Transcript Translation: a Cognitive Grammar view

Translation
A Cognitive grammar view
David Tuggy
SIL-Mexico
Copyright © 2005 David Tuggy
What is translation?
Many people’s (naive) idea:
Translation is changing the words of one language into
those of another.
They usually have in mind particularly written words.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ
λόγος
In
the beginning
Words in the
Source language
was the word
Translation can indeed be that.
But that’s not all there is to it, of course.
Words in
the Target
language
Translating this way
doesn’t work very well
The results of really taking such a model seriously
can be seen by translating something on Babel
Fish. (And in fact Babel Fish improves on a raw
machine of this sort by several orders of
magnitude.)
El respeto al
derecho ajeno
es la paz.
The respect to the
other people’s right
is La Paz.
El espíritu está
presto, mas la
carne es débil.
The spirit is quick,
but the meat is
weak.
A somewhat more sophisticated
model
A more sophisticated model brings the idea of meaning
into the picture. Translators don’t just match up words:
they extract the meanings from the words of a source
language, and they then encode those meanings in the
words of the target language.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν
ὁ λόγος
E
Words in
the Source
language
WHEN PAST(X BEGIN)
WORD)
Meaning which
resides in the
words in both
languages
(THE
Words in
the Target
language
In the beginning was
the word
It is more complex than that,
however
It is misleading to think that
there is just one meaning (or set of meanings) involved
meanings are simple enough to express adequately in
simple formulas
the meaning is contained in the words
WHEN PAST(X BEGIN) (THE
Words in
WORD)
Words in
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν
ὁ λόγος
E
the Source
language
Meaning which
resides in the
words in both
languages
the Target
language
In the beginning was
the word
It is more complex than that,
however
It will be helpful to start with picturing how
communication normally works in just one
language.
(Our description will still be oversimplified)
WHEN PAST(X BEGIN) (THE
“There is no subject so abstruse and complex
Words in
WORD)
Words in
the Source
but that diligent and careful study the
Target
language
language
will show it to be
Meaning which
even more
abstruse
andIn complex
resides
in the
the beginning was
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν
words in both
thanlanguages
it first seemed.” the word
ὁ λόγος
E
Commonly humans communicate
via oral language
A speaker has an idea he wishes to communicate.
In order to do so, he moves the parts of his
articulatory system, producing an acoustic signal.
speaker
Articulator
movements
signal
Communication via oral language
The signal reaches the ears of a hearer.
The hearer perceives and interprets the signal.
This stimulates in the hearer’s mind the idea that
the speaker intended.
hearer
speaker
signal
Articulator
movements
Reception of the
signal by the
audio-perceptive
system
This is how humans normally
communicate
hearer
speaker
Articulatory
movements
signal
Audioperceptive
routines
Terminology
The idea the speaker wants to communicate,
and the hearer ultimately “gets”, is the
meaning (signifié).
The meaning which the speaker intends is
often a bit different from what the hearer
comes up with. Thus we can distinguish the
meanings from the meaningh.
Terminology
The cognitive routines of production,
perception and interpretation of the signal
symbolize the meaning. They constitute the
phonological structure (signifiant).
The phonological structure which the speaker
activates is often a bit different from what the
hearer gets. Thus we can distinguish the
phonological structures from the phonological
structureh.
Terminology
The mental (cognitive) association between
a phonological structure and a meaning is a
symbolic link.
The structure formed by associating a
meaning and a phonological structure is a
symbol.
Applying the terminology to the
model of communication:
symbol
speaker
symbolic
link
meanings
signal
phonological
structures
hearer
meaningh
phonological
structureh
A specific example
(from Mixe)
symbol
t hk
v
audioperceptive
routines
neuro-muscular
routines
symbolic
link
signal
hearer
audioperceptive
routines
t hk
v
speaker
Important points
Phonological structures, not just semantic ones,
are cognitive structures (=mental routines).
They include knowing how to produce the sound
(neuromuscular aspect), and how to recognize it
when you hear it (audio-perceptive aspect.)
Important points
The signal does not literally “have” or “carry”
meaning. The meaning is not in the words of the
signal, or out in the ether somewhere, but in the
minds of the speaker and hearer.
