Lost in Translation

[Hidden]

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that there are thoughts which simply cannot be translated between languages? That language itself is not a blank sheet upon which we express our thoughts and feelings freely, but rather has contours and paths of its own which direct and constrain our thoughts in ways that we are not ordinarily capable of realizing because they have become our very methods of thinking. And that to think in one language is sometimes to think entirely different thoughts than occur in another.

This fascinates me. Post your thoughts if it does you as well.

A passage from the Tao Te Ching that I think lends itself to this thread:
道可道非常道，名可名非常名。
The path that can be followed is not the true path, the name that can be named is not the true name.

[krexia]

I saw a similar line on a t-shirt once that I quite liked: Rien n'est vrai ce qu'on ne dit pas. (Nothing is true but that which is unsaid.)

Anecdotally, I do think that learning foreign languages gives you more ways to express yourself, and a broader understanding of linguistics and communication, just because it gives you a different perspective on your own language. The only foreign languages I'm reasonably capable with are French and Japanese, and while both have been interesting for different reasons I've always found the latter more interesting simply because it's so different to English. Most of the time, you can translate English and French fairly directly between each other; there's not that much difference between a lot of European languages, and hell, large parts of English vocabulary were taken directly from French.

Japanese, on the other hand, is very different. I know firsthand that things like subtitles never really convey the full meaning of the original language, simply because certain sentiments are more easily expressed in some languages than others. That's not to say that they can't be translated, just that a short sentence in Japanese might need a paragraph of English to explain various connotations, and vice-versa. When I watch anime with my flatmate I sometimes have to restrain myself from pausing and telling him about some detail or subtlety that the subtitles didn't catch. My mum worked as an interpreter at a Japanese consulate for several years, and she always said interpretation was less about translation and more about finding an expression with the same sentiment as the original, even if the literal meanings were quite different.

So for the question of whether there are things that can't be expressed in certain languages, I'm doubtful. It might take longer to explain certain nuances of a phrase that's common and concise in one language in terms of another, but from what I remember of psycholinguistics there's no real evidence that people who speak one language have significantly different ways of thinking than people who speak another. That is, the 'strong' Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (the 1984-style idea that cognition is controlled by language) is generally thought to be too extreme.

There is however evidence that language can have some influence on cognition:

Research carried out by Stephen C Levinson and other cognitive scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics has reported three basic kinds of spatial categorization and while many languages use combinations of them some languages exhibit only one kind of spatial categorization and corresponding differences in behavior. For example the Australian language Guugu Yimithirr only uses absolute directions when describing spatial relations — the position of everything is described by using the cardinal directions. A speaker of Guugu yimithirr will define a person as being "north of the house", while a speaker of English may say that he is "in front of the house" or "to the left of the house" depending on the speakers point of view. This difference makes Guugu yimithirr speakers better at performing some kinds of tasks, such as finding and describing locations in open terrain, whereas English speakers perform better in tasks regarding the positioning of objects relative to the speaker (For example telling someone to set the table putting forks to the right of the plate and knives to the left would be extremely difficult in Guugu yimithirr).

(Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Axel of Ice]

Originally Posted by krexia

I know firsthand that things like subtitles never really convey the full meaning of the original language

i can relate.... i know a little bit of Chinese so when i watch subbed movies i can tell that something was conveyed wrongly.

i dont know what else to say... you guys are too smart for me :)

[stephaknee]

What I think is similar to the topic, and find pretty fascinating, is that people who are born deaf and do not pick up sign language don't "think." I can't remember the name of this theory, however, to further research it.

[Du Soleil.]

I kind of have a personal inside view with this, with French being my native language and yet English being my second language, which I am also fluent in since I grew up in England with my parents. Translation between Indo-European language A and Indo-European language B is pretty much... well, a direct translation, if you're looking at it from a black-and-white perspective; i.e. if I say in English "I am proud of my cats," in French I would say "Je suis fière de mes chats." There's nothing more to it because the absolute meaning is portrayed.

