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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page107

translations.Forexample,namesofvillagesandrivers,orofitemsoffoodand

drink,whicharewellknowntothesourcelanguagecommunitymaymean

nothingtothetargetlanguageaudience.Insuchcases,atranslatormight,for

instance,write‘theriverMaros’forMaros,or‘LakeFertő’forFertő.

Translationinherentexplicitation

Translationinherentexplicitationcanbeattributedtothenatureofthe

translationprocessitself.Séguinotdrawsadistinctionbetween‘choicesthatcan

beaccountedforinthelanguagesystem,andchoicesthatcomeaboutbecause

ofthenatureofthetranslationprocess’(1988:18).Thelattertypeof

explicitationisexplainedbyoneofthemostpervasive,languageindependent

featuresofalltranslationalactivity,namelythenecessitytoformulateideasinthe

targetlanguagethatwereoriginallyconceivedinthesourcelanguage(Klaudy

1993).

Corporainexplicitationresearch

AsoneofthepotentialUNIVERSALSoftranslation,researchonexplicitation

gainedanewimpetusinthe1990s,thankstotheintroductionofelectronic

CORPORAasresearchtoolsintranslationstudies.Corpusbasedstudies

revealednewevidenceofexplicitationasastrategyoftranslationandof

explicitnessasacharacteristicfeatureoftranslatedtexts.OlohanandBaker

(2000),forinstance,foundthattheoptionalconnectivewasmorecommonina

corpusoftranslatedEnglishtexts(theTranslationalEnglishCorpus)thanina

corpusofnontranslatedtextsinthesamelanguage(asubsetoftheBritish

NationalCorpus).Pápai(2004),usingtheARRABONAcorpuswhichconsists

ofEnglishandHungarianparalleltextsandHungarian–Hungariancomparable

texts,identifiedsixteentypesofexplicitationstrategies(frequentuseof

punctuationmarks,fillinginofellipticalstructures,additionofconjunctions,

lexicalexplanationandadditionofdiscourseorganizingitems,amongothers)in

English–Hungariantranslation.Thestudyalsorevealedahigherlevelof

explicitnessintranslatedHungariantextsthaninnontranslatedHungariantexts.

Explicitationvs.implicitation:theasymmetryhypothesis

Klaudy(2001)examinedtherelationshipbetweenexplicitationandimplicitation

inoperationscarriedoutbytranslatorstranslatingliteraryworksfromHungarian

intoEnglish,German,FrenchandRussianandviceversa.Obligatory

explicitationshiftsaregenerallysymmetrical,thatis,explicitationinonedirection

ismatchedbyimplicitationintheother.Optionalexplicitationinonedirection

mayalsobeinasymmetricalrelationshipwithimplicitationintheopposite

direction;however,duetoitsoptionalnature,thistypeofexplicitationisnot

alwayscounterbalancedbyoptionalimplicitationintheoppositedirection.

Klaudy(1996a)demonstratedthattranslatorscarryingoutEnglish–Hungarian

backtranslationdonotomitelementsaddedinHungarian–Englishtranslation.

QuantitativeanalysisofsemanticvariabilityofreportingverbsinEnglish–

HungarianandHungarian–Englishtranslationsindicatedthat,whiletranslators

tendtochoosemorespecificreportingverbsintranslationfromEnglishinto

Hungarian(forexample,‘say’wouldbereplacedbytheequivalentof‘mutter’,

‘burston’,‘accuse’,etc.),theydonotchoosemoregeneralverbsinthe

HungarianintoEnglishdirection(KlaudyandKároly2005).Thesefindings

seemtoverifytheasymmetryhypothesispostulatedbyKlaudy(2001),

accordingtowhichexplicitationintheL1



L2directionisnotalways

counterbalancedbyimplicitationintheL2



L1directionbecausetranslators–

wheretheyhaveachoice–prefertouseoperationsinvolvingexplicitation,and

oftenrefrainfromintroducingoptionalimplicitation.Shouldthishypothesisbe

verified,itwouldunderpintheassumptionthatexplicitationisauniversal

strategyoftranslation,independentoflanguagepairanddirectionoftranslation.

Newdevelopmentsinexplicitationresearch

Researchonexplicitationasastrategyandexplicitnessasasupposeduniversal

oftranslatedtextshasbecomeatestinggroundfornewexperimentalmethodsin

translationstudies,suchas

Page108

THINKALOUDPROTOCOLSandkeystrokelogging(EnglundDimitrova

2005),andhasbenefitedfromnewtheoreticalapproaches(House2004a;Pym

2005a;Heltai2005).EnglundDimitrova(2005)investigatedthetranslation

processusingthelanguagepairRussian–Swedish,focusingontheexplicitation

ofimplicitlogicallinks.Thedataanalysedshowthatcertaintypesof

explicitationappeartofunctionastranslationNORMSandareadoptedby

professionaltranslatorsaspartofahighlyautomatizeddecisionmaking

process,whileothersoccurastheresultofintralingualparaphrasinginthetarget

language,aspartofthetranslator’srevisionofthetargettext.

Pym(2005a)attemptstomodelexplicitationwithinariskmanagement

framework,arguingthat‘sincetranslationinvolvescommunicationintoacontext

withafewersharedreferences,itinvolvesgreaterrisksthannontranslation,

whichdoesnotconsistentlyhavethisfeature.Andwheretherearegreaterrisks,

therearegreateropportunitiesforriskminimization’(ibid.:41).Heltai(2005)

raisesthequestionoftherelationshipbetweenexplicitnessandprocessability:if

translationsaremoreexplicitthannontranslationswhyisitoftenmoredifficult

toreadtranslations?Explicitationmayincreaseredundancy,butincreased

redundancydoesnotalwayshelpprocessing.Heltaioffersadetailed

descriptionoftheeffectofredundancyandellipsisonthereadabilityof

translatedtexts.

Itisespeciallyrevealingtoinvestigatetheoccurrenceofexplicitationinmodes

oflanguagemediationwheretimeandspaceconstraintsmightprecludeit.Inthis

respect,studiesconductedsofarsuggestthatexplicitationisindeedafeatureof

interpreting(Shlesinger1995;Ishikawa1999;Gumul2006)andsubtitling

(Perego2003).

Seealso:

CORPORA;EQUIVALENCE;LINGUISTICAPPROACHES;NORMS;

SHIFTS;UNIVERSALS.

Furtherreading

VinayandDarbelnet1958/1995;Séguinot1985;BlumKulka1986;Doherty

1987;Séguinot1988;VehmasLehto1989;Baker1993;EnglundDimitrova

1993;Baker1996a;Puurtinen2001;Klaudy2003;House2004a;Pápai2004;

EnglundDimitrova2005;Heltai2005;KlaudyandKároly2005;Pym2005a.

KINGAKLAUDY

Page109

Fictionalrepresentations

Withtranslation(includinginterpreting)beingubiquitousintherealworld,itis

notsurprisingthatithasemergedasathemeorplotdeviceinfiction.Eveninits

mostimaginativeandfantasticshapes,fictionalwayshasamimeticdimensionin

thebroadsenseofreferringbacksomehowtoourunderstandingofrealityand

commentingonit.

Thereareseveralotherbasicconventionsofthenarrativegenrethatwould

seemtoinvitethe‘emplotment’ofMULTILINGUALISMandtranslation.

Mostnarratologicalmodelsrecognizetheimportanceofconflictasthedriving

forceofplots.Conflictingwantsandneedsmaydevelopwithinthesame

linguisticcommunity,butinstoriesdescribingcosmopolitanfictionalrealities

(e.g.borderlands,moderncities,internationaldiplomacy,espionage)orstories

involvingshiftsalongthespatialaxis(e.g.travel,exploration,conquest,

migration)theymaywellfindexpressiononthelinguisticplane.Inthatcase,

translationmayplayapartintheconflict’sresolution,ortheabsenceor

mismanagementofinterlinguisticmediationmaybecomeanobstacletoits

solution.Independentlyofallthesymbolicandsocioculturalvaluesthat

translationmayacquire,thefigureofthetranslatorcaninthiswaybecentralto

the‘mechanics’oftheplotasprotagonist,antagonistorhelper,possiblyin

variousroles(thetranslatorashelpermaybecometheprotagonist,orturn

enemy,etc.).

Since,inamorerhetoricalperspective,theartofnarrativelargelydependson

themanipulationofthereader’sknowledgeandcuriosity,translationcanbe

employedforthesakeofmysteryandsuspensemanagementtoo.From

SherlockHolmes’sadventurewith‘TheGreekInterpreter’(1893)toDan

Brown’sTheDaVinciCode(2003),onefindscountlessexamplesoffiction

wheretranslationservestoencodeandthen,attheappropriatemoment,to

unlockacrucialpieceofinformation,suchasaprophecyorasecretmessage.

RhetoricaleffectsofaverydifferentnaturemaybefoundinCOMICtexts

whereinterlingualmisunderstandingsandmistranslationsaremobilizedfor

humorouspurposes.

Despitealltheseandotherpossibilities,inmanycasesfictionaltextswillfailto

reflectthemultilingualismwhichisknownorcanbeassumedtoexistinthe

fictionalworld.Thepossibilitiesthatexistinthisrespecthavebeensummarized

bySternberg(1981)asfollows:

♦vehicularmatchingmeanstheallotmentofdifferentlanguagesorlanguage

varietiestocharactersandgroupsofcharactersinaccordancewithour

knowledgeofthehistoricalrealityrepresented;

♦thehomogenizingconventionisoperativewhenamonolingualtext

describeswhatweknoworbelievetobeamultilingualreality;thecredibility

gapthatsuchanonmimeticpolicymayentailismostlytakencareofbythe

viewer’sorreader’s‘willingsuspensionofdisbelief’;

♦referentialrestrictionappliestotextswhicharemonolingualbecausethe

socialmilieuofthefictionalworldismonolingual;

♦inthemuchrarercaseofvehicularpromiscuity,multilingualtextualmeans

areusedtoexpressmonolingualrealities,asinJoyce’sFinnegansWake

(1939).

Itismainlyinfictionaltextsthatshowvehicularmatchingwhereoneexpects

translationtobecomeanissue.

Amorefinegrainedanalysiscoulddescribetheexactdegreesandtypesof

codemixing