dr. margherita dore · semantic and communicative translation ... difference between the two...
TRANSCRIPT
Translatability and equivalence in meaning
Different types of meaning
Formal and dynamic equivalence
Equivalent effect (focus on the receptor)
Semantic and communicative translation
Koller’s double linkage
Tertium comparationis
Saussure’s starting assumption:
langue -> e.g. English, Italian, Swahili
Parole -> “I read a book”, “ho fame”
Saussure’s Theory of Langue Sign = arbitrary signifier + signified
(e.g. CHEESE is an acoustic signifier that denotes a “food made of pressed curds”, that is the signified)
We can understand what is signified by a word even if we haven’t ever experienced it (e.g. nectar, ambrosia)
‘There is ordinarily no full equivalence between
code-units’
(Jakobson 1959/2004: 139)
(e.g. CHEESE is not identical to the Russian syr – or the
Spanish queso or the Italian formaggio – because it does not
Include the concept of cottage cheese)
The question of translatability linguistic relativity/determinism, differences in
languages shape different conceptualizations of the world
linguistic universalism, although languages differ in the way they realise meaning, there is a shared way of thinking and experiencing the world.
‘Languages differ essentially in what they must
convey and not in what they may convey’
(Jakobson 1959/2004: 141)
Differences in terms of equivalence:
Gender level: house is feminine in English and
neuter in English
Aspect level: morphology of verbs
Semantic field level: fratelli in Italian means
‘brothers and sisters’
Nida (1914-2011) was an American Baptist
minister, linguist and translator
He had enormous experience organizing
the translation of the Bible into indigenous
languages.
He applied analytical concepts from Noam
Chomsky’s generative-transformational
grammar to his ‘scientific’ approach
towards translation theory and lexical
meaning
Nida (1964) and Nida and Taber (1969) –
‘scientific’ approach to the analysis and
transfer of meaning is based on the
following assumptions:
Lexical meaning can be categorised as: Linguistic meaning, relation between different words
(his return may mean when he returned)
Referential meaning, the dictionary meaning of a word
(cf. cheese above)
Emotive, or connotative, meaning, the associations a
word may have (don’t worry about it, son)
Linguists can use a a series of
techniques to establish the referential
and emotive meaning of words: Hierarchical structuring: superordinate (animal) and
hyponims (dog, cat, cow)
Compositional analysis: family relationships
(mother, grandmother, father, etc.), gender (male,
female)
Semantic structure analysis: different meanings
within different context (e.g. spirit or Holy Spirit)
Formal equivalence (later ‘formal
correspondence’) – ‘message should match as
closely as possible the different elements in
the source language’
(Nida 1964: 159)
In other words, formal equivalence is focused
on the message of the ST, which produces a TT
which follows the content and the linguistic
structures as closely as possible.
Dynamic equivalence (later ‘functional
equivalence’) – ‘the closest natural equivalent
to the source-language message’
(Nida 1964: 166, Nida and Taber 1969: 12)
In other words, in dynamic equivalence, the
message of the ST is transferred in such a way
that the effect on the receptor is as similar as
possible to the effect on the ST reader. This
requires the translator to adjust the text to the
target culture.
‘The relationship between receptor and message
should be substantially the same as that which
existed between the original receptors and the
message’ (Nida 1964: 159)
Q1: But how is this to be achieved when the TT
audience is far removed from the ST context?
Q2: How does the translator determine who the
audience is and what the ST author’s intention
was?
“And then, I got really
freaked out, and that’s
when it hit me: how
Much Barry looks like
Mr Potato Head.
Y’know, I mean, I always
knew he looked familiar,
but...”
Friends , Episode 1, Rachel has just run away from her
wedding and describes her ex-fiancée Barry by saying:
E allora mi sono davvero
spaventata e mi sono
anche accorta di come
Barry assomiglia a E.T.
Cioè capite, mi era
sempre sembrato un viso
familiare ma...
Peter Newmark (1916-2011) was a UK-based
translation theorist. His approach departs from
Nida’s receptor-oriented focus and rejects the
idea that full equivalent effect can ever be
fully achieved in translation (e.g., in the case
of very old texts).
