Why should I choose to study translation?

Barchudarov language and translation

..Language translation
PROBLEMS OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL TRANSLATION THEORY

Publishing house Progre Moscow 1979


. Authorized translation into German by M. Zwilling

* 8 0 1 2 1 8 *

",, 1979 Deutsche translation Verlag Progre Moscow 1979,) Order no .: 576 979 6 riA B

70101755 014(01)-79

394

~79 .

4602000000

66 fe 6 * 1 q

1 Trot: .. t IH 'KT i. )? P - y o o f 1 ') i awwitttfldteinnriiiiini11' ii '* ^

FOREWORD

The present book is the German translation of my monograph "published in 1975 by the publishing house" in Moscow. The work is based on a lecture cycle of several years by the author at the Moscow State Educational High School Maurice Thorez "as well as observations and findings that he had presented in previously published essays. The focus of the monograph is on issues related to general translation theory; to Its concretization and the illustration of the general theoretical views represented by the author serve examples of translational equivalents in the relationship field of three languages: Bussian, English and German. Hence the subtitle of the work: l'Vagen der general and special translation theory "; the general theory of translation is the subject of the present work, the special theory of translation its material. Since the development of general translation theory is not possible without dealing with the relevant linguistic problems, in writing this thesis great attention had to be paid to the consideration of questions that actually do not belong to the field of translation theory but to general linguistics. This applies above all to the problem of semantics and semasiology, especially since an adequate semantic theory is a necessary prerequisite for the translation-theoretical system accepted by the author. As a result, in some cases there was an accent shift "before 3

had to be taken, through which the focus might shift from the actual problems of translation theory to questions of general and contrastive "linguistics, which is apparently not only unavoidable, but in a certain sense also worthwhile. The material for the investigation served before mainly published translations of works of fine literature and partly also socio-political texts. The names of the translators are only given for the first quotation. The translations without reference to the source come from the author or the translator of this German-language edition of the book. Of course, this can be for the German reader Certain books may not be identical to the original edition intended for Russian readers.The Russian edition operated exclusively with Russian-English or English-Russian translation examples, whereas the German edition also contains numerous German-Russian examples r and z. Some German-English equivalents have been included. A help that cannot be overestimated was provided to the author by Dr. M. J. Zwilling, who not only provided the translation of this monograph into German, but also worked as an editor and, in a certain sense, even as a co-author. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere and heartfelt thanks to him. L. Moscow, Barchudarov in June 1978

PRELIMINARY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR

The Russian word ", which is common both in the A l t a g and in science, is reproduced with translation throughout this book." The detailed analysis and subsequent definition of this term at the beginning of the Book excluded. The use of the terms language mediation "or translation", which is customary in the work of specialist colleagues in the GDR, was dispensed with because, in contrast to the word used in Russian, they are expressly terminological formations that fall into a specific system of theoretical views are embedded. A detailed discussion of these would, however, go beyond the scope of this treatise. M. twin

.
-

'

'

'

>
:

? -f

fifbtj

CHAPTER ONE THE NATURE OF TRANSLATION

1. The subject of translational theory


1. The word translation "has two different meanings in German, as it does in most other languages: 1. Translation as the result of a process" This word actually designates a translated text (for example in statements like This is a very good translation of the Bomans von Dickens ", A new German translation of Twardowski's, Wassili T jorkin '" appeared recently, "He only read this author in the translation" etc.). 2. Translation as P roze "as an activity description after the verb translate ", ie as the process that leads to the creation of the translation in the first meaning treated above. In the following, the word translation" will be used primarily in this second meaning. However, right at the beginning it is necessary to explain in what sense translation should be understood here as a process or process. First of all, it should be noted that this cannot refer to the translator's psychological or intellectual activity, i.e. not to the psycho-physiological processes in the translator's brain. However, the study of these processes, from a psycho] inguistic point of view, is of great interest, especially in the field of interpreting. But apart from that, since we currently have a very vague idea of ​​the actual character of this process (by its nature it can only occur in a complex psycho-physiological7

