Scarica Translation Theories: Process, Product, and Equivalence e più Appunti in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
CHAPTER 1
Translation : is a phenomenon that has a huge effect on everyday life. General dictionary definition: 1 ) the act or an instance of translating, 2 ) a written or spoken expression of the meaning of a word, speech, book in another language (Oxford English dictionary) ● 1 ) translation as a process. Focuses on the role of the translator in taking the original or source text and turning it into a text in another language ( target text) ● 2 ) translation as a product. Centres on the concrete translation product produced by the translator Distinction drawn out by the definition in the specialist Dictionary of translation studies: translation can be understood in many different ways —> process, product and identify subtypes as literary/technical translations, subtitling (audiovisual translation: written product read in conjunction with image on screen) and machine translation (translation is in a professional context, a process and product that unify computing power and computerised analysis of language to the the human’s ability to analyse sense and determine appropriate forms in the other language). More typically it just refers to the transfer or written texts, sometimes including interpreting. ● Interpreting: speaking oral translation of a spoken message or text. ‼Confusion with translation seen repeatedly in everyday non-technical language use. Field of translation is vast and complex. Translation also exists between different varieties of the same language and into “less conventional languages” ( braille, morse code, sign language ). Visual phenomenon ( symbols ) seen on a daily basis (no smoking, exit signs, icons on computers) INTRALINGUAL translation (Jakobson typology, others version ): translation between two versions or dialects of the same language. It shares some of the characteristics of translation between languages (ex: replacement of lexical items, equivalent term considered more suited to the audience) Jakobson On linguistic aspects of translation Three types of written translation: ● Intralingual: translation within the same language which can involve reworking or paraphrase ● Interlingual: translation from one language to another (translation proper) ● Intersemiotic: translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign (music, image)
The core of translation research traditionally focused on translating written texts from a source language (SL) to a target language (TL), by replacing words and phrases with their equivalents. Over time, however, the field has expanded to explore broader issues like cultural, political, and ideological influences on translation. ● An example is theatre translation, where the text is written but meant to be performed aloud. Here, adaptations of location, historical context, and dialect often occur. This raises questions about the boundary between "translation" and "adaptation." ● Another example is Olivier Todd’s biography of Albert Camus , where the English translation omits one-third of the original French text—yet this is still considered translation, despite the omissions. Translation also plays a role in political contexts : bilingual street signs, graffiti used to assert linguistic identity, or the deliberate political separation of what was once considered a single language, such as Serbo-Croat , now treated as Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian, requiring translation between them. Research has also blurred the boundaries between different types of translation. ● Audiovisual translation now includes areas such as sign language, intralingual subtitles (subtitles in the same language), lip-synching for dubbing, and interlingual subtitles (between languages). The relationship between images and words is important in film and advertising , and connections are being explored between translation, music, and dance. Conventional written translation , with some coverage of subtitling and advertising. Translation into a second language , where translators work into a language that is not their mother tongue, often in professional and educational settings, despite the belief that translators should always translate into their native language. AMBIT OF TRANSLATION ● PROCESS of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by a translator in a specific socio-cultural context ● PRODUCT which results from that process and which functions in the socio-cultural context of TL ● COGNITIVE, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena Jakobson discussion on translation centres around key question of linguistics: ● Equivalence between items in SL and TL ● Translatability Central to research in translation in the 1960/70s —> TRANSLATION STUDIES(Holmes) like a science: ● pure translation studies (descriptive studies of existing translation and general and partial translation theories). Objectives twofold —> 1 describe
Jakobson: “ all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language ”. Only poetry by definition is UNTRANSLATABLE since in verse the form of words contributes to the construction of the meaning of the text. Dichotomy between: ● Sense/content ● Form/style The sense may be translated while the form often cannot. Where form begins to contribute to sense is where we approach untranslatability (music, poetry, advertising), sound and rhyme and double meaning are unlikely to be recreated in the TL. ● Literal (word for word) ● Free (sense for sense) The long-standing debate in Western translation theory centers on a major division between two main approaches to translation: literal (word-for-word) and free (sense-for-sense). This split relates to the broader question of how to balance form (the structure of the original text) and content (the meaning). Historically, this division can be traced back to two key figures:
- Cicero , a Roman lawyer and writer (1st century BCE), who rejected word-for-word translation in favor of conveying the overall style and impact of the original speeches when translating Greek orators into Latin.
