Linguistic Translation Theory Development

sgh

Year Who and what to translate Practice Theory

5th Cent, BC

Torah, from Hebrew to Greek Literal translation No theory

3th Cent, BC

Classical works, from Greek into Latin

Literal(Help Latin readers with limited knowledge of Greek)

No theory

1st Cent. BC

Cicero, Classical Works, Greek into Latin

Free translation - Not literal translation, seeking general style and force of the language

Year Who and what to translate Practice Theory

1st Cent. - Plinius YuniorClassical works, from Greek into Latin

Literal translation No theory

4th Cent. - St. jeromeBible

Sense-for-sense (Free Translation)

“I render not word-for-word but sense-fpr-sense

Year Who and what to translate Practice Theory

14th – 15th Cent.(mulai Renaisans)

– Penerjemahan karya klasik Yunani ke bahasa lokal, mudah dipahami

– Dimulai upaya menerjemahkan Injil dalam bahasa sasaran yang mudah dimengerti.

Literal translation No theory

16th Cent.Germany

- Martin Luther-- Thomas Munzer, sponsor

Perjanjian baru (Latin => Jerman, yang mudah dipahami)penerjemahan Injil untuk kaum Petani.

- Orientasi penerjemahan “pesan untuk pesan”.

Menggunakan bahasa yang biasa dipakai penutur asliMengalihkan pesan secara alamiahMengutamakan kejelasan dan kesederhanaan sesuai pembaca sasaran

Year Who and what to translate

Practice Theory

16th Inggris William TyndalePerjanjian Baru dengan.

Hasil terjemahannya dibakar, dia dibakar hidup-hidup setahun kemudian

Free translation (Luther’s principles)

16th Prancis

Dolet menerjemahkan karya klasik.

Karena dia menggunakan terjemahan bebas, dituduh ateis, kemudian dibakar dengan buku hasil terjemahannya.

Free translationSee next slide

Dolet’s principle

Theory

Penerjemah harus: (a) sepenuhnya memahami pesan (sense) dan makna (meaning) penulis asli, (b) memiliki pengetahuan yang bagus tentang bahasa sumber dan bahasa sasaran, (c) menghindari penerjemahan kata-demi-kata, (d) menggunakan ungkapan yang biasa digunakan di bahasa sasaran, (e) memilih dan menyusun kata-kata dengan baik untuk menghasilkan nada teks

yang tepat.

Year Who and what to translate Practice Theory

17th UK Abraham Cowley (1618 - 1867)

Advocated free translation

John Dryden (1631 - 1700) • metaphrase, (literal)• paraphrase, (free)• imitation (Dryden 1680)

Year Who and what to translate Practice Theory

17th -18th Willam Jones: Translation is a tool to tame East nations and implant capitalist ideology.

After WW II (Cent. 20)

The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, Holmes, 1972.

Hatim and Mason (2004)

language-as-a-sign-system translation theory (structural-

linguistic-based theory)

language-as-communication

translation theory (functional linguistic theory, pragmatics,

etc.).

Two main streams of linguistic-based translation theory

Roman Jakobson,

Eugene Nida,

Newmark,

Vinay and Darbelnet,

Catford,

Language-as-a-sign-system translation theory

Katharina Reiss,

Holz-Manttari,

Vermeer,

Nord,

Halliday,

Julianne House,

Mona Baker,

Hatim and Mason

language-as-communication theories

Language-as-a-sign-system

• Structural linguistics is an approach to language and language study based on the concept that language is a system of signs.

• The sign has two interrelated elements, namely ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’. The ‘signifier” is a means (sound or written code) that represents the idea or concept (called ‘signified’).

Language-as-a-sign-system translation theory: INTRO

De Saussure • langue and parole

Language-as-a-sign-system translation theory: INTRO

Roman Jakobson (1959, On Linguistic Works of Translation)

1. intralingual – rewording, paraphrasing, or summarizing a text into another text within a language

2. interlingual – rewriting a text into another text in a different language

3. intersemiotic – the changing of a written text into a different system of sign.

TRANSLATION IN THE REAL SENSE IS THE INTERLINGUAL TRANSLATION

• sigfinier and the signified is arbitrary. • every language may have different grammatical

rules and lexical form (words).• Therefore, a concept in one language can be

reworded in other language with possibly different meaning. In other words, translation can be done with no really equivalent meaning.

Roman Jakobson: Interlingual translation

• no full equivalent between words in different languages.

