Translation Methods

Become a member of TranslationDirectory.com at just 8 EUR/month (paid per year)

---

Abstract

Translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs) in general and allusions in particular seem to be one of the most challenging tasks to be performed by a translator; in other words, allusions are potential problems of the translation process due to the fact that allusions have particular connotations and implications in the source language (SL) and the foreign culture (FC) but not necessarily in the TL and the domestic culture. There are some procedures and strategies for rendering CSCs and allusions respectively.

The present paper aims at scrutinizing whether there exists any point of similarity between these procedures and strategies and to identify which of these procedures and strategies seem to be more effective than the others.

Keywords: Allusion, culture-specific concept, proper name, SL, TL.

1. Introduction

Translation typically has been used to transfer written or spoken SL texts to equivalent written or spoken TL texts. In general, the purpose of translation is to reproduce various kinds of texts—including religious, literary, scientific, and philosophical texts—in another language and thus making them available to wider readers.

If language were just a classification for a set of general or universal concepts, it would be easy to translate from an SL to a TL; furthermore, under the circumstances the process of learning an L2 would be much easier than it actually is. In this regard, Culler (1976) believes that languages are not nomenclatures and the concepts of one language may differ radically from those of another, since each language articulates or organizes the world differently, and languages do not simply name categories; they articulate their own (p.21-2). The conclusion likely to be drawn from what Culler (1976) writes is that one of the troublesome problems of translation is the disparity among languages. The bigger the gap between the SL and the TL, the more difficult the transfer of message from the former to the latter will be.

The difference between an SL and a TL and the variation in their cultures make the process of translating a real challenge. Among the problematic factors involved in translation such as form, meaning, style, proverbs, idioms, etc., the present paper is going to concentrate mainly on the procedures of translating CSCs in general and on the strategies of rendering allusions in particular.

2. Translation procedures, strategies and methods

The translating procedures, as depicted by Nida (1964) are as follow:

1. Technical procedures:
1. analysis of the source and target languages;
2. a through study of the source language text before making attempts translate it;
3. Making judgments of the semantic and syntactic approximations. (pp. 241-45)
    
2. Organizational procedures:
   constant reevaluation of the attempt made; contrasting it with the existing available translations of the same text done by other translators, and checking the text's communicative effectiveness by asking the target language readers to evaluate its accuracy and effectiveness and studying their reactions (pp. 246-47).

Krings (1986:18) defines translation strategy as "translator's potentially conscious plans for solving concrete translation problems in the framework of a concrete translation task," and Seguinot (1989) believes that there are at least three global strategies employed by the translators: (i) translating without interruption for as long as possible; (ii) correcting surface errors immediately; (iii) leaving the monitoring for qualitative or stylistic errors in the text to the revision stage.

Moreover, Loescher (1991:8) defines translation strategy as "a potentially conscious procedure for solving a problem faced in translating a text, or any segment of it." As it is stated in this definition, the notion of consciousness is significant in distinguishing strategies which are used by the learners or translators. In this regard, Cohen (1998:4) asserts that "the element of consciousness is what distinguishes strategies from these processes that are not strategic."

Furthermore, Bell (1998:188) differentiates between global (those dealing with whole texts) and local (those dealing with text segments) strategies and confirms that this distinction results from various kinds of translation problems.

Venuti (1998:240) indicates that translation strategies "involve the basic tasks of choosing the foreign text to be translated and developing a method to translate it." He employs the concepts of domesticating and foreignizing to refer to translation strategies.

Jaaskelainen (1999:71) considers strategy as, "a series of competencies, a set of steps or processes that favor the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of information." He maintains that strategies are "heuristic and flexible in nature, and their adoption implies a decision influenced by amendments in the translator's objectives."

Taking into account the process and product of translation, Jaaskelainen (2005) divides strategies into two major categories: some strategies relate to what happens to texts, while other strategies relate to what happens in the process.

Product-related strategies, as Jaaskelainen (2005:15) writes, involves the basic tasks of choosing the SL text and developing a method to translate it. However, she maintains that process-related strategies "are a set of (loosely formulated) rules or principles which a translator uses to reach the goals determined by the translating situation" (p.16). Moreover, Jaaskelainen (2005:16) divides this into two types, namely global strategies and local strategies: "global strategies refer to general principles and modes of action and local strategies refer to specific activities in relation to the translator's problem-solving and decision-making."

Newmark (1988b) mentions the difference between translation methods and translation procedures. He writes that, "[w]hile translation methods relate to whole texts, translation procedures are used for sentences and the smaller units of language" (p.81). He goes on to refer to the following methods of translation:

• Word-for-word translation: in which the SL word order is preserved and the words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context.
• Literal translation: in which the SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical words are again translated singly, out of context.
• Faithful translation: it attempts to produce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures.
• Semantic translation: which differs from 'faithful translation' only in as far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value of the SL text.
• Adaptation: which is the freest form of translation, and is used mainly for plays (comedies) and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually preserved, the SL culture is converted to the TL culture and the text is rewritten.
• Free translation: it produces the TL text without the style, form, or content of the original.
• Idiomatic translation: it reproduces the 'message' of the original but tends to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not exist in the original.
• Communicative translation: it attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership (1988b: 45-47).

Newmark (1991:10-12) writes of a continuum existing between "semantic" and "communicative" translation. Any translation can be "more, or less semantic—more, or less, communicative—even a particular section or sentence can be treated more communicatively or less semantically." Both seek an "equivalent effect." Zhongying (1994: 97), who prefers literal translation to free translation, writes that, "[i]n China, it is agreed by many that one should translate literally, if possible, or appeal to free translation."

In order to clarify the distinction between procedure and strategy, the forthcoming section is allotted to discussing the procedures of translating culture-specific terms, and strategies for rendering allusions will be explained in detail.

2.1. Procedures of translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs)

Graedler (2000:3) puts forth some procedures of translating CSCs:

1. Making up a new word.
2. Explaining the meaning of the SL expression in lieu of translating it.
3. Preserving the SL term intact.
4. Opting for a word in the TL which seems similar to or has the same "relevance" as the SL term.

