Lingua e Traduzione Inglese 2

Module 1: Susan Bassnett (Translation Studies)

The first step towards an examination of the process of translation is to accept that the core or linguistic activity, although translation, belongs to semiotics. Edward Sapir claims that "language is a guide to social reality, and is also the medium of expression for our society". This experience is determined by the language habit of the community, and each separate structure represents a separate reality. This thesis is related to Juri Lotman (Soviet semiotician) who said that language is a modelling system. Lotman declares that "no language can exist unless it is steeped in the context of culture; and no culture can exist which does not have at its center, the structure of natural language".

Types of translation according to Jakobson

• Intralingual translation or rewording (an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs in the same language)
• Interlingual translation or translation proper (an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language)
• Intersemiotic translation or transmutation (an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of a non-verbal sign system)

The central problem of all these types is that there is no full equivalence through translation; because of this, Jakobson declares that all poetic art is therefore technically untranslatable. The translator operates criteria that take place in a process of decoding and recoding (Eugene Nida's model).

Theoretical perspectives on translation

Saussure distinguished between the syntagmatic (horizontal) relations that a word has with the words that surround it in a sentence, and the associative (vertical) relation it has with the language structure as a whole. There is a distinction both between the object signified and the function and value in their cultural context. The translation of idioms like puns is culture-bound; the question that arises is if the metaphor can be translated or it can only be "reproduced" in some way. Popovic distinguishes four types of translation equivalence: linguistic equivalence, paradigmatic equivalence, stylistic equivalence, and textual equivalence.

Nida distinguishes two types of equivalence, formal and dynamic, where formal focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, and aims to allow the reader to understand as much of the SL context as possible; and the dynamic which is based on the principle of equivalent effect, so the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receiver and the SL message.

Untranslatability and cultural factors

There are two types of untranslatability, which Carford terms as linguistic and cultural. On the linguistic level, untranslatability occurs when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL item. So, linguistic untranslatability is due to differences in the SL and the TL, whereas cultural untranslatability is due to the absence in the TL culture of a relevant situation feature for the SL text. Cultural untranslatability must be implied in any process of translation.

Mouni feels that it is thanks to developments in contemporary linguistics that we can accept that: personal experience in its uniqueness is untranslatable; in theory, the base units of any two languages (phonemes, morphemes, etc.) are not always comparable; communication is possible when account is taken of the respective situations of speakers and hearers, or author and translator. Every text is unique, and at the same time, it is the translation of another text. No text is entirely original because language itself, in its essence, is already a translation; every translation, up to a certain point, is an invention and as such constitutes a unique text.

Hatin & Mason: Discourse and the translator

Once all texts are seen as evidence of a communicative transaction taking place within a social framework, translating is not restricted to a particular field (religious, literary, scientific, etc.) but includes such diverse activities as film subtitling, simultaneous interpreting, etc. We need to consider translation as a product instead of translating as a process. The resulting translated text is to be seen as evidence of a translation, in the same way, the ST (source language text) itself is an end-product and should be treated as evidence of a writer's intended meaning rather than as the embodiment of the meaning itself. In this sense, text can be seen as the result of a motivated choice: producers of texts have their own communicative aims and select lexical items, etc. to serve those aims. There are two sets of motivations: those of the producer of the source text and those of the translator.

Debates on translation approaches

The "literal" vs. "free" translation has been one of the oldest debates. Nida reformulates the problem in terms of types of equivalence appropriate to particular circumstances. He distinguished formal equivalence (closest possible match of form and content between ST and TT) and dynamic equivalence (principle of equivalence of effect on the reader of TT). In this way, he moved attention towards the effect of different strategies.

Another debate is on "form" vs. "content"; the ideal, of course, is to translate both form and content but is not always possible. Style is an indissociable part of the message to be conveyed; sometimes modifying the style means to deny the reader access to the world of the SL text.

Steiner points out that each act of reading a text is in itself an act of translation. The translator's task should be to preserve, as far as possible, the range of possible responses; in other words, not to reduce the dynamic role of the reader. The more empathy there is between the translator and author of the text, the more the work will be good. The translator's motivations are inextricably bound up with the socio-cultural context in which the act of translating takes place (before there is the translation, there has to be the need for translation).

Translation of poetry

Another debate is about the translatability or not of poetry; Jakobson adopts a pessimistic view. He claims that 'formal aspects of the meaning code became part of the meaning so that translation is impossible', only creative transposition is possible. This point is applicable to all discourse in which properties of the form of the language code are brought to the fore and made of particular significance.

