Linguistic Incommensurability in English-Malay

0 downloads 0 Views 201KB Size Report
Nov 23, 2007 - In the case of daya, the Kamus Pelajar and Kamus Dewan (3 rd . Edn.) list .... International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Yonsei University, Korea. July 18-22,. 2005. ... dalam pembentukan kefahaman dan konsepsi sains.
th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

LINGUISTIC INCOMMENSURABILITY IN ENGLISH-MALAY-JAPANESE SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGIES: EXAMPLES FROM PHYSICS

Imran Ho-Abdullah & Maserah Shabudin School of Language Studies & Linguistics, Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

ABSTRACT This paper examines the semantics of several lexical items in English-Malay-Japanese used to denote concepts in physics. In particular, a cognitive semantics framework is used to discover the different cross linguistics semantic nuances of everyday words which are also used as scientific terminology to denote scientific concepts. The paper argues that the semantic incommensurability of terminologies of different languages would results in different construal of the concept in question. This has serious implications in the translation of scientific texts as the cross-linguistics and cross cultural dimensions, especially pertaining to folk semantics mediate our understanding and construal of the scientific concepts. INTRODUCTION The relationship between science and language has been expressed as one where scientific knowledge and the transmission of this knowledge would be impossible without language. Montgomery (2002:739) observed that „it is the written word, above all, that has allowed science to be recorded, shared, debated, standardized, passed on, and advanced‟. He further surmised that scientific knowledge and know-how through the ages would not have survived unless written, studied and translated such as the The Emerald Tablet of Hermes, the Arabic Kitab Sirr al-Asar (Book of Secrets), or Pliny‟s Natural History among others. Montgomery (2000, 2002) further notes that it is the embodiment of scientific knowledge via the written language that has allowed the knowledge to become mobile (and perhaps also virtual). Above all it was through translation that the transfer, adaptation, renewal of scientific knowledge from one language (and culture) to another has been made possible. Translation is said to be the crucial and complex historical force in science, central to the building of modern societies as we know it today as evidenced by the effects brought about by the introduction into various cultures of Archimedean mechanics, Arabic numerals, calculus, the periodic table and so forth. In this regard, Sarukkai (2001:648-649) notes the problems associated with interlingual translation which converts a text written in the source language (SL) to one written in the target language (TL): It is well illustrated in the simple example of translating yes and hello to equivalent words in French, German and Italian. This task, although seemingly simple, is filled with difficulties, even though “all are Indo-European languages, closely related lexically and syntactically, and terms of greeting and assent are 1

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

common to all three” (Bassnett, 1991: 16). Both „yes‟ and „hello‟ are used in very specific contexts. In languages other than English, they convey very different meanings. For example, in the case of „hello,‟ it is pointed out that English does not distinguish between face to face greeting or that on the phone, whereas the other three languages explicitly make this distinction (Ibid. 17). Linguists and educationists have long argued that the different languages (directly or indirectly) provide us with different worldviews (Whorf, 1959; Suzuki, 1993, Kawasaki 2000). In other words, the use of different languages as the medium of presenting and recording science (be it English, Japanese, Malay) entail the formation of different worldviews for a particular concept. Likewise, the use of a particular language in science requires one to be familiar with the worldview of that language. Montgomery (2002: 740) in tracing the translation of the periodic table in Japanese claims that the choice of nomenclature of the chemical elements in the 20 volume work on chemistry Seimi Kaisō („Principles of Western Chemistry‟) by the Japanese translator Yoan Udagawa in the 19th century. „was the subject of no small debate, with several major new schemes proposed, some loyal to ancient tradition, others to Western usage, and still others endeavoring to replace everything that had gone before with a set of new Japanese names, written purely in Japanese script (hiragana). Even the title for „chemistry‟ itself previously (as in Seimi Kaisō) given as seimi, a phonetic adaptation from the Dutch (Schemie) was fought over and eventually replaced with the word kagaku („study of change‟), a Chinese loan-word. Above all, however, influence from Europe remained strong - much of Yoan Udagawa‟s terminology was kept intact particularly with the influx of new works on chemistry translated from English, French, and German. Element names taken from these languages were increasingly changed from the Chinese inspired sound system to another phonetic script native to Japan (katakana)‟. To what extent then does the choice of nomenclature or terms in different languages for scientific concepts affects our conception of scientific principles? This paper is a report on work in progress in relation to the conceptualization of science in different languages.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In order to explicate the semantics and thus (possible) differences in the construal of scientific concept in different languages, a cognitive semantics analysis of the word used as terminologies (in various languages) for particular scientific concepts is conducted. In particular, the lexical networks of the items in questions are mapped and compared. Differences in the network can reveal the linguistic incommensurability and hence construal of the scientific concepts into the different languages. From a cognitive linguistics perspective, the notion of linguistic incommensurability can also be explicated via the differences in the lexical networks. The use of cognitive linguistics is particularly apt for an investigation in the present study into translation of science since CL is a multi-disciplinary theory of language that attempts to describe language 2

