ANALYSIS OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE TRANSLATOR'S PERSONALITY IN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS BASED ON THE ANALOGY WITH "FREGE'S TELESCOPE"«

Sakhnevich S.V.

Institute of Business Career
Moscow, Russia
E-mail: crash68@yandex.ru

Introduction

Despite established notions about the inevitability of subjectivity in translation, discussions about it often remain confined to theoretical speculation. The lack of evidence to support the dominant viewpoint about the impossibility of "objective translation" from the perspective of the so-called "metaphysical approach" to translation may hinder the development of translation practice and the training of translators, Because if translators and clients believe that a completely objective translation is possible, this can lead to unrealistic expectations, a downplaying of the translator's role as a creative interpreter, and insufficient attention to cultural subtleties. The ultimate proof of the utopian nature of "objective translation"«
[2, p. 160] may contribute accepting modern challenges in the field of translation. For example, in the era of rapid development of machine translation technologies, the question arises as to whether, Can machines replace humans in translation work?. Proponents of machine translation often claim that machines are capable of providing more objective and accurate translation than humans [1, p. 16]. However, if subjectivity is empirically proven to be an inevitable and fundamental aspect of translation [4, p. 5], this will strengthen the position of supporters human translation and will emphasize the importance creative, cultural and contextual skills, which are inaccessible to machines. Furthermore, the understanding of the inevitability of subjectivity in translation has practical implications for translator training. If we accept that objective translation is unattainable, then the emphasis in training should not be on achieving an impossible ideal, A on developing critical thinking, awareness of one's own biases, and the ability to justify one's translation decisions. Therefore, the justification of the propositions regarding the inevitability of subjectivity in translation remains relevant. The use of "Frege's telescope" as an analytical tool Maybe to facilitate the verification of these provisions.

It should be noted that in the history of translation, there was also an opposing view, rooted in ideas about the possibility of creating an "ideal" or "absolute" translation. Proponents of this approach typically emphasized the dominance of the form or content of the original, believing that with sufficient skill and adherence to strict rules, a translator could become a "transparent glass," completely eliminating their influence on the final product. Within the framework of linguistic translation theory, especially in its early stages, the possibility of establishing rigid correspondences between linguistic units was often postulated, implicitly minimizing the translator's role as interpreter. Although modern scholarship has largely abandoned such views, their critique is important for understanding the evolution of translation thought and for more clearly positioning our proposed model, which asserts the opposite—the inevitability and constitutiveness of subjectivity.

Contradiction: between the speculative concept of the inevitable subjective interpretation of the text by the translator and the lack of an analytical tool to prove the aforementioned inevitability.

Problem: How can we prove that translator subjectivity cannot be eliminated?

Objective: to prove the inevitability of the influence of the translator’s personality in shaping the meaning of the translation, using an analogy with Frege’s «telescope».

Object: the process of translation as an activity of forming the meaning of the text.

Subject: Analogy of Frege's "telescope" with the subjectivity of the translator.

Hypothesis: the personality of the translator, refracting the source text through the prism of language and culture – like Frege’s «telescope» – has a significant influence on the formation of the meaning of the translation.

Tasks:

1. To analyze Frege's concept of "telescope" and its applicability to the description of the translation process.
2. To identify the factors that determine the translator’s subjectivity.
3. To study the influence of the translator’s subjectivity on the formation of the meaning of translation.
4. To propose a model for analyzing the manifestation of a translator’s personality in the translation process based on an analogy with Frege’s «telescope».

 

Main part

In order to establish the relationships between objects and the names of objects and to differentiate the concepts of "denotation, meaning, and idea," Frege introduces an analogy with observing the Moon through a telescope. Specifically, the Moon is a denotation, an OBJECT of observation in the EXTERNAL world; the image in the telescope lens is the meaning (an OBJECTIVE representation of the Moon, which ANY observer can see). The image on the observer's retina is the idea (a SUBJECTIVE perception of the Moon, depending on the INDIVIDUAL characteristics of the observer) [11, p. 215].

In the context of translation, the "Moon" in Frege's Telescope corresponds to the source text. The source text represents an objective reality containing information, ideas, and cultural references that need to be conveyed. Like the Moon, the source text exists independently of the translator and their interpretation.

