Lý thuyết biên phiên dịch

ĐỀ CƯƠNG LÝ THUYẾT BIÊN PHIÊN DỊCH, được biên soạn theo chương trình học dựa trên môn Lý thuyết dịch được đào tạo ở các trường Đại học. Tài liệu bao gồm đầy đủ lý thuyết và ví dụ thực tế cho sinh viên dễ dàng học tập.

Lý thuyết Biên phiên dịch_ Translation theories UNIT OF TRANSLATION How has U.T been defined by different theorists ?  The smallest SL unit that has an equivalent in TL ( Barkhudarov, 1993) - Phenemes/ morphemes/ words / phrases/ sentences/ entire texts: probable U.T - U.T may have a complex structure although its separate parts cannot be replaced by any TL equivalents  ….a cohesive segment lying between the level of the word & the sentence (Self-Hormby, 1995)  … Source-text element(s) which are formally & semantically linked and interpreted as a single entity in a certain context ( Deslisle et at, 1999)  When a translator/ interpreter commences his work, he/she decides on the basic segment to be translated into TL These segments range from a single phomene to a whole text  Length of a U.T? - In literal translation (focusing on individual words), U.T is as short as a word - In free translation (focusing on the meaning of longer stretches of text), a U.T is usually longer ( eg: sentence/ whole text) - Translating from an SL which is not much relate to TL usually result on chosing larger U.T - “ According to most researcher, the length of translation units is an indicator of proficiency” Bermardini, 2001) - From the perspective of Vinacy & Darbelnet (1985, 1995) + What a translator does during the translation process is all done semanticallu + U.T = unit of thought = lexicological unit + U.T= the smallest segment of an utterance whose signs are linked in a way that they should not be literally translated + Lexicolocial unit = lexical elements grouped together to form a single element of thought + Some types of U.T: _ semantic units _ dialectical units _ prosodic units _ functional units ( too long to indule just one U.T)  From the perspective of Newmark (1988) - Sentence: a natural U.T - Phrase, clause, collocation, idiom, : sub-U.T - Words, groups, clauses, sentences - Paraghraph & texts - Most translations are done at smaller units - Authoritative text => words as U.T - Informative texts => phrases & collocations as U.T - Vocative texts => sentences & whole text as U.T U.T = any managemen, short-term memory retainable stretch of text/ utterance that yields meaning on syntacti, semantic & pragmatic levels DEFINITION & CATEGORIZATION  … Translator’s potentially conscious plans / procedures for solving concrete problems in the framework of a translation task ( Krings, 1986; Losecher, 1991)  From Jaaskelainer’s (1990) perspective : - Translation strategies: heuristic & flexible - Appling a decision affected by amendments in translator’s objectives - Product- related strategies: + relating to what happens to texts + basic tasks of choosing the SL text- developing a method to translate it - Process- related strategies: + relating to what happens to process + a set of rules that a translator uses to reach the translation goals GLOBAL vs LOCAL strategies  GLOBAL strategies - Dealing with whole texts (Bell, 1998) - General principle global strategies of translation ( Jaaskelainen,2005) - 03 common global strategies of stranslation ( Seguinot, 1989) + translating without interruption for as long as possible + correcting surface errors immediately + leaving the monitoring of qualitative or stylistic errors to the revision stage  LOCAL strategies: - Dealing with texts segments (Bell, 1998) - Specific activities in relation to translator’s problem-solvig & decisionmaking (Jaaskelaimen, 2005) ACCORDING TO NEWMARK (1981,1988)  WORD-FOR- WORD translation - SL word order: preserved - Lexical items: translated single out of context Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  LITERAL translation - SL grammatical constructions: converted to their closest TL equivalents - Lexical items: translated singly out of context Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  FAITHFUL translation - Producing presise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of TL grammar Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  SEMANTIC translation - (= FAITHFUL translation) taking more accounts of the aesthetic value of the SL text Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  FREE translation - Producing TL text without the style, form or content of the original  IDIOMATIC translation - Reproducing the message of the original - Preferring colloquialisms &idioms where these not exist in SL text Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  COMMUNICATIVE translation - Rendering the exact contextual meaning of the original - Both content & language: readily comprehensile to the readership Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  ADAPTATION - The freest form of translation (mainly for plays & poetry ) - Themes, charaters, & plots usually preserved - SL cultures: converted to TL culture - The text: rewritten Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… TRANSLATION METHODS ACCORDING TO VINAC & DARBELNET (1958,1995,2000)  DIRECT BORROWING - Comprising native words in the donor language - Becoming increasingl common, yet should be the lasts resort - Eg: oxygen or PR => Vietnamese? Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………  LOAN/ CALQUE TRANSLATION - CALQUE: a special kind of borrowing whereby a language borrows an exrpression of another & then translates lteraly each of its elements Lexical calque structual calque - Eg: superhero or black market -> Vietnamese ? Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  LITERAL TRANSLATION - Direct transfer of a SL text into a grammatically & idiomatically approriate TL text - Eg: I left my glasses on the table => Vietnamese ? Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  TRANSPOSITION? - Replacing one word class with another without changing the meaning of the message - Can also be applied within a language I’m happy that she has returned => I’m happy about her return - 02 types of transposition in translation + obligatory transposition + optional transposition - Eg: Khi cố trở => English? - English nomializations  Vietnamese verbal constructions Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  MODULATION - A type of transposition at the global level , applying to the category of thought (rather than grammar) - Abstract  concrete ( eg: floating ribs => xương sườn cụt) - Cause  effect (eg: polomlitis : sốt bại liệt ) - Means  result (eg: undescended testides: tinh hoàn ẩn - Popular style  professional style ( eg: windpipe: khí quản) - A  negation of not -A ( eg: fainting: bất tỉnh) - One metaphor to another (eg: tapeworm: sán xơ mít) - One color to another (eg: pinkeye: bệnh đau mắt hột ) …… Eg: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… WHAT IS EQUIVALENCE? What does the term “EQUIVALENCE” bring to your mind? Equivalence-based theories generally define EQUIVALENCE as the relationship between ST & LT EQUIVALENCE: THE MOST TRADITIONAL & CRITICAL CONCEPT IN TRANSLATION THEORIES - … the conceptual basis of translation (House, 1997) - … decoding SL text & endeavoring to find an appropriate equivalent in TL text to encode whatever has been decoded in SL (Baker, 1992) - a relationship existing between two entities, i.e likeness / sameness/ similarity/ equality (Halverson, 1997)  Cicularity: (Pym, 1992):  Equivalence defines translation  Translation, in turn, defines equivalence - The central task of translation theory: defining the nature & conditions of translation equivalence (Catford, 1965) TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE vs FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE (CARFORD, 1965)  Translation equivalence Any TL text ( or portion of text) which is observed on a particular occasion to be the quivalent of a given SL form  Formal correspondence: Any TL category (unit, class, structure, ) which can occupy (nearly) the same place as the given SL categoryn occupies in the SL Ex1: Both English and French have sentence-clause- group- word-morpheme  There is formal correspondence between two herachies of unit Ex2: In both English and French, prepositions functio along with nominal groups in the structure of adverbial phrases which function in both languages as qualifers or adjuncts  There is formal correspondence between the wordd-class preposition in English & French  Transference = an operation in which the TL text ( or part of the TL text) has values set up in the SL (ie having SL meanings) - Example the lexical item “ sputnik” + It first occurred in English, this item has remained within only the last lexical set & with the approciate contextual meaning + In Russian, sputnik” appears in a number of lexical sets, eg + fellow traveler + companion + satellite (planet, moon,…) + artificial satellite (spaceship…) - In English, this item has remained within only the last lexical set & with the approriate contextual meaning - This English meaning of “ sputnik” correclate with part of the total formal-contextual meaning of Russian  Lexical partial transference  Pure meaning-tranference may also occur when a TL text contais a TL word in its normal TL phonologial/ graphological form but with a contextual meaning taken over form SL  Translation: There is substitution of TL  Transference: There is an implantation of meanings for SL meanings SL meaning into the TL text SOME MORE ITEMS OF YOUR CONSIDERATION  - Chợ nổi: floating market Red light district: phố đèn đỏ Vedette: vedette : feng shui/ phong thủy This program is sponsored by… chương trình tài trợ Situational features: Distinctive features which are contextually revelant to a text & determine the selection of one certain linguistic form as apposed to another - Distinctive feature of contextual meaning = features of situation substance - Eg: “ I am interested in translation” # I was interested in translation # I have been interested in translation  For total translation, equivalence occus when a SL & TL texts/ items are related to (at least some of ) the some features of situation substance LIMIT OF TRANSLATIBILITY FOR RESTRICTED TRANSLATION  Phonic substance # Graphic substance  A phonological item cannot be relatable to the same substantial features as a graphological item  One cannot translate from the spoken to the written form of a text, or vice versa  Phonic & graphic substance # Situation substance  There is never any translation form phonology to grammar, nor from graphology to grammar  Translation from grammar/ lexis to the medium- levels impossible  No possible translation between (spoken & written) media  No possible between either of the medium-levels (phonology & graphology ) and the levels of grammar and lexis Example: I did it   - -   -  C’est bien moi qui I’ai fait We may mistakenly conclude that… The English phonological feature (eg: marked tonicity ) & graphological feature ( i.e: italizication of “I”) are grammatically translated by a special kind of sentence in French A given French grammatical/ lexical item can be equibalently translated into English only by the tone of the voice In fact,……: Both of the English tonicity and italizication are merel the corresponding spoken & writtens of a grammatical catefory (ie: major- information-point) which has an equivalent in French The tone in English does NOT work as the translation equivalent of a French grammatical/ lexical feature Rather, the exponent of the equivalent grammatical/ lexical feaure in English happens to be tonicity On a SYSTEMS LEVEL: Equivalence: the neutral designation for parameters describing the relationship beween ST & TT Neutral in value Measured by certain criteria eg: coherence, thematic patterns …) On a TEXT LEVEL: Applying parameters to a specific concrete original text & its translation - Positive/ negative equivalence - Masured by a set of text- specific parameters for each intance of evaluation (varying by individual texts) + Equivalence: = “ equitability” of ST & TT + Non- equivalence: = “non quitablity “ of ST& TT From the perspective of Nida  FORMAL equivalence: - Focusing on the message itself in bothe form & content - A.k.a “ gloss translation” (aming to follow readers to understand as much as of the ST context as possible)  DYNAMIC equivalence - Based on the principle of equivalence effect - Relationship between receivers & TL message = relationship between original receivers & SL message From the perspective of Koller (1989)  REFERENTIAL / DENOTATIVE equivalence - Equivalent element in SL & TL refer to the same thing in real world  QUANTIFY-BASED CLASSIFICATION From the perspective of Kade (1968) & some other authors  COMPLETE CONCEPTUAL equivalence  Eg A.I, I.C -> VIETNAMESE? Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  PARTIAL equivalence  Eg> homepage, online-> Vietnamese Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  INCLUSION equivalence ( a term merges into another)  Eg: máy tính -> English Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………  NIL equivalence (=No conceptual equivalence)  Eg: debug -> Vietnamese? Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… From the perspective of Koller (1989):  REFERENTIAL/ DENOTATIVE equivalence  Equivalent elements in SL &TL refer to the same thing in real world Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………  CONNOTATION equivalence  Equivalent elements in SL&TL trigger the same associations in the mind of the speaker of speaking of both languages Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  TEXT-NORMATIVE equivalence  Equivalent elenments in SL & TL are used in similar contexts in their respective languages Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  PRAGMATIC/ DYNAMIC equivalence  Equivalent elements in SL & TL create the same effect on their respective readers Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  FORMAL equivalence  Equivalent elements in SL &TL have the same orthographic & phonological features From the perspective of Popovic (1976) Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  LINGUISTIC equivalence:  There is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL & TL = word-by-word Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  PARADIGMATIC equivalence:  There is equivalence of the elements of paradigmatic expressive exis, i.e elements of grammar Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  STYLISTIC (translational) equivalence:  There is functional equivalence of elements in both original & translation aiming at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meanig Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  TEXTUAL (syntagmatic) equivalence:  There is equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e equivalence of form and shape Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… From the perspective of Baker ( 1992)  Equivalence at WORD (& above word) LEVEL  GRAMMATICAL equivalence:  In view of diversity of grammatical categories across language Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  TEXTUAL equivalence:  In view of information & cohesion Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………  PRAGMATIC equivalence:  In view of implicatures & strategies of avoidence Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… BAKER’S (1992) taxonony Using a general word [a superordinate]  When dealing with man types of non-equivalence Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Using a more neutral/ less expressive word  Another strategy related to the semantic aspects Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Using cultural substitution  Making the