linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <martylinguistlist.org>
sil.org>I believe the matter of translated names is both interesting and important and am happy to see the trend away from them. On the one hand, it can be very normal to translate names into our own languages, just as we need to translate the rest of the information. However, it can also be, or at least be taken as, an indication of our ethnocentrism or imperialism. I am thinking especially of the names people groups call themselves, and their place names. Some years ago I had a warm discussion with a British colleage who took the strong position that we should stick to the forms of names found in the literature and ignore people's own names or spellings of them, or at most include them in parentheses. I felt that this was a reflection on Britain's imperial tradition of anglicizing everything (which is often not true of French loans), and I argued that we should do whatever we could to popularize the people's own names, especially as the names given by outsiders were often derogatory. I have been encouraged in the last couple of years to see this same colleague giving priority to people's own names, and I'm sure it was not a result of anything I said. Then, just last week, I read a lengthy newspaper article by a southern Sudanese decrying the loss of cultural identity caused by the imperialism of the British and Arabs who either renamed people and places with their own names or corrupted the spelling and pronunciation of the local names. He also referred to discussion going on amongst some southerners as to what they should name their new state when it comes into being and, eventually, the need for returning to original names for peoples and their places, since those names are the names of their history, culture, songs, stories and identities. DickMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
facstaff.wisc.edu>Dear LINGUISTS: Attached below are some references for those interested in the _apple pie_ versus _apple cake_ issue. I have found the Liberman & Sproat (1992) article very helful. Based on empirical data, the authors suggest an algorithm to calculate the probability of stress placement in a string of two adjacent nominals such as _rubber boot_ or _party table_. Their evidence is compelling, and for those linguists without much use for algorithms (including myself), the article provides a good review of the common arguments (i.e., lexicalization; FCA; semantics) and why they are problematic. I'd appreciate to hear from you if you know of other helpful sources. Chris Bongartz Department of English University of Wisconsin-Madison Bauer, L. (1983). Stress in compounds: a rejoinder. English Studies, 64(1), 47-53. Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind reader). Language, 48, 633-644. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 239-297. Farnetani, E., Torsello, C., & Cosi, P. (1988). English compound versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse. Language and Speech, 31(2), 157-180. Lees, R. (1963). The grammar of English nominalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press. Liberman, M., & Sproat, R. (1992). The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp. 131-182). Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information. Marchand, H. (1969). Categories and types of present-day English word-formation (2). Muenchen: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Marchand, H. (1974). On the analysis of substantive compounds and suffixal derivatives not containing a verbal element. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in syntax and word-formation (pp. 292-322). Muenchen: Wilhelm Fink. Pennanen, E. (1989). On the function and behavior of stress in English noun compounds. English Studies, 61, 252-263. Sampson, R. (1980). Stress in English N+N phrases: a further complicating factor. English Studies, 61, 264-270.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
HUMnet.UCLA.EDU>Alexis MR raised an interesting issue in asking whether English and various other European languages are undergoing a change from calquing (translating) foreign proper nouns to borrowing them in their native form, e.g., as Wilhelm (as in Kaiser Wilhelm) rather than William (as in William of Orange). Anthea Fallen-Bailey implied that the motivations for choosing between calquing or (direct) borrowing are more complex, e.g., William of Orange consolidated his power in the Netherlands, where he was called Willem, but later took power in England so that he and his wife were known *locally* as William and Mary. It remains to be seen if and when his name subsequently changed from Willem to William in Dutch, i.e. in references to him embedded in Dutch. This is an issue in Dutch, not English. More at issue for English is why Spanish kings called Juan Carlos were formerly translated into English as John Charles, but have been replaced by direct borrowings from Spanish. If this is indeed a trend in English, to prefer direct borrowings to translations with *new* names (proper nouns), we would like to know what is motivating it. There are various possibilities. On the side of translation is the issue of familiarity with "foreign names". If foreign names are generally unfamiliar to speakers, e.g., due to lack of frequent contact with people bearing such names, it is *memory aid* to translate them into more familiar names. It is difficult enough remembering someone's name on first meeting them (esp without prior introduction) without being struck with a totally unfamiliar and unanlysable expression -- from a foreign language. And it is even more of a problem the first time you hear a *place* name. My impression of history with regard to contact with European languages is that translation is rarely an option. If the earlier name is not adopted, the place is completely renamed, arbitrarily from the point of view of the older name or names. Similarly, this was done with African proper names, among others, in "assimilating" them into a European centered cultural empire, cf. baptismal names, given without replacing the parent-given names in Catholic and various other liturgies. (A rare exception with place names is the translation "Netherlands" (now opaque, but do you know what "nether garments" are?), more closely approaching the Dutch original 'Nederland', than the extinct English translation "Low Countries", once commonly used, cf. French Pays Bas. A mitigating factor in what's underlying this exception is that originally "Low Countries" included the distinct current country Belgium, or part of it.) Translation of personal names, however, also often occurs in cases of *personal* contact, sometimes even as a matter for negotation, e.g., in the 1950s-60s in NYC Greek bilinguals named "Jim" in English would introduce themselves as "Jim" and comment that that is how Greek "Dmitri" is translated into English. "Dmitri" was a common name for Greek speaking males. Knowledge of the Jim = Dmitri equation allowed *personal* choice, ultimately decided by the name bearer. The public arena can