Translation Studies (Susan Bassnet), Schemi e mappe concettuali di Lingua Inglese

Scarica Translation Studies (Susan Bassnet) e più Schemi e mappe concettuali in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!

Susan Bassnet

TRANSLATION

STUDIES

The process of translation deals with^ linguistic activity^ ( central core )

and semiotics (studies of^ sign systems ,^ sign structures ,^ sign functions ).

According^ to^ the^ linguistic^ approach,^ translation^ equals^ transfer^ of

meaning^ from one set of language signs to another set through the use of

the dictionary ,^ grammar^ and^ extra-linguistic criteria.

Human beings are^ at^ the^ mercy^ of^ language,^ and^ no^ two^ languages

represent the same reality, translation needs to account for the context of

both the SL and the TL.

CHAPTER I: Central Studies

language and culture

Decoding and recoding^ are phases of the translation process, and they are involved even when tackling words that are apparently uncontroversial. ex. translating^ hello^ in French, Italian and German. FR : ça va? , hallo GER : wie geht’s? , hallo IT :^ olà ,^ pronto ,^ ciao We see that while English doesn’t distinguish between face-to- face greeting and greeting on the telephone, French, German and Italian^ do,^ moreover^ French^ and^ German^ use^ brief rhetorical questions and the same question in English is only used in formal situations. Italian has the same form of greeting for arrival and departure, while English has two forms, etc. Following^ Eugene Nida ‘s diagram, the translator has to: extract^ a^ core of meaning^ from the term, he isolates the notion of^ greeting^ and replaces the word^ hello^ by a^ phrase^ carrying the same notion. Jakobson would^ describe^ it^ as^ interlingual translation. consider different criteria, as:^ variations^ of the word he’s translating, the^ social context^ (face-to- face/telephone, speaker’s age, sex, status)

Ferdinand de Saussure creates a model where he distinguishes between the^ signified ( signifié , the concept of the word) and the^ signifier^ ( signifiant , the sound-image made by the word); their structural relationship constitutes the^ linguistic sign. ex. butter , where the^ signified^ is the^ concept^ butter, a dairy product,^ and the^ signifier is the word butter. He distinguished between the^ syntagmatic relations^ ( horizontal ) that a word has with the surrounding words in a sentence and the^ associative relations^ ( vertical ) the word has with the language structure as a whole. In determining what words to use in the English translation, the translation must: accept the untranslatability^ of the SL text in the TL at the^ linguistic level accept the lack of a similar cultural convention^ in the TL consider the^ range of phrases^ available in the TL consider the presentation of the^ context^ of the speaker and its^ relation^ to the audience and the context of the meeting in the SL replace the invariant core^ of the SL phrase in the TL framing it in the referential systems^ of the SL (the system of the text and the system of the culture from which the text has sprung) The emphasis is always on the^ receiving end. ex. Albrecht Neubert thinks that one cannot translate Shakespeare’s sonnet^ Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?^ into a language from a place where summers are unpleasant.

CHAPTER I: Central Studies (^) decoding and recoding

Anton Popovic proposes^ four types^ of translational equivalence: linguistic , there is homogeneity^ on the^ linguistic level^ of both the SL and the TL text ( word for word ) paradigmic , there is equivalence of the^ elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis (ex. elements of the grammar, for him of higher value than lexicon) stylistic ( translational ), there is equivalence of elements in both ST and TT aiming at an expressive identity^ with an^ invariant of identical meaning textual ( syntagmatic ), there is equivalence of the^ syntagmatic structure^ of a text (ex. equivalence of form and shape) He also suggests that among different translations there is an^ invariant core^ of the original text that is represented by a stable, basic and constant semantic elements, unmodified by transformations and variants, which only affect the expressive form.

