Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page91

aboutfigurativeexpressionmaybeunderlinedasbeingparticularlyrelevantto

thetaskoftranslating;thisrelatestowhatindiscoursecircleshasrecently

becomeknownastheintimacytheory:metaphorsdonotoperatesingly,they

forma‘network’,asitwere.Thematic/poeticlinksareestablishednotonly

withinthesamestretchoflanguage(say,aparagraphorasingleoralencounter)

butalsowithinmuchwiderspans,asinthecaseofashortstoryornovel(Abu

Libdeh1991).Thishasnotonlyenabledtranslatorstoseemetaphoric

expressioninanewlight,butithasalsoencouragedtranslationtheoryto

supporta‘beyondmereembellishment’viewoffigurativeexpressions.In

poetry,forexample,aspectsofthemessagesuchassoundsymbolism,rhyme,

metre,alliterationandsofortharenolongerseenasdivorcedfromsemantic

content,butaspartandparcelofthetext’soverallimportandeffect(Campbell

1993).

Theutilizationofmetaphorinrelayingpointofview,expressingperspectiveand

generallypropoundingaparticularbrandofIDEOLOGYmaybeillustrated

fromaninterestingdomainofdiscourseatwork,namelyNuclearDiscourse.

Thenuclearindustryhasalwaysbeenconcernedwithpeople’snegative

reaction,andtocounterthis,whatcametobeknownasnukespeakdeveloped

(Chilton1985).Nukespeakisthelanguageusedtorefertonuclearweaponsin

aratherdeceptiveway,withtheintentiontomaskwhatsuchweaponsreally

are.ExamplesincludeVanguard,Polaris,cruise,andevenStrike:thelatter

maysimplysuggestaslapwiththehandratherthanincineratingthousandsof

people.Translatorsandinterpretersareconstantlycalledupontodealwiththe

kindofmaterialthatprimarilyservesopaquediscoursalpurposessuchas

nukespeak.

Anotherdomainthathasattractedtheattentionofbothdiscourseanalystsand

translationtheoristsissexistdiscourse.Anumberofprinciplesunderpinning

sexistexpressionofattitudehavebeenidentified,andawarenessoftheserules,

whichregulatethePRAGMATICSofcommunication,havebeenseenas

indispensabletoolsforthetranslator(seeGENDERANDSEXUALITY).

Courtroominteraction

Courtroominteractionhasbeenanotherfertileareafordiscourseanalysisthat

hasyieldedmoreimmediatelyaccessibleinsightsintranslationstudies,

particularlyintotheprocessofinterpreting.Thecentralhypothesisentertained

bythiskindofresearchclaimsthat,duetodifferentmodesofclassandsex

socialization,somedefendantswillbemoreabletocopewiththepower

differentialsatcourtthanothers;forexample,middleclassdefendantsarelikely

toknowtheroleexpectationsbetterthanworkingclassdefendants.The

questionsaddressedbystudieswithinthisbrandofdiscourseanalysisthus

includethefollowing:Arethosewhoareunfamiliarwiththesystem

discriminatedagainst?Doesthedefendants’linguisticbehaviourcontributeto

theoutcomeofthehearing?Wouldtheinterpretermakeitapriorityonhisor

herlisttopreservetheoverallcoherenceofanincoherentdefence?Perhaps

moretothepoint,wouldtheinterpretertrainhim/herselftoresistthetemptation

ofsteppingintohelpanincoherentdefendant?Thesearesomeoftheproblems

withwhichpractitionersareconcernedandwhichhaveattractedtheattentionof

thetranslationtheorist(BerkSeligson1988,1990;Morris1995;Barsky1996;

Hale1997;seealso:ASYLUM;COURTINTERPRETING;ETHICS).

Competingdiscourses

Aparticularlyinterestingphenomenon,andonewithwhichtranslatorsoften

havetowrestle,isthatofdiscoursewithindiscourse,orthenotionofcompeting

discourses.Thisiswhenagivendiscourseborrowsfromoreffectively‘hijacks’

anotherdiscourse(Bakhtin1981),relayingintheprocessallkindsofmarked

meaningsthatthetranslatorhastopreservebymastering:(a)theprediscourse

normsoflinguisticusage;(b)theunmarkeddiscoursetobedepartedfrom;and

(c)thediscoursebeingborrowedforarhetoricalpurpose.

