Cultural viewpoint in humanities has widened the scope of Translation Studies. Because of this turn of attention, classical controversial concepts have found new significance, mostly because translation is no longer regarded as merely a linguistic activity but a social and even a political one. Presently, it is quite normal to discuss political and social role of translation and its trends in different societies, for it actively and practically participates in social movements and cultural investments.
At first glance, terminology and lexicography may seem like a simple linguistic activity which is only relevant to the terminologist’s specific knowledge in a certain field in source and target languages. Purely linguistic point of view does not give way to a clear understanding of motivations and underlying reasons why members of a community establish a certain lexicography plan and decide on a translation project. This takes terminology and neologisms as issues of high social priority and sensitivity. A question may be posed as to why is it the case that some countries such as Iran, insist on finding suitable Farsi equivalences ideally for all the imported words, while other neighboring countries, despite many common cultural and social characteristics, show little interest to replace imported words with native ones? To prove this, when we listen to a Pakistani radio channel, we almost entirely hear English words coming together with Persian verbs. In fact, if it were not because of some limited number of Persian verbs, it would almost be impossible to distinguish the language from English. The answer to such questions and the point of view through which studies may be launched on such facts have to do with cultural studies of translation.
Translation and Identity
A life feature of a nation is its notion of identity. One must distinguish between him”self” and “others” in order to have an acceptable answer for the question: “Who am I?” In other words, a nation or culture needs some distinguishing factors so it can establish itself as an independent entity. One of its most primary and important factors is language. Being the most applicable tool in communication, language has the ability to differentiate among several groups of speakers each belonging to a separate nationality. Simply put, language functions more than a communication tool; it is a means of being identified among other nations. Thus, a French individual is someone who speaks French, or somebody who speaks fluent Italian is most probably Italian. Therefore, the importance of language is because of its identifying role which leads first to “linguistic” and then to “socio-cultural” identity and finally to a political one, mainly by creating borders between the “Self” and the “Other”.
In this regard, the function of translation as a social reaction against the surge of imported words is of much importance. Iranian culture and language has, from the very beginning of its modern life, insisted on replacing the imported words with Persian ones. Despite the success or failure of the attempts made, this suggests a national tendency to favor Persian equivalents over imported vocabulary. In fact, it is a type of social and cultural resistance which has become institutionalized in the form of “Farhangestan -e- Zaban” i.e. House of Language and Culture. The time this institution was established was when the country had seriously been engaged with industrialization process in a wide scope and consequently there existed a surge of new imported words in different fields of sciences, as in mechanical engineering, architecture and petroleum. The important mission this House had was to adopt acceptable and accurate equivalences for the imported words. The motive behind such measure seems to have been to highlight the difference between languages, and to make the Persian language visible in the engagement with foreign languages, English in particular. Not to mention that the institution required three features in order to achieve its objectives: authenticity, acceptance and authority. This institution can be regarded as the symbol of cultural and social resistance against foreign languages and cultures. Therefore, it seems clear that the function of words goes beyond mere linguistic roles. From this point of view, words are not only linguistic entities but the ones bearing the cultural burden of languages.
What I intend to explore in this paper is to review the measures taken by the above-mentioned institution regarding the purposes explained. The scholars practicing in this institution found out about the necessity of a serious review on different syntactic, semantic and derivational aspects of Persian language aimed at unearthing its potentials to create appropriate and dynamic equivalences for word families and groups. Furthermore, historical studies were made, specifically about the eras when different branches of science flourished in the country and consequently, related terms were coined. Therefore, what goes on in this paper is to highlight the necessity of both synchronic and diachronic examination of Persian language to delve into its unknown aspects and areas in an attempt to explore the linguistic potentials to reach language fertility.
Undoubtedly, a vital step towards such an objective is to correct the impractical approach to neologisms and coinages. The view that such neologisms are not authentic and practical enough to be depended on must be modified. Moreover, this stance must be modified that new words are alien to our language, therefore, are arbitrary. The fact is that coinages, on the contrary, are the elements which lead to language survival and prosperity. In this regard, what translation process can do for us is to bring modern, fertilizing models for formulating words into the language. This can help us develop terminology out of its former conventional frameworks through compounding and derivation (Sadeghi). It also can introduce innovative methods for inventing terminology; methods which can be modeled after those of world’s dynamic languages such as English and French. Having such an idea in mind, the author has paid special attention to the concepts of “Resistance” “Difference” and “Other”.
Synchronic and Diachronic Study
It can be hypothesized that protecting Persian language against other languages can lead to linguistic prosperity in different ways. In order to examine this, I have divided what has been investigated in this regard into two parts, namely synchronic and diachronic studies of Persian Language. In other words, the major part of the present paper is a comprehensive review of the related literature, emphasizing the concepts of Resistance and Difference. What follows deals with synchronic study of the language. Ahmad Sami’ee states in his article that: “[My Translation] there is another objective which necessitates planned and organized terminology creation and that is the issue of conserving cultural identity which has preoccupied certain centers and institutions within the country to take measure against the surge of foreign words, and this is exactly what we deal with in Farhangestan.” Ali kafee also proposes some basic principles to devise terminology. He names the principle as “Persian language as the language of science”. He asserts “[My Translation] if we are to seriously originate terminology, we must take it for granted that Persian language can and must be the language of science.” The next basic principle he discusses is to stop debilitating the language regarding creating the terminology. “[My Translation] at this stage, we have to believe that the Persian Language does not have basic weaknesses in coining words and we should stop setting rules which are problematic and can lead to language barrenness.” It seems that in an attempt to survive the language, the scholars first came to believe in the Persian language abilities and potentials. They recognized the language as being fruitful and then, as follows, began to study it so that they can resolve the weaknesses and improve its abilities.