Lefevere provides a framework by listing seven different strategies in verse translation: phonemic translation (imitation of ST sound), literal translation, metrical translation (imitation of metre of ST), prose translation (rendering as much of sense as possible), rhymed translation (added constraint of rhyme and metre), blank verse translation (no constraint of rhyme but still one of structure), and interpretation (complete change of form and/or imitation).

Translation principles and challenges

A.F. Tytler, whose "Essay on the Principles of Translation", published in 1791, was the first whole book in English devoted to translation studies, propounds three laws of translation. The trouble with these 'laws' is that they imply that the three objectives are entirely compatible and achievable. A more recent formulation of the "basic requirements" of a translation is to be found in Nida: making sense, conveying the spirit and manner of the original, having a natural and easy form of expression, and producing a similar response.

There are author-centred translating, reader-centred translating, text-centred translating; the difference between author and text-centred has to do with the status of the source text (e.g., translators of modern literature are in contact with the author).

Machine translation and artificial intelligence

Even if aids to translators are improving all the time, the basic problem faced by the translator remains the same, like comprehension of the source text; transfer of meaning; assessment of the target text. Researchers have tried to develop a device for 'automatic translation' which concentrates on problems of syntactic parsing and on the resolution of lexical polysemy in simple sentences. In response to this, interactive systems have been developed, thus putting the translator back in control of the translation process and allowing them to intervene at every stage; this machine helps by offering alternative translations of certain words or phrases.

Scholars attempt to apply structuralist notions to translation problems. Carford attempts to build a theory of translation of the current state of 'linguistic science' (based on the British linguistic tradition of Firth and Halliday, which differs from American structural linguistics). The work draws on more than a single language system and examples are drawn from a variety of related and unrelated tongues. For Catford, a formal correspondent is any TL category which may be said to occupy the 'same' place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupied in the SL. Jakobson asserts that languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they can convey. One-to-one relationships between grammatical categories, including demonstratives and adverbs of time and place, create problems for the translator. For example, the distinction between 'polite' and 'familiar' form of address, as manifested in pronoun and verb endings (tu o vous in French).

The view developed by Sapir and Whorf holds that language is the mould of thought, so that our ways of thinking and conceptualizing are determined by the language we speak. Hymes recommends that children acquire the ability to produce both grammatical and appropriate utterances, so they acquire communicative competence, which is attuned to what is communicatively appropriate in both SL and TL communities. Widdowson makes a useful distinction between usage and use. Usage is a 'projection of the language system or code', and it should never be mistaken for the actual use of language in communication.

In the US, research based on artificial intelligence seems to evolve and arrive at the assumption that translating involves 'understanding' and incorporates also 'knowledge-bases' which simulate the necessary amount of world knowledge to which human translators resort during the translation process. Schank and Abelson assert that "understanding is knowledge-based" and attempt to formalize this knowledge in terms of script (standard sequences of events), plans (general information about the connectivity of events), and goals (recognizable aims of a person's behavior).

D. Katan, "The Influence of Culture" (Translating Cultures)

There are two extreme views regarding translation: one is that 'everything can be translated without loss', and the other that 'nothing can be translated without loss'; these views are both correct. At a technical level, communication is explicit, and ideas are consciously transmitted; Peter Newmark is correct when he states: "No language, no culture, is so 'primitive' that it cannot embrace the terms of computer technology." The fact that it might be necessary to use more text to explain the concept is certainly not a problem; an interpreter without the technical language of, for example, aviation insurance, will clearly not be effective. As a result, many companies are investing in in-service language training instead of hiring interpreters (the translator has the same problems).

The successful interpreter and translator will not only need to have a near-native command of both languages, but will also need to know where to find technical information efficiently. Even more important help will come from similar texts written in the target language by native-language speakers. Newmark cautions about "the possible cultural and professional differences between your readership and the original one," and explains that these will need to be taken into account when approaching a technical text.

What translators need to know about cross-cultural differences in legislation regarding food labeling, marketing, and promotion is discussed by Candace Séguinot in her paper on "Translation and Advertising". Federica Scarpa notes that a new term has been coined to help translators of computer software in their task: 'localization'. Differences in technical consumer information provide just one example of the fact that each culture has its own appropriate ways of behaving. Translators need to be well-versed in the customs, habits, and traditions of the two cultures, etc. Both the translator and the interpreter will also need solid background information about the culture they are working with. For example, a general interpreter and translator will be at a big disadvantage if they are not part of the in-group.