CHAPTER I: Central Studies

Eugène Nida distinguishes^ two^ types^ of equivalence: formal , the focus is on the message itself in both form and content; he calls it a gloss translation , it aims at allowing the reader to understand as much of the SL context as possible dynamic , based on^ the^ principle^ of equivalent effect =^ the^ relationship between the receiver^ and^ the^ message should aim at being^ the^ same^ as^ the relationship between the original receiver and message)

Albrecht Neubert thinks that translational equivalence must be considered a^ semiotic category , comprising of a^ syntactic, semantic and pragmatic component, which are arranged in a hierarchical relationship (semantic equivalence is the priority). The equivalence results from the relation between the^ signs themselves^ and the one between^ the signs^ and^ what they stand for^ and^ who uses them.

problems of equivalence

CHAPTER I: Central Studies

Once the translator encounters difficulties, the issue of^ untranslatability^ can be raised. J.C. Catford^ distinguishes^ between^ two^ types^ of untranslatability: linguistic , there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL item; this, though, can be resolved by applying the structure of the TL language on to the SL item cultural , there is an absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature of the SL text; even though terms are^ international,^ their^ usage^ could^ be^ so different that there’s no more common ground

Popovic defines^ two types^ of untranslatability: a situation where the^ linguistic elements of the SL cannot be adequately replaced in the^ TL^ due^ to^ a^ lack^ of^ denotation^ or connotation a situation where^ the^ expression^ of^ the meaning of the SL text does not find an adequate^ linguistic^ expression^ in^ the translation

untranslatability

Periodisation is tricky.^ George Steiner^ in^ After Babel^ divides into^ four periods^ the literature on theory, practice and history of translation. 1st period : from Cicero and Horace to Alexander Frases Tytler’s^ Essays on the principles of translation (1791); characterised by theories that stem directly from the practice 2nd period : from Tytler to Larbaud’s^ Sous l’invocation de Saint Jérome^ (1946); characterised by theorisation and hermeneutic enquiry and the development of a vocabulary and methodology for translation 3rd period : from the first papers on machine translation (1940s) up to now; characterised by the introduction of^ structural linguistics^ and^ communication theory 4th period : co-existing with the third, from the early 1960s; characterised by a wider frame for translation that includes several^ other disciplines These divisions illustrate the difficulty with the^ diachronic study^ of translation, it’s sufficient to look at the difference in the time they cover, but Steiner manages to avoid one common mistake of periodisation: comparmentalisation^ of literary history;^ Lotman^ argues that human culture is a^ dynamic system^ and this is contradicted by the effort to find stages of cultural development within strict temporal boundaries.

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

the problem of period study

With the spread of Christianity, translation acquired the role of^ disseminating^ the word of God. St Jerome ‘s famous contentious translation of the New Testament was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 384 and it had great influence on future translators. He had also translated^ sense for sense , but the problem lied in what constituted stylistic licence vs heretical interpretation; this remained a major^ block^ for centuries. Problems intensified with the growth of national cultures and the advent of the Reformation: translation came to be used as a^ weapon^ in dogmatic and political conflicts. The 1st complete translation of the Bible in English was the^ Wycliffite Bible^ (1380-1384); in the development of the Reformation, new attitudes about the written text were emerging, and John Wycliffe thought everyone should have access to the Bible in a language they understood; he believed in the^ dominion by grace , in which men were directly responsible only to God. Him and his followers were attacked as heretics and called the^ Lollards , he was burnt at the stake but his teachings lived on. The 2nd Wycliffite Bible^ contains a general prologue that describes the^ four stages^ of translation: a^ collaborative effort^ of^ collecting^ old Bibles and glosses to establish an^ authentic^ Latin ST a comparison of the versions counselling^ grammars and divines about hard words and complex meanings translating as clearly^ as possible the^ sentence^ (meaning), the TT was then^ corrected^ by a group of collaborators With the arrival of the^ printing press^ the process intensified. The general^ aim^ of 16th century Bible translation was: to clarify errors^ of previous versions due to^ inadequate manuscripts^ or^ linguistic incompetence to produce an^ accessible^ and^ satisfying vernacular style to clarify points of dogma^ and reduce the^ interpretation^ of the Bible

