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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page148

Linguisticapproaches

Theterm‘linguisticapproaches’hasbeenusedtoreferto(a)theoretical

MODELSthatrepresenttranslationand/orinterpretingasa(primarily)linguistic

processandarethereforeinformedmainlybylinguistictheory(forexample,

Catford1965;Nida1964;House1977/1981;HatimandMason1990a,1997;

Davidson2002),and(b)adiverserangeofstudiesthatapplyfindings,concepts

andmethodsfromlinguisticsonanadhocbasistoexplainspecificaspectsof

thephenomenonoftranslationand/orinterpreting.Themeaningofanyterm,

however,isnotonlyafunctionofwhatitincludesbutalsoofwhatitexcludes,

andinthepastlinguisticapproacheshavecometobeperceivedasdistinct,in

particular,fromsocalled‘culturalapproaches’.

Cultural,orculturalstudiesapproaches,arelargelybasedonamixtureof

culturalstudiesandliterarytheory(Baker1996b).Iflinguisticandcultural

approachestotranslationweretobeunderstoodasdifferentiatedpurelyonthe

basisofthedisciplinesthatinformthem,theyshouldlogicallybeseenas

complementaryratherthanopposingparadigms.Argumentsinfavourofcross

fertilizationhavebeenputforwardbyBaker(1996b),Tymoczko(2002b),

Crisafulli(2002)andChesterman(2002b,2004b),amongothers.However,

theculturalstudiesparadigmemergedlaterthanthelinguisticoneandbuiltmuch

ofitsreputationaroundtheinadequacyofpreviouslinguisticallyoriented

theories,thussettingitselfinoppositiontoratherthaninacomplementary

relationwithlinguisticapproaches.

Notwithstandingthetruthinsomeofthecriticismslevelledagainstlinguistic

approachesbyproponentsofthe‘culturalturn’intranslation(Bassnettand

Lefevere1990),muchofthatcriticismassumesaviewoflinguisticsthathas

longceasedtoberepresentativeofcurrenttrendsinthefieldand,inparticular,

ofthelinguistictheoriesthathaveinformedthegreatmajorityofthediscussions

oftranslationatleastsincethelate1980sand1990s(seebelow).The

oppositionbetweenculturalandlinguisticapproachesisthereforearguably

artificial.Anotherreasonwhythelinguistic/culturaldichotomyhasbecome

obsoleteisthatrecentdevelopmentsintranslationstudieshavebenefitedfrom

inputfromawiderrangeoffieldsofstudy,suchassociology(see

SOCIOLOGICALAPPROACHES),narrativetheory(Baker2006a)and

anthropology(Blommaert2005;Sturge2007),makingthestudyoftranslation

andinterpretingatrulyinterdisciplinaryfield.

Alongwithmodelsandconceptsimportedfromotherfields,linguisticshas

consistentlycontinuedtoinformstudiesoftranslationalongtheyears.Course

materialintranslatortraininghasalwaystendedtorelyonlinguistictheory,in

particulartextlinguistics(e.g.Nord1988/1991a)andsystemicfunctional

linguistics(e.g.Baker1992;seeTRAININGANDEDUCATION).The

ThinkingTranslationseriespublishedbyRoutledgesince1992providesa

goodexampleoftheenduringrelevanceoflinguistictheory.Morerecent

publications,suchasMalmkjær(2005),providefurtherevidenceofthe

continuedappealthatlinguisticknowledgeholdsfortranslatorsandtranslation

scholars.Apartfromdiscussingarangeoflinguisticissues–fromrhymeand

collocationtoimplicatures–thatareparticularlyrelevanttopracticaltranslation,

Malmkjærexplorestheimplicationsfortranslationofdifferenttheoriesderived

fromthephilosophyoflanguage,inparticularuniversalismandrelativism.

Vandewegheetal.(2007)goasfarasclaimingthattheincreasingnumberof

conferencesandpublicationsfocusingon

Page149

linguisticaspectsoftranslationmightbetakenasanindicationthattranslation

studiesisexperiencinga‘linguisticreturn’.