translated text more natural, understandable & familiar to the target reader Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Using a loan word of a loan word plus explanation  When dealing with culture- specific items, modern concepts or buzzwords Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Paraghrasing, using related words  When the idea of the SL item is lexicalized in TL yet in a different form Paraghrasing, using unrelated words  When the concept of SL item is not lexicalized in TL  When the meaning of the SL item is complex in SL Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Translation by omission  Avoiding lengthy translations in some certain contexts Eg: ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Translation by illustration  When the TL equivalent does not cover some aspects of the SL iterm  When the TL equivalent refers to a physical entity that can be illustrated (in order to be concise & to the point)   - EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATING POEMS & SÓNG POEMS & SONGS & interesting translation dormain Semantics & syntax in a new dimension (ie: as a conceptual & cultural phenomenon) Both formal& dynamic equivalence at work Fluence & authenticity compromising the SL message Lyrics translation = NORMAL + PARTIAL phonological translation Translating the SL text in terms of lexis- grammar, semantics & pragmatics Prioritizing the phonological aspects Taking rhyming, melody & tone into account EXERCISES: Đĩa (danh từ)= plate/ disk; hard [tính từ ]: khó/ cứng  INCLUSION EQUIVALENCE Acid= a-xít; beefsteak: bít tết; moscow: mát-xcơ- va  PHONOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE Áo dài= ao dai; phở= pho; pizza: pizza  NIL- EQUIVALENCE Look! That’s the wretched man I told you about=:….thằng khốn…  STYLISTIC equivalence Kỹ quản lý thời gian: time management skill  COMPLETE CONCEPTUAL EQUIVALENCE I gave you all my heart = anh trao em trọn tim Một giọt máu đào ao nước lã = Blood is thicker than water  CONNOTATION EQUIVALENCE Chú ý: ghế sơn= caution: Wet paint  PRAGMATIC EQUIVALENCE Best regards [at the end of a letter/ an email]: Trân trọng/ kính thưa  Text-normative equivalence DYNAMIC TRANSLATION MODEL DYNAMIC TRANSLATION MODEL (DIM) shows different components of translation as a process & help us recognize & follow the flow of actions carried out by different participants in the traditional process Further reading material: Toward on integrated translation approach- Proposal of a Dynamic Translation Model (Bolanos, 2008, pp 138-140) DYNAMIC TRANSLATION MODEL DTM= a mediated communicative model including     - - Initiator (=Client) Original author Translator Target audience The original author produces a SL text which is received by the translator who is in charge of producting a translated text in TL The translation is addressed at the target audience who is not knowledgable in the source language & culture Another participant may come into play: the initiator (an individual/ a group/ an instritution that has a strong on how being on how the ST is to be translated) Initiator in translation: + Primary I (using the TT) & Secondary I ( commisioning the task) + Expecting a TT that conforms to the translation skopos + Giving instructions to the translator (Translational Instructions) + Supplying information about: the purpose of the text; the addressee; the medium of communication: the intended function of the text The translational communication process is determined by contextual factors (ie: the historical, culture & sociopolitical aspects where one finds translation norms) Translation Norms = parameters that determine many of the translator’s activities & decisions by establishing how one should translate into the target culture in order for the translation to be accepted without being punished - Besides the contextual level, DTM also has a textual level where the purpose of the original authors, the initiator & translator is correctized - The guiding demension of the text construction is pramatic (ie: following the communicative intention of all active participants in the process) - Default Text Type = a similar text type to that of the original text - Textual dimensions: + Semantic: what the text says in a real/ imahinary world + Stylistic: the text’s lexical& syntactic organization + Semiotic: verbal & non-verbal sign systems used in the text - -         - Understanding DTM The initiator influences the translational process by means of his/ her translational instructions The initiator’s intention may coincide or contradict the SL author’s The translator: + receives the SL text; + weights the input provided by th initiator against the author’s intentionality verbalized in SL: + decides whether to obsserve or reject the translational norms of TL If the translatior sticks to the original verbalized intention, (s) the follows the Default Equivalence Position & produces a translation proper If not, the translator may produce an intertexual product (eg: a summary or an adaptation) The text gets to the TL receiver, who assumes that it is a translation proper if there is no additional information Default Equivalence Position ( DEP) DEP= a abstract concept referring to the equivalent relationship