The first part of the article emphasizes the fallacy of the principle of semantic autonomy of the sign, which in most cases constitutes the fundamental presumption of the linguistic description (the so-called “meanings of words, sentences, texts and verbal language”). The dynamic communicative model of the verbal process assumes that: 1) the “language” metaphor is ineffective for explaining semantic formation in a word-containing semiotic action; 2) the used concepts of a sign (words, sentences, texts) do not have an autonomous semantic (meaning-forming) identity if interpreted outside of a complex semiotic actions performed by the author (actor); 3) what is produced and interpreted in the natural communicative process is the semiotic impact (act) of the communicant, and not a structure of self-significant signs (words); 4) any semiotic (communicative) action is interpreted as complex, multi-channel, multi-factor. The text is defined in the article as a sequence of non-autonomous verbal elements that just “hint” at the corresponding communicative actions. Communicative actions (sought in the generation and interpretation) are perceived in identity on the basis of parameters that the author of the action and then the interpreter think in complex reality. Such an approach is helpful in interpreting the general manner and the particular cases of Aquila’s Bible translation, that is suggested in the second part of the article. Non-grammatical (non-language) interpretation of what Aquila did, allows describing verbal data more correctly. The result of his work (as it was thought by himself) was not a translation in strict sense. That was a component of a traditional communicative practice of reading and studying the Scripture in the Greek-speaking diaspora communities. Aquila’s text can be appreciated and understood adequately just in the frame of this practice, being a part of the complex communicative situations (the latter can be understood and interpreted, in contrast with language and grammar). His text had a big success not in the field of the Greek language or grammar but in the field of communicative (historical-cultural-religious) reality, in the same way as any other verbal text tends to be.
The first part of the article emphasizes the fallacy of the principle of semantic autonomy of the sign, which in most cases constitutes the fundamental presumption of the linguistic description (the so-called “meanings of words, sentences, texts and verbal language”). The dynamic communicative model of the verbal process assumes that: 1) the “language” metaphor is ineffective for explaining semantic formation in a word-containing semiotic action; 2) the used concepts of a sign (words, sentences, texts) do not have an autonomous semantic (meaning-forming) identity if interpreted outside of a complex semiotic actions performed by the author (actor); 3) what is produced and interpreted in the natural communicative process is the semiotic impact (act) of the communicant, and not a structure of self-significant signs (words); 4) any semiotic (communicative) action is interpreted as complex, multi-channel, multi-factor. The text is defined in the article as a sequence of non-autonomous verbal elements that just “hint” at the corresponding communicative actions. Communicative actions (sought in the generation and interpretation) are perceived in identity on the basis of parameters that the author of the action and then the interpreter think in complex reality. Such an approach is helpful in interpreting the general manner and the particular cases of Aquila’s Bible translation, that is suggested in the second part of the article. Non-grammatical (non-language) interpretation of what Aquila did, allows describing verbal data more correctly. The result of his work (as it was thought by himself) was not a translation in strict sense. That was a component of a traditional communicative practice of reading and studying the Scripture in the Greek-speaking diaspora communities. Aquila’s text can be appreciated and understood adequately just in the frame of this practice, being a part of the complex communicative situations (the latter can be understood and interpreted, in contrast with language and grammar). His text had a big success not in the field of the Greek language or grammar but in the field of communicative (historical-cultural-religious) reality, in the same way as any other verbal text tends to be.