[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Chomsky, rain and ice cubes revisited

Micheal Palmer

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 
for emulation. 

I have also learned a lot from the transformational grammarians. But I 
am not a member of the club. 

Thanks for responding.

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
Follow-Ups: