Лекции по "Иностранному языку"

Stylistic means and devices present considerable and varied problems for translation. They possess a distinct national character although at first sight they may appear to be identical. Foreground linguistic means give rise to particularly hard problems as specific national language means are brought into play by foregrounding, e.g. articles, suffixes, the passive voice, conversion, etc.

The translator must be fully aware of the function of a stylistic device and its effect, to be able to reproduce the same effect by other means, if necessary, thus minimizing the inevitable losses due to inherent divergences.

To conclude: stylistic equivalence may be achieved by different means and not necessary by the same device.

t Translation Research Group - TTT.org: Barker Lecture

      Previous sectionContentsNext section

 

Barker Lecture

Some Difficulties in Translation

 

 

      One difficulty in translation stems from the fact that most words have

      multiple meanings. Because of this fact, a translation based on a

      one-to-one substitution of words is seldom acceptable. We have already

      seen this in the poster example and the telescope example. Whether a

      translation is done by a human or a computer, meaning cannot be ignored. I

      will give some more examples as evidence of the need to distinguish

      between possible meanings of a word when translating.

      A colleague from Holland recounted the following true experience. He was

      traveling in France and decided to get a haircut. He was a native speaker

      of Dutch and knew some French; however, he was stuck when it came to

      telling the female hairdresser that he wanted a part in his hair. He knew

      the Dutch word for a part in your hair and he knew one way that Dutch word

      could be translated into French. He wasn't sure whether that translation

      would work in this situation, but he tried it anyway. He concluded that

      the French word did not convey both meanings of the Dutch word when the

      hairdresser replied, "But, Monsieur, we are not even married!" It seems

      that the Dutch expression for a separation of your hair (a part) and a

      permanent separation of a couple (a divorce) are the same word. When you

      think about it, there is a logical connection, but we are not conscious of

      it in English even though you can speak of a parting of your hair or a

      parting of ways between two people. In French, there is a strong

      separation of the two concepts. To translate the Dutch word for 'part' or

      'divorce' a distinction must be made between these two meanings. We will

      refer to this incident as the haircut example. Some questions it raises

      are these: How does a human know when another use of the same word will be

      translated as a different word? And how would a computer deal with the

      same problem?

      We expect a word with sharply differing meanings to have several different

      translations, depending on how the word is being used. (Figure 1: Two

      meanings of "bank"). The word 'bank' is often given as an example of a

      homograph, that is, a word entirely distinct from another that happens to

      be spelled the same. But further investigation shows that historically the

      financial and river meanings of 'bank' are related. They both come from

      the notion of a "raised shelf or ridge of ground" (Oxford English

      Dictionary, 1989, pp. 930-931). The financial sense evolved from the money

      changer's table or shelf, which was originally placed on a mound of dirt.

      Later the same word came to represent the institution that takes care of

      money for people. The river meaning has remained more closely tied to the

      original meaning of the word. Even though there is an historical

      connection between the two meanings of 'bank,' we do not expect their

      translation into another language to be the same, and it usually will not

      be the same. This example further demonstrates the need to take account of

      meaning in translation. A human will easily distinguish between the two

      uses of 'bank' and simply needs to learn how each meaning is translated.

      How would a computer make the distinction?

      Another word which has evolved considerably over the years is the British

      word 'treacle,' which now means 'molasses.' It is derived from a word in

      Ancient Greek that referred to a wild animal. One might ask how in the

      world it has come to mean molasses. A colleague, Ian Kelly, supplied me

      with the following history of 'treacle' (Figure 2: Etymology of

      "treacle"). The original word for a wild animal came to refer to the bite

      of a wild animal. Then the meaning broadened out to refer to any injury.

      It later shifted to refer to the medicine used to treat an injury. Still

      later, it shifted to refer to a sweet substance mixed with a medicine to

      make it more palatable. And finally, it narrowed down to one such

      substance, molasses. At each step along the way, the next shift in meaning

      was unpredictable, yet in hindsight each shift was motivated by the

      previous meaning. This illustrates a general principle of language. At any

      point in time, the next shift in meaning for a word is not entirely

      unlimited. We can be sure it will not shift in a way that is totally

      unconnected with its current meaning. But we cannot predict exactly which

      connection there will be between the current meaning and the next meaning.

      We cannot even make a list of all the possible connections. We only know

      there will be a logical connection, at least as analyzed in hindsight.

      What are some implications of the haircut, bank, and treacle examples? To

      see their importance to translation, we must note that words do not

      develop along the same paths in all languages. Simply because there is a

      word in Dutch that means both 'part' and 'divorce' does not mean that

      there will be one word in French with both meanings. We do not expect the

      two meanings of 'bank' to have the same translation in another language.

      We do not assume that there is a word in Modern Greek that means

      'molasses' and is derived from the Ancient Greek word for 'wild animal'

      just because there is such a word in British English. Each language

      follows its own path in the development of meanings of words. As a result,

      we end up with a mismatch between languages, and a word in one language

      can be translated several different ways, depending on the situation. With

      the extreme examples given so far, a human will easily sense that multiple

      translations are probably involved, even if a computer would have

      difficulty. What causes trouble in translation for humans is that even

      subtle differences in meaning may result in different translations. I will

      give a few examples.

