Introduction
Sapir – Whorf theory states that the world is a reflection of our words. To a large extent, the real world does not exist outside the boundaries of words, of language. This implies a connection between identifying the terms and concepts that people want to express in order to project a communication process and the language used for expressing them (Chandler, “The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis”).
This sends the speaker towards two different points. First, as scholars observe, the thought is directly linked with the language (Putz & Sicola 136; Krauss & Chiu 2), therefore, when a person speaks, s/he defines and expresses his/her thoughts thru the language with which s/he is most accustomed (first language or native language), or with the language that s/he needs to utilize in a given context (second language or targeted language). Next, and in relation to this latest observation referring to the first and second language acquisition, people need to conform to a given context, to a given reality, implicit to a given society, for defining his/her thoughts (Soler & Jorda 11). As such, not only a person must take into consideration the societal standard for expressing different ideas, feelings, concepts, and so on, but s/he must also consider his/her audience or interlocutors, know and sense their perception level and report to their cultural and social status.
This paper explores the Sapir – Whorf theory, according to which a language reflects the way its speakers view the reality, and it investigates the implications of this theory in translation. From this perspective, there must be introduced brief considerations about language and translation, exploring the words’ significance transfer from one language to another and reflecting on the idea of what is involved in the process of translation, knowing that the language defines the worldview of its speakers.
Body Paragraphs
Soler and Jordà state that language is the mechanism thru which people are acquiring and transmitting mental representations, making them accessible to other persons, with whom they are communicating, acting as an instrument of a “collective knowledge reservoir” but also “as a means of categorizing cultural experience” (11).
As Alessandra Riccardi defines it, “language is the prime means of an individual’s acquiring knowledge of the world, of transmitting mental representations and making them public and intersubjectively accessible. Language is thus the prime instrument of a ‘collective knowledge reservoir’” (95).
The translation process implies the existence of a word, phrase, sentence, literary piece and so on, in written or orally uttered, from one main language to another, secondary language. Translation is a linguistic phenomenon that has met multiple interpretations and developmen throughout time. Riccardi observes that this phenomenon has known an expansion or a reduction of its meaning in time. As such, in Cicero’s time, the term we now know for oral translation was called interpretation – “interpretari”, but there also existed concepts for the literary translation, expressed thru verbs such as “vertere, convertere, traducere, exprimere” (Riccardi 95).
Other considerations about translation refer to the moral and factual truth, as scholars discuss if these can ever be reached thru translation process (Newmark 1). Passing from one language to another, a text is transferred from a socio - cultural and linguistic context to another. In consequence, the meaning of words, of texts can be altered or can suffer expansions or reduction from the original language. As Newmark notes, words and texts can lose their original sense and significance or importance while passing from one language to another. For instance, sound effects of the words or linguistic, semantic or metaphoric representations of words/texts from their original language, might lose their relevance when translated, transferred into another language. The author exemplifies by stating that alliteration (the sound of the words) or phonaesthetic effect (their rhythm) cannot be totally reproduced and sometimes not even compensated (1).
Faill states that translation is a preoccupation of philosophy and literature, focusing on the use of language, style, or intention. The author quotes Schleiermacher who considers that “a translator cannot merely find an equivalent in the target language because texts are the products of subjectivities within a linguistic environment” (15).
Each language has its own linguistic expressiveness, which cannot be always captured when translated into other languages. There are specific vocabulary structures and expressions that denote the particularities of each language. Many of the mother tongue expressions cannot be adapted into other languages. This has much to do with the historical background or with the socio – cultural development. Therefore, populations around the globe have developed their own linguistic representations, creating their own, individual language. This is why it becomes complicated sometimes to apply translations.
Sallis believes that any attempt of translating feelings, or words that contain sentimental connotation is not simply a bad translation, or a translation that would miss some of the sense and the meaning of a text, but it would be no translation at all (2002, p. 114). Hence, the author considers impossible to find words in secondary languages that would transmit exactly the sense and the feelings that words carry in their original form.
Harmsel and Bakker observe that the cultural background of a language can confer meaning and sense to a specific word, sentence, text, poem, which cannot be spotted in other languages. The authors provide an example, using the word friendship. They observe that the word has different meanings in Dutch and American English because each culture’s meaning of friendship is different, and Dutch and American people have developed different human relationships in connection with this word (n.d., p. 61).
Soler and Jordà note that language and culture are interrelated from different points of view, as the semantics and the vocabulary of a language is a mirrored image of the shared culture of its speakers, a phenomenon known as linguistic relativity (11).
Enlarging on this aspect, there can be stated that the speakers of each language in the world have different meanings, charged with different social and cultural representations, according to the language that they use for communicating.
In this context, the discussion focuses on speakers of a language as belonging to a group, sharing common values, grammatical or semantic norms, specific to the language that they use, to their common cultural and social background. However, the discussion about language specificity can go much deeper, defining the world – view of individual.
As stated above, speakers of different languages have different meanings for “friendship”. There can be added that speakers of the same language have different meanings for the word “friendship” or any other words that they are using, based on their experiences and connections with those words. Each individual defines his/her own representation for the words that they are using, which in its turn defines their unique way of perceiving the world.
Krauss and Chiu have a personal style of expressing this idea. The authors state that “language pervades social life”, considering the fact that thru language one can “gain access to the contents of others’ minds” (2). Therefore, this interpretation of language can be further developed into acknowledging the fact that every speaker uses his/her own language to express what s/he feels or considers.
At its basis, language is situated at the crossroad of the objective reality and the individual’s conceptualization upon it (Soler & Jordà 11). As such, besides the culture shared by the group formed of individuals speaking the same language as their mother tongue (L1), each person develops specific meanings about words, and charging them with different social, experimental, behavioral meaning, reflecting their own worldview.
