The Commentary
Pirates and Emperors
Old and New
Noam Chomsky
Chapter 7
Introduction:
Throughout this commentary I will try to give a brief account of the author, and discuss the presumed readership. I will then briefly discuss the register, field and domain of the (SLT). Following this, I will attempt to show how the author gives an insight into the (U.S) / Israel / Palestine conflict beginning on September 29,2000, in relation to international conflict. I aim to do this by focusing on how this masterful use of language can provide us with a new and more critical understanding of the use of language for political ends. I will round off with a short conclusion.
Thee Author:
Chomsky has made his reputation in linguistics. He has always been interested in politics and has been a frequent and leading critic of U.S. foreign policy. According to Chomsky, “the universality of language and the similarities among languages indicate that language springs from something that all humans have in common. Our ability rooted in some way in our genetic makeup.” (Salkie, 1990: 24).
He shows range and inspiration in his writing.” Pirates and Emperors, Old and New” is full of ideas that have the power to Alter one’s understanding of world affairs and increase one’s insight into power politics.
The Presumed Readership:
The intended readership of this work is not only those wit specialist interest in the subject matter or the author but for all educated men and women who share an interest in, and have some understanding of this subject. The author includes brief explanations for those readers who may not be familiar with certain political terms. The (S.L.T) is written in English and therefore aimed at the English speaker.
On the other hand, the (T.L.T) will appeal to wide varieties of readership in the Arab world, whether general educated readers, politicians, researchers, intellectuals or professors of literature and the social sciences. Introducing this kind of text to Arab readers will raise their awareness of the realities of global and domestic politics and how to scrutinize and analyse the ideas that are daily discussed around them.
The Register:
The register of the (S.L.T) is classical and grammatically formal, containing many quotations, some of which are colloquial. The text reports and reflects upon particular events, and the narrative tends to focus on events in chronological order.
The Field:
(U.S.) / Israel- Palestine (May 2001), chapter 7, (“Pirates and Emperors, Old and New”) concentrates on the International and political scene in the Middle East, focusing politically on the recent developments in the Middle East conflict beginning on 29 September, 2000. Reference is made to related international conflict, and Middle East leading up to 29 September.2000.
Domain:
I believe that the main function of the (S.T.L) is informative and educational. It is a valuable document, which contains some surprising revelations providing the reader with a rare insight.
The author is concerned with the use of language by Washington and allied governments, politicians and the mass media as a tool to influence, shape and even brainwash the public as a means to an end, that end being the service of a political system.
The main function of the (S.T.L) is to provide readers with a better understanding of how government’s tactics have been successfully used during the past century (and continue to be used) to gain a grater foothold in certain countries:
“ When the vast majority suffered bitterly but in silence, while foreign investors and “the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied” enriched themselves,” (S.T.L) P.5, L. 27, Introduction.
The Tenors:
Although Chomsky’s style is quite formal, at the same time the author uses an engaging language and personal tone of speech which maintains the readers` attention through the chapter. The author achieves these objectives by his constant conjuring of powerful visual images. His passionate style and by his use of the personal pronouns- “I “and “we “in appropriate places, (S.T.L) P. 161. Another method adopted by the author to maintain the reader’s attention is his continuous use of rhetoric, for example (S.T.L) P.175.L. 13.
A main feature in this work is the author use of irony and sarcasm. His sentences are complex in most paragraphs, though many are short and simple for effect, and they contain many intricately- woven digressions, which may initially seem inaccessible to a first time reader of his work. However, a more detailed study of this chapter with reference to the introduction will prove both informative and enlightening to the reader.
Paragraph format varies throughout, keeping with the author’s spontaneous flow of thought. First and final sentences in each paragraph are significant, also the author’s use of brackets.
His style is often argumentative in order to draw one’s attention to a specific point. He uses imperative direct address to reiterate important points and personal language to draw the reader along with him.
There is some use of the passive, occasionally appearing to express the author’s own personal opinion without actually offending the reader or directly criticizing the subjects featured in his work. However, his style throughout tends to be direct, imperative and emotive.
Linguistic and Stylistic Features:
Entering a more in-depth analysis of the text I have noticed that the author’s use of brackets is interesting; it is, for the most part, not intended to include an after-thought; brackets seem to reinforce important points he wishes to put across. For example “(along with two women standing nearby)” (S.T.L) P. 162, L. 40
Here the author is pointing out that on October 4th, 2000; only a few days into the conflict initiated by the so called Israeli Defence Forces and police, already people are being disregarded as “mere things”, (S.T.L P. 13, L. 9 Introduction), whose lives have “no value” to the rulers. This use of brackets follows a vital point stated earlier in the paragraph: “U.S. weapon sales do not carry a stipulation that weapons can’t be used against civilians”, (S.T.L.) P. 162, L. 33.
The U.s. have instigated this conflict, provided weapons, even taught superior fighting techniques to the so called I.D.F who have then proceeded to fire “ from and around a well protected rooftop position”(S.T.L.) P. 162. L. 3. They have fired “recklessly” (S.T.L) P. 162. L. “repeatedly” (S.T.L.) P. 162.L.6, and even “fired missiles” (S.T.L.) P. 162, L. 10, and yet the U.S. claim no responsibility and report only that which puts them in a good light.
