Problems in Translating the Names of Dog Breeds from the Perspective of Different Nomination Principles and Linguistic Relativity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SANTALKA: Filologija, Edukologija / COACTIVITY: Philology, Educology 2016, 24(2): 113–121 ISSN 2351-714X / eISSN 2335-7711 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/cpe.2016.299 PROBLEMS IN TRANSLATING THE NAMES OF DOG BREEDS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DIFFERENT NOMINATION PRINCIPLES AND LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY Jelena SUCHANOVA¹, Ramunė Eugenija TOVSTUCHA² Mykolas Romeris University, Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mails: ¹[email protected]; ²[email protected] Received 4 October 2016; accepted 27 February 2017 The paper analyses selected terms from the perspective of linguistic relativity. It examines how the speakers of English, Lithuanian, and Russian perceive similar phenomena, how this specific perception is reflected in the linguistic nomination, and what difficulties this difference may cause for a translator. The analysis has demonstrated that some dog breeds are grouped differently in given languages, which presents certain problems of translation. The translator must possess considerable knowledge of cynology vocabulary or seek for a professional advice in order to produce a correct translation of dog breeds from English into Lithuanian and Russian, and vice versa. Keywords: theory of language relativity, translation difficulties, cynology, nomination principle, breed na- mes borrowings, nomination method, dog breed names. Introduction may cause for a translator. The key nomination The problem discussed in this paper is the dif- principle of English words discussed within ferences of nomination principles in English, the scope of this paper is compounding, as Lithuanian and Russian and the way in which compounds illustrate the principles of linguis- these differences affect the process of transla- tic relativity and its reflection in the process of tion of selected terms. In the course of this nomination at its best. The aim is to determine paper, the nomination is examined from the the pattern used in the process of nomination perspective of linguistic relativity. Namely, it of certain compound terms of selected fields, is examined by which means the speakers of namely cynology, and to observe the difficulties English, Lithuanian, and Russian perceive si- of translation of selected compounds condi- milar phenomena, through what this specific tioned by the different nomination principles perception is reflected in the linguistic nomina- in English, Lithuanian, and Russian. The objec- tion, and what kind of difficulties this difference tives are: 1) to select English compound terms Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. 113 114 Jelena Suchanova, Ramunė Eugenija Tovstucha Problems in translating the names of dog breeds... referring to different dog breeds and types from the American researchers Franz Boas, Edward various sources and to provide their translations Sapir and most significantly by Benjamin Lee into Lithuanian and Russian; 2) to determine Whorf (Marina 2003) and known as “Sapir- the principle of nomination for each compound Whorf hypothesis.” Stuart Chase, in his fore- or for the group of compounds through the word to Whorf’s “Language, thought, and prism of linguistic relativity and the differ- reality” summarizes the theory of the latter as ences or the similarities of nomination in the follows: “Speakers of different languages see given languages; 3) to determine the existing the Cosmos differently, evaluate it differently, or potential difficulties of translation caused by sometimes not by much, sometimes widely. different nomination principles. Thinking is relative to the language learned” The analysis consists of two parts. The first (Whorf 1959). According to Valerija Marina, part presents the overview of a theoretical “linguistic relativity is a complicated multilevel basis and the scope of the analysis, including and multidimensional phenomenon referring the main theories used as the background for to the relations between language, thought, research and the overview of the problem of a experience (reality) and culture” (Marina 2008). multilingual terminology of selected fields. The In her study on the linguistic relativity, Marina second part covers the analysis of the cynolo- notes that “at the level of the picture of the gical terms, namely the names of dog breeds world described by individual languages relativ- and varieties. ity implies that every language presents its own picture different in many ways from the others. This in turn results from various handling of the Theoretical basis and the scope of the same “pieces of reality” by different languages” analysis (Marina 2008), and cites Boas who has analyzed many examples in order to demonstrate “how a Concepts of nomination and linguistic relativity given experience would be differently rendered According to Czech linguist František Čermak, in various languages or how a set of experiences the language nomination can “broadly mean a would be differently grouped (classified) by dif- language name (form) for an item of extralin- ferent languages” (Boas 1966: 146–147). guistic reality or mental content”, and draws This paper presents an attempt to analyze “either on morphemes […] and their combi- the key points determining the nomination nations or words and their combinations (in principles in the selected English, Lithuanian most languages)” (Čermák 2002). Lithuanian and Russian terms within the framework of author Rūta Žukaitė mentions the tendency of above mentioned theory, presuming that the a language nomination based on a word forma- choice of different constituents as parts of given tion to employ a certain trait (not necessarily terms is based on the different worldview of the the most important one) of a particular object speakers of each language which enables them of reality as a basis for a newly formed de- to give preference to different traits of an object nomination. She also notes that the reality can of reality during the process of nomination. be perceived slightly differently depending on In order to provide concrete analysis of various factors, and it can influence the nomi- selected terms, the scope of the research of the nation itself – the principle of nomination of the differences in nomination has been narrowed same object of reality in different languages can to the names of some dog breeds. Although this differ or match, and the more traits the object field – the terminology of cynology – is not con- possesses, the more variations in nomination sidered highly important in comparison to, for can be found (Žukaitė 1980). example, legal or medical terminology, there is The latter conclusion goes in line with the still a demand for a clear, fixed, stable multilin- theory of linguistic relativity formulated by gual nomenclature. Recently both hunting and COACTIVITY: Philology, Educology 2016, 24(2): 113–121 115 cynology have turned into widespread leisure (The Free Dictionary 2016), “a dog of any activities in both Lithuania and Russia, not of numerous hunting breeds including both to mention English-speaking countries where scent hounds (as the bloodhound and bea- these hobbies are well-known for centuries. gle) and sight hounds (as the greyhound and Both professional and amateur cynology deve- Afghan hound)” (Merriam-Webster English lop rapidly as well, which includes the need for Dictionary 2016), as well as simply “a dog” (The strict breed nomenclature of cynological book Free Dictionary 2016). According to English publishers, dog-related commercials, kennel Etymology Dictionary (2016), the meaning of clubs, organisations, et cetera. Unfortunately, Old English word hund (originally a dog) had neither bilingual nor multilingual official dic- narrowed to a dog used for hunting in circa 12th tionaries on cynology have been issued up to century AD. Despite the narrowed use, the term this day, and the only multilingual dictionary of hound in the English language still can be attrib- hunting terms which appears to include some uted to a relatively wide class of hunting dogs. nomenclature related to hunting dog breeds is The closer survey shows how the term is used the “Dictionary of Hunting”, published in 1997 in the process of nomination of separate breeds. following the initiative of Gediminas Petruzis. Four ways of nomination using the hound The dictionary comprises circa 600 words and constituent can be found in English: expressions in five languages (Lithuanian, 1. The nomination according to the object English, Russian, German and French). The of hunting, e.g. in Foxhound, Otterhound, names of dog breeds were selected by the au- Coonhound, Staghound, Deerhound, thor from different resources, including the Wolfhound, et cetera. abovementioned “Dictionary of Hunting”, the 2. The nomination according to the way of online databases of The Fédération Cynologique hunting, e.g. Sighthound (a hound that Internationale (the world’s largest canine or- hunts and pursues game by sight rather ganisation) and The Lithuanian Cynological than by scent), Scenthound (a hound that Society (National member of FCI), the online hunts and pursues game by scent rather dictionaries, as well as from books on cynology than by sight), Bloodhound (a hound that and hunting published both in Lithuanian