Linguistic Approaches

(I) Micro-level (focus on linguistic system)

R. Jakobson

E. Nida

P. Newmark

J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet

J. C. Catford (1965)

(II) Macro-level (focus on ST/TT comparison)

Equivalence= equal value

The basic idea is that all the theories respond to one central problem: translation can be defined by equivalence, but there are many reasons why equivalence is not a stable concept. So how can we think about translation beyond equivalence?

(Pym 2010)

Why linguistics?

• Academic discipline concerned with the study of language

at large ≠ branches

• Linguistics and Translation “love-hate relationship” (Fawcett 1997)

Well-established, fully fledged ‘scientific’

discipline

Difficulties to establish a place for itself in

academia

Impressive range of research methods and

tools of analysis

Language as raw material but need for a role model

to follow

Linguistics as asource of theoretical and

pedagogical insightsbut

simplistic/prescriptivein its approach

Roman Jakobson [I]

intralingual translation

‘rewording’, using signs of the same language

interlingual translation

‘translation proper’, verbal signs of another language

intersemiotic translation

‘transmutation’, verbal to non-verbal signs

Russo-American structuralist linguist (1896-1982) Focus on meaning and equivalence 3 types of translation

Jakobson, R. (1959/2004) ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ in Venuti, L. (ed.) (2004) The Translation Studies Reader, London & New York: Routledge

Involves two equivalent messages in two different

codes

Roman Jakobson [II]

• Arbitrariness of the signifier for the signified (F. de Saussure)

e.g. fence / cheese / nectar / ambrosia

How can the equivalence in meaning be transferred between different languages?

There is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units

Differences in the structures and terminology of languages systematic mismatches at different levels:

• gender (e.g. house / honey) his car his keys his glass his glasses la sua macchina le sue chiavi il suo bicchiere i suoi occhiali/bicchieri

• aspect do did has done has/had been doing fare/faccio/fai… fece/faceva… ha fatto ???

• semantic fields (e.g. siblings / children)

Differences between languages exist, but concepts can

nevertheless be rendered interlingually

Roman Jakobson [III]

Interlingual translation means

substitut[ing] messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language

The translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent

messages in two different codes.

Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics

Eugene A. Nida [I]

Nida, E.A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E.J. Brill

Nida, E.A. and C.R. Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E.J. Brill American, key figure in Bible translation since 1940s (born 1914)

Trained as a linguist (PhD in Linguistics, Uni of Michigan), influenced by Noam Chomsky (groundbreaking in 1960s/70s)

Attempts to make the study of translation more scientific (cfr title)

to provide Bible translators with practical suggestions on the ways in which translators should proceed to transfer the units of a ST into another language to produce an accurate TT

Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, Gravenhave: MoutonChomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Noam Chomsky (1928)

Work on syntactic structures Generative-transformational model Universal grammar (kernel sentences)

Sentences characterised by two levels of representation governed by rules:

Deep structure (underlying, made of

core sematic relations)

Surfacestructure

(subject to phonological and morphemic rules)

Transformational rules

e.g. active to passive

Eugene A. Nida [II]

Three-stage system of translation

System for the analysis of MEANING

Words have no fixed pre-determined meaning, but they acquire meaningthrough the context in which they are found and they can produce various responses according to culture.

Meaning can be broken down into:

Techniques to determine the meaning of different linguistic items:

HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES (superordinates/hyponims, e.g. animal-cat/dog/horse; siblings-brother/sister)

COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS (characteristics of connected words, e.g. kinship)

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (identify denotative/connotative meanings of homonyms, e.g. bat, spirit)

Eugene A. Nida [III]

Linguistic Referential (denotative)

Emotive (connotative)

System to classify EQUIVALENCE

Eugene A. Nida [IV]

FORMAL EQUIVALENCE DYNAMIC (or FUNCTIONAL) EQUIVALENCE

focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content […] one is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source

language

e.g. gloss translations

the relationship between receptor and message should be

substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the

message

…aims at complete naturalness of expression/ seeking the closest

natural equivalent to the SL message

PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENT EFFECT

(+) Shift away from word-for-word/literal vs free equivalence debate Receptor/reader-based orientation to Translation theory Attempt to provide practical answers to real problems Systematic approach (e.g. to analyse meaning and transform

kernels into TT surface structures)

(-) Types of equivalence too concerned with the word level Equivalent effect or response impossible to achieve Inherently subjective question of equivalence is theory really

“scientific”? Is it really followed by translators in practice?

