Olga Souleymanova & Darya Kholodova, Moscow

3T in Linguistic Navigation Through Megapolis – Translation, Transcription, Transliteration

Abstract: The article offers a linguistic framework to support latinization of Moscow street signs as an approach to facilitating urban navigation in a multicultural environment. The paper defines linguistic guidelines needed to develop a theoretically substantiated and user-friendly navigation system, putting forth an algorithm of taking relevant 3T decisions.

Modeling a linguistic image of a modern European metropolis becomes a critical task within the context of globalization. It raises a range of complex linguistic issues that call for a consistent and systematic approach. First and foremost, it is essential to develop a unified regulatory framework that would administer the typeface as well as the spelling of the words in the native language. Secondly and specifically, it is relevant to develop a lingua franca that could provide the basis for the principles of urban navigation clear to foreign users. The solution to the first problem is well under way and falls mostly under the responsibility of designers. Although some issues, such as capitalization for instance, definitely require a thorough linguistic analysis. Whereas the second issue highlighted is of purely linguistic nature and bears on such matters as translation, transcription and transliteration. This very issue will be the focus of this article.

Nowadays many capital cities endeavor to create an effective urban navigation system and manage it with varying degrees of success. Translation (transliteration) of proper names appears easy to handle at first glance. Yet an in-depth approach inevitably exposes a great number of borderline cases that require detailed investigation. Let's try to specify the criteria that would offer an adequate solution to the aforesaid problem drawing on the example of Moscow (Russia).

Target group: The target group is made up of the non-Russian speakers, including a growing number of individual tourists, the so-called expats (foreign specialists working, for example, in Moscow and in most cases having a loose command of Russian), their families, and business partners of Russian companies. These are mostly the people who speak one of the European languages as their mother tongue or have a certain command of English as a language of international communication. The fact that most European languages employ the Latin alphabet, whereas the Russian language relies on a fundamentally different writing←217 | 218→ system (the Cyrillic script) makes texts written in Russian illegible (challenging and even frightening) for most speakers of foreign languages. Thus, the task of creating an ordered system that could "translate" navigation signs from Russian into a tourist-friendly constructed (planned) language becomes increasingly relevant.

Objective: Coming to a country tourists get inevitably involved in intercultural communication. Like any kind of interaction, it implies a message sender and a recipient, who may be also referred to as a tourist and a resident in terms of urban navigation. This interaction is generally based on various combinations of the following speech acts: a tourist reads and pronounces the text; a resident perceives the text pronounced and responds to it. This form of intercultural interaction requires an effective representation of an urban navigation sign that would be readable for a tourist and understandable for an average city-dweller, perceiving the text addressed to him/her by this tourist. Thus, the main objective an urban navigation system should meet is an effective communication between a tourist and an average resident.

As was stated above, foreign language urban navigation is based on at least three principles: translation, transcription, transliteration. The problem of correlation between the actual translation and transliteration in terms of city navigation arises when we try to decide the boundaries of transliteration, when considering the street name and the classifier accompanying it (see: улица / переулок / площадь) for example. It seems that this issue should also be addressed with due regard to expediency – the target group and the context of interaction in the first place.

For instance, the word ulitsa written in the Latin script would be hardly recognized and understood by a tourist, in contrast to the word street. There is a high probability that the English word street would be understood by an average Muscovite. At the same time such classifiers as side-street and dead end would be hardly understood by average Russian-speakers and thus these classifiers would require a different approach. Given the objective stated above, it seems feasible to rely on transliteration when working with classifiers. That will, firstly, unify the system of navigation, and, secondly, will lead to successful communication – a resident will understand a tourist and show him/her the correct way. It seems that a similar question arises, in case of culture-bound terms and items – the city sights, for example. This aspect however calls for a special study.

It is important to emphasize that the principle of converting a text from one script (in our case Latin) to another is often denoted by the umbrella term transliteration. In a broader sense, the word transliteration may include both transliteration in the narrow sense (which implies mapping from one system of writing to←218 | 219→ another) and transcription (which specifically maps the sounds of one language to the best matching script of another language). The choice between the two is defined primarily with regard to the objectives of the preformed conversion and its addressee or the target group.

In case of urban navigation, one might rely on the practical transliteration, which involves an accurate representation of foreign words by means of the national alphabet based on their pronunciation. One of the basic requirements for practical transcription is to preserve the exact phonetic pattern of the word tackled and if possible to maintain its morphological structure. Nevertheless, when choosing an appropriate representation, we should consider several criteria and in certain cases opt for a multidirectional experiment.

The currently developed navigation system of Moscow employs multiple transliteration patterns. As will be shown further the principles behind them do not always meet the objectives stated above.

The list of transliteration patterns employed involves:

– ГОСТ 7.79–2000 (or the international transliteration standard ISO 9–95) was based on the international scholarly system for linguistics (scientific transliteration), but diverged in favor of unambiguous transliteration over phonemic representation;

– The standard developed by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs went into effect in 2000 and was meant for international passports (initially French-oriented);

– ALA-LC (American Library Association) is used to represent bibliographic information by North American libraries and the British Library (for acquisitions since 1975) and in publications throughout the English-speaking world;

– BGN/PCGN Romanization system was developed by the United States Board on Geographic Names and by the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use in 1944–1947;

– BSI British Standards Institution & Chemical Abstracts Service BS 2979, created in 1958;

– UN (United Nations Romanization system) recommended for geographical names in 1987;

– WT (international scholarly transliteration system „Wissenschaftliche Transliteration“);

– DIN adopted in 1982 by the German institute of standardization and the German library.

