Is Accuracy of Content the Only Criterion that Should Guide the Assessment of Scientific Translation - Literature review Example

Is accuracy of content the only criterion that should guide the assessment of scientific translation? Support your answer with examples. One of themisconceptions that many people have about scientific writing, is that it is in some way uniquely “factual” and bare, devoid of human input and somehow neutral and reliable in a way that poetry or a novel are not. In theory, it is assumed, scientific translation should be both more straightforward to translate, and should easier to assess, since there is less colouring and tone to the expressions used, and more focus on the semantic content. These views have a superficial air of logic to them ,but a closer look at scientific writings throughout history reveals that although there is generally more emotional tone in other kinds of writings, science is not quite as pure and clear of connotations as people might think. Because science involves exploring things that have not yet been discovered and talked about, scientists have always had to inject a great deal of their own vision of the world, and their creative energies into their writings. Mary Midgley reminds us that some of the great champions of the scientific method, including the likes of Francis Bacon. couched their writings in the language of masculine dominance over Nature, which was of course conceived as feminine (Midgley, 2002, p. 41). Some of the modern discussions about waves and particles has an aura of the metaphysical about it also, requiring mystical language to describe how it is there, and not there, apparently at the same time. A further difficulty for translators lies in the fact that accuracy of content is actually quite difficult to define, and it involves contributions from the original source text writer, the translator and the reader. Chalmers points out that in observing, recording and reporting on the world around us, scientists have to construct an appropriate conceptual scheme and then apply it in their writings. (Chalmers, 1998, p. 12) Successive generations of scientists, and of course also readers, translators, and readers of the translations, all have to follow in the scientist’s footsteps to decode this conceptual scheme in order to arrive at the content which is being conveyed. The example that Chalmers uses to explain this is that of a botanist being accompanied by a non-specialist on a tour of Australia. While both the botanist and the non-specialist may share the same language, i.e. English, but they may not share the same knowledge of plant taxonomy. When we consider this problem in the context of scientific translation, different languages may use different conceptual frameworks, depending on their previous scientific tradition, and this is one potential area of difficulty. It may be impossible to convey exactly the same content in the target language, because it may be impossible to create identical frameworks for viewing the material in readers from the two separate traditions. There may not be words for some concepts, and this forces the translator to either use source language words, which adds a touch of exoticism to the target language, or to find circumlocutions that try to bridge the gap in understanding between the two scientific traditions. These additional requirements in translation are not necessarily a bad thing. According to Ducos (2008) scientific translation has a social function as well as an information exchange function. In the Middle Ages translation enabled innovations to be passed along from one culture to another but also, through its simplification and editing functions, it tended to break down elite knowledge into smaller parts which could be more easily appropriated into people’s consciousness. Footnotes and commentaries also expanded particular parts of these texts, adding new emphases and interpretations. In being transferred from the languages of erudition (Latin, Greek or Arabic, for example) into the vernaculars (French, German or English, for example), scientific texts were changed, and made more accessible, bringing knowledge generally from the East to the West in medieval Europe (Ducos, 2008, p. 23). Montgomery takes this further and claims that “translation reveals itself to be a formative influence in the making of scientific knowledge.” (2000, p. 253) He cites the purest, and arguably most universal language of all, Mathematics, to show that even here there is cultural content in what is being written, since all mathematical thought originates within a linguistic context. There is no such thing as a one to one correspondence in translation, even in this pared down scientific language, which is strong evidence to suggest that even in scientific text translation, accuracy of content is an absolute that cannot ever be reached. Other features such as making a contribution to the whole of human knowledge, can, however, help to bridge the gaps that do arise. This educative and explanatory role is surely a secondary function of scientific translation, particularly of works intended for circulation outside the highly academic circles in any century. The work of Finch (1969) endorses this role for scientific translation, even to the point of suggesting that translated scientific texts can be better quality than the original texts on which they are based, because they demonstrate “clarification and avoidance of clumsy phrases.” (Finch, 1969, p. 5) Some scientific works are both lengthy and ambitious in their theme, taking on subject areas which are entirely new to the reading public. In such cases a literal translation of content is not always the best way to ensure that new work is understood and appreciated in the market place. By all accounts the female French translator of Darwin’s Origin of the Species injected considerable interest to the British author’s work through her provocative introduction and fiery translation, which is evidenced by Darwin’s profuse letter of thanks stating that he would have been “un home perdu” if he had dared to express himself so vividly in the original text. (Brisset, 2002, p. 182) In short, therefore, accuracy of content is of course an important criterion for guiding the assessment of scientific translation. It is not the only available criterion, however, and others such as helping to construct new knowledge, fit it into comprehensible frameworks, explain its finer points and disseminate it to different contexts are all worthy criteria which can and should be applied along with accuracy of content. References Brisset, A. 2002. Clémence Royer, ou Darwin en colère. In J. Delisle (ed.) Portraits de traductrices. Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa. Chalmers, A. F. 1998. What is this thing called Science? Third Edition. Buckingham: Open University Press. Ducos, J. 2008. La traduction comme mode de diffusion scientifique au Moyen-Age. In P. Finch, C. A. 1969. An Approach to Technical Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press Midgley, M. 2002. Science and Poetry. London & New York: Routledge. Montgomery. S. 2000. Science in Translation. University of Chicago Press. Read More