Defining culture-bound terms (CBTs) as the terms which "refer to concepts, institutions and personnel which are specific to the SL culture" (p.2), Harvey (2000:2-6) puts forward the following four major techniques for translating CBTs:

1. Functional Equivalence: It means using a referent in the TL culture whose function is similar to that of the source language (SL) referent. As Harvey (2000:2) writes, authors are divided over the merits of this technique: Weston (1991:23) describes it as "the ideal method of translation," while Sarcevic (1985:131) asserts that it is "misleading and should be avoided."
2. Formal Equivalence or 'linguistic equivalence': It means a 'word-for-word' translation.
3. Transcription or 'borrowing' (i.e. reproducing or, where necessary, transliterating the original term): It stands at the far end of SL-oriented strategies. If the term is formally transparent or is explained in the context, it may be used alone. In other cases, particularly where no knowledge of the SL by the reader is presumed, transcription is accompanied by an explanation or a translator's note.
4. Descriptive or self-explanatory translation: It uses generic terms (not CBTs) to convey the meaning. It is appropriate in a wide variety of contexts where formal equivalence is considered insufficiently clear. In a text aimed at a specialized reader, it can be helpful to add the original SL term to avoid ambiguity.

The following are the different translation procedures that Newmark (1988b) proposes:

• Transference: it is the process of transferring an SL word to a TL text. It includes transliteration and is the same as what Harvey (2000:5) named "transcription."
• Naturalization: it adapts the SL word first to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal morphology of the TL. (Newmark, 1988b:82)
• Cultural equivalent: it means replacing a cultural word in the SL with a TL one. however, "they are not accurate" (Newmark, 1988b:83)
• Functional equivalent: it requires the use of a culture-neutral word. (Newmark, 1988b:83)
• Descriptive equivalent: in this procedure the meaning of the CBT is explained in several words. (Newmark, 1988b:83)
• Componential analysis: it means "comparing an SL word with a TL word which has a similar meaning but is not an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their differing sense components." (Newmark, 1988b:114)
• Synonymy: it is a "near TL equivalent." Here economy trumps accuracy. (Newmark, 1988b:84)
• Through-translation: it is the literal translation of common collocations, names of organizations and components of compounds. It can also be called: calque or loan translation. (Newmark, 1988b:84)
• Shifts or transpositions: it involves a change in the grammar from SL to TL, for instance, (i) change from singular to plural, (ii) the change required when a specific SL structure does not exist in the TL, (iii) change of an SL verb to a TL word, change of an SL noun group to a TL noun and so forth. (Newmark, 1988b:86)
• Modulation: it occurs when the translator reproduces the message of the original text in the TL text in conformity with the current norms of the TL, since the SL and the TL may appear dissimilar in terms of perspective. (Newmark, 1988b:88)
• Recognized translation: it occurs when the translator "normally uses the official or the generally accepted translation of any institutional term." (Newmark, 1988b:89)
• Compensation: it occurs when loss of meaning in one part of a sentence is compensated in another part. (Newmark, 1988b:90)
• Paraphrase: in this procedure the meaning of the CBT is explained. Here the explanation is much more detailed than that of descriptive equivalent. (Newmark, 1988b:91)
• Couplets: it occurs when the translator combines two different procedures. (Newmark, 1988b:91)
• Notes: notes are additional information in a translation. (Newmark, 1988b:91)

Notes can appear in the form of 'footnotes.' Although some stylists consider a translation sprinkled with footnotes terrible with regard to appearance, nonetheless, their use can assist the TT readers to make better judgments of the ST contents. Nida (1964:237-39) advocates the use of footnotes to fulfill at least the two following functions: (i) to provide supplementary information, and (ii) to call attention to the original's discrepancies.

A really troublesome area in the field of translation appears to be the occurrence of allusions, which seem to be culture-specific portions of a SL. All kinds of allusions, especially cultural and historical allusions, bestow a specific density on the original language and need to be explicated in the translation to bring forth the richness of the SL text for the TL audience.

Appearing abundantly in literary translations, allusions, as Albakry (2004:3) points out, "are part of the prior cultural knowledge taken for granted by the author writing for a predominantly Moslem Arab [SL] audience. To give the closest approximation of the source language, therefore, it was necessary to opt for 'glossing' or using explanatory footnotes." However, somewhere else he claims that, "footnotes ... can be rather intrusive, and therefore, their uses were minimized as much as possible" (Albakry, 2004:4).

2.2. Strategies of translating allusions

Proper names, which are defined by Richards (1985:68) as "names of a particular person, place or thing" and are spelled "with a capital letter," play an essential role in a literary work. For instance let us consider personal PNs. They may refer to the setting, social status and nationality of characters, and really demand attention when rendered into a foreign language.

There are some models for rendering PNs in translations. One of these models is presented by Hervey and Higgins (1986) who believe that there exist two strategies for translating PNs. They point out: "either the name can be taken over unchanged from the ST to the TT, or it can be adopted to conform to the phonic/graphic conventions of the TL" (p.29).

Hervey and Higgins (1986) refer to the former as exotism which "is tantamount to literal translation, and involves no cultural transposition" (p.29), and the latter as transliteration. However, they propose another procedure or alternative, as they put it, namely cultural transplantation. Being considered as "the extreme degree of cultural transposition," cultural transplantation is considered to be a procedure in which "SL names are replaced by indigenous TL names that are not their literal equivalents, but have similar cultural connotations" (Hervey & Higgins, 1986:29).

Regarding the translation of PNs, Newmark (1988a:214) asserts that, "normally, people's first and sure names are transferred, thus preserving nationality and assuming that their names have no connotations in the text."

The procedure of transference cannot be asserted to be effective where connotations and implied meanings are significant. Indeed, there are some names in the Persian poet Sa'di's work Gulestan, which bear connotations and require a specific strategy for being translated. Newmark's (1988a:215) solution of the mentioned problem is as follows: "first translate the word that underlies the SL proper name into the TL, and then naturalize the translated word back into a new SL proper name." However, there is a shortcoming in the strategy in question. As it seems it is only useful for personal PNs, since as Newmark (1988a:215), ignoring the right of not educated readers to enjoy a translated text, states, it can be utilized merely "when the character's name is not yet current amongst an educated TL readership."

Leppihalme (1997:79) proposes another set of strategies for translating the proper name allusions:

1. Retention of the name:
1. using the name as such.
2. using the name, adding some guidance.
3. using the name, adding a detailed explanation, for instance, a footnote.
2. Replacement of the name by another:
1. replacing the name by another SL name.
2. replacing the name by a TL name


3. Omission of the name
:
1. omitting the name, but transferring the sense by other means, for instance by a common noun.
2. omitting the name and the allusion together.

Moreover, nine strategies for the translation of key-phrase allusions are proposed by Leppihalme (1997: 82) as follows:

1. Use of a standard translation,
2. Minimum change, that is, a literal translation, without regard to connotative or contextual meaning,
3. Extra allusive guidance added in the text,
4. The use of footnotes, endnotes, translator's notes and other explicit explanations not supplied in the text but explicitly given as additional information,
5. Stimulated familiarity or internal marking, that is, the addition of intra-allusive allusion ,
6. Replacement by a TL item,
7. Reduction of the allusion to sense by rephrasing,
8. Re-creation, using a fusion of techniques: creative construction of a passage which hints at the connotations of the allusion or other special effects created by it,
9. Omission of the allusion.

3. Conclusion

Although some stylists consider translation "sprinkled with footnotes" undesirable, their uses can assist the TT readers to make better judgment of the ST contents. In general, it seems that the procedures 'functional equivalent' and 'notes' would have a higher potential for conveying the concepts underlying the CSCs embedded in a text; moreover, it can be claimed that a combination of these strategies would result in a more accurate understanding of the CSCs than other procedures.

Various strategies opted for by translators in rendering allusions seem to play a crucial role in recognition and perception of connotations carried by them. If a novice translator renders a literary text without paying adequate attention to the allusions, the connotations are likely not to be transferred as a result of the translator's failure to acknowledge them. They will be entirely lost to the majority of the TL readers; consequently, the translation will be ineffective.

It seems necessary for an acceptable translation to produce the same (or at least similar) effects on the TT readers as those created by the original work on its readers. This paper may show that a translator does not appear to be successful in his challenging task of efficiently rendering the CSCs and PNs when he sacrifices, or at least minimizes, the effect of allusions in favor of preserving graphical or lexical forms of source language PNs. In other words, a competent translator is wll-advised not to deprive the TL reader of enjoying, or even recognizing, the allusions either in the name of fidelity or brevity.

It can be claimed that the best translation method seem to be the one which allows translator to utilize 'notes.' Furthermore, employing 'notes' in the translation, both as a translation strategy and a translation procedure, seems to be indispensable so that the foreign language readership could benefit from the text as much as the ST readers do.

References

Albakry, M. (2004). Linguistic and cultural issues in literary translation. Retrieved November 17, 2006 from http://accurapid.com/journal/29liter.htm

Bell, R. T. (1998). Psychological/cognitive approaches. In M. Baker (Ed), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.

Cohen, A.D. (1984). On taking tests: what the students report. Language testing, 11 (1). 70-81.

Culler, J. (1976). Structuralist poetics: structuralism, linguistics, and the study of literature. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

Graedler, A.L. (2000). Cultural shock. Retrieved December 6, 2006 from http://www.hf.uio.no/.../top7culture.html

Harvey, M. (2003). A beginner's course in legal translation: the case of culture-bound terms. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf

Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation. London & New York: Routledge.

Jaaskelainen, R., (2005). Translation studies: what are they? Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.hum.expertise.workshop.

Jaaskelainen, R., (1999). Tapping the process: an explorative study of cognitive and effective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications in Humanities.

Krings, H.P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263-75). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture bumps: an empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Loescher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation strategies. Tuebingen: Guten Narr.

Newmark, P. (1988a). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

Newmark, P. (1988b). Approaches to Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation: Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a science of translation, with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.

Richards, et al (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. UK: Longman.

Seguinot, C. (1989). The translation process. Toronto: H.G. Publications.

Venuti, L. (1998). Strategies of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 240-244). London and New York: Routledge.

Zhongying, F. (1994). An applied theory of translation. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching & Research Press.

Technical Translation

Technical translation is a type of specialized translation involving the translation of documents produced by technical writers (owner's manuals, user guides, etc.), or more specifically, texts which relate to technological subject areas or texts which deal with the practical application of scientific and technological information. While the presence of specialized terminology is a feature of technical texts, specialized terminology alone is not sufficient for classifying a text as "technical" since numerous disciplines and subjects which are not "technical" possess what can be regarded as specialized terminology.^[1] Technical translation covers the translation of many kinds of specialized texts and requires a high level of subject knowledge and mastery of the relevant terminology ^[2] and writing conventions.

The importance of consistent terminology in technical translation, for example in patents, as well as the highly formulaic and repetitive nature of technical writing makes computer-assisted translation using translation memories and terminology databases especially appropriate. In his book Technical Translation Jody Byrne argues that technical translation is closely related to technical communication and that it can benefit from research in this and other areas such as usability and cognitive psychology.^[3]

In addition to making texts with technical jargon accessible for a wider ranging audience, technical translation also involves linguistic features of translating technological texts from one language to another.^[4]

Translation as a whole is a balance of art and science influenced by both theory and practice.^[5] Having knowledge of both the linguistic features as well as the aesthetic features of translation applies directly to the field of technical translation.

2Main Issues of Translation

http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/external/clmt/mtbook/PostScript/ch6.pdf

Jakobson's Categories

Roman Osipovich Jakobson (Russian: Рома́н О́сипович Якобсо́н; October 11, 1896^[1] – July 18,^[2] 1982) was a Russian–American linguist and literary theorist.

As a pioneer of the structural analysis of language, which became the dominant trend in linguistics during the first half of the 20th century, Jakobson was among the most influential linguists of the century. Influenced by the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, Jakobson developed, with Nikolai Trubetzkoy, techniques for the analysis of sound systems in languages, inaugurating the discipline of phonology. He went on to apply the same techniques of analysis to syntax and morphology, and controversially proposed that they be extended to semantics (the study of meaning in language). He made numerous contributions to Slavic linguistics, most notably two studies of Russian case and an analysis of the categories of the Russian verb. Drawing on insights from Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotics, as well as from communication theory and cybernetics, he proposed methods for the investigation of poetry, music, the visual arts, and cinema.

Through his decisive influence on Claude Lévi-Strauss and Roland Barthes, among others, Jakobson became a pivotal figure in the adaptation of structural analysis to disciplines beyond linguistics, including anthropology and literary theory; this generalization of Saussurean methods, known as "structuralism", became a major post-war intellectual movement in Europe and the United States. Meanwhile, though the influence of structuralism declined during the 1970s, Jakobson's work has continued to receive attention in linguistic anthropology, especially through the ethnography of communication developed by Dell Hymes and the semiotics of culture developed by Jakobson's former student Michael Silverstein.