Practical Solutions
As Kafee goes on in his article, he begins to set some rules for word coinage. The one interesting to mention is “preference of purely Persian elements over non-Persian ones”. As an example, he brings up Persian equivalences for the word “conserve” which can be both “پایستن”and .”بقا داشتن”The first one has Farsi etymological roots, therefore it is preferred to the secondone, not merely because it is Persian but that it is more derivable and can create words like: پایا، پایسته، پایدار، پایگاه
The same is true about “conduct” which can have two equivalences in Persian: “رساندن” and “هدایت کردن”. According to Kafee, the first one with etymological roots in Farsi is much preferred, for it leads to derivations as: رسانا، رسانش، رسانایی، رساننده، نارسانا، نیمه رسانا
It is clearly evident that studying the features of Persian verbs according to their derivability in a search for appropriate Persian equivalences has led to exploring such facts about the language. Kafee’s second rule confirms this finding. He claims that, according to the experience accumulated in the first period of Farhangestan undertaking, a policy was formulated based on which sophisticated words with Arabic roots were to be replaced by simple but fertile Persian words. He calls this rule “declining problematic Arabic words”. Some examples are: تفرق الاتصال، میزان الحراره، متباعد .
On the other hand, when creating new words to substitute the imported ones, one must consider two basic principles: 1) principle of economy, and 2) principle of maximum advantage. Regarding these principles, Persian language seems not to be highly capable of creating effortless and communicative words. Hence, some techniques have been adopted from English language word-coining traditions which are capable of contributing to such objectives in the process of lexical innovation. As Sadeghi mentions in his article, the major technique used in this regard is making acronyms. This technique is quite common in western languages and is mostly utilized when dealing with long names of institutions which have high frequency, such as UNESCO, FAO, and NATO etc.
Other similar techniques, blending, i.e. cutting one part of a word and attaching it to another word, is the one which used to be in practice but was not much prevalent, especially in the area of scientific terms. The English examples are electromagnetic (the equivalent being کهرطیسی) and psychosomatic (the equivalent being جسمنفسی). Clipping, similar to the previous one, already exists in language and is mostly used in daily talk such as (شمسی، بدری، اسی، فری) ,however it seems to have been less in use to produce new technical and scientific terms.
Another technique Sadeghi points out is juxtaposing two words. Doing this, final part of the first word is omitted and [O] is replaced with the conjunction, like the words Indo-European and Indochina. In Persian we have بالتی-اسلاوی / عقیدتی-سیاسی. Mansoori also mentions another technique used in western languages which can be used in our language as well. The technique is called Alphabet-Name and the example is T-shirt. It seems that this technique has not ever been used in our language to create new words, however I believe this can be worked on to be one technique for word creating.
Scientific inquiry has a longstanding tradition in Iran, in the areas of mathematics, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, architecture and philosophy. It is expected that there exist huge number of concepts along with their specific terminology. The terminologist’s job is to refer to relevant references and adopt an equivalent from among the existing Persian terms by comparing the concepts under study. Some findings are ماندگی for exhaustion and لیف for fiber (Kafee).
One weakness Kafee identifies in his article deals with prefixes, where the Persian language seems to be weak at compared to other languages. Solving this, we have to identify, explore and revive Persian isolated affixes. Prefixes such as اَبَر،پاد، پا، فرا have been recovered and we have to practice them in word-making processes.
Final Remarks
The insights of this study are two-fold. First, exploring appropriate genuine equivalences for the imported words modifies the view that imported concepts are unknown to Farsi and that our language lacks scientific background for new scientific concepts. Subsequently we, as scholars, can recognize linguistic and cultural capacities, which is exactly where terminological, translational and cultural issues can meet; a notion I have tried to develop in this essay. The second insight could be the legitimacy attributed to the new terms. It seems that words which are adopted based on a diachronic study look more genuine and enjoy higher levels of authenticity and legitimacy. This certainly can affect their reception from the part of society and language users.
The examples depicted in the present work were to demonstrate the key role translation and terminology play concerning cultural identity in a nation. Translation of imported terms can activate the terminology engine of the language so that it can produce appropriate terms to transfer new concepts into it. From a socio-cultural angle, this is a sort of resistance a language exhibits to bring about difference in an attempt to identify itself both inside and outside the language.
Works cited
Sadeghi, A, Methods of activating terminology in Persian language
Samiee, A, “Compounding and derivation as two terminological tools“
Kafee, A, “Scientific bases for terminology and lexicography“
Mansoori, M influence of translation in word making in Persian language Translation Studies Journal, vol. 4, No. 14, Summer 85