[Lingtyp] Citing text in European languages without translation

[Larry M. HYMAN]

I wonder if I can add another issue: whether to translate the glosses of
forms that one cites, e.g. from French when writing in English? I have
found this difficult at times because sometimes you don't know which sense
of word was meant. (I'm usually doing this to illustrate a phonological
property.) When I submitted two papers on Yaka (Bantu, Democratic Republic
of Congo), citing from the Ruttenberg Yaka-French dictionary, I left the
French glosses. One journal (*Studies in African Linguistics* in 1995)
allowed them to stand; the other journal (*Phonology* in 1998) required
that the glosses all be translated into English. Nowadays I translate the
glosses whenever I can--and hope I get them right!

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:04 PM Mattis List <mattis.list at lingpy.org> wrote:

> Dear Ian,
>
> I think the reason for this practice is the history of the field of
> linguistics (in Europe), where lots of the early linguistic work was
> written in French, German, and less so in English. French was one of the
> languages that were listed as basic conditions (or recommendations) for
> starting the study of Indo-European linguistics in Berlin, when I was a
> student, although this was never tested. Many people who grow up in an
> English academic context studying philosophy still consider it important
> to learn German. In German work, we rarely translate English texts, and
> some do the same with French texts, even in English journalism, some
> journalists consider it as okay to mix some German and French words or
> phrases here and there.
>
> Clearly, knowing French and German as a linguist can be an advantage, if
> one is interested in reading the classics in the original, such as
> Gabelentz (who wrote an excellent Chinese grammar that has not been
> translated yet) or Meillet (for his numerous contributions to
> methodology), and there are many others. But so are other languages with
> linguistic and philosophical traditions, and depending on the subfield,
> knowledge of them is almost obligatory. Ideally, all linguists would be
> able to read as many of the languages in which scholarly work is
> produced as possible. And ideally, all linguists would also write
> scientific work in their mother tongue, as this may encourage younger
> scholars and students.
>
> As to the practice of not translating: I followed this in my
> dissertation, since this was what I had learned: German and French
> should not be translated. Having been teaching a lot more in the
> meantime, however, and also having been giving courses in different
> contexts where this "Indo-Europeanist" tradition differs, I have dropped
> it now and provide translations for German and French, as I would do it
> for Chinese and Russian. But still, in some cases, journals don't even
> allow you to provide translations of the titles in the references (few
> style guides include recommendations for translated titles or for
> quoting a book you have read in translation along with the original).
>
> Interestingly, the ancient Europe, which we use to justify the mix of
> German, English, and French, was apparently not that multilingual as one
> tends to imagine it: August Schleicher did not write his famous comment
> on Darwin's Origin of Species until he was given a German translation.
> Nowadays, he'd probably would have written his comment in bad English,
> who knows. I find it difficult to say what is better: embracing
> multlingualism in scientific work or embracing English monolingualism,
> where all those who do not have English as a mothertongue are also in
> disadvantage. Maybe there's a way in the middle. But translations should
> always be given into the language in which you write your text (at least
> that's what I think now), including titles in the references. We do our
> scientific work not only to convince people, but also to give our
> colleagues a chance to learn more. By providing a translation, you
> provide insights into a work to those who are not able to read it
> directly, so one could say it is some kind of a scientific service,
> maybe even a duty.
>
> Best,
>
> Mattis
>
> On 26.06.20 05:56, joo at shh.mpg.de wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > In linguistics, it is common to see in-text citation of text written in
> > different European languages without giving translation, such as an
> > English paper quoting French text without additional translation,
> > assuming that the reader is able to read these languages.
> > I believe that this practice is problematic and we should not assume the
> > readers to be able to read French, German, or other European languages
> > (unless the topic of the paper is directly related to one of these
> > languages). Why do we assume the reader to read a European language but
> > not a non-European language such as Chinese or Turkish? Clearly the
> > latter two are also languages used extensively in academic works, why
> > should they almost always be given translation when European languages
> > like French or German are very often exempted from translation?
> > I would like to know your opinion on this. I’m writing this on this
> > mailing list because I believe this happens more often in typology than
> > in many other subfields.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Joo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>


-- 
Larry M. Hyman, Professor of Linguistics & Executive Director,
France-Berkeley Fund
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=19
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200625/98aed27b/attachment.htm>