The image of the Moon through the lens of a telescope corresponds to a translation, which is an interpretation and representation of the source text in the target language by an imaginary meta-translator [10, p. 78] – an analogue of a telescope. The telescope lens, like the meta-translator – as if the translator were unique – refracts and focuses
light – meaning – from the moon, creating an image that can be observed.

Image Moons on the retinas of the eyes corresponds to the perception of the translation by other translators. These are subjective and individual segments of perception, conditioned by the personal experience, knowledge, beliefs, and cultural context of each translator. Just as the image on the retina depends on the physiological characteristics of the observers, the perception of a translation depends on the individual characteristics of each translator [8, p. 19].

The applicability of Frege's Telescope to the description of the translation process lies in the fact that mThe metaphor of "Frege's telescope" allows us toto distinguish between the objective and subjective aspects of translation, that is, inTo distinguish the "objective" meaning of the source text from the subjective perception of the translation (Fig. 1). Translation is always "one-sided" and "point-of-view dependent," like an image through a telescope.

Fig. 1. Model of the manifestation of the translator’s personality in the translation process based on the analogy with «Frege’s telescope».

The translator's subjectivity, viewed through the prism of Frege's "telescope," is determined by a number of factors that influence their perception, interpretation, and, consequently, translation of the source text into the target language. These factors, acting like "lenses" within the "telescope," shape an individual's "image" of the text, which is then projected onto the target audience.

First of all, it is individual experience and knowledge. Language competence includesProficiency in both the source and target languages. Insufficient knowledge of the source language can lead to misinterpretation of meaning, while limited vocabulary in the target language can lead to inadequate nuances. Knowledge and understanding of cultural contexts, historical realities, traditions, and values of both the source and target cultures influence the interpretation of metaphors, idioms, and allusions. Subject matter expertise may or may not lead to terminological errors and distortion of factual information. The translator's own life experience, education, political views, religious beliefs, and moral principles can influence the interpretation of the text and the choice of translation solutions [8, p. 19]. Analytical, synthetic, and intuitive thinking styles influence how the translator perceives and processes information, and various cognitive distortions, such as confirmation bias and the halo effect, can influence the interpretation of the text and lead to unconscious errors [5, p. 135]. The desire to accurately convey the meaning of the original, to create a "beautiful" text in the target language, to receive a fee, or to gain recognition influence the approach to work.

 

Methods

Analysis of theoretical literature: study of works on the objectification and subjectivization of translation, analytical philosophy, philosophy of language and the phenomenology of Edmond Husserl [3, p. 190].

Metaphorical analysis: using the analogy of Frege's "telescope" to model the translation process.

Qualitative translation analysis: analysis of specific translation examples to identify the influence of the translator's personality on the formation of the meaning of the text.

Modeling: creating a conceptual model of the translation process based on the analogy with Frege's telescope.

 

Research material

To empirically illustrate the effect of subjectivity factors in the verification of the proposed model, an experimental translation of a fragment of the English text …among some tribes a river eel is a cult idol whereas a sea eel causes insurmountable vomiting the taste and color being the same though… (English) was conducted for different segments of recipients of the translation containing a culturally specific construction requiring interpretation through the «Frege telescope,» rather than literal or free rendering:

Denotate (river and sea eels): the initial situation is that the eels are identical, one eats, the other makes you sick.

Meaning (the meta-translator's telescope lens): the objective meaning is "the paradox of two identical eels and different cultural and semiotic codes." The task of the "ideal" meta-translator is to convey precisely this meaning, discarding literal imagery.

The idea (of specific translators working for different recipients of translation):

Translator for the "Orthodox Religion" segment:

«And although river and sea eels are one in nature, vain pagan beliefs erect false and useless barriers between them, dividing what was not divided in the creation of God.».

Translator for the "Hooligans" segment:

«"I don't care that river eels and sea eels are the same color, the trick here is the natives' concept: they just grind some for all the fuel oil, and the others make them want to puke.".

Translator for the "Students" segment.

«"French eels and conger eels, which belong to the same taxon, have virtually identical morphological and physiological characteristics. However, due to differences in habitat, ecological niches, and behavioral patterns, as well as the influence of adaptive radiation, significant biocenotic and ecosystem differences arise between them.".