AnexamplecanbeseeninSykes(1985),whofocusesontheexpression

‘immigrantsandtheiroffspring’,whichEnochPowell,aBritishpoliticianknown

atthetimethespeechwasgivenforhiscontentiousviewsonrace

Page92

relations,wasfondofusinginpreferenceto,say,‘immigrantsandtheir

children’.Withintheanalytictrendcoveringthistypeofdiscourse,elements

suchas‘offspring’areanalysedbothtextuallyandintertextually.Thetextual

analysiswouldinvolveassessingthechoiceofgivenlinguisticelementsinboth

syntagmaticandparadigmaticterms,thatisintermsofwhatisincluded,and

how,andwhatisexcludedandwhy.AsSykes(ibid.)pointsout,Powell’s

lexiconforfamilyrelationshipsisalimitedone.Thesearethetermsrelevantto

immigrantsandtheirchildren,togetherwiththeirfrequencyofuseinthespeech

analysed:immigrantsandtheiroffspring(2);theoffspringofimmigrants(1);

immigrantoffspring(1);immigrantandimmigrantdescendedpopulation(2).In

thisparticulardomainoffamilyrelationships,termswhichcouldhavebeenused

butwereexcludedare,amongothers:‘husbands’,‘wives’,‘mothers’,‘fathers’,

‘parents’,‘sons’,‘daughters’,‘families’.Therulegoverninginclusionand

exclusionoftermsismostrelevanttothetranslatorwhohastooperatewithin

similarconstraintsandpayspecialattentiontotheoveralleffectofthiskindof

restrictedtexture.

LinguisticformssuchasthosefromPowell’sspeechareintertextuallyseenby

translatorsintermsof(a)aprediscoursallinguisticnorminwhichsynonymy

couldbesaidtoexist(e.g.offspring=children);(b)anunmarked,registerbased

discourse(offspring=+legal);and(c)amarked,importeddiscoursewhich

involvesthehijackingofthenormaldiscourseof(b),becausePowellisnota

lawyerbutapolitician.Thecompetitionofthevariousdiscoursescanultimately

bereconciledbyarrivingatareadingwhich,whileinstitutionallysound(thetext

producercouldnotbetakentocourtforlibel),isintertextuallypernicious:inthe

particularcontextunderstudy,Powell’sremarksaredehumanizingand

reminiscentofstatementsoftenheardwithinracistdiscoursesuchas‘theybreed

likerabbits’.Translatorsworkwiththisintricatenetworkofrelationships,each

ofwhichwouldconstitutethelimitsofdiscoursalexpressionwhichhastobe

reachedbeforerealintentionsareproperlyrelayed.

Furtherreading

Chilton1985;Sa’adeddin1989;HatimandMason1990;Barsky1993;

Campbell1993;HatimandMason1997;Wadensjö1998;Barsky2005.

BASILHATIM

Dramatranslation

Unlikethetranslationofanovel,orapoem,thedualityinherentintheartofthe

theatrerequireslanguagetocombinewithspectacle,manifestedthroughvisual

aswellasacousticimages.Thetranslatoristhereforefacedwiththechoiceof

eitherviewingdramaasliteratureorasanintegralpartofatheatricalproduction

(vandenBroeck1988:55–6).Translatorsmayapproachtheplayasaliterary

workwhen,forinstance,thetranslationofthecompleteworksofaparticular

playwrightisundertaken,asinthecaseofJamesMcFarlane’stranslationof

Ibsen’scollectedworks.Whenperformedonstage,however,thewords

spokenconstituteonlyoneelementofatheatricalproduction,alongwith

lighting,sets,costumesandmusic.Here,becauseitformspartofanintegrated

whole,greaterdemandsarealsoplacedonthetranslationwithrespecttoits

‘performability’,thusincreasingthetensionbetweentheneedtorelatethetarget

texttoitssource(theadequacyfactor),andtheneedtoformulateatextinthe

targetlanguage(theacceptabilityfactor)(Toury1980a:29;seeNORMS).

Dialect,styleandregister

Satisfyingthelinguisticrequirementsofperformabilitymayentailadjustmentsat

anumberofdifferentlevels.If,forinstance,aplaywasoriginallywrittenin

dialect,thetranslatorwillhavetomakeadecisionastowhetherthereisa

suitabledialectintheTLintowhichitmaybetranslated.Successfulattemptsto

overcomethisproblemincludeBillFindlay’stranslationofTheWeaversby

GerhartHauptmann,the1912recipientoftheNobelPrizeforLiterature.

FindlayskilfullyreplacestheSilesiandialectofthestrikingloomworkersby

ScotsandallowsthenumerouslinguisticoptionsmadeuseofbyHauptmannin

Germantofindtheirmatch