Blending networks networks in translation

Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 BLENDING NETWORKS IN TRANSLATION WANG Bin University of Shanghai for Science and Technology LANGUAGE: TRIGGER OF CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE The falsification of the general view that conceptual structure is encoded by the speaker into a linguistic structure, and the linguistic structure is decoded by the hearer back into a conceptual structure in the processes of meaning construction in language communication muffles constructing and reconstructing of meaning in communication where the formal linguistic structure provides only sparse and efficient prompts for constructing a conceptual structure. Language communication is a process of constructing relation between formally integrated linguistic structures and conceptually integrated structures built by the speaker or retrieved by the hearer. The conceptual integration is detailed and intricate while the formal integration gives only the briefest indication of a point from which the hearer must begin constructing this conceptual integration, which means that language communication begins with the finding and constructing relations between linguistic formal structures and conceptual structures by the speaker, and ends with the same process by the hearer. Either on speaker’s part or on hearer’s part, there is much room in the process of meaning construction in which conceptual integration networks may be manipulated. Non-set relation between linguistic form and conceptual structure makes language more flexible in meaning construction in basically four ways (Gille Fauconnier and Mark Turner 2002:119-135): simplex networks, mirror networks, single scope networks and double scope networks. The speaker uses linguistic forms to build up conceptual structures that convey communicative modes of a culture in which the intended information is embedded in schemata of a communicated event, the generic space of conceptual integration network. If the hearer, through reading the communicative mode builder, the linguistic form offered by the speaker, diagnoses the intended communicative modes and builds up the relation between communicative modes and schemata of communicated event embedded in them to get the supposedly shared information if they are in the same culture or different cultures but with similar backgrounds, then the communication is accomplished. Due to the flexibility of relations between linguistic form and conceptual structure in meaning construction, at the beginning of communication, the speaker uses some blending networks to apply linguistic forms in building up communicative modes intending to convey his schemata of communicated events, which may probably be read by the hearer with different kinds of blending networks to build communicative modes that convey quite a different intended schemata of communicated events not proposed by the speaker, even though the communicative modes built in - 1 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 communication are the same for both speaker and hearer. That explains why the same speech can be understood in quite different ways even in the same context within the same culture. See Fig. 1. On the one hand, one grammatical structure can be realized in language by different conceptual structures. For examples: Noun phrase [NP] + verb [V] +noun phrase [NP] + Prepositional phrase [PP] can be realized by different conceptual structures in language: a). causal agent’s action (conceptual structure: CS) Gogol sneezed the napkin off the table. [NP] [V] [NP] [PP] b). object’s motion (CS) Junior sped the toy car around the Christmas tree. [NP] [V] [NP] [PP] c). causality (CS) Sarge let the tank into the compound. [NP] [V] [NP] [PP] ... Different realizations show that the relation between grammatical structures and conceptual structures are very flexible. There is no one to one relation between the two. On the other hand, one conceptual structure can also be realized by different cultural communicative modes. For example: - 2 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 The conceptual structure envy, represented by the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence can also be realized by different images, the underlined parts representing cultural communicative modes: Grass always seems greener in foreign fields. Grass is always greener away form home. Grass is always greener on the other side of the stream. Grass is always greener on your neighbor’s lawn. ... Different representations show that the relation between conceptual structure and communicative mode of a culture is also very flexible. No set correspondence is observed. In reading text, a reader ploughs through grammatical structures to dig out conceptual structures, then, to integrate communicative modes of the text language and at last to get a complete schemata of communicated events conveyed by the text. Yet, one communicative mode can also be realized by different schemata of communicated events, for example: Grass always seems greener in foreign fields can indicate a). Living conditions in USA are better than those in China. b). Technologies in Spain are more advanced than those in China. c). John’s wife is more beautiful than Benjamin’s d). Foreign ideas are more innovative than domestic ones ... Different indications show that the relation between cultural communicative mode and scheme of communicated event is hard to pin down as well. Language (words and grammatical structures) functions only as a trigger to trigger conceptual structures that may be integrated in different ways by people to construct schemata of communicated events. EVENT: PAY OFF OF CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION (BLENDING) In integrating conceptual structures, online meaning constructions, there