As we can see, few standards are intended for geographical names. This might make them inapplicable to the purposes of urban navigation. Let us see how the←219 | 220→ selected names of Moscow streets, including sophisticated – in terms of transliteration – letter combinations, are converted into the Latin script using the standards under consideration.

ГОСТ 7.79–2000

Street name in the Cyrillic script	ГОСТ 7.79–2000
Ащеулов переулок	Ashheulov pereulok
Площадь Ильича	Ploshhad' Il'icha
Станция Щёлковская	Stanciya Shhyolkovskaya
Улица Алябьева	Ulica Alyab'eva
Улица Палиха	Ulica Palixa
Улица Цюрупы	Ulica Cyurupy
Улица Щорса	Ulica Shhorsa
Чечёрский проезд	Chechyorskij proezd

As reflected by the table, the letter щ in accordance with GOST 7.79–2000 is mapped by the combination of letters shh. The sound [jo] after fricatives in the same position gets different realizations: yo or o (see. Shhyolkovskaya, Shhorsa, Chechyorskij). The letter x is transliterated using the Latin letter x, while the letter ц is converted into the letter c. Soft consonants receive special representation through apostrophe.

ALA-LC

Street name in the Cyrillic script	ALA-LC
Ащеулов переулок	Ashcheulov pereulok
Площадь Ильича	Ploshchad' Il'icha
Станция Щёлковская	Stant͡sii͡a Shchëlkovskai͡a
Улица Алябьева	Ulit͡sa Ali͡ab'eva
Улица Палиха	Ulit͡sa Palikha
Улица Цюрупы	Ulit͡sa T͡Si͡urupy
Улица Щорса	Ulit͡sa Shchorsa
Чечёрский проезд	Chechërskiĭ proezd

←220 | 221→

Under the ALA-LC standard combinations of letters denoting diphthongs are complemented with diacritical marks, which is probably meant to show that the selected combination of letters should be interpreted in conjunction. See. t͡s denoting the letter ц, i͡a for the combination ия and the letter я, i͡u – for ю. The fricative щ is represented by a combination of letters shch. The letter x is transliterated as kh, й – as ĭ. Interestingly enough, the letter ё remains unchanged after transliteration. Softness of consonants gets special representation.

Standards BGN, PCGN and BSI adhere to similar principles with the only exception that complex sounds are not complemented with a unifying symbol. See:

BSI, BGN, PCGN

Street name in the Cyrillic script	BSI	BGN, PCGN
Ащеулов переулок	Ashcheulov pereulok	Ashcheulov pereulok
Площадь Ильича	Ploshchad' Il'icha	Ploshchad' Il'icha
Станция Щёлковская	Stantsiya Shchëlkovskaya	Stantsiya Shchëlkovskaya
Улица Алябьева	Ulitsa Alyab'eva	Ulitsa Alyab'eva
Улица Палиха	Ulitsa Palikha	Ulitsa Palikha
Улица Цюрупы	Ulitsa Tsyurupȳ	Ulitsa Tsyurupy
Улица Щорса	Ulitsa Shchorsa	Ulitsa Shchorsa
Чечёрский проезд	Chechërskiĭ proezd	Chechërskiĭ proezd

WT, UN, DIN

Street name in the Cyrillic script	WT, UN	DIN
Ащеулов переулок	Aščeulov pereulok	Aščeulov pereulok
Площадь Ильича	Ploščad' Il'iča	Ploščad' Il'iča
Станция Щёлковская	Stancija Ščëlkovskaja	Stancija Ščëlkovskaja
Улица Алябьева	Ulica Aljab'eva	Ulica Aljab'eva
Улица Палиха	Ulica Palixa	Ulica Palicha
Улица Цюрупы	Ulica Cjurupy	Ulica Cjurupy
Улица Щорса	Ulica Ščorsa	Ulica Ščorsa
Чечёрский проезд	Čečërskij proezd	Čečërskij proezd

←221 | 222→

WT, UN and DIN standards are based on similar principles of transliteration. Here hacek is employed to indicate fricative sounds, see .: šč, č, and š. Softness of consonants is marked with the apostrophe. Sound [jo], conveyed by the vowel ё, when transliterated may be represented by letters ё or o in the same positions. The only difference identified relates to the representation of the letter x: WT and UN systems transliterate the letter as x, while the DIN system maps it as ch.

Ministry of Internal Affairs standard

Street name in the Cyrillic script	Ministry of Internal Affairs standard
Ащеулов переулок	Ashcheulov pereulok
Площадь Ильича	Ploshchad' Il'icha
Станция Щёлковская	Stantsiya Shchyelkovskaya
Улица Алябьева	Ulitsa Alyab'eva
Улица Палиха	Ulitsa Palikha
Улица Цюрупы	Ulitsa Tsyurupy
Улица Щорса	Ulitsa Shchorsa
Чечёрский проезд	Chechyerskiy proezd

The most adequate transliteration (as was proved by Translata II participants, who kindly agreed to take part in an experiment during the conference) is provided by the standard adopted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The fricative щ is mapped with a combination of letters shch, the consonant ц – with a combination of letters ts. The analyzed standard considers the differences between soft and hard consonants. It should be noted, however, that the sound [jo] conveyed by the vowel ё gets different representations in similar positions, see: ye in Shchyelkovskaya and o in Shchorsa.

To sum it up we may say that the problem discussed in the article calls for a reasonable compromise in favor of practical transliteration laying emphasis on phonetic resemblance. In complex cases (for example, if case of fricative sounds) the choice should be based on the transliteration program described above and perhaps even involve a multidirectional experiment. However, the final decision should rest with the translator or editor. At the same time in order to avoid cognitive dissonance in users, the navigation system should be consistently harmonized throughout the city itself, public transport and even commuter trains and has to find reflection on the city maps.←222 | 223→