The term cultural mediator was first introduced in Stephen Bochner's "The Mediating Person and Cultural Identity". The idea of a translator as a mediating agent is not new. George Steiner pointed out that: "The translator is a bilingual mediating agent between monolingual communication participants in two different language communities."

R. Taft defines the role as follows: A cultural mediator is a person who facilitates communication, understanding, and action between persons or groups who differ with respect to language and culture; and this is performed by interpreting the expression of each cultural group to the other.

According to Taft, a mediator must possess these competences in both cultures: knowledge about society, folklore, traditions, etc.; communication skills (written, spoken, etc.); technical skills (computer literacy, appropriate dress); social skills (knowledge of rules that govern social relations in society) and emotional competence. The mediator has to be flexible in switching his cultural orientation.

The interpreter and the translator as cultural mediators

The Interpreter: As a cultural mediator, he will need to be a specialist in negotiating understanding between cultures. The word-for-word correspondence has no place in his work. He works with all parties before the event to be interpreted and can prepare material for cross-cultural meetings for participants to read. A. Knapp-Potthof and K. Knapp suggest that the interpreter should become a visible third party, and "within certain limits may develop his own initiative, introduce new topics, give comments and explanation, etc.

The Translator: Hatim and Mason suggest that "The translator is first and foremost a mediator between two parties for whom mutual communication might otherwise be problematic". The translator is a mediator in two specific ways: Bicultural vision: the translator is uniquely placed to identify and resolve the disparity between sign and value across cultures; Critical reader: the translator is a privileged reader of the SL text, he will have the opportunity to read the text carefully before translating, and is in a position to help the target reader by producing as clear a text as the context would warrant. Translators should serve as "knowledge breakers between the members of disjunct communities"; so the goal is to mediate between cultures. Cultural mediators should be extremely aware of their own cultural identity, and for this reason, will need to understand how their own culture influences perception.

The future of interpreting and translating

Kondo points out that an interpreter will have to tread carefully when it comes to active participation in the communication process. The British Department of Trade and Industry is contributing with a series of sixteen-page handbooks distributed free to companies to heighten awareness of the cultural factor in international business.

L. Venuti "Invisibility" (The Translator’s Invisibility)

"Invisibility" is the term used to describe the translator's situation and activity in British and American cultures. It refers to two phenomena: one is an illusionistic effect of discourse, of the translator's own manipulation of the translating language; the other is the practice of reading and evaluating translations.

A translated text is considered acceptable when it reads fluently. The illusion of transparency is an effect of a fluent translation strategy; but readers also play a significant role in ensuring that this illusory effect occurs. The dominance of fluency in English-language translation becomes apparent in a sampling of reviews from newspapers and periodicals. Of those rare occasions when reviewers address the translation at all, their briefs usually focus on its style.

A fluent translation is written in English that is current, that is widely used instead of specialized, and that is standard instead of colloquial. Fluency also depends on syntax that is not so 'faithful' to the foreign text as to be 'not quite idiomatic'; a fluent translation is immediately recognizable and intelligible.

Under the regime of fluent translating, the translator works to make his work "invisible", producing the illusory effect of transparency that simultaneously masks its status as an illusion: the translated text seems natural and not translated. Charles Bernstein observes how the dominance of fluency in contemporary writing is enforced by its economic value. The translator's invisibility is also partly determined by the individualistic conception of authorship that continues to prevail in British and American cultures; this view of authorship carries two disadvantageous implications for the translator. On the one hand, translation is defined as a second-order representation; on the other hand, translation is required to efface its second-order status with the effect of transparency, producing the illusion of authorial presence whereby the translated text can be taken as the original.

The American Willard Trask (a 20th-century translator) drew a clear distinction between authoring and translating; he realized that the translator and the actor had to have the same kind of talent. What they both do is to take something of somebody else's and put it over as if it were their own. A typical mention of the translator in a review takes the form of a brief aside in which, more often than not, the fluency or transparency of the translation is gauged.

The translator's shadowy existence in British and American cultures is further registered in the legal status of translation; British and American law permits translations to be copyrighted in the translator's name, recognizing that the translator uses another language for the foreign text and therefore has a creative claim on the work.