Radical Translation (Position Paper)

Position Paper - Radical Translation

            Understanding Quine’s radical translation thought experiment despite various criticisms.

            Quine's radical translation thought experiment challenges the traditional conception of meaning and translation in several ways: it highlights the indeterminacy of translation, which suggests that there is no definitive method to translate sentences in an alien language. This challenges the traditional view that meaning can be precisely captured and translated from one language to another. Quine's theory of meaning emphasizes the importance of empirical data in understanding the meaning of sentences in an alien language. This challenges the traditional view that meaning can be understood solely through the study of grammar and syntax. Then, Quine's concept of "stimulus meaning" challenges the traditional view that meaning is determined by reference to an external reality. Instead, Quine argues that meaning is determined by the stimuli that prompt assent or dissent in a speaker. Finally, Quine's radical translation thought experiment suggests that the traditional approach to translation should be abandoned in favor of a more nuanced understanding of language and meaning. Overall, Quine's radical translation thought experiment challenges the traditional conception of meaning and translation by emphasizing the limitations of interpreting a completely unknown language and “the inscrutability of reference” (Raatikainen, 2005).

            Chateaubriand (2014) presented some critical remarks of Quine’s concept that has limitations. One limitation is that the experiment is a thought experiment and cannot be realized in practice. This means that the experiment's results cannot be tested empirically, and its conclusions are based on theoretical assumptions. Another limitation is that the experiment assumes that the speaker of the unknown language has a shared environment with the translator, which may not always be the case. Additionally, the experiment assumes that the translator has access to the speaker's behavior and the environment, which may not always be possible. Finally, some critics argue that Quine's experiment relies on theoretical assumptions, such as the behaviorist approach, which may not be universally accepted.

            Quine responds to criticisms of his radical translation thought experiment by characterizing his argument for the indeterminacy of translation as a thought experiment. He claims that although it cannot be realized in practice, its result "is not to be doubted" and is intended to have the character of a proof. Quine stresses the epistemological role of observation sentences and argues for the alternative to his conception of observation sentences. He also emphasizes that his primary objection to the uncritical appeal on the notion of meaning is not an objection to meanings on account of their being mental.

            In my position, Quine has repeatedly emphasized that his real target is the uncritical appeal to unexplained meanings or propositions. He also addresses the theoretical assumptions and empirical weaknesses associated with the thought experiment, acknowledging the limitations and criticisms raised by other philosophers. Quine's responses indicate his awareness of the criticisms and his efforts to defend and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of his thought experiment.

 

References:

Chateaubriand, O., “Some Critical Remarks on Quine’s Thought Experiment of Radical Translation”, Grazer Philosophische Studien 89 (2014), 153–159.

Raatikainen, P., “On How to Avoid the Indeterminacy of Translation”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy (2005) Vol. XLIII

Dolan, J., “A Note on Quine's Theory of Radical Translation”, University of chicago, Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, vol.10, nos.1 and 2, 1967