New Terminologies:
Peaceful Immigrants or Invading Hordes?
A Review of Three New Books
Get the List of 4,400+ Translation Agencies Now!
No Recurring Membership Fees!
José R. Belda Medina:
El Lenguaje de la Informática e Internet
y su Traducción, 328 pp., Publicaciones
de la Universidad de Alicante, 2003.
18.00Š‚, available from: http://www.casadellibro.com/temas/ultimonivel/0,1382,c%253D10626,00.html
ISBN: 8479087048,
Chan
Sin-wai, editor: Translation and Information Technology,
215 pp., The Chinese University Press, Chinese University
of Hong Kong, 2002.
$18.00, available from Columbia University Press:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/962996/962996077X.htm
ISBN: 962-996-077-X
Jeffrey
G. Brown: Thinking in Chinese, An American's Journey
into the Chinese Mind, 133 pp., JB Linguistic
Works, Philadelphia, 2002.
$14.95, available from Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%26field-keywords%3Dthinking%2520in%2520chinese/002-4862611-8434442
ISBN: 0-9725884-0-X
All three of these books are concerned with a crucial
problem of translation: precisely how do we handle
a vast technical vocabulary unexpectedly imported
into a language not necessarily prepared to deal with
it? This question applies most urgently to the integration
of computer terminology into many of the world's languages,
but as we shall see this is not the only possible
example. The answer may turn out to be that there
is no one method guaranteed to be fully practicable
in all cases and that unless there is a pressing need
for a culture to absorb such a vocabulary, no one
standardized approach may be entirely successful.
Belda
Medina's book is a brave, scholarly undertaking aimed
at corralling the unruly herd of foreign interlopers
that computer and Internet terminology has let loose
into Spanish by classifying these thousands of new
lexical items into meaningful categories. He sets
out to isolate these invaders within five major stockades,
which comprise the five chapters of his book: Compounds,
Derivations, Abbreviations, Specialized Terms, and
Loan Words. Each of these stockades is subdivided
into smaller holding pens according to principles
that are on the whole grammatically and terminologically
valid but can be a bit hard to follow.
For
instance, "Compounds" are classed as orthographic,
neoclassical, and what the author calls "syntagmatic,"
itself a technical term derived from Saussurian linguistics.
[Note
1] Examples of orthographic compounds
are "keyboard," "backslash," "clipart," "printout,"
"upgrade," "user-friendly," and many others. Examples
of neoclassical compounds are all those words built
up from classical prefixes, such as auto-, mono-,
mini-, bi-, cyber-, etc., covering a wide range of
well-known computer terms. Syntagmatic compounds differ
in Belda's view from their orthographic cousins by
juxtaposing two or more complex and/or longer words
to create a new meaning, as in "assembler language,"
"analog computer," "stand-alone terminal," or even
the humbler "junk mail." Each of these classes presents
slightly different problems for translators into Spanish.
The
work occasionally adopts a slightly prescriptive tone
by suggesting preferred translations, for example
it disapproves of rendering the word "run," as in
to "run a program," as correr. And such a usage
does make for somewhat inelegant Spanish, even though
correr can be both transitive and intransitive,
but Belda's complaint has not been fully heeded by
translators.
One
of the book's most interesting sections deals with
the problem of translating -ware compounds
into Spanish (hard-, soft-, share-, free-, vapor-)
versus -tica compounds into English (informática,
telemática, cibernética, robótica).Another
is a detailed section on chat programs, which includes
the information that "Hi, dude" translates into Spanish
as Hola tío and also provides Spanish
translations for most of the common chatroom and email
abbreviations, such as ICQ, LOL, and RTFM, and even
for smileys aka emoticons. The author seems a bit
disappointed that hispanoparlantes have neglected
the words charla and charlar in favor
of Spanglish chatear and suggests tertulia
or conversación as other possible improvements.
At
the same time this professor of English Philology
at the University of Alicante is scrupulously honest
in pointing out that one of the main driving engines
of English computer terminology, namely abbreviation,
has a tendency to work less well in Spanish, sometimes
favoring the use of the original English expressions
instead of translations. He sees two reasons for this,
first that so many words in English—and so relatively
few in Spanish—are monosyllabic, which in itself
promotes a form of brevity. And second that the accent
in many English words falls on the first syllable,
thus encouraging such further short forms as lab for
laboratory and pic or pix for picture or pictures.
