word-order tendencies.
(p63)Further aspects of FSP which are of interest to a translator are the various devices for heightening or frustrating expectation, which may differ in two languages.
Contrasts
(p63)Contrasts or oppositions are one of the most powerful cohesive factors in discourse.
(p64)The mass of translation uses the text as a unit only when there are apparently insuperable problems at the level of the collocation, clause or sentence level. This is a ripple theory of translation. Text as unit has ‘naturally’ come into prominence because of current emphasis on communicative competence and language, where units of translation become linger, as in notices and instructions; the larger quantity of writing is perhaps descriptive, where there is less emphasis on communication and UTs are smaller.
The lower unit of translation (p65)
The next lower unit is the paragraph, which is Nietzsche’s unit of thought. Typical paragraph schemes: (a) start with a generalization and then produce two or three examples, illustrations, pieces of evidence to support it; (b) introduce and relate an event and five the result; (c) introduce and describe an object or brief scene.
The sentence is the ‘natural’ unit of translation, just as it is the natural unit of comprehension and recorded thought. Within a sentence, transpositions, clause rearrangements, recasting are common, provided that FSP is not infringed, and that there is a good reason for them. On the other hand, unless a sentence is too long, it is unusual to divide it. If it is unusually short, it is likely to be for a special effect. Needless to say, if long sentences are a part of a writer’s style in an expressive text, they have to be preserved.
Within the sentence, there are five possible sub-units of translation. One of them, the morpheme, the smallest unit of meaning, need not be taken seriously, except in the cases of prefixes when they have no direct TL equivalent in the word context. Two sub-units, the clause and the group, are grammatical; the other two, the collocation and the word (including the idiom and the compound, which is a congealed collocation), are lexical. When you translate, you have to be looking at the grammatical (the general factors of time, mood, space, logic, agreement) and the lexical (the details) at the same time, making sure that FSP is preserved where important. It is not possible to give the one not the other sub-unit priority, since they all have to be considered, where they exist. The more expressive or ‘sacred’ the text, the more attention you will give to the precise contextual meaning of each word, possibly to the detriment of the message or the communicative value of each word, possibly to the detriment of the message or the communicative value of a text.
Conclusion (p67)
I have try to show that all lengths of language can, at different moments and also simultaneously, be used as units of translation in the course of the translation activity; each length has a functional contribution to make, which can be summarized as lexical for the word and the collocation; grammatical for the group and clause; notional for the sentence, the paragraph and the text. Further, I have tried to show that, operatively, most translation is done at the level of the smaller
11
units (word and clause), leaving the larger units to ‘work’ automatically, until a difficulty occurs and until revision starts; further that in an expressive or authoritative text, there is a certain extra stress on the word; in an informative text, on the collocation and the group; the vocative or pragmatic section of a text (the part intended to make the readers react), on the sentence and the text as a unit.
Chapter 7 Literal Translation
Varieties of close translation
(p69)It may be useful to distinguish literal from word-for-word and one-to-one translation. Word-for-word translation transferrs SL grammar and word order, as well as the primary meanings of all the SL words, into the translation, and it is normally effective only for brief simple neutral sentences. In one-to-one translation, a broader form of translation, each SL word has a corresponding TL word, but their primary meanings may differ. Since one-to-one translation normally respects collocational meanings, which are the most powerful contextual influence on translation, it is more common than Word-for-word translation. Literal translation goes beyond one-to-one translation in including, say, literal equivalents; it is particular applicable to languages that do not have definite and/or indefinite articles.
(p70)Literal translation ranges from one word to one word, through group to group, collocation to collocation, clause to clause, to sentence to sentence. The longer the unit, the rarer the one-to-one. I believe literal translation to be the basic translation procedure, both in communicative and semantic translation, in that translation starts from there. However, above the word level, literal translation becomes increasingly difficult. Literal translation above the word level is the only correct procedure if the SL and TL meaning correspond, or correspond more closely than any alternative; that means that the referent and the pragmatic effect are equivalent, i.e. that the words not only refers to the same ‘thing’ but have similar associations and appear to be equally frequent in this type of text further, that the meaning of the SL unit is not affected by its context in such a way that the meaning of the TL unit does not correspond to it.
