Scarica riassunto libro Munday e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
UNITA’ 1
THE CONCEPT OF TRANSLATION
The English term translation, first attested in around 1340, derives either from Old French translation or more directly from the Latin translatio , itself coming from the participle of the verb transferre. Translation today has several meanings:
- The general subject or field or phenomenon
- The product (the text that has been translated)
- The process of producing the translation translating In this process of translation between two different languages, there is a change from an original written text called “ SOURCE TEXT ” – ST , written in the original verbal language called the “ SOURCE LANGUAGE ” – SL into a written text, the “ TARGET TEXT ” – TT written in a different verbal language, the “ TARGET LANGUAGE” – TL. When you translate, you can start from a Source Text with a Source Language and with the translation we produce a Target Text with a Target Language. Roman Jakobson identifies three categories of translation, which are: Intralingual translation (rewording ) , which is an interpretation of verbal signs of other signs of the same language. Interlingual translation (translation proper) , which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language. intersemiotic translation (transmutation ), which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non-verbal communication. These definitions derive from semiotics, the science of communication through signs and systems. The use of semiotics in this field is important, as translation is not always limited to verbal languages. Intersemiotic translation occurs when a written text is translated into a different mode, such as music, film or painting. Intralingual translation occurs when we produce a summary in the same language, or when we rephrase an expression in the same language. Interlingual translation , between two different verbal sign systems, has been the traditional focus of translation studies.
What is translation studies?
Translation studies is an academic research that has expanded in recent years. Many experts have talked about this new discipline called “Translation Studies”: Holmes in “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”, Mary Snell-Hornby in “Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach”, Mona Baker in “The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation”. Translation studies have become prominent because of these reasons:
1 - The expansion in specialized translating and interpreting programs at undergraduated and
postgratuated level, to train professional commercial translators and interpreters.
2 - The ploriferation of conferences, books and journals on translation
3 - The increase of international organizations. Example: Fédération Internationale des traducteurs
4 - As the number of publications has increased so has the demand for general and analytical
instruments such as anthologies, databases, encyclopedias, handbooks and introductory text.
5 - The prosperity of international organizations.
EARLY HISTORY OF THE DISCIPLINE
The practice of translation was fundamental for the early dissemination of cultural and religious texts. The first who discussed about translation were CICERO and HORACE, during the first century BCE (before the common era), and ST JEROME, during the 4th century CE (common era). St Jerome translated the Greek Septuagint Bible into Latin and so he affected the later translations of the Scriptures. Later, in Europe, the translation of the Bible was the cause of ideological conflicts for years, especially during the Reformation in 16th century. There are 4 different phases of the translation studies:
1. LINGUISTIC STAGE : before the 1950. Translation was studied as a languagelearning methodology and the grammar translation was very common. (Cicero, Horace, St Jerome, Martin Luther, Dryden, Tytler, Schleiermacher). 2. COMMUNICATIVE STAGE : from 1950. Thanks to translation workshops, the comparative literature and the contrastive linguistics spread. The comparative literature consists in studying and comparing literature transnationally and transculturally. The contrastive linguistics consists in studying two languages in contrast, in order to find the differences between them. (Jakobson, Vinay, Darbelnet, Nida, Catford). In 1960s Vinay, Darbelnet and Nida developed a more systematic and linguistic-oriented approach to the study of translation: translation was viewed in a scientific way and Nida defined it a science, in his work “Toward a Science of Translating. 3. FUNCTIONIST STAGE : from 1970. (Newmark). 4. ETHICAL/AESTHETIC STAGE : from 2000. The subject of translation is characterized by interdisciplinarity and this has become more evident in the last years and helped the development of the translation studies.
The Holmes/Toury “map”
The discipline of translation as we now know it owes much to the work of JAMES S. HOLMES , who proposed both a name and a structure for the field. His work “The Name and Nature of Translation” is considered as the founding statement for the discipline. Holmes thought that the discipline of translation had limitations because it was still linked to other discipline, like languages or linguistics, and it was not viewed as a distinct discipline. So, he developed a framework where he shows what translation studies covers (this framework was subsequently presented by the translation scholar Gideon Toury). The objectives of the “PURE” AREAS OF RESEARCH are:
- The description of the phenomena of translation.
