The Concept "Shift of Expression" in Translation Analysis

A N T O N POPOVIÖ

The aim of a translation is to transfer certain intellectual and aesthetic

values from one language to another. This transfer is not performed
directly and is not without its difficulties. The losses incurred in the
process are sometimes such as to shake our faith in the very possibility
of translating a work of art. 1 Yet the act of translating may also produce
the opposite result, that is, bring actual gain. This range of possibilities
.provides a clear indication that translation by its very nature entails
certain shifts of intellectual and aesthetic values. The existence of these
shifts can be verified empirically.
Everything that takes place in the course of a translation has the
character of a process. There are various factors that instigate this
process. What are they?
Let us start with the first of them. The basic feature from which the
problems of the translation performance spring is the dual character
of the translated work:
The Concept "Shift of Expression"
79

A translation is not a monistic composition, but an interpenetration and conglomerate

of two structures. On the one hand there are the semantic content and the formal
contour of the original, on the other hand the entire system of aesthetic features bound
up with the language of the translation. 2

A translation, in other words, involves an encounter of linguistic and

literary norms and conventions, a confrontation of linguistic and literary
systems. The changes that take place in a translation are determined
by the differences between the two languages, the two authors, and the
two literary situations involved. Taken together, these differences
determine the major components of the translation's structure, the
integrative principle of its development which we label "style". 3
The differences in language are unavoidable and cannot be considered
significant, as they are the result of disparity and asymmetry in the de-
velopment of the two linguistic traditions. The differences between
the author and the translator are governed by the differing social and
literary situations, the conventional designation for which is the taste
of the day.
In practice these differences between the original and the translation
can be reduced to shifts in the structural process. Each individual method
of translation is determined by the presence or absence of shifts in the
various layers of the translation. All that appears as new with respect
to the original, or fails to appear where it might have been expected,
may be interpreted as a shift.4 The fact that the process of translation
involves shifts in the semantic properties of the text does not mean that
the translator wishes to underemphasize the semantic appeal of the
original. The very opposite is true. He strives to preserve the " n o r m "
of the original. He resorts to shifts precisely because he is endeavouring
to convey the semantic substance of the original in spite of the differences
separating the system of the original from that of the translation, in
spite of the differences between the two languages and between the
8o Anton Popovic

two methods of presenting the subject matter. The translator's relation

to the work to be translated has been fittingly characterized by Karel
Hausenblas: "there is a simultaneous relevancy of identity and differ-
ence." 5 It is not the translator's only business to "identify" himself
with the original: that would merely result in a transparent translation.
The translator also has the right to differ organically, to be independent,
as long as that independence is pursued for the sake of the original,
a technique applied in order to reproduce it as a living work. Between
the basic semantic substance of the original and its shift in another
linguistic structure a kind of dialectic tension develops along the axis
faithfulness—freedom. The demand to be faithful in translation is a
starting point. Its observation, or at least the effort to observe it, is the
basis upon which stylistic requirements can assert themselves. Thus
shifts do not occur because the translator wishes to "change" a work,
but because he strives to reproduce it as faithfully as possible and to
grasp it in its totality, as an organic whole.
A study of the views and methods of translation developing in various
periods points up that the aesthetic character of translation practice
in a period is determined primarily by the source of the translation
norm. There is in fact an interpolar tension between two types of norms:
one type derives from the original, the other from the translation ideal.
A norm is, of course, the outcome of established stylistic usage (tradition)
and native literary conventions. The first type of norm is emphasized
in those periods in literary history when stress is placed on the author's
originality and faithfulness to the original, even in details. (The Roman-
tic method of translation, for instance, belongs in this category.) The
second type demands from the translator that he should aspire to match
the author in his achievement, or even surpass him in his own way.
The principle observed is faithfulness to the original on the overall
level, combined with a comparatively free and arbitrary treatment
of details. An example of this norm is the ideal of translation prevailing
The Concept "Shift of Expression" 81

in the Classical period of Slovak literature, an ideal which was emphatic

enough to oblige the translator to conform to it.
The tension between the principles of poetic expression characterizing
the original and those prevailing at the time of the translation helps
to determine the aesthetic theory of translation crystallizing from the
literary trends of the time. This chronological determinant in translation
has been appropriately formulated by Zora Jesenska:

Both the translator and the reader are children of their generation, which displays
its own character in its manner of perception and expression. A n d the older the work
we translate and the more distant the culture which produced it, the more crucial is
the question of how to preserve the temporal and national features of the original and
to make them accessible to the actual perception of the present-day reader.·

This tension also exists with respect to the hierarchy of genres in the
various periods. T h e victim of this process is the translation itself, which
complies with genre requirements even at the price of shifts in com-
position and theme. By way of example we may mention the translation
adaptations in the period of transition from Romanticism to Classicism,
when the Romantic system was passing through a critical stage marked
by shifts in the hierarchy of genres and by phenomena like genre re-
newal, which was expected to counteract the crisis.7
Every conception of translation of any real significance and consistency
finds its principal manifestation in the shifts of expression, the choice
of aesthetic means, and the semantic aspects of the work. 8 Thus in
a translation we can as a rule expect certain changes because the question
of identity and difference in relation to the original can never be solved
without some residue. 9 Identity cannot be the only feature characterizing
the relation. This conclusion is inevitable if we consider the force of
historical factors and the impossibility of repeating an act of translation
as a creative process. T h e theory of the unreproducibility of works of
art by translation fails to pay due attention to the question of the rele-
82

vancy of identity and difference with respect to the original. Jiri Levy
correctly pointed out that only a "naturalistic" translator searches for
corresponding expressions in the recipient language. 10 T h e dominant
point of contact between the original and its translation is the act of
creation and its reproduction with the use of other material, and for
this reason the constant in this relation is its concretization in the per-
ceiving mind, that is to say, the resulting impression, the perception
by the reader. T h e demand of functional faithfulness concerns also the
question of the specific character of the recipient nation and time.
In this regard as well, the translator will not strive to preserve all the
singularities, but will try to find suitable equivalents in the milieu of
his time and his society.
T h e uniqueness of a literary translation as a stylistic achievement
and the dual character of the style imply the existence of two stylistic
norms in the translator's work: the norm of the original and the norm
of the translation. T o be sure, in attempting a characterization of stylistic
features we shall not concern ourselves with the dualism of these two
norms 11 or think of the appurtenance of single elements to either norm,
but we shall strive above all to identify these norms in the stylistic unity
of the translation. Let us try to answer the question how this new unity
originates. It stands to reason that this tracing of the stylistic unity of
a literary translation presupposes an identification of the individual
elements which participate in the coexistence of the two stylistic norms
in the translation. This identification must occur in the context of the
literature and literary conventions relevant to the original and its time
as well as in that of the literature and literary conventions character-
izing the period of the translation.
How can this dual character be detected in the style of the translation?
First of all it is necessary to stress that the existence of the two stylistic
norms in the translation can be conceived of as an interrelation between
a constant and a tendency. T h e norm of the original, that is to say its
 83

style, is a constant factor, unchangeable, and binding for the translator.

In contrast, the transubstantiation of that norm into the norm of the
translation depends on the subjective view and creative initiative of
the translator. The incorporation of the "linguistic impression" of the
original (that is, its style as a homogeneous expression) into the trans-
lation cannot be accomplished directly, but only by means of an equi-
valent function, namely by appropriate shifts. A direct transfer of specific
stylistic features from the original to the translation is hindered by the
organic character of the components participating in the process. It
is an elementary observation of human psychology that even universal
values are perceived individually; similarly, in the act of stylistic com-
munication a universal idea is conveyed by that which is universal in
expression,12 but this homogeneity must be estimated on different
planes of general validity, the analyst considering individual features
to begin with, then proceeding to group, generation, and period signs
and values.
In the stylistic structure of a literary translation there are a number
of heterogeneous elements which if adequately organized join to produce
its homogeneous character. The essential question to be answered is:
What actually represents this resultant value? What is it that produces
the homogeneity of the style? In this connection we can recognize as
useful that system of expression which identifies the proper substance
of the style and its homogeneity, and which helps us to detect what
actually has been shifted in the style of the translation. If the style of
the Work also affects its semantic character and contents, and so contrib-
utes towards the detection of these factors representing the values of
expression in the translation, it is at the same time its semantic analysis.
Shifts in the sphere of style may be denoted as shifts in expressive
values of the linguistic means. 13 Expressive values vary in different
languages. If We are to avoid the possibility that our determination and
classification of these values will be only empirical in character we must
84 Anton Popovic

