CONTEXT RETENTION
Assignment in Translating and Editing of Text Submitted by: Nikki T. Sia
A. Principle of Equivalence Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in translation viewed equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording' They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. Equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.
With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents'. They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution'. Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of examples to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take one is a fixed expression which would have as an equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and use the expression Échantillon gratuit.
Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum', he suggests three kinds of translation: Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase) Interlingual (between two languages) Intersemiotic (between sign systems) Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes'. Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions'. Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.
Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect'. In the second edition (1982) or their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence. Formal correspondence: consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than
dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'. Dynamic equivalence: is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful'.
Catford and the introduction of translation shifts preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria: The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation); The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation); The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation). We will refer only to the second type of translation, since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we will then move on to analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. Rank-Bound Translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST
Unbounded Translation equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels
One of the problems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT.
As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as 'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL'. argues that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis), and category shifts which are divided into four types:
Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT; Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be translated with a noun; Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank; Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system'. For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.
House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match one another in function. suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. According to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function'. Overt Translations the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'must overtly be a translation
Covert Translations is meant the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC audience
Baker's approach to translation equivalence New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between: Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one language into another.
Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages
Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion
, in a bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by the translator In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as single units in order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL gives a definition of the term word since it should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be assigned different meanings in different languages and might be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme that the translator should pay attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense that grammatical rules may vary across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the TL In fact, she claims that different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across changes may induce the translator either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text
Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation process
His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.
B. Back Translation A "back-translation" is a translation of a translated text back into the language of the original text, made without reference to the original text. Comparison of a back-translation with the original text is sometimes used as a check on the accuracy of the original translation, much as the accuracy of a mathematical operation is sometimes checked by reversing the operation. But the results of such reverse-translation operations, while useful as approximate checks, are not always precisely reliable. Back-translation must in general be less accurate than back-calculation because linguistic symbols (words) are often ambiguous, whereas mathematical symbols are intentionally unequivocal. In the context of machine translation, a back-translation is also called a "round-trip translation." When translations are produced of material used in medical clinical trials, such as informed-consent forms, a back-translation is often required by the ethics committee or institutional review board. When a historic document survives only in translation, the original having been lost, researchers sometimes undertake back-translation in an effort to reconstruct the original text. An example involves the novel The Saragossa Manuscript by the Polish aristocrat Jan Potocki (1761–1815), who wrote the novel in French and anonymously published fragments in 1804 and 1813–14. Portions of the original French-language manuscript were subsequently lost; however, the missing fragments survived in a Polish translation that was made by Edmund Chojecki in 1847 from a complete French copy, now lost. French-language versions of the complete Saragossa Manuscript have since been produced, based on extant French-language fragments
and on French-language versions that have been back-translated from Chojecki’s Polish version. Similarly, when historians suspect that a document is actually a translation from another language, back-translation into that hypothetical original language can provide supporting evidence by showing that such characteristics as idioms, puns, peculiar grammatical structures, etc., are in fact derived from the original language. For example, the known text of the Till Eulenspiegel folk tales is in High German but contains puns that work only when back-translated to Low German. This seems clear evidence that these tales (or at least large portions of them) were originally written in Low German and translated into High German by an over-metaphrastic translator.
C. Fidelity Vs. Transparency Fidelity (or faithfulness) and transparency, dual ideals in translation, are often at odds. A 17th-century French critic coined the phrase "les belles infidèles" to suggest that translations, like women, can be either faithful or beautiful, but not both.
Fidelity
Transparency
Faithfulness is the extent to which a translation accurately renders the meaning of the source text, without distortion
Transparency is the extent to which a translation appears to a native speaker of the target language to have originally been written in that language, and conforms to its grammar, syntax and idiom
A translation that meets the first criterion is said to be "faithful"; a translation that meets the second, "idiomatic". The two qualities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The criteria for judging the fidelity of a translation vary according to the subject, type and use of the text, its literary qualities, its social or historical context, etc. The criteria for judging the transparency of a translation appear more straightforward: an unidiomatic translation "sounds wrong"; and, in the extreme case of word-for-word translations generated by many machine-translation systems, often results in patent nonsense. Nevertheless, in certain contexts a translator may consciously seek to produce a literal translation. Translators of literary, religious or historic texts often adhere as closely as possible to the source text, stretching the limits of the target language to produce an unidiomatic text. A translator may adopt expressions from the source language in order to provide "local color".
In recent decades, prominent advocates of such "non-transparent" translation have included the French scholar Antoine Berman, who identified twelve deforming tendencies inherent in most prose translations, and the American theorist Lawrence Venuti, who has called on translators to apply "foreignizing" rather than domesticating translation strategies. Berman further insists on the need for a translation project to perform translation criticism afterwards. Many non-transparent-translation theories draw on concepts from German Romanticism, the most obvious influence being the German theologian and philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher. In his seminal lecture "On the Different Methods of Translation" (1813) he distinguished between translation methods that move "the writer toward [the reader]", i.e., transparency, and those that move the "reader toward [the author]", i.e., an extreme fidelity to the foreignness of the source text. Schleiermacher favored the latter approach; he was motivated, however, not so much by a desire to embrace the foreign, as by a nationalist desire to oppose France's cultural domination and to promote German literature. Current Western translation practice is dominated by the dual concepts of "fidelity" and "transparency". This has not always been the case, however; there have been periods, especially in pre-Classical Rome and in the 18th century, when many translators stepped beyond the bounds of translation proper into the realm of adaptation. Adapted translation retains currency in some non-Western traditions. The Indian epic, the Ramayana, appears in many versions in the various Indian languages, and the stories are different in each. Similar examples are to be found in medieval Christian literature, which adjusted the text to local customs and mores. D.
