Translation in the XX century

Translation in the XX century

Three generations:

• Science of translation (word)
• Translation theory (text)
• Translation studies (culture and beyond)

1. Science of translation (1950-60)

Scientific approach: systematic analysis of translation based on key linguistic aspects (langue); issues influenced by Russian formalists. Translation is a linguistic operation: from language to language. Highly normative and prescriptive (prescriptive TS). Establishes criteria on how to produce a translation which is equivalent (has the same value) to the original. Source oriented: translation is ancillary to original. Static and synchronic.

Key word: equivalence on linguistic aspects of translation.

Roman Jakobson (1959)

• Intralingual translation: reformulation in the same language
• Interlingual translation: between two different languages
• Intersemiotic translation: written to non-verbal transposition

«The translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus, translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.»

«Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.»

Cross-linguistic differences can be found in:

• Level of gender
• Level of aspect
• Semantic field

All these differences can be rendered interlingually, except for poetry (form expresses sense) which is untranslatable.

Natural equivalence: the relationship between two languages is one of equivalence: the things of equal value are presumed to exist prior to the act of translation. It is established on any linguistic level (ranks) (morphology, syntax, etc.). Establishes many procedures by which equivalence can be maintained.

Directional equivalence: the relationship between two languages is asymmetric, and it is the translator who aims at creating the equivalence (they do not normally exist prior to the act of translation). Tends to establish different kinds of equivalence. The strategies are usually expressed in terms of two opposed poles. Directional equivalence describes the way a translation represents its source text.

Natural equivalence approaches

Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais (1958)

1. Vinay and Daberlnet: a linguistic theory of translation (1965)
2. J. Catford:

Vinay and Daberlnet’s model

• Direct translation
  • Borrowing/loan
  • Calque
  • Literal translation (prescription for a good translation)
• Oblique translation
  • Transposition (one part of speech for another without changing the meaning)
  • Modulation: changes the semantics of the SL to create a correct equivalent in the TL
  • Equivalence: same situation with different stylistic or structural meaning
  • Adaptation: changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture

Servitude and option

• Servitude: obligatory transpositions
• Option: non-obligatory changes due to the translator’s own style

Unit of translation: lexicological unit + unit of thought (short phrases)

Linguistic theory of translation

Catford’s follows Hallidayan linguistic model: language as communication on a range of different ranks (sentence, clause, morpheme, group, word…). Makes a distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence.

• A formal correspondent is any TL category (unit, class, element of structure) which occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL
• A textual equivalent is any TL text or portion of text which in a particular occasion is observed to be equivalent to a given SL text or portion of text

Formal correspondence has to do with language; textual correspondence has to do with a specific ST-TT pair. When the two aspects diverge, we produce a translation shift:

• Translation shifts are departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL
• Level Shifts: something which is expressed by grammar in the ST is expressed by lexis in the TL
• Category shifts: difference in grammar or structure

To sum up: scientific approach, use of statistics, belief in natural correspondence between languages. Directional approaches to equivalence.

Towards a science of translating (1964) – Eugene Nida

• Translating and linguistics (Chomsky generative-transformational grammar)
• Bible translation
• Nida’s types of equivalence
  • Formal equivalence: the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language (ex. Gloss translations with footnotes): ST oriented
  • Dynamic equivalence: based on the principle of equivalent effect, in which «the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.» Aims at naturalness of expression: receptor oriented

A successful translation depends on achieving equivalent response.

Research into the science of translation (based on Catford)

Werner Koller, Correspondence and Equivalence

• Correspondence: field of contrastive linguistics (differences and similarities in languages: ex. False friends, lexical, morphological and syntactic interference)
• Equivalence: equivalent items in specific ST-TT terms pairs and context (so not only linguistic, but also extratextual factors; such as «communicative situations» or text types, social usage, stylistic effect, evaluation, emotion, etc.)

To obtain equivalence one must operate changes («shifts» in Catford). Equivalence is something you aim at, and to obtain it you have to move away or deviate from correspondence.

Approaches to translation (1982) – Peter Newmark

Search for equivalent effect is «illusory». Communicative translation vs semantic translation.

• Communicative translation (close to dynamic equivalence)
  • Target language oriented/message oriented
  • Tends to be a hypotranslation (simplification)
• Semantic translation (close to formal equivalence) (preferred)
  • Source language oriented
  • Tends to be a hypertranslation (explains/interprets/explicits)

Challenge to linguistic equivalence theory

Ernst-August Gutt and relevance theory

• Equivalence is not found in language or in translations as such, but regards what people believe about translations (in other words, it is a given fact)
• Kinds of translation: OVERT (marked and received as translations) and COVERT (adaptation for a new audience, in which equivalence is not necessarily relevant)

Within the category of overt translations (translation proper):

• Indirect translations: can be done without referring to the context
• Direct translations: refer to the context
• Presumption «direct translation creates a of complete interpretative resemblance»

Language is a weak representation of meaning: it is only a set of «communicative clues» that receivers have to interpret.

Based on H. Paul Grice (1975): «we do not communicate by language alone, but by the relation between language and context.»

Ex. «the back door is open»: interpretation: is it a suggestion? Is it an instruction? Is it simply an observation?

Implicature:

• The notion of implicature gives two kinds of equivalence, and two kinds of translation
• 1) the back door is open
• 2) We should close the back door

Direct translation is preferred, in terms of the start context only (vs dynamic equivalence): «it is the audience’s responsibility to make up for such differences»; equivalence does not deal with language only or with counting of words but operates more on the level of belief, or interpretative processes.

Discussion:

«Juliet is the sun» (W. Shakespeare)

• How many translations are possible?
• What are the implicatures? Should the translator make them clear or not? Why?

Translation theory: functionalist theories of translation

Germany, 1970-1980

• Move away from static linguistic typologies
• Equivalence at text level, not at word level

The key word is not equivalence, but purpose: functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation.

Issue of function: which one? The one of the start text or the target text?

Translation criticism

Katharina Reiss (1971)

• Different text types require different kinds of translation
  • Informative (plain communication of facts: information, knowledge.)
  • Expressive (creative compositions, aesthetically relevant)
  • Operative (to appeal or persuade the reader to operate in a certain way)
  • Audiomedial texts (films, visual and spoken advertisement)

Instruction criteria to translate:

• Intralinguistic criteria (semantic, lexical, grammar, style)
• Extralinguistic criteria (situation, subject field, time, place, receiver, sender, humor, irony, emotion, etc.)

Translation moves beyond consideration at lower linguistic levels, towards a consideration of the communicative purpose of translation:

• Skopos theory

Foundation for a general theory of translation

Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer (1984) Translatorial Action

Justa Holz-Mänttäri (1984)

Skopos theory (from Greek, skopos: aim, goal): a translator needs to work in order to achieve the skopos, the communicative purpose of the translation, rather than just follow the start text.

New elements:

• Commissioners of the translation
• Users of the translation

«An action is determined by its goal. The dominant factor of each translation is its purpose. Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The skopos rule reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function.»

Not a prescriptive theory: it does not state how a text should be translated, but where the translator needs to look for indications about the way to translate. All depends on the purpose:

«one must translate, consciously and consistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text. The theory does not state what the principle is: this must be determined separately in each specific case.»

Translator’s choices need not be dominated by the start text, but by the target text: role, for example, of the client. Translations are not simply texts, but also projects.

Holz-Manttari : action theory (pragmatics)

• Functionalism of text but of society as well
• Every human action has an aim: translating is a human action
• When a message has to cross into another culture, the people sending that message will require help from an expert in cross-cultural communication: translator
• The translator is the one who can give advice on the other culture, and writes a new text on the basis of information provided by the client

Therefore, the translator writes a new text and can still be called a translator

Question: Do these theories challenge the concept of equivalence? Why or Why not?

Vermeer: the function of the start text might be different from the one of the target text. The focus is the effect the text is supposed to have on the target reader.

Mein Kampf example

What is the function of this text? Expressive? Referential? Operative? How should we translate it? Possibilities:

1. Historical document (with footnotes and references to historical events)
2. Tone-down the most rabble-rousing prose
3. Exaggerate the style, to make it unbelievable or even «funny»

Holz-Manttari: new pragmatic factors are given new attention:

• The role of clients
• The instructions that the translator receives prior to the translating
• The purpose of the text from the point of view of the receiver (reader/buyer)
• Professionalism of translators in society

Question: who should train translators? Text-based equivalence: faculties of language and linguistics. Purpose-based analysis: applied sociology, marketing, ethics of communication, and so on.

Skopos rule «dethrones» the start text, but who is the new king?

• For Holz-Manttari, the properly trained translator is the expert in solving problems concerning translation, so he is the one who decides about translational matters. Authors and clients decide about field-specific terminology or desired effect on the reader: mutual respect.

For Vermeer: «the highest responsibility of the translator is to transmit the intended information in the optimal manner.»

What is optimal? «Optimal is in the eyes of the translator.»

To sum up

For these theorists, translators must ultimately act in their own name in each specific situation. The old categories of equivalence had repressed the translator’s individuality, whereas skopos theory emphasizes that individuality. The source text is not the only important point of reference. Other theorists, however, put their emphasis on the client’s instructions, and on the initiator’s decision.

Christiane Nord

Text analysis in translation (1988) presents a detailed functional model which incorporates elements of text analysis (74 questions).

Distinguishes between:

• Documentary translation (overt translations): document of a source culture communication between the author and the ST recipient
• Instrumental translation (covert translation) ex computer manual, etc.: independent message transmitting instrument in a new communicative action in a target culture

With text analysis, the translator identifies the correct translation strategy.

Approach to translation by Nord

• Translation commission (see Holz-Manttari)
• The intended function of the text, with particular attention to the function of the ST (vs Skopos)
• ST analysis (non-verbal elements, register of the lexis, presuppositions) so that problematic features can be identified
• The ethical component is not faithfulness, but loyalty between the two texts

Criticism to functionalist theories

1. Peter Newmark (1988) «we translate words, not functions», words are «all that is there, on the page»: words are all that we can translate. Contexts are interpretative constructions, largely built on the basis of words.
2. «The concept of purpose is idealistic»: if textual meaning is considered to be unstable and always open to interpretation, the same may be said of any context.