However, each language has many, many little quirks and phrases, some of which can't be translated directly but give an edge to a phrase or modify the way something feels. For example, if I say in English "I'm fond of apples because I like the taste," in French I would say "J'aime bien les pommes parce que j'aime le goût," even though that might mean "I quite like apples because I like the taste." I don't think "J'aime bien", for example, can be translated directly because of the connotation behind it, the small sentiment. Phrases in the English language allow us to do the same, something that gives texture and depth but can't quite be put into words in another language.

My final point is that I think a lot depends on where you grow up. If I'd have grown up in Paris, where I was born, I would say that my views and my ways of thinking and acting would be either minorly or majorly different. This could be because of the crowd I'd be in with, and because of French politics, since they're different to English politics and they would affect my life like English politics have affected my life. There are also many different reasons, but these are basic ones. Therefore, my ways of expressing myself and of thinking would be different because I would, in a sense, be a different person. Your views and your opinions are affected by current affairs but also the people around you, so all of this contributes. The differences between my parents and I are a perfect example of this. They grew up and lived in France, so they have grown up with a more French mentality, whereas I've grown up in England, and I've grown up with English culture and English issues and English ideals. Because of this, we are sometimes at loggerheads because I see myself as an English person since this is my culture and I don't understand why or how they think sometimes. A lot contributes to the thoughts and the translations between languages, but personally, I believe it comes down to the individual and their circumstances.

[Square Ninja]

all languages are games

what makes translating hard is that sometimes different games have different unwritten rules

[krexia]

Originally Posted by stephaknee

What I think is similar to the topic, and find pretty fascinating, is that people who are born deaf and do not pick up sign language don't "think." I can't remember the name of this theory, however, to further research it.

There's a fair bit of evidence that there's a critical period for language acquisition, and that kids who aren't exposed to language by a certain age have impaired language abilities for life. (Critical period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Hidden]

My interest is that language stands as the primary method for interacting with a reality, and I think the differentiation between such methods is anything but superficial. Thus to krexia's comments, who provides a very helpful link to Wikipedia's article on Linguistic Relativity, which I copy here: Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Originally Posted by krexia

So for the question of whether there are things that can't be expressed in certain languages, I'm doubtful. It might take longer to explain certain nuances of a phrase that's common and concise in one language in terms of another, but from what I remember of psycholinguistics there's no real evidence that people who speak one language have significantly different ways of thinking than people who speak another. That is, the 'strong' Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (the 1984-style idea that cognition is controlled by language) is generally thought to be too extreme.

My own thoughts in posting this thread definitely gravitate toward linguistic relativity, and even if the strong Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is too deterministic (for rien n'est vrai ce qu'on ne dit pas), I do not think the differences between languages are limited to idiomatic anecdotes; further, I find the universalistic approach to language simply unworkable.

My reasoning for this is informed by what Northrop Frye (Anatomy of Criticism: Theory of Symbols) identifies as the centrifugal and centripetal directions of language--that all usages of language contain elements which are 'oriented outward' to an external reality and elements which are 'oriented inward' to the interrelationship of words and the reality generated within. For the former, translation is widely accessible, with the exception of a few idiomatic oddities. This is true of speaking in a single language. Through the basic currency of a language we can more or less establish a mutual agreement on the physical properties of the world around us (and this is important to say the least), even if simply through the action of pointing and stating "fire". But when we delve into the latter, the interrelationship of words underpinning that mutual agreement, things can start to seem very different. Because words also refer to each other, and not the external reality we can identify through our senses and not the English symbols that are roughly equivalent. Here translation as an accurate representation of an objective reality breaks down and becomes, as your mother says, the creation of a reality in a new framework; this is perhaps where translation becomes art.

Also, in regard to Japanese subtitles, I draw a (vague) distinction between explanation and translation.

Originally Posted by Du Soleil

However, each language has many, many little quirks and phrases, some of which can't be translated directly but give an edge to a phrase or modify the way something feels. For example, if I say in English "I'm fond of apples because I like the taste," in French I would say "J'aime bien les pommes parce que j'aime le goût," even though that might mean "I quite like apples because I like the taste." I don't think "J'aime bien", for example, can be translated directly because of the connotation behind it, the small sentiment. Phrases in the English language allow us to do the same, something that gives texture and depth but can't quite be put into words in another language.

Your examples are illuminating, but I'm more interested in a feature of your prose--you express that certain features give language an 'edge' or a 'feel', that it can have 'texture' and 'depth'. In English, you can attach these adjectives to the word 'language' and generate meaning; I suspect you can do the same in French. In Chinese, I'm not so certain you can do that--I am inclined to doubt it, though it's something I will ask after. I would be curious if krexia finds a similar answer in Japanese.

Now, the significance of this is questionable, for certainly you do not mean to say that you can externally 'feel' a language in a sensory capacity. But we nonetheless know what you mean when you state this and apply terms to it such as contour and depth; we share in that reality established between these words. I think that reality is possibly something particular to certain languages, and I think that is very significant.

Originally Posted by stephaknee

What I think is similar to the topic, and find pretty fascinating, is that people who are born deaf and do not pick up sign language don't "think." I can't remember the name of this theory, however, to further research it.

There have been a number of attempts in history to isolate newborn children from all language in order to discover the 'natural tongue' of man. As I recall, most of the subjects died before yielding any results.

To say that these people do not "think" is confining the term to my opinion; but the manner in which they can be said to think would be fascinating to study.

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

all languages are games

How so?

[krexia]

Originally Posted by Hidden

My own thoughts in posting this thread definitely gravitate toward linguistic relativity, and even if the strong Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is too deterministic (for rien n'est vrai ce qu'on ne dit pas), I do not think the differences between languages are limited to idiomatic anecdotes; further, I find the universalistic approach to language simply unworkable.

On the other hand, you have Chomsky's work in initial language acquisition and his theory of Universal Grammar - the idea that all children have an understanding of a kind of fundamental grammar that underlies all human languages. Far from conclusively proven, but it does have a fair bit of support and evidence (and there's no denying Chomsky is one of the greats in the field of language acquisition). Universal Grammar lends support to the idea that linguistic relativism can have superficial influences on cognition and behaviour, but doesn't affect how we fundamentally think.

Furthermore, in terms of words and categories for internal and external concepts, I believe it's generally accepted now that we define our cognitive models for the external world in terms of internal, 'embodied' concepts (schema) (Embodied cognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). This is explained really well in a fantastic book by George Lakoff (Women, Fire and Dangerous Things), where he details how cognition can be essentially reduced to a reliance on certain 'basic-level' structures that are directly meaningful, derived from our capacity for gestalt perception and the way we physically interact with the world around us, and common to all humans, language notwithstanding. The 'container schema' for example entails an 'inside', 'outside' and 'border' and is cognitively employed in English to make sense of concepts from the literal (being outside a room) to the metaphorical (falling into a trap). There are a couple of really interesting case studies in WFaDT, and some very interesting stuff comparing colour terminology across a variety of languages - I'll see if I can dig up my copy when I get home and get detailed examples.

Originally Posted by Hidden

Your examples are illuminating, but I'm more interested in a feature of your prose--you express that certain features give language an 'edge' or a 'feel', that it can have 'texture' and 'depth'. In English, you can attach these adjectives to the word 'language' and generate meaning; I suspect you can do the same in French. In Chinese, I'm not so certain you can do that--I am inclined to doubt it, though it's something I will ask after. I would be curious if krexia finds a similar answer in Japanese.

I still think that even if you can't describe something with the same term, there's almost always a way to explain the underlying concept. For example, in English we call a bad joke 'lame'. In Japanese they use the word 'samui' (cold). In English and Japanese we employ slightly different analogies for bad jokes - in English they're crippled, in Japanese they create a cold atmosphere. But for all intents and purposes the practical meanings of 'lame' and 'samui' are equivalent here, even if their literal meanings aren't. And if one is so inclined, it's totally possible to explain the differences in connotation, as I'm doing now.

