Está en la página 1de 18

Translation Theory CKT121

Outline and notes for Translation Theory lectures


Aims of the course To introduce the central concepts and approaches of translation theory; to show different concepts of the translator's role; to illustrate various translation research methods; to encourage critical thinking about translation and translation theory.

Outline
1. Introduction. 1.1. Theory? 1.2. Translation typology 2. Linguistic relations 2.1. Equivalence 2.2. Naturalness, fluency 3. Translation strategies 3.1. A conceptual toolbox 3.2. Algorithms? 4. Communication factors 4.1. Functional theories 4.2. Sociology of translation 5. Cultural factors 5.1. The shaping power of language 5.2. Systems, norms and ideologies 6. Cognitive factors 6.1. Universals? 6.2. Getting inside the translators head 7. Is it any good? 7.1. Quality assessment 7.2. Ethics 7.3. Final comments

Summary lecture notes 1. Introduction 1.1. Theory?


What is a theory? the Greek origin of the word: a way of looking at something, a point of view; a contemplation. myths as theories: (the Tower of Babel, in Genesis, chapter 11; myths about rebirth and spiritual development) metaphors as theories empirical, scientific theories: models: e.g. process models, causal models hypotheses: claims about the description and explanation of general tendencies Aims of translation studies Theoretical aims: to increase understanding... by defining central concepts describing what translations are like, what translators do explaining why translations are like this discovering how translations affect readers and cultures Applied aims: to improve the quality of translations (and therefore intercultural relations)... by developing better training methods developing better tools, computer aids, dictionaries, term banks... developing machine translation developing ways of assessing translation quality educating the public, making translators more visible... What is translation? preliminary definition: a text that represents a text in another language, for a given purpose how wide is your definition? bad translation vs. non-translation? Descriptive vs prescriptive guidelines from description, generalization Useful introductory books in Finnish

Riitta Oittinen ja Pirjo Mkinen (2001) Alussa oli knns. Tampereen yliopistopaino. Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto (1999) Kopiointia vai kommuniointia? Helsinki: Finnlectura.

1.2. Translation types


Jakobsons semiotic classification > intralingual, interlingual, intersemiotic Binary classifications: free vs. literal covert vs. overt (House) communicative vs semantic (Newmark) instrumental vs documentary (Nord) Classification based on text types (Reiss) > informative, expressive, operative; multi-medial Localization: see http://www.lisa.org/ Classification used in the EU: depends on purpose of the translation (Wagner) straight (nothing corrected) tidied (errors corrected) naturalized (adapted to local or international readership) reduced (gist translation) A typology can be useful in negotiating with clients (and educating them!). They could fill in a form, specifying their wishes with respect to different variables, such as translation purpose, content equivalence, formal equivalence, stylistic equivalence, source text revision, level of acceptability required. A typology is also useful for scholars wanting to study the general features of particular translation types. An unusual type: phonological translation.

2. Linguistic relations 2.1. Equivalence


How can we best understand the relation between translations and their source texts? Basic problem: translations are assumed to be somehow the same as the original, but they are obviously (also) different. Early Bible translation: equivalence must be understood as sameness. Translation must be possible. (Augustine; Jerome) Modern semiotics: translation is (nearly) always possible (Jakobson): signs are interpreted as other signs. Assumption that meanings are objective, out there. But are they? Can meanings be separated from their forms, and from the contexts in which they are used? Is translation in fact impossible, if there are no universal meanings? The view that same meaning is impossible. There are no stable meanings (cf. deconstruction, postmodernism). Equivalence is better understood as similarity, relevant similarity, not sameness or identity. Two texts can be similar in many ways. There are several basic types of equivalence: concerning form, meaning, style, desired effect... Nida: formal vs dynamic Koller: denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, formal Each translation task requires its own hierarchy of equivalence. Conclusion: equivalence is produced by the translator, it is claimed. This claim may or may not be accepted by the client, by readers.