Other examples of he author’s use of brackets to reinforce a similar point are” (unreported)” (S.T.L.) P.171, L.33, and “P.176, L.26/27: “(perhaps to be closed entirely if the Clinton-Barak formula, or something like it, is implemented).”
Following a paragraph, again filled with irony concerning U.S. “ Interest “ in the “oil”(S.T.L.) P.165, L.4, resources of Saudi Arabia in the 1970s (S.T.L.) P.164, L.40, in which we read: “ Saudi Arabia is he central component of the Façade “, the author creates an impact by his use of brackets as a sentence-closer, drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that this interest was for the U.S. gain:’(meaning primarily profit flow and a lever of world; the U.S. was not dependent on Middle East oil for it’s own use)”.
He also uses a variety of sentence- openers. Several pertinent examples of emphatic opening sentences are: (S.T.L.) P. 161, L.12 “The pattern of events underscores a fact of crucial importance”, (which is followed by his explanation of the reasons why he firmly believes that the phrase “Israel-Palestine conflict” is misleading, (S.T.L.) P. 163.L. 28. & P. 171, L.11: “There have been few surprises since “, (S.T.L.) P. 171, L. 11. Are the author’s words following the formal acceptance by Rabin and Arafat on 13 September, 1993 of the Declaration of Principles (DOP), concluding that, in the words of George Bush in 1990 (S.T.L.) P.170, L.40: “ What We Say Goes “. Unfortunately, the author explains, this is indeed the case concerning U.S. monopoly on oil in the Middle East, qualified by the sentence: “ The world understood and withdrew”, (S.T.L.) P.171, L.1.
Another Example of an emphatically short sentence opener appears on (S.T.L.) P.163, L.28: “None of this unusual “. Beginning a new paragraph with a short sentence like this attracts the readers’ attention to its meaning. This follows a powerful ending to the previous paragraph: “Washington’s actual attitudes are revealed by its actions; the coverage speaks for itself.” (S.T.L.) P.163, L. 26/27. Other example of short, powerful sentences are: “All this, too, has been exercised from sanitized history “(S.T.L.) P. 168, L.21/22, “In return for Arafat’s capitulation, the U.S. and Israel conceded nothing “(S.T.L.) P. 172, L.5/6, and P. 173, L. 12/13: “And, of course, continuing the dispossession and torture of the Palestinians”.
After the sentence loaded with sarcasm the author writes on (S.T.L) P.175, L.13: “The president has spoken. What more can there be to say?” This, in fact, shows yet another stylistic feature of the text: the Author’s use of rhetoric.
The author, again, uses this form of rhetorical questioning to demonstrate a point. Here, he shows incredulity at the “Great value” of Clinton’s “creative comparison”, explained with acid sarcasm by Thomas Friedman in this paragraph.
Chomsky uses rhetorical questions to stimulate the readers to focus on a particular idea, for example on P. 167, L. 23: “no negotiations, only force?” (On the U.S. / Kissinger dilemma.
Chomsky also sometimes uses figurative speech. There is a good example of this in the sentence “Veiled by constitutional fictions”, “absorption” and Fictions”, with a verb that would normally be applied to living beings, thus personifying “fictions”.
Another example appears on (S.T.L.) P.164, L.15: “a second tier of local cops on the beat”.
I have found one simile in the text, which occurs on (S.T.L.) P.164, L.32, “as a virus”. However, there are several metaphors, the first continuing the “virus” simile, referring to President Nasser as seen through the eyes of the U.S.: “infect- others”….” a rotten apple”, who might spoil the barrel.” Other examples include: “the two meaning pillars (S.T.L.) P.165, L.22. Referring with a sense of irony to Saudi Arabia and Israel, (as in the first example, through the eyes of Washington), “flows from the doctrine” (S.T.L.) P.169, L.20, “funnelled through various channels” (S.T.L.) P.179, L.39, and “erosion of its formerly well-functioning social systems” (S.T.L.) P.179, L, 26.
Somewhat metaphorical is the author’s use in several places of phrases alluding to the idea of a procession:” All this precedes thanks to direct U.S. support, tolerance and evasion (S.T.L.) P.162, L.1. Note the importance of this sentence. It is placed in such a way within the text that it draws the readers’ attention. Again, marking the opening of the final paragraph of this book:” Step by step, the U.S. and Israel have been laboured for 30 years to construct a system of permanent neo- colonial dependency”. (S.T, L.)P.180, L.15. In fact, the way in which Chapter 7 is presented, moving in chronological order, and pointing out each “step” taken by Washington and the Israeli military from 29 September, 2000, is like a journey on which the reader is continuously moving.
Chomsky uses the maxim of end focus. As we read through the sequence of his sentences, we find that he progressively adds ideas to the store of information with which we started. Thus the sentences we encounter in the text contain a mixture of given and new information.
I noticed that there is a gradual change in the length of sentences, which guides the reader smoothly from one idea to another; they can vary from extreme simplicity (S.T.L.) P. 163, L.27, to considerable complexity as in (S.T.L.) P.164, L.36, and P. 165.L.1.
Another way in which Chomsky draws the reader along with him is by some use of personal pronouns in appropriate places in the text.
