unit02 Translation Strategies

1、unit02 Translation Strategies02 Translation strategiesIf we were to sample what people generally take translationto be, the consensus would most probably be for a view of translating that describes the process in terms of such features as the literal rendering of meaning, adherence to form, and emph

2、asis on general accuracy. These observations would certainly be true of what translators do most of the time and of the bulk of what gets translated. These statements require much refinement and betray a strongly prescriptive attitude to translation. But they also the product of some of the central

3、issues of translation theory all the way from Roman times to the mid-twentieth century.FORM AND CONTENTRoman Jakobson makes the crucial claim that all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language (Jakobson 1959:238). So, to give an example, while modern British

4、English concepts might not exist in a different culture, that should not stop them being expressed in some way in the target language (TL). Jakobson goes on to claim that only poetry by definition is untranslatable since in verse the form of words contributes to the construction of the meaning of th

5、e text. Such statements express a classical dichotomy in translation between sense/content on the one hand and form/style on the other.sense formcontent stylethe sense may be translated, while the form often cannot. And the point where form begins to contribute to sense is where we approach untransl

6、atabilty. This clearly is most likely to be in poetry, song, advertising, punning and so on, where sound and rhyme and double meaning are unlikely to be recreated in the TL.T ask 2.1The spoken or written form of names in the Harry Potter books often contributes to their meaning. In Harry Potter and

7、the Chamber of Secrets, one of the evil characters goes by the name of Tom Marvolo Riddle, yet this name is itself a riddle, since it is an anagram of I am Lord V oldemort and reveals the characters true identity. Think how you might deal with this form-content problem in translation into another la

8、nguage.LITERAL AND FREEThe split between form and content is linked in many ways to the major polar split which has marked the history of western translation theory for two thousand years, between two ways of translating: literaland free. The origin of this separation is to be found in two of the mo

9、st-quoted names in translation theory, the Roman lawyer and writer Cicero and St Jerome, whotranslated the Greek Septuagint gospels into Latin in the fourth century. In Classical times, it was normal for translators working from Greek to provide a literal, word-for-wordtranslationwhich would serve a

10、s an aid to the Latin reader who, it could be assumed, was reasonably acquainted with the Greek source language. Cicero, describing his own translation of Attic orators in 46 BCE, emphasized that he did not follow the literal word-for-wordapproach but, as an orator, sought to preserve the general st

11、yle and force of the language (Cicero 46 BC/1960:364).Four centuries later, St Jerome described his Bible translation strategy as I render not word-for-word but sense for sense(Jerome 395/1997:25). This approach was of particular importance for the translation of such sensitive texts as the Bible, d

12、eemed by many to be the repository of truth and the word of God. A translator who did not remain trueto the officialinterpretation of that word often ran a considerable risk. Sometimes, as in the case of the sixteenth-century English Bible translator William Tyndale, it was the mere act of translati

13、on into the vernacular that led to persecution and execution.The literal and free translation strategies can still be seen in texts to the present day. ExamplesSuch a literal translation is not so common. Or, to put it another way, the term literal has tended to be used with a different focus, somet

14、imes to denote a TT which is overly close or influenced by the ST or SL. The result is what is sometimes known as translationese.Concept Box TranslationeseTo illustrate this, let us consider some typical examples of translated material which seem to defy comprehension. As you read through these TTs,

15、 try to identify features of the texts that strike you as odd, and reflect on whether problems of this kind are common in language you are familiar with. For example, what are we to make of the request for donation in this welfare organizations publicity leaflet?The concept of literalness that emerg

16、es from these examples is one of exaggeratedly close adherence on the part of the translator to the lexical and syntactic properties of the ST. Y et, once again, the literal-free divide is not so much a pair of fixed opposites as a cline:literal freeDifferent parts of a text may be positioned at dif

17、ferent points on the cline, while other variables, aswe shall see in the coming units, are text type, audience, purpose as well as the general translation strategy of the translator.T ask A2.2Reflect on examples of types of texts, audience, purpose or strategy that you have seen thathave required a

18、litera l translation. For instance, it may be presumed that a legal text, such asa law, a treaty, or the International Declaration of Human Rights, might require a much closer,more literal translation than a piece of poetry.T ask A2.3The issues raised by almost all the above examples are certainly s

19、emantic and syntactic in origin. Upon closer scrutiny, however, they tend to reveal deeper conceptual problems closely bound up with such factors as competence in the foreign language and awareness of the target culture.Reflect on how some of the above semantic or syntactic problems take on socio-cu

20、lturalvalues, and how you might go about the task of dealing with them in translation. COMPREHENSIBLITY AND TRANSLA TABILITYSuch literal translations often fail to take account of one simple fact of language and translation, namely that not all texts or text users are the same. Not all texts are as

21、serious as the Bible or the works of Dickens, nor are they all as pragmaticas marriage certificates or instructions on a medicine bottle. Similarly, not all text receivers are as intellectually rigorous or culturally aware as those who read the Bible or Dickens, nor are they all as utilitarianas tho

22、se who simply use translation as a means of getting things done. Ignoring such factors as text type, audience or purpose of translation has invariably led to the rather pedantic form of literalism, turgid adherence to form and almost total obsession with accuracy often encountered in the translation

23、s we see or hear day in day out. We have all come across translations where the vocabulary of a given language may well be recognizable and the grammar intact, but the sense is quite lacking.On the other hand, from the packaging describing the components of a food processor, is an example of a much

24、freer translation:T ask A2.4Look at the translations and reflect on the strategies employed by the translator to increase comprehensibility.The problem with many published TTs of the kind cited earlier is essentially one of impaired comprehensibility, an issue closely related to translatability. T r

25、anslatability is a relative notion and has to do with the extent to which, despite obvious differences in linguistic structure (grammar, vocabulary, etc.), meaning still be adequately expressed across languages. But, for thisto be possible, meaning has to be understood not only in terms of what the

26、ST contains, but also and equally significantly, in terms of such factors as communicative purpose, target audience and purpose of translation. This must go hand in hand with the recognition that, while there will always be intire chunks of experience and some unique ST values that will simply defea

27、t our best efforts to convey them across cultural gaps are in one way or another bridgeable. To achieve this, an important criterion to heed must be TT comprehensibility.Is everything translatable? The answer, to paraphrase Jakobson (1959/2000, see Text B1.1), is yes, to a certain extent. In the mor

28、e idiomatic renderings provided above, the target reader may well have been deprived of quite a hefty chunk of ST meaning. But what choice does the translator have? Such insights as it is an honour both to appeal for and to give to charity, both to issue and to accept an invitation, both to offer an

29、d to accept a glass of wine, both to live and to die, etc.are no doubt valuable. But what is the point in trying to preserve them in texts like fund-raising leaflets, adverts or political speeches if they are not going to be appreciated for what they are, i.e. if they do not prove to be equally significant to a target reader?It is indeed a pity that the target reader of the modern Bible has to settle for to make somebody ashamed of his behaviour when the Hebrew ST actually has to heap coal of fire on his head. (Nida and Taber 1969:2), with the ultimate aim, we sugges