Equivalence
The question of fidelity vs. transparency has also been formulated in terms of, respectively, "formal equivalence" and "dynamic [or functional] equivalence". The latter expressions are associated with the translator Eugene Nida and were originally coined to describe ways of translating the Bible, but the two approaches are applicable to any translation. Formal equivalence corresponds to "metaphrase "literal" translation” ) attempts to render the text literally, or "word for word" (the latter expression being itself a word-for-word rendering of the classical Latin verbum pro verbo) — if necessary, at the expense of features natural to the target language
Dynamic equivalence corresponds to "paraphrase" "functional equivalence" conveys the essential thoughts expressed in a source text — if necessary, at the expense of literality, original sememe and word order, the source text's active vs. passive voice, etc.
There is, however, no sharp boundary between functional and formal equivalence. On the contrary, they represent a spectrum of translation approaches. Each is used at various times and in various contexts by the same translator, and at various points within the same text — sometimes simultaneously. Competent translation entails the judicious blending of functional and formal equivalents.[28] Common pitfalls in translation, especially when practiced by inexperienced translators, involve false equivalents such as "false friends" and false cognates.
Nida called his theoretical approach to translating “dynamic equivalence.” His initial definitions of the term were as follows: In such a translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship…, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message. A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message.
E. Understanding Jargon By definition, it is the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon. It is also unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing; gibberish. Some may say, it is specialized language concerned with a particular subject, culture, or profession or the terminology or idiom of a particular activity or group. Jargon is the collective name for words that only make sense to certain people. Jargon is ‘the technical vocabulary of a profession or group’. The word is used as a form of criticism when such terms are used unnecessarily for communication outside a group. Jargon can be a useful form of communication between members of the same group. It acts as a ‘shorthand’ which eliminates the need for lengthy explanations. The most important thing about jargon is that it should only be used when communicating with people in the same group. Some items of jargon eventually pass into common use because they seem to fill a need.
Terms such as own-goal [from football] or repression [from psycho-analysis] were once jargon. Academic study has its own jargon too, depending upon the subject in question. Terms such as hegemony (political philosophy) discourse analysis (linguistics) and objective correlative (literary studies) would not be recognizable by an everyday reader, though they might be understood by someone studying the same subject. Whatever the jargon of your own discipline, it should be used with precision, accuracy, and above all restraint. INSIGHTS: Through my research for the assigned topic, Context Retention, I have come across many ideas and theories which are more often understood roughly by most people simply because they have a vague idea on what it really means. Take for example, translation which is quite common to the ordinary person as it is an adaptation or to “say in other words”. However, in a linguistic approach, the terms are often tantamount to formal vs. dynamic equivalence. In usage, the verbatim translation is quite imperfect since words may carry multiple meaning but both are considered as ideal and possible approaches in the process of translation. Translation and context retention may be used by persons for retrieval of lost information, understanding of the Universal Truth, sharing of beliefs, understanding and appreciation of culture, bridging cultural barriers, advancements in human achievement, addressing social needs, social empowerment, binding nations and development of culture. In the principle of equivalence wherein there are multiple theories explaining such, one has to think about what is more practicable and of course, what is more suitable for the situation. Whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loantranslations, neologisms and the like. It must be taken into account that when there are limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasize. In dynamic equivalence as a more effective translation procedure, it should be noted that the translator should take into account the context of the situation, and should be able to effectively reach out the different readers the translator is addressing. This approach, as is it clearly stated, explains that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information'. However, in the linguistic approach by Catford, considers the concept of equivalence in translation as being an illusion. In other words, linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since translating
involves different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match from one language to another. With regards to jargon, however, it is vital that when communicating with people outside a group, jargon should be used as little as possible. The term jargon in its most negative sense describes the use of technical or obscure terms when addressing a general audience. The specialized terms of the subject should only be used if you are quite sure of their meaning. Never use jargon to show off or ‘impress’ readers as it is likely to create the opposite effect. Jargon terms should be avoided where perfectly ordinary terms will be just as effective. These simply cause disruptions in tone and create a weak style. In conclusion, it is important to note that when translating, context is essential. An individual word, such as ‘key’ (to a door? on a keyboard?) cannot be translated in isolation, unless the target language happens to maintain the same ambiguity as the source language. However, there is a lesser degree of consensus on the full extent of what comprises context in the world of translation and who is responsible for providing it. The effectivity of translation will always depend on how the translator effectively provides or transmits that meaning from source to target language.