‘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 1981: 39)
Werner Koller was German translation theorist
based in Norway. He proposes a hierarchy of five
types of equivalence according to the
communicative situation:
Denotative equivalence (extralinguistic context)
Connotative equivalence (lexical choices)
Text-normative equivalence (text types)
Pragmatic equivalence (receiver-oriented)
Formal equivalence (style and aesthetics)
Correspondence is a concept from contrastive
linguistics that describes the resemblance and
difference between words and structures in their
linguistic forms.
In Koller’s model, correspondence falls within the
field of contrastive linguistics, which compares
two language systems, and describes differences
and similarities contrastively. For instance, the
identification of false friends and signs of
interference.
An invariant against which two text segments
can be measured to gauge variation from a
core meaning
ST TT
‘A bit with fire:’ Desperate situations
The medicine for a mad horse require desperate measures
Tertium comparationis
‘Strong action is needed to control a difficult person’?
Why do you think that there has been such
heated debate over equivalence? How can the
concepts discussed above be used in translator
training today?
Newmark (1981: 39, see Further Reading) states:
‘In communicative as in semantic translation,
provided that equivalent effect is secured, the
literal word-for-word translation is not only the
best, it is the only valid method of translation.’
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
What we studied so far:
Munday, Jeremy (2012, Introducing Translation
Studies. Theories and Applications, 3rd
edition, Routledge, London/New York –
CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3
Translation strategies and procedures
Vinay and Darbelnet’s model
Catford and ‘translation shifts’
Option, markedness and stylistic shifts
The cognitive process of translation
Ways of investigating cognitive processing
Jean Paul Vinay (1910-1999) and Jean
Darbelnet (1904-1990) – In their Stylistique
comparée du français et de l’anglais (1958,
Comparative Stylistics of French and English,
1995) carried out a comparative stylistic
analysis between English and French and noted
differences between the languages and
translation shifts and identified different
translation strategies and procedures.
Strategy – is an overall orientation of the
translator (e.g. towards ‘free’ or ‘literal’
translation, towards the TT or ST)
Procedure – a specific technique or method
used by the translator at a certain point in a
text (e.g. the borrowing of a word from the
SL, the addition of an explanation or a
footnote in the TT)
Strategies: Direct translation occurs when two languages
show close correspondence in terms of lexis and structure; it uses borrowing, calque and literal translation.
Oblique translation applies when restructuring is involved; it uses transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation.
These categories operate at different levels of
language: the lexicon, the syntactic structures
and the message.
:
Strategy Explaination Examples
Borrowing the SL is
transferred
directly into
the TL
perestroika, datcha,
sushi, kimono,
kebab, computer,
mouse
Calque the SL expression
or structure is
literally
translated
Scence-fiction; flea
market
Finestra a bovindo;
Literal
Translation
Word-for-word
rendering
The pen is on the table
La penna è sul tavolo
:
Procedure Explaination Examples
Transposition Change of one part of
a speech for another
We try harder= Ci facciamo
in quattro per voi!
For patrons only= Riservato
ai clienti.
Modulation Change the semantics
or point of view of
the SL
It is not difficult= è facile
No smoking = Vietato
fumare
Equivalence Same situation
by different stylistic
or structural means
Like a bull in a china shop=
Come un elefante in un
negozio d cristalli
Adaptation Changing the cultural
reference that does
not exist in the TC
Mr Potato Head= ET*
*although it should normally be a
target culture reference.
:
Procedure Explaination Examples
Amplification TL uses more words The charge against him= la
condanna a suo carico.
False Friend Similar term in SL and
TL but different
meaning
This is a library=
Questa è una biblioteca
(non una libreria)
Compensation If a ST nuance can’t
be save in the TL,
one can be insert in
another place
Tu/lei= Mr/Sir; Mrs/Madam
Explicitation Implicit information
in the ST are made
explicit in the TT
The doctor=
dottore/dottoressa?
