Discourse and the Translator

B. Hatim, Ian Mason

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317901303
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Discourse and the Translator both incorporates and moves beyond previous studies of translation. Its logical and informative approach to the problems of translation ensures that it will be essential for all those who work with languages 'in contact'. Incorporating research in sociolinguistics, discourse studies, pragmatics and semiotics, the authors analyse the process and product of translation in their social contexts. Through this analysis, the book emphasises the importance of the translator as a mediator between cultures.

ONE

Issues and debates in translation studies

Translation is a useful test case for examining the whole issue of the role of language in social life. In creating a new act of communication out of a previously existing one, translators are inevitably acting under the pressure of their own social conditioning while at the same time trying to assist in the negotiation of meaning between the producer of the source-language text (ST) and the reader of the target-language text (TT), both of whom exist within their own, different social frameworks. In studying this complex process at work, we are in effect seeking insights which take us beyond translation itself towards the whole relationship between language activity and the social context in which it takes place. Thus, much of what we shall have to say in this book about translating is equally applicable to other forms of language use, considered not in isolation but as part of social life.

As soon as we begin to consider the work of the translator, we are aware of the multifarious nature of the activity. The social conditions in which translations are produced vary considerably as between the work of literary, religious, scientific and technical translators, between staff and freelance translators, and so on. Social and institutional divisions, functional differences: none of these can be denied. Translating activity is undoubtedly highly diverse. But dwelling on these demarcations would mask the important similarities that exist between all types of translating. It is the task of the theorist to discern regularities and patterns of behaviour where these exist, to incorporate diversity of function within an overall model of the translating process. Kelly (1979: 226) suggests a functional approach:

It is only by recognizing a typology of function that a theory of translation will do justice to both Bible and bilingual cereal packet.

It is clear that in this case, variation of function is being referred to in the sense of contextually determined variation in language use. The predominant function of creative literature is not the same as that of an administrative memorandum or religious exegesis. But it will be important for us to operate with other, more subtle distinctions than these broad categories. On the one hand, different language functions, such as ‘conceding’, ‘deducing’, ‘suggesting’, may be discerned within literature, just as within other kinds of discourse. On the other hand, as Fowler (1986) convincingly argues, the boundary between ‘literature’ and ‘non-literature’ is an artificial one and, if ‘creative use of language’ is taken to be one of the criteria for recognition of the former, it can be shown that many non-literary texts display the same creative devices, used to the same ends, as in what is recognised as belonging to the category ‘literature’. In fact, it proves very difficult to devise criteria for distinguishing, in any systematic way, between what constitutes literary and non-literary discourse; whatever is said to characterise the one will also be present, to some degree at least, in the other. But once all texts are seen as evidence of a communicative transaction taking place within a social framework, the way is open to a view of translating which is not restricted to a particular field – religious, literary, scientific – but which can include such diverse activities as film subtitling and dubbing, simultaneous interpreting, cartoon translating, abstracting and summarising, etc. This is the view we adopt in this book. Our ability to recognise texts as instances of a type – exposition, argumentation, instruction – depends on our experience of previous instances of the same type, in other words, on our ability to recognise texts as signs. The way we recognise and respond to these signs is, as we shall see in Chapter 6, a regularity of language use which transcends boundaries of genre.

To introduce our topic of discourse and the translator, we propose to review some of the traditional issues in translation studies, as they emerge from commentaries on translation. The text definitively commits the translator, whose only outlet for commentary is then either the footnote or the translator's introduction. Whereas the former is limited in scope and has the accompanying disadvantage of drawing attention to the inadequacy of translation, the translator's commentary has always provided an outlet for rationalisation about the approach adopted or judgements made and an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the process of translating.

In this chapter, then, we shall be selective, relating our review to the central concern of this book: translating as a communicative process which takes place within a social context. In selecting a limited number of themes, we hope to make some tentative links between theoretical points to be made in later chapters and some of the views and stances adopted by commentators in the past. Each theme has to do with the position of the translator, either as a problem-solver or as the occupier of a social role. By relating these familiar themes to the notion of translation as communicative discourse, we hope to be able to move beyond the rather inconclusive nature of traditional debates on such issues.

PROCESS AND PRODUCT

It is in the nature of things that the target text displays only the translator's final decisions. Readers perceive an end-product, a result of a decision-making process; they do not have access to pathways leading to decisions, to the dilemmas to be resolved by the translator. What is available for scrutiny is the end-product, the result of translation practice rather than the practice itself. In other words, we are looking at translation as product instead of translating as process. The distinction is an important one, as Widdowson (1979: 71) points out. Bell (1987) suggests that the tendency to ignore the process involved in the act of translating lies behind the relative stagnation of translation studies in recent years. If we treat text merely as a self-contained and self-generating entity, instead of as a decision-making procedure and an instance of communication between language users, our understanding of the nature of translating will be impaired. It is a problem which besets all attempts to evaluate translations by analytic comparison of ST to TT, a product-to-product comparison which overlooks the communication process. Critiques of individual translations abound. But from the perspective of translation studies, what is needed is systematic study of problems and solutions by close comparison of ST and TT procedures. Which techniques produce which effects? What are the regularities of the translation process in particular genres, in particular cultures and in particular historical periods?

The view that underlies this book then, is of translation as a process, involving the negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of texts. In other words, the resulting translated text is to be seen as evidence of a transaction, a means of retracing the pathways of the translator's decision-making procedures. In the same way, the ST itself is an end-product and again should be treated as evidence of a writer's intended meaning rather than as the embodiment of the meaning itself. In translating metaphor, for example, there is little point in seeking to match target-language words with those in the ST in isolation from a consideration of the writer's whole world-view. Occurrences of metaphor have a cumulative effect which suggests a particular perception of reality and it is this which the translator seeks to capture.

