Scribd
Upload
17K views110 pages

Approaches To Translation - NEWMARK

This book is a landmark to Translation Studies.

Uploaded by

Agnes Jahn
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
17K views110 pages

Approaches To Translation - NEWMARK

This book is a landmark to Translation Studies.

Uploaded by

Agnes Jahn
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 110
Language Teaching Methodology Series General Editor: Christopher N. Candlin Under the ttle Approaches to Translation Professor Peter Newmark art tte eae) Sr eee eee translation both the theoretical and practical, and in Part I especialy, ‘aims to assist translators by proposing criteria and procedures. Other, themesin the bookiinclude the importance of translation in the Sec ok eter eee eee’ ‘suggesting the relationship between thought and language. The book Sema ee emcees See necrotic APPROACHES TO MNP MLO oom ueut las eter Newmark IL, formerly Dean ofthe School of Languages of the po emean oteeeSCa rere rtet | Cece eens Oot eee ‘uthor of many articles for journal, including Incorporated Linguist, cera ee ore eee eer eee Pe een eer ey ‘Textbook of Translation s also published by Prentice-Hall international vin NOLLWISNV&L OL SHHOVOUddV Base HALL INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING SOA Proc) Language Teaching Methodology Series ‘Applied Linguistics General Editor: Christopher N. Candlin Approaches to Translation regew Other titles of intorest: ARTS, Flor and Jan Aarts English Syntactic Structures BRUMEIT, Christopher Language and Literature Teaching . ‘CUMMINGS, Michael and Robert Simmons * The Language of Literature DUFF, Alan The Third Language ELLIS, Rod Second Language Acquisition in Context FISIAK, Jacek (ed) Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher JACKSON, Howard “Analyzing English (2nd ed.) JACKSON, Howard Discovering Grammar KELLERMAN, Eric and Michael Sharwood Smith Crosslinguistie Influence in Second Language Acquisition KRASHEN, Stephen Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition ‘Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning LOVEDAY, Leo ‘The Sociolinguistics of Learning and Using a Non-native Language NEWMARK, Peter A Textbook of Translation POLDAUF, ivan English Word Stress ROBINSON, Gail Crossculturel Understanding WENDEN, Anita and Joan Rubin Learner Strategies in Language Learning Approaches to Translation PETER NEWMARK Polytechnic of Gentral Landon ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING Prentice Hall NewYork London Toronto Sycney Tokyo i For Pauline Fret pubienes 1988 by Prentoe Hal Internationa (UK) Ld fe ood Lane End, Homo! Henpstoad Herfordshre, HP2 2RG ‘ahusion ot Simon SehustrIntertioal Group (© 1988 Prantce Hl ntrmatona (UK) Lid ‘lights reserved No prof this publication maybe ‘eroducas,storedinavetteval system. or tansnites ‘Won fom or by any means, lactone, mechanical, Dhotecopring. ecerding or others, witout te po: perms, n wing, forthe publisher. Forpermssion wrhin the Uiuiod Sates of America Contec Prentes Hal inc, Englewood cif, NJ 07692 Printed and bound in Greet Bian Srthe Unvaraty Press, Cambrigge, Batch Library Cataloguing in Publication Date [Approaches to werslton ‘Pfranslaing ond trp Ate deez 20680-41008 isa 0130657956 12345 9291906988 In this Volume Approaches to Translation Professor Peter Newmark of Polytechnic of Central London has made an important contribution to a more satisfactory under- standing of the real nature of translation, Wide acquaintance with the literature on translation theory, many years of experience in teaching translation techniques, and ‘obvious expertise as a translator have all contributed to this well-illustrated and highly useful contribution to a better comprehension of the many phases of the translator's task. Professor Newmark’s major contribution isin a detailed treatment of semantic vs. ‘communicative translating in which semantic translation focuses primarily upon the semantic content of the source text and communicative translation focuses essentially uupon the comprehension and response of receptors. This distinction becomes ‘especially relevant for the wide diversity of text types which Professor Newmark ‘considers, ‘This approach to translation flatly rejects the proposition that translation is a science, but it does insist on treating the basic propositions of translation in terms of a theory of communication, one which is not restricted to a singe literary gente or text type but which has applicability to a wide senge of discourse and related problems. Accordingly, this volume deals extensively with the problems of figurative language and proposes a number of valuable suggestions as to how these can and should be handled, Professor Newmark's teaching experience leads him to deal with a number of matters which most books on translation largely overlook—e.g. the rendering of proper names and tiles and the translation of metalinguistic texts, which, with the exception of lyric poetry, are pethaps the most difficult types of texts to render without considerable readjustments in content and form, ‘The second part of this volume