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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page307

ofthetranslator,cognitivefactorsandthestatusoftranslationwithinthetarget

culturemayinfluencetheoperationofthelaw(ibid.:270–2).Accordingtothe

lawofinterference,phenomenapertainingtothemakeupofthesourcetext

tendtobetransferredtothetargettext.Theextenttowhichinterferenceis

realizeddependsontheprofessionalexperienceofthetranslatorandthe

socioculturalconditionsinwhichatranslationisproducedandconsumed,so

thatexperiencedtranslatorstendtobelessaffectedbythemakeupofthe

sourcetext,andtolerancetowardsinterferencetendstoincreasewhen

translationiscarriedoutfromahighlyprestigiousculture.Theprestigevalue

assignedtodifferenttexttypesinthetargetlanguagealsohasanimpactonthe

operationofthelaw.Technicaltranslation,forexample,maydisplayalower

degreeofinterferencecomparedwithliterarytranslation(ibid.:275–9).

InlinewithToury,Chesterman(2000,2004a)viewsthequestforuniversalsas

onewayinwhichdescriptivescholarsproposeandlookforgeneralizations

abouttranslation.Thesegeneralregularitiesorlaws,heexplains,areexplored

byputtingforward,operationalizingandtestinggeneraldescriptivehypotheses

abouttheexistenceofsimilaritiesbetweendifferenttypesoftranslation,without

disregardingeitherthedifferencesbetweenthemortheuniquenessofeach

particularcase.ChestermanmakesausefuldistinctionbetweenSuniversals,

‘universaldifferencesbetweentranslationsandtheirsourcetexts’,andT

universals,‘universaldifferencesbetweentranslationsandcomparablenon

translatedtexts’(Chesterman2004a:39).Ifuniversalsaresupportedby

extensiveempiricalevidence,theycanhaveexplanatoryforceasregardsthe

occurrenceofagivenfeatureinaparticulartranslation(Chesterman2000:26).

Thereasonsfortheexistenceofuniversals,ontheotherhand,aretobefoundin

thenatureoftranslationasacommunicativeact,thetranslator’sawarenessof

hisorhersocioculturalrole,andinneighbouringfieldsofscientificenquiry,such

ashumancognition.

DrawingonCroft’s(1990:246)‘scalarconceptofgeneralization’,Halverson

positsthatuniversalsaresecondlevel(orinternal)generalizationsmadeonthe

basisofnumerousempiricalstudies,andassuchtheyare‘explanatorywith

respecttoindividualstudiesofparticularlinguisticrealizationsand/orlanguage

pairs’(2003:232).Bycontrast,thirdlevel(orexternal)generalizationsare

madeonthebasisofcognitivefactors.Halversonfurtherarguesthatvarious

universallexical/semanticpatternsobservedinST–TTpairs,parallelcorpora

andmonolingualcomparablecorporacanbeexplainedbytheexistenceof

asymmetriesinthecognitiveorganizationofsemanticinformation,wherebythe

nodeswhichfunctionascategoryprototypeandhighestlevelschemaaremore

prominentandimportantthanothers,mostlyasaresultoftheirhighfrequency

ofuse(Langacker1987).Conversely,theabsenceoftheseasymmetriesis

assumedtoproducetheoppositeeffectintranslatedtext.

Thenotionofuniversalshasalsobeenthesubjectofsomecriticism.Tymoczko

(1998:653)maintainsthatthesearchforuniversallawsoftranslationfollowsthe

traditionofempiricalresearch,whoseclaimsaboutscientificobjectivityhave

beenseriouslychallengedbytwentiethcenturyexplorationsofsubjectivityinthe

socialsciences.Similarly,Arrojoarguesthatanyregularitiesidentifiedin

translation‘willreflecttheinterestsofacertaintranslationspecialist,ora

researchgroup,atacertaintime,inacertaincontext’(ChestermanandArrojo

2000:159).

Theintroductionofelectroniccorpusanalysisasaresearchmethodologyin

translationstudiesinthemid1990shasactedasastimulustoempirical

researchintouniversals(seeCORPORA).Thankstotheincreasingavailability

ofparallelandcomparablecorporainagrowingnumberoflanguages,corpus

basedstudieshaverefined,extendedanddiversifiedpreviousdescriptive

researchintolinguistictranslationuniversals,mostnotablysimplification(Blum

KulkaandLevenston1983;Toury1995;Vanderauwera1985),

EXPLICITATION(BlumKulka1986;Klaudy1996b;Shlesinger1989a,

1995;Toury1995;Vanderauwera1985)andnormalization(Vanderauwera

1985;Shlesinger1991;Toury1995).

Intermsofsimplification,four‘corepatternsoflexicaluse’wereidentifiedby

LaviosaintheEnglishComparableCorpus(ECC),amultisourcelanguage

monolingualcomparablecorpusmadeupoftranslationalandnontranslational

narrativeandnewspapertexts(Laviosa1998b:565):