      The English word 'fish' can be used to refer to either a live fish

      swimming in a river (the one that got away), or a dead fish that has been

      cleaned and is ready for the frying pan. In a sense, English makes a

      similar distinction between fish and seafood, but 'fish' can be used in

      both cases. Spanish makes the distinction obligatory. For the swimming

      fish, one would use pez and for the fish ready for the frying pan one

      would use pescado. It is not clear how a speaker of English is supposed to

      know to look for two translations of 'fish' into Spanish. The result is

      that an unknowledgeable human may use the wrong translation until

      corrected.

      The English expression 'thank you' is problematical going into Japanese.

      There are several translations that are not interchangeable and depend on

      factors such as whether the person being thanked was obligated to perform

      the service and how much effort was involved. In English, we make various

      distinctions, such as 'thanks a million' and 'what a friend,' but these

      distinctions are not stylized as in Japanese nor do they necessarily have

      the same boundaries. A human can learn these distinctions through

      substantial effort. It is not clear how to tell a computer how to make

      them.

      Languages are certainly influenced by the culture they are part of. The

      variety of thanking words in Japanese is a reflection of the stylized

      intricacy of the politeness in their culture as observed by Westerners.

      The French make an unexpected distinction in the translation of the

      English word 'nudist.' Some time ago, I had a discussion with a colleague

      over its translation into French. We were reviewing a bilingual French and

      English dictionary for its coverage of American English versus British

      English, and this word was one of many that spawned discussion. My

      colleague, who had lived in France a number of years ago, thought the

      French word nudiste would be the best translation. I had also lived in

      France on several occasions, somewhat more recently than him, and had only

      heard the French word naturiste used to refer to nude beaches and such.

      Recently, I saw an article in a French news magazine that resolved the

      issue. The article described the conflict between the nudistes and the

      naturistes in France. There was even a section in the article that

      explained how to tell them apart. A nudiste places a high value on a good

      suntan, good wine, and high-fashion clothes when away from the nudist

      camp. A naturiste neither smokes nor drinks and often does yoga or

      transcendental meditation, prefers homeopathic medicine, supports

      environmental groups, wears simple rather than name-brand clothing when in

      public, and tends to look down on a nudiste. There is currently a fight in

      France over which nude beaches are designated naturiste and which are

      designated nudiste. Leave it to the French, bless their souls, to elevate

      immodesty to a nearly religious status. I trust my French colleagues will

      not take offense.

      The verb 'to run' is a another example of a word that causes a lot of

      trouble for translation. In a given language, the translation of 'run' as

      the next step up in speed from jogging will not necessarily be the same

      word as that used to translate the expression 'run a company' or 'run

      long' (when referring to a play or meeting) or 'run dry' (when referring

      to a river). A computer or an inexperienced human translator will often be

      insensitive to subtle differences in meaning that affect translation and

      will use a word inappropriately. Significantly, there is no set list of

      possible ways to use 'run' or other words of general vocabulary. Once you

      think you have a complete list, a new use will come up. In order to

      translate well, you must first be able to recognize a new use (a pretty

      tricky task for a computer) and then be able to come up with an acceptable

      translation that is not on the list.

      The point of this discussion of various ways to translate 'fish,' 'thank

      you,' 'nudist,' and 'run' is that it is not enough to have a passing

      acquaintance with another language in order to produce good translations.

      You must have a thorough knowledge of both languages and an ability to

      deal with differences in meaning that appear insignificant until you cross

      over to the other language.[ 1 ] Indeed, you must be a native or

      near-native speaker of the language you are translating into and very

      strong in the language you are translating from. Being a native or

      near-native speaker involves more than just memorizing lots of facts about

      words. It includes having an understanding of the culture that is mixed

      with the language. It also includes an ability to deal with new situations

      appropriately. No dictionary can contain all the solutions since the

      problem is always changing as people use words in usual ways. These usual

      uses of words happen all the time. Some only last for the life of a

      conversation or an editorial. Others catch on and become part of the

      language. Some native speakers develop a tremendous skill in dealing with

      the subtleties of translation. However, no computer is a native speaker of

      a human language. All computers start out with their own language and are

      'taught' human language later on. They never truly know it the way a human

      native speaker knows a language with its many levels and intricacies. Does

      this mean that if we taught a computer a human language starting the

      instant it came off the assembly line, it could learn it perfectly? I

      don't think so. Computers do not learn in the same way we do. We could say

      that computers can't translate like humans because they do not learn like

      humans. Then we still have to explain why computers don't learn like

      humans. What is missing in a computer that is present in a human? Building

      on the examples given so far, I will describe three types of difficulty in

      translation that are intended to provide some further insight into what

      capabilities a computer would need in order to deal with human language

      the way humans do, but first I will make a distinction between two kinds

      of language.

      Certainly, in order to produce an acceptable translation, you must find

      acceptable words in the other language. Here we will make a very important

      distinction between two kinds of language: general language and

      specialized terminology. In general language, it is undesirable to repeat

      the same word over and over unnecessarily. Variety is highly valued.