treats not only a wide range of practical issues, including punctuation, translation techniques, and technical translating, but also some clements of central importance to any student of translation—e.g, the significance of linguistics for translation and the relevance of translation theories to the translator's task Probably some of the most insightful comments in this volume are those which suggest a basis fora critique of translation methodology—something which one could swell expect of someone who has had such a long and rich experience in teaching prospective translators and evaluating their effors. EUGENE A.NIDA, April 4 Preface I first wrote on translation in 1957 for the long-defunct Journal of Education—an article which is duly recorded in the Nida (1964) and Jumpelt (1961) bibliographies. In 1967 I started writing again, not long after Anthony Crane and I had launched the first full-time postgraduate course in technical and specialized translation at what was then the Holborn College of Law, Languages and Commerce. In fact, Iam something of & compulsive writer, but I am first a teacher, and though T owe much to Nida and the Leipzig School (oF rather, as I saw them when [first became interested in translation theory, the Fremdsprachen writers), the main source of stimulation for my papers, ‘and more particularly my propositions, is my classes. Linguistics, in the modern sense of the word, did not exist in Great Britain 25 years ‘ago except perhaps at J. R. Firth’s SOAS (Schoo! of Oriental and African Studies) of the University of London. In its wake, translation theory is slowly developing from a series of rather general reflections and essays on the merits of faithful and free ‘ranslation—interspersed with clichfied epigrams identifying translation with women, ‘carpets, traitors, coats, mirrors, Turkish tapestry (the reverse side), copper coins, false portraits, clear or coloured glass, musical transcriptions, wives, heroism and folly —to represent an identifiable and somewhat peculiar discipline. Its an academic pursuit that is dependent upon and apparently subordinate toa practical exercise, In a sense itis at third remove, Those who can, write; those who cannot, translate; those ‘who cannot translate, write about translation. However, Goethe and a host of respectable writers who wrote well, translated well and wrote well about translation are an obvious disproof of this adapted Shavianism. ‘The fascination of translation theory lies in the large scope of its pertinence, its basic appeal (the concern with words) and its disparate levels, from the meaning within a ‘context, of, say, a full stop to the meaning within another context of, say, the word “God’. Translation theory's present standing is not yet secure. To begin with, “everyone” has views about translation, many have written about it, few have written books about it, It i taught at various universities in the Federal Republic, the GDR and in other Eastern Bloc countries; at the universities of Paris, Amsterdam, ‘Montreal, Ottawa and Tel-Aviv. ‘Verrons-nous un jour figurer aux programmes des tuniversités un cours de “Sciences de la Traduction” qui placerait a leur juste rang le ‘radueteur et I'interpréte dans la communauté culturelle?” M. E. Williams, Président ‘of the Ecole de Traduction et d'Interprétation of Geneva University, wrote wistfully in Parallles, 1978, As fat as 1 know, such courses are unknown in most anglophone ‘countries. In the United Kingdom there have been undergraduate courses forthe last 6 years at the Polytechnic of Central London; the University of Dundee and Portsmouth Polytechnic run @ course in conjunction with their German options, and x Preface Bristol Polytechnic is about to start a course. There is still no chair in transtation theory. have always intended to write a textbook of translation theory and practice when T give up full-time teaching. I should then be in a better position to understand the Bounds and to grasp the scope of my subject. As it is, I still see many virtually neglected areas and topies. In the meantime, I am happy to follow Vaughan James's invitation to publish some of my papers. L have selected two introductory papers; three on communicative and semantic translation, which is my main contribution to general theory; one on texts related to language functions, to which I shall Iater add papers relating to the expressive and informative language functions; one on the translation of encyclopaedic and cultural terms_—-which is perhaps the most practical aspect of translation theory—and two on synonymy and metaphor; and, finaly, from three papers | am reproducing nearly 150 So-called propositions on translation (these a not too distant echo of Nietzsche's paragraphs, I hope) which range from large topics such as the status of translation as fan academic exercise and its relation to language-teaching and etymology to indica- tion of the sense-values of the various punctuation marks, T am aware of many gaps: such topics as lexical and grammatical ambiguity, the translation of poetry, technical translation (I have published papers on medical