General Problems i n Scientific an d Technica l Translatio n
Giovanni Emilio BUZZELLI
1 On Translation
B. V . Belyalyev , i n a criticis m o f th e us e
of grammatica l method s fo r translation ,
writes tha t "on e mus t defin e linguisti c
translation a s th e transferenc e o f thought s
from on e languag e t o another. " 1 I n othe r
words, linguisti c translatio n consist s i n th e
expression b y mean s o f on e languag e (th e
target language , TL) of thought s originall y
expression b y mean s o f on e languag e th e
language, SL) . T o accep t thi s definitio n
is a t th e sam e tim e t o rejec t suc h commo n
expressions a s "to translate a foreign word" ,
"to translat e a sentence" , o r "t o translat e
a text" . Strictl y speaking , i t i s no t words ,
sentences, o r text s — tha t i s t o say , lin -
guistic entitie s — tha t ar e translated , fo r
such linguisti c entitie s ar e subordinate d
to th e semanti c content , an d i t i s thi s con -
tent whic h play s th e leadin g rol e i n trans -
lation. (No r shoul d i t b e forgotte n tha t a
distinction mus t b e made betwee n objectiv e
and subjectiv e content. )
Roman Jakobson has suggeste d tha t
there ax e thre e differen t way s o r mode s o f
interpreting verba l signs :
1) Intralingual translation o r rewording i s
an interpretatio n o f verba l sign s b y mean s o f
the sam e language .
2) Interlingua l translatio n o r translation
proper i s a n interpretatio n o f verba l sign s b y
means o f som e othe r language .
3) Intersemioti c translatio n o r transmuta-
tion i s a n interpretatio n o f verba2 l sign s b y
means o f nonverba l sig n systems .
Enrico Arcaini , i n hi s discussio n o f th e
problem o f translation , 3 posit s tha t i f a
written tex t i n a specifi c languag e i s t o
be considere d a s a system , i t follow s tha t
there is , firs t o f all , th e proble m (pointe d
out b y Belyalyev ) o f full y fathomin g th e
text (objectiv e an d subjectiv e interpreta -
tion), an d secondl y th e mor e definit e prob -
140
Babel 15:3 (1969) , 140–146 . DOI 10.1075/babel. 15.3.03buz
ISSN 0521–9744 / E-ISSN 1569–966 8 © Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT ) Revue Babel
lem o f transferrin g it s meanin g fro m on e
system (SL ) t o anothe r (TL).
A syste m o f sign s mus t b e transferre d
to a receive r who , acquainte d wit h th e
same kin d o f cod e bu t no t necessaril y wit h
the sam e interpretativ e mod e a t th e se -
mantic level , pick s u p th e message , thu s
establishing understandin g o n a commo n
basis. This , however , i s onl y a possibility ,
not a n inevitability . Who , fo r instance , i s
to provid e a definitio n o f lukewar m wate r
if ther e ar e onl y tw o subjects , on e o f who m
says tha t th e wate r is warm whil e th e othe r
maintains i t i s cold ?
The proble m o f transferenc e fro m on e
system t o anothe r i s toda y n o longe r re -
stricted t o transference betwee n tw o huma n
systems ("man-to-man " communication) ,
but als o involve s thre e othe r possibilities :
"man-to-machine", "machine-to-man" , an d
"machine-to-machine" communication. Th e
first o f th e fou r i s probabl y stil l th e mos t
complex, however . 4
2 On Scientific Translation
Roger Goffin , i n a recen t paper , 5 empha -
sizes the fac t tha t th e specialize d language s
of scienc e an d technolog y ar e a relativel y
new phenomenon . Indeed , befor e th e ad -
vent o f moder n scienc e i n th e eighteent h
and earl y nineteent h centur y th e languag e
of scienc e wa s ver y muc h lik e tha t o f th e
humanities. Today , thoug h comparativel y
few peopl e ar e awar e o f th e fact , th e lan -
guages o f pure an d applie d science are quit e
distinct (an d easil y distinguishable ) fro m
other kind s o f linguisti c usag e a s means o f
expression. Scholar s intereste d i n linguisti c
problems, however , sho w littl e interes t i n
this developmen t an d frequentl y ten d t o
consider th e languag e o f scienc e a s a quit e
simple micro-system .