Earlylinguisticapproaches

Fawcett(1997)offersacomprehensiveoverviewoflinguistictheoriesof

translationandhowtheydeveloped,aswellasabalancedassessmentoftheir

strengthsandweaknesses.ThetaxonomiesoftranslationSTRATEGIES

developedbyVinayandDarbelnet(1958),forexample,representthefirst

attemptsatsystematicallyclassifyingsomeofthelinguisticproceduresthatare

usedwhenattemptingtomaplexisandsyntacticstructuresacrosslanguages.

Despitetheirlastinginfluence,suchtaxonomieswerebasedonknowledgeof

contrastivelinguisticsratherthanonhowtranslatorsworkinpracticeand

thereforefailedtodescribetheoperationalstrategiesthatguidetheactual

translationprocess(Fawcett1997:50).

Otherlinguisticallyorientedtheoristshaveattemptedtoexplaintranslationin

termsofEQUIVALENCE,themostinfluentialbeingCatford(1965)andNida

(Nida1964;NidaandTaber1969).BothCatfordandNidastressthat

translationisnotaboutachievingequivalenceofmeaning;Catfordarguesthatit

isaboutfindingtargettextmeaningsthatareinterchangeablewithsourcetext

meaningsinagivensituation,thatis,whenthetworelatetosomeofthesame

featuresofextralinguisticreality.Catford’smodelnevergoesbeyondthelevel

ofthesentenceandisoutoftouchwithwhattranslatorsactuallydo(Fawcett

1997:56).However,asKenny(thisvolume)pointsout,therehavebeenfew

attemptstoproduceasimilarlycompletetheoreticalmodel,andCatford’s

notionofSHIFTSisstillwidelydiscussed.

Nidaattemptstoformalizegeneral,nonlanguagespecificstrategiesof

translation,basedontransformationalgrammarandtheconceptofdeep

structure.However,hisattemptsatmovingtowardsa‘science’oftranslation

areunderminedbyaprescriptiveattitudethatsometimesbordersonthe

patronizing,frequentreferencesto–andlackofdefinitionsfor–notionssuchas

the‘genius’oflanguageand‘natural’translation,andhisinsistenceontheuseof

readerresponseasameasureofequivalence,particularlyinthecontextofBible

translation,whichseemstoserveevangelicalpurposesratherthanscientific

interests(seeFawcett1997:57–8;Gentzler1993).

Theprescriptiveorientationofearlylinguisticapproachestotranslation(seealso

Newmark1988)hasbeenchallengedbyscholarswhohavearguedthatitdoes

notservetheinterestoftranslationstudiesasanempiricaldiscipline,whoseaim

oughttobetoexplainwhattranslationisratherthanwhatitshouldbe(Toury

1980a,1995).Thedescriptivefocusontranslationsasfactsofthetargetculture

alsostressedthatidealsofQUALITYareinevitablyhistoricalandcontextually

bound.Thislatterargumentrelatestoanothercriticismoflinguisticapproaches

totranslation,namelythattheyare‘essentialist’,thatis,theyassumethat

translationisaquestionofsuccessfullytransferringstable,languageandculture

independentmeaningsbetweensourceandtargettexts(see,forexample,

Arrojo1998).Theseargumentsstressthatmeaningsaredynamic,subjective

andthereforenotamenabletobeing‘reproduced’(evenwhentheyare

iterable,seeDECONSTRUCTION).

Incorporatingpragmaticsandsemiotics

Withoutgoingtothesamelengthsasdeconstructionandpostmodernismin

termsofdenyingthepossibilityofstablemeanings,attemptsattheorizing

languageasaninstrumentofcommunicationbeginbyacknowledgingthat

languagecannotbedivorcedfromthecontextofsituationandculturewhereitis

produced.TheworkofFirth(1956a,1956b)isfrequentlycitedinthiscontext.

Theassumptionthatcrosslinguisticequivalencecannotbepositedatthelevel

oflinguisticstructuresandsemanticsbutmustbeestablishedinsteadatthelevel

ofrealworldeventsthatinvolvehumanverbalandnonverbalactionsisalso

evidentintheworkofCatfordandNida.

However,mainstreamtraditionallinguisticshasitslimitationswhenitcomesto

dealingwiththenotionofcontext(Fawcett1997:72–3),andvariousscholars

havethereforeresortedtoneighbouringdisciplinessuchaspragmaticsand

SEMIOTICStoaccountforthephenomenonoftranslationasperformedby

reallifetranslators/interpretersandexperiencedbyreaders/