On Linguistic Aspects of Translation by Jakobson

布拉格学派创始人之一雅各布森最具影响力的论文《论翻译的语言学问题》

Roman Jakobson (1959)

On linguistic Aspects of Translation

According to Bertrand Russell, “no one can understand the word cheese unless he has a nonlinguistic acquaintance with cheese.”1 If, however, we follow Russell s fundamental precept教训，告诫 and place our “emphasis upon the linguistic aspects of traditional philosophical problems,” then we are obliged to state that no one can understand the word “cheese” unless he has an acquaintance with the meaning assigned to this word in the lexical code of English. Any representative of a cheese-less culinary厨房的，烹调的 culture will understand the English word “cheese” if he is aware that in this language it means “food made of pressed curds凝乳” and if he has at least a linguistic acquaintance with “curds.” We never consumed ambrosia特别美味的，神的食物 or nectar花蜜 and have only a linguistic acquaintance with the words “ambrosia,” “nectar,” and “gods” - the name of their mythical users; nonetheless, we understand these words and know in what contexts each of them may be used.（人们对词义的理解，进而也是对整个语言含义的理解，而并非取决于人们的生活经验以及对世界的认识，而首先取决于语言本身，取决于对语言的翻译。只要理解了人们赋予词语的意义，也就理解了语言。）

The meaning of the words “cheese,” “apple,” “nectar,” “acquaintance,” “but,” “mere,” and of any word or phrase whatsoever is definitely a linguistic - or to be more precise and less narrow - a semiotic fact. Against those who assign meaning (signatum非感官性的记号义) not to the sign, but to the thing itself, the simplest and truest argument would be that nobody has ever smelled or tasted the meaning of “cheese” or of “apple.” There is no signatum without signum. The meaning of the word “cheese” cannot be inferred from a nonlinguistic acquaintance with cheddar or with camembert一种乳酪 without the assistance of the verbal code. An array 排列of linguistic signs is needed to introduce an unfamiliar word. Mere pointing will not teach us whether “cheese” is the name of the given specimen样本, or of any box of camembert, or of camembert in general or of any cheese, any milk product, any food, any refreshment点心, or perhaps any box irrespective of contents. Finally, does a word simply name the thing in question, or does it imply a meaning such as offering, sale, prohibition, or malediction? (Pointing actually may mean malediction诅咒; in some cultures, particularly in Africa, it is an ominous 不祥的gesture.)

布拉格学派创始人之一雅各布森最具影响力的论文《论翻译的语言学问题》

For us, both as linguists and as ordinary word-users, the meaning of any linguistic sign is its translation into some further, alternative sign, especially a sign “in which it is more fully developed” as Peirce, the deepest inquirer into the essence of signs, insistently stated.2 The term “bachelor” may be converted into a more explicit designation, “unmarried man,” whenever higher explicitness is required. We distinguish three ways of interpreting a verbal sign: it may be translated into other signs of the same language, into another language, or into another, nonverbal system of symbols. These three kinds of translation are to be differently labeled:

1 Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.

2 Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language.

3 Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.

The intralingual translation of a word uses either another, more or less synonymous, word or resorts to a circumlocution委婉曲折的说法. Yet synonymy, as a rule, is not complete equivalence: for example, “every celibate独身者 is a bachelor, but not every bachelor is a celibate.” A word or an idiomatic phrase-word, briefly a code-unit of the highest level, may be fully interpreted only by means of an equivalent combination of code-units, i.e., a message referring to this code-unit: “every bachelor is an unmarried man, and every unmarried man is a bachelor,” or “every celibate is bound not to marry, and everyone who is bound not to marry is a celibate.”

Likewise, on the level of interlingual translation, there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units, while messages may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or messages. The English word “cheese” cannot be completely identified with its standard Russian heteronym同形异意 “сыр,” because cottage cheese is a cheese but not a сыр. Russians say: принеси сыру и творогу “bring cheese and [sic] cottage cheese.” In standard Russian, the food made of pressed curds is called сыр only if ferment is used.

Most frequently, however, translation from one language into another substitutes messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in same other language. Such a translation is a reported speech; the

布拉格学派创始人之一雅各布森最具影响力的论文《论翻译的语言学问题》

translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.

Equivalence in difference is the cardinal主要的 problem of language and the pivotal关键的 concern of linguistics. Like any receiver of verbal messages, the linguist acts as their interpreter. No linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science of language without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into signs of another system. Any comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual translatability; widespread practice of interlingual c …… 此处隐藏：16924字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……