It
turns out that there are three possible words for
"web" in Spanish: red, telaraña, and
malla, but this wealth does not end up being entirely
helpful. In his concluding section Belda criticizes
the Instituto Cervantes for suggesting that the correct
Spanish translation of World Wide Web should be Malla
Máxima Mundial, when the most frequent
Spanish translations for the terms website and web
page are sitio web and página web.
He also points out quite correctly that computer terminology
has gone through two generations since its birth,
first a more truly technical vocabulary using such
terms as del, dir, cls, list, DOS, etc., but in recent
years a more accessible semi-technical vocabulary
drawn from everyday words and tied to the Windows
environment: window, folder, menu, dialog box, etc.
The
author sometimes seems to be engaged in a private
conversation with other published authorities on this
subject, and the famous DRAE (Diccionario de la
Real Academia Española) does not go unmentioned.
Belda's volume is extremely learned, a genuine tour
de force of its genre, but I would not necessarily
recommend it for translators working on computer texts
from English into Spanish. For this purpose, something
a bit more rough and ready might be preferable, for
instance a straightforward alphabetical English to
Spanish computer glossary, such as those available
from:
http://www.tododiccionarios.com/informatica.html
A
closely related problem is every bit as alive in Chinese
as in Spanish, as two papers from the middle section
of Chan Sin-wai's volume clearly reveal. [Note
2] The main difference is that the
basic structure of the Chinese language may be better
endowed—perhaps too well endowed—to handle
the thousands of invading new words and acronyms.
The result can be a veritable profusion of possible
Chinese translations for a specific Internet term.
For instance, the word Internet itself can be conveyed
in at least four different ways in Chinese, as transliterated
in the following table in both Cantonese and Mandarin:
This
paper presents an adjoining table with yet another
nine possible translations. This is because meaning
in Chinese is built up from monosyllabic characters,
each usually with its own quite separable meaning,
rather than from what we in Western languages call
"words." As I have pointed out elsewhere [Note
3], if we credit Chinese with no more
than 3,000 characters (though some estimates run far
higher), it would be theoretically possible to pair
every one of those characters with each other in a
table reading 3,000 characters across and 3,000 characters
down, for a total of nine million possible two-character
compounds, each theoretically capable of possessing
its own potential meaning. Three- and four-character
compounds, though less common, are also possible.
In other words, Chinese possesses semantic building
blocks to spare as compared with most Western languages.
Not all of the thirteen possible
compounds for Internet are widely used, and just as
there are many national versions of Spanish, shortly
after presenting the above table the authors of this
paper point out that some Internet terms are "expressed
differently in different Chinese-speaking regions,
such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia,
and so on." But at least one major terminological
quarrel is rooted in politics alone.
Of the four terms in the above
table, the most widespread is hu lian wang,
or "mutually united nets." But during 1997 in Beijing
the China National Committee for Terms in Sciences
and Technologies (CNCTST) attempted to impose the
term yin te wang, wang once again meaning
"net" or "nets," but with the two characters yin
te intended as nothing more than a phonetic filler
supposedly replicating the English sound of "Inter-"
in the word "Internet." This has not proved successful,
as one critic points out:
I
am in school every day, and in here you almost cannot
hear the word yin te wang, since hu lian
wang has already become part of our school life
here. Every time when I return to the town or the
village, I can only hear hu lian wang and not
yin te wang. Let's imagine how difficult it is
for people to understand you when you utter the suave
word yin te wang to a worker or a farmer. Are
you making fun of their knowledge?
[Note
4]
Other
attempts from above to impose Chinese translations
for computer terms have met with resistance even from
those professionals most familiar with the technology
and may in the long run threaten the use of Chinese
in this field:
Interestingly,
using pure Chinese terminology in any discourse does
not seem to be welcomed by the subjects. From their
viewpoint, Chinese terminology causes comprehension
difficulties. They have to recall the English equivalents
in order to understand.
[Note
5]
This
book contains two other parts, each one longer than
the section on terminology, and in a sense they tend
to cancel each other out. Part I of the book is a
survey of various Chinese projects to improve Machine
Translation, including a system for translating Chinese
cookbooks reminiscent of the limited vocabulary created
by the Canadian TAUM-Météo weather
prediction program during the Eighties. Other relatively
familiar approaches include a "Chinese-English MT
System Based on Micro-engine Architecture," a piece
entitled "Example-based MT: A New Paradigm" and the
use of "Bilingual Corpus Construction" to manage MT
from Chinese into English.