- The establishment of general principles to explain and predict such phenomena (Translation theory). The THEORETICAL BRANCH is divided into GENERAL and PARTIAL theories: a) By GENERAL , Holmes is referring to those writings that seek to describe or account for every type of translation and to make generalizations that will be relevant for translation as a whole. b) PARTIAL theoretical studies are restricted according to some parameters: MEDIUM - RESTRICTED THEORIES subdivide according to translation by machine and humans. AREA - RESTRICTED THEORIES are restricted to specific languages
Theories Research methods Applied translation studies Alongside these, is a basic transfer map of terminology to describe the linguistic manoeuvres, central to the process. This consists of strategies, procedures, techniques, errors and translation tools. A strategy is the overall orientation of a translated text, while a procedure is a specific technique used at a given point in a text. LInguistic transfer still occurs within a sociocultural and historical context and institutional environment.
Discipline, interdiscipline or multidiscipline?
A notable characteristic of recent research has been its interdisciplinarity: as McCarty says, “ a true interdiscipline is not easily understood in a world already divided along disciplinary lines. It is an entity that exists in the interstices of the existing fields. An interdiscipline challenges the current conventional way of thinking by promoting and responding to new links between different types of knowledge. McCarty sees the “conventional” disciplines having a primary or secondary relationship to a new interdiscipline. Translation has the potential for a primary relationship with disciplines such as: linguistic (especially pragmatics and semantics), modern languages and language studies, comparative literature, cultural studies, philosophy of language. Some current projects are also multidisciplinary, with researchers from various disciplines. It is important to point out that the relationship of translation studies to other discipline is not fixed, but changes over the years.
UNITA’
“Word for word or sense for sense”?
The distinction between “word for word” and “sense for sense” translation goes back to Cicero, Horace and S. Jerome. Cicero , who was a roman politician, talked about his approach to translation in “De optimo genere oratum” where he said that he didn’t want to traduce as an interpreter but as an orator. The interpreter is the literal translator, the one that traduces word for word, while the orator tried to produce a speech that inspired the listeners. Also the poet Horace criticized the word for word translation in a short but famous passage from his “Ars poetica” underlines the importance of creating an aesthetically pleasing and creative text in the target language. This attitude had a great influence during the following centuries. Also St. Jerome , the most famous of all western translators, justified his own Latin version and translation of the Bible by taking as example Cicero’s idea about the free translation. In a period in which a lot of different version of the Bible were being produced, the Pope Damasus commissioned it in order to have a standardized Latin version of the Bible for use in churches, and St. Jerome revised and corrected earlier Latin translations of the Greek New Testament, while, for the Old one, he decided to return to the original Hebrew version and to compare it with the Greek Septuagint. St. Jerome rejected the word-for-word translation because it produced an absurd
translation, while the sense-for-sense translation allowed the translation of the sense or content of the Source Text. (This is the origin of both “literal versus free” and “form versus content” debate that has continued until modern times). He defined the word-for-word translation “literal translation”, and the sense-for-sense “free translation”. He preferred sense-for-sense translation over word-for-word translation, except in the translation of the Bible, where a literal translation focused the attention to the words, syntax and ideas of the original text. St Jerome statement is usually taken to be the clearest expression of the “literal” and “free” poles in translation. Also in China and in the Arab world the doubts about free or literal translation were present. In China the religious reader, Dao’an directed a translation “programme” of the Buddhist sutras. He considered whether to make a free translation adapted to the taste of the Chinese public or a literal (and unreadable) translation. Dao’an also listed fice elements called shiben (iosses) where deviation was acceptable: word order, style, details, commentaries, position. In the Arab world, there was an intense translation activity during the Abbasid period, centered on the translation into Arabic of Greek scientific and philosophical material. There were two methods: 1- The first one was highly literal and consisted of translating each Greek word with an equivalent Arabic word, and where none existed, borrowing the Greek into Arabic. This method was unsuccessful and was replaced with the 2nd method. 2- 2- The second method consisted of translating sense-for-sense, creating fluent texts without changing the TL.
