Воскресенье, 18.03.2018, 18:36
Главная Регистрация RSS
Приветствую Вас, Гость
Категории раздела
English at Work

Онлайн всего: 1
Гостей: 1
Пользователей: 0

Вход на сайт
BBC: News
At University
Главная » Статьи » Классики о переводе

R. Jakobson
According to Bertrand Russell, "no one can understand the word 'cheese' unless he has a nonlinguistic acquaintance with cheese."1 If, however, we follow Russell's fundamental precept and place our "emphasis upon the linguistic aspects of traditional philosophical problems," then we are obliged to state that no one can understand the word "cheese" unless he has an acquaintance with the meaning assigned to this word in the lexical code of English. Any represen­tative of a cheese-less culinary culture will understand the English word "cheese" if he is aware that in this language it means "food made of pressed curds" and if he has at least a linguistic acquaint­ance with "curds." We never consumed ambrosia or nectar and have only a linguistic acquaintance with the words "ambrosia," "nectar," and "gods"—the name of their mythical users; nonetheless, we understand these words and know in what contexts each of them may be used. The meaning of the words "cheese," "apple," "nectar," "ac­quaintance," "but," "mere," and of any word or phrase whatsoever is definitely a linguistic—or to be more precise and less narrow— a semiotic fact. Against those who assign meaning (signatum) not to the sign, but to the thing itself, the simplest and truest argument would be that nobody has ever smelled or tasted the meaning of "cheese" or of "apple." There is no signatum without signum. The meaning of the word "cheese" cannot be inferred from a nonlin guistic acquaintance with cheddar or with camembert without the assistance of the verbal code. An array of linguistic signs is needed to introduce an unfamiliar word. Mere pointing will not teach us whether "cheese" is the name of the given specimen, or of any box of camembert, or of camembert in general or of any cheese, any milk product, any food, any refreshment, or perhaps any box irre­spective of contents. Finally, does a word simply name the thing in question, or does it imply a meaning such as offering, sale, prohi­bition, or malediction? (Pointing actually may mean malediction; in some cultures, particularly in Africa, it is an ominous gesture.) For us, both as linguists and as ordinary word-users, the mean­ing of any linguistic sign is its translation into some further, alter­native sign, especially a sign "in which it is more fully developed," as Peirce, the deepest inquirer into the essence of signs, insistently stated.2 The term "bachelor" may be converted into a more explicit designation, "unmarried man," whenever higher explicitness is re­quired. We distinguish three ways of interpreting a verbal sign: it may be translated into other signs of the same language, into an­other language, or into another, nonverbal system of symbols. These three kinds of translation are to be differently labeled: 1. Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of
verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language. 2. Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpre­
tation of verbal signs by means of some other language. 3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpreta­
tion of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems. The intralingual translation of a word uses either another, more or less synonymous, word or resorts to a circumlocution. Yet synonymy, as a rule, is not complete equivalence: for example, "every celibate is a bachelor, but not every bachelor is a celibate." A word or an idiomatic phrase-word, briefly a code-unit of the highest level, may be fully interpreted only by means of an equiva­lent combination of code-units, i.e., a message referring to this code-unit: "every bachelor is an unmarried man, and every unmar­ried man is a bachelor," or "every celibate is bound not to marry, and everyone who is bound not to marry is a celibate." Likewise, on the level of interlingual translation, there is ordi­narily no full equivalence between code-units, while messages may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or messages. The English word "cheese" cannot be completely identified with its standard Russian heteronym "сыр," because cottage cheese is a cheese but not а сыр. Russians say: принеси сыру и творогу, "bring cheese and [sic] cottage cheese." In standard Russian, the food made of pressed curds is called сыр only if ferment is used. Most frequently, however, translation from one language into another substitutes messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language. Such a trans-lation is a reported speech; the translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.
Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. Like any receiver of verbal messages, the linguist acts as their interpreter. No linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science of language without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into signs of another system. Any comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual translatability; widespread practice of interlingual communication, particularly translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny by linguistic science. It is difficult to overestimate the urgent need for and the theoretical and practical significance of differential bilingual dictionaries with care­ful comparative definition of all the corresponding units in their intension and extension. Likewise differential bilingual grammars should define what unifies and what differentiates the two lan­guages in their selection and delimitation of grammatical concepts. Both the practice and the theory of translation abound with intricacies, and from time to time attempts are made to sever the Gordian knot by proclaiming the dogma of untranslatability. "Mr. Everyman, the natural logician," vividly imagined by B. L. Whorf, is supposed to