53103382 Translation Studies PRINTED

8/13/2019 53103382 Translation Studies PRINTED

1/15

TRANSLATION STUDIES

Chapter 1Main issues of translation studies

Translation studies is a relatively new academic research area that has expanded in recentyears, especially in the last five decades. While translation was formerly studied as alanguage-learning methodology or as a part of comparative literature, translation workshopsand contrastive linguistic courses, the new discipline belongs to the work of James Holmes.His seminal paper The name and nature of translation studies! is generally accepted as thefounding statement for the field.Holmes draws attention to the limitations imposed by the fact that translation research wasdispersed across older disciplines. He also stresses the need to forge other communicationchannels!, cutting across the traditional disciplines, to reach all scholars working in the field,from whatever background.Holmes puts forward an overall framework, describing what translation studies covers. Thesame framework has been presented by Gideon Tour.

"t describes two main branches of translation studies# !ureand Applied.

The ob$ectives of the !URE areas of researchare#% The description of the phenomena of translation &des"ripti#e translation theor'.( The establishment of general principles to explain and predict such phenomena &translationtheor'.The descriptive branch of pure! research in Holmes &)escriptive translation studies' has threepossible ways# examination of the produ"t, the $un"tionand the pro"ess.The theoretical branch is divided into general and partial theories.The term general is referring to those writings that describe every type of translation andinclude generali*ations that can be relevant for translation as a whole.+artial or restricted theories are#

Medium-restricted theories rea-restricted theories ank-restricted theories Text-type-restricted theories Time-restricted theories +roblem-restricted theories

The A!!LIEDbranch of Holmess framework concerns#% Translator training &teaching methods, testing techni/ues, etc.'( Translation aids &dictionaries, grammars, information technology'0 Translation criticism &evaluation of translation including the marking of student translation'

)espite this categori*ation, Holmes himself admits that several different restrictions can applyat any one time and that the theoretical, descriptive and applied areas do influence oneanother. Toury states that the main merit of the divisions is that they allow a clarification anda division between the various areas of translation studies which in the past have often beenconfused.+ym points out that Holmess map omits any mention of the individuality of the style, decision-making processes and working practices of human translators involved in the translationprocess.


2/15

Chapter %Translation theory before the twentieth century

1p until the second half of the twentieth century, translation theory was locked in what 2eorge3teiner calls a sterile debate over the triad of literal, $ree, and $aith$ultranslationThis can be called the pre-linguistic period of translation &according to 4ewmark', in this period

we have an important debate about the translation between#- Word for word &literal translation'- 3ense for sense &$ree translation'This distinction between literal and free goes back to 5icero and 3t. 6erome.5icero in De optimo genere oratorum, indicates a main difference between the interpreter andthe orator. The former is seen as the literal, the latter tried to produce a speech that movedthe listeners."n the oman times the word for word translation was exactly what it said, so, thereplacement of each individual word of the source text &2reek' with its e/uivalent in 7atin.3t 6erome, one of the most important translators, cites the authority of 5iceros approach to

$ustify his own 7atin translation of the 2reek 3eptuagint 8ld Testament. ...I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense.

6erome disparaged the word for word translation because it cloaking the sense of the originalwhile the sense for sense translation allowed the sense or content of the source language to betranslated.

The same type of concern has occurred in other rich and ancient translation tradition such asin 5hina and the rab world where it seems that sense for sense translation has been largelyadopted.

&artin Luther9or over a thousand years after 3t. 6erome, issues of free and literal translation were linked tothe translation of the :ible and other religious and philosophical texts. The oman 5atholic5hurch was concerned about the correct established meaning of the :ible to be transmitted.

There are several examples of translations that were $udged heretical, banned or censored.The 9rench humanist ;tienne )olet was burned at the stake for a rien du tout!.:ut non-literal or non-accepted translations had become a powerful weapon against the5hurch.M. 7uther had been critici*ed by the 5hurch for the addition of the word allein! &alone


3/15

% 5ommercial texts( 3cholarly and artistic texts3chleiermacher sees the latter on a higher creative plane. His strategy is to move the readertoward the writer giving the reader the impression that he receives the work in his ownlanguage. The translator must valori*e the foreign and transfer that into the T7.3chleiermachers respect for the foreign text was to have considerable influence over scholars

in modern times.