Concept of Translation

A Pragmatic Concept of Translation*

Hsiu-Hwang Ho

*¥Z©ó¡m­õ¾Ç½×µû¡n²Ä¤@´Á¡A°ê¥ß»OÆW¤j¾Ç¡A»O¥_¡A1971¦~1¤ë¡C

1.The aim of this paper

Translation is a fairly common activity known to most of us. It is an activity of rewriting a body of discourse into another body of discourse upon the condition that between the original body of discourse and the resulting one, there exists some certain sort of relationship. What exactly this relationship is, I shall try to specify in this discussion.
However, I am not going to develop a complete theory of translation. What I wish to do is this: to consider translation as a linguistic activity which can be illuminated by the theory of meaning proposed and developed by Henry S. Leonard [1],[2],[3],[4], and thereon to outline a pragmatic concept of translation.
By a body of discourse I mean a string of signs related one with the other in such a way that the whole string taken as a unit can be used to signify some purpose or purposes intended by the person who utters the string.1
In this paper, I shall propose a definition, or rule, establishing the circumstances under which one may say that one body of discourse D' is a translation of another body of discourse D. A succession of different considerations will lead to a succession of refinements of that definition.

2.Interlinguistic and intralinguistic translation
Translation may proceed within a language, or it may proceed between one language and another language. As an example of the former, we may take the activity in which we rewrite a sentence into another sentence within the same language in order to facilitate understanding; as examples of the latter, we may take those activities of rewriting one of Shakespeare's poems into its story in prose, or rewriting Heine's "Du Bist wie eine Blume" into English. He shall call the former an intralinguistic translation , and the latter, interlinguistic ones.2
It is interlinguistic translation which primarily concerns us in this paper. Yet most of what we shall have to say will also apply to intralinguistic translation.

3.A Pragmatic account of translation
Pragmatics is defined as the science of the relations between signs and sign-users. It deals with problems such as the uses or functions of language, as, for example, when we classify the uses of language into cognitive, practical and esthetic ([3] or[4], p.16).However, it has a much wider scope than this. For instance, all the following affirmations fall within the scope of pragmatics:
(a) The word 'semiotic' is not used by Aristotle.

(b) In Denmark, people say 'Glaedelig Jul' when we would say 'Merry Christmas'.

(c) In Germany, people use 'Morgenstern'to denote a star.

(d) It is (pragmatically) undetermined whether the following is a sentence: 'Today is '.

To think about translation, when we rewrite a body of discourse D into another of body discourse D', we may, and often do, have in mind one of the following considerations:

(i)While D is in a certain language l, D' is in another language l1. For example, D is in English while D' is in German. That is to say, we want to translate a string of signs in English into another string in German.

(ii)While D is a certain literary style s, D' is in another style s1. For example, D is in poetic style, while D' is in prose style. That is to say, we want to translate a poem or a line of poetry into prose or into a sentence or sentences in prose form.

(iii)While D is difficult for some people x to understand, D' is easier for x to understand. That is to say, we want to translate a body of discourse which is difficult for a certain person or group of persons to understand into another body of discourse which is easier for him or them to understand.

But there are no pragmatic rules which require that something of this sort must be fulfilled in order that discourse D' may be called a translation of discourse D. For example, it is not always the case that we translate a string of signs more difficult for certain person(s) to understand into one easier for him (them). It could well be the reverse. We may on some occasions try to translate a paragraph easier for certain person(s) into one more difficult for him (them). Notably in war time's military correspondence, we try to send a code message instead of a message written in a plain language. In this case, we translate a paragraph (e.g., in English) which is more easily understandable for certain persons, namely, the enemies, into another for them more difficult one. Similar remarks hold for the other pragmatic considerations listed above.

There are, the several pragmatic considerations which are commonly practised but are not inviolable from a logical point of view. However, we can formulate a pragmatic rule which may not be violated in translation. As a preliminary formulation of this rule, we put down the following:

R1. A discourse D' is said to be a translation of another discourse D if and only if utterances of D' and of D would serve the same purpose or purposes.

In other words, D' is a translation of D if and only if they both exhibit the same use(s) or function(s) of language. For example, if an utterance of D would constitute a cognitive use of language, one of D' must also constitute a cognitive use; if one of D would constitute an esthetic use, one of D' must do likewise.

In connection with R1, I find Leonard's analysis of "purpose" into a concern and a topic of concern turns out to be especially illuminating. According to Leonard, an expression may be said to express a person's concern, it indicates his topic or concern, and we also say that it signifies his purpose. Expression, indication and signification are therefore said to be three different modes of meaning.3 In the light of this analysis, we may reformulate R1 as follows.

R1a. A discourse D' is a translation of another discourse D if and only if an utterance of D' and one of D would express the same concern(s) and indicate the same topic(s) of concern, i.e., if and only if they would signify the same purpose(s).

Two features of formulation R1a should be noticed. Each is a feature which will eventually necessitate some reformulation. (1) R1a is elliptical in two respects: it does not mention the languages, ,l1 and l, in which D' and D are framed. Neither does it refer the mentioned purposes to the presumed author of the original discourse D. The resulting discourse D' must be able to serve the same purpose(s) as the author of D intended to serve and to signify by his utterance of D.(2) R1a is so framed as to allow that both D' and D signify a multiplicity of purposes. The formulation suggests that all purposes that utterances of either one would signifies must be signified by utterances of the other. But surely this is too strong a demand.

Let us first attend to this second difficulty.

4.Essential purposes

In discussing purpose, Leonard makes some suggestive distinctions.4For example, he notes that a person may have many purposes in mind in the performance of a single action. Of these purposes, some may be said to be primary, others secondary; that is, some may be the main things that he want to accomplish, others, the minor things. Again, some purposes may be (relatively) immediate, others (relatively) remote; that is , some may be things that he wants to accomplish right away, others, after a while. Further, one purpose of an action may be said to be subservient to another purpose of the same action: purposed as a means to accomplish the other. Or the two may be said to be independent: that is, neither is purposed as a means to, or in order to accomplish, the other.

This analysis has a special significance to our pragmatic account of translation. For example, a body of discourse may signify more than one purpose of its author, but the signified purposes may not be of equal weight. In doing translation, the primary purposes(s) intended in the original discourse must be preserved as primary in the resulting discourse, while the secondary purpose(s) may or may not be changed or sacrificed according to the insight that a translator has when he considers in what way he can best signify in the translation the author's original primary purpose(s).

In short, a translator must distinguish between tolerably sacrificable purposes and essential (i.e., not tolerably sacrificable) purposes signified by a body of discourse D, and R1a must be modified so as to demand of the translation D' that it signify all of the essential purposes of D.

R1b. A discourse D' is a translation of another discourse D if and only if utterances of D' and of D would signify the same essential purposes.

The next few sections of this paper are concerned with some questions relative to the distinction between tolerably sacrificable and essentials purposes.

5.Subservient discourse

It seems of great illustrative to observe that one body of discourse may be subservient to another. Let us call the former a subservient body of discourse, or simply a subservient discourse; and call the latter a principal body of discourse, or simply a principle discourse.5 Among the various kinds of subservient discourse, there is a special kind that deserves our attention. I have in mind an exemplification. A body of discourse D1 exemplifies another body of discourse D if D1 designates a special case of what is said in D in order to help establish or clarify or facilitate the understanding of what is said in D. In this case, what primarily concerns the author of D1 is D rather than D1 itself.

For example, in ¡±15.1 of his Principles ([3]or [4]), Leonard begins the discussion with the following two paragraphs:

(A)¡qE How many figures appear in figure 5, below? It depends on what the word "figures" means. If "figures" means "shapes", then the correct answer is: two, a triangular shape and a rectangular shape. But if "figures" means "drawings", the correct answer is: three, the left-hand one, the middle one, and the right-hand one.¡r6

(B)¡qE The above question illustrates a kind of ambiguity that is liable to attach to all sorts of words used in dealing with language. Among these possibly ambiguous words are "letter", "word", "phrase", "expression", "sentence", and "sign". For example , one might ask, how many words appear in the first paragraph(A) of this section? The correct answer depends on what is meant by "word". If "words" means "dictionary words", then the correct answer is thirty-four. But if "words" means "printings of words", then the correct answer is fifty-four.¡r

The ending sentences of paragraph (B), beginning with 'For example,' may be said to be a subservient discourse with respect to the preceding sentences of that same paragraph. The former help to male the latter understood.

Suppose, now, we translate these two paragraphs (A) and (B) into another language, say, German. It could well be the case that the German translation (A') of the first paragraph contains not thirty-four dictionary words and fifty-four printings of words but rather twenty-eight dictionary words and forty-one printings of words. Now, in order to translate the second paragraph (B) into German (B'), we could not directly say that there are vier-und-dreissig dictionary words and vier-und-funfzig printings of words in the previous paragraph. We should say instead that there are acht-und-zwznzig dictionary words and ein-und-vierzig printings of words in that previous paragraph. In short, sub-discourse

(1)¡qE If "words" means "dictionary words", then the correct answer is thirty-four. But if "words" means "printings of words", then the correct answer is fifty-four.¡ris not synonynmous in any degree of strength with its translation

(2)¡qG If "words" means "dictionary words", then the correct answer is twenty-eight. But if "words" means "printings of words", then the correct answer is forty-one.¡r7

This example serves to point out that translation is not necessarily a synonymy-preserving mapping between two bodies of discourse, as is commonly and common-sensically assumed or understood to be the case. It is, however, not difficult to realize that sub-discourse (2) as occurring in discourse (B') with respect to (A') in German serves the same essential purpose(s) as sub-discourse (1) as occurring in discourse (B) with respect to (A) in English. In other words, they serve essentially the same illustrative purpose with respect to their previous paragraphs. Hence, we can say in conformity with R1b that translation is an essential purpose-preserving mapping between two bodies of discourse.

6.A counter-example to the pragmatic theory of meaning

Here we seem to face a problem. That is, we may throw a doubt upon the claim that pragmatic considerations can provide a sufficient condition for a theory of meaning. According to this theory, meaning (of a deliberate sign) is defined in terms of pragmatic characterization. A body of discourse has such a meaning (or, such and such meanings) if it serves for a certain author to accomplish thus and thus a purpose (or, thus and thus purposes). And two bodies of discourse have exactly the same meaning(s) if and only if they serve exactly the same purpose(s). But now we seem to encounter a counter example. While (1)in English and (2) in German serve essentially the same purpose(s), they, nevertheless, have different meanings.

In view of the problem resulting from the translation of (A) and (B) into (A') and (B') above, we may ask the question what makes the translation under consideration become not a synonymy-preserving mapping? It is obvious that (A) and (B) are on different language levels, and when we make a translation for (A) and (B) into (A') and (B') respectively, then (B') is not talking exactly about the same object as (B) is, although (B') is connected with (A') in exactly the same way as (B) is to (A). This observation may suggest people to think that our counter-example to the pragmatic theory of meaning is nothing but apparent, or rather it is only a very special case. For example, we can avoid the above difficulty if Leonard writes the following (C) instead of (B) above.

(C)¡qE¡KFor example, one might ask: How many words appear in the first paragraph of this section? The correct answer depends on what is meant by "words". If "words" means "dictionary words", then we get one answer; but if "words" means "printings of words", then we get another answer¡KI leave it to the readers to count out the exact number for each of the two answers.¡r

Then, the difficulty seems to disappear. But it would seem more appropriate to say that in this special case, the difficulty is suppressed rather than disappearing, because it always has the danger that the difficulty may in some situation or other reappear and come up onto the surface.

Because of this difficulty, people may tend to make a proposal to the effect that in a theory of translation let the language-level distinction be taken into consideration. They may even propose to say that if we have two bodies of discourse D1 and D2, D2 taking D1 as its subject-matter, then in our translation D1' and D'2, we shall not call D'2 a translation of D2, but rather that D'2 is an explication or illustration or something of this sort to D1' in view of D2. Take our previous example, (B') in German will not be said to be a translation of (B) in English, but an illustration of (A') in view of (B). But in practice this amounts to the fact that we translate (B) into (B') with the necessary corrections or amendments in the light of (A'). Therefore, it seems to me that we can call (B') a translation of (B) in the light of (A') as well.

In case we rewrite D2 into D'2 without a radical change of the content of D2, it seems without any harm at all to think that the one is a translation of the other. For instance, in (C) and (C') above, we make no change as to the content of (C) in (C'), (C') can be said to be a translation of C, despite the fact that (C') is talking about (A') rather than about (A) , which (C) is talking about. However, I am also inclined to think of (B') in our example as a translation of (B) although in (B') we did make some substantial changes in the content of (B), namely, we change "thirty-four" into "twenty-eight", and "fifty-four" into "forty-one".