have arrived at the following bit of reasoning: "Facts are unlike to speakers whose language background provides for unlike formulation of them."3 In the first years of the Russian revolution there were fanatic visionaries who argued in Soviet peri-odicals for a radical revision of traditional language and particularly for the weeding out of such misleading expressions as "sunrise" or "sunset." Yet we still use this Ptolemaic imagery without implying a rejection of Copernican doctrine, and we can easily transform our customary talk about the rising and setting sun into a picture of the earth's rotation simply because any sign is translatable into a sign in which it appears to us more fully developed and precise. A faculty of speaking a given language implies a faculty of talk-ing about this language. Such a "metalinguistic" operation permits revision and redefinition of the vocabulary used. The complemen­tarity of both levels—object-language and metalanguage—was brought out by Niels Bohr: all well-defined experimental evidence must be expressed in ordinary language, "in which the practical use of every word stands in complementary relation to attempts of its strict definition."4 All cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language. Whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions. Thus in the newborn literary language of the Northeast Siberian Chukchees, "screw" is rendered as "rotating nail," "steel" as "hard iron," "tin" as "thin iron," "chalk" as "writing soap," "watch" as "hammering heart." Even seemingly contradictory circumlocu­tions, like "electrical horsecar" (Электрическая конка), the first Russian name of the horseless street car, or "flying steamship" (jena paragot), the Koryak term for the airplane, simply designate the electrical analogue of the horse-car and the flying analogue of the steamer and do not impede communication, just as there is no se­mantic "noise" and disturbance in the double oxymoron—"cold beef-and-pork hot dog." No lack of grammatical device in the language translated into makes impossible a literal translation of the entire conceptual in­formation contained in the original. The traditional conjunctions "and," "or" are now supplemented by a new connective—"and/ or"—which was discussed a few years ago in the witty book Fed­eral Prose: How to Write in and/or for Washington? Of these three conjunctions, only the latter occurs in one of the Samoyed lan­guages.6 Despite these differences in the inventory of conjunctions, all three varieties of messages observed in "federal prose" may be distinctly translated both into traditional English and into this Sa-moyed language. Federal prose: (1) John and Peter, (2) John or Peter, (3) John and/or Peter will come. Traditional English: (3) John and Peter or one of them will come. Samoyed: John and/or Peter both will come, (2) John and/or Peter, one of them will come. If some grammatical category is absent in a given language, its meaning may be translated into this language by lexical means. Dual forms like Old Russian брата are translated with the help of the numeral: "two brothers." It is more difficult to remain faithful to the original when we translate into a language provided with a certain grammatical category from a language devoid of such a cat-egory. When translating the English sentence "She has brothers" into a language which discriminates dual and plural, we are com-pelled either to make our own choice between two statements "She has two brothers"—"She has more than two" or to leave the deci­sion to the listener and say: "She has either two or more than two brothers." Again in translating from a language without grammat­ical number into English one is obliged to select one of the two possibilities—"brother" or "brothers" or to confront the receiver of this message with a two-choice situation: "She has either one or more than one brother." As Boas neatly observed, the grammatical pattern of a lan-guage (as opposed to its lexical stock) determines those aspects of each experience that must be expressed in the given language: "We have to choose between these aspects, and one or the other must be chosen."7 In order to translate accurately the English sentence "I hired a worker," a Russian needs supplementary information, whether this action was completed or not and whether the worker was a man or a woman, because he must make his choice between a verb of completive or noncompletive aspect—нанял or нанимал—and between a masculine and feminine irrbun— работника or работницу. If I ask the utterer of the English sen-tence whether the worker was male or female, my question may be judged irrelevant or indiscreet, whereas in the Russian version of this sentence an answer to this question is obligatory. On the other hand, whatever the choice of Russian grammatical forms to trans­late the quoted English message, the translation will give no answer to the question of whether I "hired" or "have hired" the worker, or whether he/she was an indefinite or definite worker ("a" or "the"). Because the information required by the English and Russian grammatical pattern is unlike, we face quite different sets of two-choice situations; therefore a chain of translations of one and the same isolated sentence from English into Russian and vice versa could entirely deprive such a message of its initial content. The Geneva linguist S. Karcevski used to compare such a gradual loss with a circular series of unfavorable currency transactions. But evidently the richer the context of a message, the smaller the loss of information. Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey. Each verb of a given language impera-tively raises a set of specific yes-or-no questions, as for instance: is the narrated event conceived with or without reference to its com-pletion? Is the narrated event presented as prior to the speech event or not? Naturally the attention of native speakers and listeners will be constantly focused on such items as are compulsory in their ver­bal code. In its cognitive function, language is minimally dependent on the grammatical pattern because the definition of our experience stands in complementary relation to metalinguistic operations— the cognitive level of language not only admits but directly requires recoding interpretation, i.e., translation. Any assumption of inef-fable or untranslatable cognitive data would be a contradiction in terms. But in jest, in dreams, in magic, briefly, in what one would call everyday verbal mythology and in poetry above all, the gram-matical categories carry a high semantic import. In these condi-tions, the question of translation becomes much more entangled and controversial. Even such a category as grammatical gender, often cited as merely formal, plays a great role in the mythological attitudes of a speech community. In Russian the feminine cannot designate a male person, nor the masculine specify a female. Ways of per-sonifying or metaphorically interpreting inanimate nouns are prompted by their gender. A test in the Moscow Psychological In-stitute (1915) showed that Russians, prone to personify the week-days, consistently represented Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday as males and Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday as females, without realizing that this distribution was due to the masculine gender of the first three names (понедельник, вторник, четверг) as against the feminine gender of the others (среда, пятница, суббота). The fact that the word for Friday is masculine in some Slavic languages and feminine in others is reflected in the folk tra ditions of the corresponding peoples, which differ in their Friday ritual. The widespread Russian superstition that a fallen knife pre-sages a male guest and a fallen fork a female one is determined by the masculine gender of нож "knife" and the feminine of вилка "fork" in Russian. In Slavic and other languages where "day" is masculine and "night" feminine, day is represented by poets as the lover of night. The Russian painter Repin was baffled as to why Sin had been depicted as a woman by German artists: he did not realize that "sin" is feminine in German (die Siinde), but masculine in Russian (грех). Likewise a Russian child, while reading a trans­lation of German tales, was astounded to find that Death, ob­viously a woman (Russian смерть, fem.), was pictured as an old man (German der Tod, masc). My Sister Life, the title of a book of poems by Boris Pasternak, is quite natural in Russian, where "life" is feminine (жизнь), but was enough to reduce to despair the Czech poet Josef Hora in his attempt to translate these poems, since in Czech this noun is masculine (zivot). What was the initial question which arose in Slavic literature at its very beginning? Curiously enough, the translator's difficulty in preserving the symbolism of genders, and the cognitive irrele-vance of this difficulty, appears to be the main topic of the earliest Slavic original work, the preface to the first translation of the Evan-geliarium, made in the early 860s by the founder of Slavic letters and liturgy, Constantine the Philosopher, and recently restored and interpreted by A. Vaillant.8 "Greek, when translated into another language, cannot always be reproduced identically, and that hap-pens to each language being translated," the Slavic apostle states. "Masculine nouns as 'star' in Greek, are feminine in another language as ръка and звъзда in Slavic." Ac­cording to Vaillant's commentary, this divergence effaces the sym­bolic identification of the rivers with demons and of the stars with angels in the Slavic translation of two of Matthew's verses (7:25 and 2:9). But to this poetic obstacle, Saint Constantine resolutely opposes the precept of Dionysius the Areopagite, who called for chief attention to the cognitive values (силъ разуму) and not to the words themselves. In poetry, verbal equations become a constructive principle of the text. Syntactic and morphological categories, roots, and affixes, phonemes and their components (distinctive features)—in short, any constituents of the verbal code—are confronted, juxtaposed, brought into contiguous relation according to the principle of sim­ilarity and contrast and carry their own autonomous signification. Phonemic similarity is sensed as semantic relationship. The pun, or to use a more erudite, and perhaps more precise term—parono­masia, reigns over poetic art, and whether its rule is absolute or limited, poetry by definition is untranslatable. Only creative trans- . position is possible: either intralingual transposition—from one poetic shape into another, or interlingual transposition—from one language into another, or finally intersemiotic transposition—from one system of signs into another, e.g., from verbal art into music, dance, cinema, or painting. If we were to translate into English the traditional formula Traduttore, traditore as "the translator is a betrayer," we would deprive the Italian rhyming epigram of all its paronomastic value. Hence a cognitive attitude would compel us to change this aphorism into a more explicit statement and to answer the questions: translator of what messages? betrayer of what values?
Категория: Классики о переводе | Добавил: Voats (23.09.2010)
Просмотров: 1617 | Комментарии: 9 | Рейтинг: 0.0/0
Всего комментариев: 9
It is beyond dispute that this article is extremely important for the translator because it reflects the main problems of translatability in two languages. The author focuses on the distinction of languages and the grammar differences in them. Thus, the context plays a very important role in the process of translation as well as knowledge in cross-cultural communications. In my opinion, the more nuances of language you possess the proper way you will translate. Therefore, the translator have to take into consideration each and every aspect of translation whether it would be the category of gender or modality or whatever.