What happens is that the signal prompts or stimulates the meaning. It is the signal to activate it.
It also signals for that meaning to be linked to
other, already active meanings.
In this way it prompts the construction of new
meanings in the hearer’s mind.
Important points
The symbol in the speaker’s mind must match the
symbol in the hearer’s mind reasonably well for
them to be able to easily communicate.
Yet they don’t have to be fully identical, and usually are
not.
Each person functions sometimes as speaker and
sometimes as hearer.
They do not have completely separate meanings
and phonological structures in their heads for the
two activities.
Important points
These two factors:
the similarity of symbols in speakers’ and hearers’
minds, and
the unity of symbols for both speaking and hearing in
any one person’s mind
mean that we can often get away with talking
about “the meaning” or “the phonological
structure” of “a (single) symbol”.
Important points
We should always remember when we talk about
“the meaning” that this is a shorthand for a more
complex reality.
We should also remember that much language use
is to negotiate a closer match between what’s in a
speaker’s mind and a hearer’s. They are not
exactly the same.
Human communication, by its very nature, is not
100% precise.
This is how it works
when it works, of course
There are any number of points at which the
system can break down and sometimes does. E.g.
if the speaker doesn’t pronounce the phonological form
right
if extraneous noise disrupts the signal
if the hearer is too deaf to hear the signal
etc.
But most importantly, it won’t work well if the
speaker and hearer aren’t both competent in the
language they are using.
When the hearer doesn’t know
the speaker’s language
Mixe
speaker
t hk
v
Mixe neuromuscular routines
symbol
symbolic
link
signal
English
hearer
?
English
audio-perceptive
routines
tʰək
(?)
Translation is necessary
It is this sort of situation that makes
translation necessary, of course.
Somebody has to take the signal coming
from the Mixe speaker, and put in its place
an English signal with a similar meaning.
Then the English hearer can understand it.
(Sort of)
Here’s where translation is needed
Bilingual
hearer/speaker
Mixe
speaker
t hk
v
Mixe neuromuscular routines
tʌhk
signal
Mixe
auditory
routines
haʷs
English
neuro
muscular
routines
English
hearer
English
auditory
routines
haʷs
Translation is even more imprecise
than normal communication
That is its nature.
There are more points for slippage.
The translator makes choices that affect the
outcome
E.g. he might choose to say hut or cottage
or building or home instead of house to
translate tʌhk.
These would emphasize different aspects of
tʌhk’s meaning that house might miss.
Let’s establish some more
terminology
The study of meanings is Semantics.
The meaning is the semantic pole of a
symbol.
The study of speech-sound structures is
Phonology.
We also speak of the phonological pole of a
symbol.
Terminology
Symbols are bipolar
symbol
semantic
pole
symbolic
link
phonological pole
The symbolic link
The symbolic link is at the heart of
language.
symbol
semantic
pole
symbolic
link
phonological pole
The symbolic link
What is its basic character?
It is a mental association
semantic
pole
mental
association
phonological pole
The symbolic link
It works in both directions
If you activate the semantic pole,
the link facilitates the activation of the
phonological pole
semantic
pole
mental
association
phonological pole
The symbolic link
It works in both directions
On the other hand, if you first activate the
phonological pole,
the link facilitates the activation of the semantic
pole
semantic
pole
mental
association
phonological pole
The arbitrariness
of the symbolic link
The great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure
said that the symbolic link is “arbitrary”.
Many understand him to have meant that there is no
reason for associating any particular semantic pole with
its particular phonological pole.
semantic
pole
unmotivated
mental
association
phonological pole
This is not always or necessarily true, however.
Types of symbolic links
Symbolic link
a conventional mental (cognitive)
association between a meaning
(signifié) and a signifiant.
Iconic symbolic link
a conventional mental (cognitive)
association between a meaning and
a signifiant which is parallel to it in
some way. The parallelism
motivates the association.
Arbitrary Symbolic Link
a conventional mental (cognitive)
association between a meaning and
a signifiant, with no reason for the
association other than convention
Arbitrariness
Even when it is iconically motivated,
however, there is an element of
(arbitrary) conventionality about the
choice of a phonological pole.
Bottom line: you can pretty much
expect that it will be different in a
different language.