Chapter );/uivalence and e/uivalent effect

fter the period of fight! between free =s literal we can talk about the meaning of a particularissue like for example e*ui#alen"e!

Roman Ja+o,sonin his opera 8n linguistic aspects of translation! divided translation in 0categories#

- intralingual &an interpretation of verbal signs by other signs in the same language'- interlingual &classic translation'

- intersemiotic &or transmutation because it translate in non verbal signs like music andpaint'

6akobson examines interlingual translation and stress the attention on the key issues of thistype of translation# lin-uisti" meanin- and e*ui#alen"e.He follows the idea &3aussure' that the signifier and the signified, together, form the linguisticsign, but the sign is arbitrary.9or the message to be e/uivalent! in source and target language, the code units will bedifferent since they belong to two different sign systems &languages' which partition realitydifferently.;x. house# "s feminine in omances languages and neuter in 2erman.6akobson approach the problem of the e/uivalence with the famous definition# Equivalence indifference is the cardinal problem in language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.

8nly in poetry 6akobson talk about untranslatable! and re/uires a creative transposition.

The /uestion on meaning, e/uivalence and translatability became a prominent issue oftranslation studies in the >?@s and will be tackled by one of the most important figure intranslation studies, the merican ;ugene 4ida.NidaHe moves translation into a more scientific era by incorporating recent work in linguistics. Hi islinked to the theory of generative transformational grammar! by 5homsky. The mostimportant idea of 4ida is that a word hasnt meaning without the context.4ida presents a series of techni/ues as an aid for the translator in determining the meaning ofdifferent linguistic items, i.e. hierarchical structuring &superordinate and hyponyms',componential analysis or semantic structure analysis.4")# The old terms such as literal ore free translation! or faithful translation! are discardedby 4ida, in favour of two basic orientations or types of e/uivalence &formal and dynamice/uivalence'.'ormal e*ui#alen"e# 9ocuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content.Dnami" e*ui#alen"e# "s based in what that 4ida calls the principle of e/uivalent effect!,where the relationship between receptor and message should be the same as that whichexisted between the original receptors and the message. The message has to be tailored to thereceptors linguistic needs and cultural expectation and aims at complete naturalness&theclosest natural e/uivalent to the source language message' of expression.

9or 4ida the success of the translation depends of#% Making sense( 5onveying the spirit and manner of the original

0 Having a natural and easy form of expressionA +roducing a similar response


4/15

Choms+5homskys generative transformational model analy*es sentences into series of related levelsgoverned by rules. The structure relation is a universal feature of human language. The mostbasic of such structures are (ernel senten"es, which are simple, active, declarativesentences that re/uire the minimum of transformation. Bernel is to be obtained from thesource language surface by a reductive process of back-transformation &4ida'. This involves

analysis using generativeCtransformational grammars four types of functional class#- events- ob$ects- abstract- relational

Bernels are the level at which the message is transferred into the receptor language beforebeing transformed into the surface structure in 0 stages# literal transfer, minimal transfer andliterary transfer.

Ne/mar+4ewmark points out that the e/uivalent effect is illusory! and the gap between emphasis onsource and the target language always remains as the overriding problem in translation

studies. He suggests narrowing the gap replacing the old terms with those of semantic! andcommunicative! translation. 3emantic translation differs from literal in that it respects contextwhile literal translation &word-for-word' even in its weaker form remains very closely to the 3Tlexis and syntax. Thus the literal translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method insemantic and communicative translation..(ollerBoller examines more closely the concept of e/uivalence and its linked term correspondence#the correspondence is considered within the field of contrastive linguistics and its parametersare those of 3aussures langue, while e/uivalence relates to 3aussuresparole.He describes five different types of e/uivalence#% )enotative e/uivalence

( 5onnotative e/uivalence0 Text normative e/uivalenceA +ragmatic e/uivalence &4ida dynamic e/uivalence'D 9ormal e/uivalence

Chapter 0The translation shift approach

3ince the %ED@s there has been a variety of linguistic approaches to the analysis of translationthat have proposed detailed lists or taxonomies in an effort to categori*e the translationprocess.ina and Dar,elnet# they carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of 9rench and ;nglish.The two general translation strategies identified by =inay and )arbelnet are# dire"ttranslationand o,li*ue translation which hark back toliteral vs. $ree. The two strategiesinclude F procedures of which dire"t translationcovers three#

:orrowing 5al/ue 7iteral translation

"n those cases where literal translation is not possible =inay and )arbelnet propose thestrategy of obli/ue translation. The latter covers a further four procedures#

Transposition Modulation ;/uivalence

daptation.

These seven procedures are operated on 0 levels#% The lexicon( 3yntactic structures0 The message


5/15

A list o$ $i#e steps that the translator has to use is2% "dentify the units of translation( ;xamine the source language text, evaluating the descriptive, affective and intellectualcontent of the units0 econstruct the metalinguistic context of the messageA ;valuate the stylistic effects

D +roduce and revise the target text

Cat$ord 2He creates the term shift! in the area of translation. 5atford makes an importantdistinction between formal correspondence and textual e/uivalence. He considers two kind ofshift#Shi$t o$ le#el# something which is expressed by grammar in one language and lexis inanother.Most of 5atfords analysis is given over the "ate-or shi$ts.These are subdivided into four kinds# structuralshifts, class shifts, unit shifts and intra-systemshifts'G

Jir3 Le# &5*echoslovakia'# He gives an important attention to the expressive function or style

of text. &ttention topoetry'

an Leu#en45/art2His model is intended for the description of integral translation offictional texts and comprises two different models#% 5omparative model# "nvolves a detailed comparison of 3T and TT and a classification of allthe microstructural shifts. This model is as follows#

1. )ivision in comprehensible textual units called ransemes, i.e. she sat up /uickly! isclassed as a transeme, as its corresponding 3panish se endere*!.

2. define the!rchitranseme&core sense of the 3T transeme'. "n the above example therchitranseme is to sit up!.

3. establish the relationship between the two transemes.( )escriptive model# "s a macrostructural model, designed for the analysis of translated

literature. "t is based on concepts borrowed from narratology and stylistics.

Chapter 69unctional theories of translation

Te7t Tpes

(atharina Reisscreated 0 main kinds of categories which classify the texts# In$ormati#e,E7pressi#e&esthetic', Operati#e&+ersuasive', there is also another fourth category#Audiomedialtexts such as visual and spoken multimedia instruments.

;ach kind of text we know can be classify on a certain type of the 0 we have $ust talked about,

for example a +oem is clearly an ;xpressive text while an ;lectoral 3peech is an 8perative oneetcIsome texts can also be classified as hybrids of two categories, such as a 3ermon which iseither "nformative and 8perative.

Batharina eiss suggests specific translation methods according to text type. s we havedifferent kinds of texts we also have various ways to translate them from a 3T into a TT, it isclear that

The TT of an "nformative Text should transmit all the information in a simple and clearway

The TT of an ;xpressive Text should preserve the artistic form of the 3ource Text

The TT of an 8perative Text should try a good method to create an e/uivalent effect

among the Target Text readers


6/15

)uring the translation of these texts the translator must keep on mind that there is a widerange of elements which should be considered, these elements are Intralin-uisti"&lexis,grammarI' andE7tralin-uisti"&time, place, receiverI'.

Translational A"tion

The translational action is a model proposed by Hol84&anttariwhich has the aim of providesstudents, scholars and translators in general with a set of guidelines suitable for a wide rangeof situations.

"nterlingual translation is described as translational action from a source text! and as acommunicative process involving a series of roles and players#

The initiator# the company or individual who needs the translation

The commissioner# who contact the translator

The 3T writer# who wrote the original text

The TT user# the person who will receive the TT text &libraries or shops'

The TT receiver# who finally read the book for personal interest or study

s we have $ust told the Translational Model aim to create a TT which is suitable and clear forthe TT reader, this kind of result is supposed to be achieved by adapting the text to the targetcontext and not by totally following the 3T.

;ven if this model has taken account of the different important elements in translating a 3T ithas the imperfection not to consider the great amount of cultural differences among cultures.

