Translation Theories.pdf

Meaning: A translator's view of how the concept of meaning could be
best conceived and defined for the trade
This paper has been encouraged by the publication of Maite Aragonés Lumeras:
Meaning: The Philosopher’s Stone of the Alchemist Translator (Translation Journal,
Volume 12, No. 3 July 2008 http://translationjournal.net/journal/45meaning.htm). She
seems to be brave enough to raise the issue of the definition of meaning in a context
where even theoretical and applied linguists fail to provide a decent definition of the
term. For instance, a prominent professor of Linguistics in Hungary 1 has only this to say:
„meaning (sense) is a relational term...". Whereas the term itself „relational" never gets
defined elsewhere, and I am not surprised.
But I am pleasantly surprised at reading Lumeras's statement that in some areas of
study the importance of contextualizing texts is recognized, and „meaning is not content
any more, but is relativized, negotiated and remodeled according to external factors...
etc."
We do not translate a
word, but the longest sequence
or cluster of words that makes
sense when checked against
two realities, in L1 and L2.
I totally agree with her in defining meaning as a twopart
entity (on each side of an equation formula): first as a
phrase as written down or said, and second, as the context
(taken in its widest sense) of reality sufficiently detailed to
identify whatever is referenced or unambiguously defined
by that phrase. Obviously, the less you know, the more
explicit (additional written or oral) references you have to be given of anything to be
identified or described, and vice versa, always keeping in mind that you are helped to
grasp the meaning as far as it is complemented by the availability of a or the context. Man
is a meaning-seeking animal, so he will also seek meaning where meaning is not obvious
or is hidden, allowing that meaning is not a property of texts only. Meaning is something
more general; it can be attributed to natural phenomena, pictures, sounds and anything
that may have relevance to the human condition and intentions. Hence the provision of a
definition of meaning is not the privilege of linguistics, but should be a shared product of
psychologists, philosophers and other scholars to name just a few. Recently, ICT and AI
scientists (including ontologists) have had a good say about the possible and widely
acceptable variations of meaning, which should also be considered and tried. Ontologists
are engaged in defining the meaning of various knowledge domains and they produce
what they call semantic nets, various repertories of concepts with some graphic
representations of the relations between them.
Yet the most common repertory of meaning limited to that of a word only is
usually a dictionary of some kind. I am not going to evaluate dictionaries here; I will only
risk one important remark: the fact that the core of most dictionaries is a headword is a
serious drawback to the further development of knowledge in linguistics and translation
technology. The association between one word and a string of other words taken as
The Translation Theories: From History to Procedures
Edited by Zainurrahman
Source: Personal Journal of Philosophy of Language and Education
(http://zainurrahmans.wordpress.com) 85