be one in which there is an open struggle for who gets to make the naming decision. In a sociopolitically symbolic sense , the struggle is between the caller and the callee. EG In LA in the 1970s, many Spanish-English bilinguals, in particular, readopted their Spanish first names, e.g., "Francisco", as *public* names, repudiating the translated names, "Francisco" > "Frank" that they had been given by the public culture during the educational process. Unlike baptism or total renaming, the translation acknowledges the *private* name of the individual, as used among family, but creates an *opposing* public name which creates a degree of *distance* between private and public identity (= form of self-reference). The private name "Frank" might remain as in intimate private situations, upon negotiation with the speaker, since it may also have already developed personal, esp familial, bonds prior to recognition of its political signficance. At this level we can see that trends in names are connected with larger socio-cultural trends, e.g., reflecting "multiculturalism" in the current accomodation practices of the standard European cultures, reflected in their languages. (In urban France, familiarity with Arabic names and Arabic naming customs, far surpasses that in the US, due to the intimate large-scale contact between Algerians and others of North African origin with standard and various urban French cultures. The general level of familiarity was great enough that some French speakers could appreciate the pun in the title of a French film with a principal Algerian character, "Achmed", English "Ahmed", for those familiar with that common Islamic name. The title was "le the au rhum de Achmed". Literally translated, the title reads "the tea with rum of Ahmed". The pun is based on the similar sound of French "the theorem of Archimedes" (dimly perceivable in the English translation). It's important to realise that French "Archimede" sounds more similar to "Achmed" than English "Archimedes" does. The French "ch" in "Achmed" attempts the Arabic pharyngeal but settles for the velar /x/. English omits this segment entirely, leaving the "h" as purely graphic accomodation, making the pun sound even more forced.) Similarly, some form of politically motivated accomodation can be supposed for the change from translation to borowing for political figures, whether royal or not. This even has a "private" aspect, whatever that symbolises (e.g., a personal familiarity that has knowledge beyond and behind the public poses). Ultimately, this may even be connected with even more "personal" linguistic symbolism, e.g., in the acceptance of "nicknames" such as "Bill" instead of "William"as *public* names, as in "Bill Clinton". Entertainers often have such names, e.g., "Bill Cosby" (*William Cosby). The practice suggests a certain degree of intimacy or "warmth" (cf. absence of *distance*: see above). However, there are limits. While "President Carter" was referred to publicly as "Jimmy", his brother "Billy" was not a public figure (except briefly for derisive purposes in the media). "Clinton" is "Bill", not "Billy", and so is "Cosby". This is a feature of the standard language, not necessarily of all its vernaculars. "Jimmy" in the case of Carter has a Southern origin, and in that context does not necessarily imply younger and of inferior status in the family or larger social hierarchy, cf. Southern adult use of "Daddy" and "(my) daddy". However, it remains to be seen if this is part of a trend or a momentary lapse which *overgeneralised* the public use of private names (cf. the constantly increasing public attention given to the "private" activities of public figures). Returning to the question of royal names, the standard symbolism remains quite striking. With a few interesting individual exceptions (e.g., some artists), public figures are publicly referred to by their last (family) names, with or without titles. But royal persons are known by their first names, and most people who have heard of them don't even know their last names. We see now that the standard symbolic distinction between translation and borrowing is not the limit to preferring a label based on "private knowledge", usually through personal contact. More familiar first names are also involved, and even more intimately -- seemingly beyond *public* accomodation. The example of "Princess Di" is instructive. "Queen Elizabeth" is not publically "Liz" for even the most disrespectful media (though Margeret Thatcher was "Maggie" to her *enemies*, e.g., in hostile public graffiti, and the entertainer Elizabeth Taylor became "Liz" as a public figure whose private life was standardly considered publicly interesting), but "Diane" became "Di" as she was portrayed in public as a private person; in this case, "private" focussed on her conflict with established British royalty -- and their conventions. My only point is that the question of the trends underlying various a priori choices in naming processes leads almost immediately to analysis of the social purposes associated with the choices. The most purely linguistic question is whether the choices themselves change or whether they are always available. At the most personal extreme are "family words", sometimes affectionate allusions to words created during the language acquisition process. These are idiosyncratic. Trends in public choices for naming are much more conventionalised. There are three choices: (1) rename (2) translate (3) (direct) borrow, and they are ordered that way on a scale of NON-accommodation, a purely formal characterisation which has countless, but accountable, social purposes. NB. The process of borrowing has various features, particularly of phonology. Social accomodation retains some of the memory aid features of renaming and (most obviously) translation in the case of adaptation to the familiar phonology of the recipient language. Various methods apply. Most distant are spelling pronunciations, e.g., British traditional 'Don Juan' with /j/ for Spanish /hw/, quite marked currently. More accomodating is nativisation as /dan wan/. /dan/ 'Don' is already an English name (though a title in Spanish), but /(h)wan/ remains a borrowing. This reflects current practice. Most accomodating is retaining the source language phonology. That may be beyond the abilities of many monolinguals. Nevertheless, the symbolism remains. Thus, "Bach" as /bax/ rather than /bak/ gives the English hearer the impression that more interest in and probably more knowledge of Bach's music is implied. English speaking announcers on classical music stations seem to be generally equal to the task of pronunciation, without much additional knowledge of German. The pronunciation /x/ remains marked in this way for most speakers of English, and that marking feature is also understood in standard contexts. Standard English still does not have distinct phoneme /x/. This NB has nothing to do with the original question. It's just a further implication of borrowing and what motivates choice -- or change.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue