Most Difficult Language

Is it possible to quantify translation? Is it possible to assess if one text is more difficult than another? Is it possible to claim that one language is more difficult than another language? The whole idea of quantifiability in language and linguistics has often been shunned and thought to be impossible, however, the advent of corpus linguistics and statistical approaches to language has shown us that there is much that statistics can give us. Certain aspects of language are quantifiable and probabilistically-motivated.

A question that is often put by non-linguists is whether one language is more difficult than another. Interestingly, this question is very rarely posited by linguists and sadly has not been taken up by statistical linguistics. Are linguists afraid to ask this question or do they believe it is redundant? Perhaps this question is marked by a form of linguistic political correctness and it is not ‘right’ to ask whether one language is more difficult than another. A ‘better’ question might be how one language differs from another. Yet we are all aware of the fact that some languages are more difficult than others. Obviously, there are a number of factors at play here, such as one’s mother tongue, how many languages one already knows and the relation of the new language to the mother tongue as well as our own individual predisposition for learning languages. But still, with all these factors taken into consideration, certain languages are easier or more difficult than others.

Opinions are varied with Mandarin (Chinese), Arabic, Polish, Basque and Xhosa seen as the most difficult. But when attempting to answer this question we find that it is in fact redundant with there being as many answers as there are people asking the question. Yet where statistical linguistics fears to tread, second language learning boldly goes. It is fascinating that some language teaching institutions have tried to approach this answer quantitatively. The US Military (as well as other US institutions) use a system which divides languages into four groups from I to IV. French, Italian and Dutch can be found within Group I; German in Group II; Polish, Thai and Hebrew in Group III whereas Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Korean fall into the Group IV bracket. The methodology behind this system is both simple yet extremely practical with languages in each successive group requiring a greater number of teaching hours than those in the preceding group.

It is interesting how practical demands often create the lines of demarcation that linguists (and translators) are often so loathe to draw. The same, of course, can be said of different types of text which the translator faces. Some believe medical or legal texts to be the most difficult, some maintain that poetry is a much more arduous task but in the thick of the translation jungle and within translation agencies the distinction is much less elegant. Initial quotes by translation agencies are often undertaken based on the distinction of general vs. specialised, express vs. non-express translation. It is only when such (theoretical) distinctions are pushed up against the cold, hard truth of practice do these distinctions come good.

Foreign Concepts

One of the greatest problems for translators is translating concepts that simply do not exist in the other language or culture. Examples in Polish include kombinować or lustracja, województwo or szlachta zaściankowa. English examples include elevenses or hoody. There are different ways to attempt to translate these terms, but no translation can be regarded as truly equivalent. Of course, some may argue that no translation is ever truly equivalent, but there are equivalents that might be regarded as more (or less) faithful than other ones. We might also argue that there is a continuum of correctness that allows us to speak of a better or worse translation.

All of the words mentioned above can be translated in some way or other but that does not necessarily make them good equivalents. Kombinować might be to wheel and deal; lustracja might be lustration or vetting; województwo could be province or district; szlachta zaściankowa might be petty nobility or disenfranchised noblemen. On the other hand, elevenses might be drugie śniadanie and a hoody could be a łobuz or zbir. We might argue that all of these suggestions are poor and inadequate but we may also argue that they perform a certain function and they kind of do the job. Is this enough? Is translation always about doing enough? Should we be aiming for perfection, satisfaction, or adequacy?

Another fine example of a word which does not have an altogether elegant translation into English is the Polish koleiny. These are ruts in the road caused by poor tarmac surfaces being over-used making driving difficult and often extremely dangerous. Due to the poor quality of roads in Poland (especially in communist times) and weather extremities (hot summers, cold winters), the tarmac surfaces had/have a tendency to become soft and give under the weight of traffic. Problems in translation begin when we see road signs in Poland warning of koleiny. Could this be rendered as simply ruts? Or perhaps road ruts? Perhaps even grooves? It is only when we see this kind of road sign do we realise how difficult this could be to translate. German seems to have Spurrille as a possible equivalent. English however does not offer such contextual equivalence.

Eco Advises

Umberto Eco once stated that to be a good translator one needs to translate and be translated. How true these words are. In fact, Eco goes on to state that the author must also act as an editor and consultant to the translator of his works. Umberto Eco makes it his duty to discuss the problems of translation with each individual translator regardless of whether he knows the target language or not. Eco asks his translators to discuss the problems they are having - which section is difficult, which paragraph seems unintelligible, or which sentence appears to be untranslatable. He is able to illicit answers to their problems by prodding them deeper and deeper about the culture of the target language and making them become aware of the real context of what lay within his mind at the time of writing.