have some fixed idea of their patterning. W e may, for example, take
as our starting point the conception of style based on expression which
has been Worked out by Frantisek Miko in his studies. 14 Miko's aim
is to establish a link between the stylistic means as the lowest component
of the stylistic system and the idea of style as a unifying agent. This link
he finds in the category or quality of expression. T o be able to know what
actually takes place in the style of a work of art we must break it down
a n d sort out the individual qualities of expression which together mani-
fest a certain pattern. These qualities of expression, if conceived of as
purely abstract concepts outside any specific style, form a system within
which their individual aspects ccmplement a n d link one another (subjec-
tivity, emotionality, expressiveness, appeal, a n d so on). T h e system of
qualities of expression has its own intrinsic order a n d hierarchic gra-
dation. F r o m the most general categories corresponding to the two
basic qualities of language (operativity a n d iconicity, the ability to
state and the ability to depict), the system moves through the mediating
categories (sociativity, subjectivity, animativity, conceptuality) to
specific qualities that do not permit of further analysis (emotionality,
pathos, convention, and the like). Every category following in sequence
is at the same time a differentiation of its predecessor.
This theory of expression provides a starting point for a systematic
evaluation of the shifts of expression that occur in a translation, and so
forms a basis for the objective classification of differences between the
translation a n d its original. T h e structural identification of each stylistic
means in the two texts is an important step towards an evaluation of
the nature of equivalence from the point of view of translation theory.
A method of ordering the means of expression enables us to arrive at
an accurate evaluation of the linguistic means in their context, that is
to say, not in isolation, but in their relation to the entire system of
expression. W i t h this system we can undertake a theoretical investi-
gation of the conformities and differences that emerge when a work
 85

is translated. Such a general evaluation of means within the framework

of the individual categories a n d qualities of expression makes it possible
for us to define more explicitly, precisely, a n d systematically the shifts
of expression, that is to say, the relationship between the wording of the
original work a n d that of the translation. 15
Stylistic differences arise in the recipient language in a certain se-
quence a n d within a certain situation. It is necessary to follow the process
of development during which the more specific nuances become dif-
ferentiated from the more general a n d elementary differences in ex-
pression. T h e shift of expression indicates directions f r o m which a n d in
which the values of expression move in the translation. T h e inter-
pretation of such shifts amounts to the differentiation of qualities in
the literary style in conformity with their arrangement in the text.
T h e identification of the shifts of expression and their semantico-stylistic
interpretation should be considered as the most important aspects of
translation analysis.
The student of translation has, then, to deal with even more com-
plex tasks than the student of original literature. H e must develop
his analysis not only from general facts but also from more specific
points. Quite often a minor, seemingly insignificant detail m a y never-
theless be highly relevant for a characterization of the richness of
expression in the translation. In Levy's words, " W e have to deal
with details which are often hardly perceivable, yet are none the less
significant therefore, since they inform us about the artistic type not
by means of themes, composition, a n d transformation of reality, b u t by
delicate stylistic nuances." 1 6 T h e shift of expression is as a rule the basic
principle governing the changes that occur in a translation. An analysis
of the shifts of expression, applied to all levels of the text, will bring to
light the general system of the translation, with its d o m i n a n t a n d sub-
ordinate elements.
86 Anton Popovic