A good example of this is on (S.T.L.) P.161, L.4: “…the Al-Aqsa Intifada breaks new ground”…” as I write…” Here Chomsky is hopeful-note his use of the present tense-because at last there is a “voice for those with no voice” (refer to introduction). Again on the same page (S.T.L.) P.161, L.14,”…as I did at the outset” (in relation to the wording: (U.S.) Israel-Palestine conflict), and on P. 166, L.7: “that seems to me more realistic,” and again on P. 171, L.22: “One could choose to be deluded-many did so.”
Chomsky uses parallelism for compare-and-contrast sentences to support the exposition and explanation of his ideas. He also uses ample imagery.
The author also uses negative to put an idea a cross or to express an opinion:” no apparent threat to themselves (S.T.L.) P.162, L.5 “no news report”(P.163, L.5.), “ none of this.), (P.169, L.24),”no negotiations”(P.170, L.5),”conceded nothing” (P. 172,L.6), “Providing cheap labour with no need for concern about environment”(P.179, L.1), “It is not surprising.”(P.179, L.23) and again on p.179, L.38.
Here I must mention a particularly strong example of Chomsky’s use of negatives, taken from the Introduction (P.14):” endured not a single serious causality…” “…To be in no life threatening danger.” This describes the position of the Israeli military as they “subjected the population to harsh collective punishment and humiliation.
The author’s use of irony is prominent throughout, particularly on P.165, PARAGRAPH 1, followed in the next paragraph by “remaining pillars” (L.22), and on P.166, with such satirical phrases as “so the historical and documentary record reveal” (L.4),”ominous hot- line communications” (L.27), “straightening up a crooked border (l.35) and many more. The author’s sarcasm is again evident on (P. 175, L. 4-13) and on (P.176) concerning the “expansion of Jerusalem” (L.14).
Satirical phrases include: “Arafat was compelled to “renounce terror” once again” (P.171, L.25), Israel and Iran the “reliable friends of the United States of America” (P.165, L.5), “confrontation states” (P.168, L.25), “in standard neo-colonial fashion “(P.179, L.20). “France was removed” (P.164, L.1) and “junior partner” (P.164.L.1). Humorously, Chomsky quotes Thomas Friedman on (P.169, L.5):
“… The Israeli group Peace Now has “never been more distressed.”
Several colloquialisms appear in the text. Readers will notice that colloquial speech tends to belong to U.S. voices, so to speak! Here are some examples; “British muscle”(P.164, L.14), “forked up the cash”(P.173, L.2), “We damn near had war”, (Spoken by Then-Defence Secretary, Robert Mc’ Namara, (P.166, L.21), “matters came to head” (P.168, L.23), “George Bush triumphantly announced the New World Order in four simple words, (S.T.L.) P.170, L.40:” What We Say Goes.”
There are more colloquialisms in the Introduction which match the quote just mentioned: “bringing European Wimps” into line” (P.16, L.6) and on same page referring to Washington’s attitude: “In short, get lost” (L.29). 2and if you don’t you’ll be pulverized.” Boaz Evron described the occupation succinctly, Chomsky writes in the introduction: “To keep them on a short leash”, to make sure that they recognize “that the whip is held over their heads”. (S.T.L.) P.9, L.31. Chomsky elaborates on “Evron’s acid critique”: “That makes more sense than slaughter, because then civilized folk can accept it all peacefully “, asking “What is so terrible? Is anyone being killed? “(Reiterating the words of respected human rights activist and legal specialist, Raja Shehada who wrote about the state of the “Samadin” 20 years ago).
Chomsky writes with a deep sense of irony when quoting certain words that have become associated with the U.S.A.: We feel the author’s bitter indignance when mentioning “the peace process”(S.T.L.) P.169, L.33 and P.171, L.4,”renounce terror”(P.171, L.20),”natural growth (P.174, L.26, and P.175, L.16/17) – alluding to the taking over of the territory, “free elections. Under military rule” (!) (P.170, L.6), “riots” (P.170, L.24),”town planning, (a euphemism”, Chomsky writes,” for replacing Arabs by Jews, reminiscent of some uses of “urban planning” in the U.S.A. “new settlements” (P.174, L.27). Israel settlements are termed as “flagrant violations” (P.177, L.29), and concerning Clinton and Barak, “realistic plan” (P.178, L.17),”dual containment policy” aimed at Iran and Iraq (P.165, L.38), “freezing settlements”, (P.172, L.31), “transfer” (P.179, L.10),”and the demographic danger” (P.179, L.40).
Many more examples contained in this book include” United in joy”. At the victory of U.S.A. Fair Play “New York Times, (P.3, and L.22), and of course: “Washington’s” war on terror” (P.4, L.34).
An analysis of the text shows the author’s violent use of words. Right at the beginning of Chapter 7 he sets the scene of oppression: “a massive and intimidating police presence” (S.T.L.) P. 160, L. 3, “facing the thousands of people who streamed out of the Mosque” on the Muslim day of prayer, (September 29, 2000). We are told that this “set the stage for the shocking sequel” (S.T.L.) P.160, L.8, shortly followed by the words “collective punishment), (S.T.L.) P.160, L.20. “ Expelled with extreme brutality (S.T.L.) P.168, L.3, creates a powerful visual image.