2.2. The naturalness relation


How can we best understand the relation between translations and other texts in the target language? This is the relation of naturalness or acceptability, or textual fit. Translation has long been part of the tradition of rhetoric in the West. Importance of getting the message across, pleasing the reader, making things clear, interpreting Early ideas about translating sense for sense (Cicero) Bible translation into vernacular languages (Luther, Agricola...) The Renaissance and the belles infidles (dAblancourt): translations that were very free indeed: beautiful but not faithful. Tytlers principles (1790): paradoxical? The importance (in modern textlinguistic approaches) of parallel texts (natural, non-translated target-language texts, as far as possible with the same subject and style as the translation) > all this illustrates the fluency ideal. BUT there has been criticism of this ideal. Fluent translations are often too free, they contain translation errors. Fluent translations are unethical, because they deny the Other; they are ethnocentric, they encourage cultural imperialism (Berman, Cheyfitz). Some scholars argue that it would be more ethical to translate in a foreignizing way, not a domesticating one (e.g. Venuti, with respect to literary translation, following Schleiermacher). Foreignizing translations are not fluent, they do not sound entirely natural: thats the point! > When could it be acceptable / necessary to translate in a non-fluent way?

3. Translation strategies 3.1. A conceptual toolbox


What kinds of textual changes do translators make? Strategies useful conceptual tools are also known as shifts or procedures or techniques. Background in the approach from applied linguistics (e.g. Catford) Obligatory vs optional changes Early classification by Vinay and Darbelnet: loan, calque, literal translation, transposition, modulation, total syntagmatic change, adaptation. A summary list of some frequent strategies (from Chesterman 1997, with Finnish terms added): Syntactic strategies Literal translation kirjaimellinen knns Loan laina Calque knnslaina Transposition sanaluokan muutos Unit change yksikn muutos (eg. word > phrase) Structural change rakenteen muutos Cohesion change koheesion muutos Rhetorical scheme change retorisen kuvion muutos (e.g. alliteration...) Semantic strategies Using a synonym synonyymi Using an antonym antonyymi Using a hyponym alaksite (hyponyymi) Using a hyperonym ylksite (hyperonyymi) Condensing tiivistminen Expanding laajentaminen Modulation modulaatio (e.g. concrete > abstract) Rhetorical trope change kielikuvan muutos (e.g. metaphor, irony...) Pragmatic changes

Addition Omission Explicitation Implicitation Domestication Foreignization Formality change Speech act change Transediting muokkaaminen

lisminen poistaminen eksplisiittistminen implisitointi kotouttaminen vieraannuttaminen muodollisuusasteen muutos puheaktin muutos toimittaminen, uudelleen

Motivations for strategies; including ideological reasons? Strategies are also useful research tools. What are the typical strategies for translating allusions / names / dialects / etc?

3.2. Algorithms?
Can machines translate? The neopositive belief in laws / rules: language as a well-defined system Algorithms; explicit instructions, translation rules > under conditions ABC..., item X can be translated as item Y Initial optimism of the machine translation project Problem of the semantic barrier: in order to interpret sentences correctly, we often need to look at the context and appeal to our knowledge of the world. The present situation. Examples: SYSTRAN, METEO, Kielikone See my Psst! Theory can be useful at http://ec.europa.eu/translation/reading/articles/theory_and_practice_en.htm Note the many by-products of this research, such as translation memory systems and Computer-Aided Translation in general. And more realistic ideas about quality.

4. Communication factors 4.1. Functional theories


How can we best analyse the communication tasks of translators? Translation is only one way of bridging the gap between different language communities. Functional theories focus on translation as human interaction. Who are the actors involved? The New Rhetoric formula: Who says what, how, when, where, why, to whom, with what effect? (From Classical Greece; applied in Translation Studies e.g. by Nord) Nidas sociolinguistic approach: role of the receiver; dynamic equivalence of effect. His three-stage model: Analysis > Transfer > Restructuring where analysis means simplifying the source text, and restructuring means getting the appropriate style for the readers and the purpose. Action theory (Holz-Mnttri): Goals Rationality Social action: writer, client, translator, publisher, reader... Skopos theory (Vermeer, Nord) Skopos (purpose of the translation) Specification (clients instructions or brief) gives less status to the source text Nord: skopos plus loyalty Relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson > Gutt) This proposes an inference theory of communication: we understand by interpreting clues. Translation is like reported discourse: it has (/ should have) a relevant interpretive resemblance to the source text. Relevance: most benefit (= effect on hearer) for least cost (= effort made by hearer to understand).

The theory argues against the possibility of achieving the same effect.

