Roman Jakobson
(1959)
On linguistic Aspects of
Translation
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 nonlinguistic 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 interpretation
of verbal signs by means of some other language.
3 Intersemiotic
translation or transmutation is an interpretation 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 a 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 same other language. Such a translation 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 intention 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 periodicals 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 talking
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 loan-words 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 horse-ear” (электрическая конка), the first Russian name
of the horseless street ear, or “flying steamship” (jena paragot), the Koryak term for the airplane,
simply designate the electrical analogue of the horse-ear 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 bookFederal Prose - How to Write in and/or for
Washington.5 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
tradition al English and into this Samoyed 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 category. When
translating the English sentence “She has brothers” into a language which
discriminates dual and plural, we are compelled 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 language (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 noun - работника or работницу. If I ask the utterer of the English sentence 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 imperatively raises a set of specific yes-or-no questions, as for
instance: is the narrated event conceived with or without reference to its
completion? Is the narrated event presented as prior to the speed 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 ineffable 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 grammatical
categories carry a high semantic import. In these conditions, the question of
translation becomes much mare 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 personifying or metaphorically interpreting inanimate
nouns are prompted by their gender. A test in the Moscow Psychological
Institute (1915) showed that Russians, prone to personify the weekdays,
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 traditions of the corresponding peoples, which differ in
their Friday ritual. The widespread Russian superstition that a fallen knife
presages 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
Sünde), 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 život.
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 irrelevance of this difficulty, appears
to be the main topic of the earliest Slavic original work, the preface to the
first translation of the Evangeliarium, made in the early 860’s 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 happens to each
language being translated,” the Slavic apostle states. “Masculine nouns ‘river’
and ‘star’ in Greek, are feminine in another language as река and звезда 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 (силе разума) 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
pull, 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 transposition 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?
Notes
1
Bertrand Russell, «Logical Positivism,» Revue
Internationale de Philosophie, IV
(1950), 18; cf. p. 3.
2
Cf. John Dewey, «Peirce’s Theory of Linguistic Signs, Thought, and Meaning,»
The Journal of Philosophy, XLIII (1946), 91.
3
Benjamin Lee Whorf, Language,
Thought, and Reality (Cambridge,
Mass.,
1956), p. 235.
4
Niels Bohr, «On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity,» Dialectica, I
(1948), 317f.
5
James R. Masterson and Wendell Brooks Phillips, Federal Prose (Chapel Hill,
N. C., 1948), p. 40f.
6
Cf. Knut Bergsland, «Finsk-ugrisk og almen språkvitenskap,» Norsk Tidsskrift
for Sproavidenskap, xv (1949), 374f.
7
Franz Boas, «Language,» General
Anthropology (Boston, 1938),
FP, 132f.
8
Andre Vaillant, «Le Préface de l’Évangeliaire vieux-slave,» Revue des Études
Slaves, XXIV (1948), 5f.
Roman Jakobson - On Linguistic Aspects of Translation - full text
PORTAL DA
LÍNGUA INGLESA has no responsibility for the
persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-partly internet websites
referred to in this post, and does not guarantee that any context on such
websites are, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
In some
instances, I have been unable to trace the owners of the pictures used here;
therefore, I would appreciate any information that would enable me to do so.
Thank you very much.
Is something important missing?
Report an error or suggest an improvement. Please, I strive for accuracy and
fairness. If you see something that does not look right, contact me!
Did you spot a typo?
Do you have any tips or examples
to improve this page?
Do you disagree with something on
this page?
Use one of your social-media
accounts to share this page:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário