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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page271

oftranslationoperationsandtheconsiderationsunderlyingcertaindecisions

takenduringthecourseoftranslation.Becausethetranslationprocessis

essentiallya‘blackbox’(Holmes1972:72),anyclassificationofshiftsatthis

levelhastobebasedontranslationcompetence,thatis,onthepossible

relationshipsanddifferencesbetweensystemsorcodes.But,sincetheempirical

testingofcognitiveprocessesinvolvedintranslationisproblematical(see

THINKALOUDPROTOCOLS;PSYCHOLINGUISTICAND

COGNITIVEAPPROACHES),processorientedtypologiestendtoreduce

theoretical,generaltranslationcompetencetoaspecifictranslationideal.A

distinctionisoftenmadebetweenobligatoryandoptionalshifts(vandenBroeck

andLefevere1979;Toury1980a;vanLeuvenZwart1989).Obligatory

shiftsaredictatedbydifferencesbetweenlinguisticsystems,forexamplealack

ofcorrespondencebetweenrelatedlexicalitemsinthesourceandtarget

languages(Kade1968:79ff.).Optionalshiftsarethoseoptedforbythe

translatorforstylistic,ideologicalorculturalreasons.Thisdistinctionissimilarto

onemadebyPopovičbetweenconstitutiveandindividualshifts(seebelow),but

accordingtoPopovičconstitutiveshiftsarenotexclusivelylinguistic.

Asfarastheproductorientedviewofshiftsisconcerned,thefollowing

definitionbyPopovič(1970:79)mayserveasastartingpoint:‘Allthatappears

asnewwithrespecttotheoriginal,orfailstoappearwhereitmighthavebeen

expected,maybeinterpretedasashift’.Inthisdefinition,threeelementscanbe

discerned:(a)arelationshipbetweenthesourceandtargettexts(‘newwith

respecttotheoriginal’);(b)arelationshipbetweenthetargettextandits

receptioninthetargetsystem(‘whereitmighthavebeenexpected’);and(c)a

descriptivepointofview(‘maybeinterpreted’).Thedescriptivefocuscanbe

eitheron(a)oron(b).Forexample,azeroshiftestablishedatspecifictextual

orlinguisticlevelsinthesource/targettextrelationship(i.e.aninstanceof

invariance,wherenothingnewappears)maystillbeinterpretedasashiftin

termsof(b):byviolatingtheexpectationsofthetargetsystem,atargettextmay

acquireafunctionotherthanthatfulfilledbythesourcetextinthesource

system.Thisdoublepointofviewimpliesthatthereisalwaysthepossibilityofa

descriptioninwhichshiftsareshowntooccurintranslation.Forthisreason,

shiftsaresometimescalledacategorialquality(vandenBroeck1984–5:

117)oftheclassoftranslation.Thisqualitycanbecausallylinkedtothedouble

statusofthetranslationasareconstructionofanothertextandatextfunctioning

initsownrightinthetargetculture(see,forinstance,Levý1969:72).

Definitionandclassificationofshiftsinproductorienteddescriptions

Anytypologyofshiftspresupposesadescriptivepointofview(see

DESCRIPTIVEVS.COMMITTEDAPPROACHES).Thispointofviewcan

bemadeexplicitintermsofcriteriaorparametersforcomparativeanalysis.

Onemightsuggestthattherelationshipbetweenatranslationanditsoriginalmay

bedefinedasa‘networkofcorrespondencesandshifts’(Koster2002:34).For

anygivenparameter,thedegreeofcorrespondencethatwillbetakenas

invariancehastobeestablished.

Catford(1965)discussesshiftswithintheframeworkofalinguistictheoryof

translation(seeLINGUISTICAPPROACHES).Withinthisframework,shifts

occuronthegrammaticalandlexicallevels,andtheirinvestigationistherefore

pursuedwithintheboundariesofthesentenceasanupperrank.Catford

distinguishesbetweenatextualequivalent,‘anyTLtextorportionoftext

whichisobservedonaparticularoccasion…tobetheequivalentofagivenSL

textorportionoftext’,andaformalcorrespondent,‘anyTLcategory(unit,

class,structure,elementofstructure,etc.)whichcanbesaidtooccupy,as

nearlyaspossible,the“same”placeinthe“economy”oftheTLasthegivenSL

categoryoccupiesintheSL’(Catford1965:27).Helimitshistheoryofshiftsto

instancesoftranslationwhichsatisfytheconditionthattherelationshipbetween

sourceandtargetutterancescanbeidentifiedbyacompetentbilingualastextual

EQUIVALENCE.TheinvariantofcomparisonCatfordemploysisformal

correspondence.Shifts,inhisdefinition,are‘departuresfromformal

correspondenceintheprocessofgoingfromtheSLtotheTL’(ibid.:73).If,

fromadescriptivepointofview,agivenTLinstanceisobservedtobeatextual

equivalentofagivenSLform,thisdoesnotentail

Page272

thatformalcorrespondenceexistsbetweentheunitsundercomparison,since

theTLcategoriescannotnecessarily‘besaidtooccupy,asnearlyaspossible

the“same”placeintheeconomyoftheTLasthegivenSLcategoryoccupiesin

theSL’(ibid.:32).Thetypeanddegreeofdivergencebetweenformal

correspondenceandtranslationequivalencecanbedetailedintermsofshifts.