- St. Jerome (4th century CE), who famously described his translation method for the Bible as rendering sense-for-sense , not word-for-word. This was crucial because the Bible was (and still is) regarded as a sacred text. Any perceived deviation from the "true" of the official meaning and interpretation could be dangerous for translators. Sometimes, it had even led to persecution , as in the case of William Tyndale , an English translator in the 16th century who was executed for translating the Bible into English. The tension between literal and free translation still exists in present-day translations. Examples illustrate this: ● The shoe-cleaning machine example is a literal (and partially incorrect) machine-translated text from Spanish, ● The tourist brochure for a vintage train line in Mallorca example is a literal translation from Catalan to Spanish, where the two languages are so closely related that literal translation tends to be natural and accurate, as their lexical and syntactic structures are nearly identical. Not so common when the languages in question are more distant.
Literal has rented to be used with different focus, sometimes to denote a TT which is close or influenced by ST or SL —> result: TRANSLATIONESE: pejorative general term for the language of translation. ● Used to indicate a stilted form of the TL from calquing ST lexical or syntactic patterning. ● Related to translational universals : the characteristics may be due to common translation phenomena (interference, explicitation, domestication) Translatorese (Newmark) : automatic choice of translation —> describe when a translator automatically picks the most common dictionary meaning of a word, even though another meaning would fit better in the sentence. ● Literal translation: legal text (law, treaty…) COMPREHENSIBILITY AND TRANSLATABILITY Many literal translations fail because they ignore that not all texts or audiences are the same. Not every text is as “serious” as the Bible or as “pragmatic” as a marriage certificate. Similarly, not all readers are highly intellectual or purely utilitarian. When translators ignore important factors like text type , audience , or purpose , the result is often a rigid, overly literal translation that sounds unnatural or is hard to understand—even when the words and grammar are technically correct. We have all come across translations where the vocabulary of a given language may well be recognisable and the grammar intact, but the sense is quite lacking. A better approach is shown in the food processor example (A2.6): ● The original French description is very technical and plain. ● The English translation is freer and more engaging (mentioning "the windows of Concorde," using clear everyday language like "shatterproof"), making it easier for the target audience to understand. This highlights that the main issue with many poor translations is lack of comprehensibility , which is closely tied to translatability. TRANSLATABILITY : the degree to which meaning can be transferred across languages despite differences in linguistic structure. Translatability depends on: ● Understanding both the literal meaning and the context (purpose, audience, communicative goals). ● Recognizing that while some cultural concepts may be hard to translate perfectly, communication is still possible and cultural gaps can be bridged.
CHAPTER 3
● THE UNITY OF TRANSLATION : refers to the specific linguistic level at which a source text (ST) is transformed into the target language (TL). It identifies the basic element or unit that a translator focuses on during the translation process. This unit can vary depending on the context and the nature of the text → it might be: ➢ An individual word ➢ A group of words ➢ A clause ➢ A sentence ➢ Even the entire text The concept is drawn from Shuttleworth and Cowie , emphasizing the flexible and adaptive nature of translation units depending on the translator’s strategy and the demands of the text. When examining whether the word could serve as an appropriate unit of translation, Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995) explore this issue using ideas from Ferdinand de Saussure , specifically his theory of the “ linguistic sign”. In Saussure’s framework, a linguistic sign consists of two interconnected components: ➢ Signifier — the form of the word (sounds or letters) ➢ Signified — the concept or meaning the word represents Connection between the signifier and signified can differ between languages → the translator often needs to work with units larger than a single word to maintain meaning, style, and cultural nuances. ● THE LINGUISTIC SIGN : A key point in Saussure’s theory is that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. Meaning arises through the system of contrasts (with other signs) within a language. For example: “tree” (signifier) → plant with a trunk (signified) = arbitrary: another language could use an entirely different word for the same concept ( “arbre”). The meaning of "tree" also depends on its contrast with other words, such as “bush” → a different kind of plant. Vinay and Darbelnet reject the word as a unit of translation → translators focus on the semantic field. UNIT FOR THEM: the smallest group of words that belong together and must be translated as a whole, NOT individually. ● LEXICOLOGICAL UNIT ( Vinay and Darbelnet) : groups of words that combine to express a single idea or element of thought. In translation, certain combinations of words should be treated as one unit. Examples with no direct word-for-word match between French and English : simple soldat → private (in the army), tout de suite → immediately. Sometimes an entire phrase or