In wha t follows , th e ter m "scientifi c
translation" is take n t o includ e th e trans -
lation (tha t i s t o say , Belyalyev' s "trans -
ference o f thought s fro m on e languag e t o
another") o f materia l havin g t o wit h bot h
pure an d applie d scienc e (o r technology) .
This ter m ha s bee n chose n fo r th e sak e
of brevity , despit e al l th e danger s o f sub -
jectivism an d approximatio n i n thi s field :
in scienc e an d technolog y ther e i s n o suc h
thing a s lukewar m water .
All thre e o f Jakobson' s interpretativ e
modes ar e frequentl y resorte d t o i n scien -
tific writing . Intralinguisti c translatio n i s
widely use d i n th e presentatio n o f result s
of th e sam e researc h t o differen t kind s o f
specialists, an d als o i n th e preparatio n o f
abstracts an d summaries . Intersemioti c
translation i s use d extensivel y t o expres s
chemical, mathematical , an d physica l rela -
tionships.
Even i f th e questio n o f terminolog y an d
polysemy i s lef t asid e fo r th e momen t
(though i t i s b y n o mean s a margina l mat -
ter), th e problem s o f scientifi c languag e
and scientifi c translatio n ar e extremel y
complex. I ha d occasio n t o cal l attentio n
to som e aspect s o f thes e problem s i n vari -
ous earlie r papers , an d particularl y i n m y
monograph Traduzione e interpretazione
del linguaggio tecnico e scientifico. 6 Th e
present pape r i s intende d t o advanc e som e
further considerations .
3 Man and Scientific Culture
Aaron Katz , t o who m I a m muc h indebte d
for hi s analysi s o f wha t h e call s "hig h
information-level culture" , 7 an d wh o wil l
be quote d severa l time s i n thi s paper , fol -
lows a patter n establishe d b y E . T. Hall 8
to defin e cultur e "a s a se t o f biologically -
based problem s whic h ma n face s b y virtu e
of hi s existenc e an d hi s geneti c an d socia l
nature":
1) Interaction, base d o n the underlying irri -
tability o f al l livin g substance . Speec h i s a n
illustration.
2) Association, which begins when tw o cells
have joined . I n huma n life , societ y i s struc -
tured.
141
3) Subsistence, whic h concern s th e nutr i
tional requirement s o f a n organism . Ma n ha s
vastly elaborate d o n thi s — hi s comple x eco -
nomic system , fo r example .
4) Bisexuality, whic h allow s fo r meetin g
environmental chang e b y providing a comple x
genetic brackground , Behavio r terme d "mas -
culine" i n on e cultur e ma y b e classe d a s
"feminine" i n another .
5) Territoriality, whic h involve s th e posses -
sion, us e an d defens e o f a territory . Man' s
history ca n b e viewe d i n term s o f a constan t
struggle t o wres t spac e fro m other s o r t o
defend one' s ow n space .
6) Temporality, whic h is found i n th e cycles
and rhythms of lif e an d o f th e body. Culture s
align themselve s i n time . Thei r pas t i s los t
in myth .
7) Learning, whic h develope d a s a n adap -
tive mechanis m t o compensat e warm-bloode d
animals fo r thei r grea t size , lon g lif e an d
limited offspring . I n man , languag e extend s
learning i n tim e an d space .
8) Play, whic h i s no t to o wel l understoo d
as an adaptiv e mechanism. I t appear s t o serve
as a trainin g groun d fo r th e nervou s syste m
in whic h failur e i s no t severel y punished .
9) Defense, a matte r o f th e greates t impor -
tance i n al l life . I n man , warfare , religion ,
medicine, an d la w enforcemen t protec t hi m
from dange r from nature , from human society ,
and fro m hi s ow n interna l demons .
