Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 136



Plan 1. Professional Translation: An Act of Communication 2. Components of Acts of Communication in Translation 2.1 . A i m s and intentions 2.2 Content and package 2.3. Professional loyalty 2.4. Quality 2.5. Discourse components 1. Professional Translation: An Act of Communication The professional translation is essentially a serviced activity with a communication function, performed in a professional setting with a professional aim in mind and constrained by this setting. Translation activity (interpretation and translation) is found in several contexts. The most widespread and best known type
school translation, insofar as virtually everyone experiences it in school. Its aims are to improve and/or test students' passive and active knowledge of a foreign language: translating into the foreign language shows and improves writing ability in that language, or at least the ability to write foreign language texts following lexical and syntactic choices induced by the source-language text; translating from the foreign language improves and demonstrates comprehension of words and linguistic structures in that language.

Another case is the translation of a text in a foreign language into one's own language for easier personal use at a later stage: for instance, one may wish to translate into one's own language parts of a user's manual if it is written in a language one does not read easily and if one expects to have to consult the manual rather often. Yet another case is the translation of a piece of literature, in particular poetry, for the translator's pleasure. The pleasure can be associated with the fact that translation involves a careful study of the text, or with the creative translation process itself. As for interpretation, the most widespread non-professional variety is occasional help given to friends, relatives, or tourists during visits, sightseeing, shopping, etc.

Professional Translation differs from all these in two basic respects:

Professional Translation is aimed at a Receiver (reader or listener) other than the Translator him-or herself; in professional Translation, the Receiver is essentially interested in the Text, in whatever "message" it carries, and/or in the Sender (author or speaker), not in the Translator or in the Translation process.

Professional Translation is done on request and for a financial reward.

Professional Translation is therefore

professional act of communication, and as such, it is subjected to professional rules, as well as to particular rules relating to communication.

Professional translation acts on a text written by an author, generally for source language readers as distinct from the translation-readers. One may add that in some cases it can be written directly for translation-readersa user's manual may be written especially for clients in an overseas market and in other cases both for source-language readers and for translationreadersas is the case of a user's manual for products aimed at both the domestic and overseas markets. Another point is that professional translation is paid for by a Client, defined here as the person, company, department, or other organization which orders the translation and pays the translator, and that this Client need not be the author or the reader of the translation. In the most general case, the configuration of communication actors in which professional translation occurs can be the following one: Author > Source-language reader Translator > Target-language reader

It defines two acts of communication, one going from the author to the source-language reader, and the other from the translator to the targetlanguage reader.
The classical model of Translation is:


> Translator



Interpretation differs from translation in that the Sender (the speaker) generally speaks either to the target-language listeners only or to both source-language listeners and target-language readers. Speaker > Source-language listener

Interpreter > Target-language listener Client It should be noted that in interpreting, unlike translation, all parties concerned are aware of the communication situation, including possible difficulties associated with the interlingual and sometimes intercultural transfer. Since generally all parties wish to communicate, more cooperation can be expected from them than in translation, where they are aware of a text rather than of a communication situation. This includes cooperation from speakers, who may try to speak more slowly, enunciate more clearly, choose certain terms and structures and avoid others, and clarify terms and concepts . Cooperation may also be forthcoming from listeners, especially in consecutive, where they can help the interpreter with word equivalents and generally listen sympathetically, though this is not always the case. In other words, although the interpreter essentially works alone, he or she may be helped through on-line interaction with both Sender and Receiver, while in translation such interaction is rather rare. On the other hand, if the proportion of target-language listeners in the audience is very small, the interpreter may suffer from interference instead of benefiting from cooperation, especially in consecutive. The reason is that source-language listeners often perceive interpretation as a necessary evil; when the delegates who actually need interpretation are few in number and unimportant for the others, interpretation can be perceived as an unnecessary evil that entails loss of time as well as technical constraints (speed of delivery, seating arrangements, the mandatory use of a microphone, etc.). Delegates may therefore put pressure on the interpreter to be very brief or summarize, and will not cooperate in other ways. 2. Components of Acts of Communication in Translation It is appropriate at the very beginning to reflect in some detail on the basic components of verbal acts of communication of the
type found in professional Translation.



and intentions

Initially, an act of verbal communication occurring in a professional Translation setting is triggered by an aim or intention.
These are multi-layered. For instance, at the most superficial layer, an act of communication may aim at i nforming the Receiver of a fact; at a deeper layer, it may aim at scoring a point in an i n t e l l e c t u a l debate by providing this information, or at converting the Receiver to a philosophy, or at sending an emotional message. Communication theoreticians often speak of a phatic layer, consisting

for instance of chit-chat or small talk to help build a personal relationship; of a cathartic layer , that is, communication aimed at releasing emotions; and of an informational layer.

Not all layers are equally active in a speaker's or author's conscious mind and not all are equally powerful in shaping the message which is eventuallyverbalized. Nor are they equally visible to an outside
observer, to the Receiver or even to the Sender him- or herself (indeed, some may be hidden in the subconscious or unconscious part of the mind, and would be sincerely disavowed if h e or she became aware of them).

Generally, conference interpreters and non-literary translators are not called on to work on all levels of intention, though, they have to take into account more than one level in serving the Sender's interests. Basically, they process consecutive units of source-language Text (text or speech) the size of sentences, clauses, or parts
of clauses (Translation Units), the content of which is essentially informational. The immediate aims behind informational discourse segments can be classified as follows:

Informing: the aim underlying the production of the segment may be limited to providing a piece of information such as an address, a name, dimensions of an object, etc. Explaining: the aim of the segment may be to clarify or to explain through information, as is the case of the explanation of symbols and abbreviations in a scientific paper.
Persuading: a Text segment may introduce a piece of information in order to convince the reader or listener that the Sender's idea is correct, morally right, appropriate for the circumstances, etc. For instance, figures may be given as evidence, or an authoritative personality supporting an opinion may be quoted.

In informational discourse such as is generally processed in non-literary interpretation and translation, these three components may also be equally active
in the Sender's mind: a piece of information may be consciously chosen for the purpose of explaining an idea, and the explanation may be given so as to convince the Receiver. The Translator who aims at serving the Sender will strive to produce his or her own target-language discourse in such a way as to contribute to all these "aim-layers." Since they converge toward the same goal, this does not pose any problem of principle; the main obstacles arise from the possible inadequacy or relative weakness of the information or package of the Text in relation to the Sender's aims and the Receiver's attitude.


Content and package

In most verbal communication acts, in order to achieve an aim, the Sender issues a verbal signal, written or spoken, which consists of informational content (the Message) and its package. In speeches, the package is made up of the words and linguistic structures of the
speech, as well as the voice and delivery (and sometimes, especially in poetry, the actual combination of word sounds and rhythm), plus a non-verbal signal; in written texts, it is composed of words, linguistic structures, fonts, page layout, graphics, etc. In other words, the term package refers to the linguistic and extralinguistic choices made by the Sender and to the physical medium through which they are instantiated. C l e a r l y , there may be informational content in the package as well. For instance, by using technical terms, the speaker or writer may show that they wish the Receiver to know that they are specialists; by using familiar style or slang in a type of discourse where more formal language is generally used, Senders, may aim at making it clear that they do not wish to follow conventional behavior; by imitating someone's linguistic or gestural mannerisms, they may show lack of respect for that person. There is also much information transmitted unintentionally by Senders in the package: mistakes may show the Senders low level of education, an accent may indicate the country or part of a country they are from, certain features of delivery may betray a speakers nervousness, and much information may be gained from a writer's handwriting.

It is important to note that both content and package are selected as a function of the characteristics of the target Receivers as perceived by the Sender, in particular their knowledge of the language, subject, and context, and their personal and cultural attitudes toward the Sender and his or her ideas. Basically, from the Sender's viewpoint, communication is successful if he or she manages to achieve the aim: that is, in the case of non-literary interpretation and translation, if Receivers of the targetlanguage Text are successfully informed, understand the point, and/or have
been persuaded.

2.3. Professional loyalty

From the above, it follows that the analysis of professional t ranslation should not be
construed as an exercise in linguistic and informational analysis only. Professional translation does not take place in a vacuum; it exists only as a service to be provided to other people. When such people communicate, they have aims. This raises a problem of principle: the Translator is working for the Sender, but also for the Receiver and the Client, whose purposes and intentions, may not tally. This is particularly true as regards the persuading aim, when the Receiver, whose interest may be different from the Sender's, may not want to be convinced and it also may apply to the informing aim, when Receivers may be interested only in the part of the information the Sender has chosen to give them, or may assign different weights to information elements. This is seen very clearly in legal proceedings, for example, where lawyers try to make the most of some pieces of information and to devalue others.

In interpretation, a listener or chairperson in a negotiation may want the interpreter to summarize or skip some speech segments because they do not want to hear them, although the speaker clearly intends them to be part of
the message. In such cases, the Translator is caught between conflicting interests and pressures.

The question

of professional loyalty is therefore a very real one. It is an ethical or philosophical issue rather than a technical one, but it does have practical implications.

The basic and probably most widely accepted position is that the Translator is an alter ego of the author or speaker, essentially
because such conflicts of interest are rather rare in translation and conference interpretation, though they may be frequent in legal translation and in court and community interpreting. This implies that ethically, the Translator should consider as his or her own the intentions or aims of the author or speaker and act accordingly, even against the interests of the reader or listener.

The Translator's position is often defined as a neutral one.

To serve the author or speaker, the Translator should be biased in their favor (but not to the point of being blind to the possible reactions of the Receiver, as this may lead to a lesser capacity to serve the former). If, in a conference, the interpreter works alternately for opposing speakers, his or her loyalty shifts from one to the other a s he or she interprets them. In translation, Senders loyalty generally poses few practical problems; in interpretation, however, feedback can come in during interpretation and interfere (questions, hostile reactions, interrup tions from listeners). In community interpreting, this becomes a key issue.

A corollary of the Sender-loyalty principle is that the interests of the Client, who is not intrinsically part of the Sender-to-Receiver communication process, must not be taken into account if they are not compatible with the Sender's aims. This, however, may be difficult both practically and psychologically, since the Translator's livelihood depends

on the Client, not on the Sender or Receiver. This incidentally is one of the major reasons why conference interpreters, who are generally recruited by colleagues (who therefore become "Clients" in a way, even though they are not the ones who pay), may attach more weight to their reputation in the profession than to feedback from conference delegates. The Sender-loyalty principle is not the only loyalty principle to be found in professional Translation. Some Translators see themselves as working for the Receiver irrespective of the interests of the Sender. Others feel their loyalty is due to the Client rather than to either the Sender or the Receiver. This in particular is the viewpoint of army and government Translators, in whose case such loyalty is considered essential. 2.4. Quality Considering that the Sender formulates a statement with an aim in mind, it
is t o assume that from his or her point of view, at the level of each Text segment, communication is successful if the aim is achieved or at least reasonably well served by the segment. From the Receivers' point of view,

Communication is successful if they understand the Sender's message, regardless of the fulfillment of the Sender's
aims: they may be satisfied with the communication even if they challenge the explanation and even if they fail to be convinced by the message.

Generally, as explained above, Translators regards themselves as serving primarily the Sender, the Receiver, or the Client. They can therefore consider
their task to have been successfully performed if they provide a satisfactory communication service according to the criteria of the Sender, the Receiver, or the Client respectively, depending on their basic philosophy in this respect. One should note that in some cases, the correlation between satisfactory quality as perceived by a given actor and the level of fidelity, linguistic acceptability, clarity, or terminological accuracy of the Translator's output is weak: interpreters have been known to serve the purpose of adding prestige to conferences where their linguistic mediation was not required, or to have useful role as "official scapegoats" in diplomatic negotiations, or to serve tactical purposes by giving one of the parties in negotiations more time to think. Translators have been known to fulfill legal or administrative translation requirements rather than actually transfer information, for instance in bilingual countries where Receivers understand both languages. In such cases, Translation quality may have little to do with getting the message across in a genuine act of communication. Clearly, even though the existence of such situations cannot be denied, they cannot serve as a basis for general translation strategies, especially in a training situation. For students, the goal should always be to serve communication interests.

It should be stressed that the Translator is instrumental in helping to achieve the Sender's aims, but cannot guarantee their fulfillment: the Sender's statement may be inadequate,
and the Receivers may lack the necessary background knowledge, intellectual aptitude, or motivation to receive the message. In fact, they may have a strong resistance to the ideas the Sender is trying to transmit. Translators are also hampered by their position as "outsiders" who know lessgenerally much less in most technical and scientific translation settingsabout the subject at hand. Furthermore, on the communication configuration side, the Translator may know very little about the Sender and the Receiver, especially when working for a Client who is neither, such as a translation company; the interests of the company lie in keeping its own clients (Senders or Receivers), and such companies often refuse to give Translator information about these clients for fear of being bypassed in subsequent assignments. This is a specific and frequent case where the communication interests of the Sender clash with the commercial interests of the Client.

It follows that the degree of success in the communication act cannot be

taken as the sole criterion of translation quality, though decisions made by the Translator have to be compatible with the aims of the communication actor the translation is serving, generally the Sender.

2.5. Discourse components As indicated above, the act of communication occurring in the translation setting can be analyzed as a set of
two parallel components, namely content and package, which interact to provide the desired effect.

For instance , good content is weakened by poor style in writing and by a poor voice or poor delivery in a speech.
Conversely, a good voice and pleasant delivery m a y occasionally do more toward convincing a listener than the quality of the idea that is formulated or the information that is delivered.

This applies to the Translator's act of communication as well as to the Senders. For instance, translation readers often complain
about inaccurate use of terminology, which makes comprehension of translated texts more difficult in spite of a faithful rendering of the content. It may also impede communication by lowering the credibility of the Translator, who is thus identified in the eyes of the Receiver as an outsider to the field. Similarly, conference delegates sometimes complain about the monotonous delivery of interpretation which makes listening tiresome and hinders communication. On the other hand, nice packaging of the information by the translator or interpreter can strengthen the impact of a speech or text.

In fact, packaging may

r e s u l t in a distorted view of quality, especially in interpreting. One often hears delegates assess an interpreter's performance as good in spite of the fact that the interpreter sitting adjacent in the booth could detect numerous and sometimes major errors of content. It appears that the interpreters voice and self-assured delivery have a confidence-inspiring effect. Conversely, beginning interpreters with a somewhat hesitant voice are often mistrusted by delegates, however faithful and clear the informational content of their speech.

Basically, however, there is a consensus on some quality criteria which are more or less independent of the context: ideational clarity, linguistic acceptability, and terminological accuracy as well as fidelity on one side, and appropriate professional behavior on the other, all contribute to highquality translation. It is also worthwhile noting that some authors believe that acceptability criteria are not the same for translated texts as for texts written directly in the target language. In literary translation, this is easy to understand: literary texts are essentially vehicles for much more than information, including emotional and aesthetic components and readers may be aware of and wish to retain in the target
text linguistic traces of some features of the source language and culture and of the author's literary personality. However, in the translation of primarily informational texts, translation instructors seem to hold the unanimous view that the sole applicable criteria of acceptability are those of the target language.

The Sender In translation, Senders are generally unaware of the translation setting, and frequently do not even know the text is being translated. Most often, their command of the target language is weak or even
nonexistent. When they do see the t r a n s l a t i o n and when their understanding of the target language is adequate, they may be in a good position to assess translation quality insofar as they understand the content of the text and can pick up inaccuracies. In interpretation, Senders are generally aware of the fact that they are being interpreted and interact with the Receiver. In the consecutive mode, they can listen to the target-language speech, and, given sufficient understanding of the t a r g e t language, be in a good position to assess the quality of interpretation. They are also helped by the volatile nature of the spoken word, which disappears rapidly from their mind and leaves them with the meaning and general impact: they forget the exact words used in their own speech and in the message and impact of the target-language speech, whereas in translation there is always the temptation to compare words and linguistic structures. I n the simultaneous mode, Senders cannot hear the target-language speech, and can therefore only check it to a very limited extent through the reaction of the Receivers (the delegates), if any.

The Receiver of the target-language text

Receivers are at the opposite end of the communication line. In translation, they generally see only the target-language text and could not understand the source-language text even if they saw itotherwise, they would not need the translation. As far as the packaging is concerned, they can judge the clarity, linguistic acceptability, terminological accuracy, and logical consistency of the translation. However, they have no way of checking directly the fidelity of the target-language text, though they may be able to identify inaccuracies if the translator's output contains inconsistencies or gross errors which they believe are not likely to have originated in the Sender's discourse. In simultaneous interpretation, the situation is similar insofar as delegates can listen only to the original, or else to the interpretation. Some spotchecking of words or groups of words can be done, but it is extremely difficult if not impossible to listen to the whole target-language speech and to the whole source-language speech while it is being interpreted. Moreover, while a reader can often obtain the source-language text for verification purposes, doing the same thing for a speech is very difficult unless both the original and the target-language speech have been recorded, which is not standard practice. Even if such recordings are available, the comparison process is lengthy and tedious. A delegate listening to simultaneous interpretation can therefore assess the packaging, but may find it just as difficult to assess content fidelity as the Reader of a written translation. In consecutive interpretation, the situation is quite different: if delegates' understanding of both languages is good enough, they are in a relatively good position to assess the quality of interpretation regarding the accuracy of individual segments, though they may not be able to note all the omissions because of the large quantity of information involved and the fact that they do not take notes as the interpreter does. The Client When the Client is neither the Sender nor the Receiver, chances are that he or she does not read the translation or listen to the interpretation and does not know much about the subject. He or she is therefore not in a good position to assess the quality of the translation, and relies mostly on feedback from the or from other

Translators. In some cases, however, the Client does have translation competence and does check translation quality as a service to the other actors. In such a case, he or she can be a very good quality assessor.

The Translator


Translator as a Receiver and a Sender, has a good understanding of the language and a good command of the target language, but generally knows less about the subject, the motivations, the aims, and the respective interests of the actors, and is less familiar with the appropriate terminology than the Sender and the Receiver. Another constraint applies specifically to interpreters: because they are engrossed in complex cognitive operations under severe time pressure, their processing capacity is busy if not overloaded, and they are not in a position to monitor fully the quality of their output while interpreting. Clearly, after interpreting, part of the material for comparison is no longer there, as words have disappeared from their minds. In contrast, Translators have the material at hand and can scrutinize it in both the source language and the target language at any time. To sum up, the Translator is in a better position to assess quality than either the SENDER or the Receiver in some respects, but also has a limited assessment capacity.

LECTURE II. KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION Plan 1. Differences between Interpretation and Translation 2. Knowledge Acquisition in Written Translation 3. Knowledge Acquisition Strategies in Translation 4. Knowledge Acquisition in Interpretation 5. Long- term Knowledge Buildup in Interpreters and Translators It is a well known fact that an extralinguistic knowledge plays a major role in both the comprehension phase and the reformulation phase. It soon becomes clear to students attempting to translate or interpret specialized texts or speeches in fields they are not thoroughly familiar with that as a rule, the Translators preexisting knowledge does not cover all Translation requirements. 1. Differences between Interpretation and Translation Essentially, the types of information required for interpretation and translation are similar in nature and in use: Linguistic information Terminological information is necessary to understand more about sourcelanguage terms and to reexpress referents in target-language terms.The acquisition of terminological information is one of the most time consuming and difficult tasks in translation, while it is probably also the intellectually least gratifying to most people. Although no one could fail to understand "front and back, left and right", the right note will be struck for a leaflet on a sailing boat referring to "bow

and stern", "port and starboard", etc., while for a text on equipment for horses, "fore and hind", "near and off demonstrate knowledge of appropriate terminology. One might add that when appropriate terminology is not found in a target language text, this reduces the credibility of the translator and the translation and weakens its impact, hence a loss of communication performance from the author's or speaker's viewpoint. Stylistic information is required mainly for the purpose of reformulating the message in the target language along the same stylistic lines as those followed by native authors writing the same type of text in the target language. For instance, in the commercial description of a microcomputer, the English "includes math coprocessor socket," taken from an actual text can be translated literally which not always the case in the other languages. Extralinguistic information Extralinguistic information is required when linguistic cues in the sourcetext are not sufficient to allow the translator to understand it well enough to translate it. This may happen when the text is editorially unclear, in particular when it is ambiguous, when it contains mistakes, or when targetlanguage rules require explicit mention of information that is not explicit in the source language ( for instance, when translating "Dr. Jones" into French and having to decide whether it will be " Monsieur Jones," "Madame Jones," etc.). ONE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE between interpretation and translation should be recalled in the context of Knowledge Acquisition: linguistic acceptability requirements are higher in written translation than in interpretation, in particular with respect to terminological usage. Moreover, most of the specific Knowledge Acquisition for translation takes place during the translation work, whereas in interpretation, it takes place mostly before the conference.


2. Knowledge Acquisition in Written Translation Information sources for Knowledge Acquisition can be classified in several ways. One is the distinction between sources on paper, human sources and electronic sources (data stored on computer disks, diskettes, magnetic tapes or CD-ROMs). Non-human sources can be divided further into terminological and nonterminological or indirect sources. The formerdictionaries, glossaries, terminological files, etc.are essentially designed to provide information about the meaning of terms, the use of terms to denote concepts and objects and translinguistic equivalences of terms, and are used by translators for the purpose of gaining better understanding of their referents and their use and of translinguistic equivalences. Indirect or nonterminological sources are texts NOT designed with terminological use in mind: thematic articles, books, catalogs, etc., which can nonetheless be used to retrieve terminological information. Source variables in translation work For the professional translator, the usefulness of sources for Knowledge Acquisition revolves around five major variables: (1) Existence: This variable seems trivial at first glance, but it is an important one, since certain types of sources are more or less likely to exist depending on the field and the circumstanceswhich has implications for Knowledge Acquisition strategies. (2) External access: This variable reflects the cost of access to the source in terms of time, financial outlay, and effort or unpleasantness (for example, when the translator is faced with the unwillingness of a gatekeeper, a librarian, shopkeeper, or owner of a documentto allow access to the source). (3) Internal access: This variable is defined by the time and effort required to retrieve the precise information sought from the time the source becomes available. Internal access is a function of the way information is organized in the source, and of the source's editorial and visual quality (handwriting, good or bad printing characteristics, layout of the text, etc.)

(4)Coverage: This variable is defined by the ratio of information sought to information found in the source, which makes it a highly subjective variable. By convention, obsolete or sociologically non-relevant information (for instance a term not generally used by the group of readers for whom the translation is written) can be covered without being usable. Such Information does not affect coverage, but it does affect reliability. (5) Reliability . This variable indicates the degree to which information found in the source is reliable. A distinction can be made between linguistic reliability, which applies to information given by the source on how language is used to represent reality, and extralinguistic reliability, which refers to information given by the source on extralinguistic reality: do ideas, inscriptions, facts, etc., reported in the source reflect reality? 3. Knowledge Acquisition Strategies in Translation Time considerations In translation the specific knowledge is acquired during the task as the requirements arise. This allows the translator to optimize efforts none of which are wasted on information not directly used for the task. On the other hand, although unlike interpretation, translation allows hours even weeks for individual Knowledge Acquisition operations, the total time available is limited, meaning that the hours, days, or weeks available must accommodate not one or several, but all the Knowledge Acquisition operations. This is why it is important for the translator to be able to assess Knowledge Acquisition requirements and possibilities before accepting an assignment. This does not necessarily imply careful reading of the whole text, but the translators do have to have an idea of how familiar they are with the subject, how much and what type of information they will have to acquire, and what sources are available. Experienced translators can assess such requirements while scanning the text rapidly. Beginners should make sure they have sources available, human sources whenever possible. Source selection.Starting-point sources, Intermediate sources and Endpoint sources The premise being that translation should result in a publishable text, the highest priority with respect to variables qualifying sources should be given to reliability. A useful distinction should be made between three

types of sources. The quest for information often leads the Translator to a source whose reliability is uncertain, such as a translated text or a multilingual dictionary. Information originating from this first source (Starting source) must be confirmed through a reliable End-point source. Sometimes there are Intermediate sources as well. In terminological Knowledge Acquisition, the Starting-point source may be a monolingual text in the source language which helps to understand the problematic text segment, and the End-point source can be a monolingual text in the target language which will be used for reformulation. In translation from or into rare languages (the term being relative to the particular environment involved), it is often necessary to go through an Intermediate language: for instance, when translating from Japanese into French, since there are few Japanese-French technical dictionaries, it is often necessary to use Japanese- English dictionaries, then English-French dictionaries as Intermediate sources, with French documents serving as End-point sources. Starting-point and Intermediate sources may be texts of various kinds written by natives or non-natives, in the source language, target language, or a third language, with high, medium, or low reliability. The important point is that the End-point sources should be reliable. Access. Statistically, the most severe problems can be said to arise with respect to external and internal access to and in the sources. Situations in the field are highly variable, but two general rules are widely applied, Specializing helps to reduce the scope of the problems. Not only does it allow repeated use of knowledge and sources, but it also enables translators to use their financial investment to go deeper in the exploration subject, with a more efficient investment policy, than when taking up assignments in many fields, each requiring Knowledge Acquisition . Direct contact with the intended readers of a translation is generally best way to access reliable sources in the target language. This is why such contact is so important for translation quality. From another angle, it also makes it possible to discuss and adopt a consensus-based solution to problems that cannot be solved entirely by the translators.