linguistic procedures are examined), we are interested in the translation process in the given case primarily from a purely linguistic point of view, without taking into account the physiological and psychological factors that influence its implementation. The term process "is therefore applied by us to translation in a purely linguistic sense, ie in the sense of a linguistic or rather inter-lingual conversion or transformation of a text in a given language into a text in another language. The word conversion" is also used here not to be taken literally, because the original, the source text, is actually not converted at all, "nothing changes in it, it remains unchanged. On the other hand, however, a new text in another language is created on the basis of this very text which we just call translation "(in the first meaning of the word). The term transformation "(or transformation") is used here only in the sense that is generally used in the synchronous description of language: It is a relationship between two units of speech or speech, in which one forms the starting point and the other is formed on its basis. Or, applied to our case: The translator has the source text a in the language A, on the basis of which he generates the textb in the language B through operations (which are to be examined in more detail as translation transformations), which generates certain regular relations to text a. These linguistic (inter-lingual) operations together make up what we call the translation process "in the linguistic sense, s Consequently, translation can be viewed as a certain type of transformation, namely as an inter-lingual transformation. In summary, the subject matter of the linguistic translation style is the scientific description of the process of translation as an inter-lingual transformation, i. Ii. as the conversion of a text in a given language into an equivalent text in another language (from the content of the term equivalent "should still be Hede). Or to put it another way: the task of translation theory is the 8th

Modeling the laid senses.

translation process

in the

shown above

2. The linguistic translation theory consequently sets itself the task of developing a model of the translation process, of creating a scientific schema that depicts the essential aspects of this process with satisfactory accuracy. Since this is a case of theoretical modeling, everything that applies in general to theoretical models applies to translation theory. The following two considerations should be particularly emphasized: 1. Like any other theoretical model, translation theory does not depict all, but only the most essential features of the phenomenon to be represented. Translation theory does not deal with arbitrary relations between texts in the language of the original and texts in the language of the translation, but only lawful, i.e. H. typical, regularly recurring relations. In the comparative analysis, the translation and the original, in addition to these relations, numerous unique, irregular relations (correspondences) come to light that only apply to the specific individual case. Insofar as such individual relations cannot be generalized, they are of course not taken into account by linguistic translation theory either, although it is undoubtedly precisely these irregular "correspondences that often cause the greatest difficulties in translation practice. On the other hand, however, it can be stated that this is not the case as the development of translation theory progresses Few phenomena that were initially thought to be unique, irregular, can gradually be put together to form an overall picture, find a corresponding explanation and become an object of investigation in translation theory. As in every other science, progress is also expressed in translation theory, among other things Since out of the apparent chaos of exceptions "and irregularities" gradually emerges a general law to which all these individual cases are subject and by which they are determined in their essence sziplin, there is also the possibility in translation theory, 9

and it has also been implemented in practice to create not a single model, but a multitude of models that depict the process to be modeled in different ways and each capture different aspects of this process. The complexity of the object to be described and its versatility make it impossible to construct a single universal model "that would be able to simultaneously capture all sides of the object under investigation with all their entanglements and interrelationships. Therefore, in modern translation theory, several so-called translation models" * exist side by side , with each model reflecting a different side, a different aspect of the real existing object "translation process" (as a special kind of inter-lingual transformation).It would be naive, however, to ask the question: which of the existing translation models is the right one, which is the true one? "They all agree, each in its own way, because they reproduce one and the same phenomenon, namely the translation process, albeit from It goes without saying that none of the models can lay claim to absolute generality or universality. The same applies, however, to the translation model on which the present study was based and which could be described as the semantic-semiotic model "(for the reason for this designation, see in Chapter 2). However, it must also be taken into account that the existing (and also those still to be expected in the future) translation models are by no means mutually exclusive, but rather agree with one another in many respects, partially overlap and only in their entirety the translation process in all its diversity and in its own do justice to the whole wealth of appearances.