Translator for the "Managers" segment.

«"Despite the complete similarity between river and sea eels in their fundamental characteristics, religious institutions continue to segment them, creating barriers to perception and gaps in their positioning. This differentiation, unsupported by objective factors, hinders the effective pooling of resources and the development of a unified strategy for their integration.".

Translator for the "Workers" segment.

«"It doesn't matter that river eels and sea eels are actually the same—their local churchmen still build a wall between them, like between us and the authorities, which is really impossible to jump over.".

Translator for the "Intellectuals" segment.

«"Despite the fact that river and sea eels are essentially indistinguishable, religious structures, relying on a metaphysical oblivion of existence, constitute an unbridgeable chasm between them. This chasm is nothing other than a manifestation of the concealment of truth that took root in the 'techno' era, where difference becomes dominant through the oblivion of the unity of their true being.".

Translator for the "Immigrants" segment.

«"It doesn't matter, listen, that river and sea balyk are like brothers, yes, these infidels make such a division between them, it's just like a mountain doesn't come to you at all.".

These examples clearly demonstrate how the «lenses» of the translator’s individual experience, cultural knowledge, and goals refract the «light» of the original message, forming different, but equally subjective «images» on the «retina» of the recipient of the translation.

 

Results

An analysis of the presented translations within the framework of Frege’s «telescope» model allows us to draw the following conclusions, which categorically confirm the hypothesis of the inevitability and constitutiveness of subjectivity in translation activity.

Firstly, With an unchanged denotation (the original situation with eels, where two objects with identical properties are imbued with different cultural values) and a single goal of conveying meaning (the paradox of cultural division), the final texts—the "ideas" imprinted on the reader's "retina"—exhibit radical divergence. This divergence is not the result of error or insufficient qualifications on the part of the translators, but a direct result of their subjective "lenses." The translator, therefore, is logically positioned not as a passive retransmitter, but as an active constructor of meaning, shaping the resulting text like a lens focusing beams of objective information (denotation) into the recipient's subjective field of perception.

Secondly, the analysis allows us to hierarchize the factors that determine the nature of subjective refraction and order them according to the degree of influence:

1. Goal settingThe dominant factor is: for "managers," the translator creates a business discourse with an emphasis on segmentation and positioning; for "students," an academic discourse based on taxonomy and adaptive radiation; for "intellectuals," a philosophical discourse appealing to the metaphysical oblivion of existence. Conscious goal-setting, determined by an analysis of the target audience and the functional task, guarantees the relevance of the text.
2. Cultural competenceDetermines the choice of stylistic register and linguistic means: sacred vocabulary and Church Slavonicisms for the "Orthodox" segment, a debased, almost argot-like vocabulary for the "hooligans," and an imitation of academic style for the "students." This competence, based on a bicultural understanding of the contexts of the source and target languages, shapes the appropriateness of the interpretation of cultural phenomena.
3. Professional skills(linguistic competence, knowledge of the subject area, mastery of translation strategies) ensure the technical feasibility of the chosen strategy and the grammatical correctness of the statement, but do not predetermine its substantive vector.

Thirdly, the manifestation of the translator’s subjectivity in the process of text translation is manifested in the following aspects:

(α) in the choice of lexical and stylistic units, demonstrating an individual sense of style and understanding of the stylistic norms of the target audience;

(β) in the interpretation of metaphorical constructions and cultural allusions, reflecting the level of bicultural competence of the translator;

(γ) in adapting the text for the target audience, which directly reflects the understanding of the needs, expectations and cognitive characteristics of the recipient.

Thus, the presented results empirically confirm that translator subjectivity is not an insurmountable obstacle to the mythical "objective translation," but a necessary tool for adapting meaning to the needs of a specific audience. The proposed analytical model, based on Frege's analogy, opens up promising avenues for further research in the field of metacognitive aspects of translation and the development of practical methods for fostering translator reflexivity.

 

Discussion of results

The obtained results confirm the key role of the translator's personality in the process of interlingual and intercultural communication and provide empirical substantiation for the long-declared, but insufficiently proven thesis about the inevitability of subjectivity in translation [2, p. 160; 8, p. 19]. The proposed analytical model, based on the metaphor of "Frege's telescope," has demonstrated its effectiveness as a tool that allows us not only to ascertain the presence of subjectivity, but also to explain the mechanism of its emergence, linking specific translation decisions with the work of the translator's individual "lenses.".