And this is true even in cases where there really isn't an equivalent word or expression. There's no English word or phrase that encompasses all the meanings of of 'genki', but we can use 'healthy' or 'active' or 'enthusiastic' to convey the right concept in the right context. In terms of practical communication, nothing is lost apart from very minor nuances. And in terms of cognition, I can't see how those nuances would have more than a minor influence on the way one thinks.

[Shamdeo]

An underlying sense of "fundamental grammar" could definetly be derived from intonation and not the actual words themselves. Newborns are instinctively tuned to hone in on the emotions of those around them. By something as subtle as the tone, tempo, or pitch of a person's voice when they say a specific word, they can recognize these intonations of specific words used and interpret them in a base manner. That rudimentary knowledge of spoken language grows when they are able to better understand how words sound in the context of how they are constructed and defined.

Also, beyond spoken language there are other factors such as body language and an association of environmental factors to words that often build the cognition and conveying of spoken language.

In regard to my thoughts on the following quote:

Originally Posted by Hidden

A passage from the Tao Te Ching that I think lends itself to this thread:
道可道非常道，名可名非常名。
The path that can be followed is not the true path, the name that can be named is not the true name.

I'm only able to offer a perception of this passage's meaning firstly due to the fact that it has been translated from its native language and that it is a language I cannot read or speak. That, and the gist of the passage seems to draw not only upon the sum of its words, but its meaning to the reader (or listener) with a unique set of experiences and perception. So in essence, regardless of spoken language (in which you could say it transcends the spoken word), the passage is lacks definition until defined.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Hidden

How so?

Let's say a set of twins are born and grow up together. During this time they develop their own game where they devise names for objects and actions. In order to play this game, the two have to agree on what words apply to which objects or actions. After coming to a mutual agreement on naming everything around them, they begin to speak in this code around their parents who have absolutely no idea what those two are babbling about. To the parents it's nonsense while the newly devised code words hold specific meanings to the twins.

Take this to a global scale, wherein we deal not with twins but entire nations. All the people over to the west have devised a special code of their own to the world around them, and the people of the east have developed a code of their own. To the people of the west the eastern code is pure nonsense, and the western code equally nonsensical to the people of the east.

All languages are based upon some kind of agreement as to what words mean what. A rock is not inherently named "rock," that's just the rule of the game that is the English language. We have to play along in order to communicate on this level.

[krexia]

Originally Posted by Shamdeo

An underlying sense of "fundamental grammar" could definetly be derived from intonation and not the actual words themselves.

I don't think you've quite got the right idea about universal grammar here. It's about a fundamental capacity for language that is common to all humans and therefore leads to certain similarities underlying all human languages.

"Linguist Noam Chomsky made the argument that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language. In turn, there is an assumption that all languages have a common structural basis. This set of rules is known as universal grammar." (Universal grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



As another argument against strict linguistic relativism - if language does restrict thought, how do you account for the times when you find yourself stuck searching for a word to express a certain feeling or idea? It's definitely possible to think and feel things that you don't know how to express linguistically.

[Hidden]

From all that posters have brought up, I begin to see my initial assertions likely are too strong. However, there are still some points I am unsure of, and so will focus on here, starting with how we are using the terms "fundamental" and "superficial".

Originally Posted by krexia

On the other hand, you have Chomsky's work in initial language acquisition and his theory of Universal Grammar - the idea that all children have an understanding of a kind of fundamental grammar that underlies all human languages. Far from conclusively proven, but it does have a fair bit of support and evidence (and there's no denying Chomsky is one of the greats in the field of language acquisition). Universal Grammar lends support to the idea that linguistic relativism can have superficial influences on cognition and behaviour, but doesn't affect how we fundamentally think.