2. The essence of translation


3. Translation was defined by us above as the transformation of a text in one language into a text in another language. You have it with the translation
* The most important of these models are described in the book by A. D. Schweizer. . . : "",. ,, 1973,. 1, 2.

10

always to do with two texts (speech products "), of which one forms the starting point and is generated independently of the second, while the second is produced on the basis of the first by means of certain operations between linguistic transformations. The first text is called the original text" ( or in short the original "), the second translation text" (or simply translation ", according to the second meaning of this word explained at the beginning of this chapter). The language in which the original text was written or spoken is called the source language (AS, English : source language, SL, Russian: 1,). The language into which the translation is to take place (the language of the translation text) is called the target language (ZS, English: target language, TL, Russian:,). Now we have to what is actually most important defines what entitles us to regard the text of the translation as equivalent to the original text. W hat entitles us to use the German sentence Me in brother lives in Moscow as a translation of the Russian sentence and to reject the sentence I'm studying at the university as a translation of the same sentence, to discard it as non-equivalent? It is clear that not every substitution of a text in a different language can count as a translation for a given text. The same idea can also be formulated differently: The translation process, the inter-lingual transformation, does not take place arbitrarily, but according to certain fixed rules, within strictly defined limits, beyond which one can no longer speak of a translation. In order to be called a translation, the target-language text must contain what the source-language text contained. So if the target-language text takes the place of the source-language text, a certain invariant must be retained; the conservation measure of this invariant is the standard sought for the equivalence of translation and original translation process, i.e. when transforming the AS text into the ZS - T ext remains unchanged. S "In answering this question, the following assumption must be assumed. The translation process is 11

directly shaped by what in the semiotics of science of the sign systems is called the double essence of the sign. Each character has two sides or levels, the level of expression (or the level of form) and the level of content (or the level of meaning) ?; As is well known, language is a specific system of signs, so the linguistic units (the types of which will be discussed in Chapter 4) also have a double essence, both a form and a meaning. The decisive factor for the translation is the fact that different languages ​​contain units that are in the level of expression, i.e. H. in terms of form, differ from one another, but differ in terms of content, i. H. in their meaning, coincide with each other. So there is z. For example, in the sentences cited above, there is a difference in form between Russian and German Bruder *, while the two words are the same in content and meaning. (For the sake of simplicity, we are temporarily disregarding the fact that the translation theory weighs heavily, since this congruence in terms of content of units in different languages ​​is usually only partial and almost never total. The German word Bruder not only has the meaning of Russian, but In addition, there are also those of, etc., while the Russian is again contrasted with the German word Vetter. We shall see further that this incomplete congruence of the systems of meanings of different languages ​​makes the translation process considerably more difficult, but does not affect its fundamental character. ) If we now replace the German word Bruder with the Russian one, we can refer to this as a translation process on the basis of what has been said above, since these two words are different in terms of content, i.e. H. in their meaning, congruent, or are equivalent. The smallest actually existing Tex t (the minimum operating product) is always a sentence, and therefore the translation process takes place at least
* The phonetic similarity of brother "and" has etymological reasons and is based on the common ancestry of these words from the same Indo-European root. This is completely irrelevant for the translation: the phonetically dissimilar words father "and" congruent semantically just as much as brother "and".

