Everybody who is seriously acquiring a language different from their mother tongue (L2-acqusition) has to manage different problems in translating satisfactorily lexemes, phrases and sentences from one language system to another. Learners have to take into account both the denotative and the connotative meaning of the lexemes of the L2-language. Many phrases have to be utilized in fixed forms and are as arbitrary and conventional as words; therefore, they have to be learned like the vocabulary. Furthermore, there is seldom a semantic equivalence between two lexemes of different languages. Taking these facts into account, the structuralism’s hypotheses of perceiving every individual language as a system of its own, where each element has significance because of its relation to the other elements in the system, seems convincing (Foley 1997: 105; Loebner 2002: 153).
The most crucial representatives of relativistic theories (based on structuralism), like Franz Boas, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, and their supporters believe in a direct connection between language (which conveys the fundamental ideas of a culture) and thought. They deduce from this hypothesis that because of the differing language systems every language culture has a unique worldview. Indeed, there are problems in perfectly transferring meaning by translation from one language system to another. Yet, can this phenomenon be perceived as evidence for the arbitrariness of lexicalization? Affirming the relativistic hypotheses proven to be true, will we have to negate automatically the universalistic assumptions of rational linguists, such as Noam Chomsky and Anna Wierzbicka, that all languages obey the same principles (Foley 1997: 81-82; Loebner 2002: 161)?
My research in the raised linguistic problems will deal with an exploration of different kinds of translation problems first. Afterward, I will demonstrate how these problems are connected to the theories of relativism and universalism, respectively, and discuss the effect that Berlin and Kay’s investigation of color terms had on relativistic and universalistic assumptions. Finally, I will give a summarizing conclusion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Translation Problems in Reference to Thought and Reality
2.1. Translation Problems
2.1.1. Types of Phrasal Semantic Mismatch
2.1.2. Types of Lexical Semantic Mismatch
2.1.3. Forms of Addressing and Self-Reference
2.2. Relativism versus Universalism
2.2.1. Relativism
2.2.2. Universalism
2.3. Berlin and Kay’s Investigation of Color Terms
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper explores the complexities of translating meaning across different language systems, investigating how translation challenges relate to the linguistic theories of relativism and universalism. It aims to determine whether language dictates our perception of reality or if universal principles govern human cognition and categorization.
- Analysis of translation difficulties regarding phrasal and lexical semantic mismatches.
- Examination of social differentiation in language through forms of address and self-reference.
- Critical discussion of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and relativistic views on language and thought.
- Evaluation of universalist perspectives, including innate cognitive structures and universal grammar.
- Review of Berlin and Kay’s color terminology research as evidence for universal human categorization.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.3. Forms of Addressing and Self-Reference
Social differentiation of speech is only reflected moderately in the language system of European societies, usually restricted to two formality-levels – a formal and an informal way of speaking (ibid: 30). For instance, in German there are differences for referring to an addressee between the pronouns Sie and du (Ihr and dein as the corresponding possessive pronouns, respectively) depending on his/her social status. Even for Germans this choice of reference will be confusing if the social relation of speaker and addressee is unclear or both become familiar with each other.
However, in Japanese social reflections are even more complex. Instead of one (like the English you and I), several different pronouns can refer to the addressee as well as to the speaker. In this way, the English first person pronoun I can be expressed despite of special expressions by plain omission (neutral) or in an informal (boku or ore), formal (watashi) or very formal (watakushi) manner. All of them indicate a different social relation (ibid: 155), which depends beside other determiners on age (those who are older rank higher than younger) and gender (male rank higher than female) of the communicating persons (ibid: 162). Moreover, the utilization of personal pronouns for self-references, yet, more for address is often unacceptable in Japanese (ibid: 155). As demonstrated in (3), when Taro is speaking to his mother (in an unusual way for Europeans by the utilization of the third person referring to her and to himself), not only people outside the family are addressed in a formal mode, how it is also common in European cultures. Normally, parents and elder sibling are not referred to in any form of ‘you’ as well, however, in polite ways such as utilizing the suffix –san as in ‘Mrs Mother’ (okâsan) and ‘Mr Father’ (otôsan), correspondingly, ‘Mr elder brother’ (onîsan) and ‘Mrs elder sister’ (onêsan) (ibid: 155, 162).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the core challenges of L2-acquisition and introduces the fundamental tension between linguistic relativism and universalism as the framework for the paper.
2. Translation Problems in Reference to Thought and Reality: This section provides a detailed analysis of semantic mismatches, social deixis, and the theoretical debate regarding whether language structure shapes human worldview.
3. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, arguing that while languages exhibit relativistic differences, a common core of human experience exists, supporting a balanced view between relativism and universalism.
Keywords
Translation, Semantics, Relativism, Universalism, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Lexicalization, Collocations, Idioms, Basic Color Terms, Language Faculty, Universal Grammar, Cognition, Structuralism, Cross-cultural communication, Linguistic Diversity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the difficulties encountered during the translation process between different languages and how these problems reflect the deeper theoretical divide between linguistic relativism and universalism.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include semantic mismatch, the influence of culture on language, social hierarchies reflected in address forms, and the debate over innate cognitive versus culturally constructed linguistic categories.
What is the core research question?
The research explores whether translation problems serve as evidence for the arbitrariness of language and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or if there is a universal cognitive basis that transcends individual language systems.
What scientific approach does the author use?
The author uses a comparative linguistic approach, drawing on established structuralist and rationalist theories and empirical studies—specifically Berlin and Kay’s investigation of color terms—to evaluate linguistic hypotheses.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body covers types of phrasal and lexical semantic mismatch, the complexities of Japanese address forms as a case study for cultural influence, and a critical analysis of relativist and universalist theories.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include translation, semantics, relativism, universalism, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and basic color terms.
How does the author characterize the Japanese language in relation to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
The author uses Japanese address and self-reference pronouns to demonstrate how social hierarchies are embedded in language, though he notes that language likely reflects social structures rather than creating them entirely.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the debate between relativism and universalism?
The author concludes that neither theory is sufficient on its own; instead, he proposes that a "tertium comparationis" (a comparing third) is necessary, suggesting that human communication relies on a blend of both universal cognitive structures and unique cultural linguistic expressions.
- Quote paper
- Gunnar Linning (Author), 2007, Translation problems in reference to thought and reality, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/83357