10) Exploitation, whic h mean s th e adapta -
tion o f th e bod y t o exploi t th e environment .
Man ha s learne d t o exten d hi s body , wit h
weapons, clothe s an d houses ,9 tools , moneys ,
i. e . wit h al l materia l things .
It ca n easil y b e agree d tha t huma n socia l
groups ma y b e regarde d a s systems , wit h
system needs . Indeed , huma n cultur e it -
self ca n b e viewe d a s a se t o f needs , an d
Katz remark s tha t learning , fo r instance ,
is essentia l fo r goa l attainment , defens e
for adaptation , an d pla y fo r tensio n man -
agement. Now , generall y speaking , i t ca n
be sai d tha t need s ar e usuall y satisfie d b y
a proces s o f fillin g a n informatio n gap . I f
a perso n i s thirsty , i n orde r t o fin d wate r
he mus t posses s o r collec t certai n informa -
tion: wher e ther e i s water , whic h pat h ca n
be followe d t o reach it , whethe r i t i s drink -
able, wha t movement s h e mus t mak e t o
draw it , an d s o on . Ma n ma y b e thirst y i n
many ways , a t variou s levels : hi s thirs t
may b e biophysical , sexual , spiritual , in -
tellectual, aesthetic . . . I n eac h cas e h e
will hav e t o collec t information . Languag e
is on e o f hi s mos t importan t tool s i n
doing so .
If th e dynami c proces s "nee d —> fillin g
of th e informatio n ga p — > attainmen t o f
the goa l (tha t is , satisfactio n o f th e need) "
is condidere d a s on e complex , i t follow s
that, a s Kat z ha s pointe d out , quotin g
C. E . Osgood, 10 "ther e i s a commo n meta -
phorical capacit y i n al l cultures underlyin g
the diversit y o f th e for m o f expression. "
Katz goe s o n t o say :
The apparen t diversit y o f culture s ca n there -
fore be presumed to be the result of alternativ e
solutions t o th e sam e problem s employin g
fundamentally simila r methods . I f thi s i s th e
case anothe r though t follow s logically . I f w e
have a se t o f algorithm s o r equation s whic h
state th e basi c solutio n fo r eac h problem , ca n
we no t thin k i n term s o f creatin g artificia l
cultures employin g th e se t o f solution s a s
intermediaries betwee n an y give n environ -
ment i n whic h huma n being s exis t an d th e
answers they mak e evok e t o wor k ou t thei r
problem-set [?]. Thi s would mean that we could
describe a se t o f culture s wit h tw o subsets ,
one, th e natura l culture s (severa l thousan d
known) an d second , th e artificia l cultures ,
man-made. Th e locu s of th e scientifi c cultur e
could the n b e foun d i n th e rank s o f th e arti -
ficial cultures . 11
Experimental
Metaphysics
Knowledge
Philosophy, i n othe r words , i s th e meta -
language o f th e scientifi c culture , an d a s
Katz indicates , th e present-da y philosophe r
is abl e "t o tal k abou t th e worl d wit h th e
realization tha t h e i s reall y talkin g abou t
it throug h th e scree n o f a particula r cul -
ture", wherea s "[a]ll previou s philosopher s
were ethnocentric". 12 H e goe s o n t o dem -
142
Now, th e facto r differentiatin g th e scien -
tific culture , a s a n artificia l culture , fro m
all th e man y natura l culture s i s a n infor -
mation leve l a t whic h th e tas k o f solvin g
a problem-se t i s undertaken . I t follow s
that th e scientifi c culture , an d therefor e
scientific language , i s a universa l culture ,
built o n simila r foundation s everywher e
and undifferentiate d withi n th e variou s
natural cultures .
As Kat z point s out , i n th e long-rang e
view al l natura l cultures , includin g ou r
own, ar e base d o n lo w information-leve l
societies. Th e scientifi c cultur e differ s
in it s method s o f solvin g th e problem-set .