The theoretical significance of the obtained results is as follows. First, the study overcomes the gap between speculative statements about the subjectivity of translation and the lack of analytical tools to prove it. Frege's model, originally created to solve problems in the philosophy of language [11, p. 217], has been successfully adapted to describe the dynamics of the translation process, which allows us to consider translation not as a mechanical transfer of meanings, but as a complex act of interpretation in which the translator's personality plays a constitutive role. Second, the identified hierarchy of subjectivity factors (goal setting → cultural competence → professional skills) contributes to the development of the theory of translation activity, offering a more sophisticated tool for analyzing and evaluating the quality of translation. Third, the results of the study enter into a productive dialogue with the provisions of cognitive linguistics on the role of the subject in the formation of meaning [5, p. 135] and with the ideas of poststructuralism on the plurality of interpretations [6, p. 5], providing them with an empirical basis.

The practical significance of this study is realized in several ways. First and foremost, the data obtained are directly relevant to the discussion about the potential of machine translation. The results clearly demonstrate that translation, at its core, is not an algorithmic operation of replacing linguistic units, but a creative act that requires consideration of the cultural context, target audience, and communicative situation. Texts created for different audience segments differ not lexically, but conceptually: they convey different meanings and different worldviews. This ability to generate meaning, rooted in subjective experience and goal-setting, remains (and likely will remain for a long time) a human prerogative [1, p. 16].

Furthermore, an understanding of the inevitability of subjectivity and knowledge of its mechanisms should be integrated into translator training. Training cannot and should not be reduced to achieving the mythical ideal of an "objective" or "only true" translation. Instead, the emphasis should be on developing translation reflexivity—the ability to recognize one's own subjectivity, analyze the factors influencing decision-making, and reasonably choose a translation strategy based on an analysis of the target audience and the communicative task. The model proposed in this article can serve as a basis for developing practical methods for fostering such reflexivity [7, p. 102].

Interpretation of empirical data. The resulting translations for different audience segments convincingly demonstrate the article's central thesis. In terms of "Frege's telescope," all translators were working with the same denotation (the moon) and, presumably, were striving to convey a single meaning (the image in the lens). However, the texts they created—the "ideas" on the retina—diverged radically. This discrepancy does not represent an error or a lack of skill; on the contrary, each of the presented translations is adequate for its respective segment. The translation for "managers" successfully fulfills its function in business communication, the translation for "students" in an academic environment, and the translation for "intellectuals" in philosophical discourse. Thus, subjectivity acts not as an obstacle, but as a tool for adaptation, making the text relevant and understandable for a specific audience.

Limitations of the study and future prospects. This study is qualitative in nature and is based on the analysis of a limited number of translation decisions. Further prospects include conducting quantitative research on a more extensive sample, which will allow us to identify statistically significant patterns and refine the proposed hierarchy of factors. Furthermore, it appears promising to study the role of the listener/reader as a co-participant in the phenomenological act of translation, as well as a comparative analysis of the manifestation of subjectivity in various types of translation (literary, technical, simultaneous). The development of specific methods for developing translation reflexivity based on the proposed model also represents an important task for future research.

 

Conclusion

Applying Frege's "telescope" model to the translation process provides a heuristic approach to analyzing interlingual and intercultural communication, enabling us to overcome simplistic, denotatively focused interpretations. The analysis reveals that Frege's "telescope" is not simply a mechanical instrument, but a dynamic system whose parts interact in a complex interrelationship. The study of this model revealed the following key aspects.

The transmission of meaning is a multi-layered process in which denotation, meaning, and the audience's potential ideas are integrated into a complex system. The translator's subjectivity (as the operator of the "telescope") is an integral, but not a determining, factor influencing the formation of the final product.

«A translator's "personal perspective," which includes individual experience, cognitive characteristics, and translation goals, is not an obstacle to achieving equivalence, but rather a necessary condition for producing an adequate translation. It is through this "perspective" that a translator can adapt meaning to context, creating a text relevant to the target audience.