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

phenomena from a cognitive, cultural and physiological point of view taking into account the sociological and anthropological differences as well as the experiential realisms and natural surroundings that is embodied in the homo lingualis. A major question in cognitive linguistic research is how different languages and cultures utilize the resources in the language system (the grammar and lexicon) to construe the world. Cognitive linguists, in general, agree that there are universal as well as language specific construal. For instance, Asmah (1996); Gibbs (1999); Yu (2003) have found that the conceptualization and metaphorisation of the body is influenced by and interacts with the folk cultural elements in society. Kövecses (1999) also agrees that the conceptualization of the body and body parts are in large parts cultural-specific with several universal conceptual structure at the categorical and schematic level. Similarly, one could legitimately ask whether scientific concepts such as FORCE, ENERGY, and POWER are conceptualized and metaphorised differently in different languages. Since these concepts are represented linguistically by words that have non-scientific uses in the first instance, the construal of the scientific concept by the words will surely be influenced by the non-scientific, folk model and meaning. The folk meaning can be defined, in this instance, as the meaning that are based on common, everyday experiences, based on a set of background assumptions that are socially-conditioned and implicit in our everyday use of the word. Another „tool‟ that is available to the cognitive linguists is the radial semantic network where various senses (and uses) of a words are seen to be extensions from a prototype. The application of the semantic categorization and semantic network in cognitive semantics is particularly suited to investigating of semantic and conceptual differences between different words. The methods of cognitive semantics are used here in the present study in order to distinguish differences in the conceptualization of FORCE as characterized by daya, force and chikara (力) and PRESSURE as characterized by tekanan, pressure and atsuryoku (圧力). FORCE - force, daya, chikara For the purpose of this paper, the concept of FORCE will be used to illustrate the linguistics incommensurability discussed above. The present analysis is adapted from the analysis of Imran Ho-Abdullah, Muhammad Yahaya & Maserah Shabudin (2007). In physics, FORCE is denotated linguistically1 (terminology / scientific term) by the word daya in Malay, force in English and chikara / ryoku in Japanese. From a morphological point of view, daya can be prefixed to form berdaya (to possess energy or potential) and terdaya (have the ability). In the derivational form, the meanings associated with daya are less related to the notion of FORCE but are more consistent with the concept of ENERGY and POWER. Figure 1 - 3 show possible semantic networks for force, daya and chikara. The differences that exist in the semantic networks are obvious. For instance, force in English is used in the domain of military of fighting strength as in armed forces, air force, and naval force. Daya and chikara are not used in this manner. In Malay, the words pasukan (team) or angkatan are used to denote military / authority and in Japanese the words used to denote the military forces would be guntai 1

There is no intention in this paper to discuss the accuracy of the words chosen to represent the concept. Of more relevance is whether the conceptualization as a result of the words form and influence understanding of the scientific concept.

3

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

(army), rikugun (armed force); kaigun (naval force) and kuugun (air force) 2 . Likewise the extensions of force to the economic, social and legal domains is possible in English and Japanese but not in Malay. On the other hand, extensions of daya to endeavor (ikthiar), willingness (kesanggupan) and potential (keupayaan) are not apparent in the English term.