are four basic ways according to Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner (2002:119-135): - 3 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 Simplex Networks In a simplex network, the relevant part of the frame in one input is projected with its roles, and elements are projected from the other input as values of those roles within the blend. The blend integrates the frame and the values in the simplest way. The frame in one input is compatible with the elements in the other: There is no clash between the inputs, such as competing frames or incompatible counterpart elements. As a result, a simplex network does not look intuitively like a blend at all. But it is a perfectly regular integration network, predictable in kind from the theoretical principles of blending. A sentence in English that will prompt the construction of this blend is “Paul is the father of Sally.” The grammatical construction X is the Y of Z shows that there are two inputs: input of family frame (roles of family members: father, mother and kids) and input of elements (Paul and Sally). The cross-space mapping between the two inputs is a frame-to-value connection, an organized bundle of role connectors. In language communication, if the event is integrated in this way, that is if the communicative mode is dug out from conceptual structure and is constructed in a one-to-one cross-mapping in integrating communicated event, the relations among grammatical structure, conceptual structure and communicative mode are stable. The grammatical structure will not be realized in alternative ways until the communicated event as illustrated above. Only one event is observed as a last realization. Paul is the father of Sally: only relation of the father and daughter. There are no other interpretations. Mirror networks A mirror network is an integration network in which all spaces –inputs, generic and blend– share an organizing frame. The organizing frame provides a topology for the space it organizes; that is, it provides a set of organizing relations among the elements in the space. When two spaces share the same organizing frame, they share the corresponding topology and so can easily be put into correspondence. Establishing a cross-space mapping between inputs becomes straightforward. The Buddhist Monk, the Debate with Kant and Regatta (Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, 2002: 39-65) represent good examples to illustrate the Mirror Networks. As stated in last paragraph, in mirror networks, the relations among grammatical structure, conceptual structure and communicative mode are straightforward, which means that there is no alternative interpretation in hierarchical generation of meaning construction from grammar to event as illustrated in Fig. 1. “ At this point, Great American II is 4.5 days ahead of Northern Light.” in Regatta can only be understood as a boat races but nothing else. Single-Scope Networks A single-scope network has two input spaces with different organizing frames, one of which is projected to organize the blend. Its defining property is that the organizing frame of the blend is an extension of the organizing frame of one of the inputs but not the other. - 4 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 The scenario of two men boxing gives us a vibrant, compact frame to use in compressing our understanding of two CEO’s in business competition. We say that one CEO landed a blow but the other one recovered, one of them tripped and the other took advantage, one of them knocked the other out cold. This construal of the situation builds up a conceptual integration network. There is a cross-space mapping between the boxing input and the business input that maps, for example, each boxer to a CEO, a punch to an effort by one of the CEOs, a blow to an effective action, and staying in the fight to continuing the business competition. (Gille Fauconnier and Mark Turner, 2002 : 126131) The organizing frame comes from boxing; CEOs play by the boxing regulations in their business competition, a typical example of conceptual metaphor. Business competition is understood in terms of the boxing game. The point is that one conceptual structure, like business competition, can be represented by different communicative modes (image schemata). Business competition can be understood in or compared to love affairs and fencing too. If the organizing frame is not shared by all spaces, alternative interpretation occurs. No one - to - one relation is observed in the chain generating of the communicated event, for, in the procedure from grammatical structure to conceptual structure to communicative mode to schema of communicated event, any consecutive phase can be mapped to the next and vice versa. One communicative mode will yield different events, because different event organizing frames can be mapped onto the communicative mode (target domain). That is why misunderstanding (intentional or not) happens, for, in single scope network, we can always map another way. Double-Scope Networks A double-scope network has inputs with different (and often clashing) organizing frames as well as an organizing frame for the blend that includes parts of each those frames and has emergent structure of its own. In such networks, both organizing frames make central contributions to the blend, and their sharp differences offer the possibility of rich clashes. Far from blocking the construction of the network, such clashes offer challenges to the imagination; indeed, the resulting blends can be highly creative. Consider the familiar idiomatic metaphor “ You are digging your own grave.” It typically serves as a warning that (1) you are doing bad things that will cause you to have a very bad experience, and (2) you are unaware of this causal relation. In this blend, the organizing frame comes from both inputs. The