Humanism and the protestant reformation
Latin, that was controlled by the church of Rome, had a monopoly over knowledge and religion but the situation changed with the arrival of the European Humanist movement in the 14th and 15th centuries. The Humanists tried to recover the erudition and elegance of Classical Latin and Greek without the changes brought by the Middle Ages because they wanted to get away from the power of the Church. With the Protestant reformation, the Bible started to be translated into vernacular language. In this period the translation of any book that was different from the one of the Church was considered heretical and was banned or censored. It’s important to remind two figures: Tyndale and Dolet. The fiest one was executed because he was considered an heretical for his English Bible that he wrote during his exile. Dolet was burnt at the stake because he apparently added, in his translation of one of Plato’s dialogues, the phrase “nothing at all” referring at what existed after death. It was intended as Dolet didn’t believe in immortality. Non-literal or non-accepted translation started to be used as a weapon against the Church, the most notable example is MartIN Luther , that translated the Bible into modern German. He was heavily criticized by the Church for the addition of the word “only/allein”, because there was no equivalent in Greek word in the ST. Implying that the individual’s belief is sufficient for a good life and that the religion is not fundamental, Luther, such as St. Jerome, rejected the word-for-word translation because he wouldn’t be able to give the same meaning in German and it would sometimes be incomprehensible. He was important because he modernized the language and it became more accessible to the audience.
Early attempts at systematic translation theory – Dryden, Dolet, Tyler
the England of the 17th century marked an important step forward in translation theory. Apart from the Bible, translation in English only was confirmed to the translation of Latin and Greek
manner could be sacrificed if necessary for the sense. Probably his laws have influenced the work of Yan Fu , in important Chinese translator who talk about abouxin (fidelity), da (fluency) and ya (elegance).
Schleiermacher and the valorization of the foreign
In 1800 Romantics believed that translation could be a way to improve German literature and culture. One of the most famous one was Schleiermacher , who was also one of the founders of modern Protestant theology. He believes that the interpretation should be based on individual’s inner feeling and understanding (Romantic approach to interpretation). He distinguishes between two different types of translator that work on two different types of text. There are:
The DOLMETSCHER : who translate commercial texts
The UBERSETZER : who translate scholarly and artistic texts.
In his opinion the second type is more creative. Even though it may seem impossible to translate scholarly into artistic texts, since the ST meaning is strictly connected to the source culture and the TL can not fully correspond; but the real question of Schleiermacher was how to bring the ST writer and the TT reader together. He comes back to the word-for-word (literal) and sense-for-sense (free) translation ideas and the believes that there are two strategies of translation:
- The translator moves the reader towards the writer
- The translator moves the writer towards the reader His preferred method is to move the reader towards the writer (this not means that the translator should write as the author would have done, in a similar way to Dryden’s formula, a sort of naturalizing method) but he wants to give the reader the same impression he would have had as he’s reading something from his or her own culture and language (as a German reading the work in the original language). In order to do this, the translator must adopt an alienating or foreignizing method, emphasizing the foreign and modelling the TT in order to make it adhere the more possible to the ST. as consequence of this method, if the translator wants to communicate to the readers the same impression that he/she has received from the ST, this impression will be influenced by the education and understanding of the readers that can be different from the one of the translator.