4.2. Sociology of translation


The social turn in recent Translation Studies, looking at translation as a social practice. The sociology of translations as products > publishing, marketing; Index Translationum The sociology of translators > rates of pay, status, professionalization, accreditation, networks... The sociology of the translating process > workplace procedures, teams, use of resources, policies, revision (see Mossop). Research on revision procedures, e.g. using interim solutions (= drafts). A more complex definition of translation, taking a communicational / social perspective (Freihoff 1992: 72): 1. Ammattimainen kntminen on (tilaus)tyt 2. jossa kntj alansa asiantuntijana*) (hnelle) annetun lhdeaineiston tai/ja -tekstin ym. hankitun/hankkimansa lisinformaation pohjalta 3. hahmottaa yli kulttuuri- ja kielirajojen siirrettvn viestin ja 4. laatii kohdetekstin (tilaajan kyttn) _____________________________________ *) 5. tietyll tavalla, joka riippuu lhinn - koko viestin tavoitteesta sellaisena kuin kntj sen on ymmrtnyt ja itselleen mritellyt (sek tilaajan kanssa sopinut) sek - viestin siirtomahdollisuuksista ja -konventioista kohdekulttuurin ja -kielen kannalta - ym. tapauskohtaisista seikoista.

5. Cultural factors 5.1. The shaping power of language


How do culture and translation interact? Historical situation in the Romantic period in Germany (Herder, Humboldt) Language as a creative force, unifying a nation, shaping cognition Linguistic relativity (> Sapir, Whorf in 20th c.) Goethes three stages of retranslation, first freer and then more literal. Translations can stretch and enrich the target language, especially if they are not completely fluent /natural (Schleiermacher) Later ideas on linguistic relativity: Strmnes. The hermeneutic approach: sees language as logos, a creative force. Benjamin (1923) on pure language, letting the original shine through Steiner on the hermeneutic motion of translation: > trust, aggression, incorporation, restitution (compensation) > Language shapes culture; translation shapes culture (and language, as a part of culture); translators are creators > the cultural turn (1980s-).

5.2. Systems, norms, ideologies


Looking for cultural causes and effects; describing translations in their sociocultural context > Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) Target-oriented research: starting with the translation itself (Toury) Central concepts: System: a structured complex in an environment Polysystem: a system of systems; struggle between centre and periphery Interest in pseudotranslations, pseudo-originals, indirect translations, retranslations... Norms: social notions of correctness stronger than conventions norm-breaking can bring sanctions norms vary (time and place) Tourys classification of norms: preliminary norms (general translation policy, directness) initial norms (source or target-oriented) operational norms (textual choices, footnotes, omissions...) New definition of translation: a text that conforms to the target-cultures norms of what translations are supposed to be like, at a given time. New definition of equivalence: whatever relation is found to exist. Ways of explaining translation norms socio-cultural constraints such as ideology, and economic patrons (Lefevere) laws (generalizations, general hypotheses) Manipulation: assumption that no translations are entirely neutral or objective (see Hermans). All translations are marked e.g. by translators or clients ideology. Translators have power! (See the special issue of TTR on translation and censureship: 15/2, 2002.)

6. Cognitive factors 6.1. Universals


Corpus studies compare translations with source texts, with parallel texts, and with other translations. The aim is to generate and test hypotheses about translation universals: generalizations about features that seem special to all translations (Baker). Do translations form a third code in their own right? Are there such universals (descriptive problem)? If so, how to explain them? Two main types of universals: S-universals: differences between translations and their source texts, regardless of language. Examples: interference, standardization, explicitation T-universals: differences between translations and parallel texts in the target language. Examples: simplification (less lexical variety, lower lexical density), under-representation of TL-specific items Critics have argued that hypotheses about universals can never be proved, that we do not even have a universal concep of what counts as a translation, and that so-called universals are simply signs of bad translation. But this research uses good empirical methods, brings new information, and generates new research. It also drives us to ask why-questions, and e.g. to look at cognitive processes. For more on universals, see Mauranen and Kujamki.

6.2. Getting inside the translators head


Influence of Game theory (Levy) and decision theories in general; and the role of rationality. How to get inside the Black Box? Measure emotional involvement Study translation drafts (interim solutions analysis) Computer studies of time distribution, keystrokes, eye tracking... Think-aloud protocols (TAPs) > aim to develop a model the problem-solving process in the translators mind. Criticism: the research affects the process itself; is always incomplete; ... Some of this criticism can be dealt with by using e.g. dialogue protocols, and by combining TAP data with other data. Some research results > attention units > non-linear processing > routine vs. non-routine processes > influence of self-image > influence of emotional state > differences between professionals and amateurs E.g. professionals spend more time on revision, think more about the brief, and know how to satisfice when the risk is low.

