Linguistics and translation: core concepts and applications

Linguistics

Translation and Linguistics -- Using one to Decode the Other

Every translation is an interpretation and requires a human actor as an intermediary. Despite all of our technological advancements, coming up with a "correct" or "proper" translation from one language to another is only possible when a human understanding of language and linguistics is applied to the task. In her article, "Linguistics and Translation," Gunilla Anderman follows the history of the intersection between linguistics and translation and provides insight into how the former has influenced the latter. Translation, after all, is not merely the rendition of a text from one language to another. It is also a "systematic comparison of two languages" (62). The relationship between linguistics and translation is inextricably intertwined, and Anderman follows their shared search for similarities between languages and that translators and linguists few similarities can be found.

Linguistics, in the latter half of the 18th century, when it was still known as philology, emerged as a discipline all its own. Translation as a separate discipline would take much longer to emerge, nearly 150 years. In early philology the focus of its practitioners was to define the distinctive and shared characteristics among languages and group them into families. This work greatly helped translators, who felt they could obtain a more literal translation between works that are written in two closely related languages (46). Many years after their work, it seems obvious to us that the romance languages, for example, would be easier to translate back and forth. But we are only able to have this conclusion, Anderman points out, because of their arduous work. We can only assume now because of what earlier scholars labored over in the past.

Anderman continues to trace the formations of linguistic theory through de Saussure, who stressed the importance of the study of language at a given point in time, the synchronic approach, and the important distinction between the underlying set of rules for a language (langue) and the actual use of the language by its speakers (parole) (46). de Saussure also gave modern linguists the concept of the sign and its two parts, the signifier and the signified (46). Translators need to be fluent in the langue, parole, and signs of both languages they are working with. Anderman uses details like those above in each period of history that she examines, building one upon another the steps by which both disciplines evolved. She examines the leaps the disciplines needed to make when encountering new languages, for example the languages of Native Americans, for which there was no previous equivalent in any other language and linguists were left to figure out what the "statement of meaning" was in each of the texts (47). The world of translation evolved from a word-for-word modality to a search for the transmission of meaning.

There are three specific types of linguistic aspect of translation, according to American structuralist Roman Jakobson, as quoted by Anderman (48). Interlingual translation involves the transfer of content in addition to form from one language to another. Intralingual translation involves rewording something in the original language as a means of clarifying the meaning of the text, for example, "translating" the works of Shakespeare into the modern vernacular so they can be more easily understood by children. Intersemiotic translation is perhaps the most difficult, because it is the effort to translate a written work in one language to another form, such as film or music. All of these methods must come under scrutiny by both the linguist and the translator because the question often becomes whether meaning can be maintained. If Shakespeare is "dumbed down" for modern school children who do not understand Elizabethan English, what is lost in that translation? Intersemiotic translation is becoming more and more of a hot topic among translators and linguists because of the increased use of modern technology to spread information across cultures and language barriers.

The first attempts at trying to use technology as the mechanism for language translation was in the mid-20th century. Scientists who were trying to develop automated translation processes had to be in touch with the concerns of linguists. Without a human directly involved in the process of translation, syntactic ambiguity was difficult to overcome. The machine could not always tell the difference between the subject or the object of the sentence. A sentence like "The turkey is ready to eat," could be interpreted as if the turkey is ready to eat its meal or the turkey is ready to be eaten by the humans. The machine was unable to venture beneath the surface structure of the language to the "internalized set of rules that speakers have about their language," Anderman writes (48). This is where the translator puts his or her knowledge about the linguistics of a particular language into use. Not only can a human translator integrate linguistic knowledge into a translation, they can also use what a machine can't -- intuition about meaning. Regardless of how many rules a linguist develops about how a language works, the translator must bring his or her own sense of meaning to the work of translation.

Even the search for meaning can become complicated when one considers the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis that a disparity between world views between speakers of vastly different languages "makes translation a near impossibility." In a weaker interpretation of the hypothesis, however, Anderman points out that languages "differ not so much with respect to what it is possible to say in them as to the degree of difficulty with which it can be said" (47). Other schools chose to focus on the rules and structure of languages. Anderman also touches on the work of Noam Chomsky, whose theories were revolutionary, but in his own view had uncertain implications for translation.

As Anderman points out throughout the article, the relationship between linguistics and translation can either express itself as an attempt to formulate a linguistic theory of translation, or it can be "less" ambitious and merely be an ongoing interaction between the two, "each drawing on the findings of the other whenever this is mutually beneficial" (54). Anderman goes on to explain some of the theories of linguistics that did have an effect on translation, including the approach of the Prague School, which developed the approach that syntax was multileveled: grammatical, semantic and sentence organization. Translators can put the work of the Prague school to practical use in their work by realizing that while they are translating, they are working on many different levels.