double arrow

LECTURE 5

1

SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES TO THE TRANSLATION UNIT

The previous lecture focused on the age-old translation strategies «literal» and «free». To (a) great extent, these strategies are linked to different translation units,«literal» being very much centered on adherence to the individual word, while «free» translation aims at capturing the sense of a longer stretch of language.

In this lecture we will begin to examine more systematic approaches to the unit of translation, which refers to «the linguistic level at which ST is recodified in TL», in other words, the element (the unit of translation) used by the translator when working on the ST. It may be the individual word, group, clause, sentence or even the whole text. In first discussing the word as a possible unit of translation, Vinay and Darbelnet draw on Saussure’s key concepts of the linguistic sign, defined by the signifier and signified.

It is very important to remind that the famous Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure invented the linguistic term sign that unifies signifier (означаемое – sound-image or word) and signified (означающее – concept). Importantly, Saussure emphasizes that the sign is by nature arbitrary and can only derive meaning from contrast with other signs in the same system (language).

Vinay and Darbelnet reject the word as a unit of translation since translators focus on the semantic field rather than on the formal properties of the individual signifier. For them, the unit is «the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually». This is what they call the lexicological unit and the unit of thought.

THE LEXICOLOGICAL UNIT

The lexicological units described by Vinay and Darbelnet contain «lexical elements grouped together to form a single element of thought». Illustrative examples they provide, to show the non-correspondence at word level between French and English, are: simple soldat = private (in the army) and tout de suite = immediately. Compare: in Russian «рядовой» (simple soldat = private) and «сразу же»(tout de suite = immediately). Of course, the traditional structure of dictionaries, which divides a language into headwords, means that individual words do tend to be treated in isolation, being divided into different senses. Below is an adapted entry for the Russian word стрела in the Oxford Russian Bilingual Dictionary:

Стрела (заостренный тонкий стержень с узкими лопастями на конце для метания из лука; тонкий безлистный стебель травянистого растения с соцветием наверху)

1) arrow (pointed stick shot from an arrow);

2) arm;

3) crane arm;

4) a botanical shoot.

The bracketed (grouping, classification) descriptors, known as discriminators, summarize the main use, field or collocation for each translation equivalent. For example, sense 1 (стрела) is military sense, with the corresponding translation in English arrow. On the other hand, sense 4 (тонкий безлистный стебель травянистого растения с соцветием наверху) is the botanical sense, with the translation in English shoot of a plant (a botanical shoot). The example in sense 4 is an example of a strong collocation in English. This two-word English unit (a botanical shoot) may be translated in Russian by a single word стрела. Russian and corresponding English words demonstrate how the translation unit (стрела) is not fixed to an individual word across languages.

Reflect on what the unit of translation is in these translation equivalents and illustrative examples.

Passengers flying from the United Kingdom to Madrid Barajas airport in March 2001 were presented with the following leaflet upon arrival:

Due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, we ask ladies-and-gentlemen passengers of flights with origin in the United Kingdom or France, that they disinfect their footwear on the carpets (That is the translation from Spanish in English offered by the Spanish translator). Compare with the correct English text:

DUE TO THE OUTBREAK OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, ALL PASSENGERS ARRIVING FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM OR FRANCE ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO DISINFECT THEIR FOOTWEAR ON THE SPECIAL CARPETS PROVIDED.

Think about what units of translation a translator might use when translating this from English in Russian. Compare and analyze the correct English text with the Spanish-English translation / version.

THE UNIT OF TRANSLATION AS A PRELUDE TO ANALYSIS

Division of ST and TT into the units of translation is of particular importance in Vinay and Darbelnet’s work as a prelude to analysis of changes in translation, the translation shifts (переводческие трансформации). As an illustration of how this division works, and how it might illuminate the process of translation, look at the example, a poster located by the underground ticket office at Heathrow airport, London:

Travelling from Heathrow?

There are easy to follow instructions on the larger self-service touch screen ticket

machines.

Imagine you have been asked to translate this poster into your first language (Russian). Write down your trans­lation and make a note of the translation units you use when dividing up the ST.

This simple text indicates how, in practice, the translation unit will typically tend to be not individual words but small chunks of language building up into the sentence, what the famous translation theorist Eugene Nida calls «meaningful mouthfuls of language».

TRANSLATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

In his Textbook of Translation, Peter Newmark discusses translation using in part a scale that has become well established in linguistics with the work of Michael Halliday. It should be noted that Hallidayan linguistics examines translation at different levels: at the level of the word, collocation and idiom, grammar, thematic and information structure, cohesion and pragmatics. Halliday’s systemic analysis of English grammar is based on the following hierarchical rank scale, starting with the smallest unit: morpheme, word, group of words, clause, sentence.