UNITA’ 3
Roman Jakobson – the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalence
During the 19th and 20th century, the new debate was between meaning and equivalence. The authors who discussed it were: Roman Jakobson, Nida, Newmark, and Koller. ROMAN JAKOBSON (during the 1960s) In his paper “On linguistic aspects of translation” he describes 3 types of translation:
- intralingual,
- interlingual,
- intersemiotic With interlingual he refers to translation between two different written sign systems. From this, Jakobson goes on to examine key issues of this type of translation: LINGUISTIC MEANING and EQUIVALENCE. Jakobson follows the theory of language proposed by the famous Swiss linguist
Saussure, who distinguished between the linguistic system ( langue ) and specific individual utterances ( parole ). Central to his theory of “langue”, he differentiated between the SIGNIFIER (the spoken and written signal) and the SIGNIFIED (the concept), which together create the linguistic SIGN. According to Saussure, the sign is arbitrary and unmotivated, because there are no objective laws which unify that signifier to that signified: the bond is conventional. Jakobson then moves in to consider the problem of EQUIVALENCE IN MEANING between words in different languages, part of Saussure’s “parole”: he points out that there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units. There are two theories: LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALISM: considers that, although languages may differ in the way they convey meaning and in the surface realizations of that meaning, there is a shared way of thinking and experiencing the world. LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY or DETERMINISM: claims that differences in languages shape different conceptualizations of the world. For this reason there is the question of TRANSLATABILITY. In Jakobson’s description, interlingual translation involves substituting messages in one languages not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other languages. For the message to be equivalent is ST and TT, the code- units will necessarily be different since they belong to two different sign systems (languages) which partition reality differently. For Jakobson, cross-linguistic differences, which underline the concept of EQUIVALENCE, centre around obligatory grammatical and lexical forms: language differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey. The main differences between languages occur at: The level of gender. The level of aspect. The level of semantic fields For Jakobson, only poetry is considered untranslatable and requires creative transposition. The question of meaning, equivalence and translatability became a constant theme of translation studies in the 1960s and were tackled by a new scientific approach followed by one of the most important figures in translation studies, the American Eugene Nida.
Nida and the Science of Translating
Eugene Nida’s theory of translation developed from his own practical work of Bible’s translation. He talks about his theory in his books “ Toward a science of translating ” and “ The theory and practice of translation ” written with Taber. The title of the first book is really important because it explains how he wanted to move Bible translation into a more scientific era by adding recent work in linguistics. He starts from semantic, theoretical and terminology from Chomsky’s generative - transformational grammar , a deep structure that is transformed by transformational rules into a final surface structure. The most basic of the structures are the kernel sentences, which are simple active declarative sentences that need the minimum of transformation. Nida incorporates Chomsky’s model into his science of translation and creates the three stages of translation composed by: analysis, transfer and reconstruction. Source Language Text is analyzed into its basic elements and these are “transferred” and reconstructed semantically and stylistically into the TT (or receptor language). Decoding the ST, encoding the TT.
The nature of the meaning – advances in semantics and pragmatics
equivalent effect and response to be impossible. In 1922, Meta, a leading international journal of translation studies, wanted to demonstrate the implausibility of equivalent response. The criticism that the equivalent effect is subjective, raises the question of whether Nida’s theory of translation is really scientific. Despite the heated debate it has provoked, Nida’s systematic linguistic approach to translation exerted considerable influence on many subsequent translation scholars, among Newmark in the UK and Koller in Germany.
Koller - equivalence relations
Nida’s idea was influent especially in Germany. An important work about the concept of equivalence was developed by Koller that examines it more closely, introducing the new term of “correspondence”:
- Correspondence : compares two language system and describes their differences and similarities contrastively. For example it includes false friends. Its parameters are those of Saussure’s language.
- Equivalence : refers to elements that are equivalent in specific ST – TT pairs and contexts. The parameter is that of Saussure’s parole. Koller points out that, while knowledge of correspondences indicates the competence in the foreign language, it is knowledge and ability in equivalences that indicates competence in translation. But the question is: What exactly has to be equivalent? In order to answer, he differentiates five types of equivalence relations:
- Denotative equivalence: related to equivalence of the extralinguistic content of a text
- Connotative equivalence: related to lexical choices
- Text-normative equivalence: related to text types
- Pragmatic equivalence: oriented towards the text or message receiver –
- Formal equivalence: related to the form and aesthetics of the text This equivalences are hierarchically ordered according to the needs of the communicative situation. So, the translator first tries the denotative equivalence and if it is inadequate, he needs to find equivalence at a higher level.