Other types of signals
There are other types of signals
Gestures and bodily movements (sign
languages)
Writing (of many types)
Morse code, Braille, etc.
Anything that a communicator
controls, and a “communicatee”
perceives, can function as a signal.
Other types of signifiants
The neurophysical and perceptual
routines which enable us to use those
signals function as signifiants which
unite with meanings to form symbols.
symbol
semantic
pole
symbolic
link
graphical /
signed / etc. pole
Written language
In written language the signal is a series of
marks on a medium such as paper.
In alphabetical writing the marks bear complex
relationships to the sounds and articulatory
gestures of a spoken signal.
Some aspects of these marks are iconic to the
sounds
• e.g. left-right order of writing parallels order of
pronunciation
• e.g. identity of letters parallels identity of phonemes
Other aspects are arbitrary but consistent.
• (At least one hopes they are consistent)
Written language
Even so, the written signals underspecify
the phonological signals; i.e. they don’t give
as much information.
Sometimes they confuse them.
In a good system they parallel them enough
that they can consistently activate many of
the right phonological structures and
therefore the right meanings.
Written language
Establishing the mental link between the
phonological pole and the graphical (written)
structure helps
complex
establish the sym- symbol
bolic link between
the graphical
phonological
and the sepole
semantic
mental link,
mantic
iconic in
pole
important
poles.
ways
graphical
incipient
symbolic
link
symbolic
link
pole
Written language
For many users the phonological and
graphic structures
are always
complex
coactivated
symbol
when they
read or
phonological
write.
pole
symbolic
link
semantic
pole
incipient
symbolic
link
graphical
pole
mental link,
iconic in
important
ways
Written language
With lots of practice (entrenchment), however,
the symbolic link to the graphical pole can
become
complex
independent
symbol
and strong.
symbolic
link
semantic
pole
strong
symbolic
link
phonological
pole
graphical
pole
mental link,
not always
activated
Written language
The difference in medium changes the
nature of the communication
somewhat.
Writers need not be present with their readers
Therefore readers are more likely not to know
who the writer is
And writers are likely not to know who their
readers will be
This is true even though most writings are
made with a particular set of readers in mind.
Written language
The difference in medium changes the
nature of the communication somewhat.
Writing does not vanish into thin air like sounds do, so
writing can be more permanent.
It is therefore possible to re-read a written communication and easier to absorb its meaning over time
Secondary readers, who may not have been clearly in
the writer’s mind, may read a written document.
Good writers and readers realize such differences and
allow for them or capitalize on them.
Written language
The links between the phonology and the
marks on paper are of course cognitive
events as well. I.e., the parallels are in
readers’/writers’ minds.
As in phonology, there are productive
aspects (including neuromuscular routines),
and perceptive/interpretative aspects of
dealing with graphical elements.
Returning to our Mixe example:
symbol
symbolic
link
visualperceptive
routines
t hk
v
visualperceptive
routines
reader
neuro-muscular
routines
täj
c
täjc
täj
c
täjc
signal
t hk
v
writer
This is for a skilled writer and a skilled
reader who gets the original document
Unskilled readers and writers will probably
have to pronounce the words out loud (and
slowly) and activate the phonological pole
to connect the meaning and the writing.
If the reader gets a copy of the original
document, or a copy of a copy, other kinds
of “noise” can enter the system.
As time goes by, the language will change,
also interfering with the communication.
The transmission and translation of
an ancient text is a complex process
not-fully-bilingual
translator
Ἰ ωάννης
[?/ WORD]
(John)
[ETERNAL
PRINCIPLE/ WORD]
l gos
l gɔs
Greekreading
visualperceptive
routines
[WORD]
d
Englishreading
visualperceptive
routines
Englishwriting
neuromuscular
routines
(printer)
e
th
ὁ
ος
γ
λό
w
ΟΣ
ord
OΛ O
Γ
the w
OΛ
OΓ
ΟΣ
d
or
2000 years’ worth
of copies and
original
edits of original
signal
signal
ος
ὁ λόγ
neuro-muscular
routines
English
reader
d
You start to get the picture that
this is complicated
Obviously it is a complex situation, and a rather
difficult one.
But there are many layers of complexity yet to
add.