Faithful and false friends (p72)
Many theorists believe that translation is more a process of explanation, interpretation and reformulation of ideas than a transformation of words; that the role of language is secondary, it is merely a vector or carrier of thoughts. Consequently, everything is translatable, and linguistic difficulties do not exist. This attitude, which slightly caricatures the Seleskovitch School (ESIT, Pairs), is the opposite of the one stating that translation is impossible because all or most words have different meanings in different languages, i.e. all words are culture-specific and, to boot, each language has its peculiar grammar. My position is that everything is translatable up to a point, but that there are often enormous difficulties.
Words in their context (p73)
We do not translate isolated words, we translate words all more or less bound by their syntactic, collocational, situational, cultural and individual idiolectal context. That is one way of looking at translation, which suggests it is basically lexical. This is not so. The basic thought-carrying
12
element of language is its grammar. But since the grammar is expressed only in words, we have to get the words right. The words must stretch and give only if the thought is threatened.
Elegant variations (p74)
Elegant variations on literal or one-to-one translation are common, and sometimes satisfy the translator’s understandable wish to write in a style or phrase that is entirely natural to him. More often, however, they are irritating to the critic, introduced to exhibit the translator’s flair for colloquialisms or synonymy, and, even when insignificant, unnecessary.
Accepted translation (p74)
Some transparent institutional terms are translated literally in at least Western European languages even though the TL cultural equivalents have widely different functions, also that concept-words such as ‘radicalism’ or ‘realism’ are translated literally and often misleadingly, as their ‘local’ connotations are often different. Any ‘core’ denotative meaning is swamped by the connotative pragmatic meaning. The terms are normally so important in their relation to the TL culture that a literal translation rather than transference is indicated—a translated word more than a transferred one is incorporated at once into the target language. However, for new institutional terms, a translator must be careful about translating the terms directly into the TL, if they already exist but have quite different functions in the TL culture. Constraints on literal translation (P75)
I am not suggesting that any more or less context-free SL word must always be translated one-to-one or literally by its ‘usual’ TL equivalent. The SL word may: (a) be used more frequently (within the register); (b) have a wider semantic range than the corresponding TL word.
‘Ordinary language’, which in English is usually descriptive language, not colloquial but neutral, is equally appropriate in written and spoken language, marked by phrasal verbs, familiar alternatives, empty verbs and verb-nouns, and can hardly ever be translated literally.
Natural translation
(p75)Apart from translationese (i.e. inaccurate translation) the only valid argument against what I might find an acceptable literal translation of an ordinary language unit is that you find it unnatural.
(p76) Note that it is sometimes advisable to retreat from literal translation when faced with SL general words for which there are no ‘satisfactory’ one-to-one TL equivalents even though one is over-translating.
Re-creative translation (p76)
Re-creative translation—‘contextual re-creation’ as Delisle (1981) calls it—which means, roughly, translating the thoughts behind the words, sometimes between the words, or translating the sub-text, is a procedure which some authorities and translation teachers regard as the heart or the central issue of translation.
The sub-text
(P77) Michael Meyer (1974) has made much of the concept of the ‘sub-text’, what is implied but not said, the meaning behind the meaning. ‘Ibsen’, he writes, ‘is a supreme master of the sub-text;
13
almost all his main characters are deeply inhibited people, and at certain crises they are brought to bay with what they fear, and talk evasively, saying one thing but meaning another. To an intelligent reader, the true meaning behind the meaning is clear, and the translator must word the sentence in such a way that the sub-text is equally clear in English.’ The above statement is in fact a plea for accuracy, and the implication is that the translator should not go beyond the words of the original by promoting the sub-text to the status of the text.
(p78) The concept of the sub-text is a useful variant term for the function or the intention of a text, the thin thread which the translator has to pursue throughout his work. But the concept is dangerous and misleading if the sub-text starts to obtrude on the text; put differently, if the description, or the surface text, is partially or wholly replaced by the function, the deep structure of the text, the symbol by its meaning, and so on.
