Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
introduction to translation study
Typology: Slides
1 / 12
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Module 2: Introduction to Translation Studies as a discipline Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
The Lecture Contains:
Introduction
What is translation?
Types of translation
Equivalence
Lost in Translation
Translatability
Cultural Turn in Translation
Module 2: Introduction to Translation Studies as a discipline Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
Introduction
Translation Studies is now recognized as a discipline in its own right and like all other disciplines, it has its own set of terms to denote various aspects of the process. We have already seen how the language from which a text is translated is called the Source Language (SL) and the language into which it is translated is called the Target Language (TL).
Module 2: Introduction to Translation Studies as a discipline Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
The problem with all forms of communication including translation is that breakdowns might occur in the course of reception of the message. Even in same language communication, there is no guarantee that the receiver decodes the sender’s message in the way s/he had intended. This is true of translation also; in fact, chances of miscommunication are higher as the sender’s and receiver’s codes are different and also because it is mediated through a third figure of the translator. This is why there is the assumption that there is “loss” in the translation process, that complete equivalence is impossible.
The cultural differences between sender and receiver also complicate matters. Susan Bassnett gives an example of how complicated the translation of even ordinary prosaic words can become. The ordinary affirmative ‘yes’ in English can become ‘ ja’ in German, ‘ si ’ in Italian and ‘ si ’ or ‘ oui ’ in French. The choice of words in French becomes a problem. While ‘ oui ’ is the common term used, ‘ si’ is used especially when there is disagreement of some sorts. There is also the culturally specific manner of repeating the affirmative in all the three languages: ja ja or si si. But repeating the affirmative in English (yes, yes) is very uncharacteristic of the English people as a whole. The good translator has to be aware of all of these minute cultural differences even before starting off on the process of translating even a simple word like ‘yes’ (Bassnett, 16-17).
The complicated process that goes into the translation of ‘yes’ into French, according to the Nida model is this: a) The sender’s message (code) is ‘yes’ b) This is analysed (decoded) by the receiver c) The context in which the message is sent is taken into account and then recoded d) The recoded message of ‘ oui ’ or ‘ si ’
What happens here, according to Roman Jakobson, is interlingual transposition, or substitution of one language with another language. Another theorist A. Ludskanov terms it ‘semiotic transformation’: “Semiotic transformations are the replacements of the signs encoding a message by signs of another code, preserving (so far as possible in the face of entropy) invariant information with respect to a given system of reference” (qtd in Bassnett 18). The invariant information in the above given situation would be that of the affirmative ‘yes’; so, according to Ludskanov, the sign ‘yes’ is replaced by ‘ oui ’ or ‘ si’ depending on the system of reference which is the social context of France.
Module 2: Introduction to Translation Studies as a discipline Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
Types of translation
Roman Jakobson
In his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” Roman Jakobson arrived at three forms of translation
● Intralingual translation: Translation within a language which would involve explaining it in words of the same language
● Interlingual translation: Translation from one language into another or reinterpretation of the message in another linguistic code
● Intersemiotic translation: Translation from one linguistic system to another which means the transference of meaning from a verbal to a non-verbal system or from one medium to another
Jakobson points out how difficult it is to achieve complete equivalence because of the complexity of the codes involved. Even in intralingual translation we have to make use of combination of code units to interpret meaning. So even synonyms cannot guarantee full equivalence. This becomes complicated when the SL and TL are different. In addition to the difference between two language systems, cultural differences also pose huge barriers to translation activity. Eugene Nida says: “Since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations” (Venuti 126).
equivalence aims at creating a similar impact as the SL text on its readers or to recreate a similar relationship between the reader/listener and the text. Both forms of equivalence have their pros and cons, and are relevant according to the contexts of translation.
file:///C|/Users/akanksha/Documents/Google%20Talk%20Received%20Files/finaltranslation/lecture4/4_6.htm (2 of 2) [6/13/2012 10:27:26 AM]
Module 2: Introduction to Translation Studies as a discipline Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
Lost in Translation
Along with the concept of equivalence is the notion of loss and gain in translation. Implicit in most of translation theories is the assumption that something is lost when you carry across a text from one language into another. There is always the possibility of miscommunication in the act of communication that is translation; if the receiver goes slightly askew in the decoding, the chances are that the message will not be carried across correctly. Certain elements can be added or left out. In fact, Robert Frost’s famous definition of poetry is notable: “Poetry is what gets lost in translation”. The basis of Frost’s statement is the concept of the creative originality of the poet who creates a work where the meaning lurks somewhere beneath the surface of words. The translator, it is assumed, cannot ever hope to capture the ‘meaning’ of the original SL which tends to fall through the gaps of the TL. Overenthusiastic translators can also inadvertently pad up the text by adding more to it than is necessary with the result that the translation might have more allusions in it than was originally thought of.
The problem of loss and gain is again due to the cultural dissimilarity between two linguistic groups. Something that is very common in a particular community might be rare in another. It is said that the language of the Eskimos has more than one hundred words to describe ‘snow’. These subtle distinctions they make between various types of snow cannot be brought out in a single Hindi word. The reverse is also applicable. For instance, the word ‘godhuli’ in Hindi cannot be translated with the help of a single English word. It needs to be explained as the ‘hour at which the cattle return home causing the dust to rise by their hooves’. There is of course the word ‘dusk’ but that becomes only an approximation; what is lost here is the suggestion of Indian village life where dusk is the holy time when cattle return home and lamps are lit. Here there is loss in translation.
This is one of the major challenges facing a translator who is translating a literary work. Literary language, besides being informative and factual, is also allusive and elliptical. The translator has to be vigilant to these resonances in the SL text and attempt to recapture it for the TL reader as best as s/he can, without any palpable loss or gain in the process.
imply comprehensive consideration of both source and target languages, and an evaluation of how the SL text can best be reproduced in the TL. This would mean that a completely successful communication through translation is impossible. But this also proves that some form of communication is not impossible either.
When we come to the problem of translatability and the fine hairsplitting that go with it, we have to pause and remember a few basic facts.
file:///C|/Users/akanksha/Documents/Google%20Talk%20Received%20Files/finaltranslation/lecture4/4_8.htm (2 of 2) [6/13/2012 10:27:27 AM]
Module 2: Introduction to Translation Studies as a discipline Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
If translatability is such a problem and complete equivalence is an impossibility, how have we understood important texts that have influenced us profoundly? Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic and the Bible was originally in Hebrew. Most believers know Him and His Word only in their own language versions which are not heretical beliefs. Most of us have read world classics like War and Peace, Don Quixote and Les Miserables only in translation. This does not seem to have affected our appreciation and deep regard for these works. So the notion of breakdown of communication in translation activity is not borne out practically.
The problems that are identified theoretically can have pragmatic solutions. This is why Jiri Levy advises translators to fall back on intuition when faced with problems in translation: “Translation theory tends to be normative, to instruct translators on the OPTIMAL solution; actual translation work, however, is pragmatic; the translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves for the so-called MINIMAX STRATEGY” (“Translation as a Decision Process”, Venuti 156). Translation for him is at once an interpretation and creation.
The old debate whether translation is secondary and derivative does not seem very relevant today precisely because of these insights that we have into the process. Bassnett has identified a diagrammatic representation of the process of translation thus:
Author – Text – Receiver = Translator – Text – Receiver (Bassnett 38).
This shows the translator as both receiver and sender of the message which would require her to be creative as well.