7.Other examples of non-synonymous translation

There are cases of translation in which we make a radical change in resulting body of discourse with respect to the content of the original body of discourse. For example, if Quine lectures at Harvard University to make a distinction between the use and mention of a linguistic expression, he may say something as follows:

(3)¡qE¡Kas we know very well that Boston is a big city, but 'Boston' is a six-lettered word.¡r
Now, suppose a Japanese translator wants to translate (3) into the Japanese language, he might render it in this way:

(4)¡qJ¡Kas we know very well that Tokyo is a big city, but 'Tokyo' is a two-word phrase.¡r8 He does this because in the Japanese language there is no way to talk about the alphabetical letters comparable to that in English.

There might be people who would like to think that (4) is not a translation of (3), but, rather, that if (3) is subservient to, say, D, (4) to D'9 , then (4) is an illustration of D. The main reason for refusing to call (4) a translation of (3) is that (4) and (3) talk about entirely different terms, one about the city Boston and the word 'Boston', and the other about the city Tokyo and the phrase¡qJ 'Tokyo'¡r. But since (4) serves the same essential purposes as (3), R1b would justify our calling (4) a translation of (3).

8.Hypothetical intention

We have followed Leonard in saying that to ask what an utterance means as a deliberate sign is to ask what its speaker was intending to accomplish by making that utterance. Now, in talking about translation we need to make a minor change in the above affirmation. Let us say that to ask what purpose(s) a body of discourse, as a string of deliberate signs, serves to single out is to ask what its author would be intending if he should make that body of discourse.

To take the example of Quine's lecturing in Japan, what we claim is the following. If he should go to give a lecture in the Japanese language at Tokyo University, in making a distinction between the use and the mention of an expression, it is very likely that he would take Tokyo (and¡qJ 'Tokyo'¡r) rather than Boston (and 'Boston') as an example. Hence when we translate (3) in English to (4) in Japanese, although these two strings of signs are not synonymous, they can, nevertheless, serve essentially the same purpose(s).It is true that there may be more than one, or even many, bodies of discourse other than (4) in Japanese which can be used to serve the same purpose(s). But our point is to think of the translator as being able in one way or another to look into the mind of the original author., and discover what he would be most likely to say or to write under that context in question. If Quine should lecture in the Japanese language at Tokyo University, he would probably take Tokyo as an example; if he should lecture in the Chinese language at National Taiwan University, he would probably take Formosa or Taipei as an example. Although we do not possess any way by which we can effectively say exactly what body of discourse an author would be likely to use of he should write or speak in a certain circumstance, nevertheless, we must choose a string of signs which can do essentially the same job as the author's original string of signs. That is to say, these two bodies of discourse must be able to serve essentially the same purpose(s) as we defined above. If we say that a body of discourse D uttered by an author serves to signify the purpose(s) intended by him, then let us say that a translation D' of D signifies the purpose(s) hypothetically intended by the original author.

Now, we may write our pragmatic rule for translation as the following:

R1c. A body of discourse D' is a translation of another body of discourse D if and only if D' signifies the purpose(s) hypothetically intended by the author of D while D signifies the purpose(s) intended by him.

9.Linguistically dependent elements and translatability

We have so far exhibited that in the case of subservient discourse there may be purpose-preserving but not synonymy-preserving translation. And furthermore, we have extended the notion of purpose to cover those case in which the so-called hypothetical intention is involved. However, these are not the only cases in which translation preserves purpose but does not preserve synonymy. The reason that we take those subservient discourses into consideration is that in that circumstance we are able to determine more easily what purpose may be intended or hypothetically intended by an author in uttering a string of signs. We do this simply by referring to the discourse to which this one is subservient. But how about a string of signs which is not apparently subservient to any other string of signs in a particular context? The situation, I think, is similar.

In order to see the purpose-preserving but not synonymy-preserving translation more convincingly, let us take an example from the emotive use of language. Suppose in a certain nlaguag l, the sentence

(5)¡ql He is a pig.¡r
has a very bad derogatory implication, but the sentence

(6)¡ql He is a dog.¡r
has little or even no emotive association at all. Suppose, further, that in another language l1, the reverse is the case, that is

(6')¡ql1 He is a dog.¡r
has derogatory implication, while

(5')¡ql1 He is a pig.¡r
has little or none at all, Now in order to translate (5) in l into another sentence in l1, I would think that we translate it into (6') rather than into (5'). Because if we translate (5) into (5'), then, it may read somehow like

(7) He is maximally satisfiable class of wffs. which makes little sense in that context in l1.

As we may have suggested above, the translation of any body of discourse which talks about something that is at-least-in-part dependent on the linguistic element creates the difficulty we are talking in this paper. But this does not necessarily create an unconquerable task as we showed above. In some cases, however, we may not be quite sure exactly how much we can do. For instance, ambiguity is something which is associated with linguistic elements. We may have an ambiguous expression in this language but no equivalent expression in another language. In case we want to make use of the very fact of ambiguity in a string of signs N, we can hardly find a legitimate translation N', in another language in which no string of signs has the corresponding ambiguity. The following is an example. A British or an American student who is puzzled by philosophy may utter something like this:

(S)¡qE What is mind? no matter; what is matter? never mind.¡r
This string if signs says something which conjoins in one way or another the following two strings:

(S1) No matter what mind is; and never mind what matter is. And

(S2) What is mind is not matter, and what is matter is not mind.
But neither (S1) nor (S2) taken separately signifies what (S) signifies. The interesting point here lies in the fact that in (S) the author artfully uses the ambiguity associated with words like 'no matter' and 'never mind' not occurring isolatedly but within that context. If in trying to translate (S) into another language, say, Chinese, we may not have the same ambiguity associated with the corresponding words. Or to put it in another way, we may translate (S1) into a certain (S'1) and (S2) into a certain (S'2) without any difficulty, but (S'1) and (S'2) cannot be conjoined into an (S') in the same way in which (S) had been done. Therefore, what can be signified by (S) may not be signified by (S'). That is to say, (S) and (S') may not signify the same purpose. Hence (S') is not a translation of (S).