Problems suc h a s "th e meanin g o f exist -
ence" ar e no t alie n t o scienc e a s such ,
which ha s th e ai m o f formulatin g al l hu -
man experienc e i n term s o f it s language .
The proble m o f "meaning " itsel f is , i n th e
last analysis , th e mai n proble m t o b e face d
— no t s o muc h a s a philosophica l prob -
lem, bu t primaril y a s a questio n o f th e
horizons o f scienc e an d technolog y openin g
up t o us , fo r instanc e i n cybernetics .
Scientific languag e ca n b e looke d upo n
as a syste m interconnecte d wit h natura l
language, th e languag e o f th e emotions ,
of dreams , o f th e arts . Ther e i s a stron g
tendency toda y t o prob e huma n realit y b y
means o f linguisti c analysis . A huma n
language, n o matte r which , i s a syste m
with a logica l structure . Considere d a t th e
operational leve l (tha t is , th e leve l amena -
ble t o experimentation) , ther e ar e thre e
major aspect s o r stage s o f thi s reality :
Reality
Unknown
onstrate tha t th e scientifi c culture , i n
contradistinction t o othe r cultures , con -
ceptualizes al l huma n experienc e i n term s
of information .
It shoul d perhap s b e pointe d ou t tha t
there is no fundamental differenc e betwee n
the philosoph y o f scienc e an d traditiona l
philosophy. Bu t a s th e informatio n leve l
of a cultur e rises , th e nee d fo r metaphysic s
declines an d th e possibilit y develop s fo r
philosophy t o discus s problem s i n term s
of realit y rathe r tha n o f hypotheses .
4 Conceptual Meanings in Science
The barrier s betwee n th e scientifi c cultur e
and th e humanisti c cultur e wil l disappea r
within a generatio n o r two , but toda y ther e
are stil l man y "informatio n gaps " betwee n
specialists. 13 Werne r Heisenberg has in -
dicated i n thi s regard tha t th e experimenta l
science o f ou r time s i s bringin g withi n th e
orbit o f ou r knowledg e ne w aspect s o f
reality whic h canno t b e describe d i n famil -
iar terms. 1 4 A physica l realit y ca n b e
expressed i n mathematica l formulae , bu t
complex formula e o f thi s kin d ca n hardl y
be use d t o explai n th e quantu m theor y i n
a newspaper .
Regarding hierarchie s i n scientifi c lan -
guage Carl Friedric h vo n Weizsäcke r says
that one may distinguish a level of languag e
referring t o objects, a secon d t o statement s
about objects , a thir d t o statement s abou t
statements abou t objects , an d s o on. 15 Th e
conceptual meanin g o f a mathematica l
formula representin g th e stat e o f a n elec -
tron i s explainable . Bu t n o on e woul d con -
sider th e polydimensiona l space s o f topol -
ogy a s somethin g tha t th e huma n min d
can gras p i n th e sam e wa y i t ca n under -
stand three-dimensiona l space . Fro m th e
point o f vie w o f "real " dimensions , a five -
dimensional spac e i s meaningles s t o th e
human mind , a mos t fantascientifi c thin -
gummy thing .
5 The Boundaries and Hierarchy of
Language
All human experienc e ca n b e analyse d an d
classified withi n it s appropriat e language .
Man ha s develope d a languag e fo r ever y
aspect o f life , artistic , literary , philosoph -
ical, scientific , an d s o on. Thes e language s
can b e arrange d i n a hierarchy , wit h th e
natural languag e i n th e firs t place , fol -
lowed b y emotive , logical , scientific , an d
mathematical languages .
143
Katz sketche s a possibl e hierarch y o f
these languages . Th e patter n h e suggest s
helps t o clarif y th e relationshi p betwee n
culture, philosophy , logic , mathematics ,
and psychology :
Let u s assum e tha t a modifie d for m o f sym -
bolic logic , Lang plus I (I) , become s th e
"natural" languag e o f th e scientifi c culture .