translation in the Incorporated Linguist, ol. 14, nos. 2 and 3, 1976, and in the British ‘Medical Journal, Dec. 1979), synonymy (discussed in “Some problems of translation theory and methodology’, Fremdspracken, 1978-9), the translation of plays, the history of translation, translation’s influence on culture are hardly touched on. Other ‘subjects such as the unit of translation, translation equivalence, translation invar~ jance, detailed schemes for assessing translation, I regard as dead ducks—either too theoretical or too arbitrary With many limitations, these papers attempt to discuss certain significant aspects of translation and to give some indication of its importance in transmitting culture, in revitalizing language, in interpreting texts, in diffusing knowledge, in suggesting the telationship between thought and language and in contributing towards understand- ing between nations. That is a mouthful, so I would add that some of the unending fascination of the pursuit of words and things and utterances rubs off onto the pursuit of translation rules and recipes. 1 thank Eugene Nida for writing the Foreword, and I gratefully acknowledge help from Pauline Newmark, Elizabeth Newmark, Matthew Nevimark, Anthony Crane, John Trim, Vera North, Derek Cook-Radmore, Ralph Pemberton, Ewald Osers. John Smith, Alex Auswaks, Michael Alpert, Duncan Macrae, F. Hirst, Rosemary ‘Young, Roger Lambart, M. K. Weston, Roger Barrett, Kathatina Reiss, Bernadette Millard and Dominique Stegele. Pere Newwank Polytechnic of Central London Acknowledgements ‘The author and publishers gratefully acknowledge permission to reprint extracts from articles in the following journals: ‘A note om translation and traslatn', Incorporated Linguist, April 1969, October 198 “Onietica comclatty AudiosViual Lengdae fourna, March, Winer 1969 “Teaching ein translation’ ncorported Langu, Api 97 “The eas for erature Universites Quart Sane 1972 “Twenty-four restated rules of tension Icorporated Lingus, January 1973. ‘An approach to trasltion' Babe nx (1) 3-19, Saneay 1975. FG proponent par at i ncrpovtd Lng 82 a3) 4-45 and 6213, “The eae for prc’, The use of Engh 26 (3) 26-8, Spring 1973 Book eve (he ow ares Sunder! EnelpaieDetonay) Inorpored ing, Ape 978 ad Sok reer von Hora: gd oh Ct, Ties Hier Even! Speen 33 May “Leatnng a foreien language’, Edecation and Trang 17 (6 and 7) 81-3, Jneuly 1975 “Boulreview (6 Stiner fer Dobe) Incorporated Linguist 144), October 1975. agen agape sone penpectns Cures Decopmen, (10) 838, Unt of Sse, “Tete win, Langage Thin an igi: Airc 19 (0), CU, ay ‘A layman’ approach to medical translation, par I, Incorporated Lingus 18 (2) 41-18, Spring 1976 ‘Alea’ sen eal apt, prt arpa nu 8) ‘Summer 1976 important of ee uracy, CILT Reports and Papers 13 (German in the UK, Problems and Prospects), vanes a spot and Papers 13 ( ems an Prospect) “A emt preface to tration’, AVL Jounal 14 (3), Winter 19%. “The translation of proper name and insttaional erm, Incorporated Linguist, 197 ‘ransiaton snd the meting funtion of languages Lebende Sprachen, 197 “Communist and seman tration’ Babe () 197. ‘Some problems of tranaton theory a methodology, Femdspracke,(Leprig) 1978. ‘Component avajt and wansation theory’ Papers in Tradncolgy, Unvesty of Otawa, 178 “Thought, language and acslaton, Babel (2) 1978 ‘Arle on “Applied linguistics Areté Encycopecia, 197. ‘iy further proposions on tansatio’ corporate Linguist, March 187. "The translation of metaphor. Babel (2) 1380 Fr i i Contents Part One: Aspects of Translation Theory ‘The theory and the cratt of translation What translation theory is about ‘Communicative and semantic translation (i) ‘Thought, speach and translation ‘Communicative and semantic transtation (ll 1 2 3 4 5 6. The translation of proper names and institutional and cultural terms 2 ie 8 ‘The translation of metaphor The translation process and synonymy Translation and the metalingual function oflanguage Part Two: Some Propositions on Translation Intreduetion Linguistics ofransiation Theory of translation Techniques Aspects of meaning Punctuation Text analysis Wider questions Technical translation Notes to propositions Bibliography Name index: Subject index 19 38 37 2 70 a a 105 m 113 m4 7 45 161 m 176 120 187 129 aan a7 199 PART ONE Aspects of Translation Theory i 1, The theory and the craft of translation “The first traces of translation date from 3000 ne, during the Egyptian Old Kingdom, in the area of the First Cataract, Elephantine, where inscriptions in two languages have been found. It became a significant factor in the West in 300 nc, when the Romans took over wholesale many elements of Greek culture, including the whole religious apparatus. In the twelfth century, the West came into contact with Islam in Moorish Spain. The situation favoured the two essential conditions for large-scale translation (Storig, 1963): a qualitative difference in culture (the West was inferior but scientfi- cally acquisitive and receptive to new ideas) and continuous contact between two languages. When the Moorish supremacy collapsed in Spain, the Toledo school of twanslators translated Arabic versions