frame structure of agents, patients, and sequence of events, and the intentional structure come from the “ unwitting failure” Input; the concrete structure of graves, digging, and burial, is from the “digging the grave” input. In the construction of blend, a single shift in causal structure - The existence of a grave causes death, instead of Death causes the existence of a graveis enough to produce emergent structure, specific to the blend: undesirability of digging one’s grave, exceptional foolishness in being unaware of such undesirability, and correlation of depth of grave with probability of death. Double-scope network creates emergent structure, a brand new conceptual structure emerging from both inputs but not found in either of them. This means in reading a text the communicative mode (in Fig.1) may produce new meanings not intended by the author; like a poem, it can be digested in various ways beyond the author’s imagination. Therefore, any event from text is the pay off of a painstaking mental process. - 5 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 TRANSLATION: TWO-WAY BLENDS So is the case in translation but with more complicated features. Translation, a cross-cultural communication, conveys more sophisticated relations in connecting linguistic forms and conceptual structures. Translation takes two-way blends in mental processes. In reading source text, the blending process goes in a reverse way as illustrated in Fig.1 above. After getting the schemata of communicated event from source text, the translator tries to find, in the target culture, the proper communicative mode that can convey the source event, then transfer it into conceptual structure represented by the target language that is grammatical in the target culture, another round of blending. Yet different cultures use different communicative modes represented by different relations in linguistic forms and conceptual structures in language communication causing cultures to clash with each other. In reading source text, language communication happens between translator and author; the translator tries to trace what the author did in building connections between linguistic forms and conceptual structures in the source language to recognize communicative modes used by the author to convey the intended schemata of communicated events if the translator is competent in the source language communication. By acquiring schemata of communicated events, the translator tries to communicate with readers in the target language in which he is supposed to be competent as well. The translator uses target linguistic forms to build connections with target cultural conceptual structures that convey communicative modes in which the acquired schemata of communicated events can be embedded. See Fig. 2. The problem is that source language and target language do not always share the same kinds of communicative modes, though sometimes they do (the overlapping part of CMC1 and CMC2 in Fig.2) in conveying the schemata of intended communicative events; more often than not, they divert from time to time. Given the impacting elements outside the text such as ideology, patronage etc. are the same, there is much to say about the way translator builds up communicative modes that can imbed the acquired schemata of communicated events in the target language which may lead to the watershed in translating principles: domestication or foreignization. - 6 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 When communicative modes are built through simplex networks or mirror networks in the source language and the modes built happen to be shared by the target language in conveying the same schemata of the intended communicated events, neither domestication nor foreignization can make any changes in the transference of text meaning, and that is where “equivalence” comes from. Yet, when communicative modes are built in a source text through single scope networks or double scope networks, translating becomes more complicated. Usually communicative modes built in these two ways are not shared by the target language culture because, in chain mappings as illustrated in Fig. 1, mappings in the two ways are more dynamic. Alternative results are yielded. Domestication and Foreignization have a lot to do in the area and they produce quite different translated versions. If the translator sticks to domestication, he/she would apply the organizing framework used in a single scope network but the organizing structure comes not from the source text but rather from the target language, which means the translator uses target language communicative modes in conveying the acquired schemata of intended communicated events; if he/she sticks to foreignization, the organizing framework comes from the source text; source language communicative modes are applied through single scope network in translation. “Equivalence” is pondered in the air. Yet the translator may use double scope networks as well. When communicative modes built in the source text are an application of double scope networks, and the communicative modes built are not shared by the target language culture (even new in the source language), organizing framework in translation turns out to be even more complicated; it comes not just from any single side but from both sides of source and target languages. Much creation or deviation happens here. Maneuvering arts pop up. You can say nothing about equivalence. The communicative modes built in these kinds of networks are blended ones from two cultures that still embed the intended schemata of communicated events, which may or may not be diagnosed by the readers. BLENDING NETWORKS IN TRANSLATION In simplex and mirror networks, mapping relations are confined; chain generating yields only one result. Paul is the father of Sally can only be translated as: Baoluo shi