Catforddistinguishestwomajortypes,levelshifts(whereanSLitematone

linguisticlevel,forexamplegrammar,hasaTLequivalentatadifferentlevel,for

instancelexis)andcategoryshifts,whichinvolve(a)changesofstructure

(structureshifts,forexampleasubject–predicate–objectstructuremaybe

translatedasapredicate–subject–objectstructure),(b)changesofrank(unit

shifts,forexampleawordmaybetranslatedbyamorphemeoragroupbya

clause),(c)changesofclass(classshifts,forexampleanadjectivemaybe

translatedbyanounoraverb),or(d)changesofterm(intrasystemshifts,

shiftswhichoccurinternally,withinasystem,whensourceandtargetlanguage

systemshavethesameformalconstitutionbuttranslationinvolvestheselection

ofanoncorrespondingtermintheTLsystem)(Catford1965:73ff.).

InPopovič(1970),themainconcerniswithLITERARYTRANSLATION,

andshiftsarethereforedefinedasastylisticcategoryandtermed‘shiftsof

expression’.ForPopovič,‘asystematicevaluationoftheshiftsofexpression

thatoccurinatranslation’,andhence‘theobjectiveclassificationofdifferences

betweenthetranslationanditsoriginal’(ibid.:84),shouldbebasedonatheory

ofexpression,suchascanbefoundinMiko(1970).Thelinguisticmeans

employedinthesourceandtargettextscannotbecomparedinisolation,but

only‘inrelationtotheentiresystemofexpression’(Popovič1970:84).Itisthis

systemofexpressionwhichallowsustodeterminetheexpressivevaluesofthe

respectivelinguisticdevices,anecessarypreconditionfortheestablishmentof

shifts‘inthesphereofstyle’(ibid.:83).Style,forPopovič,isamultilayered

andhierarchicallyorganizedconcept.Itisbecauseitcoversabstractand

generalcategoriesandqualities,aswellasmorespecificstylisticmeans,thatit

canbeusedasaninvariantforthecomparisonofsourceandtargettexts.For

theevaluationofshifts,itisnecessarytoexaminetherespectivedifferentiationof

stylisticqualititiesinthesourceandtargetlanguagesandtexts.Popovič

distinguishesbetweenconstitutiveshiftsandindividualshifts.Constitutive

shiftsaresystembound,buttheconceptiswiderthanthatofobligatoryshifts.

Popovičdefinesaconstitutiveshiftas‘[a]ninevitableshiftthattakesplaceinthe

translationasaconsequenceofdifferencesbetweenthetwolanguages,thetwo

poeticsandthetwostylesoforiginalandtranslation’(1976:16).Onemightalso

conceiveoftheseshiftsasconstitutiveinthesensethattheyareconstitutivefor

thestyleofthetranslation(cf.thenotionofshiftsasacategorialqualityof

translationabove).AccordingtoPopovič,thestyleofthetranslation,conceived

ofasthe‘integrativeprinciple’inthedevelopmentofitsstructure(1970:79),is

necessarilydeterminedbyshiftsbecauseofits‘dualcharacter’(ibid.:82):ithas

tocomplybothwiththenormsoftheoriginalandwithagiventarget‘translation

ideal’.Individualshiftsdifferfromconstitutiveshiftsinthattheyarepromptedby

thestylisticpropensitiesandthesubjectiveidiolectoftheindividualtranslator.

Whenchangesatthelevelofmacrostylisticscausethetranslationtofita

literarygenredifferentfromthatoftheoriginal(seeADAPTATION),Popovič

speaksofagenericshift(seealsovandenBroeck1986).

WithinthemethodologyofToury(1980a:89–121,1985:32),theinvariantof

thecomparisonistheadequatetranslation(AT)andtheunitofcomparisonis

thetexteme.Anadequatetranslationisareconstructionofsourcetext

textemesandconsistsofanEXPLICITATIONofthetextualrelationsand

functionsofthesourcetext.Assuch,itisnotanactualtextbutahypothetical

construct,servingonlymethodologicalpurposes(seeHermans1995:218–20

foracriticalassessmentofthisconcept).Thedegreeofcorrespondencetaken

asinvariancewithinthismethodisadequacyatthetextemiclevel,andshiftsare

definedasdeviationsfromadequacy.Thepurposeofcomparisonisto

determinethedistancebetweenthe‘actualequivalence’foundbetweensource

andtargettextsandthemaximalnormofadequatetranslation,inasmuchasthis

distancecanbeattributedtonormgovernedtranslationalbehaviour.Since

obligatoryshiftsarerulegoverned,theycannotbetakentoreflecttranslational

NORMSandarethereforenottakenintoconsideration;methodologically,they

areaccountedforintheinvariantitself(theweak