Force

For joint action: task force, sales force

Military / strength of authority: police force, armed forces, air force

Strength or physical power

Physical force (coercion)

Non-physical strength

Personality

Effects or influence: The force of her arguments;

power

Abstract coercion

Moral / mental

Situational: forces of circumstances; situation forces him to act

Influence

PHYSICS:

Legal: Unlawful force Lawful force Economics: economic forces Sociology: social forces

FIGURE 1. Semantic Network - force The differences in the semantic space carved out by the terms in different language are best illustrated via a translation exercise. In (1a –g) force cannot be translated using daya or chikara.

Japanese uses „gunjiryoku‟ as military strength. However, in this usage „ryoku‟ does not convey „groups of soldiers‟. 2

4

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

1a. They used force on the prisoner to make him talk. 1b. He was a personality of great force. 1c. He succumbed to the force of circumstances. 1d. They fell for the force of his argument. 1e. A task force was formed to address the issue. 1f. There were social and economic forces were at work besides unseen political forces. 1g. Caesar sent a force of ten thousand men.

Similarly, when daya expressions such as daya maju, daya tahan, daya juang, daya saing, daya cipta, daya gerak, daya fikir, daya penghayatan, memperdaya, and terpedaya are translated into English, the word force is not involved. These expressions are also not related to the concept of force in physics. Thus the mapping of daya as force in physics is limited to only that domain but is influenced by the differences in the non-scientific, folk usage. In addition, the morphosemantics for the word daya and force is very different. Derivations and phrases of force such as enforcement, by force do not involve the concept of scientific force. In the case of enforcement, the meaning is more closely associated with power rather than force.

Daya

power, energy

Physical power or strength

Non-physical strength especially mental strength (akal, fikiran, ikhtiar)

Capability (kemampuan) Aptitude (kebolehan)

influence

Ability (keupayaan)

Capacity (kekuasaan)

Willingness (kesanggupan) PHYSICS: the capacity to do work or cause physical change

Readiness (kesediaan)

FIGURE 2. Semantic network - daya In the case of daya, the Kamus Pelajar and Kamus Dewan (3rd. Edn.) list tenaga (energy), kekuatan (strength), kemampuan (capability), kuasa (power) as synonyms of daya. According to 5

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

the dictionaries, daya also extends to akal (using one‟s wits); ikhtiar (endeavour); muslihat (trickery) as in (2a - d) which are hardly associated with English force: 2a. Dia kehabisan daya untuk mendaki bukit itu. (tenaga) 2b. Niat hati nak peluk gunung, apakan daya tangan tak sampai. (kemampuan) 2c. Hendak seribu daya, tak hendak seribu dalih. 2d. Dia mencari daya hendak menipu orang.

The Japanese term for force (physics) is chikara. When reference is made to different kind of forces, ryoku or riki is used instead. However, both these words share the same kanji character ( 力). What is obvious from the table below that while the English and Malay used of force and daya respectively is consistent in compounding, Japanese utilizes two words.

Malay daya daya magnet daya tolakan daya luaran

English force magnetic force repulsive force external force

Japanese chikara(力) jikiryoku(磁気力) hanpatsuryoku(反発力) gairyoku (外力)

Like its Malay counterpart, chikara extends to abstract notions of patience, effort, reliability and also efficacy. The English term force lacks these notions in it semantic extension. When used as a verb, force is mainly used as a transitive verb. The noun force reflects this. By contrast, chikara reflects an intransitive verb usage. Thus, in Japanese „chikara wo dasu’ or doryoku “effort‟ is translated into making an effort. The Japanese word focuses on or appreciates the process for making efforts rather than to do something. In this case, it could well be argued that the English sentences focuses on the results from the effort or force used, while the Japanese term focuses on the process of applying the effort or force3. The differences in the semantic network and extensions of the various words for FORCE ARE clear in the everyday expressions and idioms of the languages. It would seem that different folk definition – the non-technical, non-scientific meanings associated with each of the words for FORCE: daya, force, chikara differ from language to language. The question is whether the use of these different words will affect the conceptualization of the scientific terms as well. In other words, will the uses of daya, force, chikara or even güç (Turkish force) (Arabic force) in the explication of the concept FORCE in physics be somewhat different in different languages. Based on the differences by which the semantic space are divided between daya, force and chikara, it is surely safe to assume that there will be differences in the construal of the scientific concept according to the language of instruction used. In the context of translation especially in relation to the choice of nomenclature of technical and scientific items, the choices the translator

3

We are indebted to Prof. Ken Kawasaki for pointing this aspect of chikara and force out to us.