Individually developed sources. The value of any paper source decreases steadily over time, because of developments in the field and the associated rapid aging of information. It does not make much financial sense to purchase every new edition of a dictionary or textbook either, because of high cost involved and because only a small proportion of the content changes from one edition to the next. Electronic sources are updated periodically; they still lag behind the evolution of the field and cannot achieve full coverage. This, combined with other factum as cost and storage problems, makes it highly desirable for translators to create and update their own sources, especially terminological sources. To ensure reliability, the source of information should be indicated for each entry, with a date and a reliability assessment whenever possible. This is also a preventive step: when a client challenges the use of a term, in either good or bad faith (which can happen, when some client decides translation is too expensive and looks for an excuse to withhold or reduce payment), the source can be quoted to establish authority. Good internal access should be designed into the source from the start, for fear of losing information. Alphabetic sorting of the files is one possibility; hence the use of index cards, one per entry, by many translators. Data processing allows electronic sorting, along with other forms of organization when databases are used. This is another major benefit of the microcomputer era for translators. Human sources It should be pointed out that the human source is potentially the most powerful of all: an expert in the field can provide highly reliable information more rapidly than any book or database. Experts who are native speakers of the language can almost invariably be found, as can experts who are native speakers of the target language. The former can serve as Starting-point sources and the latter as End-point sources. When the same expert is a native speaker of the target language and understands the source language, the situation is ideal. The main problem with human sources lies with external access: first translators do not necessarily know how to reach such experts; and second these are not necessarily motivated to help.

When it is the experts themselves who happen to be the end-users, for instance when they ask the translator to translate a text in a foreign language for their own use, more cooperation can be expected from them. Another factor conducive to such cooperation is a close personal relationship between the translator and the expert. While many experts are also willing to help even when there is no regular professional or personal relationship between them and the translators their potential contribution is less certain: not all of them are available, not all of them have time, and it may take a while to find them. Moreover, whether motivation results from a close personal relationship or plain good will, it cannot be counted on to last. Beyond a certain threshold, willing sources may become more reluctant, or do the work less carefully, or the translator may feel embarrassed to ask for more. One possible way to do this is to enter into professional consultancy agreement with the experts: a fee is offered for information, to be determined on the basis of time spent, the number of pages of source text read or the number of items processed. 4. Knowledge Acquisition in Interpretation With respect to the minimum content of the Knowledge Base required for Translation, interpretation differs from translation on two important points:| It is generally less demanding as regards linguistic correctness of terminological usage; In conference interpretation, a significant amount of relevant information is available to interpreters from conference documents and from the presence of experts on the premises. It follows that minimum knowledge requirements are lower for interpretation. While it is generally considered desirable for translators to be specialized, interpreters are not, although in the course of their career they tend to build up more knowledge in some fields than in others. On the other hand, before starting a conference, interpreters should acquire as much specific knowledge as possible, while translators acquire knowledge while translating their text.

Three steps of preparation of conferences The preparation of conferences can be divided into three stages: advance preparation, last minute preparation, and in-conference preparation. Advance preparation Conference organizers are systematically asked by the interpreters to Provide them with a full set of documents in all the working languages of the conference well before the meeting. This seems to be regarded unanimously by interpreters as an important part of working conditions. The documents requested include the conference program, list of participants, background information about the conference, and, most important, documents on the content of the conference, including drafts of papers to be read or presented, abstracts, etc. These documents are by definition highly relevant to the conference and are used extensively by interpreters for preparation before the conference. Briefings. Briefings are potentially a very useful part of advance preparation. They are meetings organized for the interpreters, with the participation of the organizers of the conference, and experts in the field. They generally last about half an hour to a few hours. During briefings, general information is given to the interpreters, who can ask specific questions, generally on concepts and terminology. Most briefings are held very close to the beginning of the conference, often a few minutes before the opening. Briefings are most useful when interpreters have had the time and opportunity to study documents and have a set of questions to put to participants. Otherwise, it is up to the organizers to think of the type of information which will probably be required by the interpreters, an exercise at which they are generally not very adept. b. Last-minute preparation It is a fact of life that conference documents are not always available, mostly for organizational reasons. People who hire interpreters are not always the ones who do the actual organizing on the participant and they may not be in a position to collect the necessary data. As for the speakers, they do not always have a paper ready in advance, and some are unwilling

to disclose the content of their presentation before it is their turn to speak, let alone in written form. It follows that many documents are only available at the very last moment, on the premises. A significant amount of Knowledge Acquisition revolves around them, just before the beginning of the conference. Another point is that unresolved issues can also be tackled minutes before the conference, with the help of conference participants. Some speakers come to the booth of their own accord to give a copy of their paper to interpreters and to solve potential problems. Others have to be asked for help specifically. c. In-conference preparation Finally, much information is gained during the conference itself, through documents which are only handed out after it has started, partly through conversations with participants during breaks, and partly through the content of presentations and discussions, which provide more information than do documents. Even after the conference has started, knowledge gained is useful, because it improves conditions for interpretation of the subsequent presentations. In particular, during the conference information may be heard in languages for which there were no documents, thus providing solutions to terminological problems. Because of the cost of translation, only rarely are papers and other documents available in all the conference's working languages. An exception to the rule are large international organizations such as UN agencies, European agencies, etc., in which an effort is generally made to provide documents in at least two languages. Preparation as it is practiced Advance preparation consists mainly of reading documents, taking notes, preparing glossaries, marking documents with pencil and marker to highlight important concepts and problems, writing comments, explanations, or glosses on the documents or in one's own notebook, etc. In briefings and in last-minute preparation, the consultation of experts also comes in. In in-conference preparation there is Knowledge Acquisition from listening to the conference itself, as well as from documents available in the booth, including dictionaries.


There seems to be general agreement among conference interpreters on preparation methods, except for one basic question relevant mainly to advance preparation: some believe that advance Knowledge Acquisition should focus essentially on extralinguistic knowledge, while others think priority should be given to terminological preparation. In practical terms, proponents of the first approach believe interpreters should start their preparation by reading popularizing books and articles as well as explanations in encyclopedias, then move on to more specialized articles, and study conference documents for extralinguistic knowledge. Proponents of the second approach believe that interpreters should focus on the study of specific terms likely to come up in the conference and leave most of the extralinguistic Knowledge Acquisition to the conference itself, on the grounds that such extralinguistic knowledge is less important, and that much of the required thematic knowledge will come up during the conference. It may be of interest to note that the former position is advocated in the literature by theoreticians and interpretation teachers, while the latter seems to be more widespread among non-teaching practitioners. It should be noted, however, that interpreters experience very concretely the deleterious effects of insufficient familiarity with technical terms that are used in conferences. Since very little time is available for advance preparation, they generally have to choose between primarily extralinguistic preparation and primarily terminological preparation. Most of them give preference to terminology. Interpreter glossaries Interpreter glossaries are prepared more rapidly than translator glossaries because of time pressure: typically, a few hours are available for advance preparation during a crowded conference period, and additional entries are added and corrections are made during the conference itself, i.e. over one to a few days. Glossaries are primarily prepared for immediate communication in a given context, not to serve as a reference for long periods or for a wide range of conferences. In their glossaries, interpreters tend to list terminological indications appropriate for one particular occasion and to add very little in form regarding the reliability of the

information, its source, its range of application, the meaning or nature of the referents, etc. Because of their rather low accuracy and reliability, such glossaries cannot always be depended on for use in conferences other than the one they were prepared for. They are more varied but less reliable for general use, than translators' glossaries. Glossaries are not very useful if their internal organization does not make the internal access easy. Often, because of time pressure, interpreters just write down entries as they encounter them in documents or during the conference, sometimes on sheets of paper they happen to have on hand. Since sorting out is a time-consuming operation, they generally do not sort entries manually. Until the mid 1980s, most interpreters either threw away a large proportion of their glossaries prepared for specific conferences, or collected them in a disorganized way and lost access to much of the information. Microcomputer changed the situation, in that it has become very easy to enter terms in a computer in a single operation using the keyboard, and then do all the processing as many times as required, including printing, updating, etc. Information has therefore become easy to store, maintain, and access. In view of the value relevant glossaries have in interpreting at specialized conferences, this is certainly an important change, the more so because the ease of glossary preparation makes it possible to go much further than in past years when everything had to be done manually. Reference documents As explained previously, interpreters prepare for specific conferences under severe time pressure, and they work on a very wide variety of themes, some of which they encounter only once or twice throughout their career. This is probably one of the reasons why they tend not to keep exhaustive written records of information they acquirethe other reason being the sheer mass of documents that comes their way during interpretation work. Not only are there space limitations, but in order for them to be easy to retrieve and use at a later stage , too much time needs to be spent on archiving, indexing, redundancy and error control, etc. Therefore, with the exception of a look at their existing glossaries, interpreters tend to start their preparation afresh at every conference with the new documents sent to them on that occasion. Translators tend to write down more carefully pieces of information acquired at work, and use their

notes more often for reference. They also buy more dictionaries and other reference documents. Interpreters tend to do that only for fields in which they work or in which they are especially interested.

5. Long- term Knowledge Buildup in Interpreters and Translators No scientific study seems to have been made to date regarding knowledge accumulated by interpreters and translators in the course of their career, but a few hypothesis can be formulated. During written translation, knowledge can be acquired systematically, over rather long periods of time, and information is checked for reliability and reinforced by the numerous loops in both the comprehension and reformulation phases. In interpretation, much attention is given to instantaneous cognitive operations; each task is given consideration only once, for a very short time. It therefore seems likely that as regards extralinguistic knowledge, interpreters acquire a wider but more superficial and more volatile and unstructured knowledge than translators. This difference is probably less true of interpreters mainly in one field (such as staff interpreters in international organizations, or interpreters who have specialized), and of translators working in a large number of fields and very rapidly (for instance with a dictaphone), but the distinction seems reasonable enough and could indeed be tested empirically. After a recent conference or translation assignment, interpreters and translators may hold highly specialized, highly up-to-date knowledge that even experts do not have: they often deal with state-of-the-art information before it is widely publicized among specialists. However, this knowledge does not tie in with a solid foundation of knowledge such as the specialist's, and can generally not be used by the Translator as it could be by a specialist. Translators are very much aware of this inferiority and it sometimes breeds frustration, probably more among interpreters, who are in direct contact with the specialists they work for, than among translators, who work in isolation. On the other hand, linguistic knowledge, and in particular terminological knowledge, is essential in both interpretation and translation. Over time

translators tend to acquire specialized terminological information, which is probably the most valuable part of the knowledge they build up, in that it is often the key to translation in specialized fields.

LECTURE III. FIDELITY IN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION Plan 1. Verbalizing a Simple Idea 2. Principles of Fidelity 3. The Rules of Reformulation 4. Secondary Information: an Obstacle and a Help 5. Interpretation vs. Translation from the Secondary Information Perspective The issue of fidelity is probably the most basic and widely discussed component of Translation quality. Setting aside the question of translation competence theoreticians have wondered whether translation can be "fully" faithful while retaining the editorial (or literary) merit of the source-language text. The most obvious problem with fidelity stems from the well-known fact that languages are not isomorphic: in other words, there is no one-to-one correspondence between them as regards lexical elements ("words") or linguistic structures associated with rules of grammar, stylistic rules, etc. In particular, there is no automatic equivalence between words in the source and target languages and apparently similar structures may have different uses and different connotations. It is necessary to know that sometimes different changes of the construction such as adding and deleting do not amount to a breach of fidelity. Daniel Jile in his book Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training describes an experiment which he carried out more than 30 times over more than 13 years in various countries and with languages as different as Arabic, Chinese, English, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, Swedish, and Tahitian, with consistent results as outlined below, demonstrating wide applicability.

1. Verbalizing a Simple Idea A simple drawing suggesting an elementary informational Message is presented to the participants, who are told what situation is simulated and asked to formulate the Message in their own words in their native tongue. The sentences thus obtained are then read aloud. At this point, it may be appropriate to recall and stress that in this book, which deals essentially with the Translation of Informational Texts, the word Message is defined not as the statement produced, i.e. the verbal materialization of a communicative intention, but as the information that the Sender wants to get across the Receiver and around which the verbal statement will be constructed.

In this example the drawing shown to participants depicted a road as seen from inside a car, with a road sign showing "Paris 50 km". The participants were told the following: You are sitting in the car next to the driver. At a certain point in time you see the road sign. Please write down exactly what you would say in your mother tongue to the driver to tell him what the sign says." The first consistent empirical result is the following: Given exactly the same Message presented under exactly identical conditions at the same point in time, individuals sharing the same mother tongue tend to write different sentences to express it. This result was partly due to differences in the way the students understood the Message presented to them, and the analysis of the subject

shown. In all cases, the statements did seem to reflect essentially the same Message, as is the case of the six sentences listed below, a subset of those collected from native English speakers in one replication of the experiment done in the United States in October 1988, at the 29th convention of the American Translators' Association. (1) Fifty kilometers to Paris. (2) Still fifty kilometers to go. (3) We'll be in Paris in fifty kilometers. (4) Fifty kilometers longer. (5) We'll be there in fifty kilometers. (6) Paris is fifty kilometers from here. The finding that the same Message as defined here is formulated in different ways has a corollary: If different sentences can correspond to the same Message, and if this is applicable in both the source language and the target language, then in translation, different sentences in the target language may reflect the same Message as the one initially generated in the source language. This reasoning is based on the essential point that the statement is built with the purpose of transmitting it. However, this legitimacy may rightly be challenged, as fidelity is generally taken to apply not only to the Message but also to its packaging. That is, fidelity applies not only to the Message, but also to its author through the ways he expresses it. It turned out that sentences expressing the same Message could be strikingly different.Thus we can say that the sentences differ from each other and from the drawing in their information content. These differences may be divided into: Information gains: Information given in one sentence which is not found in another or in the drawing, such as the arrival in Paris being a future-event, or the existence of at least one more person besides the speaker who is concerned by the statement; Information losses: Information not given in the sentence under consideration although it is present in a sentence it is being compared to or in the drawing, such as the explicit mention of Paris. It is clearly seen that the Message is conveyed fully in all sentences. But it should be kept in mind that the situation is based on the fact that the Sender and the Receiver share the same knowledge.

One fundamental reason for this reaction seems to be that given a text to translate, the Translator, who is generally not familiar with the precise circumstances under which it was generated, may not know which is the Message and which is the Secondary Information. As a result, there is a tendency to translate all the information, so as not to miss any relevant component. This, however, does not account for the fact that even participants who were present through out the first phase and who therefore knew precisely what the Message was and under what circumstances it was put into words, translated each sentence differently. Still more interesting, this applies not only to student-translators and to amateurs, but also to many experienced interpreters and translators. One possible explanation is the experimental setup, which is intrinsically unnatural and may induce behavior that is not identical to that which would occur in a clear-cut translation situation in the field. However, another possible reason may be the existence of an implicit operational rule, which seems to have been internalized even in professional translators, that translation should preferably reformulate not only the original Message, but all the information contained in the source-language text. This may be due to the fact that translators do not really focus on the distinction between Primary and Secondary Information unless translation poses difficult problems and forces them to make choices. From observation, it seems that conference interpreters take a wider margin of freedom, possibly because of difficulties in speech production and cognitive processing of language and data, which result in more forced choices of this kind. 2. Principles of Fidelity In determining principles of fidelity for interpretation and translation, it seems appropriate to start not with the finished linguistic product, but with the setting of information. In this respect it is important to remember that in informative communication such as is found in conference interpretation and technical and scientific translation, the Sender formulates the discourse as the carrier of a Message for the purpose of achieving an aim such as informing, explaining, and/or persuading. For the Sender the communication is

successful if this aim is achieved. Generally, the Translator represents" the Sender and the Sender's interests, and therefore does a good job if the Translation contributes to the success of the Sender's endeavor. On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus that Translators cannot rewrite or reformulate the speech in a completely different way which they believe will achieve the Sender's objective more efficiently than the Senders words. That is, the Translator must contribute toward successful communication while following what is essentially the same "route" as the one the Sender chose in the source language to lead the Receiver along. The Message There is therefore a minimum fidelity principle as regards reformulation of information. From field observation, from the analysis of translation literature, and from discussion with fellow Translators, it appears that again there is a consensus: the minimum fidelity kernel should necessarily cover the Message. The absolute fidelity rule is that the Message or Primary Information should always be re-expressed in the targetlanguage Text. The situation is not so clear-cut with respect to Secondary Information. The Secondary Primary Information consists of the following types: Framing Information, Linguistically Induced Information and Private Information. Framing Information Framing Information is selected by the Sender for the purpose of facilitating the reception of the Message by the Receiver. But the Receivers of the original speech or text may not have the same preexisting knowledge and values as Receivers of its Translated version. Framing Information which is appropriate for the original Receivers may not be suitable for target-language Receivers, in which case reformulating the FI in the target language may defeat the aims of communication by making the information too explicit or not explicit enough for the target-language Receiver. For instance, when translating an American's statement about "Cairo, Egypt" (as opposed to "Cairo, Illinois") into "Le Caire, en Egypte," the

French translator working for French readers makes a strange or at best a humorous statement, probably to the detriment of the real Message: most French readers only think of "Cairo, Egypt" and are totally unaware of the existence of "Cairo, Illinois," so that the explicit mention of Egypt may distract their attention from| the actual Message. Conversely, when translating an Australian text quoting prices in "dollars," it may be useful to add Framing Information by specifying " Australian dollars " so that these are not mistaken for U.S. dollars. It follows that fidelity to the Sender's interests may require eliminating some of the original FI and adding some FI for the benefit of the target language Receiver. It must be stressed that the selection of Framing Information is not strictly | determined by objective circumstances. Depending on the Sender's style, the FI may vary. The selection of FI therefore reflects the personality of the Sender to a varying but non-negligible extent. From discussions with Translators, teachers of translation, and users of translation services, it would seem that there is also a general consensus that Translation should also reflect the Sender's personality. This view, which is only seldom made explicit in writings about non-literary translation, is| consistent with the general principle of fidelity; after all, the Sender's Message and interests also basically reflect personal choices, and therefore "personality." However, the consensus regarding the translation of nonliterary texts also seems to incorporate a low-priority rating of fidelity to the author "personality," as opposed to informational fidelity. If Translation is also to reflect the Senders personality beyond the Message content, the Sender's personal choice of FI should in principle be followed by the Translator as well. However, in the translation of informational texts and speeches, the role of which is to convey information for the purpose of achieving an objective, the impact of the information with respect to the objective definitely seems to take precedence over fidelity to the Senders personality. Therefore, if the Sender's original FI does not seem appropriate for the Receivers of the target-language product, there is some justification for the Translator's changing it until it does. Linguistically Induced Information

The case of Linguistically Induced Information is different, in that LII is not even selected by the Senders of their own free will. They are often free to choose one of several options, but must choose one. In the source language, the LII, which generally contains some redundant elements and some non-relevant ones, is by definition natural and well integrated into the discourse. However, in the target language, the reformulation of such LII can be awkward or even distort the Message. Incidentally, the LII requirements of the target language, plus the fact that translators cannot always discriminate between the Message and LII and tend to translate the latter in order to be sure not to leave any part of the Message untranslated, often combine and generate target-language texts which contain more information than the source-language text. In other words, the target-language text includes not only Linguistically Induced information from the source-language, but also its own LII. In view of the fact that translators also tend to retain the Framing Information of the original text, translations tend to be longer than source-language texts. It is the source language, and not the Sender, that basically determines the LII in the source text. This would imply that there is no reason to try to reproduce the LII in the target language, which is different by definition. On the other hand, Senders may be free to choose from two or more options, and their linguistic style does partly determine the LII which will ultimately be carried in the source-language text. Since such LII does reflect an individual personality to some extent, there is some reason to try to reproduce it in the target-language text. However, when aiming at optimal communication efficiency, reproducing LII should have a much lower priority than reproducing Framing Information.

Personal Information Personal Information differs from the other two types of Secondary Information in that it is neither imposed by linguistic rules nor selected for framing purposes, but is by definition a pure reflection of the Sender's personality as manifested linguistically. It should therefore be followed if possible, but not if the cost in terms of communication efficiency (readability, clarity, strength of the target-language product, etc.) is even

moderately high. In particular, Personal Information indicating, through grammatical and other errors or regional expressions, that Senders are using a language other than their own, or that they come from a particular area in their country, should generally not be reconstructed in the target language, since they are not relevant and may distract the Receiver's attention from the Message. As for the case when Personal Information generates a negative image of the Senders, for instance by showing that they are not well educated, Sender loyalty would imply that such information is not to be reconstructed in the target language either. 3. The Rules of Reformulation The order of ideas identified as part of the Message in the source text must be followed in the target text: if the Sender starts a source-language text by presenting idea A, then illustrates it with examples B, C, D, Translators should follow the same order. In translation, within a sentence, structural changes are generally accepted by the parties concerned, and are, therefore, legitimate. In the interest of efficiency of communication, long sentences may be segmented into shorter ones, and sentences that follow each other in the source-language text may be merged in the target language. In interpretation, more extensive stylistic and informational changes may be acceptable. The reason is that in a written text, authors are supposed to have had the time to review and correct their prose until it reflects their thought as they want to. In oral discourse this is not the case, and more elements may be escaping the speakers control. The interpreter should be concentrated on the Message and make the linguistic choices. For instance, sentences that speakers do not complete because of speech-production difficulties should be completed in the target language, and sentences that the speaker repeats because he has lost the train of thought do not have to be repeated. If the translator feels that the particular choice of words or linguistic structures may have been made deliberately for impact, this choice should be followed whenever possible. This is frequently the case with word repetitions, humorous distortion of words or grammar, etc.

4. Secondary Information: an Obstacle and a Help Secondary Information is one of the most frequent sources of fidelity problems and decision-making requirements in Translation of informational Texts. The questions that arise regularly are whether to reformulate in the target-language Text information that might be detrimental to communication, and whether to introduce new Secondary Information to help communication become more effective. From experience, in informative translation many of these questions are answered spontaneously by the Translator without any conscious decision making. For example, when Translating from English into Japanese, the English singular/plural LII is most often suppressed spontaneously when the information is irrelevant, because Translators are aware of the fact that trying to reformulate it may make the Japanese text clumsy, or even distort the Message. Similarly, in a speech made in English by a female speaker, interpreters working into Hebrew will not hesitate to introduce the LII indicating the sex of the speaker not made explicit by the English speech. On the other hand, serious problems arise when additional information is required because the target-language rules are not known to the Translator and are not given in the source-language Text. For example, in a conference, a speaker may refer to somebody as "Monsieur X," giving the interpreter working into English Linguistically Induced Information relating to the gender of X but failing to indicate whether he should be referred to as "Dr. X," "Prof. X," etc., as may be appropriate in English in the relevant context. Failure on the part of the interpreter to refer to X by the proper title may affect communication. Similarly, since the singular/plural discrimination in Western languages is generally difficult to escape, translation from Japanese into a Western language poses problems when the Translator must decide whether the objects or other entities the author refers to are in the singular or plural, but does not have the information. The Translator has to make a decision and take a chance on the possibility of an erroneous decision.