Even
though three authors concluded, after a careful study
published in a recent issue of TJ, that MT
will most probably never be able to translate the
vast majority of texts and may serve best, where it
serves at all, as one additional tool for human translators
[Note
6], the papers in this section express
mainly optimism for the future of this approach. Heard
again are some of the same arguments favoring MT commonly
voiced as early as the Eighties: that it will minimize
"the shortage of human translators," that "the quality
and marketability of MT have been improved considerably,"
that MT is "43,200 times faster than a human translator,"
that "MT systems will be widely used and web translation
will be a leading trend in the future." Yet the editor
also concedes, on the very same page where these statements
appear, that "MT systems in the market are far from
satisfactory." [Note
7]
Part
III of this book goes considerably further in this
direction. It is largely a compendium of articles
either attacking MT or expressing doubts and/or fears
about its ultimate efficacy (or simply ridiculing
its use for translating any sensitive document). In
many ways these two sections largely recapitulate
the terrain covered by discussions of MT in such publications
as Language Monthly, Language Technology, the ATA
Chronicle, or TJ's paper precursor the
Sci-Tech Translation Journal during the 'Eighties
and early 'Nineties. This is not altogether surprising,
since for all its current progress China was relatively
slow during earlier decades in integrating the computer
into its social and commercial structure.
The
titles of some of these articles are revealing in
themselves: "Computer Technology and Translation—Friends
or Foes?" or "Globalization on Language: Death of
the Translator in the Technological Age" or "Shall
We Dance, When the Smart Machines Take Over, Virtually?"
This last piece, written by Prof. Evangeline S.P.
Almberg, contrasts two line-by-line Chinese poems
as translated by one human and three MT programs,
an exercise familiar both to the reviewer and the
editor of this journal. One of the Chinese-English
examples she chooses to make her point, however, is
rather incisive:
Professor Almberg points out that this clever epigram
could be translated in two different ways by human
translators, either as:
Literature
is that which expresses what language cannot express;
Science is that which clarifies what language cannot
clarify;
And machine translation is that which makes unclear
what language has made clear.
[Note
8]
Or as:
While literature expresses
what language cannot otherwise express
and while science makes clear what language cannot
make clear,
machine translation befuddles anew what language has
already made clear.
She then contrasts both or either of these human translations
with the results obtained from three machine translation
systems:
Software One:
Language place cannot express
to come out, express, is literature.
It is not clear to say language, it is clear to say,
is science.
Say language understand, it is not clear to say again,
is machine translation. Software Two:
Language can't explain to come
out of,/ Language can't express and come out of.
Express and come out of, is a literature.
Can not remember clearly the chu the language
of,
Say clarity of, is a science;
Say the language clarity of,
Again to caned not remember clearly
the chu of,
Is a machine translation. And Software Three:
Can't express the language out,
Have expressed out, is literature.
Say and know at the pairs of language,
Say clearly, is the science;
Language make clear,
Say clearly
Is machine translation.
Both of the books discussed so far deal with computer
terminology, both take for granted the basic linguistic
and commercial realities surrounding us, and both
assume that we know enough about the languages we
speak to force-feed them a vast, new, and more or
less foreign vocabulary. But our third book, which
also deals with Chinese, questions all these assumptions
and raises the possibility that there may be yet another
technical vocabulary, equally daunting in its size
and complexity, which we have almost totally failed
to accept or even recognize, much less integrate into
our language and culture.
The author is Jeffrey Brown, a young medical doctor
who spent a year in China and unlike many American
students of this idiom did his best to decipher the
remarkable Chinese linguistic code for representing
reality. He finds this code so challenging that he
has come to question whether in some cases there can
be any truly accurate translation between Chinese
and English.
This
is certainly a brave position to take, since the history
of language studies is littered with the remains of
Western theories about Chinese that had little connection
with reality. Antoine Court de Gébelin, for
example, a friend of Benjamin Franklin who during
the 18th Century enjoyed a vogue for comparing Chinese
characters with Egyptian hieroglyphics and claiming
to see in both the influence of mystical Tarot fortune
telling. Or a century earlier even the mathematical
genius and co-inventor of the Calculus Gottfried Wilhelm
von Leibnitz, who imagined Chinese to be a universal
system of picture writing which all other languages
could readily embrace (though even Japanese and Korean
have never fully integrated it). Or more recently
the late Sorbonne scholar René Étiemble,
who in his book Parlez-Vous Franglais? savagely
attacked the use of English words in French yet warmly
welcomed the possible introduction of Chinese characters
for writing his language [Note
9].
