Teorie Traduzione - Appunti 1-10 PDF

Preview

Summary

Appunti corso Lingua Inglese LM LMCP 2017/18...

Description

LINGUA INGLESE 21 FEBBRAIO TRANSLATION IN THE XX CENTURY 1. Science of translation (word) 2. Translation theory (text) 3. Translation studies SCIENCE OF TRANSLATION (1950-60) They are interested in the langue. Translation is a linguistic activity: language to language. They want no develop norms in order to tell and teach translator what to do when translating. They try to theorize a way to conceive procedure. There is a need to equivalence between the two languages L1 and L2. Translation is ancillary to original, it is source-oriented. You just produce a copy of the text, there is no creativity in the new text. The translation is a mere reproduction of a text in another language. But language is dynamic, it changes with the time. It doesn’t consider the historical side of language. One word means always one word. Jakobson: On linguistic aspects of translation Three different types of translation: - Intralingual translation: reformulation in the same language. - Interlingual translation: between two different languages. - Intersemiotic translation: written to non-verbal transposition (music, movies…). “The translator recodes and transmits a message received form another source. Thus, translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.” “Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.”: find the equivalence in the difference and try to reproduce it. Cross-linguistic differences: - Level of gender - Level of aspect - Semantic field

How can I render these differences? All differences can be rendered interlingually, except for poetry, which is untranslatable. Some critics believe that equivalence is natural, others think it directional. Natural: there is always equivalence between languages, it pre-exists translation. Languages are already equivalent, I only need to find the strategies to reveal the translation strategy. It it established on every linguistic level (rank) (morphology, syntax…) Directional: the relationship between two languages is asymmetric. The translator needs to create an equivalent text. He has to choose between two kinds of equivalences. There are many kinds of equivalences. How the translator sees and represents the original text, creating a new one. Natural approach refers to: Vinay and Darbelnet You have many strategies to produce a text: - Direct translation: use the formal equivalent. Borrowing/loan, calque, literal translation. But sometimes it’s impossible. - Oblique translation:  Transposition: (nonostante vivessero = though their life), modulation (sono arrivato a un punto = I came to a moment when; quello è stato il momento in cui = that was the moment when),  equivalence: same situation with different stylistic or structural meaning (a bull in a China shop = un elefante in una cristalleria)  adaptation: changing the cultural reference (lime = limone) servitude and option Catford Linguistic theory of translation Language is communication. Formal correspondence is other than textual equivalence FC: any TL category which occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL. TE: any TL or portion of text which in a particular occasion is observed to be equivalent to a given SL text or portion of text.

SL: source language TL: target language Quando non riesco a raggiungere l’identità formale, mi allontano dalla corrispondenza formale e faccio degli shift, delle modifiche. A che livello? Level shift: grammar in the ST is expressed by lexis in the TT. Facevo = I used to do. -evo is meaningful. We don’t have meaningful suffixes in English. Category shift Advice = consigli (uncountable vs countable)

Directional approaches to equivalence: Nida Towards a science of translating (1964) Formal equivalence: The message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the SL Dynamic equivalence: Based on the principle of equivalent effect, in which the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message. It aims at the naturalness of expression. It is oriented to the receptor. Nida translated the Bible in order to make it understandable for most people. This has been criticized. Koller Correspondence: field of contrastive linguistics false friends,

28 February Challenge the idea of equivalence. Equivalence is considered as an illusion and it’s not fundamental for translations. A theory by Gutt, the relevance theory. Equivalence is something which is expected to happen. It regards what people believe about translations (it is a given fact). Kinds of translations: OVERT: marked and received as translation. COVERT: adaptation for a new audience, in which equivalence is not necessary relevant. Within overt there are indirect translations and direct translations. Indirect: can be done without referring to the context. Direct: refer to the context. “direct translation creates a presumption of complete interpretative resemblance” Language is a weak representation of meaning: it is only a set of communicative clues that receivers have to interpret. Translators assume that what the author says is what it means. Grice (1975): we communicate with the relation between language and context. - The back door is open. Is it a suggestion? Is it an instruction? Is it an observation? IMPLICATURE. Implicature: 1. The back door is open 2. We should close the back door. Direct translation is preferred in terms of the start context only. VS dynamic equivalence: it’s the audience’s responsibility to make up for such differences. Equivalence doesn’t deal with language only or with counting words but operates on the level of belief or interpretative process. Discussion: How many translations for “Juliet is the sun”? Gutt: the translator decides for a direct or indirect. However, the context is fundamental. In which context is the phrase uttered? Romeo says the phrase. Functionalist theories.