between ST & TT when the original author’s commicative intention prevails Linguistically-oriented approaches have advocated DEP Initiator’s instructions & Translational norms not affect the way the original text is translated SL author’s communicative purpose is reproduced by the translator whose professional duty is being faithful to what is originallu expressed in ST The pramatic dimension of ST occupies the highest rank in the translational activity DEP seems to be the general norm that applies to the translation of informative/ scientific/ literary/ political texts DEP can function as a definition- related translation benchmark Equivalence determinants: Both ST & TT are the concretizations of the author’s intention mediated by the intention of the translator who abides by the translational norms & the initiator’s instructions - If the translator’s intention is to follow the author’s intention as expressed in the original text:  DEP obtains - If the translator’s intention is NOT to follow the author’ios intention as expressed in the original text (due to personal beliefs/ external constraints)  DEP is partially or totally overridden - If DEP is partially overridden  Foreignizing: strategy where original culture items & linguistic structures are maintained  Literal translation (in terms of lexis & syntax)  Domesticating: strategy where cultural marks of the original are masked or accommodated to the target cultural & linguistic patterns  Freezer translations (ie: displaying proper target forms) - If DEP is totally overridden:  Original author’s intension & ST’s functions are also overridden  The resulting translation is not necessarily a translaton proper, but other textual products (eg: adaptation, summary, commentary)  If no DEP can be established between ST & TT, no translation obtains EQUIVALENCE RANGE (ER) - ER: a theoretical contruct that helps to understand that whenever DEP applies, a range of equivalents is activated, depending on the translator’s decisions and prevailing translational norms & initiator’s instructors  Translatio is an interlinguistic & intercultural communicative process that yields at least one possible translation product  As target norms may change on account of changes in aesthetic, sociopolitical & other conditions, new renderings may be called for CULTURE IN TRANSLATION  Cultural knowledge & cultural difference have long been a major focus oas wef translation theories  Cultural difference = a function of the distance texts move, the distance form the place/ time in which they are written to the place/ time in which they are read  As we approaches cultural boundaries, texts become increasingly difficult unstand until we give up & demand a translation At that point, we know we’ve moved from one culture to another  The main concern has been about words & phrases that are so exclusively grounded in one culture that they are almost unstranlable  Beginning in the mid-70s, scholars began to explore the impact of culture on translation  Esp, the impact of TL culture on translated text & how it is used/  Beginning in the late 80s, other scholars started to explore the impact of colonization on translation  Esp, the power differentials between “ first-world” – “third- world” coutries & how they control the ideology as well as translation practice BUT WHAT IS CULTURE “ It is enough to define the limits of a culture as the points where transferred texts have had to be (intralingually or interlingually) translated That is, if a text can adequately be transferred [moved in space and/ or time] without translation, there is cultural continuity And if a text has been translated, it presents distance between at least two cultures” (PYM 1992) CULTURE CATEGORIES ECOLOGY Flora, fauna, seasons, winds, plains, hills,……  The species of flora & fauna are local, & are not translated unless they appear in both SL&TL environment  For teachnical texts, the Latin botanical & zoological classifications can be used as an international language MATERIAL CULTURE (artefacts) Food, clothes, transportantion, house & towns…  Food tearms are subject to the widest variety of translation produre in various settings (eg: menus, cookbooks, tourist brochures)  Clothes as cultural terms may be sufficiently explained for TL general readers if the generic noun or classifier is added  The function of generic clothes terms is approximately constant, indicating the part of the body that is covered ORGANIZATIONS-CUSTOMS-ACTIVITIES-CONCEPTS Political & administrative, religious, artistic,  The political & social life of a country is reflected in its institutional terms  The tittle of a head of state or the name of parliament is usually transparent, ie Made up easily translated morphemes  Where the name of a parliament is not readily translatable, it has a recognized official translation for administrative documents but is often transferred for an educated readership  A government is usually designed as a “ counsil of minister” & may informally be referred to by the name of the capital city  Some ministries & political parties may also be referred to by their familiar alternative terms (eg The name of the building where they are housed)  Names of ministries are usually translated