Another point of interest can be extracted from this idea. If each speaker has his/her own language specificities, and if s/he has different meanings and perceptions about words, that nobody else has, how is then possible the communication process, a simple conversation, considering the fact that the interlocutor(s) do not have the same reference system for the words that the speaker is using?
Putz and Sicola also notice that language is specific to each individual and the solution for being understood by others, in their exact meaning, is to interact with others, who will become more accustomed with the speech of their interlocutor/communication partner (136). Therefore, at a local context (in the case of the speakers of the same language), the exact meaning of words can be “translated” thru social interaction.
When discussing about translation, there are two or more languages that need to be considered: the original language, also called language 1 (L1) and the secondary language(s) or the targeted language(s) (L2 or TL). Putz and Sicola discuss about the conceptual representation process, associated with the translation phenomenon. This implies that when a text is translated from one L1 to any L2, the translators “access and exploit conceptual memory representations” (Groot & Poot in Putz & Sicola 136).
In other words, within the translation process, there are various sub-processes applied, meant to bring the text that needs to be translated to the same or a very similar representation from the original language into the targeted one. As such, the sub – processes involve adapting the lexical semantic information from one language to another (Putz & Sicola 136).
Another perspective upon translation is suggested by Dinwaney and Maier. The authors observe that a major concern for translators is the problematic interchange. This is not however considered a loss of translation. The singular loss of this process, as the authors view, is to discover available possibilities and explore new ones for expressing the meaning of words/texts from the original language into the targeted language(s) (21).
The fact that Sapir and Whorf consider that the language reflects the worldview of its speakers is related to the differences existent between languages at lexis and syntax level, translated in the cultural space thru mental and behavioral differences (Soler & Jordà 11). The cultural space consists of mixed aspects, including history or the socio – cultural development and phenomena, which are differently expressed at the linguistic level.
When translating a text from its original language to a second language, these aspects cannot be totally transferred and this implies that a perfect translation is not possible. Mueller – Vollmer and Irmscher acknowledge the fact that translation involves a cultural transfer. However, they also remark that the specific notions, peculiarities from the native language are difficult to be translated in the second language(s). They invoke the argument that either the translation will not be good/correct from a lexical point of view, either that it will not reflect the historical or cultural sense of the initial meaning of the words expressed in the native language (18).
When transferring the meaning of words and expressions from one language to another, from L1 to any L2, individuals tend to also transfer the cultural background of the syntactic forms they are using. Lado identified that learners usually transfer the habits of the L1 structures in the other language(s) that they study, including the sound system, the morphological – syntactic system and the cultural one. For clearly understanding the differences and similarities between the native language and the targeted one, there must be applied a contrastive analysis, for establishing/creating a new set of habits (Gass & Selinker 96).
Andre Lefevere exposed another interesting perspective, according to which there is a given time for translations to function among cultures. This indicates that for translating with fidelity from one language to another, translators must be accustomed with the cultures of the languages in which they want to translate (14).
Conclusion
Based on the idea that a language defines the worldview of its speakers (idea formulated by Sapir & Whorf), translation involves processes of adapting the socio – cultural and historical context that contribute to defining the syntax, vocabulary and semantic of the original language (L1) into the targeted language (L2). This essay indicated that most commonly, when translating a text from one language to another, there are transferred the conceptual representations as well, from the original language into the second one.
Because translators meet difficulties in finding equivalent words, charged with the entire socio – cultural and historical background retrieved from the initial language, in the second language, scholars perceive that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. Moreover, some consider that because the real feelings and the substance of ideas expressed in the original language (thru metaphors, alliterations, and other such literary phenomena) cannot be totally transferred in the second language, there is no such thing as translation.
In this context, as the language is specific to the speakers’ worldview, translation is also a reflection of the translators’ experience with the original language, which has shaped their behavior, and cultural representation of life, surprising the interconnection between the objective reality and their own conceptualization and interpretation upon reality.
Works Cited
Chandler, D. The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis. Retrieved on January 1st 2012 from . N.d. Web.
Dingwaney, A & Maier, C, Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross – Cultural Texts. London, University of Pittsburgh Press. 1995. Print.
Gass, S, M & Selinker, L, Second language acquisition: an introductory course, New York, Routledge. 2008. Print.
Faill, K, M. Translation and culture. Ontario, Associated University Press. 2010. Print.
Harmsel, H and Bakker, M, The Translatability of Poetry. Retrieved on January 1st 2013 from http://www.caans-acaen.ca/Journal/issues_online/Issue_VIII_ii_IX_i_1987_88/Harmsel&Bakker.pdf. n.d. Web
Krauss, R, M & Chiu, C-Y, Language and Social Behavior. Columbia and Hong – Kong, Columbia University and The University of Hong – Kong. N.d. Print.
Mueller, K & Irmscher, M, Translating Literatures, Translating Cultures: New Vistas and Approaches. California, Stanford University Press. 1998. Print.
Newmark, P, More Paragraphs Translation. Bristol, Multilingual Matters Ltd. 1998. Print.
Putz, M & Sicola, L, Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Co. 2010. Print.
Riccardi, A, Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Cambrudge, University of Cambridge. 2002. Print.
Sallis, J, On Translatability. Indiana University Press, Indiana. 2011. Print.
Sanz, R, L, “The Limits of Translation: The Untranslatable”. Actas de las II Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa y Norteamericana. Ed. Pedro Santana. Logroño: Colegio Universitario de La Rioja, pp 99-108. 1993. Print.
Soler, E, A & Jorda, M, P, S, Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Springer Science. 2008. Print.
Vollmer, M, K & Irmscher, M, Translating Literatures, Translating Cultures: New Vistas and Approaches. California, Stanford University Press. 1998. Print.