Shali de fuqin (Chinese). No other version can be possible within the family frame. “At this point, Great American II is 4.5 days ahead of Northern Light” can only be translated as: Zai zhedian shang, dameizhou erhao bi beijixinghao kuaile sidianwu tian (Chinese). No alternative version is possible in the boat racing frame. The organizing frames of both networks are shared by source and target cultures (overlapping part in Fig.2). Equivalence finds its home there. Yet, when CMC1 clashes with CMC2 (non-overlapping parts in Fig.2), the translator has two choices: adopt either single-scope network or double-scope network. There are two ways to applya single-scope network. If the translator uses CMC1 (non-shared part) as the organizing framework in translated versions, foreignization happens: - 7 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 Jie ze er yu (Chinese) will be translated into English as a) to drain a pond to catch all fish instead of b) to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. A more like counterpart in English. More examples: Da cao jing she (Chinese ) a) to stir up the grass and alert the snake b) wake a sleeping dog Yi ru fan zhang (Chinese) a) to be as easy as turning over one’s hand b) as easy as falling off a log Wan huo zi fen (Chinese) a) to get burnt by the fire kindled by oneself b) fry in one’s own grease Hui jin ru tu (Chinese) a) to spend money like dirt b) to spend money like water zhang shang ming zhu (Chinese) a) a pear in the palm b) the apple of one’s eye Shou kou ru ping (Chinese) a) to keep one’s mouth closed like a bottle b) to keep a still tongue in one’s head xue zhong song tan (Chinese) a) to send charcoal in snowy weather b) to help a lame dog over a stile Dui niou tan qing (Chinese) a) to play a lute to a cow b) to cast pearls before swine huan she tian zu ( Chinese) a) to draw a snake and add feet to it b) to paint the lily If the translator uses CMC2 ( non-shared part ) as an organizing framework in translation, version b)s will be chosen in the above ten examples. Domestication is observed. Which CMC is chosen depends on the translator, a matter of choice only. Foreignization uses image schemata of communicative modes in the source language to construct the organizing framework in the target - 8 - Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación Núm. 7 - Año 2005 version, given source text and target text form a cross-mapping. On the contrary, domestication applies image schemata of communicative modes in the target language to construct the organizing framework in the target version. Image scheme plays the key role. However, the translator may use a double-scope network in constructing the target organizing framework of the translated version as well. The point is, it’s more time consuming to illustrate the process. The following shows what happens in this network translation. During the 1992 presidential primary campaign, candidate Tom Harkin criticized the incumbent, President George Bush, with the comment: He’s a guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Most Americans will easily understand Harkin’s analogy as pointing out the contrast between the perceived and the actual cause of Bush’s success as a politician. While Bush perceives his success to be a function of his intrinsic abilities and hard work, Harkin points to Bush’s privileged heritage and implies his success is undeserved. Harkin thus uses concepts and terminology from the domain of baseball to discuss Bush’s success. Moreover, the cross-domain mapping between the sports domain and the social domain is not a single-scope mapping, but rather combines information from both the source domain and the target. Understanding Harkin’s blend, however, requires a certain amount of American cultural knowledge about both input domains. First, Harkin’s comment requires understanding the terms “triple” and “third base” in relation to the institution of baseball. Baseball, of course, requires the batter to hit the ball and run around a series of four bags(bases) arranged in a diamond. Each base is labeled according to the order in which base-runners are required to touch them. The base where the batter hits the ball and begins base-running is called home plate. The first base the runner runs toward after hitting the ball is called first base, the next is second, and the next is third base. Upon hitting the ball the batter will run towards first base while the defensive team attempts to field the ball so as to get the batter out, or, at least to stop his progress around the bases. If the batter is able to get back to home plate without being put out, his team receives one run. It is customary in baseball to label a batter’s hit by the number of bases he was able to tag before his initial progress was stopped. If he gets to first base, it is called a single; if he gets to second base it is called a double; if he gets to third base, the hit is called a triple; and, if he gets all the way around the bases his hit is called a home run. Thus a player who hits a triple will end up on third base. While there are many different ways to arrive at third base (e.g., a batter hits a single and is advanced to third by other batters), hitting a triple, by definition, results in the batter standing on third base. Moreover, a batter who hits a triple winds up on third base largely as a result of his own efforts. As mentioned above, complete understanding of the meaning of Harkin’s statement depends not only on knowledge of baseball, but also on knowledge of the American cultural model of success. As children, Americans are indoctrinated with the notion that any deserving American-born citizen can become president. Another product of American cultural transmission is the story of Abraham Lincoln who was born into a poor family but managed through hard work and ingenuity - 9 -