Studying translation product and process LESSON 4

Linguistic models for Translation Since the ’50s, many studies adopting a variety of different approaches have tried to categorize what happens in translation Two of the most important are: Vinay and Darbelnet’s taxonomy in Comparative Stylistics of French and English (1958/1995) Catford’s linguistic approach and the concept of “translation shift” (1965) (Munday, 2001: 85)

Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (1/4) Vinay and Darbelnet carried out a comparative analysis of pre-existing translations, identifying a series of “strategies” (overall orientations of the translator) and “procedures” (specific techniques used by the translator) TWO GENERAL STRATEGIES: SEVEN PROCEDURES: 1. DIRECT translation (what we can define “literal”) Borrowing Calque Literal translation 2. OBLIQUE translation (what we can define “free”) Transposition Modulation Equivalence Adaptation.

Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (2/4) The strategy of DIRECT TRANSLATION: BORROWING: taking the word from the SL and maintaining it in TL computer (from ENG), kimono (from JAP), abat-jour (from FRE) CALQUE: when an expression from the ST is transferred literally into the TT ENG: skyscrapers ITA: grattacielo (sky=cielo + scrape=grattare) TED: Eisenbahn ITA: ferrovia (eisen=ferro + bahn=via) LITERAL TRANSLATION: translating word-for-word The author’s prescription for “good translation”, it should only be sacrificed when absolutely inevitable, and “only after checking that the meaning is fully preserved”)

Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (3/4) The strategy of OBLIQUE TRANSLATION:  to be used when literal translation is not possible! TRANSPOSITION: changing word class without changing meaning ENG: to go swimming (verb) ITA: fare una nuotata (noun) MODULATION: when the TT is rendered from a different point of view that of the ST ENG: it is not difficult ITA: è semplice EQUIVALENCE: when two languages describe similar situations by different stylistic or structural means ENG: it rains cats and dogs ITA: piove a catinelle ADAPTATION: changing the reference when a situation in the SC does not exist in the TC ENG: Friday the 13th ITA: venerdì 17 SPA: martes 13

Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (4/4) Some other techniques exemplified by Vinay and Darbelnet: AMPLIFICATION: the TL uses more words, often because of syntactic expansion ECONOMY: the opposite of Amplification LOSS COMPENSATION: the TL compensate for a “loss” introducing a “gain” When in Italian we go from LEI to tu, and in English this distinction doesn’t exist, we compensate, for example, going from MISTER GREEN to PETER. EXPLICITATION: implicit information in the ST is rendered explicit in the TT GENERALIZATION: the use of a more general word in the TT compared to the one in the ST ENG: cottage cheese ITA: formaggio ENG: desktop ITA: computer

Catford and the “translation shift” (1/4) J. C. CATFORD A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965) He adopts an Hallidayan-Firthian approach, an analysis of the language as “communication”, operating functionally in context and on different levels According to this, in Translation, Catford differentiates between: FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE (…later developed by Koller, as we have already seen!)

Catford and the “translation shift” (2/4) FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE A formal correspondent is “any TL category, which may be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the system hierarchy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL”  a more general system-based concept between two languages TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE A textual equivalent is “any TL form (text/portion of text) which is observed on a particular occasion […] to be equivalent of a given SL form (text/portion of text)”  More tied to a particular ST-TT pair When this two concepts diverge, we have a TRANSLATION SHIFT! (Catford, 1965, in Munday, 2001)

Catford and the “translation shift” (3/4) A departure from formal correspondence in the process of going from a ST to a TT SHIFT OF LEVEL SHIFT OF CATEGORY (Catford, 1965, in Munday, 2001) EX: something which is expressed by grammar in one language and lexis in another STRUCTURAL SHIFTS CLASS SHIFTS RANK SHIFTS INTRA-SYSTEM SHIFTS

Catford and the “translation shift” (4/4) Catford’s model is an interesting attempt to apply findings in linguistics to translation, but presents some weaknesses… In his study of intra-system shifts, he stated that translation equivalence does not entirely match formal correspondence, but only with a given probability Nonetheless, his claims that translation equivalence depends on communicative features such as function, relevance, situation and culture rather than just on formal linguistic criteria, is surely interesting from the point of view of contemporary approaches to TS (Catford, 1965, in Munday, 2001)

Summary In the ‘50s and ‘60s scholars started to attempt to draw taxonomies of linguistic changes in ST-TT pairs Vinay and Darbelnet’s model is still valued and applied, and it was useful to outline a wide range of translation techniques Catford related translation equivalence to communicative features such as function, situation and culture

References CATFORD, J. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. MUNDAY, J. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. VINAY, J. P. and J. DARBELNET. 1995/2004. “A methodology for translation”, in L. Venuti (ed). 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! PROF.SSA LAURA LIUCCI laura.liucci@uniroma2.it