      However, in specialized terminology, consistency (which would be called

      monotony in the case of general language) is highly valued. Indeed, it is

      essential to repeat the same term over and over whenever it refers to the

      same object. It is frustrating and potentially dangerous to switch terms

      for the same object when describing how to maintain or repair a complex

      machine such as a commercial airplane. Now, returning to the question of

      acceptable translation, I said that to produce an acceptable translation,

      you must find acceptable words. In the case of specialized terminology, it

      should be the one and only term in the other language that has been

      designated as the term in a particular language for a particular object

      throughout a particular document or set of documents. In the case of

      general vocabulary, there may be many potential translations for a given

      word, and often more than one (but not all) of the potential translations

      will be acceptable on a given occasion in a given source text. What

      determines whether a given translation is one of the acceptable ones?

      Now I return to the promised types of translation difficulty. The first

      type of translation difficulty is the most easily resolved. It is the case

      where a word can be either a word of general vocabulary or a specialized

      term. Consider the word 'bus.' When this word is used as an item of

      general vocabulary, it is understood by all native speakers of English to

      refer to a roadway vehicle for transporting groups of people. However, it

      can also be used as an item of specialized terminology. Specialized

      terminology is divided into areas of knowledge called domains. In the

      domain of computers, the term 'bus' refers to a component of a computer

      that has several slots into which cards can be placed (Figure 3: Two

      meanings of "bus"). One card may control a CD-ROM drive. Another may

      contain a fax/modem. If you turn off the power to your desktop computer

      and open it up, you can probably see the 'bus' for yourself.

      As always, there is a connection between the new meaning and the old. The

      new meaning involves carrying cards while the old one involves carrying

      people. In this case, the new meaning has not superseded the old one. They

      both continue to be used, but it would be dangerous, as we have already

      shown with several examples, to assume that both meanings will be

      translated the same way in another language. The way to overcome this

      difficulty, either for a human or for a computer, is to recognize whether

      we are using the word as an item of general vocabulary or as a specialized

      term.

      Humans have an amazing ability to distinguish between general and

      specialized uses of a word. Once it has been detected that a word is being

      used as a specialized term in a particular domain, then it is often merely

      a matter of consulting a terminology database for that domain to find the

      standard translation of that term in that domain. Actually, it is not

      always as easy as I have described it. In fact, it is common for a

      translator to spend a third of the time needed to produce a translation on

      the task of finding translations for terms that do not yet appear in the

      terminology database being used. Where computers shine is in retrieving

      information about terms. They have a much better memory than humans. But

      computers are very bad at deciding which is the best translation to store

      in the database. This failing of computers confirms our claim that they

      are not native speakers of any human language in that they are unable to

      deal appropriately with new situations.

      When the source text is restricted to one particular domain, such as

      computers, it has been quite effective to program a machine translation

      system to consult first a terminology database corresponding to the domain

      of the source text and only consult a general dictionary for words that

      are not used in that domain. Of course, this approach does have pitfalls.

      Suppose a text describes a very sophisticated public transportation

      vehicle that includes as standard equipment a computer. A text that

      describes the use of this computer may contain the word 'bus' used

      sometimes as general vocabulary and sometimes as a specialized term. A

      human translator would normally have no trouble keeping the two uses of

      'bus' straight, but a typical machine translation system would be

      hopelessly confused. Recently, this type of difficulty was illustrated by

      an actual machine translation of a letter. The letter began "Dear Bill"

      and the machine, which was tuned into the domain of business terms, came

      up with the German translation Liebe Rechnung, which means something like

      "Beloved Invoice."

      This first type of difficulty is the task of distinguishing between a use

      of a word as a specialized term and its use as a word of general

      vocabulary. One might think that if that distinction can be made, we are

      home free and the computer can produce an acceptable translation. Not so.

      The second type of difficulty is distinguishing between various uses of a

      word of general vocabulary. We have already seen with several examples

      ('fish', 'run,' etc.) that it is essential to distinguish between various

      general uses of a word in order to choose an appropriate translation. What

      we have not discussed is how that distinction is made by a human and how

      it could be made by a computer.

      Already in 1960, an early machine translation researcher named Bar-Hillel

      provided a now classic example of the difficulty of machine translation.

      He gave the seemingly simple sentence "The box is in the pen." He pointed

      out that to decide whether the sentence is talking about a writing

      instrument pen or a child's play pen, it would be necessary for a computer

      to know about the relative sizes of objects in the real world (Figure 4:

      "The box is in the pen."). Of course, this two-way choice, as difficult as

      it is for a human, is a simplification of the problem, since 'pen' can

      have other meanings, such as a short form for 'penitentiary' or another

      name for a female swan. But restricting ourselves to just the writing

      instrument and play pen meanings, only an unusual size of box or writing

      instrument would allow an interpretation of 'pen' as other than an

      enclosure where a child plays. The related sentence, "the pen is in the

      box," is more ambiguous (Figure 5: "The pen is in the box."). Here one