On (S.T.L.) P.161, L.2 “doctrinally useful” is well chosen words by Chomsky. In this context the author is suggesting that the U.S.A is concerned with an abstract, not practical theory, using Human Rights Organizations purely for its own gain. In the second paragraph (S.T.L.) P.161, the author continues to “point the finger” at the U.S.A: “These conclusions are illustrated graphically “...mentioning the death of an innocent child, while “ambulances sought in vain “ ... “pitiful efforts” to help their wounded, commenting on the ruthlessness of the so-called Israeli Defence Forces who “apparently even targeted people helping to remove the wounded.”(S.T.L.) P. 160,L.4:”Predictably” tells us that Chomsky knows it was the intention of Prime Minister Ehud Barak to “intimidate” and “clash” with the “thousands” who had met in prayer. Note: the placing of the word “streamed” (S.T.L.) L. 5. Note also the author’s choice of words for the I.D.F on P. 162:”Well-protected rooftop position”, “recklessly”, “repeatedly”, “disrupting”...”Fired missiles”.
Throughout Chapter 7 Chomsky’s use of words demonstrates that the U.S.A, despite its deep involvement, reports only what it wishes and feels no guilt: “improper” (S.T.L.) P.161, L.16, “virtually ignored in the United States” (S.T.L.) P.160, L.40, and also P, 162&163. While P. 170 is filled with sarcastic words and phrases relating to U.S. initial rejection of President Anwar-Al-Sadat’s proposals in 1971 and the way they were later pushed into accepting these proposals in 1977.
Ironically, Chomsky writes:” The version for the U.S. public was quite different” (S.T.L.) P.170, L.35. More particularly well chosen words in Chapter 7 are:” the non-aligned countries (S.T.L.) P.168, L.33, which conjures a very visual image, repeated use of the “blocked”P.168, L.40 and P.171,L.20, mentioned earlier in my Introduction, “servile tones” showing irony (S.T.L.)P.171,L.29, “colonial domination” (S.T.L.)P.171,L.40, “effectively annexed” (S.T.T.)P.172,L.19, ”hemmed in” (S.T.L.) P.176,L.18, “collective punishment”(S.T.L.)P.178,L.3, also used in paragraph One. 10 of the Introduction 2.”collective bargaining agreements”(S.T.L.) P.179, L.16,”conceal” (S.T.L.) P.172, L.6, “stern internal measures”(S.T.L.) P.179, L.40, and “impose” (S.T.L.) P.180, L.10, to quote just some of the author’s well chosen words.
Conclusion:
Having examined Chapter7: U.S / Israel-Palestine (May 2001) and analysed the author’s use of language in the text, his strong sense of irony and satire, particular stylistic and linguistic and linguistic features such as his use of brackets, personal pronouns, visual imagery, rhetoric, metaphors, and passive voice, negatives, imperatives and colloquialism, it is apparent that he has successfully and profoundly portrayed to the reader the key issues of this, the final chapter of ”Pirates and Emperors, Old and New”.
He has shown the callous way Washington has moved towards its objective and the illusion of virtue presented by the mass media internationally. He has shown the ruthlessness of the so-called Israeli Defence Forces in its harsh dealings with the Palestinians, and has described the U.S. / Israeli objective:
“Step by step; the U.S. and Israel have laboured for 30 years to construct a system of permanent neo-colonial dependency.”(S.T.L.)P.180, L.15&16.
1
The Greek expression “skopos” that means “aim” or “purpose” was introduced to translation theory by Hans Vermeer in the 1970s. Skopos theory, which is linked to Holz-Mänttäri’s translational action theory (Vermeer p.227), centres on the purpose of the translation and the function that the TT will fulfil in the target culture, which may not necessarily be the same as the purpose of the ST in the source culture. The emphasis once again stays with the reader of the TT, as the translator decides on what strategies to employ to “reach a ‘set of addressees’ in the target culture” (Venuti p223). Cultural issues in a sociolinguistic context therefore need to be considered. Skopos is important because it means that the same ST can be translated in different ways depending on the purpose and the guidelines provided by the commissioner of the translation.
ReplyDeleteIn 1984 Vermeer and Reiss co-authored Grundlegung einer allgemeine Translationstheorie (Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation) based primarily on skopos, which tries to create a general theory of translation for all texts. As a result, criticism has been levelled at skopos on the ground that it applies only to non-literary work (Munday p.81); it downplays the importance of the ST; and does not pay enough attention to linguistic detail. I tend to disagree with this last point because I look at skopos as a means of reflecting the ability of the translator. If he/she is able to produce a TT that meets the requirements stated at the outset of the assignment, which may lie somewhere between the two extremes of a detailed report or the summary of a sight translation, whilst working with possible time and financial constraints, then the linguistic level is not an area that merits criticism.
Christiane Nord in Text Analysis in Translation (1989/91) states that there are two types of translation:
1) Documentary – where the reader knows that the text has been translated.
2) Instrumental – where the reader believes that the translated text is an original.