For starters, the meanings of words cannot be
expected to match perfectly across languages.
house is a reasonably good match for οἶκος in
Greek or täjc in Mixe. But what a Mixe speaker,
an American, or a 1st-century Greek speaker have
in mind when they use the words is likely to be
different in a number of ways that may prove
important.
Complexity of word meanings
What John meant by λόγος and what
modern English speakers understand by
word is likely to be even more different.
Cognitive Grammar talks about
“encyclopedic meaning”, and claims that a
word’s meaning in some sense includes, or
could potentially draw on, all that the users
of a language know about the entity named.
Complexity of word meanings
The complexity of word meanings often
shows up in jokes. E.g.
Some days you’re the pigeon, and some
days you’re the statue.
Why would one laugh at that?
Because part of the meaning of pigeon (a rather
non-central, minor part)
connects with part of the meaning of statue
(again a very minor part.)
The complexity of word meanings
Meanings, according to Cognitive grammar,
consist in some designated entity which is
“profiled”, or stands out as a figure against some
cognitive background.
Usually that background is very complex.
It consists of knowledge shared by the language users.
So you can expect it to vary with the culture.
It includes all the culture’s shared knowledge about the
designated entity (which is why meanings are
encyclopedic).
Often one language will lack the background that
is crucial to a word in the other language.
The complexity of word meanings
It would take a long time to explain the
word “checkmate” in a culture that did
know the game of chess.
It would take a long time to explain “axle”
in a language that didn’t know about
wheels.
It takes a long time to explain compadre to
English speakers. And so forth.
The complexity of word meanings
Small wonder that it takes a while to
explain words like ‫‘( שְׁדַּ ְׁרפְׁנ ִֽים‬satraps’) or
τετραάρχης (‘tetrarch’) or ἀπολύτρωσις
(‘redemption’) to a Mixe or Englishspeaking audience.
We just don’t have the background to
understand them.
The complexity of word meanings
These shared cognitive backgrounds crucial
to meanings vary not only by culture, but by
the relationship and common experiences of
the communicators.
It is because of this that communications
between family members or close friends
can be so difficult even for native speakers
of the same language to fully understand.
Phrases are
complex in the same way
Phrases and other larger-scale structures,
like words, have complex backgrounds.
For instance, when St. John began his
Gospel with the words ἐν ἀρχῇ, he could
count on his readers bringing to mind the
first words of Genesis.
If modern readers don’t get that allusion,
they are missing an important bit of the
meaning.
The complexity of word meanings
Often, even when there are words that correspond
pretty well, one language will make reference to
some domain that the other lacks entirely.
For instance, in Mösiehuali the word tlöcatl, like
the English word man, designates an adult male
human. Since Mösiehuali and English speakers
belong to the same species, the concepts MALE,
ADULT and HUMAN are comparable.
(But they are not identical. In English a 16-year-old is
not a man. But in Tetelcingo he is a tlöcatl.)
The complexity of word meanings
Most of you men reading this are not *real* tlöca,
however, and it would probably take you a long
time to guess why.
It is because you are not wearing a hat and
(especially) guaraches (leather sandals).
English does not so saliently access the domains
of footgear and headgear as part of the meaning of
man.
Meaning is not
just reference but construal
Meanings consist not just in what is designated but
in how it is construed mentally.
Half-full and half-empty designate the same
amount but construe it differently. They don’t
mean quite the same thing.
In English you say you dropped your pencil, while
in Spanish you would say of the same situation, Se
te cayó el lápiz (‘the pencil fell itself on/to you’).
In English it is construed as something you did; in
Spanish as something that happened to you.
Meanings are actually groups of
meanings
Meanings are grouped differently in
different languages.
In Orizaba Nawatl tepostli can mean just
about anything made of metal, from a key to
a hammer to a car.
English has no way to cover that range of
meaning with a single word.
Meanings are actually groups of
meanings
On the other hand, Nawatl has a whole
series of words to describe certain sounds
which are too specific to be easily translated
into English (and it’s worse into Spanish).
E.g. kakapaka means ‘make (with quick
repetitions) the sound of something falling
into mud, make a (repetitive) plopping
sound’
Kokomoka means “make the
rushing/crackling sound of a big fire”
Meaning includes class-membership
Part of the meaning of a word is its class
memberships, which may be many.
