Communication is a fine word that has got everyone in trouble ever since Babel and long before. That was only another funny joke God played to us, naughty people, and in addition to lawyers and politicians, he went further and punished the world with linguists and translators! The trouble with communication dates back in the good old days of Eden. Whether or not Adam is guilty along with Eve, or the Almighty himself was playing language jokes with the unfortunate couple is a problem of communication. From the much too often spoken words ‘Adam was led (should we understand ‘by the nose’?!) into temptation’, we gather that he seemed to be quite an innocent and somehow impulsive, yet playful guy – which is not so unusual for young lads – but if (by chance) he was not so primitive, and actually misunderstood either God’s or Eve’s messages, then he just ate the apple as a consequence of poor interpretation! For example, if the divine message was: “This tree is forbidden – you are not to eat from it”’ – then he sat down and ate next to it, in the shadow – he only let Eve in the tree, seated on some branch, to take all the blame. If it was “You are not to eat these apples” – then he waited and ate the ones coming ripe the next year – those were... other apples! Thus, he also made Eve think he is difficult to convince. But we cannot suspect the divine word to be confusing. After all, at the beginning there was the word and it was with God – meaning that no one else but him had it. I wonder whether anyone has got it ever since! That’s why so much misunderstanding! The troublesome couple couldn’t help it, and apparently we keep on with the tradition.

What is so difficult in communication? The thing should be simple: ‘A’ wants to communicate with ‘B’. ‘A’ knows what it is to communicate – it’s in A’s head – the message ‘M’. Fine message! ‘A’ doesn’t have much choice in how to give a form to ‘M’, and language comes in. ‘A’ puts the message into words, most of the times without thinking too much because ‘A’ knows what the message is, so why bother?! ‘M’ comes to life and ‘A’ anxiously gives it a voice. ‘B’, no less anxious to receive it, listens to the message (for about half a second), is sure of the best understanding (mostly because of some expectations that already ‘cooked’ an answer), and without delay, ‘B’ formulates a response message – ‘RM’. Of course, ‘B’ also knows what ‘RM’ means and is sure the form given is quite fine. Only, the probability of being so is somewhere... next to never! We almost never say what we want to say, almost never understand what is really said to us, and, definitely, we never believe such confusions can happen to us, educated people. Yet, it does happen, actually irrespective of education. And because of this ‘talking round-about the meaning’, or ‘BAB’ (Beating About the Bush!!! Please do not imply meanings here!), people have been quarrelling ever since the apple business on this interminable issue: A: “I told you this”. B: “No, you never told me this. Rather, you told me that.” A: “Who, me?! I never told you that – you’re nuts, you never listen!” B: “I did listen well, and I answered you with this.” A: “You’re not in your right mind! You never told me this, but rather that!”. B: “You’re crazy! How could I ever say that – I never thought of that, you only want to drive me crazy:” And so on until the ones involved reach one or all of the following (as the BAB’s recent experience also shows (... the flag!) in some country rich in petrol): quarrel, breaking-up, separating, divorce, fight, hate, enmity, war, with all human manifestations marching in. No wander we live in such a messy world.

Why is it that the simple dialogue above can create such confusions? Do we not know what we want to say? Of course, we do – clearly, unless we are helplessly confused ourselves. Then, who could ever help that?! But knowing what we want to say and actually saying the same exact thing are two very different processes. Language is not a simple gathering of words, nor is it a bunch of grammar rules which, if obeyed, we get the thing we want to say. In other words, it is not enough to possess the means and the ways to reach someplace – one also needs to walk the walk up there using some (hidden!) talent of combination of the two. And that ‘walk’ is the trouble of communication: the material stuff is there, the ways to use it are there, the knowledge on both is there, yet... all these do not lead us to the meaning we have in mind. I once faced this perplexing note attached to a ladder propped up against a wall: “The ladder does not lead to the attic”. Strangely enough, when I looked up to see where else the ladder could lead, there it was: a locked door in the ceiling, but no attic could be guessed from outside! Our words, grammar, even messages in all may be correct, yet they may not lead us into the meaning intended. Our language may be irreproachable, yet it may not lead to logic. Moreover, when facing translation, grammar books and dictionaries are not enough to actually make us good translators. Much as all these are meant to lead, they may not lead to the right attic! Grammatical abilities may fail to reach logical meaning. We are provided with many keys and ways into language and translation, as if propped up against the wall of solid grammatical skills. From here, in whatever way we may choose to combine them when speaking and/or translating, let us not forget that the goal is … ‘the attic’!