12

on sentences * (more often, however, on groups of sentences). Within the clauses, however, the incongruences in the meanings of the units of different languages ​​that were mentioned above are eliminated or overcome (for more details, see Chapter 2). In relation to our example, this means that in the translation we do not simply replace the German word Bruder "with the Russian and the German lives" with the Russian, but rather the German sentence Mein Bruder lives in Moscow "as a whole with the Russian, which differs from the original sentence in form, but is equivalent to it in terms of content, i.e. has the same meaning. Based on this, we can now formulate the following precise definition of the translation: The translation is the process of converting a speech product in one language into a speech product in another language Preservation of the unchanged content, ie the meaning. Right at the beginning, however, a twofold reservation is necessary. Meaning "is to be understood here in the broadest sense, it includes all kinds of relationships, the bearer of which is the sign unit (in our case the language unit). The description of these relationships makes up the content of the next chapter; There is good reason to reduce the term meaning "exclusively to what is commonly referred to as logical-objective" or denotative "(or in the terminology of this book, referential") meaning. A correct understanding of the nature of the translation process thus primarily requires one detailed development of the theory of linguistic meanings or semasiology ahead. 2. Of the unchanged preservation of the content "can only be spoken of in the relative and by no means in the absolute sense. Losses are often inevitable with inter-lingual transformations (as with any other transformation). B. Technical terms in parts lists, technical drawings and other technical documents, but these cases can also be regarded as particular types of clauses.

13

ten meanings is inevitably incomplete. According to this, the text of the translation can almost never be a complete and absolute equivalent of the original. It is the task of the translator to ensure the maximum achievable equivalence, to keep the losses to a minimum, but the demand for a 100% "match between the meanings of the translation and those of the original is unrealistic. Hence, the task of the translation theory is determination Since there are, as is well known, different types of meanings, it is important to determine which of them have priority in the translation process and which one may sacrifice if one wishes to minimize the semantic losses during translation. This problem will be discussed in detail below. With these two major reservations, we can now accept the above definition of translation as a working definition and base the semantic-semiotic model "of the translation" to be developed here. 4. To round off the consideration of the essence of the translation, we must address another problem, which results from the above definition of equivalence, which is based on the preservation of the unchanged meaning. The possibility of keeping the content, ie the meaning, at least relatively unchanged in the translation, is based, as already said, on the assumed existence of units with the same content in different languages. Here, however, the question is justified to what extent this assumption corresponds to the circumstances. If the meaning, as we think (and will justify below), is an integral part of the sign and thus also the linguistic unit, then it seems to follow from this , since every zoichonsystom and som it also has its own specific meanings for every single language. From this, however, it would in turn result that when converting the source-language text into the target language, together with the linguistic forms, the meanings expressed by them are inevitably exchanged. Then what right do we have to speak of the immutability of meaning in translation? 14th

his question is to be taken seriously and deserves a thorough discussion. The discrepancy in the semantic systems of different languages ​​is an indisputable fact that presents the translator with numerous difficulties in performing the translation. Chapter 3 deals with these discrepancies in more detail. Various authors believe that this justifies their assertion, since the equivalence of the original and the translation is not based on the identity of the meanings they contain. The position of the English translation theorist JC Catford should be mentioned here as representative for numerous others: The view is that the AS - T ext and the ZS text have 'one and the same content', or that a 'transfer of meaning' takes place during the translation unfounded. For us, meaning is the property of a particular language.The A S - T e x t has the meaning of the source language, while the ZS text has the meaning of the target language. So has z. For example, a Russian text has a Russian meaning (and also a Russian phonology or graphology, grammar and lexicon), but the equivalent English text has an English meaning. "* We insist, however, on the validity of the definition we have formulated above the translation and want to reinforce this with the following arguments: 1. The meaning system of every language stores the human experience, ie the results of the knowledge of the objectively existing reality through the human being. In every language the system of linguistic meanings is an image of the human being surrounding outer world in its entirety as well as its own inner world, it fixes the entire practical experience of the respective linguistic community. The same experiences of different linguistic communities are reflected in the same meanings found in the languages ​​of these communities. However, only the meaning is the same, mind you in themselves and not the linguistic units that express them. But since the real e ity in which different language communities live is much more common * /. C. Catford: A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Ldn., 1965, p. 35.