Frege's "telescope" model provides a structured framework for analyzing translation decisions. Using this model allows translators to consciously choose strategies, consider potential problems in text perception, and evaluate the degree to which the translation matches the source text and the needs of the target audience.

The "telescope" model emphasizes the need to account for cultural differences in the perception of meaning, facilitating a deeper understanding of the process of intercultural communication. The translator, as a "optician," must consider the cognitive characteristics, values, knowledge, beliefs, and emotional attitudes of the target audience, adjusting the "telescope" settings for optimal text perception.

Given the inevitable role of subjectivity, the telescope model allows us to abandon the utopian pursuit of the «perfect» translation and instead focus on creating optimal versions adapted to specific contexts.

Overall, the proposed "Frege telescope" model provides a theoretically sound and practice-oriented framework for analyzing the translation process, contributing to improving the quality and effectiveness of intercultural communication. Further empirical research aimed at verifying this model and expanding its application in various fields of translation appears promising for deepening our understanding of the complex nature of translation as a dynamic process of interpretation.

Literature

1. Alekseeva I.S. Professional training of a translator / I.S. Alekseeva. – St. Petersburg: Perspektiva, 2008. – 288 p.
2. Gachechiladze G.R. Literary translation and literary relationships / G.R. Gachechiladze. – M.: Sov. pisatel, 1980. – 254 p.
3. Husserl E. Ideas for a Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy / E. Husserl. – M.: Academic Project, 2009. – 496 p.
4. Leontyeva K.I. Cognitive-semiotic model of translation: dominants, perspective, discourse (based on Russian translations of English-language literature of the 19th-20th centuries): dis. ... Doctor of Philological Sciences / K. I. Leontyeva. - Tver, 2022. - 523 p.
5. Kasevich V.B. Buddhism. Picture of the World. Language / V.B. Kasevich. – St. Petersburg: Center for Petersburg Oriental Studies, 1996. – 288 p.
6. Milovidov V.A. From semiotics of text to semiotics of discourse / V. A. Milovidov. – Tver: TvGU, 2000. – 94 p.
7. Milovidov V.A. The problem of the minimum unit of translation in the context of discourse theory // Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Philology. - 2011. - No. 2. - P. 99-105.
8. Milovidov V.A. Semiotics of literary and artistic discourse / V. A. Milovidov. – M.: Buki Vedi, 2016. – 172 p.
9. Milovidov V.A. Literary and artistic translation as a tool for the theory and history of literature // New Philological Bulletin. - 2018. - No. 3 (46). - P. 243-252.
10. Torop P. Total translation / P. Torop. – Tartu: Tartu University Publishing House, 1995. – 220 p.
11. Frege G. Logic and logical semantics: collected works / G. Frege. – M.: Aspect Press, 2000. – 512 p.

References

1. Alekseeva IS. (2008). Translator's professional training. 288 p.
2. Gachechiladze GR. (1980). Literary translation and literary interrelations. writer. 254 p.
3. Husserl E. (2009). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy [Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy]. Akademicheskiy Proekt. 496 p.
4. Leont'eva KI. (2022). Cognitive-semiotic model of translation: dominants, perspective, discourse (based on Russian translations of English-language literature of the 19th–20th centuries) : Doctoral diss. in Philology. Tver. 523 p.
5. Kasevich VB. (1996). Buddhism. Worldview. Language. Center "Petersburg Oriental Studies". 288 p.
6. Milovidov VA. (2000). Ot semiotiki teksta k semiotike diskursa [From text semiotics to discourse semiotics]. 94 p.
7. Milovidov VA. (2011). The problem of the minimal unit of translation in the context of discourse theory. Vestnik of Tver State University. Series: Philology, (2), pp. 99–105.
8. Milovidov VA. (2016). Semiotics of literary and artistic discourse [Semiotics of literary and artistic discourse]. Buki Vedi. 172 p.
9. Milovidov VA. (2018). Literary translation as a tool for the theory and history of literature. Novyy filologicheskiy vestnik, (3(46)), pp. 243–252.
10. Torop P. (1995). Total translation. Tartu University Publishing House. 220 p.
11. Frege G. (2000). Logika i logicheskaia semantika : sbornik trudov [Logic and logical semantics: collected works]. Aspekt Press. 512 p.