litterlly, provided they are adequately descriptive If the public body has an opaque name (eg: BRITISH COUNSIL, MAISON DE LA CULTURE…):  The translator has to establish whether there is recognized translation & whether it can be understood by the target readership  In formal informative text, the name should be transferred (eg: maison de la culture = arts center)  If some doubtful cases, a functional equivalent is preferable (eg: BRITISH COUNSIL = a national organizaton responsible for promoting English language & British culture aboard)  For impact & neatness (not for accuracy), a TL cultural equivalent of a SL cultual-free functional equivalent  When an important word is used in a special/ delicate sense, a serious translator tends to add the SL word in brackets (after attemping a translation signaling that he finds his translation inadequate HISTORICAL TERMS  In case of historical institutional terms, the first principle is not to translate them unless they have generally accepted translators  In academic texts, they are usually transferred with, where approciated, a functional or descriptive term INTERNATIONAL TERMS  International instuitional terms often have recognized translatons (usually throughtranslations) & are widely known by their acronyms (eg: ASEAN, FAO, IMF, UNESCO, WHO,…) ARTISTIC TERMS  The translation of artistic terms related to movements, processes & organization generally depends on the putative knowledge of readership  For educated readers, opaque names are transferred & transparent names are translated SOCIAL CULTURE (work &leisure ) GESTURE &HABITS SOME TRANSLATION PRODURES PROPOSED BY NEWMARK (1988)  Transference: transferring an SL word to a TL text  Naturalization: adapting an SL word first to normal pronounciation, then to normal morphology of the SL  Cultual equivaleny: replacing a cultural word in SL with a TL one  Neutraliztion: - Funtional equivalent: requiring the use of a cultual-neutral word - Descriptive equivalent: explaining the meaning of culture-bound terms in several words  Paraghrase: explaining the meaning of culture- bound terms, with this explanation being more detailed than that of descriptive equivalence  Synonymy: (= a near TL equivalent) SELF-PROJECTION INTO THE FOREIGN (INTUITIVE LEAPS)  The lesson from feminists & posycolonial therists of translation We should be careful about trusting our intuitions about cultural knowledge & difference  Culture boundaries exist in the midst of what uesed to seem like unifield & harmonious culture  Unversalism is increasingly seen as an illusion- an “intuition” generated not by nature but by cultural habit & prejected outward by hygemonic cultures (eg: patriarchy, colonialism, capitalism)  The effect of this awareness is to build suspicion into our cultural habits & the intuitive leaps about what this or that word or text means:  A first-word translator should never assume his intuitions are right about the meaning of a third-word text, a male translator about the meaning of a text written by a woman, or a white translator about a text written by a person of color…      IMMENSION IN CULTURES (PATTERN-BUILDING) Trained to become more suspicious of our intuitive understanding of a text to be translated, we go on believing in our ability to work through a correct interpretation No matter what else we do, we continue to immerse ourselves in various cultures, eg: local/ regional/ national/ international/ foreign/ school/ work/ family/neiborhood cultures… We go on trying to bridge the communicative gaps between individuals & groups by paying close attention to how other people use language Belief, values, ideas, images, experiences travel across boundaries through language, gesture, & the contagion of somatic respone The more culture data we gather, the more “ culturally literate” we become, & the more we know cultures work & how hard it is to cross over into another cultural realm  We accept out difference, our aliennessl, our lack of belonging & learn to live with it & even to cherish it INTERCULTURAL AWARENESS (RULES AND THEORIES)  IC explores the problems of communicating across cultural boundaries, both intra- and interlingual           “the The steps by which a member of one culture adapts to another DENIAL (= isolation, separation) DEFENSE (= superiority, denigration) MINIMIZATION ( = transcendent universalism) ACCEPTANCE (= respect for the value/ behavioral difference) ADAPTATION (= empathy, pluralism) INTERATION (= contextual evaluation, constructive marginality) This is how one becomes acculturated in the process of translation & interpretation ETHNOCENTRISM Refusal to communicate across cultural boundaries Rejection of the foreign Universalization of one’s own habits & assumptions CROSS- CULTURAL TOLERENCE  Monolinguals communicating with foreigners who speak their language  Members of different subcultures within a single national culture coming into contact & learning to accept differences  Growing tolerance for cultual & linguistic relativism INTERGRATION Fluency in foreign language & culture Ability to speak its language without strain Ability to adapt & fell at home in foreign language TRANSLATION / INTERPRETATION Ability to mediate between cultures & explain