15

shows the same features as differences, there are far more similarities between the meanings of different languages ​​than differences. The fact that these meanings (atomic units of meaning or "semes") are combined differently in each language, bundled in a specific way, lies on a completely different level. This is not part of the content, but rather the forms of expression of the language Examples are given of how differently the meanings are structured, classified and summarized in different languages ​​(English, Russian, German). This phenomenon makes the translation process a rather complicated process, but the principle of translation remains unaffected, the rendering of the meanings Using the resources of another language does not make it impossible. 2. From what has been said, it becomes clear that the greatest translation difficulties occur where there is no counterpart in the experience of the target language community for the situation presented in the source text, when so-called realities in the source text "to be described, objects and phenomena specific to the given people or country. Since the solution of the translation problem is connected with difficulties in such cases, does not mean that it is fundamentally unsolvable. Every human language is designed in this way, and this obviously distinguishes it from all or almost all other systems of signs, since with its help it is possible to describe not only familiar, but also completely new, previously unprecedented situations, namely an unlimited number of such new, previously unknown situations. A language that lacks this property, that is incapable of describing new, hitherto unknown situations, would have no com m u n i k a t i ve r t, because it could only express what is already known, what has already been said. Neither could such a language serve as an instrument of knowledge, and it would prevent humanity from making any progress. The ability to describe new, unfamiliar situations is an indispensable property of any language, and it is this property that enables the process of interest to reproduce specific realities of a people or country that are not analogous

Having loga in the life of other peoples and countries is only possible with the means of another language. * How these realities are reproduced in the translation will be dealt with in more detail below, here only the basic possibility of this reproduction is stated. 3. We defined translation earlier as the process of converting a product of speech in one language into a product of speech in another language. The translator does not have to deal with languages ​​as systems, but with speech products or texts. The differences in the semantic area, the differences in meaning, which were mentioned above, come to light above all in the systems of different languages, but in speech these differences are mostly neutralized, bridged or eliminated. When referring to the differences in the systems of meaning in order to prove the alleged impossibility of reproducing the source-language meanings with target-language means, examples of semantic differences are usually either single words or, at best, isolated sentences extracted from the context. When it comes to translation, however, it is not a question of the equivalence of the meanings of individual words or of not isolated sentences, but of the equivalence of the text to be translated (speech product) as a whole compared to the entire translation text. The concrete distribution of the elementary units of meaning (semantic "or semantic components") to the respective words, word formations and sentences of the text is a result of the effect of numerous and varied factors and usually shows in the AS - T ext and in the ZS - T ext no congruence. D o c h this is again a fact of the level of expression and not of the level of meaning and therefore cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of semantic q u i v a lence of the original and the translation. We want to underpin what has been said with two examples. With the well-known British writer S. Maugham
*See. O. Kade. Communication problems of translation. Supplements to the journal Fremdsprache ", II. Leipzig, 198, p. 10;. II.:,.,", 1973,. 89. 2-019 17

we come across the following sentence in the short story A Casual Affair ": He'd always been so spruce and smart; he was shabby and unwashed and wild-eyed. The German translation of this passage could sound something like this: It used to be always so elegant , dressed so fashionably, but now he dragged himself dirty and tattered, with a confused look through the streets of Singapore. At first glance, the German text does not seem to be completely equivalent to the English. now, dragged himself ... through the streets of Singapore there are no direct equivalents in the original. In reality, however, the semantic equivalence is guaranteed here, although the literal equivalence is missing. The German words earlier and now give meanings here that are in English can be expressed solely through the grammatical forms of the auxiliary verb be (had been "und was"). The sequence of events is in German n but additionally characterized by the corresponding adverbs. The words dragged their way through the streets of Singapore contain information that is also present in the English text, albeit not in the sentence concerned, but in sentences that preceded it (He didn 't keep the jobin Sumatra long and hewasbackagainin S ingapore ). The semantic equivalence is consequently not guaranteed between individual words, not even between individual clauses, but between the whole A S-T e x t and the whole Z S-T e x t. Another 'example of this. In the story of the American author Harper Lee To Kill a Mookingbird "there is the following sentence: Mr. R aymond sat up against the tree-trunk, German: Mr. Raymond sat down and leaned against the trunk of the oak. One could believe that in this case, too, the German sentence does not completely agree with the English one because of the meanings it contains, because here we find the word leaned, which is missing in the original. The English adverb up in sat up indicates this , since the subject of the action 18