of Greek scientific and philosophical clasics Luther's Bible translation in 1522 laid the foundations of modern German and King James's Bible (1611) had a seminal influence on English language and literature, Significant periods of translation preceded Shakespeare and his contemporaries, French classicism and the Romantic Movements. ‘The twentieth century has been called the ‘age of translation’ (Jumpelt, 1961) or ‘reproduction’ (Benjamin, 1923), Whereas in the nineteenth century translation was mainly a one-way means of communication between prominent men of letters and, 10 a lesser degree, philosophers and scientists and their educated readers abroad, Whilst trade was conducted in the language of the dominant nation, and diplomacy, previously in Latin, was in French, international agreements between state, public and private organizations are now translated for all interested parties, whether or not the signatories understand each other's languages. The setting up of a new inte national body, the constitution of an independent state, the formation of a mult national company, gives translation enhanced political importance. The exponential increase in technology (patents, specifications, documentation), the attempt to bring it to developing countries, the simultaneous publication of the same book in various languages, the increase in world communication, has correspondingly increased requirements, UNESCO, which up to 1970 published an Index sranslationum, recorded a 4}-fold increase since 1948, with translations into German nearly twice as ‘many as into Russian, the second most numerous. (Correspondingly, most theoretical literature is in German.) Scientific, technical and medical journals are translated wholesale in the USA and USSR. The EEC now employs 1600 translators. In 1967, 80,000 scientific journals were being translated annually (Spitzbart, 1972). Some ‘international’ writers (in the age of ‘international’ culture and world-iterature) ‘immediately sell more widely in translation than in the original, whilst others in Italy 3 4 Approaches to translation and the smaller European countries depend for a living on the translation of their works as well as their own translations. “The translation of literature in the ‘minor’ languages, particularly in the developing countries, is much neglected, In relation to the volume of translation, litte was written about it. The wider aspects ‘were ignored: translation’ contribution to the development of national languages, its relation to meaning, thought and the language universals. It was mainly discussed in terms of (a) the conflict between free and literal translation, and (b) the contradiction between its inherent impossibility and its absolute necessity (Goethe, 1826). Cicero (55 sc) first championed sense against words and said a translator must be either an interpreter or a thetorician, The classical essays are those of St. Jerome (400), Luther (1530), Dryden (1684)—all favouring colloquial and natural renderings. Tytler wrote the first significant book on translation in 1790, stating that ‘a good translation is one in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language as to be as distinctly apprehended and as strongly felt by a native of the ‘country to which that language belongs as itis by those who speak the language of the friginal work’. In the nineteenth century, the important essays and references by Goethe (1813, 1814), Humboldt (1816), Novalis (1798), Schleiermacher (1813), Schopenhauer (1851) and Nietzsche (1882) inclined towards more literal translation methods, while Matthew Araold (1928) favoured a simple, direct and noble style for translating Homer, In the tventicth century, Croce (1922), Ortega y Gasset (1937) ‘and Valéry (1946) questioned the possibility of adequate translation, particularly of poetry. Benjamin (1923) saw translation filling in the gaps in meaning in a universal language. He recommended literal translation of syntax as well as words: ‘The sentence is a wall blocking out the language of the original, whilst word for word translation is the arcade,” ‘The above is a brief conspectus of views in the pre-linguistics period of translation. On the whole, they make no attempt to distinguish types or quality of texts (which are ‘mainly Biblical or literary), and while they are strong on theory, they are short on ‘method and practical examples. They show a gradual transition from a natural or free treatment towards a literal analysis, if not translation, of the original, but there is no development of a theory, and many of the writers were not aware of each other's work. With the increasing number of translator and reviser teams for documents and lossaries, the formutation of some translation theory, if only as a frame of reference, becomes necessary. The need is reinforced by the proliferation of terms of art, in particular of technological terms—in chemistry, for instance, a hundred internationa- lisms a month, in electronics, a few thousand a year (Spitzbart, 1972)—and by the desire to standardize the terminology, intra- and interlingually. But the main reason acres The theory and the craft of translation 6 for formulating a translation theory, for proposing methods of translation related to and derived from it, for teaching translation, for translation courses is the appalling badness of so many published translations (Widmer, 1959). Literary or non-literary translations without mistakes are rare. Already in 1911, the Encyclopaedia Britannica stated in a good article absurdly restricted to literary translation, ‘Most versions of modem foreign writers are mere hackwork carelessly executed by incompetent hands.’ Now that accurate translation has become generally politically important, the need (0 investigate the subject is urgent, if only to agree on general principles, ‘Translation theory derives from comparative linguistics, and within linguistics, itis mainly an aspect of semantics; all questions of semantics relate to translation theory Sociolinguistics, which investigates the social registers of language and the problems ‘of languages in contact in the same or neighbouring countries, has a continuous bearing on translation theory. Sociosemanties, the theoretical study of parole—langu- age in context—as opposed to langue—the code or system of a language—indicates the relevance of ‘real’ examples—spoken, taped, written, printed. Since semantics is often presented as a cognitive subject without connotations, rather than as an exercise in communication, semiotics—the science of signs—is an essential factor in translation theory, The American philosopher C. S. Peirce (194) is usually regarded as its founder. He stressed the communicative factor of any sign: “the meaning of a sign consists of all the effects that may conceivably have practical bearings on a particular interpretant, and which will vary in accordance with the interpretant’—no sign, therefore, has a self-contained meaning. Typically, to the reader an iced lolly may mean a flavoured frozen confection on a stick (as a non-participant, the purpose of the ‘object is not important to him), but to the manufacturer it means a profitable source of income, to a housewife a messy nuisance for which she gets a demand all the year round, to a child a satisfying cold drink on a stick which lass a long time. If one puts ‘oneself as reader of a translated text in the place of the manufacturer, the housewife or the child, the importance of Peirce’s theory of meaning for translation theory is clear. Charles Morts's (1971) division of semiotics into syntactic, the relation of signs to each other; semantics, the allocation of signs to their real objects; and pragmatics, the relation between signs and their interpreters, has been taken as a model by the Leipzig translation theorists (Neubert, 1968, 1972; Kade, 1965, 1968) who have been particularly sensitive to the pragmatics of political statements, Thus what is approv- ingly translated as Fluchthelfer in the Federal Republic would be rendered pejora- tively as Menschenhinaler in the GDR. ‘A translator requires a knowledge of literary and non-literary textual criticism, since hhe has to assess the quality of a text before he decides how to interpret and then translate it, All kinds of false distinctions have been made between literary and echnical translation, Both Savory (1957) and Reiss (1971) have written that the technical translator is concerned with content, the literary translator with form. Other writers have stated that a technical translation must be literal, a literary translation ‘must be free—and again, others have said the opposite. A traditional English snobbery puts literary translation on a pedestal and regards other translation as 6 Approaches to transiation hhackwork, or les important, or easier. But the distinction between careful, sensitive and elegant waiting—proper words in proper places’, a8 Swift put it—on the one hand, and predictable, hackneyed and modish phrases—in fact, bad writing—on the other, cuts across all this, A translator must respect good writing scrupulously by ‘accounting for its language, structures and content, whether the piece is scientific oF poetic, philosophical or fictional, Tf the writing is poor, it is normally his duty to Improve it, whether it is technical or a routine, commercialized best-seller. The basic difference between the artistic and the non-literary is that the first is symbolical oF allegorical and the second representational in intention; the difference in translation is that more attention is paid to connotation and emotion in imaginative literature. The translator has to be a good judge of writing; he must assess not only the literary quality but the moral seriousness of a text in the sense of Amold and Leavis. ‘Moreover, any reading in stylists, which is a the intersection between linguistics and literary erticism, such as a study of Jakobson (1960, 1966) and Spitzer (1948), both of whom discuss translation as well as comparative literature, will help hire Logie and philosophy, in particular ordinary language philosophy, have a bearing on the grammatical and lexical aspects of translation respectively. A study of logic will lassist the translator to assess the