The S+opos Theor

The 3kopos Theory were introduced by Hans J. ermeerwith the collaboration of Batharinaeiss, this theory predates the Manttaris Translational ction model and can be considered tobe part of this same theory.

The theory is mainly based on ? basic rules#1. Translatum &or Target text' is determined by its 3kopos &or purpose'

2. TT is an offer of information in a target culture and T7 concerning an offer ofinformation in a source culture and 37.

). TT doesnt initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way

4. TT must be internally coherent

5. TT must be internally coherent with the 3T

6. The five rules above are ordered hierarchically with the 3kopos rule predominating.

"n this model, the 3T is dethroned and the translation is $udged not by e/uivalence of meaningbut by its ade/uacy to the functional goal of the TT situation as defined by the commission...

This theory has been discussed by some other theorists whose $udge the =ermeers Work asnot-functional for the literary texts where theres not a clear purpose and the structure is toocomplex to be adapted in a such simple way, in addition they note as the 3kopos theorydoesnt pay sufficient attention to the linguistic level of the 3T concentrating excessively on thepurpose.

Nord and the Translation4oriented te7t analsis

Christiane Nordpresents a more detailed functional model incorporating elements of textanalysis. The first distinction is between two basic types of translation product# do"umentartranslation andinstrumental translation.Do"umentar translation# "n this kind of translation the TT reader knows that the text hes

reading has been translated from another languageJculture, these are the cases of a textwhich the author wants to preserve as exotici*ing! or to maintain some cultural specific lexicalitems.


7/15

Instrumental translation# 5ontrary to the previous one, the instrumental translation let thereader know that the text has never been translated. "n addition the translator should try toturn the translation suitable for the target culture, context and time."n her last book 5. 4ord proposes a more flexible version of the model where she highlights

three aspects of functionalist approaches that are particularly useful in translator training#

the importance of the translation commission the role of 3T analysis the functional hierarchy of translation problems.

naly*ing the text, the translator needs to compare the ( profiles in order to see where theymay be different, the main features to pay attention to are# the text function, the sender andreceiver, the target time and place, the way the text will be exposed &speech or writing' andthe purpose for which the text was written and why needs to be translated.

This model is thought to be applicable to all text types and translation situations but actuallythere are cases in which the use of a fixed model may create some problems

Chapter 9)iscourse and register analysis approaches

3ince the F@s up until to the E@s discourse analysis came to prominence in translation studies.:uilding on Hallida:s sstemi" $un"tional -rammarit has come to be used in translationanalysis. There is a link with the text analysis model of Christiane Nord. However, while textanalysis normally concentrates on describing the way in which texts are organi*ed &sentencestructure, cohesion, etc.' discourse analysis looks at the way language communicates meaningand social and power relations.The model of discourse analysis that had the greatest influence is Hallidayans model ofdiscourse analysis that is based on what he terms sstemi" $un"tional -rammar, is geared

to the study of language as communication, seeing meaning in the writers linguistic choicesystematically relating these choice to a winder so"io"ultural $rame/or+."n this model there is a strong interrelation between the surface-level reali*ations of thelinguistic functions and the sociocultural framework.8);#

2enre &the conventional text type associated with a specific communicative function ,for example a business letter' is conditioned by the sociocultural environment

egister &comprises three variable elements# field tenor and mode'

)iscourse semantic &ideational, interpersonal, textual'

7exicogrammar & transitivity, modality, theme-rheme


8/15

analysis is that translator should be aware of the relative markedness of the thematic andinformation structures.:aker considers various aspects of pra-mati"sin translation. Her definition of pragmatics isas follows# the study of language in use. "ts the study of meaning manipulated by theparticipants in a communication situation!.3he stresses the attention on coherence and cohesion in translation and gives more attention

to implicature &what the speaker means rather than what he says'.

Hatim and &ason&5amus and 7entranger! passage'They pay extra attention to the reali*ation in translation of ideationaland interpersonal$un"tionsand incorporate into their model a semioti" le#el o$ dis"ourse. They considershifts in modalit&the interpersonal function'. They also concentrate on identifying dnami"and sta,leelements on the text. These are linked with translation strategy.

Works by both :aker and Hatim and Mason bring together a range of ideas from pragmaticsand sociolinguistics that are relevant for translation and translation analysis. :akers analysis isparticularly useful in focusing on the thematic and cohesion structures of a text. Hatim and

Mason move behind Houses register analysis and begin to consider the way social and powerrelations are negotiated and communicated in translation.

Chapter Translating the foreign# the &in'visibility of translation

enuti2 Domesti"ation and 'orei-ni8ation

La/ren"e enutiis a cultural theorist who influenced the nature of the translation. "nparticular he focused his attention on what he calls In#isi,ilit o$ the translator!.7ike othercultural theorists =enuti insists that the aim of translation studies must take accountof the nature of the sociocultural framework. He contests the Tourys scientific! descriptivemodel that produces value-free! norms and laws of translation.

=enuti argued that in nglo-merican culture the translators tend to translate the texts in afluent! way in order to make an easy-readable Target Text and giving the text an illusion of

transparency, this kind of behaviour ,nevertheless, hide the original nature of foreign textdeleting sometimes important elements.

9urthermore =enuti described two different methods to translate a text#

Domesti"ation# "n this method the translator is hidden, the text is adapted to the targetculture minimi*ing the foreignness of the original text. The final result is a fluent text whichgives the reader the illusion that the text has been originally written in his language.

'orei-ni8ation# "s the =enutis favourite way to work on a foreign text, in this case thetranslator tries to convey the TT reader all the impressions, the forms and the contents thewriter wanted to communicate. This method brings out the work of the translator whose

strategies are centred create a text which respects the original idea of the text even in a targetlanguage.

)espite his preference to the foreigni*ation, =enuti highlight that the first method as thesecond one are not perfect models and that they were created to promote research intranslation field.

Antoine ;erman

:ermans works precedes and influence =enutis theories.:erman describes the translation as an Lpreuve!, a trial. :erman deplores the generaltendency to negate the foreign in translation by the translation strategy of naturali*ation &thesame of =enutis later domestication'. He identifies twelve deforming tendencies!. His

examination of the forms of deformation is termed ?ne-ati#e analti"@.%. rationali*ation(. clarification0. expansion


11/15

A. ennoblement

5. /ualitative impoverishment

6. /uantitative impoverishmentF. the destruction of rhythms. the destruction of underlying networks of significationE. the destruction of linguistic patternings%@. the destruction of vernacular networks or their exotici*ation%%. the destruction of expressions and idioms%(. the effacement of the superimposition of languages

The pu,lishin- industr

=enuti describes how the publishers tend to hide and influence the work of the translator, asthe market re/uires fluent target textsG the publishers drive the translator to a moredomesticating translation.nother power element =enuti points out is the literary agent, the agents represent the writersand take a percentage of their profits, they help the translator offering to him the possibility tobe published in other countries, but the more re/uested books are the ones which are easilyassimilated in the target culture, so again the translation is modified.

=enuti speaks against the nglo-merican publishing, defining it as ethnocentric monolingualpeople who refuse the foreignness to aggressively preserve their own culture

The re"eption and re#ie/in- o$ translations

The best way, in =enuti and Meg :rown opinion, to examine the reception of a translation isanaly*ing the reviews of a translated text. s =enuti noted the translation notes are the firstoverlooked when cuts are re/uested, the whole text is often considered by the review writersas a text written in their language completely leaving out the translators work. 3ometimessome nglo-merican review writers talk about a TT as if the text were been written by an;nglish author, making comparisons with other nglo-merican texts.3ometimes the writers of the reviews talk about the translation, $udging it as inappropriate orless fluent often without having any knowledge in the field.

Chapter 1+hilosophical theories of translation8ver the second half of the twentieth century we see an inter-attraction of translation andphilosophy.The hermeneutic movement owes its origins to the German Romanti"ssuch asShleierma"her, and, in the twentieth century, to Heide--er. Geor-e Steiners fter :abel!is the key advance of the hermeneutics in translation. 3teiner defines the Hermeneuticpproach as investigation of what it means to understand a piece of oral or written speechand diagnose the process!. This investigation consists of A parts#

% iniati#e trust&The translators first move is a belief and trust that there is something in thesource language that can be understood'G( a--ression&"ts an invasive move. The translator invades, extracts and brings home'G0 in"orporation&"mporting of the meaning of the foreign text can potentially dislocate orrelocate the whole of the native structure'. The target culture either ingests and becomesenriched by the foreign text, or it is infected by it and ultimately re$ects itA "ompensation&The meaning of source language leaves the original with a dialecticallyenigmatic residue'. )ialectic because there has been a lost for the 3T, while the residue isseen as a positive enhancement produced by the act of translation.