one to another Mixed loyalities Pushes & pulls of the source & target cultures  IC is the base line of translator/ interpretor training IC traisn monolinguals to get along in intercultural contexts, & translation studies begins at the fluent intergration SINCE THE MID-1970S There have been “ sociocultural” approaches to translation studies cultural turn” (1980s& 1990s) “ the sociological turn” (2000) THE CULTURAL & SOCIOLOGICAL TURNS  Scholars moved the cultural study of translation out of the realm of realia & into the realm of large-scale political & social systems  The polysysyems, descriptive translation studies, manipulation school  Scholars explored cultural systems which controlled translation & their impact on the norms & practices of actual translation work  The main assumptions: - Translation is always controlled by the target culture - The belief structure, value systems, linguistic conventions, & moral norms of target culture always sahpe translations as well as translators’notions of “equivalent”  From universial forms & norms to culturally contigent ones  From prescriptions designed to control all translators to description of how target cultures control specific ones Since the late 1980s &1990s, new trends of culturally oriented translation theory have expaned on DTS  Feminist & postcolonial approaches to translation  Feminists & postcolonist are committed to the overthrow of patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism & sympathetic to opperessed miniroty cultures - Their writing styles are “ passionately engaged”/ “politically correct” - They are more tolerant of propagandistic & other contested forms of translation than the descriptivists  Feminists & postcolonist also level serious criticism at the notion that the target culture always controls translation  The history of colonialism is full of cases where an imperal source culture controlled the process of translating texts into the local target language of the colonies POSTCOLONIAL TRANSLATION STUDIES  A dominated culture will invariable translate far more of a hegemonic culture than the latter will of the former Eg: far more books are translated from English into other languages than from those languages into English  When a hegemonic culture translate texts produced by a dominated one, the translation tends to be perceived as difficult & esoteric, whereas a dominated culture will translated a hegemonic culture’s works accessibly for the masses Eg: + Asia & Africa translate a broad spectrum of North American& European works, they achieve high popularity + North America + Europe translate a tiny segment of Asian & African texts, & they are published for a specialist audience by small publishing houses  A hegemonic culture will only translate those works by authors in a dominated culture that fit the former’s preconceived notion of the latter Eg: + In Western eyes, Japan is a place of martial arts & ruthless business dealings, and Japanese books selected for translation into Western languages tend to confirm these stereotypes + Works perceived as “un-Japanese” will be more difficult to publish in translation  Authors in a dominated culture who dream of reaching a large audience tend to write for translation into a hegemonic language, which requires the conformity to some certain stereotypes FEMINIST TRANSLATION STUDIES  The bulk of feminist translation work has been done in a strong activist mode, embodying resistance to the patriarchy  03 main strands of feminist translation studies: - Recovering the lost/ neglected history of woman as translator & translation theorists - Articulating the patriarchal ideologies undergirding mainstream translation theory in the West - Formulating a coherent & effective feminist pratice of translation: feminist translator translating male writters? Male writters being translated propagandistically? Feminist translators trying to highlight traditional value systems or convert it to a more progressive view? “ The culturel turn” had a new sesurgence in the 2000s  The activist movement within translation studies  Fundamental assumptions: - It is possible for human beings to be morally or ideologically neutral - Translator always intervene in the verbal & cultural actions to which they contribute  Diverse scholars (linguist, lterary translator & postcolonial scholars) have focued their attention to the tendenuous changes translators introduce into the texts they translate A QUICK SUMMERY  The more translators know about the complexities of cultures & intercultural competence/ awareness (including power differntials between cultures & genders), the better they will be  Intuitive leaps :  Becoming aware of the blindness to cultural difference that is almost always built into intuition by our cultural habits  Pattern building:  Learning about other cultures & how to commnunicate equitably with them, rather than feeling frustrated at the difficulty of unlearning ethonocentric habits which may feel intuitively right  Rules & theories- The cultural & sociological turns  Two surges; - DTS in the late 1970s & 1980s - Feminism & Postcolonialism in late 1980s& 1990s  Possibly a third surge: activist conceptions of the role of translators in late 1990s & 2000s