Ellaine T.

Cruz 2006007299 | MA Literature

On Linguistic Aspects of Translation

By Roman Jakobson

Deemed as one of the most influential linguist in the 20th century, Roman Jakobson started his

article with a differing opinion from Bertrand Russell‟s theory about “understanding the meaning of any

word by having a non-linguistic acquaintance” with its object. Instead, according to Jakobson, one‟s

understanding of any word is due to us knowing it linguistically, in other words, we know a word not

because we are acquainted by the object itself but because we know the verbal signs pertaining to the

object. He then gave the words “ambrosia” and “nectar” as examples to lay his claim which according to

him, since we have not consumed these objects, we only know them through a linguistic sense of

knowing what and whom they are used for e.g. “food for the gods”.

To further explain his theory, he presented three kinds of translation which are the intralingual,

interlingual and intersemiotic. Intralingual translation is the translation of words from a particular

language to the same language (usually with the use of synonymous words or through circumlocution)

whereas interlingual translation is the translation from a particular language to a different language (e.g.

English to Spanish and vice versa). On the other hand, intersemiotic translation is the non-verbal

translation of a particular language which usually occurs when the messenger and receiver have no

knowledge of each other‟s languages. It is usually done by way of gestures or pointing to objects which

may have the same meaning as the word being pertained to.

Example:

Intralingual Cold (English)  Freezing (English)

Intersemiotic Cold  „a person can gesture hugging his/herself while

rubbing his/her hands against their shoulders to

convey the feeling of being cold ‟

Synonymy though (which is often used in an intralingual translation), Jakobson clarifies, does

not equate equivalence which means the word “freezing” although synonymous to “cold” does not

entirely mean the same as cold. Same can be said with “icy” and “chilly” which, when fully examined,

are words with differing levels of coldness. It is also prevalent with the word “hot” which if we are to

use intralingual translation, can be translated to “scorching” or “blistering” or, in a circumlocution way

of interpreting, “very warm”.

For interlingual translation however, it is an entirely different process. If one would interpret “I

am feeling cold.” and translate it to Filipino, it would not entirely translate the exact same way as it

means in its original language depending on the understanding of the one doing the translation. A

translator may say “Nilalamig ako.” which omits the word “feeling” as it is not as necessary to convey

the meaning of what is being said in English to Filipino. Here then lies one of the problems Jakobson

had pointed out in the article which is the „examination of two languages‟ mutual translatability‟. It is

important indeed that a person who is attempting to translate from one language to another should have

the same level of mastery for both languages. It is only then can he or she attest the translatability of the

two languages he or she is trying to use. As a translator will most often than not consult a dictionary to

help with the interpretation, Jakobson also pointed out that it is of utmost importance that dictionaries be

constantly scrutinized by linguists who can be counted on to constantly practice the analysing and

theorizing grammatical concepts of languages which can better help translators.

thinks is one of the most problematic situations in translation) is the existence of a certain category in

one language and it‟s non-existence in another. Take for example the word “sibling‟ in English which, if

we are to translate in Korean, we would have to determine first if the sibling being referred to is a male

or female as well as if he or she is older or younger before it can be translated.

Two problems can be examined in this situation; one is the whole difference of system being

used in English and Korean languages as the former uses the Greek alphabet while the other uses what is

called „featural alphabet‟. Albeit both languages are phonetic in nature, the writing style is different.

Another problem is in the sensitivity in gender of the Korean alphabet. If we are to translate the English

word “sibling” in Korean, a translator would have to investigate more if the sibling being referred to is

male or female, if the sibling is older or not as well if the one referring to it is a male or female. The

word “sibling” in English can be translated to the Korean words “형“ (read as “hyeong”) and “누나“

(read as “noona) if the person referring to it is male and younger while it can be translated to “오빠“

(read as “oppa”) and “언니“ (read as “eonnie”) if the person referring to it is female. If the sibling being

referred to is younger than the person referring to it, it can be translated to “남동생“ (read as

namdeongsaeng) if the younger sibling is male and “여동생“ (read as yeodongsaeng) if female,

regardless whether the person referring to it is male or female. In the example given, gender sensitivity

is shown in the language in terms of the person using it while in other languages, such as Spanish, it is

the words themselves which are gender sensitive, as explained by Jakobson in the third page of his

article.