expression in one language corresponds to a single word (or a different expression) in another. Translators often focus on individual words because traditional dictionaries list words separately as headwords and divide them into different senses or meanings. The discriminators indicate the meaning or context of each sense of the word. Translators must choose units of meaning that work naturally in the target language. Translation units are not tied to individual words — they often require flexibility, adapting expressions and grammatical structures to fit the meaning. ● TRANSLATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS : Based on Halliday’s systemic analysis of English grammar , translation can happen at hierarchical "rank” scale, starting with the smallest unit: ➢ Morpheme : arriv-ing ➢ Word : arriving ➢ Group : foot-and-mouth disease ➢ Clause/Sentence : whole sentence or text HALLIDAY’S FOCUS: on the clause as representation of meaning in a communicative context. NEWMARK’S FOCUS: on the sentence as the natural translation unit. Any rearrangements must respect Functional Sentence Perspective (to maintain information flow and style ). Linear modification → syntactic structure (how the words are ordered), Communicative dynamism → how different parts of the sentence contribute to new or important information: ➢ Rheme: elements that are context-independent and provide new information , placed towards the end of the sentence. ➢ Theme: contains old or given information , what the reader/listener already knows. This theme-rheme structure is slightly different from that used in Halliday’s model of English grammar : theme always placed in the first position of the sentence, regardless of whether it is old or new information. ● In legal or literary texts, sentence length often reflects the author’s style, so plays an important stylistic or functional role (respected by the translator). Above sentence level, the paragraph or whole text can also act as a unit (higher units of translation), especially in: ➢ Software (the entire interface must function)
● TRANSLATION SHIFTS : small linguistic changes that occur between ST and TT. Catford’s definition → departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL. Distinction between FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE and TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE relates to Saussure’s distinction between LANGUE and PAROLE. ● LANGUE - PAROLE: Language has two facets, one to do with the linguistic system ( langue ), the other referring to everything a speaker might say or understand while using language ( parole ). Noam Chomsky was correct to leave translation out of his research on syntactic structures. ➢ Linguistics-oriented translation theory has often failed to connect with actual translation practice because it focuses too much on creating tidy linguistic categories rather than reflecting how people really use language (what translators ultimately deal with). ➢ Parole-oriented translation theory and practice focuses less on the structural differences between languages and more on:
**- communicative process
- linguistic and rhetorical conventions -** translation as a form of cultural and linguistic mediation Translation → practical, real-world activity involving communication between different languages and cultures. ● FORMAL CORRESPONDENT: an equivalent in the target language that fits naturally and serves the same role or purpose in communication as SL piece. Formal correspondence involves a comparison and description of the language systems (Saussure’s langue ). ● TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE: focuses on the relations that exist between elements in a specific ST–TT pair (Saussure’s parole ) SHIFT: occurs when the translator changes the structure, wording, or form to better suit the target language or context — instead of keeping it the same as the original. When translating, certain systemic differences between languages must be accepted — such as changes in word order or grammatical structures. The term shift was first introduced by Catford , but the most detailed system for analyzing shifts was created by Vinay and Darbelnet. Their model, based on translation procedures , involves:
- Identifying and numbering the source text (ST) units and corresponding translation units.
- Then matching and comparing them to analyze how the translation was done. Although Vinay and Darbelnet approach this from contrastive stylistics (comparing parallel texts), their method offers a systematic way to study translation shifts between ST and TT. Vinay and Darbelnet offer a detailed system for categorizing translation procedures. They identify two main methods :
- Direct translation: Includes borrowing , calque , and literal translation.