UNITA’ 4
Vinay and Dalbernet’s model
They carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English. They compared the two languages and tried to discover the main differences and similarities by looking at texts in both languages. Moreover they analyzed different translation strategies and procedures:
- A strategy is an overall orientation of the translator
- A procedure is a specific technique or method used by the translator at a certain point in a text The two general strategies identified by Vinay and Dalbernet are:
- Direct translation : similar to literal or word for word translation
- Oblique translation : similar to free or sense for sense translation The two strategies comprise seven procedures: 3 in the direct translation and 4 in the oblique translation. Direct translation : 1- Borrowing: we borrow words from other languages and use them in our own language (sushi,
kimono, computer, etc.) 2- Calque: is a special kind of borrowing, we take words from other languages and we literally translate them. For example. The Italian word “assolutamente” is used as English people use “absolutely”, that means “certo, sicuramente” in Italian 3- Literal translation: this is a word for word translation and Vinay and Dalbernet believed that this was the most common one between languages of the same family and culture. We use the same words, elements, in the same order. These three procedures are considered as the best ones. When it’s impossible to use them, the oblique strategy can be used with these procedures: 4- Transposition: when we have a change of one part of speech, it can be obligatory (when we can’t do otherwise) or optional (when we want to do it). “costruire” translated as “construction of”. Vinay and Dalbernet see transposition as “probably the most common structural change made by translators”. 5- Modulation: it can be a change in term of semantic: the time “when” is translated in French with “le moment ou” (the moment where), and this is obligatory. It can be a change in term of point of view: “it’s not difficult” translated as “è facile” in Italian, more positive. 6- Equivalence: when there is a change in terms of style or meaning, a change in the way in which a situation is expressed. It is useful in translating idioms and proverbs. “It’s raining cats and dogs” becomes “piove a dirotto” in Italian. 7- Adaptation: it refers to culture. We change the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture. The English “Halloween” was translated as “Carnevale” in Italian. The game “Cricket” was translated as “Tour de France” even though it seems unfair because it doesn’t mean the same thing.
Supplementary translation procedures
There are a large number of other techniques exemplified by Vinay and Darbelnet, those that have maintained currency in translation theory are: Amplification: the TL uses more words, often because of syntactic expansion. False friend: a structurally similar term in SL and TL which deceives the user thinking the meaning is the same. Loss, gain, and compensation: translation does inevitably involve some loss, since it is impossible to maintain all the ST nuances of meaning and structures in the TL, but this is compensated thanks to a gain. Explicitation: implicit information in the ST is rendered explicit in the TT. Generalization: the use of a more general word in the TT.
Level of translation
between two languages rather than a formal correspondence. Catford considers two kids of shift:
- level shift: something that is expressed by grammar in one language and lexis in another. Example: aspect in Russian translated by a lexical verb in English igrat (to play) and sigrat (to finish playing).
- category shifts: are divided into:
- structural shifts : they are the most common and is a shift in grammatical structure. I like jazz -> Mi piace il jazz. From a transitive to a intransitive verb.
- Class shifts : from one part of speech to another. Example: a medical student -> en etudiant en medicine.
- Intra-system shifts : those kind of shifts take place when the SL and the TL possess approximately corresponding systems but where the translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system. Example: number and article system between English and French are similar but do not correspond sometimes. Advice (uncontable) becomes des conseils (plural).
- Unit shifts or Rank shifts : where the translation equivalent in the TL is at a different rank to the SL. Example: “Rank” here refers to the hierarchical linguistic units of sentence, clause, group, word, and Morpheme Another approach to the analysis of shifts, particularly STYLISTIC SHIFTS, came from Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and 1970s. Stylistic analysis, and its link to the identity, intentions, and ideology of the translator, have come to the fore in the TRANSLATIONAL STYLISTICS of the new millennium. Very important is the analysis of the relative markedness of stylistic choices in TT and ST. MARKEDNESS relates to a choice or patterns of choices that stand out as unusual and may come to the reader’s attention. In translation, it may usually be expected that a marked item in the ST would be translated by a similarly marked item in the TT but this is not always so. The interesting point is to hypothesize the MOTIVATION behind the selections. Most crucially, the question is how far the unconscious (as well as conscious) choices may in fact be due to factors in the translator’s environment, including education and the sociocultural and political context in which they operate.