Halliday’s focus is on the clause as a representation of meaning in a communicative context and Newmark’s is on the sentence as the ‘natural’ unit of translation. Newmark states that transpositions and rearrangements may often occur, but that a sentence would not normally be divided unless there was good reason. He is careful to insist that any ‘rearrangements or ‘recastings’ must respect Functional Sentence Perspective, which is a form of analysis of sentence and information structure created by the Prague School of Linguists. Syntactic structure, known as linear modification, is an important structuring device. However, com­munication is driven forward primarily by ‘communicative dynamism’, that is, by elements that are context-independent and contribute most new information. These are most often, but not always, focused towards the end of a sentence. The part of the sentence containing the new information is known as the rheme, whereas ‘old’ or ‘given’ information is contained in the theme. It should be noted, that this division of theme and rheme differs from a Hallidayan analysis, where theme is always realized in first position, in English grammar at least.

This can be illustrated by the following example in its English versions (the originals are dual, French and English, a not uncommon practice in large inter­national organizations). The text is the Monaco statement on bioethics and the rights of the child, arising from the April 2000 symposium:

Bioethics and the right of the child

The International Symposium on Bioethics and the Rights of the Child, jointly organized by the World Association of Children's Friends (AMADE) and UNESCO, was held in Monaco from 28 to 30 April 2000. It presents hereafter a number of considerations regarding the progress in biology and medicine with a view to reinforcing and implementing the protection of children's rights.

It acknowledged the issue of childhood, as a complex, evolving reality, which now merits specific consideration. Children are fragile beings. However, their autonomy should not be misconceived…

Proceedings of the International Symposium AMADE - UNESCO

on Bioethics and the Rights of the Child,

Monaco, 28-30 April 2000

Study this example and consider how far the sentence would be the most appropriate unit of translation. Translate in Russian and analyze what rearrangements of elements would be possible in Russian translation. (см.: Лекции доц. Е.В. Приказчиковой). Indeed, the Russian translation typically moves the details of the date and location of the meeting to first position but respected the link between the two sentences. Comparison of paragraph two in the Russian version (in your version) and the English version may show that clause and sentence by no means necessarily correspond over languages, even if the development of the paragraph is maintained. If you give back-translation of Russian version of Bioethics text in English, you may get the following text:

It acknowledged that childhood is a complex, evolving reality and that it merits now a specific consideration. The child is a fragile being, but his autonomy should not therefore be disregarded…

Compare Example of English text (the original text) and back-translation of Russian version in English and note the changes across clause and sentence boundaries and reflect on why these might have occurred and how theinformation structure has been preserved, or altered, in the process.

In the case of some texts, such as legal documents, or some authors, sentence length plays an important stylistic or functional role. Thus, Hemingway’s preference for shorter sentences and avoidance of subordinate clauses, or L. Tolstoy’s tendency for long elaborate sentences, are fundamental not only to their style but also to the view of the world that is being depicted. A translator working with the sentence as the translation unit would therefore need to pay particular care to preserving the features of the STs.

Above the level of the sentence, Newmark considers paragraph and text (incor­porating chapter and section) as higher units of translation. At a functional level, this means that the TT must perform the purpose associated with it:

a) a translated piece of software must work perfectly on-screen and enable the user to perform the desired action;

b) advertisements, most particularly, and poetry need to be translated at the level of the text (or even culture) and not the word if their message is to function in the target culture;

c) medicines and other foodstuffs must carry instructions and warning notices that satisfactorily alert the TT reader to possible dangers, such as the basic and simple one in an example: Warning notice on medicines: Keep out of reach of children.

Look at the corresponding warning notice printed on medicines and other products in your language. Is the same wording always used, whether or not the instructions are original SL or part of a translated text?

Of course, texts themselves are not isolated but function within their own socio-cultural and ideological environment. Equally importantly, at the intertextual level, texts are influenced reworkings of earlier texts.

The unit of translation is normally the linguistic unit, which the translator uses when translating. Translation theorists have proposed various units, from individual word and group to clause and sentence and even higher levels such as text and intertextual levels. Importantly, Newmark makes the crucial point that «all lengths of language can, at different moments and also simultaneously, be used as units of translation in the course of the translation activity». While it may be that the translator most often works at the sentence level, paying specific attention to problems raised by individual words or groups in that context, it is also important to take into account the function of the whole text and references to extratextual features. These are crucial.

LECTURE 6

TRANSLATION SHIFTS

The present lecture discusses models or taxonomies (principles of classification) that have been proposed for examining the small changes or ‘shifts’ that occur between units in a ST – TT pair. A connecting theme of the examples is rail travel, perhaps a symbolic counterpoint to the best known taxonomy of translation shifts, devised by Vinay and Darbelnet and initially inspired by the study of bilingual road signs in Canada.

TRANSLATION SHIFTS

On some international trains in Europe, there is, or used to be, a multilingual warning notice displayed next to the windows (remember the Russian version of this warning): in English do not lean out of the window; in French Ne pas se pencher an dehors; in German Nicht hinauslehnen; in Italian Ё pericoloso sporgersi.