(An idea o f th e potentia l effectivenes s o f suc h
a vehicl e o f communicatio n ca n b e gaine d b y
studying th e example s i n CARNAP' S "forma l
mode o f speech". ) W e ca n the n ter m th e
emotive language of that cultur e Lang zero (0).
At presen t emotiv e languag e i s a par t o f th e
natural language , but w e ar e assumin g tha t i t
will be customary t o switch from a cognitive to
an emotiv e language a t appropriat e occasions ,
and tha t awarenes s o f suc h switchin g wil l b e
a cultura l norm. W e can term the language of
unconscious though t processes , Lang minus I
(—I), an d tha t o f dreams , Lang minus II
(— II). W e woul d the n introduc e th e chil d
to scientifi c knowedge , which woul d b e state d
in anothe r language , Lang plus II (II) . (W e
would actuall y requir e tw o languages, on e fo r
pure scienc e an d on e fo r it s applications. )
Starting wit h physic s (Lang II) (o r wit h cul -
tural anthropology ) we would build o n it unti l
we reache d cultura l anthropolog y (Lang II),
(or physics) . Her e w e woul d introduc e alter -
native culture s (Lang II), an d poin t ou t t o th e
child (Lang I) tha t h e wa s livin g i n scientifi c
culture. W e would then , speakin g a s cultura l
anthropologists (Lang II), sho w th e relation -
ship o f philosophies t o thei r respectiv e cul -
tures, including th e fact tha t the y "talk about "
their cultur e an d thu s (should ) spea k anothe r
language. W e woul d the n poin t ou t (Lang I)
that logica l empiricis m i s "our " philosophy .
We woul d the n notif y th e chil d (Lang I) tha t
we woul d no w spea k a s logica l empiricist s
and woul d therefor e switc h t o a ne w lan -
guage, Lang III. Speakin g thusl y w e coul d
discuss "our " cultur e (scientifi c culture) , no t
as w e di d fro m withi n scienc e (a s cultura l
anthropologists, speakin g Lang II), bu t a s phi-
losophers, explicitl y logica l empiricists . W e
would poin t ou t tha t i t wa s no w necessar y
to logicall y reconstruc t "our " knowledg e
("science"), tha t thi s woul d requir e anothe r
language (Lang IV), an d tha t thi s languag e
would b e use d t o formall y introduc e Lang V,
"mathematics". Finally , havin g gaine d a
knowledge o f th e "possible" , throug h mathe -
matics, w e woul d introduc e Lang VI, philos-
ophy, th e languag e16o f possibl e world s (in -
cluding ou r own).
Though Kat z i n outlinin g thi s hierarch y
had a broade r ai m i n min d tha n tha t o f
linguistic problem s alone , it s significanc e
is clear . Viewe d fro m a n aeroplan e flying
at a n altitud e o f thirt y thousan d feet , a
landscape look s flatte r tha n i t appear s
from th e ground . Th e sam e ca n b e tru e
of a subjec t lik e scientifi c language .
6 The Language of Scientific Culture
T. H . Savory ha s divide d th e vocabular y o f
science int o thre e majo r categories :
1) borrowed words — word s take n fro m
ordinary speec h (th e natura l language ) an d
given a ne w functio n b y scientists ;
2) imported words — word s take n fro m
some othe r language , mos t ofte n Lati n o r
Greek, an d use d withou t an y chang e othe r
than i s require d b y th e conventiona l trans -
literation system ;
3) invented words — word s coine d b y
scientists t o mee t ne w need s encountere d
in th e cours e o f thei r researc h an d use d
to describe thei r theorie s an d findings , 17
Pursuing thi s analysi s o f scientifi c ter -
minology further , i t ca n b e suggeste d tha t
scientific pros e i s perhap s th e firs t leve l
of scientifi c communication , o r Katz' s
Lang I. O n th e othe r hand , i f w e write :
( + b)2 = a2 + 2 ab + b2
or
we ar e usin g a quit e differen t language ,
which migh t b e calle d Lang IIA (i n th e
case o f th e algebrai c equation ) o r Lang IIB
(the nuclear-physic s equation) . Likewis e
the formul a CH 3 C H (OH ) COOH , th e
chemical cod e fo r lacti c acid , coul d b e con -
sidered a n expressio n o f Lang IIC. Suc h
formulae ar e les s commo n i n som e othe r
branches o f science , thoug h Savor y recall s
that eve n i n zoolog y a formul a suc h as :
144
can conve y a grea t dea l o f informatio n
about th e teet h o f a pig . Similarl y ther e
are sub-language s o f Lang II use d b y bo -
tanists, astronomers , an d s o on .
It woul d b e a mistak e t o conside r th e
other scientifi c language s abov e o r along -
side Lang I , th e "natura l language " o f
science, a s merel y symboli c expression s o f
that language , o r a s nothin g mor e tha n
specific terminologies . Perhaps , i n fact , i t
is incorrec t t o stat e tha t th e "natura l lan -
guage" of scienc e is th e scientifi c languag e
formed b y words . Fo r a mathematician ,
an equatio n formalize d i n algebrai c sym -
bols i s mor e natura l tha n a verbalizatio n
of th e equation , an d a rewordin g o f thi s
kind ca n b e a quit e "unnatural " process .
The mathematicia n wh o read s th e equa -
tion:
2x(x+l) = x2 + (x+1) 2
- 1
will receiv e th e semanti c messag e muc h
more rapidl y tha n h e woul d b y readin g
that "twic e th e produc t o f an y tw o conse -
cutive number s i s on e les s tha n th e su m
of thei r squares" , eve n thoug h thi s secon d
mode o f expressio n i s equall y understand -
able.
The scientifi c languag e is , of course , no t
restricted t o traditional "scientific " subject s
such a s physics , mathematics , o r (o n th e
applied level ) engineering . A s Davi d
Crystal point s ou t i n a discussio n o f th e
way i n whic h linguist s ca n expres s them -
selves mos t efficiently , i t i s bot h cleare r
and mor e convenien t t o write :
S — > Su P  ()
than t o writ e " A sentenc e i n Englis h nor -
mally consist s o f a subject , predicator ,
complement, an d adverbial , th e latter bein g
optional. 18 In nearl y al l the more advance d
fields o f scienc e (mathematics , physics ,
chemistry, astronomy , an d th e like) , on th e
other hand , ther e ar e a n increasin g num -
ber o f formula e whic h ca n b e pu t int o
words onl y wit h grea t difficulty , i f a t all .
Though suc h system s o f symboli c nota -
tion ca n b e classifie d Lang IIA, IIB, an d
so forth , a s ha s bee n don e above , i t woul d
seem t o b e preferabl e t o inser t the m int o
Lang I a s componen t part s o f th e "natura l
language" o f science . Ther e woul d the n
be a n inne r hierarchy , wit h a syste m
(Lang I) an d a se t o f sub-system s (Lang IIA
Lang IIB, an d s o on) .
7 Approaching the Language of Science
Clearly, th e consideration s i n thi s pape r
derive fro m a structuralis t poin t o f view .
However, I hav e ye t t o com e acros s a stud y
devoted t o thes e point s i n th e writing s o f
the struturalists , o r fo r tha t matte r o f
other scholars , i n linguisti c an d relate d
fields. Th e reaso n i s evident : ther e ar e
still "tw o cultures" . A s Crysta l ha s pointe d
out, though , i f linguistic s i s t o b e some -
thing othe r tha n comparativ e philology ,
polyglottism, textua l criticism , an d tradi -
tional grammar , i t canno t remai n aloo f
from thes e problems .
It mus t b e admitte d tha t th e languag e
of scienc e i s a simplifie d syste m wit h a
tendency t o maintai n a clos e sign-thin g
relationship. A t thi s stage , however , tha t
is a fairl y naïve conclusion.
It i s a majo r ai m o f al l th e scientifi c
disciplines t o arriv e a t precisel y define d
terms. Concept s ar e formalize d i n orde r
to b e accuratel y defined . Da y i n da y out ,
national an d internationa l scientifi c an d
professional organization s issu e glossarie s
and list s i n whic h term s ar e define d o r
rejected. Thi s proces s doe s no t resul t i n a
freezing o f scientifi c terminolog y (an d s o
of scientifi c language) , however , sinc e i t i s
an ongoin g development , a s list s ar e con -
stantly revise d an d brough t u p t o date ,
registering shifte d usages , addin g ne w
terms, an d cancellin g obsolet e terms. 1 9
For th e genera l technica l o r scientifi c
translator, however , o r eve n fo r th e lexi -
cographer compilin g th e glossaries , th e
terminological proble m i s fa r fro m bein g
solved. I n natura l language s ther e i s a n
extensive stoc k o f term s whic h ar e ba -
sically polysemantic . I f w e as k fo r bread ,
we ma y ge t a Frenc h baguette, a n Italia n
pagnotta, o r a n Englis h loaf . If w e wan t
to si t down , th e chai r a t han d ma y b e a
145
kitchen chai r o r a n ar m chair , Contempo -
rary Swedis h o r Englis h Traditional . If w e
need a shee t o f pape r t o jo t dow n some -
thing, w e d o no t min d whethe r i t i s not e
paper o r typin g paper ; folded , quarto , o r
foho; white , yellow , o r pal e blue . Bu t i f
we g o int o a machin e sho p lookin g fo r a
bolt, w e wil l fin d ourselve s face d b y a
choice fro m man y hundred s o f kinds , an d
unless w e ca n defin e precisel y jus t wha t
size an d sor t w e need , w e wil l no t b e abl e
to ge t it .
Polysemy, i n th e classica l sense , is rathe r
a simpl e proble m i n natura l languages .
Words lik e plate , top , gap , key , plan ,
ground, loop , an d scal e ar e eac h o f the m
a miniatur e glossar y of differen t meanings .
The sam e i s tru e o f suc h word s i n scien -
tific language , an d thi s i s th e mai n reaso n
why mos t technica l multilingua l diction -
aries an d glossarie s ar e o f littl e us e t o
translators. Th e onl y plac e t o fin d th e
precise meanin g o f a scientifi c o r technica l
term i s i n a glossar y wher e th e ter m i s
accurately define d b y a n official , scientific ,
or professiona l organization ,
Even then , however , th e meanin g o f a
term i s o f littl e us e befor e i t i s analyse d
in it s context . I t i s tim e t o emphasize ,
with Belyalye v i n mind , tha t th e compre -
hension an d translatio n o f a scientifi c tex t
is a proble m tha t mus t b e examine d pri -
marily a t th e semanti c level .
8 A First Differentiation
It follow s fro m th e abov e remark s tha t
there ar e tw o mai n aspect s differentiatin g
scientific languag e fro m othe r linguisti c
systems. Th e firs t point , alread y touche d
on i n passing , i s tha t whe n approache d
with th e tool s o f traditiona l linguistics , th e
"natural language" of scienc e woul d appea r
to b e a micro-syste m structurally . An d
indeed, scientifi c languag e doe s ten d t o
maintain a clos e sign-thin g relationship ,
and t o manifes t a simpl e structur e (sen -
tences ar e elementary , th e mos t commo n
tense i s th e presen t tense , an d composit e
tenses ar e rare) . O n th e othe r hand , a s
soon a s w e procee d t o th e highe r level s o f
structural analysis, scientifi c languag e
presents mor e problem s tha n othe r lan -
guages. Problem s relate d t o meaning mus t
be approache d separately , an d fro m a dif -
ferent angl e o f view , i n th e analysi s o f
scientific language .
The secon d poin t i s tha t scientifi c lan -
guage, unlik e natura l languages , embodie s
important an d extensiv e symboli c system s
which ar e t o al l intent s an d purpose s sep -
arate languages . I t woul d perhap s see m
preferable t o spea k o f specifi c method s o f
expression rathe r tha n o f languages , bu t i t
is difficul t t o know , sinc e th e subjec t i s
still completel y unexplored . 20
Another aspec t o f scientifi c translatio n
which need s t o b e considere d i s th e prob -
lem o f historica l (diachronic ) versus non -
historical (synchronic ) aspects . Ther e is ,
then, mor e tha n enoug h materia l t o b e
collected an d analyse d fo r furthe r study .

NOTES
1. B . V . Belyalyev , The Psychology of Teaching Foreign Languages, tr . R . F . Hingle y (Oxfor d an d London :
Pergamon Press , 1963) .
2. Roma n Jakobson, "On Linguisti c Aspect s o f Translation" , i n Reube n A . Browe r (ed.), On Translation
(Cambridge, Mass. : Harvar d Universit y Press , 1959 ; Harvar d Studie s i n Comparativ e Literature , XXIII), pp.
232-239, quotatio n p . 233 .
3. Enric o Arcaini , Principi di linguistica applicata. Proposte per una glottodidattica scientifica: struttura,
funzione, trasformazione (Bologna : I I Mulino , 1967) .
4. On e o f th e author s t o mak e a ver y probin g stud y o f th e proble m i s Thoma s A . Sebeok , i n hi s "Th e In -
formational Mode l o f Language : Analo g an d Digita l Codin g i n Anima l an d Huma n Communication" , i n
Paul L . Garvi n (ed.), Natural Language and the Computer (Ne w York : McGraw-Hill , 1963) , pp . 47-64 .
5. Roge r Goffin , "La terminologi e multilingu e e t l a syntagmatiqu e comparée s a u servic e d e l a traductio n
technique", Babel, XIV (1968) , No. 3, pp. 133-142.
6. T o b e publishe d o n behal f o f th e Centro Italian o d i Linguistic a Applicat a (CILA) , Rome. Se e below, nn. 1 9
& 20, fo r reference s t o tw o previou s papers .
7. Aaro n Katz , "Towar d Hig h Information-Leve l Culture" , Cybernetica (Namur), V H (1964) , No . 3 , pp . 203 -
245.
8. E. T . Hall, The Silent Language (Ne w York : Doubleday , 1959) .
9. Katz , pp . 206-207 .
10.  E. Osgood, "Th e Cross-Cultura l Generalit y o f Visual-Verba l Synestheti c Tendencies" , Behavioral Science,
V (1960) , No . 2 , pp . 146-169 .
11. Katz , p . 209 .
12. Ibid., p. 224 .
13. Tw o book s fo r suggeste d readin g o n thi s poin t ar e Werne r Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revo-
lution in Modern Science (Ne w York : Harper , 195 8 / London : Alle n & Unwin , 1959 ; Worl d Perspectives ,
XIX), an d th e proceeding s o f th e Colloque International de Royaumon t on informatio n an d cybernetics ,
Le concept d'information dans la science contemporaine (Paris: Les Édition s d e Minui t / Gauthier-Villars,
1965; Cahiers d e Royaumont , Séri e Philosophie , V).
14. Heisenberg (Londo n edition), p . 145.
15. As paraphrased in ibid., p. 157 . Cf. also R. . Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function
of Theory, Probability, and Law in Science (London : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1953) .
16. Katz , pp . 224-225 .
17. T. H . Savory, The Language of Science (rev . ed., London: Deutsch, 1967; Languag e Library) .
18. Davi d Crystal , What Is Linguistics? (London : Arnold , 1968) .
19. Se e m y "Specifi c an d Interdisciplinar y Problem s i n Scientifi c an d Technica l Lexicography" , AID, Bulletin
de l'Association Internationale des Documentalistes et Techniciens de l'Information (Paris) , H , 1966, No. 5,
pp. 33-35.
20. Se e m y " A Ne w Frontier : Scientifi c Comparative Philology", AID, Bulletin de l'Association Internationale
des Documentalistes et Techniciens de l'Information, II (1966) , No. 4, pp. 29-31.

146