truth-values underlying the passage he is translating all sentences depend on presuppositions and where the sentences are obscure OF Zuous, the translator has to determine the presuppositions. Moreover, a transla tion-rule such as the following on negations (my own) derives from logic: ‘A word translated by a negative and its noun or object complementary term may be & satisfactory equivalent.” (Thus a ‘female’ is ‘not a male’,) A word translated by a negative and its verb of process converse term is not a satisfactory equivalent, although the equivalent meaning may be ironically implied. (Compare “We advanced! land “We didn't retreat.) A word translated by a negative and its contrary term is not a satisfactory equivalent, unless itis used ironically. (Compare ‘spencthrift” and ‘not Stingy".) A word translated by a negative and its contradictory term is a weakened ‘equivalent, but the force of the understatement may convey equivalence: eg. ‘false’ is falmost ‘not true’; “he agreed with that’ is almost ‘he didn’t dissent from it, Lastly, a ‘word translated by a double negative and the same word or its synonym is occasionally ‘an effective translation, but normally in a weakened form (e.g. ‘geateful’ may be ‘not lungrateful’, ‘not unappreciative’). A translator has to bear all the above options in. ‘mind, in particular where the contrary, contradictory or converse term is plainly or approximately missing in the target language, which should be his own. Philosophy is « fundamental issue in translation theory. When Wittgenstein ‘aban- ‘doned the idea that the structure of reality determines the structure of language, and suggested that it is really the other way round’ (Pears, 1971), he implied that translation was that much harder. His most often quoted remark, ‘For a large number fof casesthough not for all—in which we employ the word “meaning”, it can be ‘defined or explained thus “the meaning of a word is its use in the language” (Wittgenstein, 1958), is more pertinent to translation, which inthe final consideration is only concerned with contextual use, than to language as a system. Again, when ‘Austin (1963) made his revolutionary distinction between descriptive and performa- tive sentences, he illustrated valuable contrast between non-standardized and standardized language which always interests a translator: for a formulaic sentence ft i i | | j ‘The theory and the craft of translation 7 such as ‘1 name tis ship Liber there is normally only one equivalent in, 38, French Jebapise ce neve ovcle nom de Liber, andthe translator as no options seas wold wate th sneer aed wh he ior a ses ‘the, Kant distinction between analytial propostions which ae linguistic, All bachelors ure unmaried', and synthetic feteentiproposiions such a5 “The Dachelor hid inthe cupboard, provided the rst ofthe pasage clarifies the ype of fuphoard he hid in, ges the translator more licence inhi eatment of anaical propositions, Last, Grice’s ‘meaning means intention’ helps the translator Io see that "Would you mind doing "and refuse to believe # and “Would you cae 0 come” have nothing todo ith minding o refsing or caring, Usual, ext’ or a propositions intention canbe ascertained only ouside the uferances, by examining the reason and the oceaston forthe utterance, ll murder you if you do tat agin inay be a mother exereing displine.Demain Ces same may mean Tomorow, the holidays begin’ (Seleshoiteh, 197) ‘Translation theory is not only an interdisciplinary study, itis even a function of the disciplines I have briefly alluded to ‘Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message andlor statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language. Each exercise involves some kind of loss of meaning, due to a number of factors. Tt provokes a continuous tension, a dialectic, an argument based on the claims ‘of each language. The basic oss is on a continuum between overtranslation (increased detail) and undertranslation (increased generalization), In the first place, if the text describes a situation which has elements peculiar to the natural environment, institutions and culture of its language area, there is an inevitable loss of meaning, since the transference to, or rather the substitution or replacement by (Haas, 1962)—the word ‘translation’, like so many others, is misleading, due to its etymology—the translator's language can only be approximate. Unless there is already a recognized translation equivalent (but will the reader be familiar with it, and will he accept it?