The warning is clear, even if the form is different in each language. The English, the only one in the above list of warnings to actually mention the window (compare with the Russian version), is a negative imperative, while the French and German use a negative infinitive construction (back-translation in English: ‘not to lean outside’) and the Italian is a statement (back-translation in English: ‘[it] is dangerous to lean out’). Of course, these kinds of differences are typical of translation in general. It is not at all the most common for the exact structure of the words to be repeated across languages and, even when the grammatical structure is the same (as in the French and German examples above), the number of word forms varies from 7 in English (do not lean out of the window) to two in German (nicht hinauslehnen).

The small linguistic changes that occur between ST and TT are known as translation shifts. John Catford was the first scholar to use the term in his «A Linguistic Theory of Translation». His definition of shifts is «departures fromformal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL». The distinction drawn between formal correspondence and textual equivalence will be crucial and relates to Saussure’s distinction between langue (язык) and parole (речь).

LANGUE AND PAROLE

Language has two facets, one to do with the linguistic system (a fairly stable langue), the other with all that which a speaker might say or understand while using language (a variable parole). Noam Chomsky was probably right in categorically excluding activities such as translation from the purview of his own research into syntactic structures. The so-called ‘linguistics-oriented’ translation theory has not interacted well with translation practice simply because it has systematically sought neatness of categories at the expense of being true to what people say or do with language, which is what gets trans­lated ultimately. In parole-oriented translation theory and practice, we are concerned not so much with the systemic similarities and differences between languages as with the communicative process in all its aspects, with conventions (both linguistic and rhetorical) and with translation as mediation between different languages and cultures.

FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE

A formal correspondent is defined by Catford as ‘any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the "same" place in the "economy" of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL’. In simplified terms, this means a TL piece of language, which plays the same role in the TL system as an SL piece of language, plays in the SL system. Thus, a noun such as fenetre might be said generally to occupy a similar place in the French language system as the noun window does in English. Formal correspondence therefore involves a comparison and description of the language systems (Saussure’s langue) but not a comparison of specific ST-TT pairs (textual equivalence).

TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE

A textual equivalent is defined as ‘any TL text or portion of text which is observed [...] to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text’ (Catford). Whereas formal correspondence has to do with the general, non-specific, relationship between elements in two languages, textual equivalence focuses on the relations that exist between elements in a specific ST – TT pair (Saussure’s parole). In above example, the English textual equivalent for the French expression ‘ au dehors ’ is ‘ out of the window ’, the formal correspondent outside is not used.

TRANSLATION SHIFT

A shift is said to occur if, in a given TT, a translationequivalent other than the formal correspondent occurs for a specific SL element. This is what has occurred between the French and English texts in the example.

The following example, from a leaflet distributed on board Eurostar trains explain­ing the measures being taken to detect smoking, can illustrate these differences.

In English: Please note that smoke detectors will be fitted on-board.

In German: Beachten Sie bitte, da6 die Zuge mit Rauchdetektoren ausgestafrtet werden.

Back-translation from German in English: Note you please, that the trains with smoke detectors fitted will-be.

Look at these two examples. How many departures from formal correspon­dence can you detect? How do you decide what a departure is?

Analysing these examples, it is clear that there are many formal correspondences at lexical and grammatical levels:

please – bitte

beachten – note

that – daB

smoke detectors – Rauchdetektoren

will be – warden.

Systemic differences between the languages must be accepted. These include word-order changes and the construction of the German imperative with the addition of the pronoun Sie (you). However, there is a clear departure from formal correspondence in the translation of the ST on-board and the restructuring of the second clause. In this text, the only possible textual equivalent for on-board is die Zuge (the trains) which is added with a change of grammatical subject (ST smoke detectors to TT die Zuge). The analyst then has to decide whether ausgestattet is a formal correspondent of fitted. A dictionary definition is not enough since some dictionaries may give ausstatten as a translation of to equip or fit our but not/if. However, the role occupied by ausgestattet and fitted in the two languages is very similar, so it is highly unlikely that we would class this as a shift.

Catford was the first to use the term shift, but the most comprehensive taxonomy of translation shifts (классификация переводческих трансформаций), based on their ‘translation procedures’, was set out by the Canadians Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet in their «A Comparative Stylistics of French and English». While it is true that they approach the subject from the point of view of comparative or contrastive stylistics, using parallel non-translated as well as translated texts, they describe a detailed and systematic model for the analysis and comparison of a ST – TT pair. The first step involves identification and numbering of the ST units and the units of translation. This is followed by a matching of the two.

The Eurostar ST has been reproduced below together with the German translation. Look at the translation units that are matched up and, using the back-translation to help you, note any ‘mismatches’, denoting shifts.

Example

Eurostar

English

Please note that smoke detectors will be fitted on-board. Any misconduct will result in necessary action being taken by rail staff and/or police.

German

Beachten Sie bitte, daB die Zuge mit Rauchdetektoren ausgestattet werden. Jeder VerstoB wird mit den erforderlichen MaBnahmen durch das Bahnpersonal und/oder die Polizei geahndet.

Back-translation


Понравилась статья? Добавь ее в закладку (CTRL+D) и не забудь поделиться с друзьями:  


1

Сейчас читают про: