Translation And Editing Of Text.docx

Translation and Editing of Text   



Etymologically “translation” is a “carrying across” or “bringing across”. The Latin “translation” derives from the perfect passage participle, “translatum” (to “transferre” – from “trans”, “across” + “ferre”, “to carry” or “to bring”). The modern Romance, Germanic, and Slavic European languages have generally formed their own equivalent terms for this concept after the Latin model – after “transferre” or after the kindred “traducere” (“to bring across” or “to lead across”). Additionally, the Greek term for “translation”, “metaphrasis” (“a speaking across”), has supplied English with “metaphrase” – a “literal translation,” or “word-for-word” translation – as contrasted with paraphrase” (“a saying in other words, from the Greek “paraphrasis”).

I. Definition of Basic Terms BCE

-

Before Common Era

CE

-

Common Era

DTS

-

Descriptive Translation Studies

SL

-

Source Language

ST

-

Source Text

TL

-

Target Language

TT

-

Target Text

Metaphrase

-

word for word and line by line translation

Paraphrase

-

translation with latitude

Imitation

-

forsaking both words and sense

II. Theoretical Bases in Translation Translation Theory before the 20th Century a. Word for Word or Sense for Sense - Literal translation vs. conveying the sense of the text. Also called as direct translation which is found in everyday usage, literal translation means to render the text from one form the first language to another. In Latin it means word-for-word translation rather than sentence translation. b. Martin Luther – emphasis on the sense of how the word is used into text and converting it to German language. Translation was unacceptable to church since he added “allein” (alone/only) which has no Latin translation from the source text. He later defended himself by explaining that the word “alien” was added in the translation to give emphasis in Germanic language. c. Faithfulness, Spirit and Truth – tangled terms with fidelity, spirit and truth. i. Faithfulness – this word was initially dismissed as literal word for word translation by Horace. It was not until the end of the 17th century that this word was identified with faithfulness to the meaning rather than the words of the author. ii. Spirit – spirit initially has 2 meaning. The Latin word denotes creative energy and inspiration or the Holy Spirit itself. iii. Truth – truth also has 2 meaning. The first is having a sense of content while the other meaning authentic. d. Early attempts at a systematic translation theory; Dryden Dolet and Tytler: i. John Dryden – 3 categories of translation 1. Metaphrase – word by word and line by line translation which corresponds to literal translation. 2. Paraphrase – translation with latitude where the author kept in view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not strictly followed as his sense. This involves changing the whole phrases and more or less corresponds to faithful or sense for sense translation. 3. Imitation – forsaking both words and sense. This corresponds to Cowley’s free translation and is more or less adaptation.

ii. Etienne Dolet – 5 principles of translating text 1. The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author 2. The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL 3. The translator should avoid word for word renderings 4. The translator should avoid latinate and unusual form 5. The translator should assemble and liaise word eloquently to avoid clumsiness iii. Alexander Fraser Tytler – 3 general rules of translation 1. The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work. 2. The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original. 3. The translation should have all the ease of the original composition. e. Schieiermacher and the valorization of the foreign – describes that translation of the source text should be translated as how the author read and understood the content and translating it to target text. f. Translation Theory of the 19th and early 20th century Britain – describes that there are no other qualified person to translate text other than qualified scholars. g. Contemporary Translation Theory – attempts to redefine methods of translation into something new A. Linguistic Theories of Translation a. Language Universal V. Linguistic Relativism i. Language Universal – presuppose that languages and/or our capacity for language are universal and/or innate ii. Language Relativism – different language shows us different ways of viewing the world b. Science of Translation i. Nida 1. Linguistic Meaning 2. Referential or denotative meaning 3. Emotive or conotative meaning 4. Hierarchical structuring 5. Componential analysis 6. Semantic structure analysis 7. Formal and dynamic equivalence 8. Application to bible translation Nida’s Three Stage of Translation Table 1

ii. Equivalence - Roman Jacobson (1959/2000) > “Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics”. Discusses equivalence at level of obligatory grammar and lexicon such as gender, aspect and semantic fields. 1. Equivalence at Word Level Baker (1992) Chapter 2 a. Morphology – lexical and synctactic b. Lexical Meaning a.) Propositional v. Expressive Meaning b.) Presupposed meaning c.) Evoked meaning 1. Dialect – geographical, temporal, social