In English, for instance, the rain is an
inanimate weather phenomenon. In Cora it
is animate. This is an important difference
in meaning.
Meanings are complex, and the
complex includes the simple
Most symbols are complex, made of many
parts.
The meaning of the whole includes the
meanings of the component parts in relation
to each other.
The whole itself often has meanings that go
beyond what could be predicted from the
parts.
From morpheme to discourse:
the cline of complexity
complex
simple
little flexibility: either it is
correct, or it’s incorrect
co
se m p l e
nte x
nc
e
pa
rag
rap
h
se
cti
on
e
us
—
cl a
ras
e
units more likely to be
highly specific (lexical)
—
ph
—
rd
morpheme —
wo
co
mp
ste lex
m
at a high level
of complexity
—
—
—
— discourse
units more likely to be
highly abstract patterns
lots of flexibility
Complex structures’ meanings
include their components’ meanings
For instance, we’re running out of time
includes at least the following components
(at different levels of specificity):
we, are, we’re, run, running, out, out of, out of
time, running out of time, we’re running out of
time.
we’re VERB-ing, be VERB-ing, out of NOUN,
run(ning) out of NOUN
SUBJ VP, V PP, PP
Complex structures’ meanings
include components’ meanings
All these structures have their own meaning
and their own phonological structure.
They are highly compatible with each other
and overlay each other massively
But each one makes a contribution to the
whole.
Most (if not all) give a little something to
the whole that none of the others does.
An example of complexity
Tumbaburros profiles (designates) a kind of metal grill
against a complex background. It does not mean the same
as if it were simply called a reja (‘grillwork’).
tumb a
bur o s
Complexity of patterns
Part of the complexity
of a word like
tumbaburros is the
fact that it and its
pieces call to mind
(because they are
elaborations of) a lot
of schematic patterns
of Spanish grammar.
Those patterns
structure the meaning.
X
plural
that does Y to ZThing
…
…s
Thing
…
tumb a
bur o s
X do Y
plural
Thing
…
X does Y
…a
masc
Thing
…o
…s
Translation often involves
reordering, omission, etc.
To preserve in translation the meaning of a
larger, higher-level unit, you may have to
reorder the components
add components
omit components
change the amount of emphasis given
components
etc.
Translation often involves
reordering, omission, etc.
You probably don’t want to call a tumbaburros a
topples-donkeys.
But if you call it a donkey-toppler or donkeydumper you are (besides reordering and other
things) adding one new component: the symbol -er,
and omitting another (the plural –s).
You might even opt for calling it a grill-protector.
Then you would be changing the background
against which it is profiled.
That doesn’t mean it would be a bad translation.
Complexity and
the literal-idiomatic debate
Much of the debate over whether translation
should be “literal” or “idiomatic” grows out
of this complexity.
The complexity is such that you *cannot*
reproduce all of it when you translate. You
*must* choose which aspects to reproduce.
Complexity and
the literal-idiomatic debate
What your options are depends on what
structures are available in the target
language.
Literal translation works much better between
closely related languages like English and
Spanish, or English, Spanish and Greek.
Even there it’s pretty hard.
Languages with *really* different structures
may force you to make bigger changes.
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Here is a relatively simple sentence in Orizaba Nawatl.
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
The morpheme nē- doesn’t just mean “there”, it specifies
something like “over there in the distance”. Will you keep
this nuance in your translation?
In English we often say “here they come” while “they” are
still some ways off. “There they come” also occurs, but
“there they go” is a more natural collocation. We wouldn’t
easily say “over there they come”. Which would you pick?
The tlakah, as we saw in Tetelcingo, may be teenagers. Do
you want to specify that?
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
The extremely common word n can often be
translated “the”.
That works for its first and third usages in this
sentence, but not for the second one.
When it marks nouns it means, more or less,
“the”.
But it is also used to mark many different kinds of
subordinate clauses.
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
Three of the kinds of clauses n marks are
• (i) relative clauses (i.e. clauses that modify nouns),
• (ii) setting clauses (which set the scene for an action), and
• (iii) location clauses (which describe a location implied by the
main verb.)
