Monday, 30 June 2014

Logical Divergence in Translation

We here refer to a phenomenon which we have recently identified in language: A word may translate perfectly well into another but not have the same meaning in every context and it can actually have a conflicting meaning when the source language is considered.

We focus on a particular example regarding the word dating, which we gave on Previous Post.

Namorando is frequently translated into dating in the conversion from Brazilian Portuguese into English.

The sense of namorar however is more that of the courtship than that of the informal face-to-face encounter.

It would be better translating it into to make courtship, but it is perhaps odd that we say that a woman is making courtship to a man. Yet, in Portuguese, we would say ela está namorando com ele and we would see no problems with that.

We seem to have the habit, when we are professional translators or interpreters, of matching amount of words in the conversion.

We could call this size preservation principle.

When we go from ela está namorando com ele to she is making courtship to him, we increase the size by a small amount. When we go from ela está namorando com ele to she is dating him, we decrease the size by a huge amount. It actually looks like the size preservation principle is being disrespected when we choose the usual, which would be the last alternative presented in this paragraph.

Notice however that the action words increase if we go from namorando to making courtship and the size preservation principle is observed in what regards namorando and dating.

We do study hierarchy of terms of sentences at school, so that we would know that action words are more important than other words. We could then use this piece of knowledge as an argument to support the claim that this choice is based on the size preservation principle.

We can now include this principle under the title biases of translation and interpreting, since it seems to be on the way to a perfect translation.

We must notice that we add an extraordinary amount of understanding and insight to the mind of our clients when we say Você recebe algum dinheirinho do governo australiano? instead of Você recebe algum dinheiro do Centrelink? Yet, in this case, we have once more disrespected the size principle.

The original question would have been Do you receive any Centrelink benefit?

In Portuguese, we may need to select the options that fit inside of the concept Centrelink before converting the client’s answer into the English language, having then always more work to the highest levels of the Bloom’s Taxonomy than we would otherwise, but, this way, we are making communication possible when our work is oral, that is, when it is interpreting. If we do things in the traditional way instead, we run the risk of having to answer several intermediary questions to get our answer, that is, we will be obstructing communication.

It is trivially the case that the communication principle should be well above the size principle in any interpretive session.

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Psycholinguistics and Translation: To Date, Boyfriend, and Girlfriend

In modern times, relationships are something out of date: Only old-fashioned people would like to really have them.

Modern people at most say they relate, but they do not actually relate most of the time.

The words date, marriage, and partnership are quite common in our vocabulary, but their meaning has changed substantially and is now very far from what it once was.

In the United States of America, people say they are going on a date and that is just what it is: They are going to meet someone.

Whilst the result of that encounter might be anything between a hello and completely intimate sexual action, the expectation of society is still that things work between the couple in all main capitalist and democratic countries, like that things work in such a way that the two become a couple.

In the past (perhaps remote), going on a date was making the courtship also in the United States. The man would then converse with the woman and slowly progress in terms of degree of intimacy, so that they would first converse, then hold hands, then kiss, then hug, and so on so forth. Back then, therefore, everyone had an expectation that things worked well for the couple.

Marriage, on the other hand, seems to be universally seen as a lifetime commitment to monogamy, deepest partnership, and therefore collaboration, by everyone on earth. It is one of the lucky terms, since it seems not to have changed with time.

Partnership is a term that originated in business and simply means agreement on what is most important in the market: If we have a partner with whom we administer a shop, we have an agreement on duties and profit share, for instance.

When human beings say that they have a partner, what they usually mean is that they have someone with whom they share their intimacy frequently, so that there is actually no sexual relationship, of any sort, implied by the term. Modern partners seem to usually accept having sex with third parties, so that the modern relationship partnership appears as a situation of sexual freedom with joint life decisions.

In a healthy partnership, both sides know what they are into, so that both know that there is no sexual exclusivism implied, for instance. In an unhealthy one, one side would have been tricked by the other and perhaps would find it hard to split.

The usual thing in partnership and dating is non-exclusivism these days.

The usual thing in marriage is exclusivism.

People from underdeveloped countries, in particular from those inside of South America, seem to distort all those concepts and really not understand what is involved.

This is to be blamed on several things. One of them is culture or linguistic divergence.

The terms namorar, namorado, and namorada, in Brazilian Portuguese, for instance, mean something slightly different from the terms to date, boyfriend, and girlfriend in English.

Namorar in Brazilian Portuguese still has a sense of making courtship to another, so that it still has a sense of exclusivism, even though places like Rio de Janeiro seem to see things in the same way that the first world people do.

Namorado, in Brazilian Portuguese, means a faithful sexual/life partner.

In a sense, it all sounds the same, but language is a place of so much complexity that it is not really the same: Namorado can only be a man who is doing courtship to a woman.

As we know, in English, boyfriend may sometimes mean male friend or mate.

Girlfriend may also mean female friend or mate.

Namorada however has the same sense as namorado and would then mean a woman who does courtship to a man.

The interesting thing is that there is no other way to translate namorada into English: It is girlfriend.

Namorado is boyfriend and namorar is to date.

One good reason for that is tradition: Someone started it and now we have zillions of sources that have translated things this way.

If we translated namorar into to do the  courtship, girlfriend into female courtshipper, and boyfriend into male courtshipper when going from the English language to the Brazilian Portuguese, things would probably be fairer, less confusing, and less likely to end up tagged as cultural conflict than they are these days, so that we should definitely do it.


Please help us keep on inspiring you by acquiring one of our online courses: 

All You Ever Wanted To Learn About Translation