钦定本与新国际版的文本挖掘分析:对ESL读者的关注与启示

Darrin Thomas, Roger O’Connor Valenzuela
{"title":"钦定本与新国际版的文本挖掘分析:对ESL读者的关注与启示","authors":"Darrin Thomas, Roger O’Connor Valenzuela","doi":"10.1080/10656219.2020.1837696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract English as a Second Language (ESL) students are often expected to read and use English translations of the Bible for academic and worship purposes. The purpose of this study was to explore the writing style of the King James Version and the New International Version in terms of each translation’s formality, readability, and sentiment using quantitative text mining analysis tools. Results indicated that the KJV used more formal language, had a higher grade level of readability and used slightly more positive wording than the NIV. In addition, for both translations the Old Testament was much more negative in terms of sentiment than the New Testament. Lastly, a moderate positive relationship was found between readability and formality for both translations.","PeriodicalId":38970,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research on Christian Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10656219.2020.1837696","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Text Mining Analysis of the King James Version & New International Version: Concerns and Implications for ESL Readers\",\"authors\":\"Darrin Thomas, Roger O’Connor Valenzuela\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10656219.2020.1837696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract English as a Second Language (ESL) students are often expected to read and use English translations of the Bible for academic and worship purposes. The purpose of this study was to explore the writing style of the King James Version and the New International Version in terms of each translation’s formality, readability, and sentiment using quantitative text mining analysis tools. Results indicated that the KJV used more formal language, had a higher grade level of readability and used slightly more positive wording than the NIV. In addition, for both translations the Old Testament was much more negative in terms of sentiment than the New Testament. Lastly, a moderate positive relationship was found between readability and formality for both translations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research on Christian Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10656219.2020.1837696\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research on Christian Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2020.1837696\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research on Christian Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2020.1837696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抽象英语作为第二语言(ESL)的学生通常被要求阅读和使用《圣经》的英文译本用于学术和崇拜目的。本研究的目的是使用定量文本挖掘分析工具,从每一个译本的形式性、可读性和情感性方面探讨詹姆斯国王译本和新国际译本的写作风格。结果表明,与NIV相比,KJV使用了更正式的语言,具有更高的可读性等级,并且使用了稍微更积极的措辞。此外,在这两个译本中,《旧约》在情感方面都比《新约》负面得多。最后,两个译本的可读性和形式性之间存在适度的正相关关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Text Mining Analysis of the King James Version & New International Version: Concerns and Implications for ESL Readers
Abstract English as a Second Language (ESL) students are often expected to read and use English translations of the Bible for academic and worship purposes. The purpose of this study was to explore the writing style of the King James Version and the New International Version in terms of each translation’s formality, readability, and sentiment using quantitative text mining analysis tools. Results indicated that the KJV used more formal language, had a higher grade level of readability and used slightly more positive wording than the NIV. In addition, for both translations the Old Testament was much more negative in terms of sentiment than the New Testament. Lastly, a moderate positive relationship was found between readability and formality for both translations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research on Christian Education
Journal of Research on Christian Education Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Journal of Research on Christian Education (JRCE) provides a vehicle for the scholarly interchange of research findings relative to every level of Christian education. Particular emphasis is given to Christian schooling within the Protestant tradition as well as to research findings from other traditions which have implications for such schools.
期刊最新文献
Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Indonesian Christian Higher Education: Direct and Indirect Effects A Framework for the Heart-Orientation Dimension of Worldview The CASEL Framework and Christian Schools: Using a Hermeneutical Tool to Determine Worldview Alignment “That Would Be Undemocratic”: Individuality and Educational Differentiation in C. S. Lewis’s “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” (1961) Parables, Pedagogies and Purpose: A Comparison of the Use of Parables within Godly Play and Examples of UK Evangelical Children’s Ministry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1