• "keinginan" vs "ambition" • The semantic field of the words is different

across the two languages. Therefore, according to Jakobson, interlingual translation involves substituting the entire message, not the meaning of individual word (code-unit) in another language (Jakobson, 1959/2000).

Roman Jakobson

• meaning is universal; the linguistic rules and terminology are not the same across languages.

• Therefore, the main point in translation is how to re-express the meaning in a different language with different grammatical rules and terminology or lexicon.

• Semantic componential analysis– "menggendong", “carry on the back”

Roman Jakobson

Mbok Jamu menggendong dagangannya.

GT: mbok herbs hold merchandise

• For Jakobson, all texts and linguistic forms can be translated, except poetry

Roman Jakobson

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date.

• Chomsky’s ideas – Surface structure – Deep structure

Eugene Nida

Thou are more lovely and temperate

In transformational grammar, a kernel sentence is a simple declarative construction with only one verb.

• In transformational grammar, a kernel sentence is a simple declarative construction with only one verb.

• "Even a sentence with an adjective, gerund or infinitive is not a kernel sentence.(i) This is a black cow is made of two kernel sentencesThis is a cow and The cow is black.(ii) I saw them crossing the river is made of I saw them and They were crossing the river,(iii) I want to go is made of I want and I go."(M.P. Sinha, Modern Linguistics. Atlantic Publishers, 2005)

Chomsky’s idea1. Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying or deep

structure which is2. transformed by transformational rules relating one

underlying structure to another (e.g. active to passive), to produce

3. a final surface structure, which itself is subject to phonological and morphemic rules.– Thus, the deep structure “John marries Marry” can be

transformed into “John marries Marry” or “Marry is married by John.”

Eugene Nida

• According to Nida and Taber, as kernel is the 'basic structural elements out of which language builds its surface structures', it is also the basic elements of message in a text for translation. By reversing the model, Nida (and Taber) illustrate the process of translation as follows:

Eugene Nida

Eugene Nida

• The basic elements of the deep structure:– back transformation by analyzing using four types

of functional class of generative transformational grammar.

– (a) events, – (b) objects, – (c) abstracts, and – (d) relationals.

Eugene Nida

• Nida (1964a) examples: two different constructions with the preposition of.

• 1) Surface structure: will of God• Back transformation: B (object, God)

performs A (event, wills) • 2) Surface structure: creation of the world• Back transformation: B (object, the world)

performs A (event, creates)

Eugene Nida

• The translation is successful: – meaning or message of the original in 'complete

naturalness of expression' and – elicits an equivalent response from the target text

reader as the source text does from the source text reader.

• Because the most important thing is the effect elicited, meaning is prioritized over style.

Eugene Nida

• Nida (1964a) states that formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content . . . One is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language (Nida 1964a: 159). He further states that dynamic, or functional, equivalence is based on what Nida calls ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, where ‘the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’

• “semantic translation” • “communicative translation”

• Newmark (1981: 39), Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.

Newmark

Translation types (Newmark)SL oriented TL Oriented

•harfiah (literal) • bebas (free)

•setia (faithful) • idiomatik (idiomatic)

• semantis • komunikatif

BSu : The young man is wearing a heavy light blue jacket.Sem./Kom. : Pemuda itu memakai jaket tebal berwarna biru muda.Harfiah : Lelaki muda itu memakai jaket berat biru muda.

BSu : It is wrong to assume that our people do not understand what a real democracy is.Sem. : Adalah keliru untuk menganggap bahwa rakyat kita tidak memahami apa demokrasi yang sesungguhnya.Kom.: Kelirulah kalau kita menganggap bahwa rakyat kita tidak memahami makna demokrasi yang sebenarnya.

Transfer the meaning

Recreate the effect in TT (transfer the message)

• the translation unit is not a word as an individual signifier, but ‘the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually

Viney and Darbelnet

• are three types of units of translation: – (a) simple unit, – (b) diluted unit, and – (c) fractional unit.

Viney and Darbelnet

I have five books.Saya mempunyai lima buku.

Urusan tetek-bengek ini membuatku gila.(tetek bengek = trivial)

Kelasi Satu = seaman

I cannot reexpress my love.

• Correspondence • textual equivalence • translation shift.

Catford

• Formal correspondent is ‘any 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."

• door vs pintu

Catford

• Textual equivalent is any TL text or portion of it which is equivalent to a certain SL test or portion of it.