This usage could be any of the three, and probably is best
taken as a mixture of all of them:
• (i) “the men who went to make it”,
• (ii) “having gone to make it, they are coming back”, and
• (iii) “they are coming from where they went to make it / from
having gone to make it.”
Which will you choose? or will you try to keep all of
them?
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
We don’t call a dead person a “died”. We don’t call a hole
a “rock-hollow-noun”. We don’t call a grave a “deadmanhole”. Would you just translate “grave” (or, “tomb”?), or
would you try to keep some of the literal flavor of
mikkatekochtli?
We don’t “make” or “do” graves —the Nawatl stem has
both meanings—; instead, we “dig” them. Would you keep
the word “make” here?
On the other hand, “doing” the grave in Nawatl may imply
other activities besides the actual digging. It may include
all the preparation of the gravesite.
Still, this isn’t the reduplicated okichihchiw̯atoh, which
would mean “they went to fix it up”.
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
The “it” on “they went to make it the grave” sounds really
weird in English. Would you drop it? It’s there in Nawatl!
The Nawatl suffix –to indicates motion away. Would you
say, in English, that they “went to dig it” or that they “went
and dug it,” or would you just say “they dug it” and not
mention that they went?
• Going and doing something is not quite the same thing as going to
do it. Nawatl –to doesn’t distinguish between these two. How will
you choose which way to say it?
• Nawatl often, and easily, marks the comings and goings implied in
different activities: you have to go out of your way to mention
them in English. Would you go out of your way in this situation?
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
If you were to say “they’ve come back from
digging” the word back would let people know the
going happened without your explicitly saying so.
This sounds very natural in English. But Nawatl
doesn’t have a word like back here. Can you
justify putting it in?
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
So, how would you translate it? Here are some possibilities.
There come the men who went to arrange the burial place.
There come the men who went to dig the grave.
Over there are the men and boys who have come back from digging
the grave.
Here come the gravediggers.
There are the men, come back from making the graveside preparations.
The men have now prepared the gravesite, and are coming back.
…etc.…
These are not all equally good, though each has something to
be said for it.
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
To take one example: “Here come the gravediggers”
is good idiomatic English. But
It sounds a bit “breezy” and the mood of the Nawatl text is
likely to be more solemn. Does the rest of your English
translation counteract that “breeziness” enough?
It sounds like they dig graves professionally. How likely is
that in the Nawatl culture or the particular situation
described in the particular Nawatl text? How strongly does
the English word imply it?
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
“Here come the gravediggers”
doesn’t say they went anywhere.
It doesn’t say they have actually dug the grave yet.
It doesn’t say they are men.
It doesn’t have the same rhythm or elegance as the Nawatl.
All these features are either lost or left for people to
guess at.
Still, it isn’t a *bad* translation.
Literal vs. Idiomatic Translation
Nēw̯itzeh n tlakah n okichiw̯atoh n mikkatekochtli.
there.they.come the men
the they.went.to.make.it the die.ed.rock.hollow.noun
I would suggest the following as a good allpurpose translation:
There come the men back from preparing the
gravesite.
But, as you can now tell, it is not perfect.
In particular contexts, I would expect to prefer a
different translation.
Complexity and
the literal-idiomatic debate
“Literal” translation attempts to keep as
many of the low-level structures as possible,
sometimes even when this means the
higher-level meanings are distorted in the
process.
“Idiomatic” translation tries to reproduce
the overall meanings of larger chunks, even
when this involves distorting the meanings
of the small chunks.
Complexity and
the literal-idiomatic debate
Neither approach is perfect. Both are
defensible and useful.
You don’t have the choice to do it perfectly.
You can only try to balance things the best
way possible.
Summary
Human communication, and the languages
we use to accomplish it, are very complex.
Even straightforward communication does
not always result in the hearer getting
*exactly* the meaning the speaker intended.
Translation adds several grades of difficulty
to the process.
Nevertheless, it can work surprisingly well.
It is worth doing!
Copyright © 2005 David Tuggy
Permission is granted to use this work or parts of it for non-profit purposes only, as long
as credit is given. For other uses please contact the author.
Esta obra, o partes de la misma, se pueden usar siempre y cuando sea con fines nolucrativos, y que se de crédito. Para otros usos contactar al autor.
www.sil.org/~tuggyd