—here we must bear Peirce’s pragmatics in rind) the translator has to choose from transcribing the foreign word (say, directeur du cabinet) translating it (head of the ministers office’), substituting a similar word in his own culture (‘Permanent Undersecretary of State’), naturalizing the word with a loan translation (‘director of the cabinet’), sometimes adding or substituting a suffix from his own language (e.g. apparaschik, Prague, footballeur), defining it, or, the last resort, paraphrasing (head of the Minister's departmental staf), which is sometimes added in parenthesis or as a footnote to a transliteration. However, there is no ‘referential’ loss if the situation is on neutral, non-national ground with participants without specifically local features (e.g. a mathematical study, a medical experiment using standard equipment), i. if there is cultural overlap, ‘The second, and inevitable source of loss is the fact that the two languages, both in their basic character (langue) and their social varieties (parole) (bearing in mind Jakobson’s (1973) gloss on Saussure), in context have different lexical, grammatical 8 Approaches to translation ‘and sound systems, and segment many physical objects and virtually all intellectual ‘concepts differently. (Usually, the closer the language and the culture, the closer the translation and the original.) Few words, phrases or sentences correspond precisely oon the four lexical scales which interest the translator (Newmark, 1969): (1) formality (CE Joos, 1967) (from frozen to uninhibited); (2) feeling or affectivity (from overheated to deadpan); (3) generality or abstraction (from popular to opaquely tech- nical); and (4) evaluation (four subscales: morality (good to bad); pleasure (nice to nasty); intensity (strong to weak) ; dimension (e.g. wide to narrow). Thave proposed a translation rule that corresponding words, colloeations, idioms, metaphors, proverbs, sayings, syntactic units and word-order must be equally frequent (in the appropriate style and register of the text) in the source and the target language; but the translator ‘can never follow this rule to the letter, since it even has inherent contradictions. ‘Thirdly, the individual uses of language of the text-writer and the translator do not coincide. Everybody has lexical if aot grammatical idiosyncrasies, and attaches ‘private’ meanings to a few words. The translator normally writes in a style that comes naturally to him, desirably with a certain elegance and sensitivity unless the text precludes it. Moreover, as Weightman (1947) has pointed out, a good writer's use of language is often remote from, if not at cross purposes with, some of the conventional ‘canons of good writing, and it is the writer not the canons that the translator must respect, Lastly, the translator and the textovriter have different theories of meaning and different values, The translator's theory colours his interpretation of the text. He may set greater value than the text-writer on connotation and correspondingly less on denotation. He may look for symbolism where realism was intended; for several meanings where only one was intended; for different emphasis, based on his own philosophy or even his reading of the syntax. The different values of writer and translator may be parodied through a school-report, where words like: competent, fair, average, adequate (cf. adaguai), above average, satisfactory, passable, middling, ‘may mean all things to all men (ef. Trier, 1973). Thus disgrammatically one may see a target language text as an object in a magnetic field which has seven or eight conflicting forces exerted upon it. The resulting loss of meaning is inevitable and is, unrelated, say, fo the obscurity or the deficiencies ofthe text and the incompetence of the translator, which are additional possible sources of this loss of meaning, sometimes referred to as ‘entropy’ (Vinay, 1968) ‘This. then, is the problem, and in the last 30 years, a considerable theoretical literature has been devoted {o it. A few professional linguists, a8 well as translators, began to turn their attention to translation theory at a time when philosophy was substantially concerned with language and later when with the decline of Bloomfie!- dian or behaviourist (rather than structuralist) linguistics and rapid progress in applied linguistics, semantics was being (grotesquely) ‘reinstated’ within linguistics. Prior to this period, translation theory was almost exclusively the concern of men of letters, with the notable exception of Humboldt. pn ‘The theory and the craft of translation 9 “The literature is dominated by Nida, whose work is informed by his experience as & linguist and as a Bible-transiator. In Nida (1964, 1969), almost every translation problem is discussed, He adapts transformational grammar by proposing eight model kernel sentences as transitional stages between source and target language structures. He applies componential analysis by using common, diagnostic and supplementary ‘components as tools for comparing and contrasting items within a semantic field. He discusses the logical relations of words with each other, the difference between cultural and linguistic translation, the relevance of discourse analysis, the difficulties of translating between remote cultures, levels of usage, the psychological connota- tions of words and practical problems of translation. His reduction of propositions to ‘objects, events, relationals and abstracts may be more fruitful to translators as a comprehension procedure than the kernel sentences. His distinction between dynamic ‘and formal equivalence is too heavily weighted against the formal properties of language. Nida’s recent books (1974a and 1975a) are specifically