She places emphasis on the ST as she proposes a ST analysis that can help the translator decide on which methods to employ. Some of the features for review are subject matter, content, presupposition, composition, illustrations, italics, and sentence structure (Munday p.83). In Translation as a Purposeful Activity (1997) her theory is developed as she acknowledges the importance of skopos. The information provided by the commissioner allows the translator to rank issues of concern in order before deciding on inclusions, omissions, elaborations, and whether the translation should have ST or TT priority. By also giving consideration to Holz-Mänttäri’s role of players, she manages to provide a viewpoint that accommodates three important concepts in the functional approach to translation.
Linked to Nord’s theory of ST analysis is discourse and register analysis which examines how language conveys meaning in a social context. One of the proponents of this approach was the Head of the Linguistics Department of Sydney University, Michael Halliday, who bases his work on Systemic Functional Grammar – the relationship between the language used by the author of a text and the social and cultural setting. Halliday says that the text type influences the register of the language – the word choice and syntax. He also says that the register can be divided into three variables:
1) Field – the subject of the text
2) Tenor – the author of the text and the intended reader
3) Mode – the form of the text
all of which are important on the semantic level. Some criticism has been directed at Halliday’s complex terminology and his approach, mainly because it is English-language based (Munday pp89-91; Berghout lecture 7/9/05).
Juliane House’s Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited (1997) also examines ST and TT register, and expands on Halliday’s ideas of field, tenor and mode. She creates a model for translation, which compares variables between ST and TT before deciding on whether to employ an overt or covert translation (Stockinger p.18). An overt translation is one that clearly centres on the ST, in no way trying to adapt the socio-cultural function to suit the target audience (like Nord’s documentary translation). This means that the target audience is well aware that what they are reading is a translation that is perhaps fixed in a foreign time and context. Such is the case with Émile Zola’s Germinal, first published in French in 1885 and translated into English by Leonard Tancock in 1954. Readers of the English know that they are reading a translation of a description of coal mining conditions in northern France in the 1800s, which retains all proper nouns of the original French text (Ma Brûlé, Philomène, Bonnemort, Mouque – p.282). This is just one of the techniques used to reveal the overt nature of the text. A covert translation (like Nord’s instrumental translation) is one in which the TT is perceived to be an original ST in the target culture. Such is the case with the guide leaflets distributed to visitors at Chenonceau Castle in the Loire Valley, which seem to have been created individually for an English audience and a French audience (and possibly German, Spanish, Italian and Japanese audiences), so much so that it is almost impossible to tell which is the ST and which is the TT.
ReplyDeleteIn Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (1992) by Mona Baker, taking advantage of Halliday’s work, raises a number of important issues. She examines textual structure and function and how word forms may vary between languages, such as the substitution of the imperative for the infinitive in instruction manuals between English and French. Gender issues are raised as she discusses ways in which ambiguous gender situations can be overcome, such as adjectival agreement in French. She also discusses three pragmatic concepts where pragmatics is “the way utterances are used in communicative situations” (Baker in Munday p.95):
ReplyDelete1) Coherence relates to the audience’s understanding of the world, which may be different for ST and TT readers.
2) Presupposition is where the receiver of the message is assumed to have some prior knowledge. “It’s a shame about Uncle John!” assumes the reader knows that something bad has happened to that person called Uncle John. This raises problems in translation because TT readers may not have the same knowledge as ST readers. Possible solutions are rewording or footnotes.
3) Implicature is where the meaning is implied rather than stated. “John wanted Mary to leave” may imply that “John is now happy that Mary left” (Libert lecture 24/3/05), which can lead to a mistranslation of the intention of the message.
Basil Hatim and Ian Mason co-authored two works: Discourse and the Translator (1990) and The Translator as Communicator (1997), in which some sociolinguistic factors are applied to translation. They look at the ways that non-verbal meaning can be transferred, such as the change from active to passive voice which can shift or downplay the focus of the action. They also examine the way lexical choices are conveyed to the target culture, for example “Australia was discovered in 1770 by Captain Cook” to an Aboriginal audience (Berghout lecture 12/10/05). However, I believe that they tend to revert to the literal versus free discussion with their identification of “dynamic” and “stable elements within a text, which serve as indicators for a translation strategy (Munday p.101). Mason, in his essay Text Parameters in Translation: Transitivity and Institutional Cultures (2003) thinks that Halliday’s Systemic Grammar should be viewed in the context of translational institutions, such as the European Union where it “might make a more significant contribution to translation studies” (Venuti p.333). Interestingly, the outcome of this paper reveals a tendency for EU translators to “stay fairly close to their source texts” (Mason In Venuti p.481).
Like all other theories, discourse and register analysis has received its share of criticism. It has been labelled complicated and unable to deal with literary interpretation. The possibility of the author’s real intention being determined, along with its fixation in the English language are also subject to some scrutiny.
8—AGENDA—DECEMBER 1998
ReplyDeleteNoam Chomsky is cornered by
University of Michigan students
Bisan Salhi, Will Youmans, and
Nazarene Syed after a recent
public lecture to benefit high
school union organizing in Fort
Wayne, IN.
Noam Chomsky on
LANGUAGE
by Aaron Stark
Why should one be interested in
studying language? Noam Chomsky’s
answer to this question in part characterizes
the importance of his linguistic theories
to modern thought. In his view, to
truly study language is to study a part of
human nature, manifested in the human
mind. What does he mean by this? To
begin, one has to understand what
Chomsky thinks the nature of human languages
actually is, and why it is so interesting.