Eugene A. Nida [V]

Peter Newmark [I]

Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to Translation,Oxford & New York: PergamonNewmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation, New York & London: Prentice Hall

PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENT EFFECT

Total equivalence virtually impossible to achieve. Equivalent effect is illusory.

SEMANTIC TRANSLATION COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION

…attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.

// Nida’s formal equivalence≠ literal translation (context)

…attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original.

// Nida’s dynamic equivalence Newmark distances himself from principle of equivalent effect (inoperant if text is out of space and time, e.g. Homer)

Literal approach = best approach

However, should semantic translation result in abnormal

TT, then communicative translation wins oute.g. chien méchant beware the dog (bad dog)

Peter Newmark [II]

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 also the only valid method of translation

Peter Newmark [III]

(+) Very practical approach Focus on pedagogy (translator training courses)

(-) Criticism of Nida’s principle of equivalent effect, but similar points

ultimately raised about the translation process and the importance of the TT reader

Common problem across TS, i.e. overabundance of terminology to refer to similar/overlapping concepts

Vinay and Darbelnet [I]

Vinay, J.-P- and J. Darbelnet (1958/1977) Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l’Anglais: Méthode de Traduction, Paris: Didier, translated and edited by Sager, J.C. and M.-J. Hamel (1995) as Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a Methodology for Translation, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Canadians, carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English – but wider impact…

Different translation strategies and procedures identified (cfr literal vs free methods)

2 general translation strategies and 7 procedures

Vinay and Darbelnet [II]

DIRECT TRANSLATION(literal/word-for-word)

OBLIQUE TRANSLATION(free)

Borrowing

Calque

Literal translation

Transposition

Modulation

Equivalence

Adaptation

DIRECT TRANSLATION(literal/word-for-word)

Borrowing: SL word transferred directly to the TT to fill a semantic gap (e.g. kamikaze, computer, film, marketing // trattoria, parmigiano (cheese), etc.)

Calque: SL expression/structure is literally transferred to the TL, with minimum adaptation (e.g. Snow White/Blanche Neige // luna di miele, mucca pazza, etc.)

Literal translation: word-for-word translation, described as the most common procedure between related/close languages and cultures (e.g. Yesterday I went to the cinema with Jenny and we watched a film). * Best approach for a good translation

Vinay and Darbelnet [III]

Literalness should only be sacrificed because of structural and metalinguistic requirements and only after checking

that the meaning is fully preserved

A literal translation is considered unacceptable in the following cases:

it gives a different meaning it has no meaning it is impossible for structural reasons it does not have a correponding expression in the TL it corresponds to something at a different level of language

Vinay and Darbelnet [IV]

Vinay and Darbelnet [IV]

OBLIQUE TRANSLATION(free)

Transposition: interchange of part of speech without altering the meaning

- obligatory: I’m on my way - Sto arrivando - optional: We’re nearly there - Ci siamo quasi / Manca poco

Modulation: reversal of the semantics and point of view expressed in the SL

- obligatory: She can’t wait to go home - Non vede l’ora di rincasare; the time when - le moment où… - optional: Nathan failed his exam - Nathan è stato bocciato

Equivalence: different stylistic or structural means used by SL and TL (useful in translating idioms, proverbs) * restricted meaning!!! e.g. to be barking up the wrong tree “…”

Adaptation: changing and/or explaining cultural references between SL and TL e.g. NHS, Ferragosto, game of cricket

Vinay and Darbelnet [V]

These seven procedures operate at three levels:

1) lexis 2) syntax3) message

Two other parameters…(note centrality given to the role of the translator)

SERVITUDE: obligatory transposition or modulation because

of SL/TL differences

OPTION: non-obligatory changes resulting from translator’s

choices and style

* important element in translation, allows for possible subjective

interpretation of the text (esp. literary)

* should be the translator’s main concern; the role of the translator requires him/her to choose from among the available options to express the nuances of the message

Vinay and Darbelnet [VI]

5 steps to move from ST TT

1. Identify units of translation

2. Examine SL text

3. Reconstruct the context of the message

4. Evaluate the stylistic effect

5. Produce and revise the TT

Vinay and Darbelnet [VII]

UNITS OF TRANSLATION

LEXICOLOGICAL UNIT + UNIT of THOUGHT

Def: the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually

* Attempt to move beyond word level by looking at word order, thematic structure and connectors (cohesive links, discourse markers, deixis, punctuation)