The relationship between Translation and Linguistics
The relationship between linguistics and translation has long been marked by mutual
ignorance, if not haughty exclusion. Until the late 1960s, linguistics was equated with
structuralism and generative theory. Some authors have attempted to base their general,
methodological reflections in translation on linguistics (Catford 1965, Mounin 1976,
Koptjevskaja-Mamm 1989, etc.). A conception of translation as transfer, comparison of
structures, independent of any pragmatic, sociolinguistic or discursive dimension, then
predominated. At the same time, this somewhat mechanistic view of languages and
translations was reinforced by the utopia of machine translation.
The abundance of linguistic theories and their long influence on translation can no doubt be
explained by the very conception of the latter. First, doesn’t the most common definition that
considers translation to be the passage of a message from a source language to a target
language imply that the latter is a purely linguistic phenomenon ? In any case, Jakobson’s
design leaves no room for doubt :
(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 (Jakobson 1987 : 429).(39)
Interlingual translation, which interests us, is defined here by Jakobson as the interpretation of
source linguistic signs by other target linguistic signs.
The object of linguistics is the study of the knowledge that speaking subjects have of the
language. At this level Baylon & Fabre (1999 : 17) (40) distinguish two opposing
conceptions of linguistics:


Linguistics as a description of languages which considers a language as a system of
linguistic signs ; and
Linguistics as a study of the functioning of language as a system of rules.
According to Chomsky’s linguistic theory, there are general features common to all languages
that generative grammar should endeavor to make explicit.
According to Chomsky (Chomsky, 1969 : 96), (41) the study of the universal conditions that
prescribe the form of everything that is human language constitutes “general grammar”. These
universal conditions, we do not learn them ; rather they provide the principles of organization
that allow you to learn a language, and that must exist in order to move from data to
knowledge.
As for sociolinguistics, which can be considered as a branch of linguistics, it is interested in
the relationships between society and language. It studies, among other things, linguistic
variation as a manifestation of belonging to a social class, group, etc. The organization of the
message has a social implication that linguistic analysis can elucidate. For sociolinguistics,
the understanding of a statement goes beyond the linguistic framework and encompasses
social factors.
The many theories of translation based on linguistics and / or sociolinguistics are not
sufficient to analyze the relationship between language and culture, because most of these
approaches revolve around the concept of equivalence, the content of which varies from one
approach to another. Hence the need for approaches that encompass not only linguistic
factors, but also cultural factors.
For Catford, translation is an operation between languages, that is, a process of substituting a
text in one language for another text in another language (1965 : 1). (42) This conception of
translation leads Catford to posit equivalence as being at the center of the practice and theory
of translation :
“A central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL [target language] translation
equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions
of translation equivalence. “ (Catford 1965 : 21). (43)
Catford distinguishes two types of equivalence : textual equivalence and formal
correspondence. Textual equivalence is any form of target text which, on observation, can be
said to be the equivalent of a form of source text (1965 : 27), (44) while there is formal
correspondence when the different categories of the target language occupy the same place as
those of the source language.
Catford also distinguishes the reduced translation (“restricted translation ”), as opposed to“
total translation ”, defined as“ replacement of SL textual material by equivalent TL textual
material, at one level ” (1965 : 22). (45) This notion of reduced translation designates
equivalence at the phonological, graphological, grammatical or lexical levels. This type of
translation is of very little interest for translation which, as the therocians will agree
thereafter, relates in general to texts.
According to Catford, translation may be impossible, and he distinguishes two situations :
linguistic untranslatable and cultural untranslatable. Linguistic untranslability results from the
lack of equivalents in the target language, and cultural untranslability refers to the absence of
cultural elements of the source language in the culture of the target language. After analysis,
Catford brings back cultural untranslatable to linguistic untranslatable, because he says:
“to talk of “cultural untranslatability“ may be just another way of talking about colloquial
untranslatability : the impossibility of finding an equivalent collocation in the TL. And this
would be a type of linguistic untranslatability. “ (Catford 1965 : 101). (46)
Of all the linguistic theories of translation, Catford’s has been the least successful, because it
focuses too much on the linguistic system rather than its use. Despite the distinction between
formal correspondence and textual equivalence that Catford establishes, he fails to perceive
that this difference arises from the close connection between language and culture, and that,
therefore, translation cannot be reduced to a transfer purely linguistic. The “translation shifts”
that Catford sees are a description of the results of the process, rather than a theorization that
can be used in the translating activity. Catford’s approach represents theories with a linguistic
conception and mechanistic approach to translation which not only does not correspond to the
practice, but very often leads to the impossibility of translation between two languages.
Contrastive linguistics and translation studies approach
Today, when we talk about translation we are talking about contrastive linguistics and
translation studies. These are two very close areas and we will try to clarify the differences
and similarities between the two.
Contrastive linguistics consists in opposing two different linguistic systems in order to be able
to find the interferences. It is to make a rigorous and systematic comparison of two languages
and especially of their structural differences. Traditionally, contrastive linguistics has aimed
to bring out the structural similarities and divergences between two linguistic systems and to
look at all possible equivalents.
For translation studies approach each analysis is unique and translation analysis is an end in
itself and not a means. It is, mainly, interested in how units are translated.
Contrastive linguistics seeks to explain linguistic phenomena by making use of contrasts
between languages, whereas translation studies approach focuses its activity on the process of
translation.
Eriksson notes that translation analysis is not a method but the goal of the work of the
translation specialist. It is the role of translation specialists to see how one can solve specific
translation problems, such as dialects, images, idioms, etc. in a specific text, (Eriksson, 2000 :
15). (48)
The dissociation between the translational point of view and the linguistic point of view can
be found in the same theorist. We will only take as proof the case of the most illustrious
French author in the field, namely Georges Mounin. We know of two equally remarkable
books by him, which contradictorily reflect two sides of the author himself, as well as two
divergent views on translation. In Les belles infidèles (a work that is not unknown but too
little known), Georges Mounin is the poet, the fine literator and the translator; in Les
problèmes théoriques de la traduction (written a decade later), he is the functionalist linguist.
The result is two radically different approaches to translation that, curiously, do not seem to
meet anywhere. One could say, by reducing these works to categories that did not exist when
they were written, and in which they are precursors, that in the first one, Mounin works as a
translator, while in the second one he works as a contrastivist linguist. The theoretical
problems of translation have had a more glorious fate than Les belles infidèles.
Linguistics and translation issues
The practice of translation is not a simple task. (49) It requires a lot of knowledge and
exceptional skills, which include daily learning and professional competence, in order to
avoid empirical problems that interpose misunderstanding of the translated
message. Although translation is known as an ancient profession, it is a vital part of our
human society where no one can be independent of another. The difficulties of translation
practice have two slopes, namely: the textual slope and the translator’s slope. We can also add
the failure of technology in the amateur translator. That is to say, the Gordian knots of
translation that come from the technicality of the language and the incompetence of the
translator.
One of the first to take an interest in the problem of translation from the perspective of textual
linguistics was de Beaugrande (1978). Early on, he saw the extreme importance of the role
played by the notion of textual linguistics, both conceptually and methodologically, in the
study of translation strategies and techniques. In his description of the three types of strategies
guiding the translation process, de Beaugrande explains that they respond to the constraints
imposed by the text. However, the author is quick to point out that, logically, the strategies
activated by the context will not solve all the problems. In his opinion, it is inappropriate to
demand that a translation theory provide solutions to all translation problems. On the other
hand, it should be able to offer the principles and strategies necessary to tackle them (de
Beaugrande 1978 : 14). (50)
According to J.P Vinay and J. Darbelnet, there are three linguistic problems that false friends
(faux amis) cause in English-French and French-English translation. They are semantic,
stylistic and structural (pp.70-72, 170): (51)
– The semantic aspect : The meaning of words varies from one language to another. The
trap of translation is that the target language and the source language share some words of the
same spelling.