In this sense, texts can be seen as the result of motivated choice: producers of texts have their own communicative aims and select lexical items and grammatical arrangement to serve those aims. Naturally, in translating, there are potentially two sets of motivations: those of the producer of the source text and those of the translator. Consequently, in the first half of this chapter we shall consider how translators respond to what they perceive as the motivations behind ST procedures; subsequently, we give consideration to the translator's own motivations.

OBJECTIVITY/SUBJECTIVITY

Inevitably, both translating and discussing translations involve making judgements. But can judgements about translations be made objectively? Recently, serious attempts have been made to establish translation criticism on a proper footing (e.g. Reiss 1971, Simpson 1975, House 1976, Wilss 1982). To replace the impressionism and unsubstantiated opinion which often characterises judgements about the merits and demerits of particular translations, these authors propose methodical and systematic criteria for evaluation, based on ST analysis and consideration of available translation procedures. But does this mean that subjectivity can at last be eliminated from translation assessment and that objective evaluations can be made by literary critic and translation teacher alike? There seems to be little prospect of this, given the nature of human language processing itself. Every reading of a text is a unique, unrepeatable act and a text is bound to evoke differing responses in different receivers. On this point, we agree with Reiss (1971: 107):

…any analysis, however concerned it may be to achieve total objectivity, ultimately amounts to interpretation.

(Our translation)

and with House (1976:64):

It seems to be unlikely that translation quality assessment can ever be completely objectified in the manner of the results of natural science subjects.

What can be done, however, is to elaborate a set of parameters for analysis which aim to promote consistency and precision in the discussion of translating and translations. A common set of categories is needed and a set of terms for referring to them, a metalanguage for translation studies. It is one of our aims in this book to suggest a model of the translation process based on just such a set of categories.

’LITERAL‘ VERSUS ‘FREE’

In the light of all this, let us re-examine some basic notions. The primary time-honoured debate concerns the degree of latitude the translator is permitted in representing the source text in translation. The literal’ versus ‘free’ controversy has been more or less a constant in translation studies, no matter how far back one goes. The extreme case is that referred to by the fourteenth-century translator Salah al-Din al-Safadi who, writing about earlier generations of Arab translators, complains that they

look at each Greek word and what it means. They seek an equivalent term in Arabic and write it down. Then they take the next word and do the same, and so on until the end of what they have to translate.

(Quoted in Badawi 1968: 33 – our translation)

Al-Safadi faults this method of translating on two counts:

1. It is erroneous to assume that one-for-one equivalents exist for all lexical items in Greek and Arabic.

2. The sentence structure of one language does not match that of another.

One could continue the list: word order, sentence length, ways of presenting information, and so on; all are language-specific. More fundamentally still, it is erroneous to assume that the meaning of a sentence or text is composed of the sum of the meanings of the individual lexical items, so that any attempt to translate at this level is bound to miss important elements of meaning. The arguments are, no doubt, familiar ones. Yet the debate continues even today and literal translation has its defenders. Newmark (1988: 68–69), who is careful to distinguish literal translation from word-for-word translation, maintains that

literal translation is correct and must not be avoided, if it secures referential and pragmatic equivalence to the original.

Pragmatic equivalence, however, as we shall see later, is frequently at variance with referential equivalence. Text 1A is taken from a multilingual advertisement for a well-known brand of after-shave.

Text 1As

DRAKKAR

Audacieux, franc et tenace

Bold, vigorous and tenacious

Kühn, freimutig und haftfest

Here, equivalence is sought not at referential level (e.g. franc does not have the same referential meaning as vigorous) but at the connotative level of the virile qualities of adventurers (the brand name in French denotes a Viking longboat). At this level franc, vigorous and freimütig (i.e. ‘free-spirited’) are indeed equivalent. Conversely, the German term haftfest, while relaying most of the referential meaning of tenaceltenacious – i.e. that the substance ‘clings’ – is less successful in conveying the desired connotations.

Of course, in this case we are looking at a particular kind of translating activity and our judgements are made in terms of what the text is trying to achieve. It is this fact which may lead us to a reassessment of the traditional ‘literal’ versus ‘free’ debate. The problem is that the issue is all too often discussed without reference to the context in which translating takes place; the social circumstances of translation are lost from sight. In fact, the beginnings of a solution to the problem will depend, to borrow a well-known sociolinguistic formula, on: who is translating what, for whom, when, where, why and in what circumstances?

FORMAL AND DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE

In this respect, Eugene Nida's (1964) reformulation of the problem in terms of types of equivalence appropriate to particular circumstances is a positive move. By distinguishing formal equivalence (closest possible match of form and content between ST and TT) and dynamic equivalence (principle of equivalence of effect on reader of TT) as ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• General Editor's Preface
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Standard Abbreviations
• 1. Issues and Debates in Translation Studies
• 2. Linguistics and Translators: Theory and Practice
• 3. Context in Translating: Register Analysis
• 4. Translating and Language as Discourse
• 5. Translating Text as Action: The Pragmatic Dimension of Context
• 6. Translating Texts as Signs: The Semiotic Dimension of Context
• 7. Intertextuality and Intentionality
• 8. Text Type as the Translator's Focus
• 9. Prose Designs: Text Structure in Translation
• 10. Discourse Texture
• 11. The Translator as Mediator
• Glossary of Terms
• List of Texts Quoted
• Bibliography
• Index