But how about the following possibility? Suppose that instead of 'no matter' and 'never mind' in Chinese, we have 'no Y' and 'never Z' which mean "no matter" and "never mind" respectively. But when we take 'Y'and 'Z' isolatedly, they mean "analytic" and "synthetic" respectively. Consider the following sentence:

(S")¡qc What is z, no Y; what is Y, never Z.¡r
I would say that this could signify the purpose (s) hypothetically intended by the author of (S). That is to say, if the author is to utter in the Chinese what is said in (S), he will say (S") rather than something else. Hence, according to our R1c, (S") is a legitimate translation of (S). This is not synonymy-preserving, but it is purpose-preserving.

At this point, we may raise the question: Is there, then, anything which is not translatable? The answer seems to me in the positive. Actually, the example we just gave is entirely fictitious. In the Chinese language there is no way to render (S), even approximately, as we suggested above.

Another example is this. If we want to make use of the ambiguity in¡up v q v r¡vwritten in so-called standard notation, there is no way to render it into Polish notation and still preserve the ambiguity therein.

10.Culturo-historical aspect of a state of affairs

We may have, so far, created an impression that the problem of translation we are dealing with comes from the fact that different language possess different peculiarities. But it is rather difficult to say to what extent the relevant peculiarities are exclusively linguistic. For example, we might be inclined to think that we may translate a string of signs in the language used by this group into another string of signs in another language used by another group. But this statement is not clear in many respects.

For example, in the island of Tahiti young people of the opposite sex express their affection not by touching their lips, buy by touching their noses. Let us call it nunu. Now, suppose a line of a poem written by a Tahitian poet t run somewhat as follows.

(T)¡qT Romeo nunus Juliet gently without a word of sorrow.¡r
when we try to translate (T) into English, we may have a misgiving as wheher to render it into

(T')¡qE Romeo kisses Juliet gently without a word of sorrow.¡r
or not. We cannot translate (T) into, e.g.,

(T")¡qE Romeo presses his nose on Juliet's gently without a word of sorrow.¡r
because the phrase 'presses his nose on' in English does not carry the impression of expressing his affection. Of course, the simplest and commonest way to do this is to transplant the word "nunu", perhaps written in italic, into the vocabulary of English. But this is not a translation between the Tahitian language and English. It involves the enlargement of English vocabulary by transplanting the word 'nunu' before we carry out the translation.

In this case, the difficulty seems to lie in the fact that between these two groups of people, namely, the Tahitians and, say, the Americans there is no common state of affairs at that point. Although pressing of lips and pressing of noses taken physically are, or could be, state of affairs common to them; but when taken otherwise, usually culturo-historically, this is not the case.

This example, I hope, may help indicate the following claim. That we should not think of the so-called states of affairs as absolutely independent of the culturo-historical background of a certain group of people. States of affairs are construed via the employment of language. This makes a state of affairs being talkable or enumerable and what not. But the very act of construing a state of affairs via the use of language casts a cultural veil over it. Therefore, I would think that a state of affairs is not purely physical, it is also in a sense cultural.

However, this is not to be taken as implying that we cannot isolate the purely physical aspect of a state of affairs, e.g. pressing noses, from the culturo-historical aspect of it, e.g., expressing affection by pressing noses. What we claim here is that in calling a certain state of affairs, say pressing noses, by a certain name, say, nunu, we already subsume the state of affairs under our cultural casting. And different cultural groups may construe a state of affairs in quite different ways.

11.Unit of translation and equi-legitimate translations

In doing translation, we proceed by rewriting a body of discourse into another body of discourse. Now a question may be raised as to how large a body of discourse we must take as a unit to do translation. Do we translate word by word, or do we translate sentence by sentence, or even paragraph by paragraph, and so on? There are people, notably Mates ([5],p.112), who affirm that the unit of translation is arbitrary to the extent that the translator thinks which way will produce the most satisfactory result. Hence, the unit of translation may be a word, it may be a sentence, or, it may be a paragraph, and so on. Although this affirmation does not conflict with the position we take here, however, we can have a more definite answer. Since we have a pragmatic concept of translation, or more specifically, since we affirm that translation is a purpose-reserving mapping between a body of discourse and another body of discourse, and since the purpose intended by the author can only be conveyed successfully through the use of a sentence or a sentence equivalent, we can conclude that it is a sentence or a sentence equivalent that is the simplest unit of translation. However, as can be inferred from what we have said so far, we frequently take into account , or make reference to, other more extensive units, such as a sub-paragraph consisting of several sentences or a whole paragraph, or, sometimes, even several paragraphs. This is especially the case when we try to determine the purpose or purposes hypothetically intended by an author.

When we talk about translating a body of discourse D into another body of discourse D', we call D' a translation of D rather than the translation of D. We do this because it often happens that between two different languages, for a certain body of discourse in one language, there may be more than one body of discourse in the other language purpose-preservingly corresponding to it. Generally speaking, to a certain body of discourse D in l, there may be D'1, D'2, D'3,...,D'n (n¡Ù1) in l1 corresponding to it as legitimate translations. Let£Fbe a set consisting of all the D'1 to D'n, then we may call every member D'I(i¡Øn) of£F an equi-legitimate translation to another member D'j (j¡Øn and j¡Úi) of£F.Or in other words, we may simply call any member D'I of£Fone of the equi-legitimate translations of D.

However, in saying that D'i and D'j are two equi-legitimate translations of D according to the above definition, we are not saying that D'i and D'j are equivalent in the sense that they preserve exactly the same purposes intended in D in exactly the same manner. That is, every single purpose intended in D which is preserved by D'i is at the same time preserved by D' j in the same way, and vice versa. It may well be the case that there are some (non-essential) purpose(s) preserved by D'i but not preserved by D'j , or some purpose(s) preserved by D'j but not by D'i.But we do claim that they must preserve essentially the same purpose(s), i.e., those unsacrificable purpose(s), which is (are) intended or hypothetically intended by the author of D, in order to be the members of£F. In short, each member D'i of£Fshould thus preserve the purpose(s) of D in order to be a translation of D at all.

12.Full and partial translation and grades of translation

Along with the line of reasoning given in this paper, we can distinguish between a full translation and a partial translation of a body of discourse in the following way. Let D be the original body of discourse, p1, p2, p3,...pk (k¡Ù1) be the unsacrificable purposes intended by its author in D, and D' be a translation of D. Suppose that D' preserves every item of p1 to pk, then D'is a full translation of D; otherwise, if D preserves at least one but not all of p1 to pk, then it is a partial translation of D. Hence we can establish the notion of the degrees or the grades of translation.

