Jakobson proposed a three-way distinction between intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation. How does this broader framework inform our understanding of 'translation proper'?

University Degree European Languages, Literature and related subjects

Jakobson proposed a three-way distinction between intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation. How does this broader framework inform our understanding of ‘translation proper’?

Translators frequently encounter the notion of equivalence in their work, insofar as they are expected to be able to map one semantic notion in one language onto the same semantic notion in another language and somehow come up with an equivalent word or phrase, even when that elusive ‘equivalent word or phrase’ may not even exist. This is considered by some to be problematic, and those who work on translation theory have put forward various possible frameworks that may at least partly form a solution.

Roman Jakobson, one of the most prominent linguists of the 20th century, was no exception in this endeavour, and in the 1950s he attempted to ‘recategorise’ types of translation in order to somewhat ease the burden on the translator. This paper will therefore explore what these definitions are, how they are helpful and how they can aid understanding of ‘translation proper’ by way of a broader framework.

To begin with, Roman Jakobson points out that translation can take place even within a language, by way of the choice of different synonyms available to the user of the language (e.g. we can say ‘bachelor’ or ‘unmarried man’), and that when we translate, we are either translating from one language into other signs of the same language, into another language, or into another non-verbal system of symbols. He outlines these three systems by giving them quite distinctive names: interlingual, intralingual, and intersemiotic translation. Intralingual translation (translation within a language, or rewording) poses a problem straight away in that synonymy is by definition not completely equivalent, as a synonym often only partly expresses what is meant originally and may not apply in all cases.

Equally, Jakobson acknowledges that even in interlingual translation total equivalence is largely impossible, even with a larger pool of words from which one can choose. However, he concedes that a comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual translatability, and this is probably the philosophy of translation with which most interested parties are familiar. Finally, Jakobson refers to intersemiotic translation as transmutation, whereby verbal signs are interpreted through signs of nonverbal sign systems (a good example probably lies in how children are taught to tell the time: they are shown a clock with the large hand pointing at 12 and the smaller hand pointing at 6, and are told that it ‘says’ six o’clock).

However, Jakobson’s treatment of these three distinctions is only brief and superficial, and it can be difficult to tell how these three distinctions fit into a broader framework and how they can inform our wider understanding of interlingual translation, or ‘translation proper’. Normally, as Wolfram Wilss reminds us, communication is monolingual; the message (M) is transported from S (the sender) to R (the receiver), with both interlocutors using the same lexical inventory of expressions and the same system of syntactico-syntagmatic rules, as follows:

encoding ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

encoding decoding

In contrast to this, the interlingual system of communication presents a more complex structure, whereby linguistic communication is not limited to a single encoding and decoding process, but rather calls for two alternating processes of encoding and decoding [Wilss, 55], in a model that could be expressed in the following way:

Decoding SL Encoding TL

So given the already much complicated nature of interlingual communication as compared to monolingual communication, how far can Jakobson’s tripartite system really ease this complexity? The first hurdle comes with the notion of word-by-word translation, to an extent associated with intralingual translations. The idea of there being exact equivalence in translation has already shown that not only is there not a precise lexical equivalent for every word in every language, this is also the main problem encountered during experiments with machine translation. Machine translation systems not only cannot distinguish the subtle differences between synonyms, but they also have problems with homonyms. This can also lead to syntactic problems (e.g. machine translation systems often make mistakes such as flagging que que as a grammatically sound construction) and semantic problems (especially when people or places are involved – the machine translation system only has access to a ‘dictionary’ type resource, and not to an encyclopaedic type resource). Given that intralingual translation, or word-by-word translation, is fraught with problems even within one language, any benefits that it could bring to interlingual translation are (it seems) minimal at best, and still stand to present difficulties. The only positive change that immediately comes to mind would be the introduction of loanwords and calques in order to compensate for non-existent words; however, this is more a by-product and a solution to the problem of a lack of equivalent words, rather than being a benefit in itself.

Another possible stumbling block with Jakobson’s tripartite theory is that the three distinctions could be viewed as being too contextually disparate to successfully map onto one another. Intersemiotic translation, for example, is used in very specific contexts and is not easily compatible with interlingual translation; equally, trying to map word-to-word translation (intralingual) onto interlingual translation (which seems more phrase-focused) could lead to a clunky translation that isn’t easily readable. Equally, it is important to consider whether we are referring to oral translation, written translation, or both, when contemplating these three prongs of the translation fork: translation could be considered a textual event while interpreting could be considered an oral one. It could therefore be argued that all three forms of translation suggested by Jakobson need to be considered differently with both forms of translation or interpretation (particularly seeing as the oral interpreter will often only get one chance to interpret, whereas a translator of written texts can return to their written text, dictionary and encyclopaedia as often as is needed).

