scholarly journals On Relative Translatability of Language with Special Reference to Contrastive Analysis between Chinese and English

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 302
Author(s):  
Wei Wang ◽  
Weihong Zhou

The issue of translatability has always been in dispute in translatology. On the one hand, languages are translatable, which can be demonstrated from different perspectives such as the general characteristics of language, the parallel linguistic structures, the cultural similarities, and the sameness of the intelligence quotient of all human races. On the other hand, there exist a series of limits in translation which obstruct the translatability of languages. Thus language can be described as relatively translatable. Translators are supposed to provide hybrid versions so as to facilitate communication and decrease tension between source language text and target language text.

Babel ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-132
Author(s):  
Laurence Wong

Abstract This paper discusses the relationship between syntax and translatability, particularly in respect of literary texts. By translatability is meant the degree of ease with which one language lends itself to translation into another language. Through practice in the translation between Chinese and some of the major European languages, such as English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Latin, and Greek, as well as between the European languages themselves, it can be found that translating between the European languages is much easier than translating between Chinese and any one of the European languages. Of all the factors that determine whether a language translates more readily or less readily into another language, syntactic differences constitute one of the most decisive. This is because the translator is, during the translation process, constantly dealing with syntax in two directions: the syntax of the source language on the one hand and the syntax of the target language on the other. As a result, problems arising from the syntactic differences between the two languages are bound to figure more prominently than those arising from the differences between individual lexical items and phrases or between cultures. In this paper, syntax will be studied and analysed with reference to Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek texts. Finally, it will be shown that, mainly because of syntactic differences, there is a higher degree of translatability between any two of the above European languages (which are members of the Indo-European family) than between Chinese (which is a member of the Sino-Tibetan family) and any one of these European languages, and that the syntax of any one of these European languages can cope comfortably with Chinese syntax, but not the other way round. Résumé Cet article traite de la relation entre la syntaxe et la traduisibilité, en particulier, en ce qui concerne les textes littéraires. On entend par traduisibilité le degré de facilité avec laquelle une langue se prête à la traduction dans une autre. Par la pratique de la traduction entre le chinois et quelques-unes des principales langues européennes, comme l’anglais, le français, l’italien, l’allemand, l’espagnol, le latin et le grec, ainsi qu’entre les langues européennes mêmes, on s’aperçoit qu’il est beaucoup plus facile de traduire entre les langues européennes qu’entre le chinois et n’importe quelle langue européenne. Parmi tous les facteurs qui déterminent si une langue se traduit plus ou moins aisément dans une autre, les différences syntactiques comptent parmi les plus décisifs. Ceci est dû au fait que le traducteur, pendant le processus de traduction, est constamment confronté à une syntaxe dans deux directions : la syntaxe de la langue source, d’une part, et la syntaxe de la langue cible, d’autre part. En conséquence, les problèmes dus à des différences syntactiques entre les deux langues doivent nécessairement apparaître de manière plus évidente que ceux provenant de différences entre les syntagmes et éléments lexicaux individuels ou entre les cultures. Dans cet article, la syntaxe sera étudiée et analysée en référence à des textes en chinois, anglais, français, allemand, italien, espagnol, latin et grec. Enfin, il montrera qu’en raison des différences syntactiques surtout, la traduisibilité est plus grande entre deux langues européennes précitées quelles qu’elles soient (qui appartiennent à la famille indo-européenne) qu’entre le chinois (qui appartient à la famille sino-tibétaine) et une quelconque de ces langues européennes. Il montrera que la syntaxe de toute langue européenne peut sans difficulté venir à bout de n’importe quelle syntaxe chinoise, mais que l’inverse n’est pas vrai.


