Approaching Translation. Theoretical and Practical Issues ONE: SETTING THE GROUND

TRANSLATION AS PROCESS (ST into TT – carrying across) PRODUCT: TT CONCEPT: theorization + empirical studies

SCIENCE OR SECONDARY ACTIVITY? TRANSLATION STUDIES (TRANSLATION THEORY) is NOT about providing norms for the “perfect” translation Label given by J.S.HOLMES (1972) “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”: Pure TS (descriptive study of translated texts + theories) Applied TS (translator training, tools and criticism) G. TOURY, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (1995) Two tentative “laws” growing standardization = TT less linguistic variation than ST interference: lexis and syntactical patterns of SL transported into TT (unusual TL)

BAKER: translation analysis through corpus linguistics Corpora of parallel and comparable texts UNIVERSALS OF TRANSLATION: Explicitation: disambiguation, addition of functional words, more specific terms, addition of conjunctions, etc. (he took her keys; a man was shot last night; they waved) Simplification: general terms i/o specific ones, omission of modifiers, shorter sentences Normalization: tendency to exaggerate certain features of the target language. (repetition, shorter/longer sentences) Levelling out: reduce linguistic variation (TT “more standard” than usual) DISAGREEMENT AMONG SCHOLARS

some linguistic-oriented translation theories of the 20th century TRANSLATION AS EQUIVALENCE: some linguistic-oriented translation theories of the 20th century

Word as UNIT OF TRANSLATION variously related to Saussure's notions of SIGNIFIER/SIGNIFIED LANGUE/PAROLE culture-bound culture + context-bound frequent lack of one-to-one matching pairs between languages + possible differences in categorizing/describing the world, e.g. Era circondato dai suoi nipoti. He was surrounded by his grandchildren “ “ “ grandsons “ “ “ nephews “ “ “ nephews and nieces

COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS “A technique of semantic analysis that examines the basic meaning components of a word and allows contrast with other terms in the same semantic field” (Katan 2004: 38) based on binary opposition BACHELOR = + human + male, - married generally valid, but contextualized instances need to be considered (e.g., the Pope) Co-text + context necessary to better define meaning.

R. JAKOBSON, “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”, (1959) 1) INTRALINGUAL T. (rewording) interpretation of verbal signs via other signs > same language 2) INTERLINGUAL T. (translation proper) interpretation of verbal signs through other signs > other language 3) INTERSEMIOTIC T. (transmutation) interpretation of verbal signs through signs of nonverbal sign system > > other code PROBLEM: NO FULL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN CODE UNITS. POETRY: untranslatable (only CREATIVE TRANSPOSITION)

Jakobson, “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” (equivalence in difference) In interlinguistic translation full equivalence between code- units = exception, not rule BUT “all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language” (1959: 238) GAPS in lexis can be filled (paraphrase) non-matching syntax more complex (syntax resists innovation and circumlocution, and it's about aspects of experience that must be expressed in a language “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey”

“She has brothers” (Jakobson) If translated into a language that differentiates between dual and plural forms > “she has either two or more that two brothers” overtranslation/hypertranslation > is it necessary? So > “substitute messages in one language not for separate code- units but for entire messages in some other language” (1959: 233) Translation = two equivalent messages in two different codes Hence, equivalence is impossible > emphasis on adequate interpretation > equivalence in difference

Direct translation (literal translation possible) Vinay and Darbelnet (1954): pursuing equivalence through comparative stylistics One source text > many target texts = insufficient analysis of the circumstances of translation Taxonomy of language items FR/EN, in order “to examine how the constituent parts of a system function when they render ideas expressed in the other language” A Methodology for Translation: Direct translation (literal translation possible) Oblique translation (changes in syntax or lexis needed)

DIRECT TRANSLATION BORROWING: foreign word enters TT (muffin, wi-fi, governance, pizza, opera, mafia, etc.) CALQUE: literal rendering of lexical item or structure (politicamente corretto; realizzare; dannato) LITERAL TRANSLATION: direct transfer of ST into grammatically and idiomatically appropriate TT; adherence (full sentence, not just single item). (Fairly frequent in technical texts; careful not to allow the familiarity with EN to interfere with IT)

OBLIQUE TRANSLATION (1) TRANSPOSITION: change in word class without changing the meaning (Non tollereremo più i Suoi ritardi > Your being late will no longer be tolerated; this is a writer who uses language in beautifully surprising ways >....) Sometimes inevitable, sometimes a choice BUT: resulting text may have different effect: e.g. More verbs > more dynamic sense of progression of the text; more nouns > more reflective, static or abstract character; Plus: agency > nominalization may delete subjects, hence responsibility

OBLIQUE TRANSLATION (2) MODULATION: a variation of the form of the message through a change in the point of view Inevitable > I like coffee > Mi piace il caffè. Optional: It is not easy > Non è facile (è difficile) BUT: “difficile” implies “non facile” “non facile” does not imply “difficile” He was fired > E' stato licenziato (result) (l'hanno licenziato) (action) EQUIVALENCE: replacing a SL statement with a TL statement referring to same situation or expressing same idea, even without formal/semantic correspondence Yours faithfully; the straw that broke the camel's back.

