Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.
My question is that the research
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Wang & readers,
How to do empirical research on translation?
I suppose you must first have a conception of the relation of linguistic meaning to evidence. What is the empirical evidence for linguistic meaning and meanings?
One obvious place to start is with the practice of lexicography. The lexicographer collects empirical evidence of linguistic usage and on that basis formulates and distinguishes word meanings --or at least definitions and descriptions which summarize and codify the meanings expressed in usage. It would appear, then, that linguistic usage is the primary empirical evidence for linguistic meanings and the evidence used in arriving at definitions and distinctions of word meanings. The translator in practice must be aware of the common meanings of the words in material to be translated; and obviously, the translator must be aware of the meanings of words in the language translated into. Notice that in any good translating or dual-language dictionary, senses and entries distinguished in relation to a given word in language A will be correlated with differing words and phrases in language B. To pick out the best or proper translating expression, one must first understand the particular senses (distinguished meanings) of expressions in the language to be translated.
The translator must be aware of or able to draw upon many other things, too, of course. But part of what is involved might be viewed as a matter of correlation between the results of lexicographical work conducted in pairs of languages of interest. More indirectly, it is a matter of the correlation between the evidence of usage which the lexicographers draw upon.
One might think of this as a matter of how to go about (empirically) checking or evaluating what we find in translating dictionaries. This may or may not fully agree with the actual practice of translation to be found in examining particular translated works. One might tend to presume that the lexicographic work is more systematic, but on the other hand, languages are always changing, and it is always possible that a good translating dictionary may need to be updated or corrected on occasion. Clearly, this could not be done except in relation to actual usage.
Wittgenstein famously said, "Don't look for the meaning, look for the use;" meanings are not objects to be found in the extra-linguistic world. Instead it is by attending to usage that meanings and definitions may be formulated and arrived at. From this perspective, assigned meanings and definitions are hypotheses which explain, comprehend and codify the actual, empirical uses to which language is put. Translation is then a somewhat derivative use of language--with its derivative dependence on the evidence of usage.
H.G. Callaway
Somehow your question is not expressed. Is empirical research real? Are the methods themselves reliable?
No. Not always/research should prove or disprove an hypothesis, but often research will simply appear to prove an hypothesis for reasons outside of the scope of the hypothesis, that is it might involve careers, ideologies of those proving or disproving a particular idea.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Wang & readers,
How to do empirical research on translation?
I suppose you must first have a conception of the relation of linguistic meaning to evidence. What is the empirical evidence for linguistic meaning and meanings?
One obvious place to start is with the practice of lexicography. The lexicographer collects empirical evidence of linguistic usage and on that basis formulates and distinguishes word meanings --or at least definitions and descriptions which summarize and codify the meanings expressed in usage. It would appear, then, that linguistic usage is the primary empirical evidence for linguistic meanings and the evidence used in arriving at definitions and distinctions of word meanings. The translator in practice must be aware of the common meanings of the words in material to be translated; and obviously, the translator must be aware of the meanings of words in the language translated into. Notice that in any good translating or dual-language dictionary, senses and entries distinguished in relation to a given word in language A will be correlated with differing words and phrases in language B. To pick out the best or proper translating expression, one must first understand the particular senses (distinguished meanings) of expressions in the language to be translated.
The translator must be aware of or able to draw upon many other things, too, of course. But part of what is involved might be viewed as a matter of correlation between the results of lexicographical work conducted in pairs of languages of interest. More indirectly, it is a matter of the correlation between the evidence of usage which the lexicographers draw upon.
One might think of this as a matter of how to go about (empirically) checking or evaluating what we find in translating dictionaries. This may or may not fully agree with the actual practice of translation to be found in examining particular translated works. One might tend to presume that the lexicographic work is more systematic, but on the other hand, languages are always changing, and it is always possible that a good translating dictionary may need to be updated or corrected on occasion. Clearly, this could not be done except in relation to actual usage.
Wittgenstein famously said, "Don't look for the meaning, look for the use;" meanings are not objects to be found in the extra-linguistic world. Instead it is by attending to usage that meanings and definitions may be formulated and arrived at. From this perspective, assigned meanings and definitions are hypotheses which explain, comprehend and codify the actual, empirical uses to which language is put. Translation is then a somewhat derivative use of language--with its derivative dependence on the evidence of usage.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Will & readers,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Emphasis on linguistic context is quite congenial to what I say above on the evidence of meanings. One may recall Frege's dictum: "Never ask for the meaning of a word, except in the context of a sentence," and beyond that, never ask for the meaning of a sentence, except in the context of a larger text.
All of this is related to the common experience of coming to understand an unfamiliar word by finding it in a text otherwise understood --an accomplishment akin to the lexicographers' formulations of definitions on the basis of the evidence of usage.
Readers may find my collection of essays of interest:
Book Meaning without Analyticity, Essays on Logic, Language and Meaning
This work grew out of my earlier book, Context for Meaning and Analysis.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
As to the last paragraph of H.G. Callaway's answer, I would like to recommend a publication by the German translation scientist H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast. It's called Termini im Kontext and it deals with the phenomenon that terms usually have a context specific meaning.And also what happens with them in the translation process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science