trabajo articulo jakobson ingles

7/25/2019 Trabajo Articulo Jakobson INGLES

1/3

According to Bertrand Russell, no one can understand the word cheese unless he has a

nonlinguistic acquaintance with cheese.1If, however, we follow Russells fundamental recet

and lace our emhasis uon the linguistic asects of traditional hilosohical ro!lems, then

we are o!liged to state that no one can understand the word cheese unless he has an

acquaintance with the meaning assigned to this word in the le"ical code of #nglish. An$

reresentative of a cheese%less culinar$ culture will understand the #nglish word cheese if he

is aware that in this language it means food made of ressed curds and if he has at least a

linguistic acquaintance with curds. &e never consumed am!rosia or nectar and have onl$ a

linguistic acquaintance with the words am!rosia, nectar, and gods % the name of their

m$thical users' nonetheless, we understand these words and (now in what conte"ts each of

them ma$ !e used.

)he meaning of the words cheese, ale, nectar, acquaintance, !ut, mere, and

of an$ word or hrase whatsoever is definitel$ a linguistic % or to !e more recise and less

narrow % a semiotic fact. Against those who assign meaning (signatum) not to the sign, !ut to

the thing itself, the simlest and truest argument would !e that no!od$ has ever smelled or

tasted the meaning of cheese or of ale. )here is no signatum without signum. )he

meaning of the word cheese cannot !e inferred from a nonlinguistic acquaintance with

cheddar or with camem!ert without the assistance of the ver!al code. An arra$ of linguistic

signs is needed to introduce an unfamiliar word. *ere ointing will not teach us whether

cheese is the name of the given secimen, or of an$ !o" of camem!ert, or of camem!ert in

general or of an$ cheese, an$ mil( roduct, an$ food, an$ refreshment, or erhas an$ !o"

irresective of contents. +inall$, does a word siml$ name the thing in question, or does it iml$

a meaning such as offering, sale, rohi!ition, or malediction -ointing actuall$ ma$ mean

malediction' in some cultures, articularl$ in Africa, it is an ominous gesture./

+or us, !oth as linguists and as ordinar$ word%users, the meaning of an$ linguistic sign

is its translation into some further, alternative sign, eseciall$ a sign in which it is more full$develoed as eirce, the deeest inquirer into the essence of signs, insistentl$ stated. 0)he

term !achelor ma$ !e converted into a more e"licit designation, unmarried man, whenever

higher e"licitness is required. &e distinguish three wa$s of interreting a ver!al sign it ma$ !e

translated into other signs of the same language, into another language, or into another,

nonver!al s$stem of s$m!ols. )hese three (inds of translation are to !e differentl$ la!eled

1 Intralingual translation or rewording is an interretation of ver!al signs !$ means of other signs

of the same language.

0 Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interretation of ver!al signs !$ means of some

other language.2 Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interretation of ver!al signs !$ means of signs of

nonver!al sign s$stems.

)he intralingual translation of a word uses either another, more or less s$non$mous, word or

resorts to a circumlocution. 3et s$non$m$, as a rule, is not comlete equivalence for e"amle,

ever$ celi!ate is a !achelor, !ut not ever$ !achelor is a celi!ate. A word or an idiomatic

hrase%word, !riefl$ a code%unit of the highest level, ma$ !e full$ interreted onl$ !$ means of

an equivalent com!ination of code%units, i.e., a message referring to this code%unit ever$

!achelor is an unmarried man, and ever$ unmarried man is a !achelor, or ever$ celi!ate is

!ound not to marr$, and ever$one who is !ound not to marr$ is a celi!ate.


2/3

4i(ewise, on the level of interlingual translation, there is ordinaril$ no full equivalence

!etween code%units, while messages ma$ serve as adequate interretations of alien code%units

or messages. )he #nglish word cheese cannot !e comletel$ identified with its standard

Russian heteron$m 567, !ecause cottage cheese is a cheese !ut not a 567. Russians

sa$ 879:;59 567< 9 =>?7?@< !ring cheese and sic cottage cheese. Instandard Russian, the

food made of ressed curds is called 567 onl$ if ferment is used.

*ost frequentl$, however, translation from one language into another su!stitutes

messages in one language not for searate code%units !ut for entire messages in same other

language. Cuch a translation is a reorted seech' the translator recodes and transmits a

message received from another source. )hus translation involves two equivalent messages in

two different codes.

#quivalence in difference is the cardinal ro!lem of language and the ivotal concern of

linguistics. 4i(e an$ receiver of ver!al messages, the linguist acts as their interreter. Do

linguistic secimen ma$ !e interreted !$ the science of language without a translation of its

signs into other signs of the same s$stem or into signs of another s$stem. An$ comarison of

two languages imlies an e"amination of their mutual translata!ilit$' widesread ractice of

interlingual communication, articularl$ translating activities, must !e (et under constant

scrutin$ !$ linguistic science. It is difficult to overestimate the urgent need for and the theoretical

and ractical significance of differential !ilingual dictionaries with careful comarative definition

of all the corresonding units in their intention and e"tension. 4i(ewise differential !ilingual

grammars should define what unifies and what differentiates the two languages in their selection

and delimitation of grammatical concets.

Both the ractice and the theor$ of translation a!ound with intricacies, and from time to

time attemts are made to sever the Eordian (not !$ roclaiming the dogma of untranslata!ilit$.

*r. #ver$man, the natural logician, vividl$ imagined !$ B. 4. &horf, is suosed to have

arrived at the following !it of reasoning +acts are unli(e to sea(ers whose language!ac(ground rovides for unli(e formulation of them.2In the first $ears of the Russian revolution

there were fanatic visionaries who argued in Coviet eriodicals for a radical revision of

traditional language and articularl$ for the weeding out of such misleading e"ressions as

sunrise or sunset. 3et we still use this tolemaic imager$ without iml$ing a reFection of

Goernican doctrine, and we can easil$ transform our customar$ tal( a!out the rising and

setting sun into a icture of the earths rotation siml$ !ecause an$ sign is translata!le into a

sign in which it aears to us more full$ develoed and recise.

A facult$ of sea(ing a given language imlies a facult$ of tal(ing a!out this language.

Cuch a metalinguistic oeration ermits revision and redefinition of the voca!ular$ used. )he

comlementarit$ of !oth levels % o!Fect%language and metalanguage % was !rought out !$ DielsBohr all well%defined e"erimental evidence must !e e"ressed in ordinar$ language, in which

the ractical use of ever$ word stands in comlementar$ relation to attemts of its strict

definition.H

All cognitive e"erience and its classification is conve$a!le in an$ e"isting language.

&henever there is deficienc$, terminolog$ ma$ !e qualified and amlified !$ loan%words or loan%

translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finall$, !$ circumlocutions. )hus in the new!orn

literar$ language of the Dortheast Ci!erian Ghu(chees, screw is rendered as rotating nail,

steel as hard iron, tin as thin iron, chal( as writing soa, watch as hammering heart.

#ven seemingl$ contradictor$ circumlocutions, li(e electrical horse%ear

-J;K=79L;5KMN K?:KM/, the first Russian name of the horseless street ear, or fl$ingsteamshi (jena paragot), the Oor$a( term for the airlane, siml$ designate the electrical


3/3

analogue of the horse%ear and the fl$ing analogue of the steamer and do not imede

communication, Fust as there is no semantic noise and distur!ance in the dou!le o"$moron %

cold !eef%and%or( hot dog.

Do lac( of grammatical device in the language translated into ma(es imossi!le a literal

translation of the entire concetual information contained in the original. )he traditional

conFunctions and, or are now sulemented !$ a new connective % andPor % which was

discussed a few $ears ago in the witt$ !oo( Federal Prose % How to Write in and/or for

Washington.Qf these three conFunctions, onl$ the latter occurs in one of the Camo$ed

languages.STesite these differences in the inventor$ of conFunctions, all three varieties of

messages o!served in federal rose ma$ !e distinctl$ translated !oth into tradition al #nglish

and into this Camo$ed language. +ederal rose 1/ Uohn and eter, 0/ Uohn or eter, 2/ Uohn

andP or eter will come. )raditional #nglish 2/ Uohn and eter or one of them will come.

Camo$ed Uohn andP or eter !oth will come, 0/ Uohn andP or eter, one of them will come.

If some grammatical categor$ is a!sent in a given language, its meaning ma$ !e

translated into this language !$ le"ical means. Tual forms li(e ld Russian V7M=M are translated

with the hel of the numeral two !rothers. It is more difficult to remain faithful to the original

when we translate into a language rovided with a certain grammatical categor$ from a

language devoid of such a categor$. &hen translating the #nglish sentence Che has !rothers

into a language which discriminates dual and lural, we are comelled either to ma(e our own

choice !etween two statements Che has two !rothers W Che has more than two or to leave

the decision to the listener and sa$ Che has either two or more than two !rothers. Again in

translating from a language without grammatical num!er into #nglish one is o!liged to select

one of the two ossi!ilities % !rother or !rothers or to confront the receiver of this message

with a two%choice situation Che has either one or more than one !rother.

trabajo articulo jakobson ingles

Documents