One of the fundamental aspects
of human language, according to
Chomsky, is its creative nature. The last
sentence (and, in fact, this one) have
probably never been produced before in
the history of the world. the same is true
for much of what we say every day. So,
we do not seem to learn or to speak language
by purely imitating other people.
How are we able to judge
whether a sentence sounds okay? Can we
literally have a list of sentences in our
mind against which we check each new
sentence we hear? Chomsky argues not,
since our brains are finite but English is
potentially infinite (consider the sentences
“I like the number one”, “I like
the number one and I like the number
two”, “I like the number one and I like
the number two and I like the number
three,” etc.).
Can we process each new sentence
by analogy with ones that we’ve
heard before? Chomsky argues that this
is not possible either, since, he claims,
analogies are too loose to explain our understanding
of complex sentences. For
instance, if we remove the last two words
of the simple sentence “Abby is baking
vegan muffins” we get a sentence that
means she’s baking something (maybe
muffins, maybe not). But if (by analogy)
we remove the same words from the complex
sentence “Abby is too tasteful to
pour gravy on vegan muffins” we get
“Abby is too tasteful to pour gravy on,”
which should (by the analogy) mean she
doesn’t pour gravy on something, but instead
means that no one should pour
gravy on her.
In contrast to these alternate
theories, Chomsky argues that we can
make these judgements because we possess
an abstract system of unconscious
knowledge about our language. This system
of knowledge includes, for starters,
knowledge about sentence structure and
word order (we know that “Bites the dog
man” is not the way to express the meaning
that the dog is biting a man). It also
includes knowledge about meaning (we
know that when we speak of a brown
house, it is the outside of the house that
is brown, not the inside), and knowledge
about sounds (we can tell when someone
is speaking with an accent not our
own). Chomsky argues that this knowledge
of language is separate from other
types of knowledge that we have; that
we don’t just use general-purpose strategies
(like analogy) to make the judgements
that we do. To possess this kind
of knowledge, says Chomsky, is what it
means to “know English” (or any other
language).
How do we come by this knowledge
ReplyDeleteof language; how do we learn our
native language? It’s not likely that parents
explicitly teach kids these rules in
the cradle. And, because of both the abstractness
of the rules and the complexity
of the samples of languages that even
infants hear, Chomsky doesn’t think that
general smarts can do the job either.
(Children with otherwise severe learning
difficulties often learn language easily.)
Instead, he argues that something
specifically about human language must
be innate—that is, available to us by virtue
of being human, specified somehow
in our genetic makeup.
Chomsky is not saying that humans
are born with English or Vietnamese
or any other language ‘hardwired-in’.
These innate properties must be properties
available to all human languages. According
to one theory, these properties
are composed of principles and parameters—
what is called ‘universal grammar’—
principles being universal to all
human languages, with cross-language
variation accounted for by parameters
each of which can be set in any of a small
number of ways, like a light switch that
can be turned on or off. Learning a language,
in this view, means setting parameter
values; setting the switches in a particular
way.
So how do Chomsky’s theories
of knowledge of language and how we
come to know it relate to the study of
human nature? As one might guess, he
rejects the view of the human mind as a
blank slate at birth, filled in by experience.
Rather, Chomsky suggests that
components of the mind, including language
and other systems of knowledge,
are largely innately determined. Experience
(of one’s culture, language, etc.)
does not fill a blank slate, but instead
interacts with innate properties to form
‘competence’ in these different systems
of knowledge. All these components interact
with each other, or are linked in
unknown ways to form the object of vast
complexity that is the human mind.
Chomsky’s theory of language
and mind has been influential on scholars
in many different fields— cognitive
psychology, philosophy, some branches
of mathematics. Even in the U.S. where
his theories have perhaps been the most
influential, there are many competing
models of language and the mind. While
some who object to Chomsky’s arguments
seem to misunderstand his theories,
naturally many have genuine disagreements
with some of his assumptions.
But most, perhaps, would recognize
some of his general contributions
to the modern study of the mind.
Chomsky has shown that the study of the
mind cannot limit itself strictly to the examination
of behavior. The concept of
an unconscious ‘knowledge state’ is not
unscientific, as some other modern theorists
of mind have assumed. Instead, such
concepts are essential in order to account
for the complexity and creativity exhibited
by the normal human mind—a mind
that each of us possesses. R
Send Noam a free birthday
message via www.zmag.org
by Dec 5th and get on a
scroll of global supporters
to be given him Dec 7th!
The in-depth study of Art of Translation demands more attention not because it paves way for global interaction and offers an excellent opportunity to undergo socio-cultural survey of various languages and their literatures but also gives an opportunity to establish some kind of relevance it has in the study and area of Literary Criticism. Translation Studies can very safely be included as an important genre in the domain of Literary Criticism since translation is an art prompting to peep into the diversified lingual, cultural, and literary content of a source language and thus highlighting/appreciating the essence and niceties of the literature of that particular translated language. In the context of Indian Studies, keeping in view the multilingual and floristic cultural nature of our country, translation has an important role to play. It is through translation that we can look into the rich heritage of India as one integrated unit and feel proud of our cultural legacy. The relevance of translation as multifaceted and a multidimensional activity and its international importance as a socio-cultural bridge between countries has grown over the years. In the present day circumstances when things are fast moving ahead globally, not only countries and societies need to interact with each other closely, but individuals too need to have contact with members of other communities/societies that are spread over different parts of the country/world. In order to cater to these needs translation has become an important activity that satisfies individual, societal, and national needs.