Author(s):  
Abbas Brashi

This study examines style shifting in an Arabic translation of Susan Glaspell’s play, Trifles by Abbas Brashi. It presents an overview of the play, as well as its importance and relevance to Arab culture. It describes the different varieties of Arabic that exist as well as the one chosen for the translation, namely Modern Standard Arabic. The paper explains that the formal style of the target language text was chosen for the sake of wide readability and comprehensibility, as dialectal varieties of Arabic differ across and within Arab states and there is no standardised script. The other reason for the shift is to adhere to the norms of acceptable Arabic writing. The style shift observed in the translation of Trifles into Arabic is demonstrated in the translation of a number of linguistic phenomena, namely contraction, ‎elision, subject-verb agreement, and figurative multi-word ‎expressions.‎ The paper concludes that the formal Arabic version of Trifles may later be shifted to different informal dialectal varieties of Arabic when it is to be performed on stage. Therefore, the formal Arabic version of the play may be customised or adapted to one or more specific dialects of Arabic according to the time and place of each performance.


Babel ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-287
Author(s):  
Solomon O. Oyetade ◽  
Emeka C. Ifesieh

This paper concisely reinvestigates translatorial action and observes that the ‘meaning’ of lexical items is not the same with the ‘sense’ of lexical items. The central distinctions between the two terms are that the meaning of lexical items is not only a subjective application, but is also dependent on its environment for its truth-value within any given linguistic discourse. The sense of a word however, refers to its objective use and is context independent. Meaning is viewed as having a direct link with the communicative approach to translation. The approach derives from the Communication Theory, which core assumption is that unpredictability is equivalent to informativity. Unpredictability can be unravelled by building in redundancy into the target text to avoid communication overload.<p>Through a rigorous theoretical explications coupled with an avalanche of exemplifications, it is observed that communicatively generated texts appear smoother and more comprehensible than its semantic counter part. However, the writers, suggest that the communicative approach to translation is necessarily applicable in cases of use variations occasioned by differential discourse practice between the source and the target language socio-cultures. Sequel to that, use variations between languages and socio-cultures in contact often pose linguistic structures that resist semantic rendition, because it fails to recapture the ideational content of the source language text in such instances. It is the failure of the semantic approach to yield adequate text(s) at the target end that necessitates the communicative type.<p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 215
Author(s):  
Moh. Masrukhi

When the system or structure of language is used and influenced by other languages, it is called interference, and it may ruin the concept of structures.   This research is about Arabic phrase construction that influenced Javanese phrase construction in classical books translation (TKK). This involvement appears when the concept of Arabic’s construction is translated literally into Javanese.   The research was carried out by applying theories of interference and translation. It’s analysis approach with contrastive analysis which is allegedly enabled errors to be predicted from a comparison between Arabic’s and Javanese’s phrase construction. The data were found and collected from several classical books in Arabic language (KKbA) translated by different writers. The results show that Javanese phrase construction (as the target language), particularly, with noun phrases,  with adjectival phrases, with numeral phrases, and with prepositional phrases was influenced by Arabic’s murakkab or Arabic phrase construction (as the source language). Arabic has its own concept of phrase construction.  The phrase construction cannot be translated into Javanese directly through word-for-word translation or literal translation. Thus, Javanese in TKK became inconvenient and ungrammatical. Arabic phrase construction is flipped around (with noun phrases and adjectival phrases) and prepositions are used and translated improperly or in the wrong position (with prepositional phrases). This research has many implications for further use, such as: for the identification and description of the deviation of  Javanese phrase construction which has been affected by direct translation from the Arabic language,  and furthermore, to increase the knowledge of those who are learning by increasing the realization and awareness in writing and translating (especially from Arabic to Javanese) about the fact that  Arabic and Javanese  have their own regulations or patterns which are  different  then the other language.  keywords;Influence; Literal Translation; Phrase Construction ; Murakkab


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-389
Author(s):  
Doina Butiurca

AbstractOur research, Transparency and translatability of the terminological metaphor in the domain of the internet, is a contrastive analysis in the topic of the metaphor, especially. The relationship between the common and the special lexicon in the domain of the Internet in the English language as source language, the relationship between the common denominator between the source language and the semantic basis, of equivalence in the target language represent the aims of the research. The languages in which the analysis is carried out are different from the genealogical and typological point of view (the English language on the one hand, the Romance language and Hungarian on the other). The perspective is a descriptive-semasiological one, and the methods applied - the paradigmatic and syntagmatic analysis, the contrastive analysis - are adapted to this perspective. The transparency in the meaning, the degree of translatability, the motivated character of the terminological metaphor, the role of linguistics / of semantics in the terminology of the Internet are only some of the conclusions of the research.


English Today ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiang Yajun ◽  
Ren Zaixin

ABSTRACTThis paper investigates the notion of ‘translated English’, in contrast to ‘non-translated English’. Its focal point is that translated English texts differ from comparable non-translated texts in English, the target language (TL), in the sense that they have specific properties that cannot be found in the latter. Translated English, therefore, is a distinct variety of English. What makes it distinct is that, on the one hand, translated English texts, regardless of the source language (SL), have been found to share significant lexical, syntactic, and textual features and, on the other hand, they are inevitably SL-specific, exhibiting unique characteristics due to, among other factors, features of the source language and the translation tradition involved.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moh. Masrukhi

When the system or structure of language is used and influenced by other languages, it is called interference, and it may ruin the concept of structures.   This research is about Arabic phrase construction that influenced Javanese phrase construction in classical books translation (TKK). This involvement appears when the concept of Arabic’s construction is translated literally into Javanese.   The research was carried out by applying theories of interference and translation. It’s analysis approach with contrastive analysis which is allegedly enabled errors to be predicted from a comparison between Arabic’s and Javanese’s phrase construction. The data were found and collected from several classical books in Arabic language (KKbA) translated by different writers. The results show that Javanese phrase construction (as the target language), particularly, with noun phrases,  with adjectival phrases, with numeral phrases, and with prepositional phrases was influenced by Arabic’s murakkab or Arabic phrase construction (as the source language). Arabic has its own concept of phrase construction.  The phrase construction cannot be translated into Javanese directly through word-for-word translation or literal translation. Thus, Javanese in TKK became inconvenient and ungrammatical. Arabic phrase construction is flipped around (with noun phrases and adjectival phrases) and prepositions are used and translated improperly or in the wrong position (with prepositional phrases). This research has many implications for further use, such as: for the identification and description of the deviation of  Javanese phrase construction which has been affected by direct translation from the Arabic language,  and furthermore, to increase the knowledge of those who are learning by increasing the realization and awareness in writing and translating (especially from Arabic to Javanese) about the fact that  Arabic and Javanese  have their own regulations or patterns which are  different  then the other language.  


JURNAL ELINK ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diah Astuty

his study aims to describe the sorts of lexical constraints that appeared on the students translation when translating some source language texts into some target language texts. The competence of linguistic fields that the students have acquired is in the fact assumed to be inadequate and it can cause the lexical constraints.Keywords: CALLS, lexical constraints,source language text,target language text


Author(s):  
Xuhui Hu

This chapter summarizes the major points developed throughout the book. The theoretical points of the syntax of events proposed in Chapter 2 are listed. The conclusions on the syntax of English and Chinese resultatives, applicative constructions in various languages, and Chinese non-canonical object and motion event constructions are presented, together with the implications for the verb/satellite-framed typology. The explanation of diachronic change and cross-linguistic variation is summarized, including both the historical development of Chinese resultatives, the variation of resultatives between Chinese and English on the one hand, and English and Romance on the other hand. The Synchronic Grammaticalisation Hypothesis is also summarized.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
BYEONG-UK YI

AbstractThis article examines two syllogistic arguments contrasted in an ancient Chinese book, the Mozi, which expounds doctrines of the Mohist school of philosophers. While the arguments seem to have the same form, one of them (the one-horse argument) is valid but the other (the two-horse argument) is not. To explain this difference, the article uses English plural constructions to formulate the arguments. Then it shows that the one-horse argument is valid because it has a valid argument form, the plural cousin of a standard form of valid categorical syllogisms (Plural Barbara), and argues that the two-horse argument involves equivocal uses of a key predicate (the Chinese counterpart of ‘have four feet’) that has the distributive/nondistributive ambiguity. In doing so, the article discusses linguistic differences between Chinese and English and explains why the logic of plural constructions is applicable to Chinese arguments that involve no plural constructions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document