From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 15 1997 - 06:17:41 EDT
It's been over a decade since I studied translation theory. My memory is
vague but I don't think there was much distance between Chomsky's early
theory and the translation models I saw being advocated.
The authors of these models were using all of the transformational
grammar terminology. Possibly I am attributing ideas to Chomsky which
were not his at all. Like blaming Calvin for the theology of Bezae.
I distinctly remember seeing a translation model where the surface
structure of the source language was being broken down into kernel
propositions (deep structure) and then being *transformed* into the
surface structure of the target language. The authors of this model
claimed they were using principles of transformational grammar. If not,
it is the *method* that has problems, whatever the source.
This method makes me nervous. I would like to see someone translate *To
The Light House*, by Virginia Woolf in this manner or perhaps Faulkner's
*The Sound and the Fury.* One reason I mentioned Richmond Lattimore is
he had a genuine respect for the surface structure of the ancient
documents. His translations of Homer and others are in my mind models
I have also learned a lot from the transformational grammarians. But I
am not a member of the club.
Thanks for responding.
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:15 EDT