Language

Is it fair to say that analytic philosophy of language has been more concerned with language as (actual) use and language as (actual) knowledge than with the problem of correct interpretation? When I say "the problem of correct interpretation" I mean the problem of giving good reasons to justify the claim that some interpretation (a paraphrase or a translation) is correct or the correct one. I am aware that much has been written on the "indeterminacy of translation", but isn't it possible to give arguments for or against the correctness of a certain interpretation in spite of such "indeterminacy"? Where can I read about it?

Comments

There is a big literature on translation. It is a hard topic. I would start by reading Gadamer's TRUTH AND METHOD, parts II and III, as well as some of his essays in PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS. Also, read the excellent article by Dorit Bar-On in PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH on translation (I don't have the reference at my fingertips, but a search of her home page will turn it up), Tom Wartenburg's paper QUINE AND THE THIRD MANUAL, and, though hard to get, Luis Gomez' superb essay on translation of Buddhist philosophical texts and issues of accuracy and deisderata, THE WAY OF THE TRANSLATOR, published in an occasional journal called BUDDHIST LITERATURE. You might have to write to Gomez for a copy.

Most people who have both translated and who have thought hard about translation agree that the right way to think about translation is not in terms of what is the CORRECT translation of a text, but rather to think about a large set of desiderata in a translation, the weightings of which will vary from case to case, and to think about how one balances desiderata against each other (rhyme and meter vs lexical resonance, lexical resonance vs consistency of use of terms, etc...). This is why translation is so hard and so frustrating!

Read another response by Jay L. Garfield

Read another response about Language