From the very beginning of his book, Dr. Brown insists
on a close relationship between "Language and Thought,"
indeed this is the title of his very first chapter.
He also believes that both Chinese language and thought
patterns differ from Western ones, simply because
they are based on Chinese characters. This too is
a brave position (though one the reviewer agrees with),
as it runs contrary to almost all current formal theory,
especially the speculations of the MIT School of Linguistics.
Dr. Brown is clearly aware of his temerity and proceeds
with some restraint in his early pages, becoming almost
apologetic as he challenges the following position
of MIT guru Steven Pinker:
Knowing
about the ubiquity of complex language across individuals
and cultures and the single mental design underlying
them all, no speech seems foreign to me, even when
I cannot understand a word. The banter among Guinean
highlanders in the film of their first contact with
the rest of the world, the motions of a sign language
interpreter, the prattle of little girls in a Tokyo
playground—I imagine seeing through the rhythms
to the structures underneath, and sense that we all
have the same minds. [Note
10]
This passage occurs as the very final paragraph of
Pinker's The Language Instinct and can thus
be viewed as an encapsulated overview of MIT linguistics.
Since this approach to language has garnered so much
recognition both from specialists and the general
public, I find it refreshing that yet another generation
of scholars is beginning to voice doubts about it.
If this notion were true, then translation would present
no real problems, MT would work perfectly for all
texts, and there would be no need for translator—training
courses, the ATA, or even Translation Journal.
Even without MT, would-be translators into and out
of whatever languages would merely need to connect
themselves to "the single mental design underlying
them all" and easily come up with a perfect translation,
since "we all have the same minds."
But as we all know, much of the time translation
doesn't truly work this way. As Martin Luther complained
in 1530:
And
it's often happened to us that we've searched and
asked for fourteen days, even for three or four weeks,
after a single word, and in all that time we haven't
found it. [Note
11]
Dr. Brown takes the connection between language and
thought a great deal further and questions whether
Westerners can hope to truly understand the Chinese
language unless they are willing to accept the cultural
assumptions taken for granted by many Chinese. He
links Chinese characters to Daoist, Confucianist,
and Buddhist thought, but also to stir-fry cuisine
and the history of China. And since he comes from
a medical background, his main area of study and comparison
soon becomes traditional Chinese Medicine.
It is here that he discovers an enormous new vocabulary
of names, diagnostic procedures, and concepts of treatment,
though one that has never fully made it into English
usage and perhaps never will. He sums up his discovery
at the beginning of Chapter 6:
The connection between language
and thought, I imagined, lay somewhere in the mind
of ancient Chinese medicine. The Chinese physicians,
in pursuit of the health of their patients, had developed
a sophisticated system of physiology, pathology, diagnosis,
and treatment, completely outside the realm of Western
medical science. It was a system of thought that had
its own form of logic...
But the sense of urgent pressure
so many nations feel to master computer terminology
simply does not extend to Chinese medical terms, even
though they might be more beneficial to our health,
and even though Westerners trained in Chinese methods
have been active for decades and during the last few
years acupuncture, taiji, and qigong salons seem to
have sprung up on almost every corner. Where only
two decades ago New York City was busy shutting down
hole-in-the-wall herb shops in Chinatown, not merely
for selling herbs but for performing acupuncture in
their back rooms, today over fifty state-certified
colleges of acupuncture and Chinese medicine have
burgeoned across the nation, and the terminology they
and their graduates use, as Dr. Brown points out,
has remarkably little in common with Western medical
language. It might be interesting to hear Steven Pinker
explain how these words and ideas connect to "the
single mental design underlying them all."
Thousands of such terms are
defined and explained in numerous highly technical
reference books on Chinese medicine, though almost
none of these terms is in currency among Western doctors
and nurses. While they do not sound "technical" in
the way we expect technical terms to sound, they nonetheless
demarcate fairly precise territories within the realm
of Chinese medicine. Here are just three examples,
the names of three well-known syndromes in Chinese
medicine:
It is important to add that from Laotse to Confucius all the
way down to modern times, one of the goals of the
Chinese language has been to reduce meaning down to
four-character compounds similar to the first two
above. Perhaps the technical character of these terms
can be better appreciated from a more extended description
of the first syndrome, as follows:
The
pathologic changes due to accumulation and retention
of pathogenic heat in the large intestine. The main
symptoms are constipation, abdominal distension with
pain and marked tenderness, yellowish [sic]
and coating of the tongue, strong deep pulse, etc.
