Interlingual, Intralingual and Intersemiotic Translation

The final line of Shuttleworth and Cowie’s definition also illustrates the potential confusion of translation with interpreting, which is strictly speaking “oral translation of a spoken message or text” (1997:83). Yet this confusion is seen repeatedly in everyday non-technical language use, as in the trial in the Netherlands of two Libyans accused of bombing an American Panam passenger jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, where defence lawyers protested at the poor ‘translation’ which, they said, was impeding the defendants’ comprehension of the proceedings (reported in the Guardian 10 June 2000).

Even if interpreting is excluded, the potential field and issues covered by translation are vast and complex. Translation also exists between different varieties of the same language and into what might be considered less conventional languages, such as braille, sign language and morse code. What about the flag symbol being understood as a country, nationality or language − is that ‘translation’ too? Such visual phenomena are seen on a daily basis: no-smoking or exit signs in public places or icons and symbols on the computer screen, such as the hour-glass signifying “task is under way, please wait” or, as it sometimes seems, “be patient and don’t touch another key!”

J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter children's books have been translated into over 40 languages and have sold millions of copies worldwide. It is interesting that a separate edition is published in the USA with some alterations. The first book in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Bloomsbury 1997), appeared as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in the USA (Scholastic 1998). As well as the title, there were other lexical changes: British biscuits, football, Mummy, rounders and the sweets sherbet lemons became American cookies, soccer, Mommy, baseball and lemon drops. The American edition makes a few alterations of grammar and syntax, such as replacing got by gotten, dived by dove and at weekends by on weekends, and occasionally simplifying the sentence structure.

In this particular case it is not translation between two languages, but between two versions or dialects of the same language. As we shall see below, this is termed intralingual translation in Roman Jakobson’s typology and by other theorists may be known as a version. Yet it does share some of the characteristics of translation between languages, notably the replacement of lexical items by other equivalent items that are considered more suited to the target audience. In the Hebrew translation of the same book, the translator chose to substitute the British with a traditional Jewish sweet, a kind of marshmallow.

In his seminal paper, On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, the Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobson makes a very important distinction between three types of written translation:

1) Intralingual translation − translation within the same language, which can involve rewording or paraphrase;

2) Interlingual translation − translation from one language to another, and

3) Intersemiotic translation − translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign, for example music or image.

Only the second category, interlingual translation, is deemed translation proper by Jakobson.

Translation between written languages remains today the core of translation research, but the focus has broadened far beyond the mere replacement of SL linguistic items with their TL equivalents. In the intervening years research has been undertaken into all types of linguistic, cultural and ideological phenomena around translation: in theatre translation (an example of translation that is written, but ultimately to be read aloud), for example, adaptation, of geographical or historical location and of dialect, is very common.

Where do we draw the line between “translation” and “adaptation”? What about Olivier Todd’s massive biography of the Algerian French writer Albert Camus (Todd 1996); the English edition omits fully one third of the French original. Yet omission, decided upon by the publisher, does not negate translation.

And then there is the political context of translation and language, visible on a basic level whenever we see a bilingual sign in the street or whenever a linguistic group asserts its identity by graffiti-ing over the language of the political majority. More extremely, in recent years the differences within the Serbo-Croat language have been deliberately reinforced for political reasons to cause a separation of Croatian, and indeed Bosnian, from Serbian, meaning that translation now takes place between these three languages (Sucic 1996).

Developments have seen a certain blurring(размытие) of research between the different types of translation too. Thus, research into audiovisual translation now encompasses sign language, intralingual subtitles, lip synchronization for dubbing as well as interlingual subtitles; the image-word relationship is crucial in both film and advertising, and there has been closer investigation of the links between translation, music and dance.

The threefold definition of the ambit(образ) of translation will thus be:

1. The process of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by a translator, or translators, in a specific socio-cultural context.

2. The written product, or TT, which results from that process and which functions in the socio-cultural context of the TL.

3. The cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena which are an integral part of 1 and 2.