6

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

makes must surely have some impact on the understanding and appreciation of that scientific concept. Powerful person: chikaramochi 力持

Physical force: nejireryoku ねじれ力 (twisting force)

ち Chikara / ryoku

Strength or muscular power: kinniku no chikara

Violence: booryoku

筋肉の力





Non-physical strength Abstract forces

Authority: kenryoku 権力 Economics: Keizairyoku 経済力

Patience: nintairyoku Capability: nouryoku 能力

忍耐力 Ability:dekirukoto できる こと/ nouryoku 能力

Energy: katsudooryoku エネルギー 活動力

Mass-communication: masukomi no chikara

マスコミの力

Cooperation: Kyouryoku 協力 Effort, help, assist: chikara ni naru 力になる FIGURE 3. Semantic network – chikara / ryoku

PRESSURE - pressure, tekanan, atsuryoku In contrast to the concept of FORCE, the concept of PRESSURE will be used to illustrate an instance where the semantic networks of the words in different languages share more similarities than differences and the linguistics incommensurability might reside elsewhere, namely in the metaphors associated with the words. In physics, PRESSURE is denotated linguistically (terminology / scientific term) by the word tekanan in Malay, pressure in English and atsuryoku in Japanese. From a morphological point of view, the Malays and English words are derivatives from tekan and press respectively. The Japanese word is a combination of two ideograms - atsu ( 圧) + ryoku (力). The notion of pressure is immediately related to the concept of force via the ideogram ryoku (力), while the relationship between tekanan and daya or of that matter between 7

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

force and pressure are not immediately obvious. For the purpose of the present analysis, the root word for pressure and tekanan will not be examined. Instead the focus will be on the derivations since they are the words that are used as scientific terminologies. Based on our semantic analysis of pressure, tekanan and atsuryoku, we propose a single semantic network for the three words pressure, tekanan and atsuryoku in Figure 4. The similarities between the semantic space of pressure, tekanan and atsuryoku can be illustrated with the almost word for word translational equivalence in (1a - d): 1a. atmospheric pressure = tekanan atmosfera = taikiatsu 大気圧 1b. pressure of daily life = tekanan hidup harian = nichiijoutekijuuatsu 日常的重圧 1c. social pressure of city life = tekanan sosial kehidupan di kota = tokaiseikatsu niokeru

shakaiteki juuatsu

都会生活における社会的重圧

1d. financial pressure = tekanan kewangan = keizaiteki juu-atsu 経済的重圧

However, despite the similarities in the network, an examination of the metaphorisation of tekanan through an analysis of the verbal collocates reveal some semantic differences between the two words. The verbal collocates most often associated with the tekanan are menghadapi (to face), memberi (to give) / menerima (to receive), mengalami (to experience); mengurangkan (to reduce); and mengenakan (to exert). While most of these verbs can also collocate with English pressure, one immediately notice that the verbs of exchange - ?to give and to receive pressure are somewhat less common in idiomatic English. In this respect, the metaphorisation (and hence construal) of tekanan in Malay and pressure in English are arguably different. Morphologically, when reference is made to different kind of pressure in Japanese, (different compound words involving the use of pressure as a concept in physics) the final ideogram ryoku is dropped. While the English and Malay used of pressure and tekanan respectively are used consistently in compounding, Japanese utilizes some form of deletion of the final ideogram. Malay tekanan tekanan angin tekanan rendah tekanan atmosfera