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

Bible translation

In the medieval educational system, translation had a^ moral^ and^ didactic^ purpose with a clear^ political role. It was seen also as a^ writing exercise^ with the aim to improve one own’s vernacular rhetorical style. ex. King Alfred^ was a man of literature and he translated a great number of Latin texts; he believed translation could spread understanding and help the English people to recover from the devastation of the Danish invasions. He thought translation involved the creation of a vernacular SL text and then a process of increasing the status of the vernacular TL. This came from the Romans:^ Quintilian^ described the importance of paraphrasing a SL text to help the student analyse its structure and experiment with forms of embellishment. He divided the process in two phases: a close first^ paraphrase^ and then a more complex^ adding^ of the writer’s own style. Gianfranco Folena^ suggests that medieval translation can be described as^ vertical^ (the SL text has more prestige, ex. Latin to English) or^ horizontal^ (the SL text has the same prestige as the TL one, ex. Norman- French into English). Vertical translation splits in two types:^ word for word^ (Quintilian) and^ sense for sense (Cicero) methods, and horizontal translations divides into^ imitatio^ and^ borrowing.^ Imitatio^ had a higher status, an author’s skills consisted in reworking established themes,

education and the vernacular

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

the Renaissance

A major characteristics is the^ affirmation of the present^ through the use of contemporary idiom and style. Ex. in prose we notice the replacement of the^ indirect discourse^ by a^ direct^ one (conceives immediacy and vitality); in poetry the adjustments were so important that critics have described^ translations^ made^ by^ Wyatt^ (1503-1542)^ and^ Surrey^ (1517-1547)^ as adaptations , although this is misleading: the poem was sometimes perceived as an^ artefact belonging to a particular^ cultural system^ ( SL ), and it was translated^ sense for sense^ as the only possible faithful rendering cared about finding a^ similar function^ for the poem in the^ TL cultural system. Texts were updated through^ additions ,^ omissions^ and^ alterations. Philemon Holland^ (1552-1637)^ decided^ to^ propose^ alterations^ such^ as^ the^ use^ of contemporary terminology^ for certain key^ Roman terms^ in his translations of Livy:^ patres and plebes becomes Lords^ ( Nobles )^ and commons. Sometimes he clarified obscure passages by adding explanatory ones.

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

The Counter-Reformation ,^ the^ conflict^ between^ absolute^ monarchy^ and parliament and the gap between^ traditional Christian humanism^ and^ science^ all led to changes in the theory of literature. Intellectuals became fixated with models and rules, and the translation of the^ classics^ increased considerably as writers were seeking imitation as a form of instruction, but it was not mere imitation.^ Denham^ argues for a concept of translation that sees the original author and the translator as^ equals operating in a different social and temporal context. The translator’s duty is to extract the essential core^ of the text and to reproduce and rework it in the TL.^ Abraham Cowley asserts that a translator should be free to add, omit or change elements of the SL, as he aimed more to reproduce the SL author’s style. John Dryden^ formulates^ three types^ of translation in his^ Preface^ to Ovid’s^ Epistles (1680) metaphrase^ (turning an author^ word for word ) paraphrase (translation with^ latitude , Ciceronian^ sense for sense ) imitation (translation can^ abandon^ the SL text) He chooses the second type as the more balanced approach.

the seventeenth century

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

Romanticism’s^ rejection^ of^ rationalism^ and its^ affirmation^ of^ individualism^ brought to a stress on the imagination of the individual poet’s world vision as a metaphysical and revolutionary ideal. The poet was seen as a quasi-mystical creator whose poetry could build a^ new universe^ thanks to the freedom of his creative force. Coleridge^ outlined the distinction between^ fancy^ (lifeless^ mechanical process ) and^ imagination (supreme creative and organic power ). This theory has affinities with^ Schlegel ‘s, who defined translation as a^ creative^ (the translator is a^ creative genius^ in his own right and he is^ in touch with the genius of the SL text to^ enrich^ the TL) or^ mechanical^ enterprise^ (aim: to make a text or an author^ known ).

Romanticism and post-Romanticism

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

In post-Romanticism,^ Newman^ theorised that the translator should retain every^ peculiarity^ of the SL text ; this idea was popular in the 19th century and it was based on^ Schleiermacher ‘s theories on translation.

