Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Jan 11, PM. Jun 17, AM. Maite Jordan wants to read 50 books in the Reading Challenge. Maite Jordan joined the group Popsugar Reading Challenge Maite Jordan wants to read 50 books in the New! Track your progress in this reading challenge! Maite Jordan wants to read.
El siguiente libro de una serie que comenzaste: La Bruja 4. Un libro que involucra un atraco: La mala hierba 5. Un libro sobre la muerte o duelo: El color del silencio Un libro sobre el feminismo: Apegos feroces Un libro sobre la salud mental: Nada se opone a la noche Un libro que tomaste prestado o que se te dio como regalo: El hombre de tiza Un libro de dos autores: Silencios inconfesables Un libro de un autor local: La novia gitana Kent Haruf Un libro en el mar: Firmamento Un libro en otro planeta: Prostituto de extraterrestres Un libro sobre o en Halloween: Las Manzanas Un libro con personajes que son gemelos: El gran cuaderno Un libro mencionado en otro: Roseanna Irene.
Pierre Lemaitre Un libro de un club de libros de celebridades: En un bosque muy oscuro Un ganador anterior de Goodreads Choice Awards: Antes de que llegaras Un libro con una portada fea: Ordesa Un libro de un autor con el mismo nombre o apellido que usted: Tiempo de albaricoques Una microhistoria Tantos lobos Nov 13, AM.
Maite Jordan rated a book really liked it. No culpable by Viveca Sten Read 2 times. It's easy to play along, and we have a t Welcome to the Reading Challenge - a new list and a new challenge style for maximum participant success! It's easy to play along, and we have a three tier challenge to meet varying reading habits. Even if you don't finish, we hope you'll hang out and share your books with us.
Join us for a low-key, low-pressure challenge that just might push you beyond your regular reading boundaries. All are welcome! Peter Newmark I just want to say that I agree with most of what you said. And to bear in mind that with certain texts — notably the kind of texts I was considering when I was talking about social translation — it is not enough to satisfy the consumer, the client and all the rest of it, and actually this is a criticism of society. Now over to Mac, please. Gerard McAlester A couple of points. First of all, yes I agree about asking for comments on the translations.
One then can assess the translation according to dif- ferent kinds of criteria: one — as to how well the translator has managed to do what he set out to do, as expressed in his commentary; but another would be, was his strategy — his tactics — were they wise in this, was he setting out to do the right thing? This is a totally different matter. The other point is something that Simon suggested. I have to be accountable to my students, to say: Why is this not good enough?
How many mistakes can I make and it would still be good enough? And what kind of mistakes can they be?
Albrecht Neubert Very briefly, I think we are in the situation of having the cake and eating it. I think a lot of what Peter says is irrefutable, if taken in a university context. If we teach translation, we can decide upon the para- meters of the assessment, and we are the ones to speak — because we are responsible for the academic developments of our students — in fact, we all fundamentally speak as teachers.
If there is this consumerist society, deciding upon how the translator will earn his money, we can try to prepare our students to react to this in a sensible way. But most of what we say about Translation Theory is really based on our experience as teachers, and rightly so. We certainly incorporate aspects of the real world, but the university is not the real world, it will never be, and should never be.
In most of our discussions we are talking about what translation is, but actually what we mean is what translation is in the classroom, what we attempt to prepare the students for. And I know this, because whenever, at international conferences on some aspect of Translation Studies, the subject is brought up everyone looks the other way.
Peter Newmark Many teachers are translators. Gunilla Anderman I think that John would like to say something. This is the point which Mike Shields made. Peter, would you like to add something? Peter Newmark Well I said it! Gunilla Anderman Thank you Peter. And I think that may be a good note on which to conclude the discussion on the subject of Translation in the New Millennium. Notes 1. Fairclough, N. Harlow: Longman. Brown, G. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
These were students of translation at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Yeats, W. H Auden The Nature of Translation First then, the process of translation, originally perhaps engraved in stone or parchment, perhaps around the third millennium BC as Eugene Nida says, usually so poorly defined in the dictionaries: to convert … but what?
As I have said, there is no such thing as one basic or classical text that defines translation, but instinctively, I know there are basically two kinds of translation. The rest can be expressed in a ways: be, arrive, see, come, join, meet, find, go, etc. How the message is translated is not important, but it should be clear and succinct. Secondly, I see a poem or a legal document.
In all three text types — the message, the hypothetical legal document, the poem — I want to know exactly what it says and means, and in the case of the poem, a magical combination of all the resources of language, how it sounds. Further, the form of a translation may change depending on its func- tion. Thirdly, if the TL readership is in a third or fourth world country, the translation may have to combine explanation with the transfer of the original meaning. Lastly, a dense and closely reasoned original may have to be interpreted as well as translated, outside if not inside the text, if the readership is going to be enlightened.
These four types of translation, the first keeping the func- tion of the original, three with changed functions, have always been possible and practised. The first describes the sphere of the mind and of language, the second that of reality and the world. Although most modern dictionaries Collins, New Oxford, Encarta — all described as encyclopaedic dictionaries are crossing the divide, it is I think useful for the translator to retain the distinction between the dic- tionary, the word in small letters, the general object or concept, and the encyclopaedia, the capitalised name or title, the singular, the particular, the individual.
All texts are no longer sacred in principle, nor is absolute fidelity due to them, in the sense that they were sacred to the one time doyen of interpreters at the League of Nations; Jean Herbert would have committed himself to the death to any kind of text provided he had signed the contract. Further, nor do I think, like the Skopos theorists, that texts have lost their inviolability because they are just a means to an end, which is determined by the initi- ator. When a text is deficient, it cannot be sacred, but a valid text is in principle to be respected.
I would define it as a text that is prima facie logical, factually accurate, ethically sound, and elegantly written. Where a text is deficient in one or more of these factors, and is liable to provoke or mislead its putative readership, the translator would be advised to correct it if it is an information text, or, if it is a historical or authoritative text, to gloss it, outside the text in a preface or, if within the text, briefly in square brackets with a [sic], to show she disowns it.
My definition of a valid text is in principle objective, though subjective factors do lie on the edges of moral and aesthetic principles. Fourthly, the aesthetic level. It goes without saying that a valid text must first be rid of misprints, gaps, grammatical and lexical errors, inadvertent repetitions, redundancies, uncoordinated and ponderous paragraphs, the absence of which deficiencies some translation critics hail as evidence of a deep knowledge of a language.
But this is not the point at all. These are all snippets or scrap examples from the literature, assembled by Kenneth Hudson. At present all captions are in French and Dutch only, and visitors are few. When I suggested to the proprietors that the captions should also be translated into English, two English old-style BBC visitors who were addressing each other loudly and self-consciously in French, protested at the arrogance of the English me wanting everyone to learn their language.
So I asked them if they expected the Japanese or the Russians to learn French if they were keen on Magritte. Later the proprietor told me she would have the English translations done. Further, translating has become increasingly and intensively globalised and is an integral part of the expansion of travel, tourism, and the service industries, and translators often have to be found in situ.
These are more examples: Tidy and cheerful places of recreation refresh the visitor after all his efforts; The rococo wing materialises verwirklicht? Admittedly such slightly deficient texts are unlikely to deter visitors and may amuse them, but a self-respecting municipal authority should not produce shoddy and deficient texts, and I suggest that it should hire one near-bilingual reviser to every five service translators, which would at least at last legitimise the status of service translation within informa- tion translation.
Bear in mind, however, that intelligence and common sense in translation are always likely to be a greater value than natural- ness of language. The texts to be translated are government regulations, statutes, official reports, interviews with asylum seekers, statements by social service and health officials, CVs, applications for accommodation and services.
Social translation contrasts with literary and non-literary translation, which are as different as chalk and cheese, even if, like chalk and cheese, they sometimes look the same. Social translation, like imaginative litera- ture, is essentially concerned with individuals and groups and often brings home the moral of a literary allegory , but, like non-literature, its purpose is to describe them factually and accurately. The peculiar linguistic features of a social text for translation are I think its institutional terms, including its acronyms, and its words adjec- tives, adverbs, adjectival nouns, descriptive verbs of human qualities.
No Global Communication Without Translation 63 There are three special factors that affect words denoting human qualities such as nice, nasty, and values, for example, right and wrong. First, as Tytler pointed out in , words of quality like nice and nasty have no precise equivalents in most foreign languages, particularly when they are, like these examples, somewhat colloquial.
Secondly, though many may originate from a common medieval Latin, and designate universals, they are affected in the course of time by cul- tural and regional factors, and sometimes change substantially in meaning. So here is where most of the famous false friends and deceptive cognates come from. Thirdly, words of human quality veer between positive, sometimes neutral, and negative attitudes which define the whole tone of a text, and the translator has to sense the appropriate one.
Looking at the epoch-making Universal Declaration of Human Rights, more than 50 years after its publication, one notes that French and Italian still stick to the historical Rights of Man, which Canadian French has changed to Rights of the Person. The English version has the three classical untranslatable keywords privacy, home and fair from fair play.
I propose now to review the official translations of these words, which have such powerful meanings outside their contexts. For home, there is French domicile, Spanish casa, Italian domicilio, Russian shilishcha, dom; only German keeps the full denotative and pragmatic meanings in Heim watered down in nach Hause ; the others alternate between general words and legal terms. Again, the other languages shift to a more formal register, and the educated Billigkeit comes closest to the English.
For the rest, note that standard, that is, a recognised level, is a unique and indispensable English word other languages flounder with variants of ideal and even task and target. We should be so lucky. Later Modes of Translation I am not qualified to discuss the various modes of machine or com- puter aided translation but it is evident that, unless a text consists mainly of standardised language, pre-editing in the SL and post-editing in the TL will always be required if the job is to become worth the money, which is a main consideration in a general text. Terminology being standardised is closely related to MT machine translation , and this field too is developing as fast as the computer generations.
The relative importance of words and music in opera, oratorio, cantata and song is always an issue. Normally, the words are the essential key to the meaning which lies entirely in the music. Thus the sound of the words and the quality of the writing are not as important as the straight meaning of the text or of the translation. Recently a BBC producer defended this omission on the ground that artists do not like seeing listeners with heads buried in programmes.
Personally I do not think one can appreciate or understand vocal music of any kind without knowing the words and texts well. A few years ago such appreciation was enhanced by the introduction of surtitles, the translations of opera texts projected above or alongside the stage; this has been extended to foreign plays, and I hope Lieder texts and their translations will soon appear on personal videos.
They will need sensitive translators like Richard Stokes, who has already compiled admirable translations of German selected by Fischer-Dieskau and French songs. Unlike other avant-garde composers, Philip Glass cf. Gorecki is the reverse of tedious, but it is not serious music. Nevertheless the audience would be lost without the surtitled trans- lations. The Assessment of Translations Given the increase in types and quantities of translations throughout the world, and, lagging behind, the increased number of Schools of Trans- lation with their degrees, postgraduate degrees, and diplomas, it is not helpful to continuously leave the subject of translation assessment to isolated individuals like Juliane House, with a few chapters in Hatim and Mason , Dollerup and Lindegaard , me, and one or two others.
Even the examination marking scheme of the Institute of Lin- guists International Diploma in Translation is not generally known or it is ignored, and examination boards and examiners are not aware of the literature. In any event, what is required in this or that national educa- tional system are separate conferences of literary and non-literary trans- lators and teachers, with the participation respectively of publishers and employers, for the purpose of establishing some minimum areas of agreement on the assessment of exams. Questions to be discussed should include the definition and importance of linguistic and factual accuracy; the weight of text and word in various text-types; the relative impor- tance of trouvailles happy renderings and various categories of mistakes howlers, barbarisms, solecisms, faults, errors, slips all in relation to the commonness of the word and its referential importance in the text; the context-independence of a translation; the fluency or stiffness of a translation.
Further, normal deviations should be distin- guished from creative deviations, which are pluses to be regarded as trouvailles: 1 Replacing any poor writing in information texts, technical reports instructions, and publicity by fresh writing. Here I think the creative deviation is mandatory. It is time the imbalance is corrected. New York: Random House. Austen, Jane Persuasion. London: Zodiac Press. Brooke, Rupert The Collected Poems. London: Cape. Brookner, Anita A Family Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arendt ed. Illuminations pp. New York: Schocken Books. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Campbell, Stuart Translation into the Second Language. London: Longman. London: Routledge. London: Macmillan. Neubert ed. Newmark, Peter A Textbook of Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stokes, R. London: Gollancz. Tytler, Alexander Essay on the Principles of Translation. Amsterdam: Ben- jamins. Zeldin, Theodore Translation and civilization. Taylor, E.
McMorran and G. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications. Of course, the fidelity or, if you like, the loyalty owed to the original does not necessarily force translators to produce nothing but a mere copy. It is true the poetic quality of the original may, on the face of it, have disappeared.
The author has certainly not disappeared. As much as possible of the truth of the original is kept, though in rough, unhewn shape to be subtly sublimated by the poet who transforms this raw material into new poetic grandeur. Yet translating poetry is never tantamount to producing something entirely new.
Similarly, though with quite a different effect, translations for pri- marily informative purposes may reflect SL features to an often excessive degree, seemingly marring TL conventions. They have to get a glimpse of the linguistic and stylistic usages familiar to their new customers by reading through the lines of the often literal translations of typical advertisements produced in the target area.
It is perhaps a moot point whether the latter tech- nique is, strictly speaking, still translating, or what Brian Harris, referring to prevalent practice in bilingual Canada, has called co-writing Harris, However varied the tasks translators have to cope with in their profession, in the past as well as in the present, they are doing a service both to society and to individuals and groups with varying interests. And this service, bridging gulfs between speakers of different languages and members of contrasting cultures, puts translators in a double-bind.
They have to serve two masters, though they often enough know only too well that one of the two, the SL author or the TL audience, may not always get an even share. But a share it is, whatever translators may think is their own achievement in the process. They are mediators who would not be needed had there not been an activating or motivating impetus from a source that, for whatever reason, calls for a target text TT in the context of another language. The consequence is a functional shift: a new need for an old text.
Originals, however perfectly they may have served in their old environment, have to be redone, even at the cost of losing something. Reaching an entirely new audience that has cried out for them or that they are targeted to reach is made possible by the unique achievement of the translator. And it is precisely as a result of performing this multifaceted service that translations tend to vary in kind, but never in nature. Its creativity is derived. Although he has pointed out more recently that he would no longer use these two categorical terms with the ori- ginal rigour, I think their conceptual core, i.
Are there? Or have we not rather two ways of looking at basically one kind of translation demanding different methods to solve different translation problems within one particular translation? But I have always been a bit wary of its methodological stance. I think semantic and communicative are perfectly legitimate and necessary pointers to certain aspects of the trans- lation process.
But, and this is my point, they refer to quite different levels of analysis. In particular, semantic translation highlights the attempt of the translator to grasp the full meanings expressed in the source text ST and to render as much as possible into the TL version. Of course, this will always remain an approximation. Linguistic meanings, as was convincingly shown by Firth ; cf. Though contextualised by use, they are intricately linked to the total meaning potential held in store by the SL.
Carrying meanings across and trying to recover them in the trans- lation involves unavoidable losses because the new expressions are part and parcel of another semantic system. Jacob Grimm, more than years ago, expressed this truth by a very telling nautical metaphor. Experienced trans- lators have often worked wonders by using a vast repertoire of procedures, meant to reduce irrevocable semantic losses to a minimum.
Adding accessories and removing padding can alter how the helmet was intended to function and potentially interfere with its performance. The winery has taken a dynamic stance in marketing its product at home and abroad. The company details how particular stone, regarded as one of the most popular gemstones in the world, appears in various cultures. Envuelve tus labios en un rico color satinado con esta barra que te llena profundamente. Despite our political views, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, skin colors, genders, disabilities, socioeconomic statuses, and cultural differences that we learn to see everyone as human, as one.
Communicative translation, by contrast, is not about procedures. Its con- ceptual status is on a much higher level of abstraction. Every text, whether it is a poem or a prosaic message, is a communicative event. Literary as well as non-literary translations have communicative intentions or func- tions. I would think, however, that depth or comprehensiveness are matters of degree, at least with regard to translation.
Of course, the world of texts per se in any language without regard to translation represents an enormous range of types. And one can make a case that literary texts are in a way apart from all other text tokens because they are mimetic. They create a world of their own. Though they may be linked in many ways to the actual world of their creators, they are fundamentally fictitious, creations of the mind, subtle sublimations of reality outside and within us. Yet once materialised into spoken or written symbols, they communicate some- thing, as a rule, to an audience or, if need be, only to their own creator, who had no other persons but just self-expression in mind.
And it is as objects of communication that texts, any text, can be subjected to trans- lation. All translations, in this sense, are communicative acts. Of course, Newmark, in coining the term, had something quite differ- ent in mind. And it should exhibit all the linguistic and stylistic features used by typical target communicators. In short, communicative translation should read like normal communication in the TL. Thus for Newmark, as far as I can see, communicative, just as semantic, denotes attributes of trans- lations.
These are actually semiotic relations, having to do with texts and either meanings or users. The two approaches may rather be seen to be complementary. Semantic choices are filtered by communicative qua pragmatic intentions. Just as in the ST the meanings are the underpinnings of its communicative function, their reconstruction in the TT should serve the same purpose, provided the translation is supposed to have the same intent as the original.
A communicatively satisfy- ing translation can just as well be semantically congruous. At least, there is always a scale applying to units of translation from single words to phrases up to the whole text. To render them into the TT translators negotiate semantic-cum-pragmatic choices. At the same time semantic deficiencies have to be consistently eliminated without jeopardising communicative effects, i.
The practice of poetic translation as well as of non-literary or technical translation abounds in examples of how such responsible matching of semantic and communi- cative qua pragmatic concerns can be achieved. He derives this translation type from social texts. Evidently, Newmark isolates a general translation category from a particular genre of texts. Making statements about, for instance, the translatability of words in these texts can result in somewhat tenuous distinctions.
After all, is there really a particular use of lexical items, such as of adjectives and nouns denoting a quality which is idiosyncratic? It goes, of course, without saying that translating a UN document has to take into account the relevant textual requirements. A technical text, for instance, contains many tech- nical terms, which demand from translators the technical expertise to render them into available technical equivalents.
The need often arises that loans or technically acceptable paraphrases have to be used. Thus technical terms are an attribute of technical translation. Similarly, in the past poetic translation was characterised by poetic diction. But long since this has given way to practically every kind of word, everyday to highly abstract or even technical, being used in poetry and hence its translation.
Actually, it is a moot point to assert that there is a restriction as to which words should be used in a particular translation type. Instead, the institutionalised among them certainly abound in technical words, typically employed in the vari- ous institutional settings, often historical or culturally determined.
Making absolute statements about the translatability of those words is, I think, quite problematic. Quite apart from the implication that an irrecon- cilable lexical gulf could impair the universal validity of, say, the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, claims about the untranslatability of keywords cannot possibly be maintained. It is, actually, but a common dictionary equivalent, quite a poor rendering of the UN document.
Translation can achieve this because the contextualisation occurs already in the original, with the translator making expert use of this pervasive feature of mono- lingual, in fact all, communication. This loan from semiotics would also put the term on the same footing as semantic, facilitating the use of the two attributes as either meaning centred or user centred.
But I am afraid communicative has acquired at least just as many meanings, which pair it rather inadequately with semantic, the latter being invariably involved in any communicative act. Incidentally, the four attested quotations all translate easily into German: e. This reading is corroborated by examples two and three, provided they occur in a social text.
Is there perhaps semantic overlapping between senses 1 and 2, which is not made explicit in the translation but is a consequence of the context supplied by the genre? London: Oxford University Press. London and Glasgow: Collins. Firth, John Rupert Papers in Linguistics: — London: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Grimm, Jacob Reden in der Akademie.