OBLIQUE TRANSLATION (3) ADAPTATION: extreme limit = bridging the gap Trying to reproduce analogous situation in TT by resorting to something that – although not strictly present in the ST – can produce the same effect in the target culture. (Nida's seal i/o lamb; film dubbing) Not so frequent now due to globalization + new media; also frowned upon because domineering, appropriating, homogenizing otherness; potentially artificial

NIDA AND TABER: equivalent effect Indebted to Chomsky's generative-transformational grammar (deep structure made of x number of kernel sentences – simple, active, declarative – changed through transformational rules into various other forms > surface structure. Dissatisfied with literalism > reader's response Functional definition of meaning: a word acquires meaning in context + can produce different responses in different cultures REFERENTIAL MEANING / EMOTIVE MEANING (denotation) (connotation)

NIDA'S MODEL OF THE TRANSLATION PROCESS SOURCE LANGUAGE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE TEXT TRANSLATION ANALYSIS RESTRUCTURING TRANSFER EN: yes IT: sì DE: ja, doch (see example: butter/burro; buon appetito)

E. NIDA: Toward a Science of Translation, 1964 Scientific approach to meaning (linguistic, referential, emotive) “FORMAL correspondence 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.” (oriented toward ST structure) DYNAMIC equivalence is based on 'the principle of equivalent effect' “the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.” (adaptations of grammar, lexis and cultural references)

Nida's notion of equivalence FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE: TT strongly oriented towards ST syntax and lexis (accuracy + possible footnotes/glosses) It may distort syntax + style patterns of TL, which may distort message or create hard work for the reader DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: equivalent effect on receptor. Form may change, but contextual consistency is preserved (lamb/seal) A translation should: make sense; convey the spirit and the manner of the original; have a natural and easy form produce similar receptor's response

Nida's techniques to assist translators in disambiguation HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURING: differentiate according to levels, i.e. superordinate – hyponym) COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS: identify features through binary opposition (+/-) SEMANTIC STRUCTURE ANALYSIS: visual mapping of polysemous words (e.g. Spirit), according to their characteristics (human/non-human; good/bad; abstract/concrete...)

Word-for-word equivalence > downsized NIDA in a nutshell Word-for-word equivalence > downsized Receptor's response > highlighted Criticism: can effect be measured? who is the receptor? far-away cultures and/or remote times? receptor's response important for proselytizing > ethics?

KADE (1968) Total equivalence: fully identical pairs (technical terminology, e.g. cell migration = migrazione cellulare) Optional equivalence: one-to-several correspondence (e.g. stufa = storage heater, stove, heater; wall = muro – parete – muraglia) Approximate equivalence: one-to-part-to-one correspondence (e.g. nuts; nipote) Zero equivalence: culture-specific items, or new inventions temporarily existing in one L only (Classification originally meant for specialized languages. Hardly tenable for general L.)

KOLLER (1979) Germany: interest in 'science' of translation Koller (1979): difference between CORRESPONDENCE EQUIVALENCE related to contrastive linguistics (comparing two language systems) Langue (Saussure) parole false friends, verb tenses, signs of equivalent items in specific lexical, morphological, syntactic ST-TT pairs and their contexts interference knowledge of correspondences mastering equivalences Competence in foreign language competence in translation

Koller's equivalence 5 TYPES of equivalence: 1) DENOTATIVE E. : related to equivalence of extralinguistic content of a T (content invariance – real world) 2) CONNOTATIVE E. : related to lexical choices, esp. between near- synonyms – formality, social usage, regional variation etc.) 3) TEXT-NORMATIVE E. : related to text types and their conventions (see Reiss pp. 29-30) 4) PRAGMATIC E. : oriented toward receiver (also communicative e. or Nida's dynamic e.) 5) FORMAL E. : related to form + aesthetics of T, e.g. word play + single stylistic features of ST (expressive e. - reproduced or re-created) Equivalences need to be hierarchically ordered according to communicative situation (how? Open to debate) > pragmatic differences between cultures.