Umberto Eco, however, refers to the possibility of translation as “a species of interpretation”, in his collection of lectures, Mouse or Rat?. I personally, however, feel that this statement is too sweeping in light of the oral vs. written distinction made above. However, Eco also goes on to debunk Jakobson’s idea of intralingual translation as being invalid, by using a thesaurus to translate a Shakespearean passage in English, with amusing results, as demonstrated using this one example of the scene where Hamlet kills Polonius:

“GERTRUDE: What wilt thou do? Thou wilt not murder me? Help, help, ho!”

POLONIUS (behind): What, ho! Help, help, help!

HAMLET (drawing): How now! A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!

Makes a pass through the arras

POLONIUS (behind): O, I am slain!

Falls and dies”

…which, with the use of synonyms and alternative definitions, becomes this:

“GERTRUDE: What wilt thou make or cause, to perform or carry out? Thou wilt not kill me unlawfully and with malice! Assistance, assistance, ho!

POLONIUS (on the side opposite to front): What, ho! Assistance! Assistance! Assistance!

HAMLET (pulling out, removing, extracting, as a cork, a tooth, a sword): How now! Any of several kinds of black, brown or grey, long-tailed rodents, resembling, but larger than, the mouse? No longer living, for a coin of silver, no longer living!

Makes a pass through the tapestry

POLONIUS (on the side of the tapestry opposite to front): O, I am killed by violence!

Comes down by the force of gravity and comes to an end”

…and this:

“GERTRUDE: What wilt thou cook? Thou wilt not remove me from life? Do a favour, do a favour, ho!

POLONIUS (back to back): What, ho! Do a favour, do a favour, do a favour!

HAMLET (Phlebotomising): How now! A bad person? Deceased, for a napoleon, deceased!

Makes a stab through the tapestry

POLONIUS (back to back): O, I am put out of the way!

Descends and is burned out”

Consequently, the potential farce of intralingual translation is shown, and further weakens the notion that this method could be used legitimately and regularly.

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference', on the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum'.

Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes' [233]. Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions' [234]. Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT. He therefore does not provide a clear answer on this issue, and still speaks of all three notions of translation rather separately, rather than as a cohesive entity.

While all three translation methodologies are valid, I feel that the extent to which they can work together and form a successful translation is limited, except perhaps in the case of ekphrasis, whereby a poem is translated or transposed into prose (for example) and thus combines inter/intralingual translation with intersemiotic translation. Another example where two of the three could work together lies in the problematic field of machine translation, whereby further investigation into intralingual translation (with synonyms) could be used to improve the interlingual translation functions of these machine-based systems long-term.

However, I believe that these examples are merely exceptions. The legitimacy of all three approaches is not to be disputed; nevertheless, it may be more profitable and less confusing to keep them apart, and allow them to only meet on occasion. Interlingual translation is extremely strong on its own, and while it can benefit from the other approaches, and the broader framework can inform our wider understanding, interlingual translation appears to work better on a phrase-by-phrase level, rather than on a purely lexical or purely semiotic level.

Works cited

Eco, U., Mouse or Rat?: Translation As Negotiation, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, 2003

Jakobson, R., “On Linguistic Aspects Of Translation”, in Brower, R. A. (ed.), On Translation, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 232-239

Wilss, W., The science of translation : problems and methods, Tübingen:Narr, 1982

Works consulted

Chesterton, A., and Wagner, E., Can Theory Help Translators?: A Dialogue Between The Ivory Tower and the Wordface, St Jerome Publishing, 2002

Ranganathan, S., “Philosophy of Language, Translation Theory, and a Third Way in Semantics”, Essays In Philosophy, vol. 8, no. 1, January 2007

Savory, T. H., The Art of Translation, London: Cape, 1957

Jakobson, R., “On Linguistic Aspects Of Translation”, in Brower, R. A. (ed.), On Translation, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 232-239, p. 234

Wilss, W., The science of translation : problems and methods, Tübingen:Narr, 1982, p. 54

quoted in Wilss, ibid., p. 55, derived from Kade, “Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Probleme der Translation”, in Grundlagen der Ubersetzungswissenschaft, Fremdsprachen II, Leipzig 1968, pp. 3-19

Eco, U., Mouse or Rat?: Translation As Negotiation, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, 2003, p. 124

Eco, ibid., pp. 127-9

Jakobson, ibid., p. 232