must have been lying in front of the hunch (cf. sat down); this information is omitted in German. The English tree-trunk denotes a tree trunk par excellence, without specifying the species, so not specifically an oak. The meaningful equivalence is nevertheless given here, but can only be determined if one takes into account the lexical-grammatical conversions (translation-related transformation) that occur during the translation process and, on the other hand, goes beyond the scope of this individual sentence in the further context . The German sat down and leaned corresponds to the English sat up against insofar as the preposition against also has the meaning of touching something or leaning against something. The specific information contained in sat up results in the German Tex t from the following sentence: He was lying in the grass. The tree, against which R a y m o n d leaned, was again specified in the previous c o n t e x t, it is there explicitly about an oak (W e cliose the fattest live o a lc and we sat under it). The analogous equivalence of the A S and the ZS text is in this case not established on the level of the individual words and not even on the level of the sentences, but on the level of the entire text (cf. also chapter 4). So we see that the semantic discrepancies between the languages ​​cannot be an insurmountable obstacle to the translation, since the translation does not have to do with the languages ​​as abstract systems, but with concrete speech products (texts) in which there is a multitude of interweaving and Interaction of various meaningful linguistic means, words, grammatical forms, syntactic and suprasegmental "means, etc. takes place, which in their entirety convey a given semantic information. The semantic equivalence of the target and the source text, which in our opinion is the necessary prerequisite for the creation of the translation does not exist between individual elements of these texts, but rather between the texts as a whole, whereby within the respective text numerous regroupings, rearrangements and redistributions of individual elements of meaning (translation transformations ") are not only permitted, but often
A *

are downright indispensable. An inevitable principle of translation is consequently the principle of the subordination of the elements to the whole, of the lower units to the higher ones, of which we will be able to convince ourselves more often in the following. 4. What has been said is in no way intended to imply that the translation process provides an absolutely complete (one hundred percent ") reproduction of all the meanings found in the original text Doubts about the possibility of using the meanings contained in the source-language text in the translation are only justified insofar as the absolute identity of the meanings is at stake.These doubts, however, vanish when one considers that we are concerned not with an absolute, but with the greatest possible perfect completeness of the rendering of the meanings, taking into account their order of understanding ".

5. What has been said so far is actually sufficient to clarify the question of the reproduction of the meanings expressed by the A S - T e x t when translating into the target language. However, in order to finally come to terms with this problem, the problem of translatability, "as it is called, a doubt must be dispelled, which is the possibility of the complete and adequate reproduction of the meanings expressed in one language by the means of another language The cause of this doubt is the view, or rather the prejudice, that there are on the one hand developed ", civilized" languages ​​and on the other hand undeveloped ", primitive", "backward" ones. From this point of view, which is still held in lay circles today, the arguments in favor of translatability presented above only apply to developed "languages. This is invalid for primitive" or undeveloped "languages, since they are incapable of expressing all those meanings due to their backwardness" which can be expressed in the developed "civilized" languages. 20th