In essence this shows us that the translator must have a dual outlook on the text he or she is translating - from the side of the author and the side of the translator. Or, in fact, from the point of view of the author and point of view of the reader. Moreover, a cultural fluency (or bi-culturalism) is essential. The first idea that comes to mind here is how does one translate into or out of the ancient languages? How does one grapple with a culture that is no more? All that can be done is to read, read, read, research, research, research until one immerses oneself in the source culture in order to then transpose (functionally) equivalent concepts into the (home) culture.

What Umberto Eco shows us is that even authors need to be sensitive to the sensibilities of the translator. And the best consultant for every translator is invariably the author of the original text. Interestingly, these are nigh-on always the most fascinating linguistic, translational and cultural conversations. The author who is ready to discuss a text with his/her translator is often an open person ready to take on new ideas. When culture meets culture, text meets text, author meets translator the boundaries between the two often blur, overlap and merge often producing something new and exciting. It is at moments like this the process of translation is most exhilarating.

Arabic Explosion

The next great quantum leap in translation will most surely take place in the Arabic-speaking world. Throughout history religious upheaval, military conquest and foreign domination have often had immense implications on the linguistic point world.

When the nations of Europe began to feel the need to express themselves, it was only when the Christian religion caved in and allowed the use of the vernacular that these national identities (together with their languages) really took off allowing for a veritable blossoming of literature written in the vernacular as well as a new flourishing of translation.

The liberalisation of religious shackles in Judaism had an analogous effect on Ashkenazi Jewry allowing for the flowering of Yiddish, in much the same way that Luther and the Reformation affected the languages of Christendom.

Similarly, the future of translation in North Africa and the Near East and many other countries (that use Arabic) may be dependent on a similar liberalising movement. It is difficult envisaging such a movement in Islam due to the important position Arabic holds in the religion of Muḥammad, but should such a change occur, the repurcussions will be huge.

If and when the nations under Islam get the urge to begin translating the Qur’ān into their own varieties of Arabic (be they dialects or languages) we will most certainly see a linguistic explosion the like of which we have not seen for a long time.

There are over twenty known, widely spoken varieties of Arabic including Maghrebi, Egyptian, Sudanese, Iraqi, Hijazi, Chadian, Nigerian and Judeo-Arabic to name just a few. The question really is not if but more when, how and where the language explosion will take place. The effects of this Arabic linguistic renaissance will most certainly rock the world.‎‎

Decision-making

How does a translator know which equivalent to choose? When faced with a list of possibilities how does the translator make the vital choice? Appropriacy is as important as equivalence and relevance. Knowing how to make the ‘correct’ choice is just as valuable as the choice itself.

A fine illustration of this point are the problems faced by translators attempting to translate Polish geographical-administrative/local government terms into English. Let us list the terms most often faced by the translator:

gmina, wójt, burmistrz, powiat, starosta, województwo, wojewoda, sejmik

On consulting a range of source including dictionaries, glossaries, EU websites, the most common equivalents/translations appear to be:

Polish - English equivalent
gmina - commune, district, municipality
wójt - voyt, commune head, mayor
burmistrz - mayor, provost
powiat - district, county, poviat
starosta - starosta, district governor, county head, president of the county
województwo - voivodeship, province, region
wojewoda - voivode, provincial governor, governor
sejmik - provincial assembly, regional council

So how does the translator make the choice and decide which of these equivalents is more appropriate than the other? There are certain situations that call for the use of one equivalent rather than another. For example, the use of voyt or voivode may be appropriate in a historical context as opposed to mayor or governor. The bottom line, however, is the ability to know which equivalent is appropriate in a particular context and this comes with experience. Quite simply, experience is one of the most important tools for translators.

Creative Translation

Is it a crime to be creative? In some professions, perhaps, yes. Let us take the phrase creative accounting which is a euphemism for cooking the books or illegal accounting. Here, creativity is seen to be negative.

Is creativity something to be avoided in translation? Some may say that a healthy dose of creativity is important. As we established in a previous post (see here), the translator can often be regarded as an co-author and so without creativity any form of translation could prove difficult.

There are those, however, who believe over-creativity to be a danger to translators. Knowing when to use a dictionary equivalent and when to throw caution to the wind and choose something unique is the difference between an average translator and innovative translator (perhaps also between a safe translator and maverick translator). The line between neologism and creative equivalent is indeed a fine one. A few examples will serve to illustrate the point

Let us take the Polish word łże-elity which has been variously translated as ‘lying elite’, ‘false elite’ or even ‘decepto-eltite’ (see previous post). Both all and none of these can be regarded as appropriate yet the word needs an equivalent. We can form a contiuum of equivalents from safe through to maverick (creative) and then choose which one best serves our purposes.

Another example which is often difficult to translate into English is the Polish skrót myślowy whose equivalents, when placed on a continuum, can range from ‘brachylogy’, ’shortcut in thinking’, ‘mental shortcut’ to the (creative) ‘thought-cut’.