ReplyDeleteIt is understood that the significance and relevance of translation in our daily life is multidimensional and extensive. It is through translation we know about all the developments in communication and technology and keep abreast of the latest discoveries in the various fields of knowledge, and have access through translation to the literature of several languages and to the different events happening in the world. India has had close links with ancient civilisations such as Greek, Egyptian, and Chinese. This interactive relationship would have been impossible without the knowledge of the various languages spoken by the different communities and nations. This is how human beings realised the importance of translation long ago. Needless to mention here that the relevance and importance of translation has increased greatly in today’s fast changing world. Today with the growing zest for knowledge in human minds there is a great need of translation in the fields of education, science and technology, mass communication, trade and business, literature, religion, tourism, etc.
ReplyDeleteDefining Translation
ReplyDeleteBroadly speaking, translation turns a text of source language (SL) into a correct and understandable version of target language (TL) without losing the suggestion of the original. Many people think that being bilingual is all that is needed to be a translator. That is not true. Being bilingual is an important prerequisite, no doubt, but translation skills are built and developed based on one’s own long drawn-out communicative and writing experiences in both the languages. In fact, translation is processes based on the theory of extracting the meaning of a text from its present form and reproduce that with different form of a second language.
Conventionally, it is suggested that translators should meet three requirements, namely: 1) Familiarity with the source language, 2) Familiarity with the target language, and 3) Familiarity with the subject matter to perform the job successfully. Based on this concept, the translator discovers the meaning behind the forms in the source language (SL) and does his best to reproduce the same meaning in the target language (TL) using the TL forms and structures to the best of his knowledge. Naturally and supposedly what changes is the form and the code and what should remain unchanged is the meaning and the message (Larson, 1984).Therefore, one may discern the most common definition of translation, i.e., the selection of the nearest equivalent for a language unit in the SL in a target language.
ReplyDeleteComputers are already being used to translate one language into another, but humans are still involved in the process either through pre-writing or through post-editing. There is no way that a computer can ever be able to translate languages the way a human being could since language uses metaphor/imagery to convey a particular meaning. Translating is more than simply looking up a few words in a dictionary. A quality translation requires a thorough knowledge of both the source language and the target language.
Translation Theory, Practice, and Process
ReplyDeleteSuccessful translation is indicative of how closely it lives up to the expectations as: reproducing exactly as for as possible the meaning of the source text, using natural forms of the receptor/target language in such a way as is appropriate to the kind of text being translated and expressing all aspects of the meaning closely and readily understandable to the intended audience/reader. Technically, translation is a process to abstract the meaning of a text from its current forms and reproduce that meaning in different forms of another language. Translation has now been recognised as an independent field of study. The translator can be said to be the focal element in the process of translation. The writer/author becomes the centre, for whatever he writes will be final, and no two translators translate a text in the same way. It is generally believed that a writer to know the intricacies of the TL in which he may wish to translate. Actually, it is not the writer of the SL text who asks someone to translate his works into the TL; it is primarily the interest of the individual translator that prompts him to translate a work into his mother tongue. A successful translator is not a mechanical translator of a text but is creative as well. We may say that he is a co-creator of the TL text. . In fact, for a translator knowledge of two or more languages is essential. This involves not only a working knowledge of two different languages but also the knowledge of two linguistic systems as also their literature and culture.Such translators have been seen to possess various qualities that we shall briefly discuss later.
Linguiustically, translation consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, communication situation, and cultural context of the source language and its text, analyzing it in order to determine its meaning, and then reconstructing the same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical structure, which are appropriate in the target language and its cultural context. The process of translation starts with the comprehension of the source text closely and after discovering the meaning of the text, translator re-expresses the meaning, he has drawn out into the receptor/target language in such a way that there is minimal loss in the transformation of meaning into the translated language. This entire process could be graphed as under:-
ReplyDeleteOverview of the translation task
ReplyDeleteIn practice, there is always considerable variation in the types of translations produced by various translators of a particular text. This is because translation is essentially an Art and not Science. So many factors including proficiency in language, cultural background, writing flair etc.determine the quality of translation and it is because of that no two translations seem to be alike if not averse.