- Oblique translation: Includes transposition , modulation , equivalence , and adaptation. These procedures operate at three levels : ● Lexicon (words) ● Grammar (structures) ● Message (situational meaning, sentence and paragraph level) At the message level , they also discuss compensation — an important strategy where the translator balances losses and gains in meaning or tone. ● COMPENSATION: translation technique used when some meaning or effect is unavoidably lost during translation. ● COMPENSATORY GAIN: The translator makes up for this loss by adding an element elsewhere in the text to create an equivalent effect. This idea of restoring liveliness and nuance to the translation is part of the hermeneutic process described by Steiner — specifically, the 4TH stage, which focuses on bringing life back to the target text (TT). Vinay and Darbelnet’s translation procedures have influenced later models, such as van Leuven-Zwart , who developed a complex system to analyze shifts in translations of Latin American fiction. VAN LEUVEN-ZWART METHOD: systematic, based on the denotative meaning of each word. The decision as to whether a shift has occurred is subjective since an evaluation of the equivalence of the ST and TT units is required. ● TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS: when translating, both the source text (ST) and target text (TT) have their own meanings. To compare these meanings fairly, translators imagine a kind of non-linguistic, intermediate form of
CHAPTER 5
One of the key problems for the analyst was in actually determining whether the ST meaning had been transferred into the TT. Early 1960s : translation theory advanced significantly through the work of American linguist Eugene Nida. While overseeing Bible translations into various African and South American indigenous languages (many with no written form), Nida addressed translators’ challenges with English literary and metaphorical elements by integrating contemporary linguistic (especially Chomskyan) and anthropological theories into their training. His key works framed translation as a systematic, scientific discipline. This approach was later continued by Larson (1980s). ● SEMANTICS : the study of meaning. GOAL → systematically explain the nature of meaning, avoiding the circular problem of defining "meaning" itself. In alignment with the scientific mindset of the era, Nida regarded semantics as a " science of meaning ." For Nida, understanding meaning posed a practical challenge, as his often inexperienced and non-native English-speaking Bible translators struggled with the complexities and ambiguities of source texts (ST): words with multiple senses, figurative language, and near-synonyms. To address this, Nida adopted Chomsky’s surface structure–deep structure framework within his analysis–transfer–restructuring translation model. ● Analysis phase: entails examining sentence structures and distinguishing between two types of linguistic meaning: ➢ referential (literal, factual meaning): DENOTATION → deals with the words as signs or symbols ➢ connotative (associative, emotional meaning). CONNOTATION → the emotional reaction engendered in the reader by a word. A major challenge for translators is the frequent absence of direct one-to-one correspondence between languages: ● The words (signifiers) differ, ● Each language conceptualizes reality in unique ways → the semantic fields of words often do not align across languages. ● Certain concepts can also be highly specific to particular languages or cultures. Although Jakobson asserted that any concept can, in theory, be translated into any language, practical difficulties remain. To address these issues, Nida incorporated contemporary semantic theories into his method of analyzing meaning across languages , helping translators navigate these conceptual and linguistic gaps. ● REFERENTIAL MEANING : Nida and Taber outline several linguistic challenges related to referential meaning that translators face.
➢ Words often exhibit polysemy : multiple meanings. [EX: chair can refer to a piece of furniture, an academic post (professor), a meeting leader (chairperson), or function as a verb meaning ‘to preside over a meeting.’] The translator must identify the correct meaning based on the semotactic environment : the surrounding words or co-text. ➢ Figurative uses further complicate translation. [EX: father can range from literal biological meanings (father of a child) to titles (Father Murphy), metaphorical uses (father of an invention), or religious meanings (our Father in heaven), each possibly requiring a different translation] → Biblical texts frequently use figurative language. ➢ Additional challenges arise with near-synonyms , [EX: grace , favour , kindness , and mercy ] where subtle distinctions must be preserved. The translator must first disambiguate the source text term, distinguishing its intended meaning through contrastive semantic structure analysis , which compares meanings between source and target languages to select the most appropriate translation. ● Correct translation depends heavily on context and the force (strength or tone) of the source language. ● Errors can also result from failure to disambiguate homonyms : words that share form but have different meanings. ● Common issue: mistakenly selecting an incorrect target-language (TL) term due to confusion between different senses of the source-language (SL) word. Translators often face the challenge of finding target language (TL) equivalents that operate on the same semantic level as the source language (SL) term, especially when the SL has a wider or more nuanced set of terms within a semantic field. Nida and Taber → hierarchical structuring of motion verbs under the superordinate term move. Lower-level hyponyms include walk, run, skip, hop, crawl , with further sublevels, e.g., march, stroll under walk. In this structure: ● Superordinate = generic term (e.g., move ), ● Hyponyms = more specific terms whose meanings are contained within the superordinate. Componential analysis involves comparing the distinct semantic features (components) of each term. For example: ● Walk : motion on foot, alternating leg movement, one foot always in contact with the ground. ● Run : motion on foot, alternating legs but with moments where neither foot touches the ground.