concerned with semantic grammar and componential analysis, but they can be profitably applied to the first stages of translation procedure. He has notably summarized the present state of translation theory (19746). Fedorov (1958, 1968) stresses that translation theory is an independent linguistic discipline, deriving from observations and providing the basis for practice. Like the Leipzig School, he believes that all experience is translatable, and rejects the view that language expresses a peculiar mental word-picture, However, the lack of a common ‘outlook or ideology at present impairs the effectiveness of translation. Komissaroy (1973) sees translation theory moving in three directions: the denotative (information translation), the semantic (precise equivalence) and the transformational (transposi- tion of relevant structures), His theory of equivalence distinguishes five levels: (1) lexical units, (2) collocations, (3) information, (4) the situation, and (5) the communi- cation aim. Tumpelt (1961) applies the Trier-Weisgerber field theory to technological texts, and effectively distinguishes superordinate and subordinate terms in the technical literature. The Leipzig School (Neubert, Kade, Wotjak, Jager, Helbig, Ruzicka), much of whose wark has been published in the periodical Fremdsprachen, ints six Beihefie, and in Linguistsche Arbeitsberichte, distinguishes sharply between the invariant (cognitive) and the variant (pragmatic) elements in translation, and tums transformational grammar and semiotics to account. It is sometimes short on procedures and examples, and restricts itself to nom-literary texts. Neubert’s and Helbig’s weiting has been imaginative. Koller (1972) is particularly useful in distin- ing information from communication, and Reiss (1971) has categorized and illustrated the variety of text-types. Catford (1965) has applied Halliday’s systemic grammar to translation theory, and has fruitfully categorized translation shifts between levels, structures, word-classes, units (‘rank-shifts) and systems. He distin- Buishes between ‘context’ (of situation) and ‘co-text’ (of language). He sets greater limits to the possibilities of translation than other theorists, Firth (1968) points to contextual meaning as the basis of a translation theory and sees translation theory as. the basis of a new theory of language and firmer foundations in philosophy. Mounin (1955, 1964, 1967) discusses translation theories and their relation to semantics and supports the ‘linguistic’ against the literary theory of translation. Levy (1969) and ‘Winter (1969) apply linguistics to the translation of literary texts, including the ere 10 Approaches to translation ‘phonological aspects of poetry. Wuthenow (1969), Kloepfer (1967) and Cary (1956) feject all but a literary approach to translation theory ‘The above-mentioned literature is basically theoretical. Of the literature which applies linguistics to translation procedures, Vinay and Darbelnet (1976) are outstand- ing. They enumerate seven procedures—transiteration, loan translation, literal translation, transposition, modulation, equivalence, adaptation—and make percep: tive distinctions between French and English. Friederich’s work on English and ‘German (1969) is also invaluable, whilst German and French have been compared by ‘Truffaut (1968) and Malblanc (1961). Mention should also be made of Wandruszka's (1969) multilingual comparisons and Fuller’ (1973) distinctions between French and English, Valuable essays are collected in Storig (1963), Brower (1966), Smith (1958) and Kapp (1974), whilst Garvin (1955) includes the Prague School’s contributions to translation theory ‘There is a considerable literature on machine translation (e.g. Booth, 1967) but at least since Bar-Hillel (1964) there is fairly general agreement that computers will not be much used for translation (except in restricted areas such as meteorology) in the foreseeable future: they are already of incalculable assistance to terminologists in compiling plossaries and bilingual dictionaries. Meléuk’s work on MT (e.g. in Booth, 1967) has thrown light on translation procedure G. Steiner (1975) contains a variety of outstanding literary translation and summaries of translation theories, and emphasizes the importance of translation as a key t0 the understanding of thought, meaning, language, communication and comparative Tinguistics. He puts the case for ‘poem to poem’ against ‘plain prose’ translations (1966). ‘There is wide but not universal agreement that the main aim of the translator is 10 produce as nearly as possible the same effect on his readers as was produced on the Feaders of the original (see Riew, 1953). The principle is variously referred to as the principle of similar or equivalent response or effect, or of functional or dynamic {Nida) equivalence. Tt bypasses and supersedes the nineteenth-century controversy ‘about whether a translation should incline towards the source or the target language, and the consequent faithful versus beautiful, literal versus free, form versus content

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy