves to two criticisms, both of which are valid, but both of which are also overstated:


First, they run the risk of excessive interpretation. In my first example I omitted all five ands, replacing them with other forms. There is a possibility that in so doing I failed to communicate the original intent. Perhaps rather than "Because I am not very good I am not scoring many points" the author intended to communicate "I am not very good because I am not scoring many points." These two sentences are not identical in intent, and in choosing the former, I am offering the likeliest meaning of this sentence. I might be wrong. But the reward of natural English is worth the risk.


Second, they run the risk of suppressing connectors that are pedantically explicit in the original languages. But explicit pedantry is not good English, and it is not necessary to understanding. For instance, in the complex sentence "I am not very good; therefore, I lost" the therefore may be removed without any loss of meaning. The sentence "I am not very good: I lost" communicates precisely the same intention as the earlier sentence--the only difference is that the the idea of result is implicit rather than explicit. Is there ever a risk of eliminating a connector and losing authorial intent? Absolutely. But the reward of natural English is worth the risk.

Does the NIV sometimes engage in "interpretation" or in "eliminating words"? Sure. Every translation does. The NIV just does these things with more self-conscious deliberation than other translations. But this does not make it a bad translation.