the Victorians and archaising

Need to convey the remoteness of the SL text in time and place; there was an immense respect for the SL text and the TL product was accessible only to a minority of intellectual readers who shared an enriching experience. This implicitly rejects the ideal of universal literacy , and according to Arnold the translator must fully commit to the SL text and bring the TL reader to it ( vs Erasmus ). Henry Wadsworth Longfellow theorised that the translator’s duty was only to report what the SL author said and not to explain it (that’s a commentator ); the translator is only a technician with clear but limited tasks. Edward Fitzgerald ‘s views were in contrast to Longfellow’s, he wanted to bring a version of the SL text into the TL text as a living entity. The main currents of the Victorian period can be classified as viewing translation as: a means of encouraging the intelligent reader to return to the SL text a means of helping the TL reader become the better reader ( Schleiermacher ) of the SL text through a deliberately contrived foreignness in the TL text a means whereby the translator offers his own pragmatic choice to the TL reader ( Rossetti ‘s image: translator = Aladdin in the enchanted vaults) a means through which the translator seeks to upgrade the status of a SL text perceived as belonging to a lower cultural level Victorian translation followed principles of literalness , pedantry , and most of all archaising , which could be viewed as an attempt to colonise the past.

CHAPTER II: History of Translation Theory

Anne Cluysenaar thinks^ the^ translator^ should^ treat^ each^ individual structure (prose or verse) as each structure stresses different linguistic features; a description of the dominant structure of each individual work is needed as^ a^ remedy^ to^ inadequate^ translations.^ She^ believes^ in^ the structuralist approach : the text is a set of related systems operating within a set of other systems; the failure of many translators lies in understanding this and the relationship with set of systems outside its boundaries. The translator is first a^ reader^ and then a writer.

structures

CHAPTER III: Specific problems of literary translation

One of the greatest advances of the 20th century in literature is the^ reevaluation^ of the reader, who has a new^ power. Bathes thinks the reader should be not a consumer but a^ producer^ of the text, as he translates and^ decodes^ the text according to a different set of systems; the idea of^ one correct interpretation^ is dissolved. The concept of the reader = translator gives the reader an enormous amount of freedom, though, and it has to be handled responsibly and always take into full account the context of the text and also of the production of the text.

Lotman studied the average reader and determined^ four positions^ of the addressee, where the reader: focuses on the^ content^ picking out the prose argument or poetic paraphrase grasps the^ complexity of the structure^ and the way its^ levels^ interact extrapolates one level^ of the work for a specific purpose discovers^ elements^ that are not basic concerning the^ genesis^ of the text, and then uses the text for his own purposes

The translator first reads^ and^ interprets^ into the^ SL^ and then, through a further process of^ decoding ,^ translates^ the text into the^ TL. The^ interlingual translation^ is thus bound to reflect the translator’s own^ creative interpretation^ of the SL text.

André Lefevre catalogues^ seven strategies^ to translate poetry: phonemic translation (reproduce^ the^ SL^ sound^ while^ producing^ an acceptable paraphrase^ of the sense; overall result is clumsy and devoid of sense) literal translation^ ( word for word , distorts the sense and the syntax of the SL text) metrical translation^ (reproduction of the^ SL metre ; this concentrates on one aspect at the expense of the others) rhymed translation^ (double criterion of metre and rhyme; the result is only a caricature ) poetry into prose^ (distortion of the^ sense ,^ communicative value^ and^ syntax of the SL text) blank verse translation^ (restrictions imposed by the choice of the structure but greater accuracy and higher degree of^ literalness ) interpretation^ (he distinguishes between^ versions^ [the^ substance^ is retained but the form is changed] and^ imitations^ [the translator produces a^ poem of his own ]).

poetry and translation

The greatest problems when translating poetry is that the poet, his contemporary and the context of the production are long gone: thusly, the^ closer^ the translation comes to reproduce the^ linguistic^ and^ formal structures^ of the SL text, the further removed it becomes from the^ function , while^ huge deviations^ of^ form and language^ bring^ forth^ translation^ that^ are^ closer^ to^ the^ SL^ author’s intention. Also the spatial arrangement^ of the^ SL text^ must be taken into account: the translator has to decides what constitutes the^ total structure^ of the poem and then respect a series of^ rules^ that are^ non-existent^ in the^ TL. Translators can also decide the level of closeness^ to the SL, and sometimes translations are based on an interpretation^ of the original. James Holmes has devised a^ diagram^ to show the^ interrelationship^ between translation and^ critical interpretation. Verse translation rests on the axis point where types of interpretation intersect with types of imitation and derivation. Moreover, a translator continues to produce^ versions^ of a text as the previous are context-bound and in time they are not accessible anymore, as they are mostly accessible in the time they are produced.

CHAPTER III: Specific problems of literary translation