[Note
12]
A typical Chinese medical text would
of course go considerably further than this, providing
details related to causal factors, differential diagnosis,
and various methods of treatment. It is easy enough
to see why Western doctors and patients are not eager
to master this terminology. First of all, it overlaps
but often fails to coincide precisely with Western
medical definitions. Second, like computer terminology,
for many it is not easy to master. And third, many
patients in our society are not fully able to comprehend
even Western medical terminology, and it is understandable
that they would not welcome learning a second system.
This complexity extends to other fields
as well. As soon as one translates the everyday Chinese
compound tianqi as "weather—which is the
main definition provided in most Chinese-English dictionaries—one
has done violence to the meaning of Chinese, since
a more accurate translation would be "sky qi" or "qi
of heaven." This is not at all the same as what we
call etymology in Western languages, since the elements
of meaning are not little-known Greek and Latin roots
or obscure affixes like "ad-," "syn-," or "-hood"
but everyday full-blooded Chinese characters, each
with its own well-known meaning.
There are many phrases in Chinese—and
even in Japanese—where such a shortfall in translation
plays a role. It is therefore not surprising, just
as English computer terms have made their way into
both Spanish and Chinese, that some Chinese medical
terms, like qi, yin, yang, and xue ("blood"),
have begun to appear in English.
Lest it be assumed that Chinese medicine
is perfect as it is now taught, it should be added
that some of the same problems encountered in translating
English computer terminology into Spanish can also
be found in translating Chinese medical terms into
English. Just as the use of three possible Spanish
words for "web" have caused confusion, so many Chinese
medical texts in English have relied on a variety
of English words to convey the meaning of the same
Chinese character. As Marnae Ergil, one of the main
advocates for accurate translation in this field,
points out:
...over
the years a variety of terms have been used to translate
any one Chinese character....Some authors make decisions
based on extensive linguistic research, others choose
a term because it sounds good, because it is what
has been used before and so has become the accepted
norm or because it is the western medicine translation
of the concept. [Note
13]
Dr. Brown concludes by advancing further arguments
against the assumptions of MIT linguistics and even
suggests that our current definition of "science"
may be self-serving, deficient, and not truly applicable
to much of Chinese thinking, which through its Daoist
roots has always been based on its own form of independent
nature study. His final chapter is a spirited defense
of Benjamin Lee Whorf's observations that language
influences culture, a view MIT linguists have done
their best to bury, though it keeps coming back to
haunt them.
In
the eyes of most terminologists and translators this
campaign has surely been a foolish one. Vicious and
even personal attacks on Whorf are frequently found
in the literature of the MIT school of linguistics,
and Steven Pinker, who has also boasted that the output
of "translation engines" is definitely improving,
is no exception, as can be found in laborious detail
throughout more than nine pages of his book The
Language Instinct. The reason is that Whorf's
position (more properly the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis),
namely that language can influence culture, still
stands in irrevocable opposition to fuzzy MIT claims
that "a single mental design" underlies all languages
and "we all have the same mind." For instance, MIT
spokesmen have repeatedly assailed Whorf for claiming
that there are many words for snow in Inuit languages,
yet their own literature defends what is essentially
the same argument, that there are many different words
for camel in Arabic. [Note
14] Here again the reason is simple:
the claims for "snow words" are backed by the arch-enemy
of the MIT school, Benjamin Lee Whorf. The claims
for "camel words" are backed by another scholar of
no particular importance to MIT linguists. But it
is after all only logical that any language will possess
an enhanced vocabulary and/or terminology for those
aspects of reality of greatest importance to its speakers,
as for example English has a large vocabulary for
automotive words and/or terms.
To sum up, Belda Medina and the Hong Kong terminologists
are perfectly correct in doing their utmost to seek
out the best possible translations for computer terms.
But the turnover in computer terminology has already
been formidable, and there is no foretelling how many
new generations of terminology in all fields may lie
in our future. Or how many new generations of hardware,
or perhaps even of currently unimaginable new devices,
each with its own attendant wordware, may lurk just
beyond the horizon. Or what unforeseeable new breakthroughs
in our thinking might spawn, giving birth to entirely
new terminologies quite beyond our powers to predict.
Based on past history, all these developments could
become so daunting as to turn our current terminologies
in all fields into little more than dead languages,
so that even parts of this review might become hard
to understand as little as a hundred years from now.