The issue of the function of the text. Germans said that the direct linguistic translation is too static. The key word is purpose: functionalist and communicative approach. Equivalence at text level. Which function? Which purpose? The one of the start text or the one of the target text? K. Reiss, Translation Criticism (1971) There are many text types. Every type has its own functions. According to the function of the text I use a kind of translation. 1. Informative: only the content is relevant. Brochure, instructions… 2. Expressive: artistic compositions or literature. 3. Operative: appeal or persuade the reader to operate in a certain way. 4. Audiomedial: films, visual, spoken advertisement. Once I decide the function, I have the criteria and I look for them. They can be linguistic or extra-linguistic (situation, subject, place, time, receiver, sender). What counts is the purpose of the message. Foundation for a general theory by Reiss and Vermeer. Skopos theory. Translation moves beyond consideration a lower linguistic level. Skopos: aim, goal. A translator moves according to a certain skopos. The source text is not so relevant, what is relevant is the function of the text I am about to produce. New elements: commissioner and users of translation (readers). They are all part of this system. They say when you translate you have to bear in mind who will read the translation. It’s not a prescriptive theory: it states where to look for indications about the way to translate. All depends on the purpose. Always translate according to a principle respecting the target text. It must be determined in every possible case. However, the choices of the translator need to be dominated by the target text (role of the client). Translations are not just texts but also projects.

Holz-Manttari When a message crosses into another culture the people that send the message will need an expert in cross cultural communication: the translator. The translator gives advice on the other culture and writes a new text on the basis of information provided by the client. The translator writes a new text and can still be called a translator.

The translator can add consciously new information. A very free approach for what translators can do. Do these theories challenge the equivalence? Vermeer: the function of the target text may not be equal to the one of the start text. The focus is the effect on the target reader. Example: Mein Kampf. What’s the function? Expressive? Referential? Operative? How to be translated? 1. Historical document – add footnotes and reference to historical events. 2. Tone-down the most rabble-rousing prose 3. Exaggerate the style to make it unbelievable or “funny”. The translator need to decide how to translate the text. There is no prescription, it depends on the situation of the translation and of the target reader. Holz-Manttari: new pragmatic factors are given attention: 1. The role of clients. 2. The instructors that the translator receives before the work. 3. The purpose of the text from the point of view of the reader/buyer (receiver). 4. Professionalism of translators in society. Who should train translators? Faculties of language and linguistics for a text-based translation, Applied sociology, marketing, ethics of communication, etc… should prepare for a purpose-based analysis. Skopos rule dethrones the start text. Who’s the new king? Holz says that the translator is the new king. He needs to be able to confront with authors and clients who are experts in their own field, there needs to be mutual respect. Vermeer is not clear, he says the highest responsibility is to transmit the intended information in the most proper manner. Sum up: - Translators must act in their own name in every situation - The old categories of equivalence had repressed the translator’s individuality, whereas skopos emphasizes that individuality - Other theorists emphasize the client’s instructions or the initiator’s decision. 7 marzo

… Approach to translation by Nord 1. 2. 3. 4.

Translation commission (Holz-Mattari) Intended function of the text ST analysis (non verbal elements…) The ethical component is loyal

The Purpose is to create equivalence. The translator is free, he has no norms. The ST can be translated in many different ways. A key factor is the job description. The translator works with all the other social actions involved (social relationships and environment). Criticism to the fuctionalist theories: Paul Newmark (1988) “We translate words, not functions”. 1. Contexts are interpretative constructions. 2. The concept of purpose is idealistic. If textual meaning is unstable, so is purpose or function. 3. The theory contradicts ethics of truth and accuracy. The skopos theory only considers translations as commercial outputs. Translations instead need to be accurate since they seek the truth. Translation is dialectic. ST/culture-target culture/audience The dominant Jakobson (1987) Focusing component of a work of art. It rules, determines and transforms the remaining components. It guarantees the integrity of the structure. The most important element with which you identify the whole text. It can be the message, the metrical scheme, rhymes… Each text tells you which the dominant is, and after finding it out the translator can begin his work. Is there one dominant in one text? Umberto Eco (1995) The dominant is partly in the text. The text is not made by the author, but it’s a result of a cooperation between author and reader. Problem: semiotic of fidelity is not

finding the intention of the author but the intention operis. What the text says in relationship with the language and cultural context where the text was born. Intention operis: what a text expresses of himself, not regarding the intention of the author or the interpretation. When I translate I should only follow the intention operis, every text has an intention and it lies in the internal structures of the text. Once I understand the intention operis, I should foresee a reader model. The reader builds the text as much as the writer. The author needs to foresee a model of reader who will fill the semiotic blanks in the text. “A satisfactory translation needs to keep the sense of the original text.” The rhythm of the text is when significant and signifié coincide. 14 March Case study After structuralism, determinism took its place. The text is not the result of what the author wants to say, but the text in itself is the result of discourse of other authors, historic moments. The ST was not sacred anymore. There is not one text and one language. Theories of uncertainty. It regards meaning that we render with translation. The idea is that we can never be sure of the meaning we translate, but we translate nonetheless. 1) Instability of the source 2) Epistemological skepticism: doubts on how we get knowledge in the first place. Some indeterminists think it’s impossible to convey meaning from one language into another. Deconstruction: some theories that question meanings altogether. Quine: professor who developed a principle that regarded indeterminacy. 1) There are degrees of certainty with regard to the translations. 2) Indeterminacy will never go away 3) Example: rabbit. Indeterminacy exists in all forms of communication. Those theories which assume codes or transmission or meaning transfer are determinists. Determinist: what X means is what Y understands. Indeterminist: it is not sure that X and Y mean the same.