NOTES

I This view is advanced e.g. by Maria R e n a t a Mayenowa in Poetika opisowa (Descrip-

tive Poetics; Warsaw, 1949). T h e thesis that a work of art is intrinsically untranslatable
is defended by the Polish sinologist Olgierd Wojtasiewicz in his Wstgp do teorii tlumacze-
nia (Introduction to the Theory of Translation; W r o c l a w and Warsaw, 1957).
2 j i r i Levy, Umlni pfekladu ( T h e ' A r t of Translation; Prague, 1963), p. 58 (Jiri Levy,
Die literarische Übersetzung. Theorie einer Kunstgattung, tr. Walter Schamschula [Frank-
furt a m M a i n and Bonn, 1969], p. 72).
3 T h e present trend in the study of literature is to strive to surmount the dualism in
the semantic and stylistic structure of the literary work by a unified interpretation of the
work as a structure of meanings on the basis of the thesis that meaning and its conveyers
are one. In this way the whole theory of literature, the theory of the literary product,
is reduced to a semiotic science. Cf. M . Öervenka, "Prispivek k simantice literdrniho
d i l a " (Contribution to the Semantics of the Literary Work, Orientace), (Prague), I I (1967),
No. 5, p. 67.
4 I have discussed the problem of the shift of expression in detail in previous studies,
particularly in "PrekladateFski met<5dy ν poromantickej ροέζίί" (Translation Methods
in Post-Romantic Poetry), in Ζhistorickejpoetiky (On Historical Poetics), I I (Bratislava,
1965; Litteraria, V I I I ) , 188-213; see m y "Translation Analysis a n d Literary History:
A Slovak Approach to the Problem", Babel (Avignon), X I V (1968), 68-76. Cf. J o h n C.
Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation (London, 1965, 1967), pp. 73-83 (the chapter
on "Translation Shifts"): Catford's approach to translation shifts is strictly linguistic.
5 Karel Hausenblas, "Styl a preklad" (Style a n d Translation), Dialog (Prague a n d
Bratislava), 1968, No. 1, pp. 13-26 (English summary, p p . 239-241).
6 Zora Jesenskä, Vyznania a sarvdtky (Confessions a n d Skirmishes; Bratislava, 1965),
p. 220.
7 Anton Popovic, Ruskd literatiira na Slovensku, 1863-1875 (Russian Literature in Slo-
vakia, 1863-1875; Bratislava, 1961), pp. 68-71.
8 Levy, Umlni pfekladu, p. 147 (Die literarische Übersetzung, p. 163).
9 Hausenblas.
ί ο Levy, Umlni pfekladu, p. 53 (Die literarische Übersetzung, p. 69).
i r Here we are concerned with stylistic norms in the translation. Levy's two norms in
translation are aesthetic norms — the d e m a nd of faithfulness (the reproduction norm)
a n d the d e m a n d of beauty (the artistic n o r m ) : Umeni pfekladu, pp. 52-58 (Die litera-
rische Übersetzung, pp. 68-72).
The Concept "Shift of Expression" 87

12 This problem is discussed by Frantisek Miko in his short paper "Vergleichsstilistik

und Übersetzung" in Ο medziliterdrnyck vztahoch. Sbornlk venovany VI. medzindrodnemu
kongresu slavistov (On Interliterary Contacts: Studies Collected on the Occasion of the
Sixth International Congress of Slavists; Bratislava, 1968), pp. 237-239. O n the exis-
tence of general values in the form of characteristics present in the language of the orig-
inal and in the language of the translation irrespective of the differences between
their grammatical structures, see Willard V. Quine, "Meaning and Translation",
in Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On Translation (Cambridge, Mass., 1959; New York,
1966), pp. 148-172.
13 Efim G. Etkind, Poezija i perevod (Poetry and Translation; Moscow and Leningrad,
1963).
14 Miko's most recent account of his results in this field is to be found in his study
"Teöria vyrazu a prekladu" (The Theory of Style and Translation), Dialog, 1968, No.
1, pp. 39-66 (English summary, p. 242).
15 Cf. ibid.
16 Levy, Umini pfekladu, p. 149 {Die literarische Übersetzung, p. 168).