Catford

• called translation shift: any deviation from the formal correspondence in the target text as a result of translating process– obligatory (called servitude) – optional (called option)

• ST: No smoking• TT: Dilarang merokok

Catford

• level shift : occurs if a SL item at one linguistic level has a TL translation equivalent at a different linguistic level. – ST: She is walking alone – TT: Dia sedang berjalan sendirian

• category shift: occurs if the translation of a word or phrase is deviating from its formal correspondence in the target text.

Catford

• Structure shift– ST: Your order has been sent via express courier service.

TT: Kami telah mengirim pesanan Anda dengan layanan pengiriman kilat.

• Class shift– ST: We had a very nice talk. – TT: Kami berbicara sangat menyenangkan.

• Unit-shift– ST: son– TT: anak laki-laki

• Intra-system shift– ST: This is the place for rabbits.– TT: Ini tempat untuk kelinci.

Catford: Category shifts:

Language function and communication based translation theory

• Buhler’s idea

• Reiss (1971)

Snell-Hornby (1988)

• Translate the left side more literally and the right side more freely

Holz-Mänttäri• Translation is an intentional communication action, transferring

meaning from one party to another. • roles in the translatorial action:

– the initiator– the commissioner– the source text producer (author); – the target text producer– the target text user

• The main pointy here is translation should fulfill its original purpose and deliver the message optimally.

• Translator should translate the message in a manner that the target recipient understands it as fully as the sender did in their culture.

Vermeer, Reiss, Nord (Skopos Theory)

• Skopos theory focuses on the purpose of the translation, which determines the methods and strategies of translating, which are employed to produce functionally adequate result (Munday, 2001: 79).

• Three purposes: communicative, strategic, and general purposes (Hatim, 2001: 74).

• The idea is from pragmatics.• success or protest?

Juliane House (from Halliday)

Baker’s Text and pragmatic equivalence

• Thematic and information structure – Halliday

• Theme = initial position, speaker’s point of departure

• The order may be different in different language. Follow the natural one, identify the marked one.

Baker’s Text and pragmatic equivalence

• Thematic and information structure – Prague School– A clause = foundation-laying/context-dept.

element + core constituting/context-independent element

• Maintain the theme and rheme if possible. If the theme-rheme cannot be reproduced naturally in TL, abandone it.

Meaning, choice, markedness

Meaning

Choicemarkedmess

She is so beautiful …. vs So beautiful she is that …..He goes there …… vs There he goes.

• Coherence - ‘depends on the hearer’s or receiver’s expectations and experience of the world’ (help the TT readers if needed)

• Presuposition - linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge the sender assumes the receiver to have.

• Implicature - ‘what the speaker means or implies rather than what s/he says’. – Gricean Maxims (quantity, quality, relevance, manner)– Be aware of different co-operative principles across

languages

Hatim and Mason

• the realization in translation of ideational and interpersonal functions– The ideational function may shift if the transitivity

structure is changed– The interpersonal function may shift if there is shift

in modality• Static and dynamic values of text• The stable text => literal• Dynamic text => more challenging

Static and dynamic values of text

• Dynamic text – depart form the norms• The stable text => literal

Dynamic text => more challenging

Bollanos (2007)• Translation is a human action which happens through three

interconnected levels: historico-cultural context of SL and TL, intercultural bilingual communicative process, and text-linguistic level

• Translation is a communicative process

(Bolaños, 2007)

(Bolaños, 2001)

• Equivalence is a constitutive translation relation that holds between a SL-text and a TL-text.

• Translation process is a communicative event in the five text-levels in DTM: (stylistic) syntactic, (stylistic) lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and semiotic

• Equivalences are established at various text-levels but the lower level affects the text level (pragmatic level).

Conclusion (1)Traces of the “literal – free battle”• Nida: - Formal and dynamic equivalence (Free)• Newmark: Semantic – Communicative equivalence (free)• Catford: Correspondence Vs Equivalence (Neutral)• Vermeer, Reiss, Holz-Manttarii, Nord, Baker: purpose is important

(Free translation)• Hatim and Mason: Stable and Dynamic element (Free translation)The theories seem to take sides on the battle of free vs literal translation, but their arguments are voiced in more subtle manners taking ground from several theories. They consider literal translation is only suitable for basic sentence structure with the least of expressive content.

Conclusion (2)

Efforts to reconcile • Snell-Hornby (free or literal, depends on the

text type)• Reiss (free or literal, depends on the text type)• Bollaños (not about free and literal, but about

linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of translation

.