Secondary Information is often much more valuable to the Translator than to the Receiver. For the latter, part of it is already known. The most difficult problems with respect to fidelity and the resolution of ambiguity arise when target-language rules require information not provided by the source-language Text. Experience shows that the frequency of such problems depends largely on the specific language pair involved. For instance, in the translation of informational texts and speeches between English and French, such problems are few: the occasional forms of address as illustrated above, the use of the passive form in English, which cannot always be replicated in French and which poses problems to the Translator who does not know the agent of the verb, etc. On the other hand, LII-generated problems are numerous in translation between Japanese and Western languages in particular because of the following two differences. - Western languages generally discriminate between singular and plural and between various points in the past, present, and future, whereas Japanese does not necessarily do so. This does not cause difficulties when translating into Japanese, because such Linguistically Induced Information simply disappears in the target-language product; but when translating from Japanese, problems resulting from the lack of background information are sometimes difficult to solve. -Western languages tend to indicate explicitly the subject and object of verbs, which is not the case in Japanese. When translating from Japanese into a Western language, problems sometimes arise because the target language requires information about the subject and/or object of the verb and none is available. 5. Interpretation vs. Translation from the Secondary Information Perspective In translation, numerous difficult decisions regarding fidelity have to be made, which lead to iterative corrections of the target-language text. The question therefore arises as to whether it is possible for interpretation, with its practically instantaneous and virtually correction-free production process, to be reasonably effective in producing faithful and linguistically acceptable target-language speech. Two basic facilitating factors can be

identified in the conference interpretation environment as opposed to the translation environment. In international conferences, speakers and listeners are assembled in the same place at the same time, and speakers know they are talking to targetlanguage listeners as well as to delegates who understand their own language. Generally, they also know more about their target-language listeners than authors do about their target-language readers. Therefore, Framing Information is more likely to be suitable for target-language listeners in interpretation than in translation. Moreover, the diagrams and slides shown during the speech, as well as the body language of the speaker, provide cues beyond those included in the linguistic part of the interpreters' speech, and help them achieve more effective communication. In international conferences, the Receivers (the delegates) process the speaker's words by ear. The well-known evanescence of the spoken word is associated not only with semantic rather than verbal memory of speech, but most probably also with less "word-bound" processing of speech: listeners seem to devote their attention to a form of processing, they are more concerned with general propositions than with linguistic structures because the speed of delivery (about 100 to 200 words per minute) which may limit the amount of processing that can be done on the speech they hear. Whenever they do concentrate on nuances, it is precisely because such nuances are an important part of the Message, e.g. in diplomatic and political speeches. Therefore, it is probable that listeners tend to focus on Primary Information and the effect of changes introduced by the interpreter in secondary information becomes less of a problem than in written translation. When reading rapidly, readers probably also tend to concentrate on Primary information, but the reading process is not as linear as the listening process: readers may focus on a particular word for a longer time or reread a text segment after going through it a first time, and their perception of the Message may be more word-bound than in speech processing because of this non-linearity, likely resulting in a greater amount of Secondary Information. Moreover, the selection of Secondary Information is not carefully thought out and corrected as can be the case in written texts. Speakers are less in control of the Secondary Information content of their speeches which loosens the constraints on fidelity in the reproduction of Secondary Information by interpreters. This may explain why delegates who speak both the source and the target languages and

even the speakers themselves, often come up to interpreters after consecutive interpretation and ask them how they manage to do such a perfect word-for-word translation of speeches, when the interpreter has in fact exploited a certain degree of freedom and made many changes in Secondary Information. LECTURE IV. BASIC TRANSLATION THEORIES Plan 1. The Transformational Approach 2. The Denotative Approach 3. The Communicational Approach The human translation theories may be divided into three main groups which quite conventionally may be called transformational approach, denotative approach and communicational approach. 1. The Transformational Approach The transformational theories consist of many varieties which may have different names but they all have one common feature: the process of translation is regarded as transformation. According to the transformational approach translation is viewed as the transformation of objects and structures of the source language into those of the target language. Within the group of theories in the transformational approach there is a division into transformations and equivalences. The scholars who follow this approach are: Barkhudarov L., Latishev L., Retsker IA., Gak L. and others. According to this interpretation a transformation starts at the syntactic level when there is a change, i.e. when we alter, say, the word order during translation. Substitutions at other levels are regarded as equivalencies, for instance, when we substitute words of the target language for those of the source language. In the transformational approach we shall distinguish three levels of substitution: morphological equivalents, lexical equivalents and syntactical equivalencies and/ or transformations in the process of translation:


-at the morphological level morphemes (both word-building and wordchanging) of the target language are substituted for those of the source language; -at the lexical level words and word combinations of the target language are substituted for those of the source language; -at the syntactic level syntactic structures of the target language are substituted for those of the source language. For example, in the process of translation the English word room is transformed into Russian words komnata or prostranstvo. The syntactic transformations in translation comprise a broad range of structural changes in the target text, starting from the reversal of the word order in a sentence and finishing with division of the source sentence into two and more target ones. The most common example of structural equivalencies at the syntactic level is that of some Verb patterns: will go = , . The above examples of transformations and equivalencies at various levels are the simplest ones and, in a way, artificial because real translation transformations are more complex and happen often at different levels of language involved in translation. Thus we see that according to the transformational approach translation is a set of multi-level replacements of a text in one language by a text in another governed by specific transformation rules. However the transformational approach is insufficient when the original text corresponds to one indivisible concept which is rendered by the translator as a text in another language also corresponding to the relevant indivisible concept. For instance, the translation of almost any piece of poetry cannot be explained by simple substitution of target language words and word combinations for those of the source language. 2. The Denotative Approach According to the denotative approach the process of translation is not just a mere substitution but consists of the following mental operations: -translator reads (hears) a message in the source language; -translator finds a denotatum and concept that correspond to this message;

-translator formulates a message in the target language relevant to the above denotatum and concept. It should be noted that according to this approach during translation we deal with similar word forms of the matching languages and concepts deduced from these forms, however, as opposed to the transformational approach, the relationship between the source word and the target word is occasional rather than regular. To illustrate this difference let us consider the following examples: 1.The sea is warm today= 2.Staff only= In the first example the equivalencies are regular and concept, pertaining to the whole sentence, may be divided into those relating to its individual components (words and word combinations): sea- , tonight -, is warm - . In the second example equivalence between the original sentence and its translation is occasional (worth only for this case) and the concept, pertaining to the whole sentence, cannot be divided into individual components. 3. The Communicational Approach The communicational theory of translation was suggested by O.Kade and is based on the notions of communication and thesaurus. Communication may be defined as an act of sending and receiving some information which is called a message. Information which is sent or received may be of any kind (gestures, words ...) but we shall limit ourselves to verbal communication only i.e. when we send and receive information in the form of a written or spoken text. When communicating we inform others about something we know. That is in order to formulate a message we use our system of interrelated data, which is called a thesaurus. We shall distinguish between two kinds of thesauruses in verbal communication: language thesaurus and subject thesaurus. Language thesaurus is a system of our knowledge about the language which we use to formulate a message, whereas subject thesaurus is a system of our knowledge about the content of the message.

Thus, in order to communicate, the message Sender formulates the mental content of his or her message using subject thesaurus, encodes it using the verbal forms of language thesaurus, and conveys it to the message Recipient, who decodes the message using language thesaurus and interprets the message using subject thesaurus as well. This is a simple description of monolingual communication. It is very important to understand that the thesauruses of message Sender and the Recipient may be different to a greater or lesser degree, and that is why we sometimes do not understand each other even when we think we are speaking one and the same language. So, in regular communication there are two actors Sender and Recipient or Receiver, and each of them uses two thesauruses (although they use the same language their underlying knowledge bases may differ). In special bilingual communication (i.e. translation) we have three actors: Sender, Recipient, and Translator (Intermediary or Mediator). The Translator has two languages thesauruses (source and target one) and performs two functions: decodes the source message and encodes the target one to be received by the Recipient (end user of the translation) It should be noted that the communicational approach pays special attention to the aspects of translation relating to the act of communication, whereas the translation process as such remained unspecified. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the communicational aspect in the success of translation. To understand this better let us consider an example of message formulation (encoding), message translation (encoding/decoding) and message receipt (decoding). Lets take the following message expressed by the English speaker: SEVERAL NEW SCHOOLS APPEARED IN THE AREA. Let us assume then that the message sender , being a fisherman and using relevant subject thesaurus, by schools means large number of fish swimming together rather than institutions for educating children, and the correct translation then had to be: . But the ordinary person as well as the translator who doesnt know this meaning of the word school translates the word school by its first meaning shkola which naturally leads to misunderstanding. The above example shows a case of miscommunication based on the insufficiency of extralinguistic information. However, there are also cases of miscommunication caused by the insufficiency of linguistic

information. Thus, according to the communicational approach, translation is a message sent by a translator to a particular user and the adequacy of translation depends on similarity of their background information rather than only on linguistic correctness. LECTURE V. EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION Plan 1. Equivalence and Equivalents 2. Different Approaches to the Types of Equivalencies 3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents 4. The translation of Idioms 1. Equivalence and Equivalents Equivalence is defined in the COLLINS Dictionary of the English language as the state of being equal or interchangeable in value, quality, significance, etc.... or having the same or a similar effect on meaning. Similarly, WEBSTERS Ninth new Collegiate Dictionary defines the concept as a state of being equal in force, amount or value. It becomes immediately clear, when considering these two definitions, that there are three main components in both: a pair (at least) between which the relationship exists, a concept of likeness/sameness/similarity/equality, and a set of qualities. Thus, equivalence is defined as a relationship existing between two or more entities, and the relationship is described as one of likeness/sameness/similarity/equality in terms of any of a number of potential qualities. Furthermore, each of the three components outlined can be the focus of a discussion of the equivalence relationship. In translation equivalence can be said to be the central issue although its definition, relevance and applicability within the theory of translation have caused heated controversy and many different theories have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years. The new translation theory is no longer concerned with defining one or several translated equivalents to any given source text, but with producing a variation range in the other language culture.


The theory of partial communication seems to be the basis of most contemporary translation studies. According to this theory communication doesnt transfer the whole message. The same holds true for the translating process: it doesnt transfer the totality of what is in the original. Many theorists interpret this theory in different ways. There is no unanimity in their views. Some theoreticians view equivalence as oriented translation or a procedure which replicates the same situation as the original, but using completely different words. They also suggest that if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the source language text in the target language text. According to them equivalence is therefore an ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, terms, nominal or adjectival phrases. They say that the need for creating equivalence arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the source language text that translators have to look for a solution. Roman Jakobsons study of the equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of equivalence in difference. On the basis of his approach to language he suggests three kinds of translation: -intralingual, within one language, that is 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 source language text message across. This means that in the interlingual translation there is no full equivalence between code units. According to this theory translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. From a grammatical point of view languages may differ to a greater degree, but this doesnt mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. In the case of deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts. 2. Different Approaches to the Types of Equivalencies


Both mentioned theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be possible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as a person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories. The problem of translation equivalence is defined as a measure of semantic similarity between the SL and the TL. In other words the equivalence between the ST and the TT may be based on the reproduction of different parts of the ST contents. Accordingly several types of translation equivalence can be distinguished. In the first type of equivalence, according to Komissarov, it is only the purport of communication that is retained. The second type is characterized by the identification of the situation. The third type implies retention in the translation of the three parts of the original contents which were conventionally designated as the purport of communication. The forth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the four meaningful components of the original: the purport of communication, the identification of the situation; the method of its description and the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures. In the fifth group of equivalence we can find the maximum possible semantic similarity between texts in different languages. These translations try to retain the meaning of all the words used in the original text. Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a certain type of equivalence. Since each text implies a higher degree of semantic similarity it is possible to say that every translation is made at certain level of equivalence. Baker speaks about linguistic and communicative approach to translation. She distinguishes between the following types of equivalence. -equivalence that appears at word level and above word level when translating from one language into another. She acknowledges that in a bottom-up approach to translation equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by a translator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the Source text he looks at the words as single units in order to find a direct equivalent term in the Target language. -grammatical equivalence , when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of

finding a direct correspondence in the Target language. In fact, she claims, that different grammatical structures in the Source language and the target language may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator either add or omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices. -textual equivalence , when referring to the equivalence between a ST and TT in terms of information. 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 attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the ST. This decision is guided by three factors such as the target audience, the purpose of translation and the text type. -pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is implied. Therefore the translator needs to work out implied meaning in translation in order to get the Source text message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the authors intention in another culture in such a way that enables the reader to understand it. In the theory of translation the process of translation means the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in the other language. Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent), in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of context, semantics, grammar, lexis, etc...) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence). It is apparent, and has been for a very long time indeed, that the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages differ from each other having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of languages and these have different meanings.To shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the forms. Further, the contrasting forms convey meanings which cannot but fail to coincide totally, there is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language and indeed there is no absolute synonymy between words in

different languages. Something is always lost or sometimes gained in the process of translation and translators can find themselves being accused of reproducing one part of the original and so betraying the authors intentions. If equivalence is to be preserved at a particular level at all costs which level is it to be? What are the alternatives? The answer, it turns out, hinges on the dual nature of language itself. Language is a formal structure a code consisting of elements which can combine to signal semantic sense and, at the same time, a communication system which uses the forms of the code to refer to entities. The translator has the option, then, of focusing on finding formal equivalents which preserve the context-free semantic sense of the text at the expense of its context-sensitive communicative value or finding functional equivalents which preserve the context-sensitive communicative value of the text at the expense of its context-free semantic sense. The choice is between translating word-forword (literal translation) or meaning-for-meaning (free translation). Pick the first and the translator is criticized for the ugliness of a faithful translation. Pick the second and there is criticism of the inaccuracy of a beautiful translation. Either way, it seems, the translator cannot win even though we recognize that the crucial variable is the purpose for which the translation is being made, not some inherent characteristics of the text itself. Some of the SL units have permanent equivalents in TL, that is to say, there is a one-to-one correspondence between such units and their equivalents. Thus London is always rendered into Russian as , hydrogen is translated as . As a rule this type of correspondence is found with words of specific character, such as scientific and technical terms, proper and geographical names and similar words whose meaning is more or less independent of the particular contextual situation. Other SL units may have several equivalents each. Such one-to-many correspondence between SL and TL units is characteristic of most regular equivalents. The existence of a number of non-permanent (or variable) equivalents to a SL units implies the necessity of selecting one of them in each particular case, taking into account the way the units are based in ST and the points of difference between the semantics of its equivalents in TL.

Eugene Nida distinguishes two types of equivalence, formal and dynamic, where formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Nida calls this type of translation a 'gloss translation', which aims to allow the reader to understand as much of the SL context as possible. Dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between the Receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original Receivers and the SL message. It is an established fact in Translation Studies that if a dozen translators tackle the same poem, they will produce a dozen different versions. In trying to solve the problem of translation equivalence, Neubert postulates that from the point of view of a theory of texts, translation equivalence must be considered a semiotic category, comprising syntactic, semantic and pragmatic components. These components are arranged in a hierarchical relationship, where semantic equivalence takes priority over syntactic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence conditions and modifies both the other elements. Equivalence overall results from the relation between signs themselves, the relationship between signs and what they stand for, and those who use them. Similarly, the interaction between all three components determines the process of selection in the TL, as for example, in the case of letter-writing. The norms governing the writing of letters vary considerably from language to language and from period to period, even within Europe. The question of defining equivalence is being pursued by two lines of development in Translation Studies. The first, rather predictably, lays an emphasis on the special problems of semantics and on the transfer of semantic content from SL to TL. With the second, which explores the question of equivalence of literary texts, the work of the Russian Formalists and the Prague Linguists, together with more recent developments in discourse analysis, have broadened the problem of equivalence in its application to the translation of such texts. James Holmes, for example, feels that the use of the term equivalence is perverse, since to ask for sameness is to ask too much. 3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents


Depending on the type of the language units involved regular equivalents can be classified as lexical, phraseological and grammatical. The absence of the regular equivalents doesnt imply that the meaning of an equivalent-lacking SL unit can not be translated or that its translation must be less accurate. The translator coming across an equivalent-lacking word, resorts to occasional equivalents which can be created in one of the following ways: 1. Using loan-words imitating in the TL the form of the SL word or word combination, i.e. tribalism, impeachment, backbencher, brain-drain as often as not such occasional formations are adopted by the members of the TL community and get the status of regular equivalents. 2. Using appropriate substitutes, that is the TL words with similar meaning which is extended to convey additional information (if necessary, with the help of foot-notes).The Russian word APTECA or Romanian Farmacie are not exactly the English Drugstore where they also sell such items as magazines, soft-drinks, ice-cream, etc... , but in some cases this appropriate equivalent can be used. 3.Using all kinds of lexical (semantic) transformations modifying the meaning of the SL word. 4.Using an explanation to convey the meaning of the SL unit. The last method is used sometimes in conjunction with the first one when the introduction of a loan-word is followed by a foot-note explaining the meaning of the equivalent-lacking word in the SL. After that the translator may freely employ the newly-coined substitute. There are also quite a number of equivalent-lacking idioms. Such English phraseological units as You cannot eat your cake and have it, to dine with Duke Humphry, to send smb. to Coventry and many others have no regular equivalents in other languages. They are translated either by reproducing their form in the TL through word-for-word translation or by explaining the figurative meaning of it.


Equivalent lacking grammatical forms give less trouble to the translator. Here occasional substitutes can be classified under three main headings, namely: 1. Zero translation when the meaning of the grammatical form is not rendered in the translation since it is practically identical to the meaning of some other unit and can be safely left out. In the sentence By that time he had already left England the idea of priority expressed by the Past Perfect tense should be separately reproduced in the TL as it is made vivid by the presence of by that time and already. 2.Approximate translation when the translator makes use of a TL form particularly equivalent to the equivalent-lacking form in the SL. While translating the following sentence I saw him enter the room we should know that the Russian language has no Complex Subject of this type but the meaning of the object clause is a sufficient approximation. 3.Transformational translation when the translator resorts to one of the grammatical transformations. While translating the sentences Your presence at the meeting is not obligatory. Nor is it desirable we can unite them and present as one sentence. As it has been emphasized, equivalents are not mechanical substitutes for the SL units but they may come handy as a starting point in search of adequate translation. The translator will much profit if he knows many permanent equivalents, is good at selecting among variable equivalents and resourceful at creating occasional equivalents, taking into account all contextual factors. 4. The Translation of Idioms The translation of idioms takes us a stage further in considering the question of meaning and translation, for idioms, like puns, are culture bound. The Italian idiom menare il can per 1'aia provides a good example of the kind of shift that takes place in the translation process. Translated literally, the sentence Giovanni sta menando il can per I'aia becomes John is leading his dog around the threshing floor.


The image conjured up by this sentence is somewhat startling and, unless the context referred quite specifically to such a location, the sentence would seem obscure and virtually meaningless. The English idiom that most closely corresponds to the Italian is to beat about the bush. It is also obscure unless used idiomatically, and hence the sentence correctly translated becomes John is beating about the bush. Both English and Italian have corresponding idiomatic expressions that render the idea of prevarication, and so in the process of interlingual translation one idiom is substituted for another. That substitution is made not on the basis of the linguistic elements in the phrase, nor on the basis of a corresponding or similar image contained in the phrase, but on the function of the idiom. The SL phrase is replaced by a TL phrase that serves the same purpose in the TL culture, and the process here involves the substitution of the SL sign for the TL sign. Since a metaphor in the SL is, by definition, a new piece of performance, a semantic novelty, it can clearly have no existing 'equivalence' in the TL: what is unique can have no counterpart. The crucial question that arises is whether a metaphor can, strictly speaking, be translated as such, or whether it can only be 'reproduced'. The case of the translation of the Italian idiom, therefore, involves the determining of stylistic equivalence which results in the substitution of the SL idiom by an idiom with an equivalent function in the TL. Translation involves far more than replacement of lexical and grammatical items between languages and, as can be seen in the translation of idioms and metaphors, the process may involve discarding the basic linguistic elements of the SL text so as to achieve the 'expressive identity' between the SL and TL texts. But once the translator moves away from close linguistic equivalence, the problems of determining the exact nature of the level of equivalence aimed for begin to emerge.


LECTURE VI. TRANSFORMATIONAL FACTORS IN TRANSLATION Plan 1. Loss and Gain 1.1. Loss: temporal factors 1.2. Loss: time factors in the comparison of metatexts 1.3. Translation loss: cultural factors 2. A.L.Buracs Classification of Transformations 3. Compensation and Explicitation 4. Untranslatability At the sentence level, the most common transformations every translator makes are 1) omission, 2) addition, 3) transposition, 4) change of grammatical forms, 5) loss compensation, 6) concretization, 7) generalization, 8) antonymic translation, 9) meaning extension, 10) metonymic translation, 11) sentence integration, and 12) sentence "Segmentation. These transformations are caused by differences in the grammar and vocabulary of the source language (SL) and target language (TL). 1. Loss and Gain Once the principle is accepted that sameness cannot exist between two languages, it becomes possible to approach the question of loss and gain in the translation process. It is again an indication of the low status of translation that so much time should have been spent on discussing what is lost in the transfer of a text from the SL to the TL whilst ignoring what can also be gained, for the translator can at times enrich or clarify the SL text as a direct result of the translation process. Moreover, what is often seen as 'lost' from the SL context may be replaced in the TL context. Eugene Nida is a rich source of information about the problems of loss in translation, in particular about the difficulties encountered by the translator when faced with terms or concepts in the SL that do not exist in the TL. He cites the case of Guaica, a language of southern Venezuela,

where there is little trouble in finding satisfactory terms for the English murder, stealing, lying, etc., but where the terms for good, bad, ugly and beautiful cover a very different area of meaning. As an example, he points out that Guaica does not follow a dichotomous classification of good and bad, but a trichotomous one as follows: (1) Good includes desirable food, killing enemies, and chewing dope in moderation, putting fire to one's wife to teach her to obey, and stealing from anyone not belonging to the same band. (2) Bad includes rotten fruit, any object with a blemish, murdering a person of the same band, stealing from a member of the extended family and lying to anyone. (3) Violating taboo includes incest, being too close to one's mother-inlaw, and a married woman's eating tapir before the birth of the first child, and a child's eating rodents. Nor is it necessary to look so far beyond Europe for examples of this kind of differentiation. The large number of terms in Finnish for variations of snow, in Arabic for aspects of camel behavior, in English for light and water, in French for types of bread, all present the translator with, on one level, an untranslatable problem. Bible translators have documented the additional difficulties involved in, for example, the concept of the Trinity or the social significance of the parables in certain cultures. In addition to the lexical problems, there are of course languages that do not have tense systems or concepts of time that in any way correspond to Indo-European systems. 1.1. Loss: temporal factors Any form of communication and therefore translation is subject to the semiotic law of loss. Nida states: "If one is to insist that translation must involve no loss of information whatsoever, then obviously not only translating but all communication is impossible" .The time factor concerns, of course, translators that do not translate contemporary works, because, otherwise, the distance over time to the prototext would be equal to zero. In translating a text belonging to the past, the translator "usually actualizes it making it accessible to her contemporaries. Historicizing is justified in the case in which the author chooses to use it; in the other cases, it represents an expressive device of the translator. The two most popular

orientations can be schematized in this way:- a conservative or historicizing orientation (retentive translation); - a modernizing orientation (re-creative translation). The two orientations are matched by a different focus held by the translator. In the former case, the translator is focused on the prototexts author, while in the latter she is primarily focused on the needs of the model reader of the metatext. Among the forms of modernization there can be two types: "traditional" modernization, i.e. relative modernization, in which the translator modifies lexicon and syntax to make them more easily read by the contemporary reader, but the verse form, for example, is presented in the same way as in the original; radical modernization, in which theme and socio-cultural aspects of the text are also modified, realia included; a horse, for example, may become a motorcycle. The time factor is not, as appears at first sight, the same for all the aspects of all cultures. In order to understand it better, one can use the notion of "cultural time". In every culture a phenomenon, a literary current, a fashion, the sensitivity toward a problem each have their own maturation times. Industrialization, for example, in the British Empire occurred in the second half of the 18th century, while in other European countries like Russia and Italy it occurred mainly at the beginning of the twentieth. That implied and in translation may still imply varying stages of maturation in cultures as far as cultural aspects connected to economic development are concerned. 1.2. Loss: time factors in the comparison of metatexts Another aspect that makes it interesting to examine time-affected factors of translation loss no longer concerns the comparison of prototext and metatext, but the comparison of many versions of the same prototext as related to their time location. Usually, when one inquires on the facility with which a translation becomes "dated", or simply when people wonder why a given classical

text, already translated many a time into a given language, is still being translated by new and different translators, one looks for the feature that makes these texts so rapidly outdated in the way translators work. Sometimes people say that the reason for such ageing lies in the fact that a text, brought forth in a "natural" way within a given language and culture, and endowed with given spontaneous elements (direct expression of the authors creativity) or artificial (creativity mediated by the technical capabilities of the author), must be recreated in a thoroughly artificial way in another language and culture. For this reason, even all the aspects that in the prototext seemed spontaneous, in the metatext now become forced; whenever they appear spontaneous, it is a feigned spontaneity, because, evidently, the translator tries to reproduce another persons creativity, and this action, since it doesnt concern ones own creativity, cannot be anything but feigned. The cause of ageing must be sought in the circumstance upon which the translations language and style depend on the expressive canon effective at the moment the translation is done. The receiver evaluates the translation both in comparison to previous actualizations of the same prototext in the receiving language, and in relation to the original. In the case of a translation tending towards acceptability the metatext is created for contemporary readers, therefore, its requisites are dictated by the criteria of acceptability of a given generation of readers and critics: in this sense, it tends to age more quickly. 1.3. Translation loss: cultural factors In the two previous units, we have examined some implications of time factors as regards translational loss. Let us now examine cultural factors. Every text originates as an expression of some contradiction between the transmitters culture and the model readers culture. This aspect evident in every text is particularly noticeable in interlingual translation, in which the more superficially perceivable linguistic differences are added to the cultural differences. Consequently, every text is a compromise formation, a mixing of cultural trends. Such a source culture (1) is usually in turn a conglomeration of the authors personal culture and the collective culture of her environment. The receiving culture (2) is instead the culture of the "outer world", the

others world. Such a semiotic contradiction is stressed by Yuri Lotman when he talks about the Self-Other relation, between We and Them and so on. In interlingual translation, such a contradiction is self-evident because it is the meeting of two cultures, the prototext and the metatext cultures. Here, activity in the prototext culture is stronger than the activity of the metatexts culture. In translation, a balanced interaction of source culture and receiving culture takes place. Since in a translation only one version is expressed, the translator must solve these contradictions in one of three ways. Each way produces a different kind of loss. If the translator chooses the first solution, the reader of the translation comes across many elements of the protoculture, and the communication loss mostly consists in the readability of the text (that sometimes preserves the construction traits typical of the source culture) and in the understandability of realia and of other culture-specific elements. If the translator chooses the second solution, the reader of the translation is dealing with a text that is very readable and fluent, where culture-specific elements were substituted by elements that are culture-specific in the readers culture: in this case, the communication loss consists mainly in the lack of transposition of the texts culture-specific elements, a text that has lost its cultural identity for the benefit of readability. If the translator chooses the third solution, the translation loss will be mixed: it will consist in part of culture-specific elements, and in part of linguistic and construction elements. In this perspective, translation loss is always to be located in terms of cultural distance of the reader from the text, or cultural distance of the text from the original.

2. A.L.Buracs Classification of Transformations According to A.L.Burac there are the following transformations in translation: 1. Omission .Summer rains in Florida may be violent, while they last. - . From the point of view of the Russian language, the clause "while they last" is redundant

and would make the Russian sentence sound very unnatural if it were to be translated. 2.Addition (). The policeman waved me on. - , , . Or: (), . The compact English phrase "to wave on" has no compact equivalent in Russian. 3. Transposition ( ). Transposition involves changing the order of words in the target text (TT) as compared to the source text (ST). Typically, an English sentence has a "subject+predicate+object+adverbial adjunct+place+time" word order: A delegation of Moscow State University students arrived in Gainsville yesterday. . A typical Russian sentence would generally have a reverse word order: time+place+predicate+subject+object+adverbial adjunct. 4. Change of grammatical forms ( ). For example, in the Russian translation of Prime Minister Tony Blair was hit by a tomato...the original Passive Voice construction is changed to an Active Voice construction: ... ... 5. Loss-of-meaning compensation ( ) involves adding to or reinforcing a TT in one place to compensate for something that hasn't been translated in the ST: I ain't got no time for that kind of thing!- ! The impossibility of preserving the expressive impact of the substandard double negation in the English ST is compensated for on a lexical level in the Russian TT by using the more expressive Russian word "" for the English expressively neutral noun "thing". Similarly, to compensate for the double negation in You ain't seen nothin'yet! an emphatic syntactic construction can be used in the Russian translation - To ! 6.Concretization () is used when something in the TL is usually expressed using concepts with narrower meaning or when preserving the original concepts with broader meaning would result in an awkward translation: There were pictures on all the walls and there

was a vase with flowers on the table. - , . 7. Generalization () is used when something in the TL is usually expressed using concepts with broader meaning or when preserving the original concepts with narrower meaning would result in an awkward translation: She ordered a daiquiri. (= a sweet alcoholic drink made of rum and fruit juice) - . Or: There used to be a drugstore (a Walgreens pharmacy) around here. I need to buy some soda water. - . . In the latter example, translating drugstore or Walgreens pharmacy as or "" would not only be baffling to a Russian - because in Russia they do not sell in - but it would also be unnecessary as for the purposes of communication is just as good in this context. The more specific drugstore or Walgreens pharmacy is translated here by the more general term . 8. Antonymic translation ( ) involves translating a phrase or clause containing a negation using a phrase or clause that does not contain a negation or vice versa: I don't think you're right. - , . 9. Meaning extension or sense development ( ) involves translating a cause by its effect or vice versa: You can't be serious. - , , . (Cause is translated by its effect: Since you can't be serious, it follows that you must be joking). In the above example, meaning extension is combined with an antonymic translation. Another example: He answered the phone. - . You can't speak on the phone unless you have lifted the receiver. The effect "answered" in the ST is translated by its cause "lifted the receiver" ( )in the . 10. Metonymic translation ( ). A metonymic translation is similar to meaning extension. Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Moscow for the Russian government. Using a part for the whole, the whole for one of its parts, or one of two contiguous concepts for the other are typical metonymic figures of speech.

E.g.: School broke up for the summer recess. - . . (: .) 11. Sentence integration ( ) involves combining two or more sentences into one: Your presence isn't required. Nor is it desirable. - . 12. Sentence fragmentation ( ) involves splitting one complex or compound sentence into two or more simpler sentences: People everywhere are confronted with the need to make decisions in the face of ignorance and this dilemma is growing. - . . Both sentence integration and sentence fragmentation are prompted by considerations of text cohesion ( ) and coherence ( ). Cohesion is the network of surface relations which link words and sentences in a text. Coherence is the network of conceptual relations which underlie the surface text. Both concern the ways stretches of language are connected to each other. In the case of cohesion, stretches of language are connected to each other by virtue of lexical and grammatical dependencies. In the case of coherence, they are connected by virtue of conceptual or meaning dependencies as perceived by language users. 3. Compensation and Explicitation Torops total translation strategy foresees a preventive analysis in order to establish what the communicative loss deriving from a given translation act might be and how to cope with such a loss. This does not mean that the translator always enacts a strategy that considers the principles of total translation in this sense. In some cases, a translator does not bother with the problem of the translation loss, either because she is not aware of it, or because, resigned to the inevitability of such a loss, she has no intention to engage in a strategy to cope with the problem. Translation science literature usually deals with a problem

similar to metatextual rendering separately under two entries: compensation and explicitation. "Compensation" here means the technique of making up for the translation loss of important ST features by approximating their effects in the TT through means other than those used in the ST .The explicitation means the process of introducing information into the target language which is present only implicitly in the source language, but which can be derived from the context or the situation. One can easily see that these two categories do not precisely define which translation shifts encompass these entries and which do not. Moreover, it is not specified if compensation and explicitation must necessarily occur within the translated text, or if one can also consider paratextual rendering. Compensation is used in cases when given elements of the emitting language text for one reason or another do not have equivalents in the receiving language and cannot be transmitted through its means; in these cases, in order to compensate for the semantic loss determined by the fact that a given unit in the emitting language remained untranslated or was translated incompletely (not for the whole spectrum of its meaning), the translator transmits the same information through another means, not necessarily in the same position within the target text as it was found in the original. Compensation is viewed as a device that can shift the placement in the translated text where an element thereof can compensate the loss incurred in another part of the original text. Such a shift, in principle, can therefore even occur outside the text. The notion of compensation seems to imply two basic facts: first, the equivalence relationship as an ideal pursued by translators and second, the assumption that one can subject to analysis the relationship between source-text and target-text features in order to establish whether the latter are really compensatory. Some authors include explicitation among the translation shifts in the "additions" category to be used only when there is a mismatching of the lexical units of the two texts. For other authors, however, explicitation is an intrinsic feature of translation: a higher level of explicitation in the translated text might be the case that explicitation is a universal strategy


inherent in the process of language mediation, as practiced by language learners, non-professional translators and professional translators alike. According to this view, that has gone down in the annals of history as "explicitation hypothesis", consciousness of the translational/communicational loss is a common, general feature, even if it is probably a conscious phenomenon. This lack of awareness can explain the wide use of explicitation and the need to apply linguistic and statistical research to sensitize oneself to its use. 4. Untranslatability When such difficulties are encountered by the translator, the whole issue of the translatability of the text is raised. Catford distinguishes two types of untranslatability, which he terms linguistic and cultural. On the linguistic level, untranslatability occurs when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL item. So, for example, the German Urn wieviel Uhr darf man Sie morgen wecken? or the Danish Jeg fandt brevet are linguistically untranslatable, because both sentences involve structures that do not exist in English. Yet both can be adequately translated into English once the rules of English structure are applied. A translator would unhesitatingly render the two sentences as What time would you like to be woken tomorrow? and I found the letter, restructuring the German word order and adjusting the position of the postpositive definite article in Danish to conform to English norms. Catford's category of linguistic untranslatability is straightforward, but his second category is more problematic. Linguistic untranslatability, he argues, is due to differences in the SL and the TL, whereas cultural untranslatability is due to the absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature for the SL text. He quotes the example of the different concepts of the term bathroom in an English, Finnish or Japanese context, where both the object and the use made of that object are not at all alike. But Catford also claims that more abstract lexical items such as the English term home or democracy cannot be described as untranslatable, and argues that the English phrases I'm going home, or He's at home can 'readily be provided with translation equivalents in most languages' whilst the term democracy is international.

With the translation of democracy, further complexities arise. Catford feels that the term is largely present in the lexis of many languages and, although it may be relatable to different political situations, the context will guide the reader to select the appropriate situational features. The problem here is that the reader will have a concept of the term based on his or her own cultural context, and will apply that particularized view accordingly. Hence the difference between the adjective democratic as it appears in the following three phrases is fundamental to present totally different political concepts: the American Democratic Party the German Democratic Republic the democratic wing of the British Conservative Party. So although the term is international, its usage in different contexts shows that there is no longer (if indeed there ever was) any common ground from which to select relevant situational features. If culture is perceived as dynamic, then the terminology of social structuring must be dynamic also. Translation may always start with the clearest situations, the most concrete messages, the most elementary universals. But as it involves the consideration of a language in its entirety, together with its most subjective messages, through an examination of common situations and a multiplication of contacts that need clarifying, then there is no doubt that communication through translation can never be completely finished, which also demonstrates that it is never wholly impossible either. As has already been suggested, it is clearly the task of the translator to find a solution to even the most daunting of problems. Such solutions may vary enormously; the translator's decision as to what constitutes invariant information with respect to a given system of reference is in itself a creative act.


LECTURE VII. PRAGMATICS OF TRANSLATION Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Difference between Semantics, Syntax and Pragmatics Meanings of Words The Problem of Synonyms Translation and Style Terms and Professionalisms Specific Area Translation Types of Texts Pragmatics of the Text

1. Difference between Semantics, Syntax and Pragmatics Words in any language are related to certain referents which they designate and to other words of the same language with which they make up syntactic units. These relationships are called semantic and syntactic. Words are also related to the people who use them. This relationship is called pragmatics. Syntax is concerned with words and how they are combined to form phrases and sentences. Semantics is concerned with what these combinations mean. But in any text syntax and semantics interact. In any language one and the same meaning may be expressed syntactically in more than one way. If we take English, for example, the semantic property of possession can be expressed by the Genitive case Englands king or by an of-construction the King of England. Paraphrases are used in all languages and their result is the expression of the same meaning by different syntactic structures. A similar situation arises with certain semantic concepts such as ability, permission or obligation. These may be expressed syntactically by means of auxiliary or helping verbs. He can go. He may go. He must go. They may also be expressed without the auxiliaries, as: He is able to go/ He has the ability to go/ He is permitted to go/ He is obliged to go/ He has an obligation to go.

Active-passive pairs constitute another common type of paraphrase. The child found the puppy. The puppy was found by the child. But the person working with the English language should know that not all sentences can be passivized. John resembles Bill. The book costs ten dollars. These sentences cant be passivized because of the relationship of the verb and direct object. When the Subject is not in the state of doing some action it cant be passivized. These examples show how the semantics of the verbal relationships affect syntactic relationships. Now, lets look t the following two sentences and decide whether they have the same meaning: The Greeks who were philosophers liked to talk. The Greeks , who were philosophers, liked to talk. The first sentence means that among the Greeks, the ones who were philosophers, liked to talk. The second means that all Greeks were philosophers and they liked to talk. And again here we see the task for the translator/interpreter. In oral speech we can rely only on the pauses and intonation, in written speech we can rely on the punctuation marks to translate these two sentences in a right way. These two sentences contain the relative clause who were philosophers. But they are used in different syntactic structures. The difference in syntax makes the difference in meaning, though both sentences contain the same words in the same sequence. 2. Meanings of Words Words are also related to the people who use them. To the users of the language its words are not just indifferent, unemotional labels of objects, or ideas. The people develop a certain attitude to the words they use. Some of the words acquire definite implications, they evoke a positive or negative

response they are associated with certain theories, beliefs, likes and dislikes. Any language has the word-stock of three main layers: literary, neutral and colloquial. The literary and the colloquial layers contain a number of subgroups each of which has a property it shares with all the subgroups within the layer. This common property which unites the different groups of words within the layer may be called its aspect. The aspect of the literary layer is its markedly bookish character. It is this that makes it more or less stable. The aspect of the colloquial layer of words is its lively spoken character. It is this that makes it unstable, fleeting. The aspect of the neutral layer is its universal character. That means it is unrestricted in its use. It can be employed in all styles of language and in all spheres of human activity. It is this that makes this layer the most stable of all. The literary layer of words consists of groups accepted as legitimate members of the English vocabulary. They have no local or dialectal character. For translator/interpreter it is necessary to know that neutral words are the main source of synonymy and polysemy. It is the neutral stock of words that is so prolific in the production of new meanings. 3. The Problem of Synonyms The existence of a great number of synonyms in the English language presents a great problem for any translator/interpreter. The number of absolute synonyms is very few. Moreover the synonyms are not always interchangeable. They can be used in one context and fully spoil the other context. The synonyms differ in their shades of meaning, the intensity of the expression of the notion, emotional coloring, coinages with other words in the sentences and to what layer they belong (neutral, literary, colloquial). There are sometimes so-called double synonyms. Its very difficult to deal with them and its quite possible to translate both of them by one word. e.g. just and equitable null and void- to reject and repudiate- It is necessary to mention the fact that there exist so called contextual synonyms which are not synonyms in their general meaning but in some contexts they are synonyms. e.g. This stern, sordid and grinding policy.

, . The word stern is the main attribute here and the other two become the synonyms only in this context. Some other examples: The Russian word can be translated into English by different words which are synonyms but with different shades of meaning. Affection kindly feeling Attachment affection, friendship Fondness-pleasure Tenderness-kindness Warmth enthusiasm Devotion deep, strong love Adoration worship Enjoyment satisfaction passion-strong feeling, enthusiasm infatuation feeling with a wild and foolish love ardor warm emotion rapture-ecstatic delight liking - fondness delight-great pleasure, joy

The Russian word can be translated into English as: to devote it means to devote ones life to smb;to dedicate (to the memory of smb);to let into; to initiate into (mystery);to consecrate ( to ordain) into knight. Thus, it is very important for the interpreter/translator to use the right synonym in the right situation. One professional interpreter recollects that once the interpreter of the German delegation on an official visit translated the word love when the head of the German delegation spoke about the love of German people to the Polish people as lust. The Polish people were offended and the interpreter was fired at once. Pay attention to the word fired. It has some meanings in the English Language but we should know that in this situation it is translated as to dismiss. 4.Translation and Style While speaking about English vocabulary, synonymy and polysemy we cant but mention the role of style, because the knowledge of style is also very important for the interpreter/translator. Any translator/interpreter should know when, where and what word should be used. If he works with

educated people or with scientists he should use literary style; if he works with lay people he should use neutral or even colloquial style, in order his speech be clear to everybody. The types of texts distinguished by the pragmatic aspect of communication are called functional styles or register. Modern stylistics distinguishes the following varieties of functional styles; belles-lettres (prose, poetry, drama); publicistic; newspaper ; scientific and official documents styles. Any comparison of the texts belonging to different stylistic varieties listed above will show that two of them (scientific and official documents) are almost entirely devoid of stylistic coloring being characterized by the neutrality of style whereas the first three are usually rich in stylistic devices which a translator should pay due attention to. Stylistic devices are based on the comparison of the primary (dictionary) meaning and the meaning which is dictated by the contextual environment; on the contradiction between the meaning of the given word and the environment; on the association between words in minds of the language speakers and on purposeful deviation from accepted grammatical and phonetic standards. The stylistic devices are as it follows. METAPHOR : the transfer of some quality from one object to another. Usually, metaphors are not difficult to translate: they are translated by keeping to the semantic similarity (ray of hope) or by choosing an appropriate pragmatic equivalent (flood of tears). METONYMY is similarity by association; usually one of the constituents of an object replaces the object itself. As a rule translators keep to literal translation while translating the classes of metonymy. For example, crown meaning the royal family is always translated as korona; hand ar ruka. He is the right hand of the president. IRONY doesnt present any difficulty for translation. SEMANTIC and SYNTACTIC irregularities of expression used as stylistic devices are called TRANSFERRED QUALIFIER and ZEUGMA respectively. He paid his smiling attention to In this sentence the word smiling refers to the person but it is used as an attribute to state (attention). Translators task here consists in rendering the

idea in compliance with the lexical combination rules of the Target Language. ZEUGMA is also a semantic irregularity, i.e. if one and the same verb is combined with two or more nouns and acquires a different meaning in each of such combinations. He has taken her picture and another cup of tea. PUN is considered the most difficult for translation. PUN (play of words) is the realization in one and the same word of two lexical meanings simultaneously. It can be translated only by a word with similar capacity to develop two meanings in the Target language. PARAPHRASES are characteristic for English. They do not present difficulties for translation; however their correct translation strongly depends on situation and appropriate background information. Special attention should be paid by the translator to QUOTATIONS. They demand correct rendering. Never suggest your own translation for a quotation of a popular author. The latter usually takes the shape of allusion and the pragmatic equivalence seems the most appropriate for the case. As for DIALECTS their translation depends on translator but he should keep to the style and form. Thus, any good translation should be fulfilled with due regard of the stylistic peculiarities of the source text and this recommendation applies to all types of texts. 5.Terms and Professionalisms Its very important to touch such notion as term. Sometimes it is very difficult to differentiate between term and professionalism. Both of them belong to literary style. Stephen Ullman said All scientists are linguists to some extent. They are responsible for devising a consistent terminology, a skeleton language to talk about their subject-matter. Philologists and philosophers of speech are in the peculiar position of having to evolve a special language to talk about language itself.

This quotation makes clear the essential characteristics of a term, i.e. its highly conventional character. A term is generally very easily coined and easily accepted; and new coinages easily replace the out-dated ones. Terms are mostly and predominantly used in special works dealing with the notions of some branch of science. Therefore it may be said that they belong to the style of the language of science. But their use is not confined to this style. They may as well appear in some other styles. They may appear in newspaper style, in publicistic and practically in all other styles. But their function in this case changes. They do not always fulfill their basic function that of bearing exact reference to a given concept. The function of terms, if encountered in other styles, is either to indicate the technical peculiarities of the subject dealt with, or to make some reference to the occupation of a character whose language would naturally contain special words and expressions. While translating informative texts it should be borne in mind that the language of special texts is a part of the common language and it uses its lexis and grammar, nevertheless it is characterized by its own style which is used in the scientific literature where the terms are often used; there are some grammar peculiarities as well. The informative texts language is characterized by a great number of terms which are special for each branch of science and technology, abbreviations, preference of definite syntactic constructions, ellipsis and so on. The main stylistic characteristic of informative style is its precise and concise nature and the abundance of special terms, which sometimes cant be found in the dictionaries because they are innovated very quickly. Many people say that all scientists are linguists to some extent. They are responsible for the appearance of a consistent terminology, a skeleton language to talk about their subject-matter. There is an interesting process going on in the development of any language. With the increase of general education and the expansion of technique to satisfy the ever-growing needs and desires of mankind, many words which once were terms have gradually lost their quality as terms and have passed into the common literary or even neutral vocabulary. Such

words as radio, telephone, television, and computer and the like have long been in common use and lost their terminological character. There should be mentioned that there is difference between terms and professionalisms. Professionalisms are the words used in a definite trade, profession or simply by a group of people connected by common interests both at work and at home. They commonly designate some working process or an instrument. The main feature of a professionalism is its technicality. Professionalisms, unlike terms, which are often known to ordinary people, generally remain in circulation within a definite community as they are linked to a common occupation and common social interests. Professionalisms do not allow any polysemy, they are monosemantic. Here are the examples of professionalisms: tinfish=submarine; block-buster= a special bomb; clone(medicine), margination= collection of leucocytes. Unlike professionalisms the terms can be polysemantic. They may have different meanings in different texts. Their translation depends on the context. In order to translate a term in a proper way the translator should know the context. Sometimes words from common vocabulary become terms in special contexts and it is very difficult to translate them without the knowledge of context. Lets take , for example, the word bus. We know that it is a special term in programming. It means shina. But it has a meaning of a machine for transporting people and so on. Professionalisms are correlated to terms. Some authors say that the main difference between terms and professionalisms is that the terms are coined to nominate new concepts that appear in the process of and as a result of technical progress and the development of science. Professional words are already existed concepts, tools or instruments and have some typical properties of a special code. Terms as well as professionalisms are connected with a special field or branch of science or technique. Sometimes they are known to ordinary people and are easily understood by them. But sometimes they remain in circulation within a definite community as they are linked to a common occupation and common social interests. They fulfill a socially useful function in communication, facilitating a quick and adequate grasp of message. They are very often used in emotive prose to depict the natural speech of a character. The skilful use of a professional word will show not only the vocation of a

character, but also his education, breeding, environment and sometimes even psychology. For translator/interpreter it is not difficult to translate professionalisms if he knows the branch of science he works with. But the problem arises when the professionals use the words from neutral layer as professionalism. Lets take the word crowd. Its neutral meaning as a noun is but in programming it is translated as , . The word leg has the main meaning but in programming it is , , . Sometimes it is twice as difficult to translate because the translator/interpreter knows all words in their neutral meaning but in some professional context he cant understand them. The only way out for the translator is to study the specialty not in detail but to know some principal facts about it. In modern world many interpreters/translators are specializing in some definite branch. For example, they work in one definite branch such as medicine, economics, auditing, etc. Morphology of the term According to their structure all terms are divided into : -simple (circuit, feeder); - complex( flywheel - , clock-work - ); - terms-phrases or compound terms (trip coil - , earth fault - , circuit breaker - ). In technical and scientific literature the compound terms are the ones which are very often used. All compound terms are divided into 3 groups. 1) The first group consists of the compound terms each element of which is a special term. We can find this term in a special dictionary. They can be used separately because they have their own meaning. Brake - ; gear . But when these words are combined to form a special compound term their meaning can be different. Brake gear - ; cantilever beam - ; electric motor - , ; resistance coupling - ; ionic rectifier - . The characteristic feature of this group of compound terms is the possibility of their division.

2) The second group of compound terms consists of two words one of which is a special term and the other a word from common lexis. The components of such group can be two nouns or a noun and an adjective. This way of organization of compound terms is more productive. Back coupling ;square signal - ;variable capacitor ; air accumulator - .. As we can see from all these examples the first word of these compound terms is used in its common (general) meaning. The second word can be a term which is used in different branches of science and technology. To this group also belong the compound terms the first component of which has a special meaning for a number of branches of science. Vitreous electricity ; resinous electricity - . In these examples the first word shows the substance rubbing which we get electricity. To this group also belong the compound terms the first element of which is used in its general meaning but together with the second element they form a compound term with a special meaning. Electric eye - ; atmospheric disturbances It is interesting to note that in such terms the second element can bear the meaning of the whole compound term. Electric current = current; electric charge = charge; thermionic tube (valve) = tube(valve). 3.The third group of compound terms consists of the words which are the elements of neutral (common, general) lexis and only their combination gives them the meaning of a special term. This way of organization of compound terms is not productive. The terms belonging to this type are not divisible. Live wire -() ; live load - ; live steam - ; fish plate - ; dead weight - , ; dead end - ; dead line - ; flat rate . These compound terms are idiomatic; their components are not used separately.

All words in the compound term groups are connected by the attributive tie (it means that one word is determined by the other). According to their structure they can be presented by: a group of words and preposition of . lid of frame ;body of reactor . noun + noun. Survey party - ; emergency lighting - ; earth core -;,suspension bridge - ; conductors valve . -construction adjective + noun . Electric substation - ; vertical component - . It should be paid special attention to the fact whether the adjective determines the noun or together with this noun they form a compound term. Wet battery - ( ); dry battery - , . -participle I or Participle II + noun. Accelerating field - ; amplifying tube - ; rectifying tube . Compound term as well as a simple term can be polysemantic and its translation depends on the context. Compound terms can be translated in the following ways: by means of the words and expressions from the target language ( word for word translation); kalkirovanie . Single-arm semaphore - ; singlerow engine - . with the help of Genitive case .Direct current system - ; Control-surface cable - . with the help of different prepositions . Pressure oil gun - -. by means of explanation. High aluminum cement- ; analogue computer - . by means of word change. Battery-charging motor generators -, ; automobile repair plant construction project - .

The translation of the compound terms begins with the translation of the noun which is the main component of this phrase generally it is done from the left to the right. Temperature compensating condenser arrangements is translated arrangements - , condenser , and the whole compound term is translated as . Term bent-tube boilers is translated as . 6. Specific-area Translation Often the most obvious distinction that is made while trying to create a typology of translation is that between literary and technical translation. In the reality of the market, such a distinction is not very productive, above all because the two categories are not clearly defined. There are major differences between a translation ordered by a publisher and a translation ordered by a different kind of company that needs it for internal use, or to publish it as a leaflet to accompany other products, or as advertising material. While literary translation proper accounts for just 1 percent of the world production of translations, it is clear that when people superficially speak of "literary translation" they tend to mistake it for and/or overlap it with translation for publishers. By "literary translation" it is meant only translation of fiction (novels, stories) or poetry or theater or, occasionally, cinema. Translation for publishers, on the other hand, accounts for a huge mass of non-literary texts. According to the above-quoted source, translations for publishers are responsible for 20 percent of the total translations, and of these only one twentieth is classed as literary. Within translation for publishers, one can distinguish literary translation, non-fiction translation, poetry translation, and journalistic translation. As for translation for publishers, the greatest part is represented by specific area translation, or specialized translation. When dealing with translation general, it is important to note the translation-oriented analysis, the choice of the dominant for the metatext reader, the individuation of the translation loss and its metatextual rendering. All these parameters are peculiar in specialized translation.

Translation-oriented analysis. In a specialized specific-area text, you dont need to make an overall analysis, because a series of variables connected to the general text are excluded in advance. In specialized translation the elements to be analyzed are mainly: 1. the level of specialization of the text; a specialized text can be popular (as in the case of the instructions for use of an appliance, in which they must translate technical information into a language understandable by all); it can have a medium level of specialization, so that it is understandable, not only by technical personnel, but also by people having a competence in related fields; or it can be devoted only to experts in that field, and therefore have a very high level of specialization; 2. the field; as we saw in the previous unit, terms generally have only one equivalent in other languages correspond to one object or phenomenon; but thanks to the phenomenon of crossover borrowings, it can occur that in a given language the term from the Arms sector bullet is borrowed by the Finance sector. In order for the one-to-one correspondence to be guaranteed, it is therefore indispensable to know in what field the text was written for the terminology to be disambiguated; 3. text aim; the specialized text is characterized by a very high informational content, to the detriment of its poetic and connotative content; the translator has, therefore, lots of leeway for her action, given the condition that she knows exactly what the informational aim of the text is. Choice of the dominant. The informational aim of the text is always the absolute dominant in specialized translation. The non-literary translators primary objective is not necessarily "fidelity" to the form of the original text which often, on the contrary, must be ameliorated but the integral reproduction of the information of the original and their adaptation to norms and editorial conventions of the target language/culture. From this point of view, the choice of the dominant of specialized translation creates fewer problems when compared to a non-specialized text. Translational loss and metatextual rendering. Interlingual specialized translation can be practically free of translational loss, excepting the loss common to all forms of communication. Given there is no confusion by the translator about the sector the text belongs to, the level of

specialization and the knowledge of the texts aim, the operation should have no loss. Usually, therefore, no metatextual rendering is necessary, also because the prototext is not an object of philological veneration, but rather a communication tool to be put into use, after which no trace of the translation remains, nor should it. 7. Types of Texts The word-stock of every language is varied. It contains the words of different layers. This variety helps the translator/interpreter to express one and the same thought in different ways (by means of literary, neutral or colloquial lexis). Thus the translator/interpreter should know what text he works with and for whom he translates. For example, if the translator translates the words of an intellectual person but uses in his translation vulgarisms or slang it is a great mistake. And vice versa, translating the speech of an illiterary person he cant change the words and use literary language. Its a well-known fact that the word-stock of any language is not fixed. It changes with time. All words have their own age. Some of them become archaisms, some get other meanings. Apart from the pragmatics of linguistic signs there is also the pragmatics of individual speech acts. This pragmatics involves plans and goals and the textual characteristics of intentionality, acceptability and situationality the attitudes of the Producer and the Receiver of the text to its context of use all matters which take us well beyond the code ( syntax and semantics) and into the area of the use of the code for communication. When we speak about the speech acts or text we face three problems: 1. what its about; 2. whats the writers purpose; 3.what a plausible context is for its use. In order to answer these questions and make sense of the text, the reader has to draw on appropriate linguistic and social knowledge - syntactic, semantic and pragmatic (as it was mentioned above). According to the research in the field of the specialized texts they can be divided according to the type of information and the purpose for which they are conveyed, i.e. by their communicative function. Taking into

consideration the communicative function of the texts they can be divided into: - juridical normative texts; - progress-oriented actualizing texts; - didactic-instructive texts; - compilation texts. The communicative function of juridical-normative texts consists in establishing a legal basis or an unambiguous standard of reference. The information conveyed always involves legal claims or efforts towards achieving uniformity (technological or test standards). Progress-oriented actualizing texts have the communicative function of conveying information intended to advance science and technology. They always deal with new research results and findings which may also be a (re)evaluation and current knowledge. Didactic-instructive texts convey information for the purpose of intellectual enrichment, entertainment or practical application. Compilation texts have the communicative function of giving a survey of the knowledge conveyed in the texts of the other three categories and providing access to this knowledge. Speaking about the juridical-normative texts the author speaks about the standard specifications, patent specifications, abstracts and so on. The juridical-normative texts have a legal status. They are technical both in the field of science and technology and in the field of law. Understanding, writing and translating them requires knowledge in both fields. They are intended for a restricted group of Recipients sharing roughly the same technological and legal knowledge and purpose. The recipients of didactic-instructive texts are relatively non-homogeneous with regard to both their previous knowledge and their purpose. Readers will include both school pupils and students and they will be reading texts of this category to inform themselves about their theories, or to learn how to operate some equipment, or to prepare for an exam or just to enrich themselves intellectually.

To meet all these different requirements didactic-instructive texts cannot but incorporate a relatively large number of variants. Here are included popular science articles, product information, operating instructions, manuals, summaries, reviews, etc. Recipients of progress-oriented actualizing texts are mostly scientific and research workers. These texts include articles in scientific journals; research reports, monographs, dissertations, etc. And lastly, compilation texts are intended for all types of Recipients. They include encyclopedic texts; dictionaries, reviews, etc. 8. Pragmatics of the Text The pragmatics of the text depends on the relationship between the linguistic signs and the language users and thus pragmatics is a meaningful element and its preservation in translation is desirable. Apart from the pragmatics of linguistic signs there is also the pragmatics of individual speech acts. In a concrete act of speech the Speaker has to do with the specific Receptor upon whom he tries to produce the desired effect and from whom he wants to get the desired reaction. The pragmatics of speech acts is present in translation process. A translation process is a kind of speech act and it is performed with certain pragmatic purpose as well. But this process is more complicated than ordinary speech. A translation process is pragmatically oriented in two directions. On the one hand its translation which means that its primary purpose is to give the closest possible approximation to the original text. This orientation towards a foreign text is one aspect of its pragmatics. But on the other hand, a translation event is a concrete speech act in the target language. Therefore, it is not just an act of interlingual communication between the Source and Target Recipient, but also an act of speech communication between the Translator and Target Recipient. This involves two important implications. First, a translation event may be pragmatically oriented toward a concrete Target Recipient, and, second, it is the result of the activities of a concrete translator who may have some

additional pragmatic motivation, may pursue some aims beside and beyond the true reproduction of the original text. As long as translation is not just an exercise in producing an equivalent text in another language but a pragmatic act under specific circumstances, its results can be assessed both in terms of its loyalty to the original and its ability to achieve the purpose for which it has been undertaken. This necessitates the introduction of the concept of the pragmatic value in translation, which assesses its success in achieving this pragmatic superpurpose. As has been pointed out, the additional pragmatic goal of the translation event may depend either on the particular type of the Target Receptor or on the translators designs beyond his call of duty as a no-nonsense transmitter of the original message. The users of the translation often make judgment of its quality exclusively on its merits as an instrument in achieving some specific aim. If in doing so the translation departs from the original text, so much the worse for the latter. In this way the pragmatics of translation acquires a new dimension. E.Nida introduced the concept of dynamic equivalence which should be judged not against the original but against the Receptors reactions. For many practical purposes the process of translation is predominantly oriented towards the Target Receptor. So, the translation of the maintenance instruction after all is considered good if after reading it, a technician will be able to operate the appropriate piece of machinery correctly. Sometimes books written for adults are translated for childrens reading with appropriate alterations made in the course of translation. Presumably, any text should be differently translated depending on whether it is for experts or laymen, for staging or screening, and so on. As to the specific aims pursued by the translator, they may also bring about considerable changes in the resulting text with no direct bearing on the original. Each translation is made in a certain pragmatic or social context and its results are for a number of purposes. The translator is assigned his task and paid for by the people for whom his work is not an end in itself but

an instrument for achieving some other ends. Aware of this the translator tries to make his work meet this extra-linguistic requirement, introducing appropriate changes in the text of translation. Sometimes these changes are prompted by the desire to produce a certain effect on the Receptors which has already been mentioned. When a book is translated with a view to subsequent publication in another country, it may be adapted or abridged to meet the countrys standards for printed matter. The translator may omit parts of the book or some descriptions considered too obscene or naturalistic for publication in his country, though permissible in the original. In technical or other informative translations the translator or his employers may be interested in getting the gist of the contents or the most important or novel part of it, which may involve leaving out certain details or a combination of translation with brief accounts of less important parts of the original. A most common feature of such translations is neglect of the stylistic and structural peculiarities of the original. In this case translation often borders on retelling or precise writing. A specific instance is consecutive interpretation where the interpreter is often set a time limit within which he is expected to report his translation no matter how long the original speech may have been. This implies selection, generalizations, and cutting through repetitions, incidental digressions, occasional slips or excessive embellishments. It is obvious that in all similar cases the differences which can be revealed between the original text and its translation should not be ascribed to the translators inefficiency or detract from the quality of his work. The pragmatic value of the translation clearly compensates for their lack of equivalence. Evidently there are different types of translation serving different purposes.


LECTURE VIII. LEXICAL DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSLATION Plan 1. Multiple Meanings of Words 2. The Role of Culture Knowledge in Translation 3. Three Types of Translation Difficulties 4. The Translators Informational Capacity 1. Multiple Meanings of Words We know that most words in the English language have multiple meanings. Because of this fact the translation based on one-to-one substitution of words is seldom acceptable. We expect a word with sharply different meanings to have several different translations depending on how the word is being used. Lets take, for example, two meanings of the word bank. This word is often given as an example of a homograph, that is, a word entirely distinct from another that happens to be spelled the same. But the investigations show that historically the financial and the river meanings of the word bank are related. They both come from the notion a raised shelf or ridge of ground. The financial sense evolved from the money changers table or shelf, which was originally placed on a mound of dirt. Later the word came to represent an institution that takes care of money for people. The river meaning has remained more closely linked to the original meaning of a word. The English word fish can be used to refer to either a live fish swimming in a river or a dead fish that has been cleaned and is ready for the frying pan. In a sense, English makes a similar distinction between fish and seafood but fish can be used in both cases. Some other languages make difference between these two notions. It is obligatory in Spanish. They use pez for the swimming fish, and pescado in the other case. It is not clear how a speaker of English is supposed to know to look for the two translations of fish into Spanish. The result is that unknowledgeable human may use wrong translation until corrected. The verb to run is another example of a word that causes troubles for translation. In English this word means not only the next step in speed from jogging but very often is used in the expressions of the type to run a

company or long run (when referring to a play or meeting), or run dry (when referring to a river).A computer or an inexperienced human translator will often be insensitive to subtle differences in meaning that affect translation and will use a word inappropriately. Significantly, there is no set list of possible ways to use run or other words of general vocabulary. Once you think you have a complete list, a new use will come up. In order to translate well, you must first be able to recognize a new use and then be able to come up with an acceptable translation that is not in the list. The English expression thank you also is a problematical one. There are several translations that are not interchangeable and depend on factors such as whether the person being thanked was obligated to perform the service and how much effort was involved. In English there are various distinctions such as thanks a million and what a friend but these distinctions are not stylized in other languages. 2. The Role of Culture Knowledge in Translation It is not enough to have a passing acquaintance with another language to produce good translations. You must have a thorough knowledge of both languages and an ability to deal with differences in meaning that appear insignificant until you cross over to the other language. Indeed, you must be a native or near-native speaker of the language you are translating into and very strong in the language you are translating from. Being a native or near native speaker involves more than the memorizing lots of facts about words. It includes having an understanding of the culture that is mixed with the language. It also includes an ability to deal with new situations appropriately. No dictionary can contain all the solutions since the problem is always changing as people use words in unusual way. These unusual uses of words happen all the time. Some only last for the life of a conversation or an editorial. Others catch on and become part of the language. Some native speakers develop a tremendous skill in dealing with the subtleties of the language. Certainly, in order to produce an acceptable translation you must find acceptable words in other languages. Here it is possible to speak about socalled general or neutral language and specialized language. In general language it is undesirable to repeat the same word over and over

unnecessarily. Variety is highly valued. However, in specialized terminology consistency (which would be called monotony in general language) is highly valued. Indeed, it is essential to repeat the same term over and over whenever it refers to the same object. It is frustrating and potentially dangerous to switch terms for the same object when describing how to maintain or operate a complex machine such as commercial airplane. Thus, to produce an acceptable translation you must find acceptable words. In the case of specialized terminology it should be the one and only term in the other language that has been designed as the term in a particular language for a particular object throughout a particular document or set of documents. In the case of general vocabulary, there may be many potential translations for a given word, and often more than one (but not all) of the potential translations will be acceptable on a given occasion in a given source text. 3. Three Types of Translation Difficulties All types of translation difficulties can be divided into three groups. The first one is the most widely resolved. It is the case where a word can be either a word of general vocabulary or a specialized term. Consider the word bus. When this word is used as a word of general vocabulary it is understood by all native speakers of English to refer to a roadway vehicle for transporting groups of people. However, it can also be used as an item of specialized terminology. Specialized terminology is divided into areas called domains. In the domain of computers the term bus refers to a component of computer that has several slots into which cards can be placed. One card may control a CD-ROM drive. Another may contain a fax/modem. If you turn off the power to your computer and open it up you can probably see the bus for yourself. As always, there is a connection between the new meaning and the old one. The new meaning involves carrying cards while the old one involves carrying people. In this case the new meaning has not superseded the old one. They both continue to be used, but it would be dangerous as we have already shown with several examples to assume that both meanings will be translated the same way in another language. The way to overcome this difficulty is to recognize whether we are using the word as an item of general vocabulary or as a specialized term. At first it is necessary to detect that a word is a specialized term and used in a particular domain.

Then it is often merely a matter of consulting a terminology database for that domain to find the standard translation of that term in that domain. There is a funny example of translation of the greeting Dear Bill at the beginning of a letter. The computer programmed to the commercial domain translated it as Dear Invoice. Thus we see that the first type of difficulty is the task to distinguish between the use of a word as a specialized term and its use as a word of general vocabulary. The second type of difficulty is distinguishing between various uses of a word of general vocabulary. We have already seen with several examples (fish, run, etc...) that it is essential to distinguish between general uses of a word in order to choose an appropriate translation. If we take, for example, such simple sentence as The pen is in the box we can see that it is ambiguous. Here one can assume that the pen is a writing instrument unless the context is about unpacking a new play pen or packing up all furniture in the room. The point is that accurate translation requires an understanding of the text, which includes the understanding of the situation and an enormous variety of facts about the world in which we live. For example, even if one can determine that in a given situation pen is used as a writing instrument the translation into the target language varies depending on the country. The third type of difficulty is the need to be sensitive to the total context, including the intended audience of the translation. Meaning is not some abstract object that is independent of people and culture. Being sensitive to the audience means using a level of language that is appropriate. Sometimes a misreading of the audience merely results in innocuous boredom. Moreover, it can also have serious long-term effects. Thus we see that there can be identified three translation difficulties: - distinguishing between general vocabulary and specialized terms; - distinguishing between various meanings of a word of general vocabulary; - taking into account the total context including the intended audience and important details such as regionalism. 4. The Translators Informational Capacity What is meant by knowing a word? It is a well-known fact that the translator always works with particular word-senses highlighted by

particular contexts. But the level of his awareness of the semantics of even one word may vary considerably. It is useful to distinguish five different levels of knowing a word-sense, or five different levels of the translators informational capacity. Level 1. The translator is able to associate a word-sense with some general field of human knowledge or practical activity, i.e. with a certain very wide class of things or ideas. E.g. Hydrophobia = an illness. Level 2. The translator is able to refer the word-sense to a particular genus of things or ideas. E.g. Hydrophobia= an affliction of the nervous system. Level 3. The translator is able to refer the word-sense to the particular species of things or ideas. Hydrophobia = a disease that kills animals and people, that you can catch if you are bitten by an infected dog. Level 4. The translator possesses encyclopedic details of the phenomenon described by the conception in question. E.g. Hydrophobia= rabies = an acute infectious often fatal virus disease of most warm-blood animals, especially wolves, cats and dogs that attacks the central nervous system and is transmitted by the bite of infected animal. Level 5. In addition to encyclopedic knowledge the translator possesses a scientific knowledge of the concept in question. Scientific knowledge allows a systematic description of the essential qualities of a thing or idea, their connections with other things and ideas and the way they have developed up to now and are expected to develop in the future. For example, the translator knows in what essential ways hydrophobia is different from other virus diseases that attack the central nervous system, when it was first identified, how it was treated in the past and how it is treated now, and what the prospects are of eliminating the risk of this disease altogether. Bilingual dictionaries do not define; they give cross-language translation synonyms. They provide the translator with the outward shape of the word-sense without describing its inner content. To translate effectively one has to have at least three levels of informational capacity. Level 4 and in some cases level 5 of informational capacities are strongly advisable, especially in translation for specific purposes.

LECTURE IX. THE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT TO BE TRANSLATED Plan 1. Textual and Extratextual Elements 2. The Model Reader of the Metatext 3. The "Channel" of the Message 4. The Space-Time Coordinates

The translation is a very difficult process. There are some important traces of a methodology applicable by translators to the analysis of the text to be translated. 1. Textual and extratextual elements The first distinction concerns textual and extratextual elements. The latter are factors external to the linguistic text and concern the context of the communication act. They can be systematized into who transmits, to whom, with what intention, by which medium, where, when, and why. The sender must be distinguished from the producer, above all in some types of non literary texts. In a company, for example, diffusion of messages can be delegated to a person having the role of communication manager. In this case, the company is the sender, but the person is the producer of the text. The translator also has a role comparable to that of the producer of the text. As regards the sender, the most important to the translator is the information that can shed light on the sender's intentions, no matter if they are personal data or referring to the role or status of the sender in her culture, on the model reader addressed in the original culture, or protoculture, and on the prototext chronological order, as well as any

information that can help foresee the linguistic features of the text (idiolect, dialect, sociolect, implicit culture etc.). Some information about the sender is obtainable from the document itself, from the metatextual apparatus it contains or from the fact that the author is known for publishing other texts or having a role in public events. In this phase of search for information on the sender, the translator must ask the question of cultural specificity of such information. If the sender is the Philips, if the author is Salman Rushdie, they probably are well known names even in the receiving culture, or metaculture. When on the other hand it is a person or an agency known only in a narrow context in the protoculture, in the transposition it is necessary to take it into account. When the sender is contemporary to the translator, it is also possible to directly contact the author to get the information useful to situate the text into the protocultural context and to project it then onto the metacultural context. Some indirect clues can also be obtained by data strictly related to the text: if a specialized publisher publishes it in a scientific review, the author is probably an expert addressing colleagues. If it is published in a generic newspaper or in any collection of a generic publisher, then it is more probable the text to address a larger audience. Some concrete elements present in the text provide information on the time and kind of culture in which the text was generated. A mobile phone narrows the historical framing to the past tenor twenty years; a religious ritual of circumcision narrows the context to the Hebrew and Islamic cultures. When one investigates the author's intentions for publishing a text, it is necessary to distinguish between intention, function and effect. The difference between intention and effect is easily understandable: an author can have a communication goal different from its actual effect. Such a discrepancy can be traced to incorrect projections by the author, based on a model reader different from the concrete readers actually receiving the text, or to the fact that a receiver can decide to manipulate the text and receive it in her way, without reckoning the supposed author's intentions.


The function of a text does not always coincide with the intention, or intended function, of the author. Such a discrepancy is especially relevant when chronotopic distance between metatext and prototext is great. As to the differences between intention and function, the former has to do mostly with the author, while the latter mostly with the reader. Of these three factors intention is the most important for translationoriented analysis because a translation should integrally preserve the sender's intention, while function and effect can be subject to change once the text is projected on the metaculture. The potential intentions are five. The first, called "zero-intention", concerns those who write to relieve their feelings or put their ideas in order and is considered inexistent as far as translations are concerned (to produce a text destined to someone else one is supposed to go beyond such autistic phase of communication.) The second one is purely informative or referential or descriptive (without personal considerations, i.e. a subjective and objective intentions. Third is the expressive intention, in which the sender expresses her opinion on the subject. The fourth one, operative or argumentative, has the purpose to get people to think or act in the way proposed by the author. The fifth is the phatic intention which has the aim of maintaining the contact with the receiver. To determine which of these intentions are accomplished, actualized in the analyzed text, one should investigate the method of distribution of the text and if that can suggest a more or less intense involvement of the author. If the text expresses a particularly personal opinion, as in the case of political comments or editorials, the type of text usually is not suggestive of the author's intentions, so the information on the subjectivity of the expressed opinions must be searched above all in the position of the

text. For example, in a newspaper, the area set aside for comments and editorials is usually easy to locate; the texts it contains can therefore be identified as individual's opinions or commentaries even before reading them. 2. The Model Reader of the Metatext Another essential set of information to be obtained from the prototext concerns the recipient, the model reader of the metatext. Assuming that it is possible to deal with translation in a purely abstract and theoretical way, staking out limits and setting universal rules, this is possible only on condition that one excludes from consideration the role of the recipient. As soon as the existence of the recipient is considered, as one recognizes that there may exist many different kinds of recipients, and that the communication act is conceived with a strong attention for the appropriate strategies for communicating with that kind of model reader, one reaches the heart of communication as a pragmatic, not abstract, fact. The useful elements of the recipient to know are her communication role, her expectations, her cultural background - and the aspects of reality that are taken for granted, that are considered as implicit - her social location and her position as regards the subject. The kind of text and the kind of recipient can be related, but not necessarily. For example, a popular science text may address many kinds of recipients: in essence, all kinds of readers except those scientists working in that same field, for whom the text would be purely redundant. Among potential readers we, therefore, would find scientists of every other field, adults not working with science, men and women of many age levels, people with education levels spanning from the minimum indispensable literacy for reading to high education levels. In dealing with interlingual translation, a first potential conflict concerns the model reader of the prototext and that of the metatext. Usually, when one thinks of a translation in simple rather than sophisticated terms, one thinks of the metatext reader simply as a man able to read in another language; strategies are therefore activated in order to allow the reading of that text by readers of many languages. But the metatext reader often

belongs to another cultural community too; consequently a purely linguistic transposition might not always be understandable. Let us suppose, for example, that a sentence in British English is translated containing an allusion to the tabloid newspapers. To the British model reader, as to the model reader of any culture, the denotative meaning of the word tabloid is a reduced format of the newspaper, as big as one half of a traditional newspaper. The additional connotative meaning tabloid has to a British reader is that of "sensationalist newspaper, with many images, little text, addressed to a model reader of a low education level". To an Italian, for example, the tabloid format does not have such a connotation. Many famous Italian newspapers, like la Repubblica, are in that format but they do not conform to the British connotation of the word. A second distinction concerning the recipient is implicitness/explicitness of the recipients. With the prototext in mind, it is possible to make the example of an interview with a politician: his answers are apparently only addressed to the interviewer while they are actually addressed to potential voters that read the interview in the newspaper or watch it on TV. For the translator a similar situation can exist. Apparently, the translator addresses the model reader of the metatext (explicit recipient) but since a translation is not only a means to spread a text in a culture, but also, for the translator, a means to make known her professional capabilities to other translators, prospective clients, critics, reviewers, publishers, some of her choices can be dictated by such a situation of feeling observed. Choices appropriate for the implicit reader are not always appropriate for the explicit reader, and vice versa. An exaggerated consciousness - supposed or proven - of the opposition of such needs can, in a worst-case scenario, inhibit translation capabilities. The cultural coordinates of the metatext's model reader that the translator must consider are age, sex, education level, social background, geographic origin, social status, and role in relation to the sender. They are the same as those of the author preparing an (intersemiotic) translation of a cultural intent into a text. Let us suppose, for example, that a communications expert is asked to write a text on drugs addressed to teenagers. The intent

of the communication commissioned from him is to inform teenagers on drugs and discourage their use. The text created from such an intention states that all drugs are equally dangerous, have only negative effects, and don't give any pleasant sensations. In this case, the translation is poorly done. The teenager who has tried marijuana without apparent negative consequences, reading that all drugs are equally dangerous, may be induced to try heroine since, according to the text, it cannot be more dangerous than marijuana. Someone who had good feelings after the use of hard drugs, moreover, could think that the text contains too much false information and does not believe in its general content. An exact knowledge of the cultural background of a reader has a strong influence on the author. Efficiency in communication is based mainly on the placement of a good balance between redundancy and incompleteness. The exaggerated insistence on aspects already known to the reader can only discourage and make heavy reading while, on the other hand, neglecting to explain unfamiliar elements makes understanding difficult. In order to achieve such a balance it is necessary to have exact information on the reader's cultural background. A university course, for example, addresses a number of students with a not always homogeneous cultural background. In order to be able to understand what the model target of the course is like, it is necessary to know the kind and level of excellence of the average student's high school education. Such information must be often updated: the contemporary education given by a high school does not necessarily coincide with the one provided by that school twenty or forty years ago. A reader (or a course's student) distinguishing herself neatly from the group's standards because her preparation in some respects is much more/less deep than the colleagues' has greater probability of not finding the kind of communication addressed to her appropriate. On the other hand the communicator, the translator, must try to satisfy the needs of the greatest possible number of recipients (model readers), necessarily sacrificing the needs of those individuals farther from the group standard.

Information about the model reader of the prototext can be obtained from the origins of the text itself (dedications, notes, title, subtitles, flaps for books, presentations, medium, time, place etc.). As regards the text functions, it is possible to distinguish intended functions and functions produced unwillingly. In a text for children, for example, a patronizing tone can be appreciated by children of a given age bracket but can be very annoying for bigger kids who may feel mocked or degraded. Or the translation of a restaurant menu, whose intended function is to inform, can end up having a comic function too if the translation contains a number of words not usually used in that collocation. Of course, unwilling functions of a text are not necessarily to be considered counterproductive. 3. The "Channel" of the Message Another fundamental element in the translation-oriented analysis of a text is that concerning what in communications theory is called the "channel" of the message, the means and the medium through which the message is conveyed. What is interesting for us, of course, are not the technical aspects, but the impact the communication medium has on the perception of the message, on the quantity of information conveyed and on the potential of the medium in terms of interactivity. The first fundamental distinction is between written and spoken texts. The balance between redundancy and repetition is achieved with the help of elements that, albeit not present in the message, are present in the implied context, and can therefore be taken as if explicit. In direct oral communication the elements to be taken for granted also encompass all the geographic context of the place where communication occurs. The geography of the direct communication context is somehow unsophisticated because it implies - through deictics - the sharing of the knowledge about the context with the interlocutor. Deictics are mostly time and place expressions not indicating the absolute cronotopical coordinates (for example: "September 29, 2001, in Modena") but state them in relative terms ("Yesterday there", "Before someone came here", "This time I made it").


In the former case (absolute coordinates) anyone is able to recognize the time and place that are explicitly expressed in conventional terms. In the latter case (relative coordinates, deictic expressions) anyone who is not conscious of the time and place of the speech and of other data - in the last example it is necessary to know what other time is implied and what the speaker was then able to do - is not able to reconstruct it from the speech act alone. "Deixis", from the old Greek deknymi, meaning "I show, I indicate", means "indication", and deixis is effectively comparable to the gestures sometimes accompanying speech acts. In some languages there are hand gestures indicating "come here" or "go away", for example. Deictic words are expressions always taken as understood where and/or when communication occurs. If the place where the sender is does not coincide with the place where the receiver is, deixis implies also being aware of the two different places (for example: "I'll be there in an hour"). Deixis is a kind of communication within one's own world taking for granted that the interlocutor belongs to that same world and ignoring the existence of alien worlds. In this sense it is ingenuous communication or, if we wish, local, provincial communication. The information the translator must obtain about the medium of the text to be translated concerns above all the type of medium: brochure, handbook, leaflet, encyclopedia, book, periodical. Within these generic distinctions, it is important to make subtler ones, for example between a newspaper and a monthly, between specialized and popular periodical etc. The dimensions in terms of readership of the medium are also fundamental. Given the same type of medium the heterogeneity and the total number of potential readers in a given language are important. For example, a newspaper in English has a much larger potential audience than a newspaper in Estonian, so that a number of copies sold of 500.000, that would be an astonishingly high number for the Estonian edition, for English-reading readers would be dramatically less meaningful. If the total of potential readers is the same, a text reproduced in one million copies, as compared to another one with ten thousand, addresses a more heterogeneous audience, i.e. must be less specialized, more popular, less local, and less specific. Speaking of books, a pocket paperback of a classic work sold also at grocery store news stands can reach many more

readers than a numbered edition of the same work with deluxe trims and expensive binding and acid free paper, or than an obscure book by a not widely diffused in the receiving culture author. It is not always possible through a given medium to reconstruct the intended communication, but often the kind of medium chosen is also a very important indicator. It is possible for a serious widely diffused newspaper to publish a comic or scandal piece contrasting with what a reader would expect from the stern tone usually used by the paper, but in this case, just owing to the anomaly of the event, such a piece would result as highly marked. When a medium is categorized, it is indispensable to decide if its features are culture-specific, specific to a given group of cultures, or universal: it is clear that this has a bearing for the translation of its texts into a different culture, where the role of a medium can be completely different. Since, in the practice of translation we often come across Xeroxes, excerpts, internet messages, archive or computer files, and other forms of incomplete transmissions of texts it is essential for the translator to try and gather all the omitted components from the source in order to reconstruct the features of the medium the text is taken from. 4. The Space-Time Coordinates The space-time coordinates of the speech act are fundamental items for the analysis of the prototext for interlingual translation. Regarding space, the geographic element of the prototext is significant when it says more than just the language used to write it, which, in some cases, is already indicative of the place where the prototext was created. Speaking of the geographic coordinates of the prototext makes sense when it implicitly contains features of the language used in a sub-area of all the territory in which that language is spoken. For languages spoken in more than one nation, like German, English, Spanish, Portuguese, French etc, a text can be connoted as a product of one specific sub-area (for example Brazilian Portuguese, Tunisian French, Austrian German etc.). More specifically, within the same nation considered linguistically homogeneous (one official national language, many variants) both standard language and local variants can be used, or even a word can be used with a particular


meaning or with a particular collocation that is characteristic of a given area. We must be conscious that different usage within the same code can be much more evident at close range than from afar, as happens in a perspective view. To a foreigner who knows the Italian language, the whole of the dialects spoken in Veneto might appear as a homogeneous whole, while to a native of Verona the differences between her dialect and Venetia's are enormous and insurmountable. It is important to know if the social conditions of the place of origin of a text allow writing freely or if a political or moral censorship exists there. In the latter case authors write between the lines, so one has to make an effort to grasp the implied meaning that eluded the censors in order to reproduce it. Another important factor concerns the city or the exact place in which a text is set for the correct deciphering of the place deictics. For example, references to parks, buildings, churches in interlingual translation can be misleading if one does not know what precisely we are talking about. A building called "skyscraper" in one language can be called "tower" in another, the word "park" in one language can become a "wood" in the other, and the same happens with "dome" and "cathedral". Translating, for example, from any language into French a passage where the Bois de Boulogne is cited, it would be misleading if such place was referred to as "Parc de Boulogne". Variations on the norm such as: "Cattedrale di Milano", "Empire State Tower" etc. would bear a similar effect. If in an article, after indicating place and time, we find the sentence "Now everything is quiet around here again", in translation the dimension of place has to be specified either externally or internally (e.g. "Now everything is quiet around the town of X again"). Thus, when translating we should transform all direct speech into indirect speech, and edit the text every time the use of deictics presupposes the location of the action in relation to external space coordinates. "Come here" could become, for example, "He told him to move nearer to him". The metatext readers sense of direction is as good as the prototext reader's, and anyone having had a normal psychic development knows how to use deictics and how to behave when decoding them. A very similar view concerns time deictics. The German author is amazed because she read in a Madras newspaper "there was a train crash this

afternoon", stating that, in Germany, the author would have written "yesterday afternoon". The point is more complex than it might appear, because there might also be the case in which, owing to a surplus of understanding anxiety, sender and receiver end up invading each other's interpretive space, getting to what is called "Fort Worth reasoning". It seems that in the town of Fort Worth, USA, someone accustomed to receiving the newspaper at home left his newspaper boy the following message: Don't leave a paper today. Of course, when I say today I mean tomorrow, because I am writing this yesterday. The client's excessive zeal must have generated only confusion in the receiver, the paperboy, because a time mediation passage that would have been so easy for him has become complex owing to the sender's desire to help the receiver. Just as the prototext reader realizes the cronotopical coordinates of the speech act through the tools provided by the author (text) and the publisher (metatext), the same applies to the reader of the translated text. An excess of zeal can only generate misunderstanding and clash with the author's communicative intent, with her narrative strategy, in which often the degree of implicitness/explicitness is a fundamental element. We have already spoken about the drafting of the prototext. As to the drafting of the metatext, the time of the translating action is patently important only wherever the two texts are not contemporary. If the prototext belongs to another time, its analysis is influenced by the use that is meant for it. A fundamental alternative concerns the choice between prototext modernization and historicization. Using the former model of actualization, the modernizing of the text, chronological references to the prototext's time are modified and adapted to the metatext's time, in order to make them homologizable in the reader's present. In this case, the reader does not have to transfer herself into another time. In the latter, historicizing, model, the chronological datum is valued for what it is, a historical element, and is preserved as it is. When the metalanguage lexicon is not sufficient for describing all the prototext's objects, for the historical realia in question the language of the prototext is

used. In this case, the metatext's reader must transfer, while reading, her reception capabilities back in time, and must cover, sometimes with the help of a metatextual structure, the chronotopical distance between herself and the prototext. The practical consequences of such diverging approaches on the translation-oriented analysis of the prototext concern the translator's point of focus of attention. In the modernizing approach, the main focusing point of the translator-reader is the present, it is the cultural context of her model reader. Every element of the prototext is projected onto the outline of the model reader, and all the areas where the former doesn't fit in the latter, the area where the former does not quite cover the latter, is "altered", excluded from the channels of pure interlingual translation, and mentally sent along the channels of modernizing transformation. The translation-oriented analysis, in this case, is therefore characterized by a continuous process of projection of the prototext into the translator's present, of forward projection. The time of the metatext is at the center of such an analysis, around it the adaptation of the prototext to the categories of its culture translation strategy is built. In the historicizing perspective, on the contrary, the main focal point of the translator-reader is the past, the cultural context of the prototext. Every element of the metatext model reader's culture is projected onto the prototext outline. The translation-oriented analysis, in this case, is therefore characterized by a continuous process of projection of the translator's present onto the prototext, of backward projection. The time of the prototext is at the center of such an analysis; around the adaptation of the prototext to the categories of its culture the translation strategy is built. What are the general considerations about modernizing and historicizing of translated texts? The first can be considered more indicated for entertainment, because it is less tiring to the reader, the text being more easily usable. The second is better indicated for increasing the reader's knowledge of different, alien cultures. Maybe in this case it is possible to speak about entertainment, the former being entertainment "at home", consequence of a desire to enjoy oneself without going out of one's own known world. The latter is a more explorative entertainment, implies more curiosity toward the unknown, the new, the alien world.

LECTURE X. THE RELIABILITY IN TRANSLATION Plan 1. Reliability 2. Textual Reliability 3. Types of Text Reliability 4. Aspects of Translator Reliability 4.1. Reliability with regard to the text 4.2. Reliability with regard to the client 1. Reliability Translation users need to be able to rely on translation. They need to be able to use the translation as a reliable basis for action, in the sense that if they take action on the belief that the translation gives them the kind of information they need about the original, that action will not fail because of the translation. And they need to be able to trust the translator to act in reliable ways, delivering reliable translations by deadlines, getting whatever help is needed to meet those deadlines, and being flexible and versatile in serving the user's needs. Let's look at these two aspects of translation reliability separately. 2. Textual Reliability A text's reliability consists in the trust a user can place in it, or encourage others to place in it, as a representation or reproduction of the original. To put that differently, a text's reliability consists in the user's willingness to base future actions on an assumed relation between the original and the translation. For example, if the translation is of a tender, the user is most likely the company to which the tender has been made. "Reliability" in this case would mean that the translation accurately represents the exact nature of the tender; what the company needs from the translation is a reliable basis for action, i.e., a rendition that meticulously details every aspect of the tender that is relevant to deciding whether to accept it. If the translation is done in-house, or if the client gives an agency or freelancer specific instructions, the translator may be in a position to summarize

certain paragraphs of lesser importance, while doing painstakingly close readings of certain other paragraphs of key importance. Or again, if the translation is of a literary classic, the user may be a teacher or student in a class that is reading and discussing the text. If the class is taught in a mother-tongue or comparative literature department, "reliability" may mean that the users agree to act as if the translation really were the original text. For this purpose a translation that reads as if it had originally been written in the target language will probably suffice. If the class is an upper-division or graduate course taught in a modern-language or classics department, "reliability" may mean that the translation follows the exact syntactic contours of the original, and thus helps students to read a difficult text in a foreign language. For this purpose, various "cribs" or "interlinears" are best like those New Testament translations published for the benefit of seminary students of Greek who want to follow the original Greek text word for word, with the translation of each word printed directly under the word it renders. Or if the translation is of advertising copy, the user may be the marketing department in the mother company or a local dealer, both of whom will presumably expect the translation "reliably" to sell products or services without making impossible or implausible or illegal claims; or it may be prospective customers, who may expect the translation to represent the product or service advertised reliably, in the sense that, if they should purchase one, they would not feel that the translation had misrepresented the actual service or product obtained. As we saw above, this discussion of a text's reliability is venturing into the territory traditionally called "accuracy" or "equivalence" or "fidelity." These terms are in fact shorthand for a wide variety of reliabilities that govern the user's external perspectives on translation. There are many different types of textual reliability; there is no single touchstone for a reliable translation, certainly no single simple formula for abstract semantic (let alone syntactic) "equivalence" that can be applied easily and unproblematically in every case. All that matters to the non-translating user is that the translation be reliable in more or less the way s/he expects (sometimes unconsciously): accurate or effective or some combination of the two; painfully literal or easily


readable in the target language or somewhere in the middle; reliable for her or his specific purposes. A text that meets those demands will be called a "good" or "successful" translation, period, even if another user, with different expectations, might consider it bad or unsuccessful; a text considered a failure by some users, because it doesn't meet their reliability needs, might well be hailed as brilliant, innovative, sensitive, or highly accurate by others. It is perhaps unfortunate, but probably inevitable, that the norms and standards appropriate for one group of users or use situations should be generalized to apply to all. Because some users demand literal translations, for example, the idea spreads that a translation that is not literal is no translation at all; and because some users demand semantic (sense-for-sense) equivalence, the idea spreads that a translation that charts its own semantic path is no translation at all. Thus a free retelling of a children's classic may be classified as an "adaptation" rather than a translation; and an advertising translation that deviates strikingly from the original in order to have the desired impact on target readers or viewers (i.e., selling products or services) may be thought of as a "new text" rather than as an advertising translation. Each translation user, limited to the perspective of her or his own situational needs, may quite casually fall into the belief that those needs aren't situational at all, indeed aren't her or his needs at all, but simply the nature of translation itself. All translation is thus-and-such because this translation needs to be, and how different can different translations be? The fact that they can be very different indeed is often lost on users who believe their own expectations to be the same as everyone else's. This mistaken belief is almost certainly the source of the quite widespread notion that "fidelity," in the sense of an exact one-to-one correspondence between original and translation, is the only goal of translation. The notion arises when translation is thought of exclusively as a product or commodity (rather than as an activity or process), and when the reliability of that


product is thought of narrowly in terms of exact correspondence between texts (rather than as a whole spectrum of possible exchanges). Reliably translated texts cover a wide range from the lightly edited to the substantially rewritten, with the "accurate" or "faithful" translation somewhere in the middle; there is no room in the world of professional translation for the theoretical stance that only straight sense-for-sense translation is translation, therefore as a translator I should never be expected to edit, summarize, annotate, or re-create a text. While some effort at user education is probably worthwhile, it is usually easier for translators simply to shift gears, find out (or figure out) what the user wants or needs or expects, and provide that without attempting to enlighten the user about the variability and volatility of such expectations. Many times clients' demands are unreasonable, unrealistic, even impossible as when the marketing manager of a company going international demands that an advertising campaign in fourteen different languages be identical to the original, and that the translators in all fourteen languages show that this demand has been met by providing literal back translations of their work. Then the translators have to decide whether they are willing to undertake the job at all; and if so, whether they can figure out a way to do it that satisfies the client without quite meeting her or his unreasonable demands.

3. Types of Text Reliability 1. Literalism The translation follows the original word for word or as close to that ideal as possible. The syntactic structure of the source text is painfully evident in the translation. 2. Foreignism The translation reads fairly fluently but has a slightly alien feel. One can tell, reading it, that it is a translation, not an original work.


3. Fluency The translation is so accessible and readable for the target-language reader as to seem like an original in the target language. It never makes the reader stop and reflect that this is in fact a translation. 4. Summary The translation covers the main points or "gist" of the original. 5. Commentary The translation unpacks or unfolds the hidden complexities of the original, exploring at length implications that remain unstated or halfstated in the original. 6. Summary-commentary The translation summarizes some passages briefly while commenting closely on others. The passages in the original that most concern the user are unpacked; the less important passages are summarized. 7. Adaptation The translation recasts the original so as to have the desired impact on an audience that is substantially different from that of the original; as when an adult text is adapted for children, a written text is adapted for television, or an advertising campaign designed to associate a product with sophistication uses entirely different images of sophistication in the source and target languages. 8. Encryption The translation recasts the original so as to hide its meaning or message from one group while still making it accessible to another group, which possesses the key. But the text is not the only important element of reliability for the user; the translator too must be reliable. 4. Aspects of Translator Reliability 4.1. Reliability with regard to the text 1. Attention to detail The translator is meticulous in her attention to the contextual and collocational nuances of each word and phrase she uses.

2. Sensitivity to the user's needs The translator listens closely to the user's special instructions regarding the type of translation desired, understands those instructions quickly and fully, and strives to carry them out exactly and flexibly. 3. Research The translator does not simply "work around" words she doesn't know, by using a vague phrase that avoids the problem or leaving a question mark where the word would go, but does careful research, in reference books and Internet databases, and through phone calls, faxes, and email inquiries. 4. Checking The translator checks her work closely, and if there is any doubt (as when she translates into a foreign language) has a translation checked by an expert before delivery to the client. 4.2.Reliability with regard to the client 5. Versatility The translator is versatile enough to translate texts outside her area of specialization, out of languages she doesn't feel entirely competent in (always having such work checked, of course), in manners she has never tried. (The translator also knows when she can handle a novel task and when something is simply beyond her abilities and needs to be politely refused.) 6. Promises The translator knows her own abilities and schedule and working habits well enough to make realistic promises to clients or agencies regarding delivery dates and times, and then keeps those promises; or, if pressing circumstances make it impossible to meet a deadline, calls the client or agency and renegotiates the time frame or arranges for someone else to finish the job. 7. Friendliness The translator is friendly and helpful on the phone or in person, is pleasant to speak or be with, has a sense of humor, offers helpful advice, doesn't offer unhelpful advice, etc.


PART II. LECTURE XI. TRANSLATION AND TRANSLATOR Plan 1. What is a Translation 2. The Profession of a Translator 3. Professional Ethics 1.What is a Translation Translation is a means of interlingual communication. The translator makes possible an exchange of information between the users of different languages. Translation can be found everywhere in our life. When we see a foreign film we hear the voice of a translator. When we read booklets published by foreign firm we read the translation. When we read some foreign articles published in our newspapers again we deal with the translation. The assistance to a foreign guests and the work of the interpreter at the international conference are different stages of the translation. In the European languages there are two words for people who deal with translation, they are: translator a person who deals mostly with written forms of translation and interpreter who deals mostly with oral translation. In the Russian language there is only one word - translator, at the very beginning of this profession the people who translated were called tolmach in Russian. Translation is the deepest way of reading. It is quite right but only when we speak about the professional translation which achieves the main goal to transform the source text into the target text and dont lose the meaning of the original. Oral translation is the deepest way of listening comprehension. Its a fact that not every person who knows some languages well can be a good interpreter or translator. One of the Russian translators said Translation is like a beautiful woman, if she is beautiful, she is not faithful if she is faithful she is not beautiful. We can ignore the blatant sexism in the statement and see one of the kernel truths in translation. Translators must strike a balance between fidelity to the source text and readability in the target language. We all have seen materials that are so obviously translated as to sound awkward. The best translation is

the one that no one recognizes as a translation. In other words a document should read as though it were written in the target language originally. In other words you do your best work when no one realizes that you have done anything. 2. The Profession of a Translator A translator converts written material such as newspaper material, books, articles.... from one language into another. An interpreter converts spoken material such as speeches, presentations and the like from one language into another. Although there is some vague connection between abilities involved in translation and interpretation, it is not necessary for the translator to interpret and for interpreters to translate. Moreover, the best translators are not good interpreters and truly great interpreters are not good translators. And while many professional training programs require interpreters to develop some skill in translation, professionally trained translators often have no exposure to the skills of interpretation. The profession of a translator/interpreter has a long history. According to the Bible at the dawn of human civilization all people spoke one language but when the God got angry with people he mixed their languages in such a way that they couldnt understand each other. And since that time the need in interpretation and translation appeared. With the development of human society the art of translation has developed as well. The conference interpreting was developed as well. The first device for synchronous (simultaneous) interpretation was developed in 1926 in America. In synchronous interpretation the interpreter is supposed to be able to give his translation while the speaker is uttering the original message. This can be achieved with a special radio or telephone equipment. The interpreter receives the original message through his ear-phones and simultaneously speaks into the microphone (mike) which transmits his speech to the listeners. This type of translation involves a number of psychological and psycholinguistic problems both of theoretical and practical nature. In consecutive translation the translating starts after the original speech or some part of it has been completed. Here the interpreters strategy and the final result depend to a great extent on the length of the segment to be translated. If the segment is just a sentence or two the interpreter closely follows the original speech. As often as not, however, the interpreter is

expected to translate a long speech which has lasted for scores of minutes or even longer. In this case he has to remember a great number of messages and keep them in mind until he begins his translation. To make this possible the interpreter has to take notes of the original message. Sometimes the interpreter is limited in time to give his rendering. It means that he has to reduce his translation considerably, selecting and reproducing the most important parts of the original and dispensing with the rest. This implies the ability to make judgments on the relative value of various messages and to generalize or compress the received information. The person who wants to be a good translator/interpreter should overcome all obstacles and learn all stages of this profession from the linear interpreter when he is young and it is not difficult for him to meet the guests at the airport and be their guide up to the conference interpreter. 3. Professional Ethics Professional ethics is an integral part of any interpreter/translator. He is not an ordinary clerk, his profession is connected with the translation of information and he must do it with full responsibility. Our age is the age of HI-tech information and a person who possesses this information is a mighty one. He can use it in different ways. There are some rules that the interpreter should follow. Rule No.1. Not to allow the information to be divulged ( to tell everybody and his brother). Rule No.2. It is very important to have confident relations with the people who are your clients. Rule No.3. The interpreter should be restrained and cool in all situations even in emergency. He should be accurate, polite, neatly dressed, punctual and courteous that is comme il fault. Rule No.4. Never break the limits, that is, never add your thoughts, opinions and so on. The translator should never comment on the information he works with. Rule No.5. The interpreter should always be ready to explain the foreigners the peculiarities of the nations character, mentality, tradition and culture. Rule No.6. The interpreter/translator should always refresh his qualification, professional skills and if possible, get some training in some special spheres of our life (medicine, programming, engineering, etc....)

Rule No.7. Any interpreter/translator should be a good linguist and know the differences between the languages he works with. Moreover, he should know the history, culture, traditions, and ways of life of the people of these countries. If we take, for example, the English and Russian languages as well as the Romanian one, we should know that the English language is an analytical one. Complex grammar relations are constructed from different words. Russian is an inflected language. Complex grammar relations and different shades of meaning are often combined in one word. Take, for example the Russian word sozvonimsia. There is no such a word in the English language. This word means that the two people promise to phone each other without some preliminary agreement who will be the initiator of this action. In the Russian text this may denote number (singular or plural), time, tense, place, gender (sozvonilasi, sozvonilsia). In English this notion can be expressed with the help of some words such as : Call me. The English language is a very precise one, thats why texts in English are always shorter than in Russian, Romanian, Japanese and so on. In English it is considered to be a good manner if the author uses short simple sentences and not very long words. It is advisable sometimes to divide long sentences into short ones. The modality in English is very complex and the word-order is fixed. The styles in the English language do not differ greatly. It is even possible to say that English colloquial style is more literary and literary style is more colloquial than in the Russian or Romanian languages. Thus we see that these languages differ greatly. The question arises: Is it possible to give an adequate translation in such a case? It is widely adopted that if the Target text retains 80-90% of the Source text the translation is considered to be adequate. Many scholars say that a pure adequateness or 100% adequateness is a chimera or impossible because of the difference in the languages as well as the cultures of two nations. Very often one and the same word has several meanings and different people understand it differently. Its quite clear that when the level of adequateness is higher the translation is better. The margin of the highly qualified interpreter is about 80%.


LECTURE XII. TRANSLATION STUDIES Plan. 1. Interlingual Translation 2. Textual Translation 3. Metatextual Translation 1. Interlingual Translation In the previous units, we saw how many processes are involved in the everyday activity we refer to as "translation", and how wide the continuum is of concepts we refer to as "translation": within this wider concept, interlingual translation is but one of its many expressions. Many people say that (interlingual) translation is one of the oldest activities in the world. The Bible is a good example of translation: in fact its oldest versions contain words in Aramaic, parts in Hebrew and, in what is often called the "New Testament", parts in Greek. In spite of that, until the 1980s there was no specific discipline dealing with translation and/or its problems. One could suppose that, just because translation has always existed, for centuries it simply went unobserved, as an element of the cultural landscape to be taken for granted, and, even though, from Cicero's day on, a number of writings were dedicated to that subject, nobody felt or expressed the need to create a specific discipline. On the other hand, many arts or sciences have dealt with translation in a more or less marginal way, from rhetoric to narratology and to linguistics. Until recently, however, nobody thought that the landscape could be turned upside down and that interlingual translation could have the same position as other sciences. Translation can be qualified as a system having the broader concept or total translation at its center and the other types of translation in satellite positions: textual, metatextual, intratextual and extratestual ones. How this relatively new science is called? It has so many names that we

need the help of translators in order to understand each other. English-speaking researchers call it "translation studies" or, familiarly, TS. In this way, they have coined a locution untranslatable into nearly any other language, untranslatable, at least, without creating an important loss. The main problem comes with the word "studies", which in languages other than English is not always translatable simply using the plural of a word translating "study". However, a science called "translation studies" is undoubtedly a scientific endeavor related to translation. Frenchmen use the term traductologie. Some translation researchers and some translators, including those translating from French, think that "traductologie" is a swearword, that it is obscene, alluding instead to its disagreeable aesthetic taste. Not every translation researcher would be glad to print "traductologist" on her business card, even if we cannot deny that the construction of this word follows widely accepted criteria. Germans prefer another solution. Maybe at a first glance you could think it is a rather long word: they call this discipline bersetzungwissenschaft, that is to say "translation science", stressing in a still stronger way that they believe in the scientific character of their endeavor, which is obviously welcome. Russians, offer another alternative, with a similar process of word composition, speak about perevodovdenie, which however does not mean exactly "translation science", because "science" - and "discipline" - is usually expressed by the word nauka. Vdenie is something between competence and awareness. It has an old Indo-European root: in Sanskrit, we find the word vida, meaning "knowledge". Russians are lucky, because with the suffix -vdenie they solve many terminology problems: literaturovdenie, for example, means "literary theory", "narratology", and many other similar disciplines. In Italy many terms are used: traduttologia, scienza della traduzione, teoria e storia della traduzione, an old and obsolete denomination implying a nonexistent distinction between translation theory and practice, recalling linguistics applied to translation problems. A Tartu University scholar, Peeter Torop, who inherited Urij Lotman's place as a chief of the local Semiotics Department, in 1995 wrote a book entitled Totalnyj perevod [Total Translation].

In Torop's opinion, translation should be total for two reasons. First, by "translation" it is meant not only interlingual translation, but metatextual, intratextual, intertextual, and extratextual translation as well. The total approach to overall translation problems has a greater chance of obtaining scientific results because translation - as a process - is the same in all these instances. Differences concern only the initial product and the final result, which may or may not be texts. That is why the overall translation process is the core of studies. The second reason to consider translation in a total sense is that it helps to explain the creation of translation as a science. In doing so, we face an apparently insuperable obstacle: every science has its own terminology and, often, every author has idiosyncratic preferences for single words. The result is that two essays may deal with the same subject even if their superficial contents are very different one from another, and the subjects themselves are nominated in different ways. 2. Textual Translation Textual translation is the core of translation studies, also because it is the kind of translation activity about which we have the widest literature. It is, moreover, what more traditionally is referred to as "translation". By "textual translation", a process by which a text is transformed into another text is meant. This term does not make a distinction between interlingual and intralingual translation. The textual paraphrase of a text, for example, is a kind of textual translation, even if the two texts prototext and paraphrase - are composed with the same code. The "prototext" is what is sometimes referred to as "original", or "source text". The word is formed by the prefix proto-, deriving from the Greek word prtos, meaning "first", a meaning that can be used both to mean "first in time" and "first in space". Using the same word-formation principle, what sometimes is called "translated text" or "target text" - that is to say the result of textual translation - can be called "metatext". The prefix meta-, from the Greek word met, meaning "after" (and also "with" and "for"), can refer to a shift, a continuum, a transfer, or also to posteriority, additionality. There should be stressed the difference between two meanings of the word "metatext", both of them relevant to translation studies: first, "result of a textual


translation process", the second one is "metatextual translation process" (see further details in the next paragraph). Being the most visible, textual translation is the kind of translation with a wider literature. When we talk about the other types of translation, we still have the model of textual translation in mind: that is the reason why the general methodology of translation science, even when meant in a "total" sense, should be based on textual translation. Textual translation studies are often based on literary texts. This fact should not fool translators or future translators, especially those working with nonliterary texts: one should not think that an analysis of a literary text is meaningful only for a literary text or, worse yet, only for that single literary text. This would be in contrast to one of the two main principles of total translation: the center of translation studies is the translation process, whose core is common to all types of translation, and, therefore, to all kinds of interlingual, textual translations. 3. Metatextual Translation By "metatextual translation", we mean a process transferring a text not into another text, but into a culture: in other words, the metatext is the overall image a text creates of itself in a given culture. The overall image of a text in a culture is determined by the text itself and by what in that culture is said about that text. A hint at a text, made publicly by someone, in a written or oral form; a quotation; a critical essay; an item in an encyclopedia referring to that text or author; an afterword to a text or the critical apparatus to an edition, and so on: all that contributes to create the overall image of a text in a culture. If metatextual translation is intralingual, then the metatext consists of the aforementioned elements only; if it is interlingual, then among the metatextual elements there also can be the translated text that, as we have just seen, can be called "metatext" even by itself. Actually, it is a part of the whole metatext of an interlingual translation. Sometimes, as Torop stresses, textual and metatextual translations are simultaneous, contextual operations: they go together. When the translator or the publisher himself prepares the preface, commentary, illustrations, glossaries, and so on to a translated text, it is possible a translation being textual and metatextual at the same time.

LECTURE XIII. THE BEGINNING OF TRANSLATION Plan: 1. The Ancient Chinese Schools 2. The Academy of Jundishapur 3. The Passage to India 4. The House of Wisdom 5. The School of Toledo 6. Ten Years that Changed the Perception of the Translator

1. The Ancient Chinese Schools The earliest historical records show sporadic translation activities in China in the eleventh century B.C. Documents from that time indicate that translation was carried out by government clerks, who were concerned primarily with the transmission of ideologies. In a written document from the late Zhou dynasty, Jia Gongyan, an imperial scholar, wrote: Translation is to replace one written language with another without changing the meaning for mutual understanding. This definition of translation, although primitive, proves the existence of translation theory in ancient China. Serious discussions on translation, however, did not begin until the introduction of Buddhism into the country during the Six Dynasties (222-589), when Buddhist monks began translating classics of Buddhism into Chinese. By the end of the fourth century, translation was officially organized on a large scale in China. A State School of Translation was founded for this purpose and Dao An, an imperial officer, was appointed its director. In 379 Dao An was abducted to Changan (Xian) where he started the famous Changan School. It was at this time that monks from Kashmir began to enter China in large numbers, bringing with them many texts from their homeland, which they translated into Chinese and making the school one of the most important translation centers of the time. Three of the most accomplished translators of the Changan school adopted different theories regarding translation. Dao An insisted on a strict literal translation i.e., the source text translation word by word. The Indian scholar Kumarajiva, on the other hand, took up an opposite view and advocated a completely free translation method for the sake of elegance and intelligibility in the target language.

In his own translation practice, Chinese Buddhist scholar Xuan Zang combined the advantages of both Dao An's respect for the form of the source text, and Kumarajiva's free style of translation. Xuan Zang aimed to achieve an intelligibility of the translation for the target language readers, and developed his criteria that translation "must be truthful and intelligible to the populace." It might be during this period of time that there was the first discussion on literal translation vs. free translation - a core issue of translation theory. Eventually, the translation of sutras lost importance in China and rulers directed their attention westward. Arabs began to settle in China, with some even becoming mandarins or merchants. Having learned the Chinese language, some of these erudite high officials began translating scientific works from Arabic or European languages. By the eighth century, conversion to Islam had already started in Central Asia. 2. The Academy of Jundishapur After all, the Arabs brought with them into Spain the Arabic versions of the Greek works, from which translations were made into Latin and spread throughout Europe, which was then in its dark age. It is this Greek body of knowledge that brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance the rebirth or revival. The question remains, however: by whom, where, and when was the Greek body of knowledge transmitted to the Arabs themselves? In his book "How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs ", historian De Lacy O'Leary explains: "Greek scientific thought had been in the world for a long time before it reached the Arabs, and during that period it had already spread abroad in various directions. So it is not surprising that it reached the Arabs by more than one route. It came first and in the plainest line through Christian Syrian writers, scholars, and scientists. Then the Arabs applied themselves directly to the original Greek sources and learned over again all they had already learned, correcting and verifying earlier knowledge." Among the scholars at the center were Greek philosophers and teachers who had fled the closed Plato's Academy at Athens. Among the works they brought with them were Euclid's works in mathematics, the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, works by Ptolemy and others. Along with Nestorian scholar-refugees, they held discussions with the king, wrote, taught and translated. These Syriac translators thought it was

essential to get as close to the original meaning of the Greek as possible. But, this method led to a style of translation that was virtually word-for-word, doing great injustice to Syriac word order, and also later to Arabic word order when the same technique was used for the first translations into Arabic. Also brought to the school were Indian scholars who discussed moral and ethical teachings, Indian astronomy, and Indian mathematics with its Hindi numerals, which came to the Academy on its way to Muslim lands and later to Renaissance Europe. When the city of Jundishapur surrendered to Muslim military leaders in the year 636, the Academy was left undisturbed. Combining the scientific traditions of the Greeks, Persians and Indians, it became the most important medical center in the world, continuing its influence into the eleventh century, even during the height of Baghdad's reign as an intellectual center. 3.The Passage to India The most notable of the Indian translators was the scholar-monk Kumarajiva. By the end of the fourth century, Indian culture had penetrated into China from both the north and south of India, giving Kumarajiva the opportunity to learn Chinese as well as his native Sanskrit. Kumarajiva began working to correct the imperfections of the provincial dialect and later to translating Buddhist texts and correcting earlier translations. A Bureau of Translators was set up under his supervision, with over 800 scholars on staff. The wealth of India, with its fine cities and prosperous villages, attracted the attention of foreign invaders, including Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia. This was a period of great scientific discovery and intellectual triumph for Sanskrit learning. Brahman language scholars worked out all the major rules regarding the science of language and sounds (phonetics). Sanskrit grammar was standardized and Indian script was formalized, well able to represent all the sounds produced by the human voice. 4.The House of Wisdom For the history of Western civilization, the demise of Rome was a turning point. Having reached a high level of classical culture and learning, the fall of Rome was seen as a great decline. In Europe, the time of tumult and socalled barbarian invasions turned a sparkling civilization into forgotten

ruins. Learning and culture retreated into fortress-like monasteries, where it moldered for centuries with little improvement. It was in Baghdad that the Muslims founded their great school of translation known as the House of Wisdom. Their formidable ambition was to translate as much as they could find of mathematics, astronomy, astrology, ethics, geography, mechanics, music, medicine, physics, philosophy and the construction of scientific instruments . The first Arabic translations used the literal style of the Syriac translators. Syriac had evolved as a written language through translations of the New Testament, where it was thought to be essential to get as close to the original meaning of the Greek as possible. This led to a style that was virtually word-for-word translation. The Arabs later abandoned the tradition of literal translation and concentrated on making the sense of the Greek writers comprehensible to the reader. They went back to the original Greek texts and translated them directly into Arabic, revising earlier translations into Syriac and Aramaic. The House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikmah) was started by Caliph al-Mamun in 830 AD. It was the center of Islamic learning, where great translation projects took place to convert the great works of different cultures into Arabic. During Baghdad's golden age there was no censorship or religious bigotry and the Arab elite welcomed influences equally from Indians, Chinese, Christians, Jews and Pagans. The Baghdad school employed a diverse team of Christian and Muslim translators to help translate books from around the world. One of the House of Wisdom's most famous scholars was Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who eventually translated the entire canon of Greek medical works into Arabic, including the Hippocratic Oath. The book was translated into Latin and for centuries was the authoritative treatment of the subject in both Western and Eastern universities. Some translators were paid an equal weight of gold to their translated manuscripts. It meant sometimes traveling as far as India to look for original manuscripts and study the mathematics and philosophy of those who had written in classical Sanskrit centuries earlier. The first great advance on the inherited mathematical tradition was the introduction of Arabic numerals, which actually originated in India and which simplified calculation of all sorts and made possible the development of algebra. This translation of knowledge is considered to be one of the main events of the Middle Ages. The House of Wisdom's main concern was foreign knowledge, and around it the

Baghdad School evolved. Great libraries and schools thrived on the works that the translators contributed. The House of Wisdom restored the continuity of human knowledge by learning and translating from the older cultures. Without the ancient knowledge that was preserved and translated through the dark ages of medieval Europe, the Renaissance would not have been possible. 5.The School of Toledo In 1085, Toledo, Spain was taken from the Muslims by Alfonso VI of Leon. It soon became the capital of Castile and a community of scholars. There, the transmission of ancient knowledge reached its peak through the School of Toledo where translations were made from Arabic to Latin and later to Spanish, and helped the scientific and technological development in the years of the European Renaissance. Toledo took the place of Baghdad as the new great translation center of the world. Under the leadership of French Archbishop Raymond, who reigned from 1126 until his death in 1152, the Toledo School's Bureau of Translation attracted first rate scholars from all over Europe. Raymond knew the wealth of knowledge and scientific expertise, which the Muslim world possessed, and desired that Christendom gain access to its riches. Archdeacon Dominic Gundisalvi undertook many translations and directed the Bureau of Translation that Raymond had founded. Among the school's great scholars were Gherard of Cremona, John of Seville, Adelard of Bath, Robert of Chester, Rudolf of Bruges, Hermann of Carinthia, and Michael Scot. The twelfth century came to be known as the Age of Translation. By the middle of the thirteenth century, scholars such as these had translated the bulk of ancient science into Latin, including the writings of such greats as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Euclid and Hippocrates, which had been preserved in Arabic for hundreds of years. These writings were either Arabic manuscripts still held today in the Vatican Library in Rome. 6.Ten Years That Changed the Perception of the Translator Etienne Dolet (1509-1546), a French humanist was tried for translating one of Plato's "Dialogues" in such a way as to imply disbelief in immortality. Dolet did in fact add three extra words to a text he was translating from Greek, one of his biographers defends their use as adding to the clarity. He was condemned as an atheist, tortured and strangled at

the age of thirty-seven and his body was burned with copies of his books at his feet. The second translator to die for his transgressions was Bible translator and reformer William Tyndale (1494-1536), who was so impressed by Luther's teachings that he created an English version of both the Christian texts and the Torah, which were then smuggled into England. Tyndale was forced to flee England but was eventually arrested in Belgium in 1535, then strangled and burned at the stake after a year and a half of imprisonment. As a translator, Tyndale crafted many everyday phrases, including: "Let there be light", "Eat, drink and be merry", "The powers that be", "Ye of little faith", "Ami my brother's keeper", "A man after his own heart", and "Signs of the times". His translation of the Bible is credited with influencing the later "King James" version. The last of the three 'translator-warriors' was the charismatic and successful Martin Luther (1483-1546) . In 1540, Luther wrote the selfpromoting and nationalistic Sendbrielvom Dolmetschen, in which he criticized Latin, Hebrew and other languages for being full of "stones and stumps", in contrast to his 'smooth' German writing. As a poet, writer and translator, Luther 'reformed' the German language in ways that can still be felt today. He is often considered the "father of the modern German language." Still, Luther was constantly forced to defend his principles of meaning-oriented translation and he was eventually put under the ban of the Empire. Fearing for his safety, his own friends once even kidnapped him to protect him. Until the passage of these ten pivotal years, translators in the West had been viewed far more readily as heroes than as villains. They had opened all the ancient arts and sciences to the world around them, not only philosophy, astronomy, and geometry but the more advanced range of Arab mathematics, not to mention medicine, optics, and other sciences. They had even opened the door to the enormously popular studies of alchemy, and astrology. As Giordano Bruno himself would say: "From translation all science had its off-spring." After 1546, public attitude began to change and translators were no longer viewed as heroes. Increasing emphasis would be placed on the inadequacy of translators and even the translation process itself, a view which has largely prevailed until the present day.

LECTURE XIV. HISTORY OF TRANSLATION SCIENCE IN ENGLAND 1. J.Dryden and His Works on Translation Science 2. A.Tytler and His vision of the Problem 3. T.Savory and His Book The Art of Translation 4. The English Linguistic School and the Works of J.Firth and M.Halliday 5. J.Catfords First Linguistic Monograph on the Translation Problems 6. P.Newmark and His Connection of all Theoretical Principles with the Practice 7. M.Snell-Hornby and His Great Contribution to the Theory of Translation Science As well as in many other countries, in England the first attempts of theoretical generalizations in the field of translation have been undertaken by translators among whom there were many outstanding writers and poets. Many of them accompanied their translations by vast comments in which they proved or justified the approach to the solving of various translation problems and tried to formulate some rules and principles of translation. In the 16 17th centuries when the translation activity was great in England practice of similar translation comments had received significant distribution. Certainly, statements of translators about the job did not make the theory of translation in modern understanding. They had a fragmentary character and did not have any scientific character. As a rule, they were reduced to the formulation of some requirements to the translation itself and the process of translation. Usually these requirements appeared axiomatic and concerned only the most general sides of translation activity. At the same time such comments have played the role in creation of preconditions for development of the theory of translation. The authors drew attention to translation problematic, specified complexity of the problems solved by the translator and quite often their works contained rich and interesting actual material.

1. J.Dryden and His Works on Translation Science Works of J.Dryden (1631-1700) can serve as a characteristic example of early theoretical generalizations on the practice of translation. His first works appeared in 1680. J. Dryden suggested distinguishing three kinds of translation. Firstly, he distinguished the so-called metaphrase translation, i.e. the exact reproduction of the original or Source text. Later on this type of translation was called word-for-word translation. Secondly, he distinguished so- called paraphrase translation. Under this type of translation he understood free translation which contained only the spirit of the Source text. And, thirdly, he distinguished the imitative translation, i.e. the variations on the topic of the Source text. The translator does not translate in this case he mostly reproduces the topic. J.Dryden comes to the conclusion that the most correct way for the translator is to use something between metaphrase and paraphrase types of translation . J.Dryden formulates the rules of a translator. According to these rules the translator should: 1. be a poet. 2. know two languages perfectly well. 3. understand the specific features of the author of the original. 4. c-rdinate his talent and the talent of the author of the original. 5. keep the meaning of the original. 6. keep the attraction of the original. 7. keep the quality of a verse in translation. 8. force the author speak in the way the modern Englishman speaks. 9. not follow closely to the original in order not to lose the spirit of the original text. 10. not improve the original text. All these rules clearly show the level of translation science development at that time. All these rules are conclusive and axiomatic, but they are insufficiently concrete, poorly coordinated with each other and do not have any consecutive scientific concept. 2. A.Tytler and His Vision of the Problem The first book on the translation problems Essay on the principles of translation by A.Tytler was published in England in 1791. In this book

the author tried to make a system of the principles of translation. A.Tytler is the father of the normative approach in translation. According to A.Tytler the main principles are the following: 1) the translation should completely present the ideas of the original; 2) the style and the way of the text presentation in the Target language should be the same as in the Source text; 3) the translation should retain all the ease of the language of original. These principles of the A.Tytlers normative approach have the followers up to our days. The merit of this work is in the fact that while analyzing each of these principles A.Tytler distinguishes some language peculiarities which cause translation problems. He pays special attention to the translation of idioms, language updating, and syntactic problems. He says that the English language can not be shorter than the Latin language. He also shows that the Latin and the Greek languages use ellipsis and conversion. Undoubtedly, the merit of his work is also in the fact that the author compares and appreciates different variants of translation of different words and phrases. All these elements make this work sound up-to-date and equal it with the works of many famous translators. 3. T.Savory and His Book The Art of Translation More fundamental works on the theory of translation appeared in England only in the second half of the 20th century. First of all the famous work of T.Savory The Art of Translation should be mentioned. In this book the author tried to analyze a great number of translation problems. Though the linguistic basis of this research was obviously insufficient, the author managed to formulate a number of postulates which were further developed in the works of the theoreticians on translation problems. T.Savory follows the traditional approach to translation in his work. Nevertheless it lacks the general principles of the theory of translation; the topics discussed in the book are rather arbitrary. T.Savory distinguishes four types of translation.

(1) Perfect Translation the translation of purely informative phrases advertisements. (2) Adequate translation the translation of thematic issues. In this type of translation the most important point is the content, the form is not important. In this case the translator is free in choosing words and even sentences, the meaning of which is ambiguous, he can also make paraphrases.(T.Savory proposes to translate modern fiction in this way.) (3) The third type of translation - translation of works of classical writers. In this type of translation the content has the same importance as the form. It cant be perfect and it cant be a commercial one, because the time required for this translation is great. (4) The fourth type of translation is very close to the second type, i.e. the adequate translation. It is the translation of the scientific and technical material that is practically necessary. The main requirement to this type of translation is the knowledge of the subject. T.Savory asserts that the translation is the choice. While doing his translation the translator should always answer three questions: - What did the author say? - What did he want to say? - How should he say it? Thus, in the process of translation T.Savory was the first who defined not only the form of the translation and its content but the communicative intention of the author as well. A very important part of T.Savorys work is the chapter devoted to the principles of translation. Analyzing different points of view on this problem he comes to the decision that there are no general principles of translation. He proves it by the examples of the different principles which contradict each other. These principles are: - the translation should transfer the words of the source text; - the translation should transfer the thoughts of the target text; - the translation should be read as the source text; - the translation should be read as the target text; - the translation should retain the style of the author; - the translation should retain the style of the translator; - the translation should be very close to the original text; - the translation should be very close to the translators time; - omissions and additions are permitted in translation; - additions and omissions are not permitted in translation; - the translation of the poems should be done in a prosaic way;

- the translation of the poems should be done in a poetic way. T. Savory didnt formulate any principles of translation. He only said that the translator/interpreter should find something average between literal and free translation and his translation should be read as the original and it should be truthful to the original text. The translator is allowed to borrow successful variants from previous translations. Not having offered new treatment of the general principles of translation T.Savory at the same time paid attention to one of the major factors, influencing the translation process and which is being developed in the modern theory of translation. He noted that the choice of a variant of translation in many respects depends on the prospective type of the reader. This conclusion, so important for pragmatics of translation, is treated very originally by T.Savory. He distinguishes four types of readers: 1) the reader who doesnt know the foreign language; 2) the reader who studies the foreign language with the help of translation; 3) the reader who knew the foreign language but forgot it completely; 4) the reader who knows the foreign language perfectly well. This classification of the recipients of the translation was not recognized in the theory of translation but nevertheless it got recognition in the conceptual technique of the modern translation science. 4. The English Linguistic School and the Works of J.Firth and M.Halliday In the middle of the 20th century the linguistic investigations in the field of translation science appeared. The majority of the linguists who made investigations in the translation science belonged to the English Linguistic School which is closely connected with the name of J.Firth. The works of the linguists of this school are characterized by the investigation of languages in formal and semantic planes. The scientists paid a special attention to the functional role of the language units in a speech and they tried to interconnect the linguistic theory with the applied problems of the language. All these investigations made possible to study

the theory of translation from the point of view of applied linguistics with the basis in general linguistics. From this time on the translation science got a theoretical basis and all its problems were investigated as linguistic problems. One of J.Firths followers was a famous English linguist M.A.K.Halliday. He was not a translator himself but he studied the problems of translation and published some articles on the importance of the translation studies for linguistics. M.Halliday considers the translation to be a part of a comparative linguistics. He published his two works which are called Comparison and Translation and Comparison of the Languages. M.Halliday thinks that the translation is the basis for any comparison of language units and structures. This comparison presupposes the contextual equivalence of structures compared, i.e. the possibility of their interchange in the process of translation. After thorough contextual analysis of the compared units it is possible to speak about their formal equivalence and their position in the compared languages. Thus it can be seen that the notion equivalence is very important not only for the theory of translation but for the comparative linguistics as well. Primarily, the equivalence is a characteristic feature of the source language text and the translated or target text. M.Halliday says that the process of translation is a one-way process but at the end we have two products, two texts which should be equivalent in different languages. M.Halliday says that the translation is a relation between two or more texts which play the same role in the same situation. This relation (equivalence) has a relative character, because the notions equal role and equal situation are not absolute. Particularizing the notion equivalence M.Halliday points out that this notion is a contextual one, it is not connected with any grammar or lexical phenomenon and cant be assessed. According to M.Halliday we cant define the notion of equivalence in a precise way. It should be noted that many Hallidays considerations were not proved in the further investigations but his thoughts on the existence of the scale of equivalence were very important and are used by the contemporary scientists.

M.Halliday understood that the equivalence in translation is not restricted by the relation between the texts; it should be looked upon as the relation between the smaller units of the Source and Target texts. Nevertheless he admitted the equivalence between the whole sentences in two texts without the equivalences of their parts. He based his assumption on the fact that the number of sentences in the Source text and in the Target text coincides as a rule, and every sentence of the Source text has its equivalent in the Target text. M.Halliday paid much attention to the modeling of the process of translation. According to M.Halliday the translation process is the choosing of equivalents at different levels of language hierarchy. M.Halliday distinguishes several stages in the process of translation. These stages are defined by the language units the translator works with at the definite period of time. At the morphemic level the equivalent of every morpheme is proposed notwithstanding its surrounding. Then the word equivalents are chosen. And at that moment the equivalents of morphemes are changed according to the linguistic surrounding. The same procedure is repeated at the word level, at the sentence level and so on. According to this model in the process of translation two stages are defined: 1) the choice of the most appropriate equivalent for every entity or unit; 2) the modification of this choice at the higher level of language. It is the use of grammar and lexical peculiarities of the Target language that characterizes M.Hallidays model. M.Hallidays theory was not widely used by his contemporaries because the theory about the morpheme equivalence is doubtful. But the idea of the translation process modeling is a new and worthy one. The problems of equivalence in translation and the modeling of the translation process take the central part in M.Hallidays works but he was interested not only in these problems. M.Halliday was interested in the problems of machine translation, fiction and non-fiction translation as well as in oral translation. He didnt present a scrupulous analysis of any of these problems but nevertheless his ideas were interesting and worth investigating further.

5. J.Catfords First Linguistic Monograph on the Translation Problems. The merit of a creation of the first linguistic monograph on the translation problems belongs to the famous English linguist J.Catford. J.Catfords work A Linguistic Theory of Translation was first published in 1965. Almost all English translation concepts are embedded in it. It is the first book in the English school of translation science to present a full and complete theory of translation based on the definite theories of language and speech. The author of the book is a true follower of J.First because he postulates all his assumptions according to the works of J.First. This book is a first attempt to connect closely the language and translation problems. The first chapter of the book is devoted to the language description, i.e. language structures, units, interrelation of language with the situations in which it appears. J.Catford writes about the levels of the language (phonological, morphological, lexical and grammatical). Interrelations between lexico-grammatical units and exstralinguistic situations present contextual meaning of these units. Contextual meaning differs from the formal meaning of these units. Every language level has its own peculiarity. The grammatical level is characterized by the existence of closed systems with a limited number of elements which are in opposition to each other. Lexical level is characterized by the open system; the number of its elements has no limits. J.Catford classifies grammar units as a sentence, a clause, a group, a word and a morpheme. He presents such notion as rank-shift. According to him a clause is a part of a complex sentence (Since we couldnt meet earlier, we met after the concert) but sometimes it may be a part of a group (The man we met after the concert is my brother). When he speaks about this phenomenon he means rank-shift. After the investigation of the linguistic problems J.Catford analyses the pure translation problems. In the second chapter of his work he speaks about the translation proper, its definition and classification. His definition of translation is the following one. The translation is the substitution of the text material in the Source language by its equivalent in the Target language. He uses the term text material not text because some elements of the original text can be transmitted into the translated text without any

changes. J.Catford affirms that equivalence is very important in the theory of translation and the main aim of the theory of translation is to define the nature of translation equivalence and the ways of its gaining. The third chapter of the book is devoted to the problems of equivalence. At the same time the author speaks about the types of translation. He proposes to distinguish between full and partial translation on the one hand and total and limited types of translation on the other hand. While speaking about the full translation he speaks about the translation of the original text as a whole, in partial translation the part of the original text is transmitted into the target text because it cant be translated or because it serves for giving the target text some points of local character. Total translation is a translation when the Source text is translated at all language levels, and limited translation is the one when it is done at one language level: phonological, graphological, grammatical or lexical. J.Catford also proposes to distinguish the translation which is limited by one rank, i.e. the translation in which the equivalents are presented between the units of the same rank (a word is translated by a word, a group of words by a group of words, etc.), and a free translation. According to his assumptions such terms as free, literal and word-for-word translation get a linguistic definition. During free translation all equivalents can be used in different ranks but they tend to be closer to the rank higher than a sentence. Word-for-word translation is done at the word level though it may include some equivalents at the morphemic level. Literal translation takes the intermediate position: it is close to word-for- word translation, but it admits some grammar changes according to the grammar rules of the Target language. The way of equivalence definition is paid a great attention to in the book. J.Catford proposes to define the equivalence of the texts empirically while analyzing the translations which have been already done or asking the professional translator to do a translation of the original text. J.Catford says that the equivalents that we can see in these texts do not always correspond to each other. C.Catford comes to the conclusion that equivalence in translation means neither formal nor meaning sameness. The only requirement to

equivalents, according to J.Catford, is the equivalents ability to substitute each other in the original and translated texts and it can be seen only in empiric analysis. Elementary meanings present a branch of distinguishing characteristics which characterize the given text. J.Catfords investigation was very important for the development of the translation science. The problems of transliteration, grammatical and lexical transformations, social and cultural differences, dialectal varieties which arise during translation are paid great attention to in the book. This book proves the necessity of linguistic approach in the process of translation. M.Halliday and J.Catford are considered to be linguists who deal with the translation science. They combine linguistic approach with the problems of translation. 6. P.Newmark and His Connection of All Theoretical Principles with the Practice. P.Newmark is a famous English translator; he works in the field of translation science as a professional translator. He writes not about pure theory of translation, he connects all theoretical principles with the practice. All his books are full of practical notes for the translator. According to P.Newmark the main aim of the theory of translation lies in the fact that it is necessary to define the peculiar methods for the translation of all types of texts and definite rules and methods should be given for this. P.Newmark thinks that all rules of the theory of translation should be taken on the basis of practice and all these rules should be provided with patterns from the original texts and their translation. In all his works he has much illustrative material. Taking into consideration the most important factors influencing the translators strategy (the purpose of the text, the translators intentions, the type of the recipient, the linguistic peculiarities of the text, etc.) and the main types of the texts (with expressive, informative and directive


functions) P.Newmark formulates two general methods of translation: communicative and semantic. The aim of the communicative translation is to impress the recipient in the same way as the original text does. The aim of the semantic translation is to transfer the context as close to the original as possible. P.Newmark thoroughly describes the peculiarities of these methods and the conditions of their usage. He notes that the communicative translation is oriented towards the recipient (the reader of the translated text) and presents the information of the original text in a simple and comprehensible form. The semantic translation is more difficult for comprehension because the readers background knowledge is of a paramount importance here. P.Newmark considers that the truthfulness of translation is very important and he even proposes the use of word-for-word translation in some cases. He even marks that word-for-word translation is not only the best one but the only right method and different paraphrases and synonyms are not needed in translation. P.Newmark points out that the investigation of the characteristics of these two methods of translation is his main contribution to the theory of translation. Nevertheless he also investigates the problems of translation of proper names, political and scientific terms, metaphors and slang as well as synonyms and antonyms. All his theoretical assumptions are supported by good practical examples and useful advices for translators. 7. M.Snell-Hornby and His Great Contribution to the Theory of Translation Science Many English scientists continue their work in the theory of translation science. There exist many different theories which sometimes greatly differ from each other. One of the scientists who want to unite all these theories and establish one integral theory is M.Snell-Hornby. His book Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach published in 1988 is an attempt to analyze and generalize all these theories.


The main idea of the author is given in the first chapter of the book. He investigates the history of the different approaches to the translation science as well as the modern trends. According to M.Snell-Hornby all these theories do not satisfy the modern requirements to translation science. He thinks that the first mistake in these investigations is the attempt to analyze the problems from a dichotomy position. They distinguish and isolate the categories and fields of investigation. They study separately language and literature, fiction and non-fiction translation. At the same time the linguistic approach rejects the artistic translation. M.SnellHornby also thinks that the theories which take into consideration only one of these categories can not be developed further. They are very limited .The attempts to develop a theory of texts typology is also greatly limited. The followers of this theory try to oppose one type of the text to the other. M.Snell-Hornby proposes his own theory (model) of translation. It is based on the text types and the relevant criteria for translation. It consists of six levels which are closely interconnected and cant be isolated from each other. The first level is the level of the general types of translation such as literary, general language and special language translation. The second level presents the prototypology of the general types of texts. Here he includes the translation of Bible, stage/film translation, poetry translation, legal, economic, medicine and technical scientific translation. Newspaper and advertising translations are also included here. The third level presents extratranslation disciplines such as cultural history/literary studies, studies of special subjects and sociocultural and area studies. The fourth level shows the specifics of the translation process. The fifth level includes the linguistic disciplines relevant for the theory of translation. Here he includes text linguistics, psycholinguistics, contrastive linguistics, sociolinguistics, etc. The sixth level includes the problems of speech, i.e. speakability, sound/rhythm and phonological effects. In his book M.Snell-Hornby also speaks about the interrelation between translation, text and language. He pays great attention to the dictionaries and requirements to them. He thinks that bilingual dictionary should combine the data of the explanatory dictionary and the dictionary of

synonyms. Any dictionary should distinguish between 5 types of prototypes: terminology, international words, concrete notions, words expressing emotions and realia. While speaking about the artistic translation M.Snell-Hornby supposes that there exist three trends in this field. Firstly, the translation is oriented to the Target text; secondly, the approach is a descriptive one; thirdly, a text is considered to be a unit of a language closely connected with the theory of translation. M.Snell-Hornby considers that the interrelation between the text and the translation is very tight; the translation depends on the text, situation and the function of the translation. He elaborates the following postulates: - the more specific text the more closely it is connected with the concrete situation and it is easier to define the function of the text; - the more concrete the situation and the function the stronger the translation is oriented to the Target text; - the higher artistic value of the Source text the more strongly the situation and the function of translation depends on the readers activation; - the higher artistic value of the Target text the higher the artistic value of the Source text. M.Snell-Hornby pays great attention to the problems of the artistic text. He thinks that the problem of style of the artistic text is not investigated at the present moment and all scholars speak not about the artistic style but about the stylistic devices. Basing on the theories of M.Halliday M.SnellHornby proposes some ideas: - the style theory should take into account the multi-level approach. It should be connected with the semantic, syntactic and physical characteristics of the artistic text; - this multi-level approach is closely connected with the different functions of the artistic text; - the style can be measured by the frequency of stylistic characteristics;


- the leading notion in the theory of style is foregrounding, i.e. artistically motivated deviation from the language norms. It can be qualitative or quantitative; - the style can be transparent ,i.e. uncovering the content , and nontransparent , i.e. its foreground tends to the language form; - the stylistic analysis begins with the syntax ( the structure and length of the sentence, the organization of the information, the focus and stress, the structure and frequency of the usage of the nounal and verbal groups) then it goes to the level of semantics and words. The stylistic analysis shows the differences between the types of the texts as well, i.e. from the conventional character and transparency of the technical-scientific and standard-informative texts to the non-transparency of the texts of individual authors. The greatest merit of the work of M.Snell-Hornby lies in the fact that at the end of it he formulates his own point of view on the theory of translation science. He thinks that the future of this science is bright, there is much to do in this sphere and he writes that: - the theory of translation science will develop with great speed because our age is the age of technological and scientific breakthroughs and the need in translation increases. The translation science should get its status and acknowledgement on the solid theoretical basis; - according to the practical needs the theory of translation elaborates different methods to teach future translators; - the level of the critical attitude to translation will increase with the development of the translation science. According to the analysis of the works of famous English scholars we can see that the translation science is at the same rank with other sciences, it has its own methods of investigation and it plays a great role in the development of social life.


LECTURE XV. MACHINE TRANSLATION Plan 1. History of Machine Translation 2. Methods Used in Machine Translation 3. Translation Demands 4. Difficulties in Machine Translation 5. Comparison between Machine and Human Translation 6. Computer Aided Translation. 1. History of Machine Translation We should acknowledge the fact that computers are not just another product of industrial society. They are not like automobiles, cameras, telephones which represent the extensions of human physical or sensory capabilities. Computers are information processing systems. They manipulate symbols and thus resemble a human being. In computers there is a new kind of intelligence different from ours in some ways more powerful and in others more limited. Scientists have long predicted that computers would one day help speed up the arduous task of translating texts. The first use for natural language processing began in 1940s with the attempt to develop Automatic machine translation. During the II World war the American scientists without the assistance of computers deciphered coded Japanese militant communications and proved their skill in coping with difficult language problems. The idea of using deciphering technique to translate from one language into another was expressed in a letter of Waren Weaver, a pioneer in the field of computational linguistics, which he wrote to Norbert Wiener the father of cybernetics. He wrote: When I look at any article in Russian, I think that this is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I want to decode them... At the end of the 1950s, researches in the United States, Russia and Western Europe were confident that high-quality machine translation of scientific and technical documents would be possible within a very few years. There was a resurgence of interest in machine translation in the 1980s and although the approaches adopted differed little from those of the

1960s, many of the efforts, notably in Japan, were rapidly deemed successful. This seems to have had less to do with advances in linguistics and software technology or with the greater size and speed of computers than with a better appreciation of special situations where ingenuity might make a limited success of rudimentary MT. The most conspicuous example was the METEO system, developed at the university of Montreal, which has long provided the French translations of the weather reports used by airlines, shipping companies, and others. Some manufactures of machinery have found it possible to translate maintenance manuals used within their organizations (not by their customers) largely automatically by taking into account the fact that the technical writers use only certain words and only in carefully prescribed ways. Many factors contribute to the difficulty of the machine translation, including words and multiple meanings, sentences with multiple grammatical structures, uncertainty about what a pronoun refers to, and other problems of grammar. But two common misunderstandings make translation seem altogether simpler than it is. First, translation is not primarily, a linguistic operation, and, second, translation is not an operation that preserves meaning. But the greatest problem which faces the designers of software that can translate languages fluently is how you program common sense. This episode is brought to mind by some recently available computer programs that claim to provide automatic translation between English and a number of other languages. Translation software has been used by government agencies for several decades but with the advent of Pentium chip, such software can now easily be run on a personal computer. Systran a company that three decades ago pioneered the field under contracts from the US government provides its translator at abelfish.altavista.digital.com as part of Alta Vistas Web site. Babelfish the Web site lets you type in a block of text up to fifty words long, click on a button and watch as seconds later a translation appears above your words. The second company to offer its services free is Globalink a major retailer of translation software. Globalinks online translator, Comprende, will exist in a different form under the new ownership. At www.lhs.com you can send E-mail or participate in a live multinational chat with translations to and from English. When faced with criticism of their products translations, Mt

vendors tend to evoke the talking dog as in Dont be picky, its amazing that a dog can talk at all. And its true that the translations made by the computer are far from good. When this field was in infancy in the early 1960s the scientists at CIA built a computer to translate between Russian and English. To test the machine the programmers decided to have it translate a phrase into Russian and than back into English to see if theyd get the same words they started with. The director of CIA was invited to do the honors; the programmers all gathered expectantly around the machine to watch as the director typed in the test words: Out of sight out of mind. The computer silently ground through its calculations. Hours passed. Then suddenly, magnetic tapes whirred, lights blinked and a printer clattered out the result: Invisible insanity. 2. Methods Used in Machine Translation There are some methods used in machine translation, but the very first one is so called direct method which is closely connected with the encoding-decoding approach. Direct or icon method of machine translation is based on establishing a direct relationship between the source and the target dictionary entries. The target entries are regarded as regular counterparts (icon copies) of the source ones. According to the direct translation method the source and target texts are presumed to be similar both in their form and conceptual content. It ought to have been obvious that this approach had serious shortcomings. One huge snag is word order. Getting the word order wrong not only makes for horrible-sounding sentences but also can change meaning often in comic way. Another problem with the Direct Approach is the sheer amount of computational resources required. To carry out substitution effectively, a lexicon must include every inflected form of every verb and every plural of every noun: separate translations have to be provided for the paradigm Walk, walks, walking, walkedand so on. Idioms can be handled as chunks (for instance got out, got by, got even each of which is expressed by different phrase in other languages. In this case the Direct System is helpless there is no way to anticipate every possible combination of words. The latest products of Globalink and Systran seek

to overcome these limitations by incorporating at least some grammatical rules for figuring out what words are performing what functions in a sentence. The computer lexicons specify the parts of speech that might apply to each word; the computer tries to identify different parts of speech and apply them in the translation. Words that in the SL can be both verbs and nouns are distinguished automatically by the computer that recognizes valid grammar structures and a certain number of semantically absurd translations are weeded out. The second basic method of machine translation is the transfer-based method. According to the transfer-based method of translation grammars of the source and target languages are matched in the process of translation by a set of rules called transfer. In a transfer-based system the process of translation comprises the following processing steps: Morphological analysis . Word forms of the source text are analyzed using paradigm sets and identified with the dictionary meaning. Syntactic analysis. At this stage the information from the dictionary and paradigmatic data syntactic representation of the source text is formed by the syntactic analyzer (called parser). A string of syntactic classes or a syntactic tree of the source sentence is passed over to the transfer module. Transfer. The transfer module receives the syntactic representation of the source text and, using relevant transfer rules, converts it into an intermediate representation. Syntactic synthesis. At this stage a final syntactic representation of the target text is formed by combining and matching the transferred structures in the source syntactic representation. Morphological synthesis. Using the information from the target dictionary and paradigmatic data the target text (translation) is obtained. Transfer based systems often comprise a semantic component which improves the accuracy of translation. Pivot language-based machine translation method. In a way it is similar to the transfer method but there are some differences. As opposed to transfer procedures which are applied mostly at the syntactic level with some corrective semantics, pivot language representation involves all available linguistic information. It claims to be universal, i.e. applicable to any language. A pivot language is a formal description of morphological, syntactic and semantic characteristics of a

language unit in the form of one-to-one relationship. Each language unit is related to a specific invariable atom in the pivot language structure and vice versa, each atom of the pivot language structure is invariably connected with the units of various languages. (It is so called interlingua approach). Ideally a pivot language based machine translation will comprise the following processing steps: - morphological, syntactic, and semantic analysis of the source language dictionary and paradigm; - formation of the pivot language representation of a source text by the pivot language module; - conversion of the source pivot language representation by the pivot language module into the target text using relevant semantic, syntactic , lexical and morphological data from the language dictionary and paradigms. 3. Translation Demands There are four types of translation demands. The first and traditional one is the demand for the translations of a quality normally expected from human translators, i.e. translations of publishable quality whether actually printed and sold or whether distributed internally within a company or organization. The second basic demand is for translations at a somewhat lower level of quality ( and particularly in style) which are intended for users who want to find an essential content of a particular document and generally as quickly as possible. The third type of demands is that for translation participants of one-to-one communication (telephone or written correspondence) or an unscripted presentation. The fourth area of application is for translation within multilingual systems of information retrieval, information extraction, database access, etc. The first type of demand illustrates the use of MT for dissemination. It has been satisfied to some extent by machine translation systems ever since

they were first developed in the 1960s. However, MT systems produce texts which must be revised and post-edited by human translators if they are to reach quality required. The second type of demand the use of MT for assimilation has been met in the past as a by-product of systems originally designed for the dissemination applications. Since MT systems do not produce high-quality translations some users have found that they can extract what they need to know from un-edited output. They would rather have some translation, however poor, than no translation at all. With the third type MT for interchange the situation is changing quickly. The demand for translation of electronic texts on Internet, such as Web pages, electronic mail and even electronic chat lists is developing quickly. In this context, the possibility of human translation is out of the question. The need is for immediate translation in order to convey the basic content of the message, however poor in input. MT systems operate virtually or in fact in real time and on-line and there have been little objections to the inevitable poor quality. The fourth type of MT application as components of information access systems is the integration of translation software into: - systems for the search and retrieval of full texts of documents from databases (generally electronic versions of journal articles in science, medicine and technology) or for retrieval of bibliographic information; - systems for extracting information from texts, in particular from newspaper reports; - systems for summarizing texts; - systems for interrogating non-textual databases. 4. Difficulties in Machine Translation One difficulty stems from the fact that most words have multiple meanings. Because of this fact a translation based on one-to-one approach is seldom acceptable. Computers do not learn in the same way as humans do. We could say that computers cant translate like humans because they are not humans. Thats why the first type of difficulties is connected with the fact whether a word is a word of general vocabulary or a specialized term. Consider the word bus. When this word is used as an item of

general vocabulary it is understood by native speakers as a roadway vehicle for transporting people. But in a specialized terminology it has some other meaning. Specialized terminology is divided into areas of knowledge called domains. In the domain of computers the word bus refers to a component of a computer that has several slots where cards can be placed. The way to overcome this difficulty either for human or a computer is to recognize whether we are using the word as an item of general vocabulary or as a specialized term. Thus we see that the first type of difficulty is connected with the fact how to distinguish between a use of a word as a specialized term or a word of general vocabulary. The second type of difficulty is connected with semantics. Here the problem of polysemy, synonymy, antonymy arises. The human being should read the text attentively and comprehend its meaning. After that he can give an appropriate translation. The problem with MT is that it gives all meanings of the word of general vocabulary which it finds in its memory. The third type of difficulty is connected with the pragmatics. The translator should be sensitive to the context because meaning is not an abstract object that is independent of people and culture. Translation is a very difficult thing requiring feeling and understanding of the cultural aspects which are not available in a computer. MT cant resolve ambiguities in such sentences as Ship sinks today. Is it a newspaper headline or an order to send out a shipment of sinks? 5. Comparison between Machine and Human Translation The application of computers to the task of translating natural languages has not been and is unlikely to be a threat to the professional translators. Those skills which the human translator can contribute will continue always to be in demand. There is no prospect, for example that machine translation could ever attempt the translation of literary or legal texts. By contrast, for the rough translation of electronic texts on the Internet there is no rivalry for machine translation human translators cannot compete in terms of speed, even if they were prepared to undertake poor quality translation.


We may compare the relative merits of human and machine translation according to categories of need and use. As far as the determination function (production of publishable translations) is concerned, human translation is more satisfactory and less costly overall whenever it is a question of translating one particular text in a unique subject domain (scientific, technical, medical, legal or literary). Machine translation demands the costly investment in dictionary maintenance and updating and costly involvement of post-editing. This can be justifiable (costlyeffective) only when large volumes of documentation within a particular domain are being translated. It is even more justifiable if the translation is into more than one target language (when pre-editing and/or vocabulary and grammar control of original text is possible), and where there is a considerable repetition. For such tasks, the human translator would be overwhelmed by the scale of the task, by the boring repetitiveness and by the need to maintain terminological consistency. By contrast, the computer can handle large volumes and can automatically maintain consistency. In brief, machine translation is ideal for large scale and/or rapid translation of (boring) technical documentation, (highly repetitive) software localization manuals, and real-time translations of weather reports. The human translator is (and will remain) unrivalled for non-repetitive linguistically sophisticated texts (literary and law). For the translation of texts for assimilation, where the quality of output can be poorer that that for the texts to be published, it is clear that machine translation is an ideal solution. Human translators are not prepared ( and resent being asked) to produce rough translations of scientific and technical documents that may be read by only one person who wants to merely find out the general content and information and is unconcerned whether everything is intelligible or not, and who is certainly not deterred by stylistic awkwardness or grammatical errors. Of course, they might prefer to have output better than that presented by most MT systems, but if the only alternative option is no translation at all then machine translation is fully acceptable. For the interchange of information, there may still in the future continue to be a role for the human translator in the translation of business correspondence (particularly if the content is sensitive or legally binding). But for the translation of personal letters, MT translations are likely to be increasingly used; and for electronic mail and for the extraction of

information from Web pages and computer-based information services MT is the only feasible solution. In oral translation, by contrast, there will be a continuing market for the human translator. There is surely no prospect of automatic translation replacing the interpreter of diplomatic and business exchanges. Although there has been research on the computer translation of telephone enquiries within highly constrained domains, and future implementation can be envisaged in this area, for the bulk of telephone communication there is unlikely to ever be any substitute for human translation. Finally, MT systems are opening up new areas where human translation has never featured: the production of draft versions for authors writing in a foreign language, who need assistance in producing an original text; the on-line translation of television subtitles, the translation of information from databases; and, no doubt, more such applications will appear in the future. In these areas, as in others mentioned, there is no threat to the human translator because they were never included in the sphere of professional translation. There is no doubt that MT and human translators can and will co-exist in harmony and without conflicts. 6. Computer Aided Translation. It is necessary to note that translation packages nowadays are not capable of providing adequate translation. However, it should be noted that such powerful tools as computers can still be used for translation and this variety is called computer-aided translation. Unlike machine translation, which is by definition wholly automatic, computer-aided translation is a tool to assist human translators. In the process of computer-aided translation a translator is using a machine translation system (usually a direct translation variety) for the search of equivalents both for individual words and small text fragments. At the present stage of MT development computer-aided translation seems the most appropriate practical alternative. Thus we see, that translation tools, programs can never replace human translators, but they facilitate communication. Human translator will always be necessary to deal with cultural or legal aspects in translation.

PART I..................................................................................................................................................1 LECTURE I. COMMUNICATION AND QUALITY IN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION..................................................................................................................................1 1. Professional Translation: An Act of Communication.................................................................1 2. Components of Acts of Communication in Translation..............................................................3 2.1. Aims and intentions...............................................................................................................3 2.2 Content and package.............................................................................................................4 2.3. Professional loyalty..............................................................................................................5 2.4. Quality...................................................................................................................................6 2.5. Discourse components...........................................................................................................7 LECTURE II. KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION. 9 1. Differences between Interpretation and Translation..................................................................9 2. Knowledge Acquisition in Written Translation.........................................................................11 3. Knowledge Acquisition Strategies in Translation.....................................................................12 4. Knowledge Acquisition in Interpretation.................................................................................15 5. Long- term Knowledge Buildup in Interpreters and Translators..............................................20 LECTURE III. FIDELITY IN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION................................21 1. Verbalizing a Simple Idea.........................................................................................................22 2. Principles of Fidelity.................................................................................................................24 3. The Rules of Reformulation.......................................................................................................28 4. Secondary Information: an Obstacle and a Help.......................................................................29 5. Interpretation vs. Translation from the Secondary Information Perspective..............................30 LECTURE IV. BASIC TRANSLATION THEORIES....................................................................32 1. The Transformational Approach...............................................................................................32 2. The Denotative Approach .........................................................................................................33 3. The Communicational Approach...............................................................................................34 LECTURE V. EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION.....................................................................36 1. Equivalence and Equivalents.....................................................................................................36 2. Different Approaches to the Types of Equivalencies.................................................................37 3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents............................................................................................41 4. The Translation of Idioms.........................................................................................................43 LECTURE VI. TRANSFORMATIONAL FACTORS IN TRANSLATION .................................45 1. Loss and Gain ...........................................................................................................................45 1.1. Loss: temporal factors.........................................................................................................46 1.2. Loss: time factors in the comparison of metatexts..............................................................47 1.3. Translation loss: cultural factors.........................................................................................48 2. A.L.Buracs Classification of Transformations.........................................................................49 3. Compensation and Explicitation................................................................................................52 4. Untranslatability........................................................................................................................54 LECTURE VII. PRAGMATICS OF TRANSLATION ...................................................................56 1. Difference between Semantics, Syntax and Pragmatics ...........................................................56 2. Meanings of Words....................................................................................................................57 3. The Problem of Synonyms ........................................................................................................58 4.Translation and Style ................................................................................................................59 5.Terms and Professionalisms .....................................................................................................61 6. Specific-area Translation...........................................................................................................67 7. Types of Texts............................................................................................................................69 8. Pragmatics of the Text................................................................................................................71 LECTURE VIII. LEXICAL DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSLATION.............................................74 1. Multiple Meanings of Words......................................................................................................74 134

2. The Role of Culture Knowledge in Translation.........................................................................75 3. Three Types of Translation Difficulties...................................................................................76 4. The Translators Informational Capacity..................................................................................77 LECTURE IX. THE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT TO BE TRANSLATED....................................79 1. Textual and extratextual elements ..........................................................................................79 2. The Model Reader of the Metatext ...........................................................................................82 3. The "Channel" of the Message ................................................................................................85 4. The Space-Time Coordinates.....................................................................................................87 LECTURE X. THE RELIABILITY IN TRANSLATION...............................................................91 1. Reliability..................................................................................................................................91 2. Textual Reliability................................................................................................................91 3. Types of Text Reliability...........................................................................................................94 4. Aspects of Translator Reliability...............................................................................................95 4.1. Reliability with regard to the text........................................................................................95 4.2.Reliability with regard to the client......................................................................................96 PART II. ............................................................................................................................................97 LECTURE XI. TRANSLATION AND TRANSLATOR........................................................97 1.What is a Translation...................................................................................................................97 2. The Profession of a Translator...................................................................................................98 3. Professional Ethics.....................................................................................................................99 LECTURE XII. TRANSLATION STUDIES ................................................................................101 1. Interlingual Translation...........................................................................................................101 2. Textual Translation.................................................................................................................103 3. Metatextual Translation...........................................................................................................104 LECTURE XIII. THE BEGINNING OF TRANSLATION...........................................................105 1. The Ancient Chinese Schools ................................................................................................105 2. The Academy of Jundishapur...................................................................................................106 3.The Passage to India ................................................................................................................107 4.The House of Wisdom...............................................................................................................107 5.The School of Toledo................................................................................................................109 6.Ten Years That Changed the Perception of the Translator.......................................................109 LECTURE XIV. HISTORY OF TRANSLATION SCIENCE IN ENGLAND.............................111 1. J.Dryden and His Works on Translation Science.................................................................112 2. A.Tytler and His Vision of the Problem..................................................................................112 3. T.Savory and His Book The Art of Translation .................................................................113 4. The English Linguistic School and the Works of J.Firth and M.Halliday .............................115 5. J.Catfords First Linguistic Monograph on the Translation Problems....................................118 6. P.Newmark and His Connection of All Theoretical Principles with the Practice. ...............120 7. M.Snell-Hornby and His Great Contribution to the Theory of Translation Science................121 LECTURE XV. MACHINE TRANSLATION...............................................................................125 1. History of Machine Translation................................................................................................125 2. Methods Used in Machine Translation.....................................................................................127 3. Translation Demands................................................................................................................129 4. Difficulties in Machine Translation..........................................................................................130 5. Comparison between Machine and Human Translation...........................................................131 6. Computer Aided Translation....................................................................................................133 CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................................134 REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................136


1. Bassnett, M. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge,1980,174p. 2. Burak ,A. A Practical Introduction to Written Translation from Russian into English. Moscow: Intrada, 2002,176p. 3. Catford,J. A Linguistic Theory on Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1965. 4. Halliday,M. Comparison and Translation. In: M.A.K.Halliday, A.McIntosh, P.Stevens, The Linguistic Sciences and Language teaching. London,1964. 5. Holmes,J. The Nature of Translation. Mouton: The Hague,1970. 6. Jile,D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and translator Training.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995,278p. 7. Lotman,JU. O metajazyke tipologicheskih opisanij kultury.1968, in Semiosfera, Sankt-Peterburg, Iskusstvo-SPB, 2000, ISBN 5-210-01488-6, p. 462484. 8. Miram,G., Daineco,V., Taranukha,L., Grischenco,M., Gon,A. Basic Translation.Kiev: Elga Nika-Center, 2002,245p. 9. Neubert,A. Translation Studies and Applied Linguistics. All. A Review1, p.46-64, 1980. 10. Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1981. 11. Nida, E. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill,1964. 12. POPOVI A. Teria umeleckho prekladu, Tatran, 1975. Russian translation by I. A. Bernshtejn and I. S. Chernjavskaja, edited by N. A. Kondrashov, Problemy hudozhestvennogo perevoda, Moskv, Vysshaja shkola, 1980. 13. Snell-Hornby, M. Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1988. 14. Weber,W. Training Translators and Conference Interpreters. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.,1984. 15. .. . , 2000. Internet: http://www.bartleby.com/116/505.html http://books.eserver.org/fiction/poefiction/x-ing_a_paragrab.html http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/chapter01.html http://members.tripod.com/poetry_pearls/Poets/Carrol.htm http://www.sabian.org/alice.htm http://www-tech.mit.edu/shakespeare/asyoulikeit/ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trojan-horse.htm http://www.wordjames.com/words