The importance of vagueness in translation Example

1THEIMPORTANCEOFVAGUENESSINTRANSLATION:EXAMPLESFROMENGLISHTOPORTUGUESEDianaSantos§INTRODUCTIONItiscommontoreadthat,ifthereisnocorrespondingvagueterminthetargetlanguage,thetranslatorhasaproblem,or,atleast,s/hemayhavetochooseongroundswhicharenotobjective.Thisideaisconnectedtotheclassicalexplanationthatdifferentlanguagescutdifferentpiecesofreality(see,forexample,Lyons(1968:9.4.6)orBassnett-McGuire(1980:30-31)).Often,however,theexamplesarerestrictedtoexoticcasesinvolvingreferencetocamelsorsnow,whichareoflittlepracticalimportanceintheworldoftoday.Here,Iintendtopresentanotherkindofvagueness—whichIcall,forlackofabetterterm,grammaticalvagueness—andshowthatitresultsinconsiderabledifficultyfortranslation.Iwant,first,toemphasizethatvaguenessisanessentialpropertyofanynaturallanguage—notanaccidentaldifferencebetweentwolanguages.And,second,thatwhentwodifferentvaguesystemsareputincontrast,alotmoredifferencesbetweentwolanguagesbecomeapparent.ThispapertriestosummarizeandgivesometheoreticalbasisforthemostimportantfindinginmydissertationonthecontrastofthetenseandaspectsystemsofEnglishandPortuguese(Santos,1996).There,Ianalysedthousandsoftranslationpairsandpainfullyrealisedthatthefinertheanalysesofeachlanguage,themorecontrastivedifferencesemerged—which,inmostcases,wereattributabletovaguenessofsomesort.WHATDOIMEANBYVAGUENESS?AcentraltaskofthispaperwillbetoclarifywhatImeanbyvagueness,which,asmostgeneraltermsinlinguistics,isvaguelyunderstoodbutuseddifferentlybyalmosteveryonewhodealswithit.Oneothersuchconcept,incidentally,isaspect,fromwhosedomainmyexampleswillbedrawn.Vaguenesscanbethoughtofastheoppositeofprecisionorwell-delimiteddefinition,butassuchitcanencompassatleastunderspecification,imprecision,andambiguity,andperhapsalsoredundancy.1§DepartmentofBritishandAmericanStudies,UniversityofOslo,Norway.1Infact,onecanattributethiswiderangeofpossibleinterpretationsagaintothethevaguenessoftheoppositeconceptitself—seee.g.Lyons(1968:10.4.1;1977:9.1-2)onthemany(linguisticallyrelevant)phenomenaconcerningoppositionandcontrast.2Infact,thevaguenessIaminterestedin(or,alternatively,thewayIwanttodefinevaguenessasaconceptforlinguisticresearch)doesnotincludeallunderspecification(onlytherelevantone)orimprecision(onlythesystematicone);andcontrastswithambiguity.Furthermore,asfarasredundancyisconcerned,nomatterwhetherithindersprecisedefinition,itisnotrelatedtomyvaguenessatall.Vaguenessisanattributeofaclassification(system).Anobject(forinstance,alinguisticobject)canbevagueregardingasmanyclassificationsitissubjectto.Ourfirstdefinitionofvagueisthus:Whenalinguisticobjectcanbeclassifiedasmorethanonethinginoneparticularclassificationscheme,thenitisvaguewithregardtothedistinctionpresupposedbythetwovalues.2Suchalinguisticobjectcanthusbeusedasamemberofeithercategory,anditcanbetakentorepresentboth.Inaddition,aspeakercanremainindifferentbetweenalternativesaandbandstillmeaningfully[useit],asKeenan(1978:173)putit.Inthenextsection,Iapplythisabstractdefinitiontoseveralconcreteclassificationsusedinlinguisticsinordertoillustratetheubiquityofvagueness.SEVERALCASESOFVAGUENESSOneofthemostdiscussedcasesofvaguenessoccurswhenclassificationismadeintermsofanobjective,physicalquantity(asisthecaseinthepairsbald/notbald,fleuve/rivière).Ifonewantstoclassifyamid-sizedriverinFrenchorapersonwithnotallhishair,onehas—insomecases,atleast—thepossibilitytoclassifytheriverasbothfleuveandrivièreandthemanasbothbaldornotbald.Thewordsthemselvesareclearandpreciseenoughtobeunderstoodandusedbyspeakerswithoutmiscommunication,butthereisnotawell-delimiteddefinitionfortheseconceptsintermsoftherealworld.Ifonelooksatthe(common)procedureinsemanticsofdefining(somepartof)themeaningofawordasthesetofobjectsitcanreferto,thereisafairsetofobjectsthatare(orcanbe)sharedbythepairsabove.Onecouldthustalk,likeKempson(1977:124),aboutreferentialvaguenessinthatmanywould-bereferentsarevaguebetweeneitherword(eitherclassification).3AnotherrelatedcaseiswhatLyons(1977:9.1),followingSapir(1944),callsgradableopposites,inwhichdefinitionacomparisonisimplicit,suchasgood/bad,big/small,friendly/unfriendly.Sinceintheirdefinitionnoprecise2Forsimplicity'ssake,letmesupposeinthefollowingthatithastwoclassifications,andnotmore.Butthisissimplyforeaseofexposition;awordorsentencecanbevaguebetweenthreeormoreinterpretations,forexample.3Notethat,inmydefinition,thewordsthemselvesarenotvague,theysimplyhavepartiallyoverlappingdenotations.Thevaguenessisintheclassificationofthephysicalentities.Thisisparalleltodieandkickthebucket;theyarenotvague,buthavepartiallyoverlappingappropriatenesscontexts.3delimitationintermsofthenormisgiven,manysubjectsoftheclassificationmaybevaguebetweene.g.bigandnotbig.Now,itshouldbenotedthatreferentialvaguenessinlanguageisamust:asKeenanputsit,humanlanguagemustbeimpreciseinordertopermitefficientcommunication(Keenan,1978:160).4Obviously,ifotherlanguageshappentohaveadifferentsortofimprecision,i.e.,iftheypartitionrealityindifferentways,then,intheabsenceofthereferenttowhichthesourcelanguagewordcorresponds,thismaycomplicatethepr