CHAPTER 6
Demanding complete translatability can lead to confusing target texts, while insisting on full comprehensibility ignores important differences between translation and other forms of communication. A more balanced view sees both translatability and comprehensibility as relative , not absolute. This perspective aligns with Eugene Nida’s view (echoing Jakobson), that anything expressible in one language can be expressed in another , unless the form itself is crucial to the message. This universalist approach to translation emphasizes meeting the communicative needs of the target audience, while also respecting the original message and its function. The discussion of translatability and comprehensibility has led to the development of the concept of dynamic equivalence → a translation method that contrasts with formal equivalence. ● FORMAL EQUIVALENCE : ( structural correspondence ) involves replacing a source language (SL) word or phrase with a target language (TL) equivalent that matches in form and structure. However, according to Nida, formal equivalence is not the same as literal translation. ➢ Literal translations : tend to preserve formal features by default [without considering context, meaning, or implied messages], resulting in unnatural or inaccurate translations. ➢ Formal translations : preserve formal features only when these features are contextually significant and contribute to the meaning of the overall text. Thus, a formal translation is motivated by context. The intentional ambiguity present in certain texts (ex: obituaries), is contextually motivated. This ambiguity must be preserved in translation to maintain the original meaning. ● One effective way to do this is by using formal equivalence , which aims to retain the form and structure of the source text. Preserving source text (ST) ambiguity is a valid and important use of formal equivalence. In some extreme cases, such as Bible translation, St Jerome famously emphasized the importance of preserving the original word order, describing it as “a mystery” (Jerome 395/1997: 25). This highlights the significance of form in conveying meaning. Nida frames formal equivalence as focusing closely on both the form and content of the message for whatever purpose the translation serves → it reflects Nida’s intended meaning of formal equivalence (preserving the message’s formal features when they are integral to its meaning). Given the sensitivity of form in certain messages, formal equivalence should be the translator’s first choice. While a more dynamic approach might be needed later, formal possibilities for preserving the intended effect must be fully explored first.
Formal equivalence is a contextually motivated translation method deliberately chosen to preserve specific linguistic or rhetorical effects. Sometimes, these effects can be maintained simply by not changing the original word order or structure. However, choosing formal equivalence must be a conscious and justified decision, aiming to bring the target reader closer to the linguistic or cultural preferences of the source text (ST). In many cases, due to diverse text types, audiences, and translation purposes, some degree of explanation or adjustment is necessary. If a literal formal translation risks causing confusion or opacity for the target reader, the translator must intervene and use more dynamic equivalence. ● DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE : allows for a wide range of contextual meanings and effects that a literal translation might obscure.
- It focuses on content rather than form
- It is applied when formal features are not crucial to meaning (ex:when there is no need to preserve ambiguity or stylistic opacity). Experienced translators often start with a literal approach, then reconsider and choose among literal, formal, or dynamic equivalence based on context and effect, using them as appropriate and in that order. ● ADJUSTMENT : the gradual shift from strict, form-by-form translation to more dynamic equivalence → an important technique in translation. Nida describes dynamic equivalence as an overall approach that can take various forms depending on the needs of the text and target audience.