The notion of the ‘no-equivalent’ word
(p78) The difficulties of literal translation are often highlighted not so much by linguistic or referential context as by the context of a cultural tradition.
(p79) To write off as ‘untranslatable’ a word whose meaning cannot be rendered literally and precisely by another word is absurd, particularly when it could at least be better delineated by componential analysis into four or five words, though as a footnote, not in the text of the play. Looking at translation in an ideal sense, Gadamer has pointed out that ‘no translation can replace the original…the translator’s task is never to copy what is said, but to place himself in the direction of what is said in order to carry over what is to be said into the direction of his own saying.’
But in the vast majority of cases, Gadamer is not going to help the translator at all. His statement ‘No translation is as understandable as the original’ is misleading.
The role of context (p80)
My last point, in fact, is that, in translation, the translator indeed has to be aware of all the varieties of contexts—so many it is idle to list them again—but this does not mean that context is the overriding factor in all translation, and has primacy over any rule, theory or primary meaning. Context is omnipresent, but it is relative. It affects technical terms and neologisms less than general words; it permeates a structured text and touches disjointed texts rather lightly. Where a writer deliberately innovates, the translator has to follow him, and blow the context.
A translator with his eye on his readership is likely to under-translate, to use more general words in the interests of clarity, simplicity and sometimes brevity, which makes him ‘omit’ to translate words altogether. Under-translation is justified if an informative text is deficient in clarity.
The less context-bound the words, the more likely a literal translation—whilst the more standard are the collocations, colloquialisms, idioms, stock metaphors, the less likely is a literal translation.
Chapter 8 The Other Translation Procedures
Transference (p82)
Transference is the process of transferring a SL word to a TL text as a translation procedure. It is
14
the same as Catford’s transference, and includes transliteration, which relates to the conversion of different alphabets.
In regional novels and essays (and advertisements, e.g. , gites), cultural words are often transferred to give local color, to attract the reader, to give a sense of intimacy between the text and the reader—sometimes the sound or the evoked image appears attractive. These same words have to be finally translated in non-literary texts (e.g. on agriculture, housing) if they are likely to remain in the TL culture and/or the target language.
There are often problems with the translation of ‘semi-culture’ words, that is abstract mental words which are associated with a particular period, country or individual. In principle, such words should first be translated, with, if necessary, the transferred word and the functional equivalent added in brackets, until you are confident that your readership trcognises and understands the word.
Naturalization (p82)
This procedure succeeds transference and adapts the SL word first to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal morphology of the TL.
Cultural Equivalent (p82)
This is an approximate translation where a SL cultural word is translated by a TL cultural word…Functional cultural equivalents are even more restricted in translation, but they may occasionally be used if the term is of little importance in a popular article or popular fiction. They are important in drama, as they can create an immediate effect… However, the main purpose of the procedure is to support or supplement another translation procedure in a couplet.
Functional equivalent (p83)
This common procedure, applied to cultural words, requires the use of a culture free word, sometimes with a new specific term; it therefore neutralizes or generalizes the SL word; and sometimes adds a particular…
This procedure, which is a cultural componential analysis, is the most accurate way of translating i.e. deculturalising a cultural word.
A similar procedure is use when a SL technical word has no TL equivalent.
This procedure occupies the middle, sometimes the universal, area between the SL language or culture and the TL language or culture. If practiced one to one, it is an under-translation. If practiced one to two, it may be an over-translation. For cultural terms, it is often combined with transference.
Synonymy (p84)
This procedure is used for a SL word where there is no clear one-to-one equivalent, and the word is not important in the text, in particular for adjectives or adverbs of quality… A synonym is only appropriate where literal translation is not possible and because the word is not important enough for componential analysis. Here economy precedes accuracy.
A translator cannot do without synonymy; he has to make do with it as a compromise, in order to translate more important segments of the text, segments of the meaning, more accurately.
15