As we left class today, Mr. Perkins called us to think of various ways in which ideas, descriptions, words, and concepts are lost in translation when moving from one language to another. What are things you can say in one language that cannot be conveyed or are simply not used in other languages?
A couple examples we have already had include things such as objects specific to a certain culture and "splitting infinitives". What are others you can think of? How might they affect communication?
A less important and yet prominent example that immediately comes to my mind is the English contraction. I haven't studied many languages besides Spanish, but a lot of others don't use contractions at all. To say "Sarah's dog" in Spanish, one must lengthen the sentence and say "El perro de Sarah", which directly translates to "the dog of Sarah". In English, we also use contractions to combine words such as "does not", "cannot", "will not", etc. I would imagine that the concept is probably a bit difficult to grasp for those learning English as a second language, just as it would be strange for us to have to always say "the book of Jim".
I also want to refer to a statement made about insults. Mr. Perkins argued that swearing shows a lack of thought, displaying that one is too lazy to come up with a witty, effective comeback. I absolutely agree with this statement. I don't say this to rebuke anyone who cusses, but I believe that language has so many words for a reason, and that is to allow people to communicate thoughts and ideas on a very specific level. When one desires to respond with a negative comment, is it not more specific to have a well-thought comeback than an impolite "**** you"? First of all, if the goal is to demoralize the other person, which is what swearing at them is meant to do, wouldn't it be more demoralizing if one were to show superior intellect by coming up with something intellegent to say? Secondly, "cuss words" are so overused today that they have almost completely lost any coherent meaning whatsoever. For example, (and I only quote this in context), "sh**" is now not only a dirty bathroom word. It has come to be used as an exclamation, often even used the a paradoxical phrase "Holy sh**!", which makes no sense whatsoever. Even more recently it has gained a positive connotation substituted for words such as "cool", "awesome", or "tight". Instead of saying "It's really cool!", people say, "It's the sh**!". Therefore, the connotations of swear words have strayed so far from their original diction that they imply no specific meaning at all upon common use. Though strong words, "F you" cannot bring across a more direct meaning than a witty comeback, and is therefore less effective in the long run. Cussing seems to be a product of human laziness to come up with more polite and more descriptive words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Ali-I'm not in your TOK discussion class with Mr. Perkins, and I don't think we reached the aspect of cursing in our discussion this week.
I wanted to comment because I remember something Mr. Perkins said last year in Latin class. I remember being surprised by it, which is probably why I haven't forgotten this (at the time) errant thought. He said something along the lines of, "every language needs true curse words." When prompted by the class to explain further he replied, "There are some situations where one must use a true expletive. But with your generation, you've taken that aspect of the language away from us. What once was a sure-fire way to gain attention, saying sh** or even dropping the f-bomb has much less effect than it did before."
This comment by Mr. Perkins is arguably a testimony for the changes of the English language; with the unnecessary repetition of these and other curse words, they have fallen from their place in the English language. No longer are they true expletives like they were when they first began to be used; they've become too commonplace to have a true effect.
I personally - but respectfully - disagree with the profanity concept raised by Ali in her post.
I believe that witty comebacks (e.g. Disraeli/Gladstone) are only effective when the person one is trying to insult is of a similar intellectual level. These rebukes are witty and loquacious, and one must be able to understand them immediately in order to be demoralized. However, in my opinion, profane words USED TO INSULT SOMEONE (i.e. not in casual, normal conversation) like "sh**" and the "f-bomb" are more dehumanizing. Cuss words' only intent are to demoralize one as a person, to signify that he or she isn't even worth coming up with a witty response to criticize him or her, almost if his or her inferiority as a person is self-evident. Anglo-Saxon words like those mentioned above just sound negative. Sure, they don't sound as cool, or as intelligent, or as witty, but their intent is unmistakeably direct and insulting. If one is angry or frustrated at someone or something, it seems to me that these words - in their simplicity - convey a harsher meaning, a harsher connotation, a harsher tone. Thus, I don't believe that "cussing" is a product of human laziness, but a calculated measure designed to directly insult and dehumanize another person.
One more thing: "Cussing seems to be a product of human laziness to come up with more polite and more descriptive words." To me, being "polite" when trying to insult someone seems illogical. The intent of insulting someone is to demoralize - to dehumanize - him or her, not to demonstrate the speaker's skills in etiquette and compassion.
RE: "the English contraction" / "lost in translation"
I'm not completely sold on this concept at all. While examples have been raised, I don't find them at all valid. For example, Jesper's dutch thing did not have an applicable english word that was what it means exactly- yet he could still convey what it was. The German word Paul mentioned, meaning "the feeling of being alone in a forest" is entirely communicable in English as "I feel like I'm alone in a forest."
Vis-à-vis the contractions, do "the dog of John" and "John's dog" have any difference in meaning at all? Personally, sure they might be a bit confusing for a student of the language, but does either communicate a different idea? Is the idea communicated by "John's dog" unique to English?
While my intuition tells me that sure, there are probably some ideas that cannot be communicated between specific languages, I think we need some more direct and accurate examples before I'm 100% persuaded.
http://www.logolalia.com/untranslatable/
Is it possible that although you may be able to share a word or phrase's definition, you won't always be able to share it's connotations? What if those connotations make the expression untranslatable?
There are definitely words that can be translated between languages, but their connotations are not carried over. For example the Spanish word "genial" can translate directly into the English word "genial", which means friendly and cheerful. The Spanish word also means brilliant, great, masterful, and even witty. Here the connotations between the words do not match.
Also there are words in Spanish that simply don't translate into English. One of these words is "a". "A" is used as a helper to organize the ideas in a sentence. It cannot be translated directly because it is used simply to define the direction of a verb. For example, the sentence "¿A quién te ayuda?" means Who do you help? but the sentence "¿Quién ayuda a ti?" means Who helps you? The movement of the "a" makes the verb "ayudar" (to help) change in the sense of who is helping and who is being helped. There is no real translation for the "a" though.
You can still translate those sentences, though, correct? The idea is what gets through. The "a" in the Spanish may disappear in translation, but it carries no grand, different, inherent meaning in the Spanish sentence than the English one.
As for genial- simply because a single word in one language means multiple things in another, is it rendered untranslatable? It seems to me you just gave a pretty clear idea of it's concept.
True, which makes me wonder: Is it possible for us to discuss (in English) a word that is not translatable to English? How would we go about convincing people that the word is 'untranslatable' and still have to describe what it means?
Even though it seems inappropriate to some to use abusive language, to others it is a second nature. As a latin student, I have learned some of the original definitions of words as they appeared in Latin and it has become easy to understand where some language comes from. An example is the word "Vulgar" which, at it's root, means "common". Therefore, if someone refers to something as vulgar, they are calling it common.
But to truly understand why we use vulgar language, we must not only asses the meaning of the word, but also the way it is used. As they stand, the many commonly used curser words have been so well used by society that they have come to have several diferent meanings. These definitions can range from good to bad, harsh or easy, or carry a connotation of easily used to used with the greatest severity. These several definitions and different connontation show a deeper insight into the english language as a whole and how it is being worn down over time.
Well I don't know much about Spanish, but I do understand Ben when he was saying that the Spanish words have more than one meaning. It's the same for Japanese. There are some words that are kinda translated to English but don't really fully translate.
For example in Japanese, "kikubari" has a similar idea of thinking of others before yourself but it means more than that in Japanese. I know this because every time I do something rude, selfish, or even if I'm just lazy my mother yells "kikubari" at me. I'm trying to connect this to Eli's point of "The idea is what gets through". True, the idea is getting through but don't you have a choice to what you want to think the idea is? You can interpret a sentence in so many ways, what if two people don't see the same idea? What do you do then?
This reminds me of the article that we got in TOK, "Worf on language". What i was thinking as i was reading that, is though we may have the same idea as another person we don't ever really interpret it in the same way.
I guess you just have to put a whole lot of faith into speaking! Trusting that the other person understands you and sees it in a similar way you do!
Noelle, excellent reference to an article from class! It is always good to bring in such references.
In response to Ben, I definitely agree with him that connotations cannot be carried over but I disagree with his example.
When I think of connotations, I think of how a specific culture has given a word deeper meaning. They involve emotional overtones and subjective interpretations. When he gave the example of the word “genial”, he said their connotations are not carried over. However, the different connotations of the words in Spanish and English were never mentioned, only their denotations. Moreover, the word “genial” in English also has the definition of brilliant.
The Liberty Bell, a prominent symbol of the American Revolution, might be a better example. To an American, the familiar symbol suggests liberty and justice. To someone else, it will be nothing more than a cracked bell.
Therefore, I don’t think that a word can be discussed if it is not translatable to that specific language because, while it may be replaced with a synonym, the word then loses all of its connotations. For example, if the word “scrawny” did not exist in a certain language, it might be replaced with the translation of the word “skinny”. These two words having completely different connotations and as a result the word “scrawny” cannot be properly discussed.
I find this video relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djFXYgqJ5dI
(some bad language)
Post a Comment