Accommodation in Translation
Translation turns a communication in one language into a correct and understandable version of that communication in another language. Sometimes a translator has to take certain liberties with the original text in order to re-create the mood and style of the original.This, in other words is called ‘accommodation.’ This has three dimensions: cultural accommodation; collocation accommodation; ideological accommodation; and aesthetic accommodation. Accommodation is considered a synonym of adaptation, which means changes are made so the target text produced is in line with the spirit of the original. Translation is not merely linguistic conversion or transformation between languages but it involves accommodation in scope of culture, politics, aesthetics, and many other factors. Accommodation is also translation, a free, rather than literal, kind of translation. Moreover, it is inevitable in practice if the translation is to maintain the source message’s essence, impact, and effect. There is an interesting saying: A translation is like a woman: if it is faithful, it is not beautiful; if it is beautiful, it is not faithful. That is to say if you want to be faithful with the text while translating you are bound to lose the beauty of the translated text and if you try to maintain the beauty of the translated text you are sure to be unfaithful with the original text.. Faithfulness was once considered the iron rule in translation process but over the years when we take a closer look, accommodation, or adaptation, is found in most published translations and it has become a necessity too since keeping in view the averse cultural/lingual/geographical/historical/political diversifications and backgrounds of various languages and their literatures, accommodation, if not compromising, is almost obligatory. Accommodation, too, has to be carried out very sensibly, more especially when it comes to translating poetry or any such text that is highly emotive and artistic in nature. For example, translating poetry has never been so simple. Robert Frost once said, “Poetry is what gets lost in translation.” This is a sufficient evidence of the difficulty involved in translation of poetry. Because poetry is fundamentally valuable for its aesthetic value, therefore, aesthetic accommodation becomes an art instead of a basic requirement. A good poetry translator with a good measure of accommodation and adequate knowledge of aesthetic traditions of different cultures and languages can be better appreciated by the target reader and can achieve the required effect.
ReplyDeleteQualities of a good Translator
ReplyDeleteA good translator should have adequate knowledge of the SL (source language) from which he is translating into the TL which is generally his mother tongue/target language. In order to produce an accurate translation of the SL text he should have command over the grammatical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features of the SL. In addition to this, it is necessary that he is well conversant with the socio-cultural contexts of both the SL and the TL. A good translator should be the author’s mouthpiece in a way that he knows and comprehends fully whatever the original author has said in his text. One of the generally accepted characteristics of a good translation is that it should resemble the original text or come as close to the SL text as possible. It should appear like the original in the TL translation within the usual social and cultural settings with some minor accommodation, if necessary, of course.
Usually it is also believed that the job of a translator is a mechanical one-a simple rendering of the SL text into a TL text. Nevertheless, it is not so. The translator has to perform a difficult task. It is in a way more difficult and complicated than that of the original writer. A creative writer composes or pens down his thoughts without any outward compulsion. A translator has to confine himself not only to the SL text but a host of other factors also intervene in the process of translating the TL.
A good translator must have an adequate knowledge of the subject or area to which the SL text relates so that the translator is able to capture the spirit of the SL text. If he does not have an in-depth knowledge, he may not be able to produce an accurate translation suitable for its intended purpose. For example, if you want to translate the Bible, the Gaeta, or any other religious text, you must have adequate knowledge of those religious and theological works.
ReplyDeleteA good translator should be careful of the choices that he makes in using the TL. He should translate in the style, which is appropriate for the target audience. The style should be such that it appears to be natural and spontaneous to the TK readers. The translation in the TL should not sound alien.
A translator does need certain tools to help him out in moments of difficulty. These tools can be in the form of good monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, encyclopaedias, e-dictionaries, glossaries of technical and standard works, etc. pertaining to the SL text.
A good translator must have patience and should not be in a hurry to rush through while translating any text. He should not hesitate in discussing with others the problems that he may come across. Moreover, he should not shy away from conducting micro-research in order to arrive at proper and apt equivalents.
In short, a good translator should be a competent and proficient bilingual, familiar with the subject/area of the SL text chosen for translation. He should never try to insert his own ideas or personal impressions in the TL text. His objective should be to convey the content and the intent of the SL text as exactly as possible into the TL text. The job of a translator is very rewarding and intellectually stimulating
ReplyDeletefinally, a few words (based upon my close understanding about translation study and activity) for up-coming translators and translation-lovers. To translate from one language into another has never been an easy endeavour. It is an exercise both painstaking and cumbersome and only those who have engaged themselves with translation work can realize the complex character of this Art. I have been associated with translation work for over three decades translating from English, more especially, from Kashmiri/Urdu into Hindi and back.
One-A good translator ought to be a good writer.
Two-You need not translate everything that has been written, you need to translate the best only.
Four-A good translator adjusts/accommodates and not compromises with the original text.
5-Translators are like ambassadors representing and exchanging the best of their literary world.
5-Art of translation is as old as humankind; don’t you translate your thought before you speak it out? Some more suggestions:
1-Try to get into the mind of the writer.
2-Check your translation twice or may be thrice before finalizing the script. Put the original passage “aside” and listen to/read your translation with your ear “tuned in,” as if it were a passage originally written in the TL.
3-If your material is highly technical, with vocabulary that is distinctive to a discipline, it is important that the translator has at least some background or experience of that discipline. A good translator of poetry and drama may be a bad choice for a chemical engineering or biotechnology text.
4-If you have a native speaker of your target language handy; particularly one who is familiar with the subject, that person could be as useful as your teacher for final script-review could. Take his assistance without fail.
A few more guidelines for the translators:
Do not try to find difficult equivalent words in the hope that this will add to the perfection of your translation.
Every language has its own punctuation rules and differs in many ways; take care to punctuate correctly.
Check your translation two or three times at the end.