The cognitive process of translation
The analysis of translation shifts can describe what constitutes the translation product but it can not tell us about the actual cognitive process of translation. The interpretative model of translation of Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer explains how the translator mind works, observing and analyzing the cognitive process of the translator themselves. The translation in considered as a three-stage process:
- Reading and understanding : understand what the source text tells
- Deverbalization : to extract the sense from the words, to deverbalize the source text
- Re-expression : to deverbalize it again, taking the sense of the source text and express it through words in the target text.
- This fourth stage , the verification : was added by Jean Delisle, and it’s when the translator revisits what he has done. From the perspective of RELEVANCE THEORY, the important work of Ernst August Gutt claims translation is an example of a communication based around a cause-and-effect model of INFERENCING and INTERPRETATION. The communicator gives the hearer COMMUNICATIVE CLUES that allow the inference to be made. Translators need to decide: whether and how it is possible to communicate the informative intention, whether to translate DESCRIPTIVELY or INTERPRETIVELY, what the degree of RESEMBLANCE to the ST should be and so on. These decisions are based on the translator’s evaluation of the COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT of the receiver. To succeed the translator and receiver must share basic assumptions about the resemblance that is sought, and the translator’s intentions must agree with the receiver’s expectations. Some theorists have sought to gather detailed observational data towards the explanation of the translator’s decision- making processes. One method, particularly popular in the 1990s, is THINK-ALOUD PROTOCOLS (TAPs): in this type of study, the translator is asked to verbalize his thought processes while translating or immediately afterwards (the latter being known as RETROSPECTIVE PROTOCOL), often with no prompting on content. This is usually recorded by the researcher and later transcribed and analysed. More recent methods have triangulated think-aloud protocols with TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: that is, they support or supplement think aloud with other experimental methods. CHAPTER 5: FUNCTIONAL THEORIES OF TRANSL.
UNITA’ 5
Katarina Reiss and text type
Reiss views the text as the level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence must be sought. Her functional approach aimed at systematizing the assessment of translations by borrowing categorization of the three functions of language by Buhler: informative function; expressive function; appellative function. Reiss links the three functions to their language dimensions and to the text types or communicative situations in which they are used. The main characteristic of each text-type are: Informative text type : plain communication of facts: information, knowledge, opinions. The language used is logical or referential, the concept is the main focus of the communication. Expressive text-type : inducing behavioural response. The aim of the appellative function is to appeal or persuade the reader of the text to act in a certain way (to buy a product). The form of language is dialogic and the focus is appellative. Audio-medial text , such as films and visual and spoken advertisements, which supplement with the other three functions with visual images or music. Text types are therefore categorised according to their main function. For each of these text types, Reiss gives examples of what she calls “text varieties”, commonly known as genre. For instance, poem is a highly expressive, form-focused type, while advertisement is an operative text-type. There are also hybrid types such as biography.
message-transmitter. Interlingual translation is described as “translatorial action from a source text” and has a commutative process involving a series of roles and players which are:
- The initiator: the company or individual who needs the translation
- The commissioner: the individual or agency who contacts the translator
- The ST producer: individuals within the company who write st ST
- The TT user: the person who uses the TT
- The TT receiver: the final recipient of the TT. These players have their own specific primary and secondary goals. The translatorial action focuses on producing a TT that is functionally communicative for the receiver and this involves intercultural transfer. This means that, for example, the form and the genre of the TT must fit what is functionally suitable in the TT culture. The translator determines what is functionally suitable, because he’s the translatorial action expert and because his aim is to achieve a satisfying intercultural transfer.