This analysis is especially helpful when we deal with a body f discourse which is intentionally ambiguous, i.e., with more than one unsacrificable purpose intended in it.

But the distinction between a full and a partial translation is always relative according as what a series of purposes the author of a body of discourse will count as essential or unsacrificable. For example, in section 9 of this paper, (S")can be a full or a partial translation of (S) depending upon how many purposes the author of (S) will count as essential. But neither (S1) nor (S2) will be a partial translation, let alone a full translation, of (S) as it is taken conventionally.

References

1.Leonard, Henry S. "Authorship and Purpose"Philosophy of Science, vol.26, no.4 (1959), pp.277-294.
2.______ "Interrogatives, Imperatives, Truth, Falsity and Lies."Philosophy of Science. vol.26, no.3 (1959). Pp.172-186.
3.______ Principles of Reasoning. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 1967. Revised edition of [4].
4.______Principles of Right Reason. Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1957.
5.______ "Synonymy and Systematic Definition." The Monist. vol, 51, no.1 (1967)
6.Mates, Benson. "Synonymity." In Linsky, L., Semantics and the Philosophy of Language. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1952, pp111-136.

Hsiu-Hwang Ho

Stanislaus State College


*The author wishes to dedicate this article to the late Professor Henry S. Leonard, and thereby to express his indebtness to him. Professor Leonard read two earlier versions of this paper and expressed some invaluable criticism. However, not every point he discussed is fully accommodated in the present version. Hence, the author alone is responsible for the inadequacies or mistakes that may be found in it.
The paper was written in 1968 and then was read at the philosophical club of Michigan State University.

1.Cf.[3] or [4], ¡±¡±14.3-14.6

2.For a definition of a language, see [5].

3.Cf.[3] or [4],. ¡±¡±14.3-14.6; also [2], pp.175-181.

4.Cf. [3] or [4], unit12, [2],pp.175-177, and [1], pp.278-283.

5.This distinction is made in a relative sense.

6.I use '¡ql...¡r'to indicate that '...'is written in language l. And I use 'E', 'G', 'C', 'J', and 'T' to stand for English, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Tahitian, respectively.

7.On strength of synonymy, see[5], ¡±9.

8.In Japan, people write the name of Tokyo as 'ªF¨Ê' which consists of two words.

9.We do not specify D here, but it may be thought of as a paragraph talking about the use-mention distinction. And D' here being a translation of D.

What is Translation Studies?

Translation studies is an academic interdiscipline dealing with the systematic study of the theory, description and application of translation, interpreting, and localization. As an interdiscipline, translation studies borrows much from the various fields of study that support translation. These include comparative literature, computer science, history, linguistics, philology, philosophy, semiotics, and terminology.

The term translation studies was coined by the Amsterdam-based American scholar James S Holmes in his paper "The name and nature of translation studies",^[1] which is considered a foundational statement for the discipline.^[2] In English, writers occasionally use the term translatology to refer to translation studies.

Holmes & Toury Map

Holmes & Toury Map

دریافت
عنوان:   Holmes & Toury map and Main Issues of Translation Studies
حجم: 1.13 مگابایت

  همون main issues of translation studies

Main Issues of Translation Studies

دریافت
عنوان: Main Issues of Translation Studies
حجم: 1.13 مگابایت
توضیحات: Main Issues of Translation Studies

Recent MT Programs

Machine Translation Evaluation

Summary:

The Multimodal Information Group's machine translation (MT) program includes several activities contributing to machine translation technology and metrology advancements, primarily through systematic and targeted annual evaluations.

Since 2002, the Multimodal Information Group has coordinated evaluations of text-to-text MT technology through our OpenMT series. NIST-led open evaluations such as OpenMT provides a test bed for experimentation of evaluation techniques that may then be applied to sponsored MT technology evaluations. Similarly, NIST's Metrics for Machine Translation Challenge (MetricsMaTr) provides a forum to research and promote innovative techniques that advance the measurement sciences used in MT evaluations. Participation in these open evaluation activities is open to all researchers that find the tasks of interest and are able to abide by the particular evaluation's task protocols and rules.

NIST also organizes and implements evaluations for sponsored programs that focus on specific aspects of MT, such as the DARPA BOLT and DARPA MADCAT programs.

Description:

Current MT technology evaluation activities:

• OpenMT: A biannual NIST evaluation of text-to-text MT technology. Focus is placed on the core task of MT technology where information learned is applicable to other MT technology types.
  • Recent/current activities
  • Past activities and results
• MADCAT: The Multilingual Automatic Document Classification Analysis and Translation program is a DARPA-sponsored program to evaluate technologies that translate Arabic document images into English text. NIST evaluates the overall system as well as the major components (OCR and MT) of the system.
  • Recent/current activities
  • Past activities and results
• OpenHaRT: The NIST Handwriting Recognition and Translation evaluation focuses on evaluating technologies that contribute to document understanding with emphasis on core tasks such as recognition and translation.
  • Recent/current activities
  • Past activities and results
• BOLT: The Broad Operational Language Translation evaluation is a DARPA-sponsored program to evaluate technologies that translate and extract information as well as facilitate bilingual communication.
  • Recent/current activities

Current MT metrology evaluation activities:

• MetricsMaTr: A biannual evaluation of MT metrology. Focus is placed on the improvement of automated measurement techniques of MT technology, specifically towards providing insight into the quality of a translation.
  • Recent/current activities
  • Past activities and results
• MFLTS: This activity is sponsored by the US Army Machine Foreign Language Translation System program. NIST chairs the Metrics-IPT whose task is to develop a new metric that is grounded to the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) rating system Metrics-IPT working group.

Past MT evaluation activities:

TRANSTAC: The Spoken Language Communication and Translation System for Tactic

Translational Tool

شرح مفصل:

The collection of human tissue samples (cells and bodily fluids) in tissue banks has sparked a vivid discussion both among the lay public and the biomedical community. This special issue of Pathobiology brings together expert opinions about the legal, ethical, epidemiological and biomedical aspects of tissue banking. It presents the views of patients/donors and researchers on how best to proceed with tissue banks in an international context, and describes several European experiences in detail. Concise and up-to-date, it is recommended reading to all who wish to find out more about tissue banks.