Our ability as translators to be creative is most certainly what sets us apart, and likewise, what differentiates the average (mundane) translation from the interesting (maverick) one.

Translation Errors

One of the greatest missions for all translatologists, translation theorists and translation trainers is being able to isolate the problems related to the translation process and the translation product.

Unfortunately, getting in the mind of the translator (or, in fact any other human) is a near impossible task, thus the possibility of analysing the translation process - that is knowing what takes place between the original and the translated text - is marked by estimation, approximation and guesswork.

The only reliable pieces of evidence we have in the analysis of the translation process is the original (source) text and the translated text (the translation product). Therefore, the first step in analysing the translation process (read translation product) is the final translation.

Whilst looking through research available on errors in translation (including work in translation quality assessment) it became clear that a errors seem to oscillate around similar areas. An interesting taxonomy put forward by Raf Uzar highlights seven major error categories:

Cohesion
Grammar
Coherence
Lexical
Style
Graphemic/Technical
Word/Phrase Order

This taxonomy gives us a point from which we can begin the slow and laborious task of assessing translation through the isolation of particular categories of error.

All You Need is Love

It is fascinating how equivalents in different languages like to overlap but are never exactly perfect equivalents. They are akin to templates that do not quite fit, like trying to pour two pints of water into a one litre jug.

Research shows that certain languages have a tendency to use particular semantic fields more often than other languages. For example, the German language may employ more words from the arts and crafts semantic field than English. Polish, on the other hand, may use more words connected with love than German.

Corpus evidence shows us that even two texts, one of which is a translation of another do not perfectly share identical semantic fields. Different languages use different lexical and semantic tools to deal with different linguistic problems which creates shifts in the semantic map of a text. Not only do translated texts have different semantic fingerprints but words also.

For example, let us look at different words for love, desire, have, want, need etc in German, French, Polish, English. The differences in these words may hinge on faint nuances between them but that does not change the fact that they are slightly different from one another.

We can talk of Liebe, amour, miłość and love. But do these all mean the same and are they always used in the same context? What about Wunsch, désir, pragnienie and desire? They may be dictionary equivalents but are they contextual equivalents?

Corpus evidence shows us that these words, though seemingly equivalent, are used in fractionally different semantic fields and used with a different frequency in each of the languages.

Cultural Overlap

As we know, language is a reflection of culture and in order to understand the workings of a language we must fully understand its culture. Similarly, languages converge when cultures converge. English has been able to infiltrate the majority of languages in Europe and beyond simply because British and American culture has filtered into foreign societies and cultures and has become a part of these cultures.

This can be noted in the world of advertising and popular culture. Due to the fact that cultures often overlap, especially within the European Union, terminology, political slogans, advertising catchphrases are often borrowed into other cultures and languages in a variety of fields and domains.

A wonderful example is the world’s love of lotto, the lottery, Euro Millions, Powerball, Mega Millions, Takarakuji or whatever it is called in each country. This culture is mimicked throughout the world and the terminology and slogans attached to the lottery are often similar in each country. For example, certain games are known as “spiels” in the Canadian lottery and the slogans in the United Kingdom and Poland are remarkably similar:

“You’ve got to be in it to win it”

“Musisz grać ażeby wygrać”

The conclusion is that the areas that show a particular convergence in culture also display a convergence in language.

Forming Collocations

As we know, collocations are one of the most important elements in our everyday language. Collocations are the ready-made constructions that help us pass on meaning and sense to other speakers of the language. Without collocations it would be difficult to understand one another. Collocations are often seen to be the key to fluency or native-like linguistic competence. A native speaker of English will say knife and fork, it’s raining cats and dogs not fork and knife or dogs and cats.

These may seem like minor differences but they make the native speaker sound native. Previous posts (click here and here) have shown the importance of collocations and the intrinsic link between culture and language.

A noteworthy fact visible within the world of politics is the ability to turn common collocations (or set phrases) into new phrases (calling them collocations would be an injustice). A good example of this are the two Polish phrases przerażające fakty, porażające fakty which in loose translation might be understood as frightening facts and paralysing facts.

Both phrases are extremely similar but show how politicians or other language users have the creative ability to take meanings a ‘notch up’ and ‘crank up’ the force of certain collocations. What is even more fascinating is the way in which these linguistic changes are understood by the audience. A scan of these two collocations phrases shows that language users believe them to be synonymous regardless of the intentions of the original user.

The conclusion therefore is that linguistic forces have the ability to ‘level off’ and ’smooth out’ rough edges which are simply unnecessary. In the same way that erosion allows rivers to find the ideal route across a plain, so too language finds the ideal form through which communication is most effective.