– The stylistic aspect : As far as the stylistic aspect is concerned, the wrong
associations/“false friends“ (faux amis) appear in the order of evoking or referring to a
different environment in the target text because the style varies from one language to another
in intellectual, psychological, literary, technical, scientific, commercial and specialized
value. But, stylistic misnomers can possess almost the same meaning.
– Structural/phraseological/syntactic aspect : The wrong associations/“false friends“ (faux
amis) show themselves in the global meaning which is divergent to the meaning of the
sentence structure. The structural aspect of false friends unites the lexicality and syntax of a
sentence which make the phraseological structure.
Whether working on a translation of a technical document or a sworn translation, there are
five types of translation problems : lexical-semantic, grammatical, syntactic, rhetorical,
pragmatic and cultural. And that’s not counting the administrative, computer and nervous
problems… (52)
1. Lexical-semantic problems
Lexical-semantic problems are those that can be solved by consulting dictionaries, glossaries,
terminology banks and experts. This is the case for terminological alternations, neologisms,
semantic gaps, contextual synonymy and antonymy (which concern polysemous units :
synonymy/antonymy concerns only one meaning and it is the context that allows one to know
which meaning is to be taken into consideration), semantic continguity (a process of
coherence that functions thanks to the recall of common semantic features between two or
more terms) and lexical networks.
2. Grammatical problems
Grammatical problems concern for example questions of temporality, aspect (aspect indicates
the way in which the process or state expressed by the verb is considered from the point of
view of its development – as opposed to time), pronouns, and whether or not the subject
pronoun is explicit.
3. Syntactic problems
Syntactic problems can arise from syntactic parallelisms, rection, passive voice, focalization
(point of view according to which a narrative is organized) or rhetorical figures of
construction such as hyperbate (inversion of the natural order of discourse) and anaphora
(repetition of the same word or segment at the head of a verse or sentence).
4. Rhetorical problems
Rhetorical problems are related to the identification and recreation of figures of speech
(simile, metaphor, metonimic, sinecdoche, oxymoron, paradox, etc.) and diction.
5. Pragmatic problems: the example of marketing translation
Pragmatic problems include differences in the use of “you” and “you”, idiomatic phrases,
locutions, sayings, irony, humor and sarcasm. But these difficulties can also include other
challenges, such as, in an English-French marketing translation, the translation of the personal
pronoun “you” : the translator may have to struggle to define whether to use the informal
pronoun “tu” or formal “vous” – not always an obvious decision.
•
Examples of Grammatical Mistakes
•
Literal translation of “ am, is, are, was, were”
•
BUT There are two exceptions which they used the past simple of “ be”, are translated
literally into ” “‫كان‬both as well as auxiliary which is writing as a main verbs and as
auxiliary in the past progressive but in the past passive voice sentence we should
dropped them: As the main verbs: “ the child was ill ” = “ ” ً ‫كان الطفل مريضا‬As
auxiliary: the past progressive : “ Our guests were playing ” = “ ”‫كان ضيوفنا يلعبون‬BUT
as the past passive voice : “ The food was eaten ” = “ ”‫أُكــل الــطـعـام‬
•
Translating of Question: Questions in English are formed in two ways only: A)
Yes/No Questions (the answer to the question is "Yes" or "No") B) Question Word
Questions (the answer to the question is "Information") The first problem appear in the
possibility of imitating the question form: so the students will find this not possible
because simply there are NO such equivalents in Arabic but just one word for Yes/No
questions it is( .) ‫هــل‬e.g. : “Are you playing tennis?” “Have you played tennis?”
“Do/Did you play tennis?” OR the disappearance of ( )‫هل‬with WH-question: when
“do” and the subject –verb conversation are used in WH-question, they are
meaningless. “ ”‫هل‬is on longer used in the Arabic translation here e.g. “what have you
said?” = ““ ”‫ماذا تقول؟‬why they are crying?” = “”‫لماذا يبكون؟‬