The skopos theory
“Skopos” is the Greek word for “AIM” or “PURPOSE” and was introduced into translation theory in the 1970s by Hans Vermeer as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and of the action of translating. The major work on SKOPOS THEORY is Reiss and Vermeer’s “Towards a General Theory of Translational Action”. Although skopos theory pre-dates Holz’s theory of translatorial action, it may be considered to be part of that same theory because it deals with a translational action based on a ST: the action has to be negotiated and performed and has a purpose and a result. The TT, called the Translatum, must be fit for purpose, that is, it must be FUNCTIONALLY ADEQUATE. For this reason, knowing why ST is to be translated and what the function of the TT will be is crucial for the translator. The first part of Reiss and Vermeer’s book sets out a detailed explanation of Vermeer’s skopos theory; the second part is about special theories and adapts Reiss’s functional text-type model to the general theory. RULES OF SKOPOS THEORY:
- A translational action is determined by its skopos.
- It is an offer of information in a target culture and TL concerning an offer of information in a source culture and SL.
- A TT does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way.
- A TT must be internally coherent.
- A TT must be coherent with the ST. 6. The five rules stand in hierarchical order, with the skopos rule predominating.
Translation-oriented text analysis
In “Text analysis in Translation”, Christiane Nord presents a more detailed functional model. She makes a distinction between two basic types of translation product:
- Documentary translation : is a “document of a source culture communication between the author and the ST receiver”. Is a translation that you know is a translation. Example: if you watch an America TV series whith Italian dubbing, you know that it is a translation. You can access this TV series because it’s in Italian but you know that it’s a translation because of all the cultural elements and all the American cultural elements that you have around.
- Instrumental translation : the receiver doesn’t understand that is a translation because the TT receivers read it as it were a source text written in their own language (i.e. a translated scientific manual). You don’t have any context around so it is basically a text written in our language. Nord calls these function preserving translations. She also gives examples of other kinds of translation in which is not possible to preserve the same function, such as the translation of Homer into a novel for contemporary audiences. Her aim is to give to translation students a model of source text analysis in which can be used with all text types and translation situations. She pays more attention to features of the source text. She proposes a more flexible version of her model, highlighting three main aspects of translation training:
- The importance of the translation commission: the translator needs to compare the ST and TT profiles defined in the commission in order to see where the two texts may be different. The commission should give there information about both texts: The intended (programmate) text functions the purpose The addresses (sender and recipient) The time and place of text reception The medium (speech - writing) The motive (why the ST was written and why it is being translated)
- The role of the source text analysis: then the translator has to analyze the ST in order to understand the practicability of the translation, which elements are the most important, which translation strategy he should use. Nord says that there is only one model of analysis: “the model should include a pragmatic analysis of the communicative situations and the same model has to be used in both ST and TT”.
- The functional hierarchy of translation problems: she establish a hierarchy of things to do when doing a translation:
- Comparison of the intended functions of ST and TT in order to decide the type of translation.
- Analysis of the translation commission
- The translation type helps to decide the translation style
- The problems of the text can then be tackled/confronted at a lower linguistic level, following the ST analysis.
UNITA’ 6
The Hallidayan model of language and discourse
Halliday’s model of discourse analysis is based on what he called the systemic functional grammar and studies language as communication. It starts from Buhler division of language functions (informative, expressive, operative) but in his model there is a strong interrelation between the linguistic choices, the aims of the communication and the sociocultural framework. Since he focuses on discourse analysis instead of text analysis he sees language as communication and not
- An overt translation : we know that the TT is not an original and is clearly not directed at the TT audience. That is the case of translations that are linked to a particular source culture, time and historical contexts. The receivers know that they are reading a translation.
- A covert translation : is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture. In this case the ST is not linked to its culture or audience so both ST and TT are directed to their respective receivers. The receivers don’t understand that this is a translation. The covert translation reproduce the same function of the original in the translated text. So qe have an equivalence at the level pf the individual function of the text and genre. To achieve this the translator should apply the cultural filter , modifying cultural elements and giving the impression that the TT is an original. Example: “regione” and “provincial” if you have to translate that text into English, in UK there is no reference in terms of region and provinces, it’s something really different. So you need to adapt applying cultural filters.