7. Is it any good? 7.1. Quality assessment


Error analysis definition of error (something not acceptable...) error types: binary vs non-binary scale of gravity: worse if affects skopos or risks trust Retrospective assessment (comparing with the source text) measure equivalence of meaning, style, form, effect e.g. House 1981 Prospective assessment (measuring the effect) e.g. Nida: assess reactions, not texts, using Cloze tests, questionnaires, association tests, etc. But analysis of effects is problematic: > effects are heterogeneous; > de dicto (form) or de re (content) > intended / desirable or not... > effect on whom? Prescriptive statements are hypotheses of effect. Lateral assessment (measure naturalness by comparing with non-translated parallel texts) checking translation against expectancy norms relevance of corpus research notion of quasi-correctness (Vehmas-Lehto): covert errors Assessment via translators introspection? International standards: quality control of the process ISO 9002: general quality assurance standard; document all stages... DIN 2345: translation contracts CEN Standard EN 15038 Translation Services Documentation of stages, definitions, contracts, extra services... Revisers (must be someone else) and reviewers (subject specialists)

7.2. Translation ethics


Traditional issues: loyalty, freedom to improve, visibility, copyright, ethics of the Other, personal ideology... Ethics of representation representing the source, the Other; loyalty to author; value of truth Ethics of service meeting clients needs; loyalty to client Ethics of communication co-operating with the Other; value of understanding Norm-based ethics meeting expectations; value of trust in the profession See further: special issue of The Translator 7, 2 (2001) Idea of social, ecological quality, including quality of working conditions... Useful information on contracts, fees etc at the homepage of the Finnish Association of Translators and Interpreters: http://www.sktl.net/index.html Check out the Translators Charter and the Nairobi Declaration at the FIT website http://fit-ift/org > References

7.3. Final comments


We do not (yet) have a unified theory of translation, but we have lots of useful bits: ways of describing and explaining..., ways of making sense. See further: A. Chesterman and E. Wagner (2002): Can theory help translators? Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. J. Williams and A. Chesterman (2002): The Map. A Beginners Guide to doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Useful online bibliography: http://www.benjamins.com/online/tsb/ (free access from university computers)

References for names mentioned in these notes


Baker, Mona 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker et al. (eds), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233-250. Berman, Antoine. 1984. Lpreuve de ltranger: Culture et traduction dans lAllemagne romantique. Paris: Gallimard. Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chesterman, A. 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Cheyfitz, Eric. 1991. The Poetics of Imperialism. Translation and colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freihoff, Roland 1992. Terminologian tarve meidn aikamme kntjkoulutuksessa. VAKKI XII. Erikoiskielet ja knnsteoria, 6779. Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance. Cognition and context. Oxford: Blackwell. Hermans, Theo (ed.). 1985. The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in literary translation. London: Croom Helm. Holz-Mnttri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. House, Juliane. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. (2nd edition.) Tbingen: Narr. Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In R.A. Brower (ed.), On Translation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 232239. (Also in Chesterman (ed.) 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki: Finn Lectura, 53-60.) Koller, Werner. 1979. Einfhrung in die bersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer. (4th revised edition 1992.) [Part of the chapter on equivalence is available in English in Chesterman (ed.) 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki: Finn Lectura, 99-104.] Lefevere, Andr. 1992. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge. Levy, Jiri 1967. Translation as a decision process. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, vol. II. The Hague: Mouton, 1171-1182. (Also in Chesterman (ed.) 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki: Finn Lectura, 3752.) Mauranen, Anna and Kujamki, Pekka (eds) 2004. Translation Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mossop, Brian 2001. Revising and editing for translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing Newmark, Peter 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill. Nord, Christiane 1997. Translation as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing Reiss, Katharina 1976. Texttyp und bersetzungsmethode. Der operative Text. Kronberg: Scriptor. Strmnes, Frode J. 2006. The Fall of the Word and the Rise of the Mental Model A Reinterpretation of the Recent Research on Spatial Cognition and Language. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Tytler, Alexander F. [1790] 1978. Essay on the Principles of Translation. (Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics 13.) Amsterdam: Benjamins Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri. 1989. Quasi-correctness. A critical study of Finnish translations of Russian journalistic texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliittoinstituutti. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translators Invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge. Vermeer, Hans J. 1996. A skopos theory of translation (Some arguments for and against). Heidelberg: TextConText. Vinay, Jean-Paul and Darbelnet, Jean. [1958] 1969. Stylistique Compare du franais et de langlais. Paris: Didier. Wagner: in A. Chesterman and E. Wagner (2002): Can theory help translators? Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

También podría gustarte