Cratylus: the word is an arbitrary label for things. Each thin has its proper word (the shape of the word fits the thing). Determinist theories (Cratylist) agree with him: the object is determined by the name it has. The thing is the word. 1) World view theories: the nature of the language system determines the perception of the thing (strong link between expression and concept). 2) Modernist aesthetics (Eliot): form and content are inseparable. Eliot: “that which has to be communicated is the poem itself”, no meaning exists prior to the poem. 3) Croce: poems are untranslatable. Impossible as an equivalence, I can reach only similarity and familiarity. Family likeness is the best that translations should hope to achieve. ST/pure language/superior entity which are ORIGINALS and therefore cannot be reproduced. More NEGATIVE than positive translation as equivalence is impossible (Benjamin). DECONSTRUCTION Jacques Derrida Translation is transformation of the ST. translators deconstruct meaning itself. The determinist theories of language It wants to undo the illusion of a stable meaning. Deconstruction is not a theory: it’s a practice we do with language and meaning. Meaning is prescriptive Remainder: all the potential signification omitted in the translation. Example: drug is a translation for pharmakòn, double meaning: medicine and drug. Translation investigates the plurality of the source text and its semantic richness: there’s more than one language in every language. Where’s the ST? It’s a phantom, an image that organizes the range of translational variants without fixing them in any deterministic way. The ST returns only as a spirit that can hope to guide without acting directly (like phantom of Hamlet). Metaphor: translation is a process, more than a product, it’s the afterlife of a voice and how it can continue its life transformed. Translation always involves transformation, so how should we translate? Chau (1984) Effects on translators

Critics to deconstruction:  Theories not useful to translators since they’re not paid for showing indeterminacy.  Theorists are not translators and just use translations to do philosophy.  Theories lack in rigor: “anything goes”.  Theories have no effect on the actual practice of translation.  Theories are merely oppositional.  They don’t tell us how to live with uncertainty. 21st march Translation studies “The name and nature of translation studies” by Holmes, a paper given at the translation section of the Third international congress of applied linguistics in Copenhagen (1972). It’s considered a founding statement for the field (Gentzler:92). There are academic departments of translation. It has its own field. James Holmes had found problems with the studies of translations: scholars did not agree on the approach, they did not work together. There was a lack of consensus: some on purpose, others on linguistics, others on grammar analysis. They were not agreeing on the methodology. He concludes that the most appropriate name was translation studies and there should be communication channels able to reach all scholars. It should rely on sociolinguistics studies, anthropology, not just on one single study. Holmes loved graphics, he created a map. The Holmes’ map of translation studies interests. 1) Pure Descriptive: most rules were prescriptive (they told translators how to translate), however descriptive studies translations which already exist. They describe what happens in actual translations. What are translations? They describe what has been done. We can focus on a translation as a product, as a process, as a function. Theoretical: trying to find general laws already used by translators and I construct theories on them, I search for laws. They can be general (history of translation) or partial (restricted). 2) Applied Translator training Translation aids Translation criticism He was criticized because he did not consider the translator. He did not consider the individual translator, his background, his culture etc.…

DESCRIPTIVE In the prescriptive studies equivalence was the best thing. Actually, when you don’t find equivalence you use shifts, you change the text. So now equivalence is not needed anymore. Equivalence is assumed. The problem is that I don’t know how to prove this, but I think it’s a kind of equivalence. My interest is in shifts. Emphasize the target-culture context (like skopos theory) BUT see functions in terms of the positions occupied by translations within the target systems, rather with respect to clients/job descriptions. They look at what translation are usually like in a particular context. Thus, they are able to talk about the norms that guide translations. They are not prescriptions: translations are guided by some “laws”, but it’s not just that. When you go to a shop, you tend to queue. It’s not a law, it’s a norm. it’s what tends to happen. It’s stronger than conventions. The paradigm is relativistic. One good translation in a historical period may not be good in another. This reflects the diversity of translations. Descriptive s are based on the concept of system. Two theories of system developed by the Tel Aviv school, by 1) Even-Zohar 2) Toury EZ started by a theory by Lotman, that says that a literary work does not exist in isolation, but within a literate system. Literature is part of the social, cultural, literary and historical framework in a system in which there’s an ongoing dynamic of struggle and competition for the literary canon. Translated literature works as a system: The target level culture selects work for translations. Behavior and policies are influenced by other co-system (depending on the historical movement of the country, on the historical situation…) The relation between these systems is a polysystem. In Italy translated literature is primary in our system, you find many translations in our bookshops. In the US translated literature is secondary.

In modernism there was a literary revolution and translations were typical, e.g. in the UK. Shakespeare translated a lot. You tend to translate more when there’s a vacuum (in Italy in the 30s, we didn’t produce thrillers, it was brought in those years by translations), when literature is peripheral. Secondary position: peripheral system within the polysystem, no major influence over the system. They tend to choose the texts that are within their fields. The normal (usual) position for translator literature is peripheral (Zohar). Culture translates according to its own need. The position of the translated literature influences the strategy of the literature. When there’s a primary position, authors are freer to import new models into the target language, bringing neologisms, n...