E8ra !ounds work was very much influenced by his reading of the literature of the past,

including 2reek and 7atin. "n his translations, he sought to escape from the rigid strait$acket ofthe =ictorian


12/15

;enBaminWalter :en$amins %E(0 essay, translated into ;nglish as The task of the translator! wasoriginally an introduction to his own 2erman translation of :audelaires Tableaux +arisiens!.5entral to :en$amins paper is the notion that a translation does not exist to give anunderstanding of the meaning or information content of the original, but also giving the

original a sort of continued life. "n this expansive and creative way translation provide thecreation of a +ure and higher language!.

De"onstru"tion# the movement owes its origins to the %E?@s in 9rance and its leading figureis the 9rench philosopher Ja*ues Derrida. The terminology employed by )errida is complexand shifting, like the meaning it dismantles. The term ?di$$ran"e@is perhaps the mostsignificantG it plays on the two meanings of the verb di$$rer&de$er and di$$er', neither ofwhich encompasses its meaning. )econstruction begins to dismantle some of the keypremisses of linguistics, starting with 3aussures clear division of signified and signifier and thestability of linguistic sign. )iffLrance suggests a location at some uncertain point in space andtime between differ and defer. )errida redefines :en$amins pure language as diffLrance anddeconstruct the distinction between source and target text because the original and translation

owe a debt to each other.

Chapter 11Translation studies as an interdiscipline

Interdis"iplinechallenges the current conventional way of thinking by promoting andresponding to new links between different types of knowledge and technologies. :ut therelation between translation studies and other discipline is not fixed.

"n her book Translation studies# n "ntegrated pproach! Mary 3nell Horby attempts tointegrate a wide variety of different linguistic and literary concepts in an overarching andintegrated approach.

"n more recent years, translation studies have gone beyond purely linguistic approaches todevelop its own models, such as Tourys descriptive translation studies.Much research in translation studies makes use of techni/ues and concepts from a range ofbackground combination of linguistics analysis and critical theory has been made by(eith Har#ethatwith his Theor o$ "onta"texamines the way gay man and lesbian work within appropriateprevailing straight and homophobic discourse from a range of communities.The new studies such as Har#e:s, represents an important step and produces veryinteresting results by combining a lin-uisti" tool+itand a cultural studies approach.9or the moment the kinds of interdisciplinary approach seem to be one way of bridging the gapbetween linguistics and cultural studies.

The role o$ "han-inte"hnolo-ies

The tools at the disposal of the translator and the theorist are altering. 8ne of the reasons forthis is the growth in the new technologies, which inevitably determine new areas of study.5orpus linguistics already facilitates the study of features of translated language. Theavailability and exchange of information facilitate communication among scholars. 9inally theinternet is also changing the status and visibility of translators.t present, however, application to the practice of translation remains somewhat problematic

SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK Trainee translators have available to them awealth of literature to help them consier these matters! but this

material varies in "ualit#! uses a wie ran$e of ifferent

terminolo$#! has ifferin$ priorities! an is often har to fin%


13/15

&una#'s boo( is an introuctor# $uie to this literature! aime

primaril# at stuents stu#in$ translation theor# as part of a

practical course in translation% Pp% )*+), $ive an outline of the

ifferent chapters of the boo(! which I have rawn on in the summar#

that follows% The first chapter $ives an overview of the fiel! base

lar$el# on Holmes -).//012223% 4hapter 1 5Translation theor# before

the twentieth centur#5! concentrates on 4icero! St% 6erome! 7uther!8r#en an Schleiermacher%

The ne9t four chapters eal with what &una# calls 5lin$uistic+

oriente theories5% 4hapter : 5E"uivalence an e"uivalent effect5

loo(s at Nia's istinction between 5formal e"uivalence5 an 5#namic

e"uivalence5! as well as the semantic framewor( propose in Nia ;

Taber -).,.3%


14/15

follows Berman -)./*012223 an @enuti -)..*3 in anal#sin$ the forei$n

element in translation an e9plorin$ the contention that translation

is often consiere a erivative an secon+rate activit#! an that

the most common metho of literar# translation is to 5naturalise5 the

te9t so that it ma(es for comfortable reain$ in the tar$et lan$ua$e%

&una# ar$ues that this metho shoul not be ta(en for $rante% In

4hapter )2 5Philosophical theories of translation5 the boo( introucesa selection of philosophical issues concerne with lan$ua$e an

translation! incluin$ Steiner's -)../3 5hermeneutic motion5 an

8erria -)..*3 an econstructionism% Finall# chapter )) 5Translation

stuies as an interiscipline5 starts from Snell+Hornb# -)..*3 an

loo(s at recent wor( that tries to inte$rate the lin$uistic an

cultural approaches% The author also iscusses the relationship

between the internet an translation%

Each chapter containsD

+ one or more case stuies which appl# the concepts of that chapter to

a particular te9t% + a set of 5iscussion an research points5 as

activities for stuents% + a list of (e# concepts an (e# literature

at the be$innin$% + a summar# at the en%

E@7TION

In m# opinion! this boo( is a brave an lar$el# successful attempt to

s#nthesise a wie ran$e of isparate material% &ost of the important

contributions to translation stuies are represente here! thou$h the

boo( leaves out some wor( that perhaps shoul have been inclue% To

mention three in particularD man# people thin( that Cutt -)..)012223

is an important an ori$inal stu#! which sa#s useful thin$s about

ifferent t#pes of translation an which is lin(e to a specific

lin$uistic framewor(! relevance theor#% Cutt is mentione briefl# in

passin$! but with no attempt to iscuss his ieas in etail%

Seconl#! there is an interestin$ line of research! mostl# in French!

which evelops some ieas of @ina# ; 8arbelnet -).*/3% &una# limits

his iscussion of @ina# ; 8arbelnet to their classification of

translation shifts! i$norin$ the bul( of their boo( which proposes

that there are unerl#in$ ifferences between French an En$lish

te9tual practices% Other writers on translation who have pursue this

iea inclue Cuillemin+Flescher -)./)3! Ballar -)..*! )../3! @an Hoof

-)./.3 an 8elisle -)..*3 -althou$h 8elisle's earlier wor( on

iscourse anal#sis -)./13 is allue to! I thin( that his later wor(

is more important in a boo( li(e this3%

thir bo# of wor( uner+reporte here is that of Peter Newmar(! who

has sai man# profoun thin$s about translation% Stuents shoul be

mae aware of his recent collections of provocative insi$hts -)..:!

)../3! not least because the# are more reaable than most writin$

about translation% I accept that Newmar( is har to summarise! but he

has much more to offer than Gust the istinction between semantic an

communicative translation outline in chapter : + which in an# case is

refine an elaborate in his more recent boo(s%

s a te9tboo( this volume is amirabl# esi$ne! an its wea(nesses

mostl# stem from the fiel that it covers an are not the fault of the

writer% &una# criticises much of the wor( he outlines in the earlier

chapters because it relies on notions such as 5e"uivalent

communicative effect5 which are slipper# an ver# har to efine> or

because the principles iscusse in these chapters sometimes o notta(e into account ifferent t#pes of te9t -translatin$ a poem is

ifferent in man# wa#s from translatin$ a software manual3% But at no


15/15

point in the boo( oes he mention an# wor( which tries to efine

5e"uivalent communicative effect5 precisel# -perhaps there is none

worth mentionin$3! an his section on te9t+t#pes in chapter * is ver#

brief + inee! it "uestions 5whether te9t t#pes can reall# be

ifferentiate5 -p% =,3% This is too ismissiveD translators have to

operate with some notion of the t#pe of te9t which the# are about to

translate! so a principle attempt to classif# te9ts in atranslationall#+relevant wa# can help them o this in a more informe

wa#%

53103382 Translation Studies PRINTED

Documents

Transcript of 53103382 Translation Studies PRINTED