A translator’s work may be called ‘Babel redivivus’ – only in reverse – as ever since the troublesome globalization came into being, translators have been undoing God’s linguistic punishment. In addition to common difficulties, they often face the ambiguity or inappropriateness of the text to be translated. In this event, they should be able to ‘unfold’ the message, so at least the target language should have the message the speaker intended. When the author of the doubtful message cannot be consulted, the translator is in real trouble. That is partly because a linguist is normally able to understand exactly what is said or written. If this is not what it was intended, but however, it makes some sense, it is difficult to know which of the meanings the author really had in mind.

One of the books that explores this ‘metamorphosis’, especially in the field of science, medicine, advertising and letter writing is Into English written by Alan McConnel Duff. One of his conclusions is that translators must often sacrifice the form (text) in favour of message accuracy, as we do not translate words but meanings. Even before being revised, the texts in his book (as well as the ones in this study) did not lack quality, either in language or in grammar, but that particular multiple-meaning ‘quality’ of the language brings about the trouble – which of the meanings implied by such texts is the intended one?! They are examples of very ‘well-intended’ messages, which never reached their actual meaning, either because of some little slips, or because of a too complicated way of saying very simple things, ending up in heavy texts, often meaningless and/or bearing contradictions.

The analysis of the texts in this study starts from the source language (English), at the level of communication – the message. But before trying an exact translation in a target language, we face this even more complex level: converting our thoughts into the words of our own language. The intimacy with our sweet ‘mother-tongue’ does not make things any easier – thoughts are psychological processes while words are material stuff. Transforming the former into the latter is very close to divine work: giving a form to the formless. Thus, the difficulty and the need for special care and loving attention to this first ‘metamorphosis’.

Although the material comes out of an English-Spanish translation, this study does not aim primarily to ways into translation, but to ways into meaningful and accurate communication. The linguists would not normally be such awful persons (always hunting mistakes!) if the speakers (in their mother-tongue) had and used a ‘ladder’ in such a way as to lead to the ‘attic’! Correct messages can easily be translated even by non-specialists. That is because a clear meaning in a logical message can hardly be missed. Even if the receptor does not know why the message is clear, fact is, he/she can understand it correctly, and may give a clear answer (or translation) in turn, if in possession of... the right ‘ladder’ propped up on the right wall in the right direction! That is: vocabulary, grammar, logical combination on appropriate levels of the first two. Thus, although each of the three components ‘talks the talk’ about communication, none of them alone can actually ‘walk the walk’. But the most important thing to remember is that our intention (what we want to communicate), however good, without any of the three skills mentioned above, is by far the least capable of giving meaning to our talk. As all good intentions, it will only pave the road to hell! Probably, that’s the place of all those who come out with the excuse ‘I didn’t mean that’.

Sometimes, the explanations that follow the texts may be too long and tiresome – they only aim to a very clear understanding of why the message is doubtful, if not incorrect. An incorrect message normally needs short explanations plus correction to recover the intended meaning. It is a grammatically correct message lacking logic (here and there) that is difficult to ‘correct’! Therefore, the need for extended explanations often accompanied by examples. Some of the original messages are actually correct and clear as they are, but there are suggestions felt as preferable so as to obtain a shorter form or a different style and/or register. The form we choose to put our messages in is like a fine piece of jewelry: you wouldn’t wear a pearl necklace whose broken locker was hastily replaced by some indecent wire found on the pavement, would you?!

Finally, all original texts are very well-intended, and sometimes, even the strong desire to ‘KISS’ – that is (funny language!): Keep It Short and Simple! – led to one of the following: a wrong ‘meaning’, multiple ‘meanings’ – one being correct, again multiple meanings – none being correct, or no meaning at all.

For all those who, at least once in a lifetime, have to write some text intended to many unknown others, or simply to release public speeches, remember that the receivers of your messages may or may not have the same education as yours, may or may not be accustomed to your particular uses of language, may or may not be specialists in the field, and may or may not want to understand (or guess) what you really want to communicate. They hear or see the words and these words – not your intentions – are their guide into some meaning.

Therefore, pay special attention to collocation, meaning, style and register. Avoid confusing words, poor expression, as well as ‘stuffed structures’ e.g. when in doubt, always go for simple and clear, build short and balanced sentences rather than long and heavy ones (do not take this text as example – being a linguist, I can afford it!), be clear in ‘who does what’. Follow George Orwell’s advice “let the meaning choose the word” rather than trying (the impossible!) to force words into meanings. Many times have I heard this meaningful saying: “Sweet words are better than sharp swords”. True, but not in Linguistics. Although the correct (and sometimes sternly and ‘sharply’ straight) words would not be followed by applauses and admiration, nor would they make you an expert in oratory and literature, they would surely bring neither more nor less than exactly what you have been looking for in communication, ever since the word was (hopefully) released to you too: clear understanding. Then, just as intended, meant, built and used for, grammar does lead to right meanings, and the ladder does lead to the attic!