- For texts that might produce dense or difficult translations, translators may choose to add redundancy , explicate information, or even repeat certain elements to aid comprehension.
- Another technique is gisting , useful when working with languages that often use repetition to convey meaning.
- Sometimes, adjustment involves reordering sentences or entire sequences , especially if the source text (ST) presents events in a non-chronological or confusing order, making it hard for the target reader to follow. Overall, adjustment is necessary to address the diverse purposes translations might serve, ensuring that the final text is clear, natural, and appropriate for its intended audience. THE TRANSLATION PROCESS: ANALYSIS, TRANSFER, RE-STRUCTURING The dynamically equivalent translation of the editorial applies various adjustment strategies, such as:
● Condensing a SL phrase into a single TL word. Structural differences between SL and TL must be reconciled at various linguistic levels—sound, word, sentence, or discourse. At this stage, the translator develops a strategy or “game plan,” making initial decisions on factors like register and genre. Transfer is therefore a dynamic process of reconfiguring semantic and structural components from SL into the TL, rather than a mechanical word-for-word substitution. After transfer, the translator proceeds to restructuring , where the transferred kernels—still in a simplified form—are transformed into a stylistically and culturally appropriate form for the target audience. Restructuring ensures that the translation communicates the intended impact of the original text. Ultimately, a translation is said to be dynamically equivalent when it produces essentially the same response in its target audience as the original text did in its source audience. Within the linguistics paradigm of Translation Studies, the concept of equivalence is central. Eugene Nida’s work on dynamic equivalence —the idea that translations should produce a similar effect on the target reader as the original did on its audience—has had significant influence. While Nida began his work in the context of Bible translation , his ideas have been applied more broadly to various text types and purposes. Two general orientations in translation: ● Formal equivalence is not the same as literal translation. The key difference is contextual motivation —formal equivalence is applied purposefully when it helps preserve the rhetorical or linguistic effect of the source text (ST). ● Without a clear contextual reason for maintaining the form of the ST, sticking rigidly to its structure results in literalism , which can render the translation meaningless or awkward. When literal/formal adherence is inappropriate, translators must turn to adjustment : a set of techniques used to restructure the ST message in a way that fits the target language (TL) and culture. Adjustment ensures clarity and relevance. The translation process model described involves three key phases:
- Breaking down the ST message into kernels —the smallest meaningful units.
- Mentally transferring these kernels from SL to TL.
- Adjusting and restructuring the message to achieve linguistic and stylistic appropriateness in the TT. Dynamic equivalence focuses on preserving the intended effect of the ST, while formal equivalence may preserve form only when contextually justified. Effective translation is a dynamic, flexible process.
CHAPTER 7
The focus of the translation can be on ST form, content or on both, on the TT reader, the translator and his or her preferences, interests, ideology, or on the nature of the translation brief and the purpose of translation. ● TRANSLATION PROPERLY DEFINED : While translation shares some similarities with other text-processing activities —such as summarizing or explaining—it also differs in fundamental ways, according to mainstream translation theory. Koller offers a working definition : A translation involves an equivalence relationship between the source text (ST) in L1 and the resulting target text (TT) in L2. ● The term "translational" (or "translatory") indicates that this relationship pertains specifically to translation, opposed to other derivative activities (summarizing or explaining), which do not establish the same kind of equivalence. Translation operates under distinct conditions that differentiate it from freer forms of writing. The translator faces challenges that are not present in original writing or in other forms of text production: ● Reconcile differences in linguistic codes ● Navigate cultural values ● Address variations in worldviews and perceptions ● Manage differences in style and aesthetics Translation requires maintaining a special kind of equivalence across languages and cultures , under constraints that do not apply to other text-related activities. LANGUE- ORIENTED VS PAROLE-ORIENTED EQUIVALENCE In developing a balanced notion of equivalence , Koller stresses the importance of distinguishing between: ● Formal similarity at the level of virtual language systems (langue) ● Equivalence relations between actual texts produced and used in real communication (parole) This distinction highlights that the true focus of Translation Studies should be on parole-based equivalence : concerned with how texts function in context and in use , not merely with abstract linguistic structures. Textual equivalence occurs between real texts in real contexts.