In our "management" of terminology we may in fact
be looking at an endless task, like the painting of
the George Washington Bridge, where no sooner do the
painters finish at the New Jersey side but they have
to go back to work on the New York side and start
all over again. Of the making of terminology there
is no end, nor of the inventions that spawn it. Against
this certainty we have but one consolation: what we
face today is not truly a new problem at all. As Roger
Bacon wrote back in 1268:
We
must consider the fact that translators did not have
the words in Latin for translating scientific works,
because they were not first composed in the Latin
tongue. For this reason they employed very many words
from other languages.
[Note
15]
The "other languages" he meant were primarily Greek,
Arabic, Syriac, and Persian at a time when such words
as alcohol, horizon, massage, zero, and many
others were regarded by some people as difficult technical
terms, not totally unlike the way many view new and
unfamiliar vocabularies today.
Notes
1
Here is part of David Crystal's definition of "syntagmatic"
in A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, p.
300: "The relationships between constituents ('syntagms'
or 'syntagmas') in a construction are generally called
syntagmatic relations. Sets of syntagmatically related
constituents are often referred to as STRUCTURES...
Syntagmatic relationships can be established at all
levels of analysis."
2
Chiu and Björn Jernudd and Technological Problems
and Language Management for Internet Language
Professionals in Hong Kong by Charlotte To and
Björn Jernudd.
3
http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop
4
Chiu and Jernudd, in Chan Sin-wai, p. 104.
5
To and Jernudd, in Chan Sin-wai, p. 124.
6
Machine Translation and Computer-Assisted Translation:
a New Way of Translating? by Olivia Craciunescu,
Constanza Gerding-Salas, and Susan Stringer-O'Keeffe,
found at:
http://www.accurapid.com/journal/29computers.htm
It seems to this reviewer that this detailed and balanced
study deserves to become far better known, since only
a remarkably small proportion (little more than one
percent) of translation work has proved amenable to
MT methods over the decades, nor does this market
share appear likely to increase in the near future.
Yet as Part I of Chan Sin-wai's book demonstrates,
MT advocates have never ceased boasting of the vast
power and prowess of their approach over the decades,
even though this partakes of a continuing and unjustified
slur on human translators. It also becomes apparent
from this report that the reasons for these boasts
(and perhaps one source for continued MT funding)
springs from the minds of market analysts easily swayed
by the prospect of MT one day gaining a far larger
market share.
7
Chan Sin-wai, p. viii.
8
This and the next four cited passages come from pp.185-86
of Prof. Almberg's paper, in Chan Sin-wai.
9
Prof. Étiemble presents this argument on pp.
114-17 of his work L'Écriture.
10
Dr. Brown cites this passage on pages 13-14, near
the beginning of his book. And as noted Steven Pinker
places it as his final summing-up at the very end
of his work The Language Instinct, on page
430.
11
Luther, p. 15.
12
Sung, pp. 238, 239, 216.
13
Marnae Ergil: Attentions in the English Translation
of Traditional Chinese Medicine, available on-line
at:
http://www.sotcm.com/ATTENTIONS.htm
14
The repeated snortings and stompings of camels, accompanied
by a voiceover explaining the linguistic nuances,
can be seen in the videotapes The Human Language
Series, the official audiovisual arm of the MIT
School of Linguistics, directed by Gene Searchinger,
Equinox Films/Ways of Knowing.
15
Bacon, I: 76, as translated by Robert Belle Burke.
Bibliography
Bacon, Roger. The Opus Majus of
Roger Bacon (ca.
1268). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania
Press, 1928. Translated by Robert
Belle Burke.
Crystal, David: A Dictionary of
Linguistics and Phonetics, Blackwell/Deutsch,
Oxford, 1985.
Étiemble, René: L'Écriture,
Gallimard, Paris, 1973.
Étiemble, René: Parlez-Vous
Franglais?, Gallimard, Paris, 1964.
Luther, Martin: Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen.
(originally published in 1530). Herausgegeben
von
Karl Bischoff. Halle: Max Niemeyer
Verlag, 1951.
Pinker, Steven: The Language Instinct,
W. Morrow & Co, New York, 1994.
Sung J. Liao: Chinese-English Terminology
of Traditional Chinese Medicine (hanying shuangjie
changyong zhongyi mingci shuyu), Hunan Scientific
Technical Publishers, 1981.
Read
more articles - Free!
E-mail
this article to your colleague!
Need
more translation jobs? Click here!
Translation
agencies are welcome to register here - Free!
Freelance
translators are welcome to register here - Free!
Subscribe
to TranslationDirectory.com newsletter - Free!
Take
part in TranslationDirectory.com poll - your voice
counts!
|