The article represent the most essential issues in the translation.The process of translation involves different stages: Intralingual, Interlingual and Intersemiotic. Another point is word can be translated in terms of lexical and stylistic meaning,and cultural notion.The problem of gender in English language creates difficulties for translator.The structure of grammar influences on translation especially in languages from different groups as English and Russian.In some extent translator is a betrayer of values when he is translating literally and without any transformation.In my opinion this article was quite informative and with stunning examples .

I am pretty sure that this article is helpful for every translator. Here we can find 3 leveled kinds of translation: 1) interlingual; 2) intersemiotic; 3) intralingual, i.e. verbal signs can be translated 1) into other language; 2) into other signs of the same language; 3) into another nonverbal system of symbols.
The author also points out that all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any language. When translating we should take into account all the differences between a target language and a source language. I mean the translator should remember about differences in grammatical categories, modality, word order etc. So, translation is like a road: if you want to cross over it staying alive, you need to find the cross-over!

The main topic of this article is the difficulties of translation and interpretation. We can see that the author gives us some ways of interpreting some verbal signs, but it is very difficult to create one whole classification of them. The authour shows us the ways like: thranslation into signs, into another language, into nonverbal symbols. I completely agree with Russel, that no one can understand any words,unless he has a nonlinguistic acquaintance with things or events, connected with these words. This article helps us to be convinced of this. All cultures and languages are different, and not only context helps thranslators and interpreters.

Good and faithful translation is a really hard and grueling work, especially if it is the translation between languages from different language groups. To find appropriate equivalents if there is no some notion in the language of translation becomes a stambling block for translator. There are many linguistic theories of what units the translator can use in different situations. But not all of them are helpful.
The difference in Grammar is one of the main reason of translator's difficulties. For example, we have no articles in Ukrainian Grammar as English Grammar. This aspect impedes a lot the work of translator, so he or she must choose between some variants of how, for example, to translate the indefinite article THE.
So, I think it is very important to know perfectly the difference between languages and have some extralinguistic knowledges, which also are very important.

I believe, that all of the people who have deal with translation have to read this article, cause it is very useful and it shows all the difficulties during the process of translation and interpritation. The author tells about 3 ways of interpriting verbal signs: they may be translated into other signs of the same language, into other language or into another nonverbal system of symbols. And according to these ways he distinguishes 3 types of translation: intralingusl, interlingual and intersemiotic. Sometimes it is very hard to choose the proper way of translation, especially when cultures differ, and we should remember, that synonymy isn't a complete equivalence, though sysonyms always play a huge role in any translation. The author also mentiones, that all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any language. Cognitive level always requires translation, not interpretation. It's very important to know the pecularities of the language in different areas. We have to pay attention to grammatical categories, punctuation, cause they may be different even in one and the same language. We often face different sets of two-choice situations, cause the data required by the English and Russian grammatical pattern is unlike. So, when translating or interpreting, you should always take into consideration all patterns of 2 languages(Source Language and Target Language). In that way, your translation will be as close to the original, as possible.

We never consumed the word if we have only a linguistic acquaintance.
We understand these words and know in what contexts each of them may be used.
An array of linguistic signs is needed to introduce an unfamiliar word.
For us the meaning of any linguistic sign is its translation into some further, alternative sign, especially a sign "in which it is more fully developed.
We distinguish three ways of interpreting a verbal sign: it may be translated into other signs of the same language,
into another language, or into another, nonverbal system of symbols.
A word or an idiomatic phrase-word, may be fully interpreted only by means of an equivalent combination of code-units.
Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.
Differential bilingual grammars should define what unifies and what differentiates the two languages in their selection
and delimitation of grammatical concepts.
You must entire the conceptual information contained in the original because the literal translation is impossible.
We must divide between masculine and feminine genders and consider grammatical numbers.
Evidently the richer the context of a message, the smaller the loss of information.
Syntactic and morphological categories,phonemic similarity roots, and affixes, phonemes and their components are confronted, juxtaposed, brought
into contiguous relation according to the principle of sim­ilarity and contrast and carry their own autonomous signification.

The other driver slowed to swerve around June'S body and put a little distance between them.She looked up and I just heard her say to the other guy Come here, and let me taste your come.Oh, Wow! I sighed weakly after a moment, then I hugged Lyn to me.I put my arm around her and pulled her to me.That bitch got me hot.It was about 6 o'Clock, and there was not a single car left.He grimaced at her like a school boy who has been refused a second helping of pudding.If you really like it, I know you'Ll be able to cum again for me.There must have been 710 guys browsing through the magazine racks.Suddenly, shockingly, the cock slipped inside me almost halfway, meeting with no resistance as its lubricated length encountered my pussy opening, moist and hot from my arousal.Confidently, Kyle approached the girl, and although her English was broken, it was understandable.Heather leaned forward and licked some of the dried juice, the taste reminding her of how much she loved to eat her lover.

gh the air, though 'twas nought b

Добавлять комментарии могут только зарегистрированные пользователи.
[ Регистрация | Вход ]