2. Register – fields/tenor/mode of discourse. c. Semantic Field and lexical sets 2. Equivalence Above Word Level Baker (1992) a. Collocation a.) Collocation range and markedness b.) Collocation and register c.) Collocation meaning b. Idioms and Fixed Expressions 3. Grammatical Equivalence Baker (1994) Chapter 4 – grammatical vs. lexical categories a. Grammatical Categories a.) Number b.) Gender c.) Person d.) Tense and Aspect e.) Voice f.) Word Order c. Semantic and Communicative Translation (Newman 1981) i. Transmitter/Addressee focus ii. Culture iii. Time and Origin iv. Relation to ST v. Use form of SL vi. Form of TL vii. Appropriateness viii. Criterion for Evaluation d. Korrespondenz and Aquivalenz (Koller 1976/89) i. Denotative Equivalence ii. Connotative Equivalence iii. Terxt-Normative Equivalence iv. Pragmatic Equivalence v. Formal Equivalence e. Translation Shifts (Vinay and Darbalnet 1977/2000) – function at the level of the lexicon, syntax and message i. Direct Translation 1. Borrowing 2. Calque 3. Literal Translation ii. Oblique Translation 1. Transposition 2. Modulation 3. Equivalence 4. Adaptation f. Discourse and Register Analysis B. Roman Jakobson - For Jakobson, meaning and equivalence are linked to the interlingual form of translation, which “involves two equivalent messages in two different codes” (1959/2000: p.114). He considers Saussure’s ideas of the arbitrariness of the signifier (name) for the signified (object or concept) and how this equivalence can be transferred between different languages, for example the concept of a fence may be completely different to someone living in the suburbs or a prison inmate. Linguistic meaning and equivalence are the key issues for the Russian structuralist Roman Jakobson who, in his 1959 work On Linguistic Works of Translation, states that there are 3 types of translation: a. Intralingual – rewording or paraphrasing, summarizing, expanding or commenting within a language b. Interlingual – the traditional concept of translation from ST to TT or the “shifting of meaning from one language to another” (Stockinger p.4) c. Intersemiotic – the changing of a written text into a different form, such as art or dance (Berghout lecture 27/7/05; Stockinger p.4). C. Katharina Reiss – continues to work on equivalence but on a textual level rather than on the word or sentence level. She proposes a translation strategy for different type of texts and says that there are 4 main textual functions.

a. Informative – designed for the relaying of fact. The TT of this type should be totally representative of the ST, avoiding omissions and providing explanation if necessary. b. Expressive – a “higher” level of literary text such as poetry in which the TT should aim at recreating the effect that the author of the ST was striving to achieve. In this case, Reiss says “the poetic function determines the whole text”. c. Operative – designed to induce a certain behavioral response in the reader, such as an advertisement that influences the reader to purchase a particular product or service. The TT should therefore produce the same effect on its reader as the ST. d. Audomedial – films, televisions advertisements, etc. supplemented with images and music of the target culture in the TT. Text Types (Reiss) Table 2.

Text Types and Varieties (Reiss) Table 3.

D. Eugene Nida – is an American Bible translator who rejects “free” versus “literal” debate in favor of the concept of formal and dynamic equivalence. A concept that shifts the emphasis to the target audience. His linguistic theory moves towards the fields of semantics and pragmatics which leads him to develop a system for analysis of meaning. a. Hierarchial Structure – in a cultural context it may not be possible to translate “siste”, so “siblings” may be need to use. b. Componential Analysis – which identifies characteristics of words that are somehow connected such as “brother” in Afro-American talk does not necessarily refer to make relation born of the same parents. c. Semantic Structural – differences where the connotative and denotative meanings of homonyms are identified, for example “bat” the animal and the piece of sporting equipment. E. Catford - Catford’s approach to translation had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translations and it is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of

translation lies in her introduction of the concept of types and shifts of translation. His systematic linguistic approach to translation considers the relationship the between textual equivalence and formal correspondence. He suggested 2 models for translation shifts: a. Comparative – where comparison of the shifts within a sense unit or transeme between ST and TT is made. She then conducts a very detailed analysis of the “architranseme” or the core meaning of the word and how this meaning can be transferred to the TL. She proposes a model shift based on microlevel semantic transfer. b. Descriptive – situated in the linguistic fields of stylistic and pragmatic deals with what the author is trying to say, and why and how this can be transferred to the TT. It deals with the difference between the source and the target cultures and serve as the model on a macro level for literary works. F. Jiri Levy - Jiří Levý was born on 8 August 1926 in Košice (East Slovakia), and died on 17 January 1967 in Brno (South Moravia). Levý studied English and Czech at Masaryk University in Brno (concluded in 1949). From 1950 to 1963, he lectured at Palacký University of Olomouc. From 1964 onwards, Levý worked at the Department of Czech Literature at Masaryk’s University in Brno. His these include: The Development of Translation Theories and Methods in the Czech Literature (1957) Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Translation (1958) Problems of Comparative Versification (1963) - According to Levý, translation is a process of communication: the objective of translation is to give the knowledge of the original to the foreign reader. From the point of view of the working situation of the translator at any moment of his work, translating is a decision process.