He also mentioned the problem of „deficiency‟ in trying „to translate a language which has a

certain grammatical category to a language which is devoid of such a category‟. Let‟s take for example

the plural English word “bananas” and try to translate it to Filipino. The singular word “banana” in
Filipino is translated as “saging” and to make it plural, we have to add the marker “mga” and say “mga

saging” to show the plurality of the word “bananas”. Albeit the structure of the word from the English

language has changed due to the translation process, Jakobson is right when he mentioned that „no lack

of grammatical device in the language translated into makes impossible a literal translation of the entire

conceptual information contained in the original‟ as we are able to translate the word “bananas” into

Filipino without losing the information of the original word.

As for intersemiotic translation, this humble writer would try to explain it like this: Imagine a

Filipina marrying a Korean man and she is about to meet her in-laws for the first time. In the Filipino

tradition of greeting and giving respect to an elder, one would reach for the hand of the elder in question

and press it to the forehead of the one doing the greeting. However, if she does this to her Korean

parent-in-laws, they will most probably get confused as to why she is doing that and, in the worst case

scenario; reject the gesture in turn embarrassing their daughter-in-law. Likewise, if the Korean husband

will be greeting his Filipino in-laws in the Korean tradition of bowing and prostrating before their elders,

his in-laws may also get confused and instead ask him to stand up. In the same sense, the Thai greeting

of putting their hands together and saying “Sawadika” as if in prayer may be confused by a Filipino

Catholic who doesn‟t understand Thai language who may associate the gesture as a religious gesture of

starting a prayer. How about if an English man tries to thank a Japanese man but the latter doesn‟t know

an ounce of English? Most likely, he will try to convey the message through a gesture, the common of

which is the „thumbs up‟. Although if closely examined, „thumbs up‟ doesn‟t really equate to “Thank

you” in any Japanese gesture but because it is well known, the Japanese man may get the message that

everything is ok with the English man he has helped and thus he may now be trying to thank him for

doing so.
 Thus, relating all these theories, problems and concepts involved in translation, how then can a

student of literature make use of the aforementioned in their practice? In the humble opinion of this

writer, an understanding of how the different kinds of translations work is a useful tool in understanding

different literary works which, most often than not, are also translated work from their original

languages. The works of Plato and Aristotle which are originally in Greek has been translated into so

many versions in English that it is useful to have a background in translation to know which translations

can effectively convey the closest meaning of what is being said in the original language. In an attempt

to understand the Japanese Haikus, a student of literature (unless he or she knows Japanese) will most

likely seek the help of a translated version as they wouldn‟t know how to interpret, much less, read the

said type of poetry.

Literary translation is as important, if not more, as any other types of translation. Through

literary translation, we are allowed to enjoy and understand different literary works from all parts of the

world and be introduced with an author‟s ideas and values which are most often than not, a reflection of

his origin‟s culture and tradition. How then can a student of literature from the Philippines read and

study „One Hundred Years of Solitude‟ by Gabriel Garcia Marquez if it wasn‟t translated from Spanish

to English or perhaps, Filipino? What about a student of literature from South Korea trying to study J.K.

Rowling‟s Harry Potter series in its original language? Unless the students in question are adept in the

Spanish or English languages, it can be concluded that they will face immense difficulty in trying to read

the aforementioned literary works should there be no translations available for them to read. Literary

translation, for this humble writer, is an important part of the study of literature as it allows us to study

literary works from across the globe conveniently and with as less hassle as it would normally have.