Baker’s text and pragmatic level analysis
Mona Baker, with her work “In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation”, had some considerable influence on translation training. Baker looks at equivalence at a series of levels: at word, above-word, grammar, thematic structure, cohesion, and pragmatic levels. Of particular interest is her application of the systematic approach to thematic structure and cohesion and the incorporation of the pragmatic level, of language in use.The most important point for ST thematic analysis is that the translator should be aware of the RELATIVE MARKEDNESS of the thematic and information structures because what is marked varies across the languages. COHESION : is produced by the grammatical and lexical links which help a text hold together. Halliday and Hasan classify five types of cohesion:
- REFERENCE : a semantic relation where meaning need to be interpreted through reference to something else.
- SUBSTITUTION : a grammatical substitution within the text.
- ELLIPSIS : a kind of zero substitution, where an element need to be supplied.
- CONJUNCTION : a semantic relation indicating how what follows is linked to what has gone before.
- LEXICAL COHESION : a lexical relation where cohesion is produced by the selection of vocabulary. As with the thematic structure, it is in many ways the density and progression of cohesive ties throughout a text that are important. This web of relationships may have to differ between ST and TT, since the networks of lexical cohesion will not be identical across languages. A TT should also normally be coherent. In other words, it should hang together logically in the mind of the TT receiver. This has to do with pragmatics. Baker considers various aspects of pragmatic equivalence in translation, applying relevant linguistic concepts to interlinguistic transfer. According to Baker, PRAGMATICS is the study of language in use. It is the study of meaning, not as generated by the linguistics system but as conveyed and manipulated by participants in a communicative situation. The 3 major PRAGMATIC CONCEPTS are:
COHERENCE : is related to cohesion. Depends on the hearer’s or receiver’s expectations and experience of the world. So it may not be the same for the ST and TT reader. PRESUPPOSITION : is closely related to coherence. It is defined by Baker as pragmatic inference. It relates to the linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge the sender assumes the receiver to have or which are necessary in order to retrieve the sender’s message. IMPLICATURE : is another form of pragmatic inference, which Baker defines as what the speaker means or implies rather than what she/he says. The concept of implicature was developed by philosopher of language Paul Grice, who described a set of rules or MAXIMS that operate in normal co-operative conversation. These are:
- QUANTITY: give the amount of information that is necessary. Do not give too much or too little.
- QUALITY: say only what you know to be true or what you can support.
- RELEVANCE: what you say should be relevant to the conversation.
- MANNER: say what you need to say in a way that is appropriate to the message you wish to convey.
- Some theorist add the maxim of POLITENESS: be polite in your comments.
Hatim and Mason: the levels of context and discourse
Their work is based on the Hallidayan model of language, but they pay extra attention to the ideational and interpersonal functions in translation (rather than just the textual one). They also add to their model the level of discourse (semiotic). The changes in the transitivity structure in the English translation cause a change, a shiftline ideational function of the text , in how the world or the events are represented. Hatim and Mason also talk about shifts in modality (the interpersonal function) with an example of an incorrect translation made by English trainee interpreters. Hatim and Mason show how the use of expressions such as “pre-Colombian” and “Indian” in the English translation impose an Eurocentric view on a source text that had been written from an indigenous point of view. The European translator is imposing a pro-western ideology. Then they concentrate on identifying dynamic and stable elements in a text, that are presented as a continuum and linked to translation strategies: the stable source text probably need a more literal translation, while in more dynamic source texts the translator can find more interesting challenges and literal translation may no longer be an option. According to recent studies, dynamism is related to the interpersonal function. The interpersonal function constructs the subjectivity of the communication participants. Subjectivity depends on what is called evaluation or attitude, that is the choice of evaluative language.
UNITA’ 7
Polysystem theory
In 1970 the Israeli scholar Even-Zohar developed the polysystem theory , starting from the ideas of the Russian Formalists and Czech Structuralists of the 1930s and 1940s. According to Formalists, the literary work has to be studied as a part of a literary system. In fact literature is part of the social, cultural, historical and literary framework. The key concept is the polysystem. He says that translated literature works as a system in itself:
- In the way in which the target language culture works for translation
