Search

Copyright of Etudes Romanes de Brno is the property of Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Polysemes are words that have multiple meanings. They exist in all languages as in Arabic عين صوت جدول جناح and English base, plant, system, present, left. A sample of Arabic and English polyseme translation errors was collected from homework-assignments and exams to explore the difficulties that student-translators have in translating English and Arabic polysemes. Data analysis showed that the students made more errors in translating Arabic polysemes to English than English polysemes to Arabic. They made more errors in translation polysemous compounds than single-word polysemes and the equivalent compounds had collocation errors. The students utilized different faulty strategies in translating polysemes, especially in source texts which have one-to-many equivalents (system, affairs). They tend to overgeneralize the equivalent they know to all contexts (develop, system), not the one suitable for a particular context/domain (*chemical plants; under president). They resorted to literal translation, i.e., word for word translation rather than using fixed formulaic equivalents that are dissimilar in structure to the source polyseme. They also overgeneralized the same equivalent to all contexts (develop, system; association), although each shade of meaning has a different equivalent. Faulty translation of polysemic words may be due to inadequate L1 competence such as the availability of different regional Arabic designations for 'parliament' and the different designations used in American and British English for وكيل وزارة الخارجية الامريكي)); lack of proficiency in EFL, i.e. limited vocabulary knowledge; unfamiliarity with specialized meanings (*chemical plants) and commonly used equivalents for 'affairs; resources'; lack of world knowledge (exchange programs; الاتحاد الأوروبي) and others. The study recommends that translation instructors develop students' vocabulary knowledge, word knowledge accuracy, schemata and world knowledge, metacognitive skills, i.e., thinking processes while translating, word and context analysis skills, i.e., using semantic and structural contextual clues to figure out the meaning of polysemes; and identifying the domain in which a polyseme is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pāṇini's fourth (?) century BC Sanskrit grammar uses rewrite rules utilizing an explicit formal language defined through a semi-formal metalanguage. The grammar is generative, meaning that it is capable of expressing a potential infinity of well-formed Sanskrit sentences starting from a finite symbolic inventory. The grammar's operational rules involve extensive use of auxiliary markers, in the form of Sanskrit phonemes, to control grammatical derivations. Pāṇini's rules often utilize a generic context-sensitive format to identify terms used in replacement, modification or deletion operations. The context-sensitive rule format is itself defined using Pāṇini's more general method of auxiliary markers, the latter used to define many dozens of linguistic categories and rules controlling derivations of Sanskrit sentences through the manipulation of 'non-terminal' and 'terminal' symbols. This technique for controlling formal derivations was rediscovered by Emil Post in the 1920s and later shown by him to be capable of representing universal computation. The same implicit computational strength of Pāṇini's formalism follows as a consequence: while Pāṇini's Sanskrit grammar is computationally limited, the metalanguage through which his formalism is defined can be directly used to define any rule-based system by mimicking standard formal language definitions as an extension of the grammatical system proper. Pāṇini's formal achievement is historically distinctive, as derivations of grammatically correct, spoken Sanskrit, are designed for oral recitation, with the grammar itself constructed as an organic extension of the spoken object language. Pāṇini's formulation of what amounts to an orally realized symbolic calculus stands in contrast to the implicit inscriptional methods of contemporary formalisms, such as Gottlob Frege's appropriately named Begriffsschrift and the early computing paradigms of Post and Alan Turing. Nonetheless, contemporary views on the cognitive status of phonemic recognition and historical writing systems support the conjecture that, in spite of Pāṇini's rigorous oral formulation, construction of the grammar almost surely relied on alphabetic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linguistic and cultural differences can impede comprehension among potential research participants during the informed consent process, but how researchers and IRBs respond to these challenges in practice is unclear. We conducted in-depth interviews with 15 researchers, research ethics committee (REC) chairs and members from 8 different countries with emerging economies, involved in HIV-related research sponsored by HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN), regarding the ethical and regulatory challenges they face in this regard. In the interviews, problems with translating study materials often arose as major concerns. Four sets of challenges were identified concerning linguistic and cultural translations of informed consent documents and other study materials, related to the: (1) context, (2) process, (3) content and (4) translation of these documents. Host country contextual issues included low literacy rates, education (e.g., documents may need to be written below 5th grade reading level), and experiences with research, and different views of written documentation. Certain terms and concepts may not exist in other languages, or have additional connotations that back translations do not always reveal. Challenges arise because of not only the content of word-for-word, literal translation, but the linguistic form of the language, such as tone (e.g., appropriate forms of politeness vs. legalese, seen as harsh), syntax, manner of questions posed, and the concept of the consent); and the contexts of use affect meaning. Problems also emerged in bilateral communications – US IRBs may misunderstand local practices, or communicate insufficiently the reasons for their decisions to foreign RECs. In sum, these data highlight several challenges that have received little, if any, attention in past literature on translation of informed consent and study materials, and have crucial implications for improving practice, education, research and policy, suggesting several strategies, including needs for broader open-source multilingual lexicons, and more awareness of the complexities involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]