Generalizatio
n
A more general word
is used in the TT
Cottage cheese= formaggio
fresco
Servitude refers to the obligatory
transpositions and modulations due to a
difference between the two language systems
(e.g. cold water -> acqua fredda)
Option refers to non-obligatory changes that
may be due to the translator’s own style and
preferences, or to a change in emphasis. It is
‘option’, according to Vinay and Darbelnet,
that should be the translator’s main concern.
(e.g. my mother calls at 6.00pm -> alle 6 mi
chiama mia madre)
John C. Catford (1917-2009) – In his book A
Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965), Catford
applies advances in linguistics to translation by
following the linguistic model of Firth and
Halliday.
Catford distinguishes between formal
correspondence and textual equivalence in
Translation. He also makes a detailed description
of the translation shifts that take place in the
translation process.
Formal correspondent is defined as ‘any TL
category (unit, class, 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’
(e.g. belongings= effetti personali)
textual equivalent refers to ‘any TL text or portion of text which is observed… to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text’
(e.g. he searched through my belongings= controllò la mia borsa)
(Catford 1965: 27)
In Catford’s own words (1965: 73; 2000: 141), translation shifts are ‘departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL’ level shifts (when something is expressed by
grammar in one language and by lexis in another, (e.g. due turisti sarebbero stati uccisi= two tourists have been reported killed)
Category shifts: structural shifts (grammar structure) class shifts (parts of speech, e.g. adj. vs adv.) unit (or rank) shifts (sentence vs clause) intra-system shifts (advice= consigli)
Taxonomies are classifications of such shifts in an attempt to uncover the translation procedures and strategies
Jiří Levý (1926-1967) Literary and translation
theoretician. In his book, The Art of Translation
he introduces the literary aspect of the
‘expressive function’ or style of a text and the
goal of a translation is achieving and equivalent
aesthetic effect.
Markedness – a choice or patterns of choices that stand out as unusual or prominent
Stylistic shifts – linguistic fingerprint of the translator
You haven’t all the time been
here if not seen, not thought
of as present, for when I
looked I saw nothing, when
I looked again, you had
returned. This echo, sweet
spring, makes a human sound
you have no need of, facts
so precede, but you hear; you
hear it, must feel the intent
wetness, mushy. I melt again
into you ample presence.
Bob Creeley “Translation” (from Echoes, 1982)
Invisibile sei sempre stata
Non pensata come presente
Perché quando ti cercavo
Vedevo niente
E quanto guardavo ancora
Eri tornata.
Eco, dolce sorgente
Che crea suono umano
Di cui non c’è bisogno
I fatti lo precedono
Ma senti, soltanto
Devi sentire l’intento
Molle umore
Mi sciolgo ancora
Alla tua immane presenza
Observation of the translation process and what skills and competences are required (Bell)
Seleskovitch and Lederer’s Interpretive model, initially applied to conference interpreting, explains translation as an overlapping three-stage process of: understanding, to grasp the sense of the ST
deverbalization, rephrase the sense of the ST
re-expression, create the TT on the basis of the deverbalized sense.
Relevance theory: Gutt describes translation as an example of a communication based around a cause-and-effect model of inferencing and interpretation. Translators need to decide if it is possible to communicate the informative intention, whether to translate descriptively or interpretively, what the degree of resemblance to the ST should be, and so on. These decisions are based on the translator’s evaluation of the cognitive environment of the receiver.
Think-aloud protocols is a method of investigating
the translation process, coming from the field of
psychology and developed by Ericsson and Simon
(1984). The translator is asked to verbalize his/her
thought processes while translating or immediately
afterwards (the latter known as ‘retrospective
protocol’), often with no prompting on content.
Triangulated with technological innovations:
Video-recordings
Interviews/questionnaires
Key-stroke logging (recording of keyboard activity)
Eye-tracking
Translation style, can the translator’s ‘linguistic
fingerprint’ be found if the TT is compared to
that of the ST and its author’s?
Examine more closely Seleskovitch and
Lederer’s Interpretive model of translation. In
what ways does the model differ from Nida’s
three-phase model studied in Chapter 3? Which
do you feel has more potential for explaining the
translation process?
What we studied so far:
Munday, Jeremy (2012, Introducing Translation
Studies. Theories and Applications, 3rd
edition, Routledge, London/New York –
CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 4