1. A Cognitive grammar view David Tuggy SIL-Mexico
Translation
A Cognitive grammar view David Tuggy SIL-Mexico
Copyright © 2005 David Tuggy

2. What is translation? Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος In the beginning was the word
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
Words in the Source language In
the beginning
was
the
word
Words in the Target language
Translation can indeed be that.
But that’s not all there is to it, of course.

3. 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.

4. 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.
WHEN PAST(X BEGIN) (THE WORD) E
Words in the Source language
Words in the Target language
Meaning which resides in the words in both languages
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In the beginning was the word

5. 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 WORD) E
Words in the Source language
Words in the Target language
Meaning which resides in the words in both languages
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In the beginning was the word

6. 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)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In the beginning was the word
WHEN PAST(X BEGIN) (THE WORD) E
Words in the Source language
Words in the Target language
Meaning which resides in the words in both languages
“There is no subject so abstruse and complex but that diligent and careful study will show it to be even more abstruse and complex than it first seemed.”

7. 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

8. 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
Reception of the signal by the audio-perceptive system
Articulator movements

9. This is how humans normally communicate
hearer
speaker
Audio-perceptive routines
Articulatory movements

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Applying the terminology to the model of communication:
symbol
hearer
speaker
symbolic link
meaningh
meanings
phonological structureh
phonological structures

14. A specific example (from Mixe)
symbol
hearer
speaker
symbolic link
audio-perceptive routines
audio-perceptive routines
neuro-muscular routines

15. 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.)

16. 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 sti-mulates 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.

17. 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.

18. 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”.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. When the hearer doesn’t know the speaker’s language
symbol
Mixe speaker
English hearer
symbolic link
English audio-per-ceptive routines
Mixe neuro-muscular routines

22. 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)

23. Here’s where translation is needed
English hearer
English auditory routines

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. Terminology
Symbols are bipolar

27. The symbolic link
The symbolic link is at the heart of language.

28. The symbolic link What is its basic character?
It is a mental association

29. The symbolic link It works in both directions
If you activate the semantic pole,
the link facilitates the activation of the phonological pole

30. 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

31. 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.
This is not always or necessarily true, however.

32. Types of symbolic links

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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)

37. 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.

38. Written language
Establishing the mental link between the phonological pole and the graphical (written) structure helps establish the sym- bolic link between the graphical and the se- mantic poles.

39. Written language
For many users the phonological and graphic structures are always coactivated when they read or write.

40. Written language
With lots of practice (entrenchment), however, the symbolic link to the graphical pole can become independent and strong.

41. 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.

42. 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 communi-cation 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.

43. 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.

44. Returning to our Mixe example:
symbol
reader
writer
symbolic link
visual-perceptive routines
visual-perceptive routines
neuro-muscular routines

45. 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.

46. The transmission and translation of an ancient text is a complex process

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.)

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. The complexity of word meanings
Small wonder that it takes a while to explain words like שְׁדַּרְפְּנִֽים (‘satraps’) or τετραάρχης (‘tetrarch’) or ἀπολύτρωσις (‘redemption’) to a Mixe or English-speaking audience.
We just don’t have the background to understand them.

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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.)

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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”

60. 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.

61. 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.

62. From morpheme to discourse: the cline of complexity

63. 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

64. 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.

65. 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’).

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. 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 donkey-dumper 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.

69. 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.

70. 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.

71. 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?

72. 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.

73. 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?

74. 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 “deadman-hole”. 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”.

75. 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?

76. 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?

77. 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.

78. 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?

79. 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.

80. 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 all-purpose 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.

81. 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.

82. 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.

83. 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!

84. 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 no-lucrativos, y que se de crédito. Para otros usos contactar al autor.