First, I have a very difficult time with Chomsky's idea of a universal and a priori grammar, particularly what I have heard of his Principles and Parameters model. Admittedly, this may come from my own ignorance of the actual theory, but from what I have picked up it sounds too much like (a) an argument from incredulity and (b) a call back to monogenetic (mother tongue) theories or even theories of the perfect language. Even granting the existence of potentially universal characteristics to language, attributing this to a context-free grammar hardwired into every individual human is a little difficult for me to work with. (Of course, please do correct me on anything I have wrongly attributed to Chomsky's model.)

But I stated my problem was with the terms "fundamental" and "superficial", and so that I should not be called a liar I will continue to those. "Universal Grammar lends support to the idea that linguistic relativism can have superficial influences on cognition and behaviour, but doesn't affect how we fundamentally think" (emphasis placed on superficial is mine). My reading of this is that there exists a pre-expressed (perhaps pre-lingual? perhaps embodied?) thought which, due to lingual relativism, may find expression in different vocabulary, grammar and idiom in different languages. The pre-expressed thought is fundamental; its expression through language is superficial. Thus (and here I expand), the object of translation would be to make whatever alterations necessary to this superficial expression in order to allow familiar access to the fundamental thought, which is itself relatable because it is universal. To put this back in the context of your own post:

Originally Posted by krexia

I still think that even if you can't describe something with the same term, there's almost always a way to explain the underlying concept.

Before I proceed, does the model I lay out above of how we're using the terms fundamental and superficial roughly correspond to yours? And how about the role of translation?

Originally Posted by Shamdeo

In regard to my thoughts on the following quote:

I'm only able to offer a perception of this passage's meaning firstly due to the fact that it has been translated from its native language and that it is a language I cannot read or speak. That, and the gist of the passage seems to draw not only upon the sum of its words, but its meaning to the reader (or listener) with a unique set of experiences and perception. So in essence, regardless of spoken language (in which you could say it transcends the spoken word), the passage is lacks definition until defined.

These are all excellent points, but their progression interests me. It seems to start from a very broad claim -I can interact with the meaning of a passage in another language through translation- to a very specific claim -the meaning of the passage is only generated through individual interaction-. You begin by acknowledging your interaction with the passage's meaning is an interaction through the passage's expression in English; then that it is through the translator's own personal paradigm; finally that it is through your own. Where does that leave your interaction with the original, Chinese passage?

Also, I chose the passage for its content, translated as--"the name that can be named is not the true name". I've always thought translators of the tao te ching to be in a particularly unfair position--how is one to translate a concept that cannot be expressed in the original language?

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

All languages are based upon some kind of agreement as to what words mean what. A rock is not inherently named "rock," that's just the rule of the game that is the English language. We have to play along in order to communicate on this level.

An expressive analogy. And what if one of those two twins wants to quit the game?

Originally Posted by krexia

As another argument against strict linguistic relativism - if language does restrict thought, how do you account for the times when you find yourself stuck searching for a word to express a certain feeling or idea? It's definitely possible to think and feel things that you don't know how to express linguistically.

And children must be prompted to "use their words." I still do not think this precludes the possibility (though it might not lie within the bounds of strict linguistic relativism) that those words we initially learn to express -and in an important way, channel- our feelings eventually come to define those feelings in a much more significant sense.

[XIII Nobodies]

The two common problems I find with language is that there isn't always a way to say something, or there are too many ways to say something. Those are two things people tend to get confused over most.

[Mr. Wilhelm]

I agree with this thread. Myself speaking 2-3 languages (french, english and a bit of german), I consider it helps, a lot... Good examples are like, languages from country where it snows a lot. We, we have what, one word, maybe a few more to say 'Snow' ? Them, they have 10, 20, see more words just to speak of the snow; because it is necessary in their life, but it defines concept of snow that we cannot express in our language. There's the same in countries about wind, sand, or even other kind of things, work, night, and so on.

It reminds me something I was told in philosophy, it was Spinoza I think, who tried to create an 'universal' language that would have all those 'meanings'... It obviously failed and he admitted it.