English pressure air pressure low pressure atmospheric pressure

Japanese Atsuryoku 圧力 Fuuatsu 風圧 Teikiatsu 低気圧 Taikiastu 大気圧

Like its Malay and English counterparts, atsu-ryoku extends to abstract notions of social pressure (shakaiteki juu-atsu). However, like the Malay and unlike the English terms, atsuryoku also collocates with giving and receiving: 1. Hito ni/kara atsuryoku wo kakemasu/ukemasu. To give/receive pressure to/from people. 人に圧力をかけます/うけます。 8

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

2. Mono ni atsuryuko wo kakemasu. To give pressure to things. 物に圧力をかけます。

The semantic networks and extensions of the various words for PRESSURE in Japanese, Malay and English namely, (atsuryoku, tekanan and pressure) are more similar compared to the network for FORCE (chikara, daya, force). It would seem that apart from lexical networks mapping the folk definition – the non-technical, non-scientific meanings associated with each of the words for a concept, the metaphors associated with the concepts could also be a source of conceptual differences. The act of pressing; the exertion of physical pressure or force

pressure, tekanan, atsuryoku

PHYSICS: force applied to a unit area of surface; measured in pascals

The act of pressing; the exertion of non-physical pressure or force, eg. threats, harassment

The state of demanding notice or attention, urgency

Results of pressure is to compel someone toward a particular end; influence

Abstract oppressive conditions

Mental distress

Social distress

Economic distress

Legal distress

FIGURE 4. A shared semantic network – pressure, tekanan, atsuryoku

CONCLUSION Based on the preliminary investigation of two basic concepts in physics attempted in this paper, it seems clear to us that at least from a cognitive linguistics perspective, the translation of scientific texts might involve more than issues of translating meaning but must deal with issues 9

th

11 International Conference on Translation. 21 – 23 November 2007. Kuala Lumpur

of untranslatability due to linguistics incommensurability. This is not to say that translation of scientific texts is impossible but rather that the translation in different languages might ultimately produce different construal of the original science.

Acknowledgements The research reported in this paper is funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme of the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (FRGS UKM-SK-04-FRGS003-2006). The analysis of the concept of FORCE has been published in in version of this paper (without the Japanese data) was presented at the Third National Conference on Issues in National Education 2007 (12 – 14 February 2007) and published in the Jurnal Persatuan Linguistik 2007 (8) 117 – 128.

REFERENCES Asmah Haji Omar, 1996. Metaphors of anatomy as reflection of Malay cultural belief. Jurnal Bahasa Jendela Alam. 1:7-20. Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Imran Ho-Abdullah & Norsimah Mat Awal, 2005. Conceptualization of Emotions in Malay:“Hati” (the Liver) as the Source of Emotions. Paper presented at the 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Yonsei University, Korea. July 18-22, 2005. Imran Ho-Abdullah, Muhammad Yahaya & Maserah Shabudin. 2007. Andaian linguistik dalam dalam pembentukan kefahaman dan konsepsi sains. Jurnal Persatuan Linguistik. 8, 117128. Kawasaki, K. (1996). The Concepts of Science in Japanese and Western Education. Science & Education, 5(1), 1-20. Kawasaki, K. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of English and Japanese Linguistic Assumptions Influencing Pupils‟ Learning of Science. Canadian and International Education, 31(1), 19-51. Kawasaki, K. (2007). Towards Worldview Education beyond Language-Culture Incommensurability. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 29-48. Kövecses, Z.,1999. Metaphor: Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In R.W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. (167-188) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montgomery, Scott L. 2000. Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge through Culture and Time. University of Chicago Press., Chicago. Montgomery, Scott L. 2002. Chemical Transformation: Translation and the Periodic Table in Japan. Angew Chem Intl Ed. 41:5, 739- 742. Sarukkai, Sundar. 2001. Translation and Science. Meta XLVI:4, 646-663. Suzuki, T. (1993). Words in Context, translated by A. Miura. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Whorf, B.L. (1959[1956]). Language Thought and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press. Yu, N., 2003. Metaphor, body, and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallbladder and courage. Metaphor and Symbol 18(1), 13–31.

10