The new proposal which comes as an alternative to the earlier view did not accept meanings to have separate existence apart from the expressions. That is to say, one cannot find 'meaning of an expression' as a separate entity beside the expression. A question like: "What is meaning?" is therefore, not a legitimate question since it assumes that there is an entity or object called meaning. True, that meaning cannot be thought of apart from the expression, while this is an entirely understandable position the problem however remains. One is still very much disturbed by such questions like: "What does the meaning of an expression consist in? "What makes an expression meaningful?" this is where I think Wiltgenstein's 7 conception of meaning understood as use has a tremendous significance. In fact, it changes our whole approach to meaning. To put it briefly, it is said that the meaning of an expression is determined by its use. Meanings are the uses of expressions. They are more like matters of conventions rather than pointing to something eternal. This in other words, speaks for the social nature of meaning. There are social and cultural aspects of meaning. They do not exist at the outer boundary of meaning. They are, on the other hand, constitutive of the meaning-content of the expression. Understanding of meaning is thus a holistic process since it involves knowing its social and cultural aspects. There is nothing called composite term, and understanding of it is therefore necessarily holistic. On the same ground a theory of translation too is a holistic theory since it involves knowing the different segments of meaning.
This picture rules out the idea of a literal translation since we can no longer hold any strict sense of semantic correspondence between expression in home languages and the expression in the target language. In view of this doubt arises. To explain a correct translation implies a semantic correspondence holding between two expressions. But in the absence of a semantic correspondence there cannot be any semantic equivalence which in turn implies that there cannot be any correct translation. Doubt expressed here is totally ungrounded. It arises because semantic equivalence is wrongly taken in the sense of semantic correspondence. The outcome of which is a semantic identity. But semantic equivalence does not necessarily mean to be semantic identity. One is led to such a view because of the belief that correct translation implies establishing synonymity relation between two expressions or putting synonyms for synonyms as Quine will say. This is how the idea of semantic equivalence in translation is taken in the sense of semantic identity. However, with the fall of literal meaning the notion of semantic equivalence can no longer be understood as semantic identity. If there is no literal meaning existing in a significant sense of the term there cannot be also strict synonymity relation since the possibility of the latter is based on the possibility of the former. Hence, if there is nothing called literal meaning there will not be any strict semantic identity holding between two expressions.
Now coming back to the earlier problem. How is translation possible of there is no semantic equivalence or identity? I think the idea of semantic equivalence needs to be revised. To explain the point, the two expressions are said to be semantically identical when they are synonymous, which in essence, implies having one to one semantic correspondence between the two terms. Now to follow the long chain, semantic equivalence is thus evidently based on the notion of strict semantic correspondence. But why should semantic equivalence be the case of strict semantic correspondence? Since meaning is understood as use, an expression gets its meaning due to reasons which are not at all purely linguistic. The role of context and the various cultural factors are enormously important for determining the meaning of an expression. Accordingly, understanding the meaning of an expression involves knowing the details that form the background meaning of an expression. The same consideration applies to translation. A translation also essentially seeks to understand the background meaning of the context that largely determines the meaning of an expression. Meaning thus expresses a totality - a kind of holism and while translating, your objective is to see how best this totality can be expressed through the linguistic expression of the target language. The earlier idea of semantic correspondence, of course, holds. But the difference is not a case of one to one correspondence. It is, on the other hand, more like an approximation, an adjustment, or a consensus based on certain broadly defined common features existing between two expressions may be regarded as semantically equivalent if they share more or less (or approximately) similar kind of meaning. This meaning shareability does not convey strict identity based on synonymity relationship. |