Neumann und H. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Harris, Brian Co-writing: A Canadian technique of communicative equiva- lence. Fremdsprachen, Beiheft II pp. Neubert, Albrecht Text-bound translation teaching and the prototype view. Wilss and G. Newmark, Peter Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Palmer, Frank Robert ed. London and Harlow: Longmans. Random House Dictionary of the English Language 2nd edn. Paris: Didier. North Haven: Catbird Press. The definition appears almost casually, as a part explanation of why it is that translation can be divided into literary and non-literary because original writing can be either fictional or factual but it strikes me as profound and rich in implication, the more so, perhaps, because in his paper Newmark leaves it dangling in a state of tantalising under- elaboration.
To be sure, con- comitant with this focus is another: a focus on the creative process by which the translation comes to exist as a purported reflection, and this must also be dealt with. But, in both aspects, the reflection of the ST seems to me the very basis of translation, a view which I know can seem reactionary.
I think that it is not, though, once we sweep away a few particularly obscurant cobwebs from our notion of equivalence, and I think that careful consideration of the notions of meaning and of how communication with language proceeds in general might help us in this respect. In the following section, I will reflect on this characteristic of language use. However, the extent to which we rely on the past, and the nature of what it is we rely on are both open to question. The reliance on what we have learnt in the past cannot be exclusive, because exclusive attention to past performance could not enable us to cope with the unexpected in linguistic encounters, as we must so fre- quently do.
And what we bring to each new encounter, however supple- mented as the encounter progresses, cannot be a highly elaborated, fixed system which mature, adult speakers have acquired and which they then apply to each and every case thenceforth. Before every linguistic encounter, we adjust our expectations of what is to happen in light of what we know about the participants in the encounter and the circumstances in which it occurs. This understanding of the nature of linguistic interaction derives from Donald Davidson ; it can be formalised in Figure 5.
These are the so-called Prior Theories held by speaker and hearer. For the prior theory has in it all the features special to the idiolect of the speaker that the interpreter is in a position to take into account before the utterance begins … an interpreter must be expected to have quite different prior theories for different speakers. Davidson, —1 In addition, each participant may intend the other to use a somewhat different theory than the one they expect the other to be prepared to use.
This phenomenon can be very visible in translational situations, when for example a translator carefully prepares a reader of a translation to under- stand a phrase which they might not be prepared in advance to compre- hend fully. David UK : ST p. Finally, each participant will end up using a theory to actually inter- pret. These last two theories are the so-called Passing Theories and of them Davidson has the following to say: A passing theory is not a theory of what anyone except perhaps a philosopher would call an actual natural language. Of course things previously learned were essential to arriving at the passing theory, but what was learned could not have been the passing theory.
This view may be less controversial than might at first appear. Whatever model will do for this will be some way from what- ever is recorded in your average grammar and dictionary of English, Swahili, Inuktitut, or whatever, and it seems pretty clear that whatever type of reality we might care to assign to language systems, as recorded in dictionaries and grammar books, however pragmatically oriented and alive to issues of language in use they may be, we would be mistaken if we were to consider them sole or even significant guides, however implicit or subliminal their presence, in actual situations of language use.
What might happen in actual speech encounters can be theorised or modelled using the rather formal notion of the function, or the softer notion of the relationship. We might say, with Lewis that meaning is a function having as its integers the speaker, the hearer, a time, a place, and a more extensive set of circumstances; or we can say that meaning is a relationship that exists, momentarily of course, between all of these.
In this view, meaning is used deferentially to future users, not to past users, and past usage becomes a background against which linguistic items participate in meaning relationships formed by the momentary fusion of speaker, hearer, and situation. Since these are ever new, language use is ever and inherently forward looking. Notice that ramifications of this critique of the concept of the language system extend into corpus linguistics.
Not that this in any way invalidates corpus linguistics or the study of grammar and lexis; it merely invites us to reconsider the ontological status of their objects and products cf. What we need to know now is how all of this impacts on the theory of translation. The Impact on the Theory of Translation Most obviously, the view of human linguistic communication just pro- pounded has implications for the notion of equivalence. If each instance of meaning is unique because it results from all of the features of the momentary speech situation, then it cannot be replicated whether in the same or another language.
When we speak of translational equivalence, therefore, we cannot mean the kind of ideal notion which Toury in any case dismissed as unobtainable more than 20 years ago. Rather, some- thing like his alternative notion of the actual relationship between target text TT and ST must be at issue. For Toury, the TT oriented approach to equivalence is argued mainly on pragmatic grounds.
Unless we view equivalence thus, he contends, descriptive studies will end up having no objects to describe if the ideal equivalence, which becomes the defining feature of translation, is unobtainable, then what we call translations are never real examples of the kind. Further, whereas Toury insists that his TT oriented view of Translation Theory is not intended for application in translation peda- gogy, I would suggest that it must be, if pedagogy is to prepare future practitioners safely for reality.
The difficulty, of course, lies in devis- ing exercises to prepare students for what we do not know they will meet; but we may at least assume that an emphasis on strategies rather than on pattern practice is more likely to be beneficial and that we should strive, for example, to use corpora to help students become creative translators rather than tell them that they will find in corpora patterns for emulation cf. Finally for now , the conception of translation just outlined obviates the need for a Transfer Postulate cf.
Toury, 34—5 and this is desir- able given the extreme difficulty associated with the transfer metaphor applied to linguistic studies cf. Reddy, Speakers of the same language can go on the assumption that for them the same expressions are to be interpreted in the same way, but this does not indicate what justifies the assumption.
In Translation Studies proper, too, there exists a long tradition of considering translation to be different not in kind but merely in degree of complexity from non-translational cases of language use. Nor, we might add, is the philosophical literature any help in this respect. What Makes Translation Special When it comes to discussing the transfer mechanism with which decomposition and recomposition are amplified to become translation, Nida has relatively little to say: If we understood more precisely what happens in this transfer mechanism, we should be better able to pinpoint some sources of the difficulty persons have in interpreting from one language to another.
One thing we do know, however — that the translator must not only discover corresponding symbols with which to communicate the message in [the target language TL ], but must also organize these symbols in the form required by the [TL]. Nida, Advances in psycholinguistics and discourse and text analysis offer Bell a more sophisticated vocabulary and more elaborate models than were available to Nida ; but the basic understanding of what translation has that monolingual language comprehension and language production do not have has not altered.
Bell 44—60 models the translation process as a conjunction of text analysis and text synthesis. He is of course aware that if some information required by the TL is missing from the ST, the translator must exercise inventive- ness. I now think that there is a third factor that is probably unique to the translational case, namely the need for the translator to control the interaction between the two sets of language habits he or she has formed in the past. Obviously, there is such inter- action in the language-mind of every bilingual person in every linguistic encounter that they have.
This prominence must be simultaneously exploited so that the fact of the other set does not inhibit understanding of the ST; and controlled so that it does not exert a detrimental influence on the creation of the TT. I assume that this ability can be enhanced by translator training and education. It should come as no surprise that the fact of the ST is considered significant by many writers on translation when that activity is discussed in relation to non-translation, and indeed none of the efforts at accounting for what is special to translation discussed in this section is spectacular nor are the findings startling.
In the next and final section I would like to consider whether the forward looking focus of which I have been extolling the virtues in the sections above will take us any further. When I sat down to write this paper, I had only a fairly inexplicit idea of what exactly I wanted to say in it. I had neither a series of clear con- cepts with clear relationships between them in mind, ready for expres- sion, nor a full representation of a text readily available as information to create my paper would that academic writing happened like that!
But a ST may provide the translator with a clearer discourse framework and a clearer set of expectations of what is to come in the TT than the somewhat vague stirrings of intent that guide a writer of an original; and it is possible that this framework and these expectations are very clearly, if momentarily, elaborated for those chunks of the ST which the translator processes as translation units.
The imposing presence that is the ST is obviously both liberating and constricting; but some past contemplation overemphasises the constric- tion and under-elaborates the liberation which the ST provides for the translator. In enabling the translator to save on invention, the ST frees his or her creative abilities to write with the future in mind.
The translator is given the luxury of being able to contemplate at some length the ST with all its levels and layers of significance and impact. This is a major advantage that the translator has over the original writer, and it may go some way towards compensating for the many difficulties involved in the control of language habits I discussed above. The ST is an important and parti- cularly clearly defined aspect of the past that contributes to the creation of a prior theory for the language encounter to come: the creation of the TT for the future co-participants in that encounter.
When a translator exploits this luxury to the full, a TT reader who also knows the ST often discovers aspects of it that past readings had not made available. This phenomenon, in turn, illustrates the forward looking nature of language use with particular poignancy. I think that this aspect of translation should be emphasised more to students, readers, and critics of trans- lation as a phenomenon which makes it worthwhile, always and repeatedly, to look forward to the translation as a particularly dynamic, revealing reflection of and on an aspect of human activity.
References Bell, R. London and New York: Longman. Chomsky, N. Dordrecht: Foris. Davidson, D. Reprinted from Dialectica 27, —28 in , Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation pp. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grandy and R. Looking Forward to the Translation 85 Lewis, D. Meetham, A. Oxford: Pergamon. Newmark, P. Nida, E. Leiden: E. Reddy, M. Ortony ed. Metaphor and Thought pp. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Toury, G. In In Search of a Theory of Translation pp.
Amsterdam and Phila- delphia: John Benjamins. Vienne, J. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1, 51—9. Kaindl eds Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amster- dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. They are not, for the most part, my thoughts, and they were not written about translation as such. They are instead about human communication, or language, or thinking, but they all bear on translation, particularly on understanding. Some things are more basic than others. I consider those which are discussed here quite basic to the intellectual life of a translator.
They were also quite exciting to me when I encountered them, and they still are. They were, in a sense, unexpected discoveries. I read and talked and listened with translation in mind, and it has been both stimulating and profitable to do so. I should perhaps say that the relevance of the thoughts which I am presenting may not be immediately apparent. Consider them.
See if they do not help you to get the process and the work of translation into perspective. And add to them. It is quite possible that the insights you have acquired from the practice of translation, and also from keeping translation in mind as you move through your days, will fill in some basic part of this picture. It seems obvious enough, now, but when he said it, it was something of a shock for a particular community.
Though he was addressing the scholarly community of Oxford University, he had in mind the much larger and more dispersed community of linguists, who attempt to study language scientifically. This led him and others of similar intellectual disposition to consider the fluid, changing way language is used by people, consciously and unconsciously, to achieve their ends.
Beyond the Information Given Jerome Bruner is associated, in my experience, with the idea that people bring quite complex theories of human behaviour and human values to all their interactions with others. He began with the study of babies learning language. They were not supposed to have anything in their heads — they had just arrived, after all — but they do.
According to Bruner, their young minds are ready to receive and organise information about the world, and within a very short time they begin to develop strategies for understanding and manipulating experience. Clues To my mind, Carlo Ginzburg, the Italian historian of the Middle Ages, has rendered an enormous service by showing how to focus on and think about minuscule clues to human meaning — marks, if you will — which people leave unintentionally on the things they do and say and write.
The capacity which mankind developed to read the clues the animals unintentionally leave, he argues, has provided us with the ability to interpret many forms of human experience, specifically human experience, that we cannot ourselves have had or have observed first hand: what historians study, what paleontologists study, what psy- chologists study, and even what detectives study — experiences beyond our direct knowledge but accessible to us if we make use of both the clues unintentionally left in the record and our venatic, sense-making skills by which we can piece together again the elements into a story that makes human sense to us.
Collingwood, the philosopher of history, was very concerned to learn how to discover what really went on at historical moments that were only ascertainable, apparently, from the broken and dispersed remains of archaeological artefacts. The idea is that whatever people were doing then, they were doing it with the same kind of minds and the same kinds of human needs and concerns that we would have had and still have today. That means that if you can just recreate the question or concern that was in the minds of the people of that moment and experience, if you can just get an idea of what they were trying to achieve, you can then make a sensible estimation of what they were doing with the resources at their disposal and what strategies they brought to bear on the problems they confronted.
The artefacts take on meaning, then, in terms of the human issues of the moment. If you will, this is the argument against literalism in historical interpretation and in translation. Reciprocity The French sociologist, Marcel Mauss, whose work is considered funda- mental today in the field of social anthropology, captured a universal of human relations, which is that human interaction is reciprocal Mauss, It is not always that you give a gift if you are given one, but that somehow, some way, sometime, you find a way to reciprocate for the things done for you or to you — that is, for both positive things and negative things.
Translation of Culture E. Evans-Pritchard is a crucial figure in the development of social anthropology in the English-speaking world. Before, much of the writing about other peoples was simply a collection of unexplained exotica: shocking rituals, strange practices, irrational behaviour of creatures not fully human. Since Evans-Pritchard there has been a concerted attempt to understand these same rituals, practices, and behaviour in such a way as to grasp the human experience, to see the human problems and perplexities, to reduce the false exoticism that prevents us from understanding people who are fundamentally like ourselves, but whose lives are shaped — both facilitated and constrained — by circumstances different from ours.
Translating Thought I should perhaps try to show how these insights, from such diverse fields as linguistics, psychology, history, philosophy, sociology and anthro- pology, bear on translating. It says only part of what is meant. You have to remember that you are reading a necessarily incomplete and imperfect rendering — and this only in language — of something that someone wanted to say to someone else, and probably did say in the many complex ways human communication is achieved.
You trans- late the words and the text, but your words must point to the human experience to which the original words and text point. You do so, of course, in terms of your own language and society, so you must take care not to introduce that distortion into the translation, but if you exercise discipline and reason carefully about your own responses to what you see and read and to the texts you translate, you will come closer to the human truth of the experience on which the texts are based.
You must still translate the words. Look for those clues, see what patterns they form, and make use of them in your translation. Much that seems not to make sense on first reading can be resolved by paying close attention to the detail — what is included, what is left out, why this rather than that word was chosen. You leave such clues your- self. Make sensible use of those others leave.
You will want these things to be present in your mind as you work, and if possible in the mind of the reader of your translation. In the context of the original, there was something before and there will be something after the text you have in your hands. You are translating one step in something that stretches back in time and forward in time, and what you do should suggest that kind of human continuity, where people are speaking to other people about things that, for some reason, they have cared about. They live in language, they live with texts, and they live through human expression of all kinds.
Translators must remain mentally, and I think also physically, alert to their own experience and expression as well as to that of others. This applies to all that they experience and hear and read. It is true that their work is in some senses normative — they must find translation solutions to the problems such that their readership will understand — but their disposition, I think, must be fundamentally receptive, empirical, integrative.
If translators reflect on these experiences, keeping translation in mind, I believe they will find that their understanding is sufficient for the task, and their experience of translating abundant and deeply satisfying. With Translation in Mind 91 Notes 1. It is, of course, not the case that all speakers and writers strain to speak truly or objectively.
I have dealt with some aspects of this issue in Morris The epigraph to T. Beidelman ed. The Translation of Culture: Essays to E. Del Llano, Ivonne M. References Alvar, Manuel Del glosario al diccionario automatizado. Beidelman, T. London: Tavistock. Anglin ed. New York: W. Collingwood, Robin George An Autobiography. Ginzburg, Carlo Clues: Roots of an evidential paradigm. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Harris, Roy Communication and Language. Oxford: Claren- don Press. Lienhardt, R. Godfrey Getting your own back: Themes in Nilotic myth. Beattie and R. Evans-Pritchard by his Former Oxford Colleagues.
Morris, Marshall What problems? On learning to translate. In George Wolf ed. New Departures in Linguistics. New York and London: Garland. The first is relative: descriptive, historical, socio-cultural, it sees translation as a product of its culture and its time, as a component of another — the TL literature — written to meet the requirements of new readers … The second view of the product is critical and evaluative, and requires a continuous comparison of the translation with the original and a verification of correspondences.
Both in its original English versions, and its numerous translations, The Alhambra or Tales of the Alhambra, or Legends of the Alhambra 1 has been repeatedly published for over a century in complete or abridged fragmentary editions.
Quite a feat, and quite a challenge for translation studies TS targeteers and sourcerers alike. Both the publishers and the author of the introduction insisted that the Putnam edition, the last revision of the tales signed by Irving before his death, be the source text ST for this new translation. For J. Mainly because it opened up the path for myriad editions and translations, all bearing the same title but potentially different, or so one was led to assume.
Already in my disguise as a targeteer, I immediately started looking for different editions of the ST, with a view to comparing them with our given ST. In parallel to this, I searched for Spanish editions and dis- covered a never-ending story. For every year if not month consulted in the various databases, new editions cropped up. Tracing back previous translations, and trying to find out where it all had started and how, was from then on my goal.
All the original texts which were identified were considered important in the survey, simply because the diversity and varied typology of exist- ing translations into Spanish was a reflection of the variety of originals, only amplified and heightened. The first American edition differed in the sequence of tales, but the second American edition of reproduced the order of tales of the first British publication. The London and Paris editions source text 1: ST1 included 31 tales and legends.
This first ST, with minor changes, has been reprinted for over a century. Irving revised his works to be published by Putnam of New York in and decided to change once more the title from Tales of the Alhambra to The Alhambra. He revised, enlarged, and reorganised the book that would finally consist of forty-one tales. Most tales were rewritten, and only ten of them seem to have been reproduced with no changes with respect to the first edition cf. Appendix 7. I will refer to this revised Putnam edition as ST2.
The 30 tales that were selected seem to have drawn both their order and their structure from ST2. Some- times just one tale has been reprinted, and often some quotations from the tales have been used in books of photographs about Spain or Granada. And at times a selection of texts by Washington Irving has been used for TV films or videos. It seems that rather than replacing the first 31 tale edition ST1 , ST2 and ST3 had opened up the way for a new progeny of their own, deriving from either matrix.
Unlike the more complete versions, the English adaptations, or fragmentary editions, have only rarely become sources for translations. Target Texts: Cuentos de la Alhambra The diversity of translated texts cannot be accounted for only in rela- tion to the variety of originals. Quite the opposite. Once translated, the ST is no longer that influential in the target culture. In the present study it is the compilation of translations of The Alhambra that leads us time and again to seek different originals, not the other way round. They are frag- mentary editions, often selections of tales.
To all intents and purposes this translation is, as the translator points out, a rendering of the first London edition It has been published and reprinted until today, virtually unchanged. This TT3 consists of 34 tales, but neither the sequence nor the structure of the tales reflects that of its declared original ST2. It seems that TT3 is a translation of an as yet unidentified English edition — if indeed it is a translation.
Again the Putnam revised edition is explicitly quoted as the source for the translation. And again just 34 tales are reproduced with minor changes with respect to the sequence of the Putnam revised edition. In , another mainstream commercial publishing house, Everest, issued a 41 tale text TT5 of The Alhambra in Spanish in an edition clearly intended for tourists soon afterwards followed by editions in English, German and French.
As we have seen, apart from hundreds of complete editions of The Alhambra in Spanish, there is a long tradition of fragmentary editions selections of tales which dates back to the late s and continues until today. The first translations from French intermediary versions, which were reprinted and made available for a few decades s— s , gave way to numerous adaptations of the complete editions available at the time TT1 from , TT2 from , etc. This plethora of fragmentary editions in Spanish ranges from one-tale editions to excerpts and adaptations for specific targeted audiences: children, tourists or bibliophiles.
As a result, a data- base of approximately entries is now available, each entry corre- sponding to an edition of the text in Spanish. Using bibliographical information publishing house, place and date of publication, title, translator, label, etc. Also a distinction was provisionally drawn between com- plete and fragmentary editions. From Catalogue to Corpus 1 Although bibliographical information has its obvious uses it also has its limits and access to the text itself is of paramount importance.