This point of view must be resolutely rejected, as it is in all respects v l l i g untenable. Its political untenability is obvious if one counts it against the thesis of Marxism-Leninism of the equality of languages. If he does not recognize and defend the equality of nations and languages ​​... he is not a Marxist, he is not even a democrat, "says VI Lenin. * The political equality of languages ​​presupposes their linguistic equality, otherwise the principle the equality of languages ​​would degenerate into a mere formality. But from a purely linguistic point of view, this point of view is untenable. When examining numerous exotic "native languages ​​of Africa, Australia, North and South America, the linguists were able to determine that these languages ​​all developed sufficiently" Have a grammatical structure and a rich vocabulary. In none of the previously known languages, whether living or dead, could features be detected which one could with any degree of certainty assess as a mark of primitivity "or backwardness". Let us consider: What can actually be the difference between what developed "and undeveloped" languages? The peculiarity of every language is determined by its sound system (1), by its grammatical system (2) and by its word stock (3). As for the phonetic system, it will hardly occur to anyone to assert, since there is a difference between a primitive "and a civilized" phonetic system. In many exotic "languages ​​we find quite strange sounds (such as the so-called clicks" or clicks "in the Hottentot and Bushmen languages), but there is no evidence that these sounds are in any way related to their character primitive "or uncivilized". Thus, only the grammar and the word inventory remain as possible criteria. But even the analysis of these sides of the linguistic structure does not provide the slightest evidence in favor of a division of languages ​​into primitive "and developed". In fact, many have Spra * WI Lenin: Works, B d. 20, p. 13.

21

have a peculiar, specific grammatical rough that does not match the usual patterns of Latin, German or Russian grammar. But is that reason enough to label their grammatical structure as primitive? The lack of the grammatical categories of time "or number" in various exotic "languages ​​does not justify the conclusion that the corresponding terms in themselves are alien to the thinking of the people in these linguistic communities are. The analysis of the structure of these languages ​​shows that they are able to express any concept and also realize this possibility in practice by expressing even the most abstract concepts such as the time of the action or the number of objects not grammatically but lexically. It would be far too simple to interpret this as the primitiveness of these languages. Languages ​​of any gram ra atical structure are capable of expressing any thought and term. This is an inescapable fact that has not yet been refuted by anyone. The following law, which comes to light in the interpretation of the linguistic structure of different languages ​​by adherents of the theory of the inequality of languages, is revealing. If a certain grammatical category is missing in an exotic "language, this is interpreted as a characteristic of diffuse", unstructured "primitive thinking; on the other hand, if a category is found that is alien to the (especially European) languages ​​we are familiar with, this is done to the inability to abstract "primitive thought" and to its inability to rise above the expression of concrete meanings and relationships. One and the same phenomenon is in one's own "languages ​​a feature of a high level of development (abstractness" and differentiated structure "are good features!), In the primitive" languages ​​it is a feature of backwardness (lack of structure "and excessive concretization" receive the predicate bad ") Here the absolute superiority of one's own language is always assumed to be a matter of course, which of course has nothing in common with scientific argumentation

Similar results are obtained from the analysis of the word inventory of the so-called exotic "languages. As is well known, the word inventory of the language stores and anchors human experiences in an immediate and direct way, ie the real reality that is depicted in the consciousness of the carrier community of the respective language cannot be denied, since in the languages ​​of the peoples, which are socially and culturally at a low level of development, the scientific, technical and political terminology, terms for abstract philosophical terms and other similar vocabulary groups are either completely absent or only very sparsely represented for the obvious reason that the corresponding objects or thought contents do not exist in the experience of the language carrier collective. But is that a reason to call these languages ​​prim itive "undeveloped"? This question must be answered in the negative, because in Pr Inzip, all these languages ​​are able to designate and describe any terms, objects and situations with which those who wear them are confronted in the present or in the future. As soon as a collective of such a primitive "language gets to know any new objects, technical devices, political institutions, scientific terms and the like, the necessary designations for these objects and concepts, ie the words and expressions that have been missing up to now, appear in their language. W ir In this context, we remind you of what has already been said earlier (see 2, 4 of this chapter): Every human language is set up in such a way that one can use it to designate not only familiar objects, concepts and situations, but also completely new ones that describe the In other words: the lexicon of a language is an open system that is capable of constant expansion and enrichment. This applies to every language without exception and not only to the so-called developed "or civilized" languages But do not neglect either, as lexical sub-areas such as knowledge Business, technical and abstract-philosophical terminology is missing in the active and even in the passive vocabulary of many people who speak a so-called "developed" language. 23