Some researchers tend to distinguish neatly between:

product-analysis approaches, that concentrate on the translated text or metatext, and process-analysis approaches, that concentrate on the process through which from the prototext
the metatext is obtained. According to one of the more important translation scientists, James S. Holmes (1924-1986), who laid the foundations for the new translation-studies discipline, this distinction is nearly impossible at a practical level and does not provide many results:

True, it is very useful to make a distinction between the product-oriented study of translations and the process-oriented study of translating. But this distinction cannot leave to scholar leave to ignore the self-evident fact that the one is the result of the other, and that the nature of the product cannot be understood without a comprehension of the nature of the process 1.
When we say that we want to pay much attention to the translation process in translation science, we have better view of it in a broad sense, i.e. not as something complementary to the translation product. The translation process is viewed as an interrelation between the original and the translated text. The translator reading the text she is about to translate does so projecting the potential metatexts into a virtual space within which the new text begins to take shape, first in terms of mental material (processing of material as perceived by the translator), then in terms of concrete insertion of such material in a rigid and conventional structure: the future metatext code (the language of the translated text). The human mind takes into exam - a very quick but not always thoroughly conscious way - the various potential possibilities to project the prototext into the metatext language and - with a procedure of choice that has much in common with the games theory 2 - opts for the optimal solution among the prefigured ones. This selection work is made more complicated by the awareness that often choices made have chain of consequences. To opt for one translating word instead of another precludes some semantic potentials while stressing other possible meanings, creates new intratextual and intertextual links while erasing other possible links. Every temporary choice should be weighed in view of the whole text, and there is never a "final" choice because the evolution of the prototext in relation to the global text is limitless. The text, as we saw, is a complex entity composed, among other things, of a system of intertextual and intratextual links. One of the aspects which the translator's attention should particularly focus upon is the distinction between standard and marked elements: the neutral/specific nature of an element is to be considered in the light of the cultural context (intertextual links) and of the single author's poetologic context (intratextual links). It is to be viewed in relation to the verbal units immediately preceding and following (cotext) the examined word.

The reader of a poem or the viewer of a painting has a vivid awareness of two orders: the traditional canon and the artistic novelty as a deviation from that canon. It is precisely against the background of the tradition that innovation is conceived. The Formalist studies brought to light that this simultaneous preservation of tradition and breaking away from tradition form the essence of every new work of art 3.
Since there is never a real sign-sign equivalence on the linguistic plane or on the cultural plane, in her projective activity the translator is biased toward certain aspects of the prototext and pays less attention to other elements that she considers of secondary importance. At the basis of the translation activity there is "the choice of the element you consider foremost in the translated production" 4; in other words, the text is to be analyzed with criteria that should be as much objective as possible in order to isolate an element, a dominant, forming the main entity around which the identification of the whole text is built:

The dominant may be defined as the focusing component of a work of art: it rules, determines, and transforms the remaining components. It is the dominant which guarantees the integrity of the structure 5.
Not only literary works can undergo such analysis that determines translation choices: every text has its own dominant. What distinguishes a literary work is, in some cases, the aesthetic function of the dominant:

[...] a poetic work is defined as a verbal message whose aesthetic function is its dominant 6.
In the translation process, the dominant of a text must not be identified depending on the literary/non-literary nature of the prototext. Even if this aspect may appear fundamental in the analysis of the text apart from the translation, in the real translation process we need to concentrate on the complex interweaving of the relations between the role of the prototext in the source culture and language and the role of the metatext in the target culture and language 7. The theoretical model of the translation process, the core of translation science, should describe the various possibilities in the transfer of the dominant, i.e. the various theoretical possibilities to translate 8.

Bibliographical

references

BRJUSOV V. Fialki v tigele [Violets in the crucible], in Sobranie sochinenij v semi tomah [Selected works in seven books], vol. 6, Moskv 1975. GORLE D. L. Semiotics and the Problem of Translation with Special Reference to the Semiotic of Charles S. Peirce. Alblasserdam, Offsetdrukkerij Kanters, 1993. HOLMES J. S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1988. ISBN 90-6203-739-9. TOROP P. La traduzione totale. Ed. by B. Osimo. Modena, Guaraldi Logos, 2000. ISBN 88-8049-195-4. Or. ed. Totalnyj perevod. Tartu, Tartu likooli Kirjastus [Tartu University Press], 1995. ISBN 9985-56-122-8.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Holmes 1988, Gorle 1993. JAkobsn 1987, Brjusov 1975, JAkobsn 1987, JAkobsn 1987, Torop 2000, Torop 2000, p.197.

p. p. p. p. p.

81. 46. 106. 41. 43. p.197.

statsLogos Group 2008

The translation process is characterized by an analysis stage and a synthesis stage. During analysis, the translator refers to the prototext in order to understand it as fully as possible. The synthesis stage is the one in which the prototext is projected onto the reader, better, onto the idea that the translator forms of who will be the standard reader of the metatext.

[...] the text postulates the reader's cooperation as a condition for its actualization. Or, better, we can say that a text is a product whose interpretive fate must be part of its generation mechanism: to generate a text means to enact a strategy enclosing the prediction of the other's moves - as, by the way, it happens in every strategy 1.
In other words, Eco tells us that, when we create a text (Eco does not speak about translation, but his points holds for us too) we foresee the reader's moves. We postulate, therefore, the existence of a Model Reader:

The Model Reader is a set of conditions of happiness, textually established, that must be satisfied for a text to be fully actualized in its potential contents 2.
This means that the translator, elaborating her translation strategy, projects the prototext onto her Model Reader, onto a type of reader that she infers from the relation between prototext and target culture. Noone of the real readers, or empirical readers, can therefore coincide completely with the Model Reader. And what Eco tells us is that is that, the more the empirical reader X is different from the postulated model, the less complete will be the

actualization of the potential contents of the text, i.e. the less complete the text fruition or understanding will be. This is what happens during the synthesis stage of the translation process. As we will see better in the following parts of this course, we do not approve of or share in the opposition between "free" and "literal" translation be-cause we do not think that either of these two types of translation can be defined with scientific criteria. Much more interesting is, in our opinion, to concentrate on the dominant of the translation: the translation process can be centered on the analysis phase; in this case, the dominant of the translation is focused on the author of the prototext, and on the translator. The translation process can also be centered on the synthesis stage; in this case the translation dominant will be the focus on the Model Reader of the metatext 3. Of course, the dominant of the prototext and the dominant of the metatext may not always coincide. The two polarities toward which the translation process may be oriented are what Toury calls adequacy principle and acceptability principle. Adequacy is the measure of the adherence of the metatext to the prototext, from the translator's point of view, also considering her deontological principles. Acceptability is, on the other hand, seen in relation to the culture receiving the metatext, the target culture. An exaggeratedly "adequate" translation can be unacceptable, i.e. there may not be any concrete expressions of its Model Reader. This somewhat abstract argument needs some concrete examples if we do not want to loose the thread of what we are saying. One of the most translated books in the world, probably the most translated, is the Bible. The translations made before Martin Luther tend mostly toward the "adequacy" pole, for a very simple reason. The Bible is a sacred text for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. For this reason, the translators attributed a very high value not only to its contents, but to its form as well: to its sounds, even to the form of its signs; for this reason they tried to produce a version as close to the letter of the original as possible. Martin Luther realized that the German translation of the Bible was incomprehensible to most German speaking believers, and that this fact was causing a gap between the Church and its flock. Therefore, he proposed a more understandable version:

I wanted to speak German and not Latin or Greek, because I had the purpose of speaking German in my translation. [...] One should not ask the letters of the Latin language how one should speak in German, as these asses do; one should ask that of the mother in her home, of the kids in the street, of the common man in the marketplace, and one should watch each mouth to know how they speak and then translate consequently. Then they will understand and realize that we are speaking with them in German 4.
The Roman Catholic Church considered this operation sacrilegious, and was one of the causes of Luther's excommunication. This is how the Lutheran or Protestant religion began. Afterwards, however, the Roman Catholic Church also changed its position and proposed increasingly understandable texts to its believers in a form increasingly close to the "acceptability" pole. The Bible, however, is being translated even today, and sometimes the translations are very different from the most widespread versions, so different that some consider them too far from the "adequacy" principles. Here are some passages from Exodus in the King James version (left column) and in Young's literal version (right column):

1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob. 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin, 4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. 5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already. 6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. 7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them 5.

1 And these [are] the names of the sons of Israel who are coming into Egypt with Jacob; a man and his household have they come; 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin, 4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. 5 And all the persons coming out of the thigh of Jacob are seventy persons; as to Joseph, he was in Egypt. 6 And Joseph dieth, and all his brethren, and all that generation; 7 and the sons of Israel have been fruitful, and they teem, and multiply, and are very very mighty, and the land is filled with them 6.

As you can see, Young's version is closer to "adequacy", to the point that some phrases contain no verb (indicated in square brackets), and sometimes phrases are difficult to understand from a grammatical point of view. With this example of the concrete difference between the acceptability principle and the "adequacy" principle, we hope to ease the comprehension of the ideological choices translators and publishers make that have so much influence on the form of translated text.

Bibliographical

references

ECO U. Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi. Milano, Bompiani, 1991. ISBN 88-4521221-1.English edition: The role of the reader: explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1979 LUTHER M. Sendbrief

vom

Dolmetschen,

1530.

TOROP P. La traduzione totale. Ed. by B. Osimo. Modena, Guaraldi Logos, 2000. ISBN 88-8049-195-4. Or. ed. Totalnyj perevod. Tartu, Tartu likooli Kirjastus [Tartu University Press], 1995. ISBN 9985-56-122-8. TOURY G. In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv, The Porter Insistute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1980.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Eco 1991, p. Eco 1991, p. Torop 2000, p. Martin Luther 1530, The Bible The Bible Gateway http://bible.gospelcom.net/

54. 62.

200

Author's Author's

emphasis. emphasis. 201. p. 106. Gateway http://bible.gospelcom.net/

statsLogos Group 2008abo

Having examined the consequences of a practical nature in the difference between an adequacy-oriented approach and an acceptability-oriented approach, we are aware of the fact that - pointing to the main ideological dichotomy at the basis of any translation - we have stressed the most self-evident and important distinction. Nevertheless, we are still far from providing a full description of the criteria through which it is possible to define a general model of the translation process. The Danish researcher L. Hjelmslev 1 proposed the distinction, within a text, between, on one hand, form and substance of the content and, on the other hand, the form and substance of expression. In this way, the text is divided into two planes (expression and content), each of which is divided into two parts (form and substance), producing the following quadripartition: the content substance is, in a sense, objective, and does not vary from one language to another, but points to inherent qualities. For example, colors can be described as a certain range of visible frequencies. What in English is called "green" is, for most English-speaking people, related to a given combination of impressions linked to the perception of wavelengths comprised between 5000 and 5700 angstrom. Therefore, if we superficially think of the translatability of the English concept of "green", we might think that it is easy to transpose it into another language; the content form: in English, the word "green" points to the content substance we just described. Hjelmslev observes that the content form varies from one language to another. This means that we do not have a perfect match between the semantic fields of similar content forms in different languages. Hjelmslev provides as example the mismatching of the names of colors spanning from green to brown in the English and in the Welsh languages 2:

gwyrdd green blue gray llwyd brown glas

Among other examples of mismatching between content form and content substance in different languages are the English words "abortion" and "miscarriage", that in some languages are identified by a single indistinctive word (for example, "aborto" in Italian, "avortement" in French). On the contrary, the content form of English word "hair" in many other languages matches two different words, one indicating the head hair, the other denoting the body hair (for example, in Italian "capello" and "pelo", in French "cheveu" and "poil"); expression substance is the graphic and phonic expression of the content. If an utterance is a graphic expression substance, it has corresponding phonic expression form. Hjelmslev uses as an example the toponym "Berlin" (expression substance), which is translated into different expression forms, depending on the fact if it is pronounced (and then actualized) in German, English, Danish, or Japanese . If, on the other hand, an utterance is a phonic expression substance, it has its graphic expression form. To illustrate, Hjelmslev uses the example of the sound /got/, which corresponds to different expression forms and content substances according to the different languages. The pronunciation of got is the graphic form of the expression that, in English, matches the content substance "past form of to get"; but it also corresponds to the pronunciation of Gott, the graphic form of the German content substance "God"; and it is the same as the pronunciation of godt, the graphic form of the expression matching the Danish content substance of "well"; expression form is the way in which the expression substance is actualized, i.e. the way in which a graphic form is pronounced or a phonic form is written. Hjelmslev's distinction between expression plan and content plan is carried on in translation studies by Torop, who postulates that the expression plane (substance and form) of the prototext is

recoded - through the means of the other language and the other culture - into the expression plan of the translated text, while the content plan is transposed into the content plan of the translated text4.
By recoding, we mean a linguistic, formal, style process, while transposition is a process that, as regards literary texts, implies the understanding of the poetic model, of the content structure of the text. The two processes are not, however, independent one of the other. They are interrelated on the methodological plane. When discussing translation problems, however, it is better to consider them separately in order to better understand their different functions within the context of the translation process. Recalling what we have covered in the previous unit, and the distinction between the analysis and synthesis stages, Torop makes use of a model that results from the intersection of the distinction between phases (analysis/synthesis) and the distinction between processes (recoding/transposition). From these two pairs of elements, Torop gets a quadripartition of the potential actualizations of the translation process. Before exposing a taxonomy of the various kinds of translation, Torop states his general definition of "adequate translation": it is a translation in which transposition and recoding go through the analysis and synthesis stages, preserving the peculiar interrelations between expression and content plans of a given text in the process. In other words, the dominant of the original is preserved. However, there are many ways to preserve the peculiar interrelations between expression and content plans (to preserve the dominant of the prototext). Depending on the means the translator chooses, she may produce various translations that can be equally "adequate" . "Adequate" translations are further subdivided by Torop into "dominantcentered" [dominant-nye], and "autonomous", i.e. having the purpose of transmitting only one of the plans of the prototext. For example, an autonomous translation could be the prose translation of a poem 6. Summing the quadripartition analysis/synthesis and transposition/recoding and the dichotomy dominantcentered/autonomous, Torop produces the following eight-part model 7.

adequate translation recoding analysis autonomo us dominan tcentered precision synthesis autonomo us dominan tcentered quotatio analysis autonomo us dominant -centered transposition synthesis autonomo us dominan tcentered freedom

macro-

micro-

theme

descriptio expression

style
In the next

style
unit we

n
will examine

n
in detail this model. references

Bibliographical

HJELMSLEV L. I fondamenti della teoria del linguaggio. A cura di Giulio C. Lepschy. Torino, Einaudi, 1975. Or. ed. Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlggelse, Kbenhavn, Festskrift udg. af Kbenhavns Universitet, 1943. English translation: Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, ed. by F. J. Whitfield, University of Wisconsin, 1961. TOROP P. La traduzione totale. Ed. by B. Osimo. Modena, Guaraldi Logos, 2000. ISBN 88-8049-195-4. Or. ed. Totalnyj perevod. Tartu, Tartu likooli Kirjastus [Tartu University Press], 1995. ISBN 9985-56-122-8.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hjelmslev 1975. Hjelmslev 1975, Hjelmslev 1975, Torop 2000, Torop 2000, Torop 2000, Torop 2000, p. 204.

p. p. p. p. p.

58. 61. 200. 200 56.

statsLogos Group 2008about Logos

Torop has preferred to use a poetic text for his examples. However, if we keep in mind what we said about the concept of total translation (see the unit sixteen), it is obvious that, as the translation model must have a universal character, the use of a poetic text as a sample should not create an obstacle.

adequate translation recoding analysis

dominant macro-style 1 autonomous precision 2

transposition synthesis
dominant autonomous quotation 4

analysis
dominant theme 5 autonomous description 6

synthesis
dominant expression 7 autonomous freedom 8

micro-style 3

The first division concerns recoding and transposition, which, we want to recall, distinguishes the transfer of the expression plane (recoding) and the transfer of the content plane (transposition). In this unit, we will deal with recoding translation, while in the next one we will examine the four types of transposing translation. Analysis is the part of the translation process that addresses the original (or prototext), while synthesis is the projection of the prototext onto the (potential) metatext (or translated text). If we focus ondominant-oriented analytic recoding, we get what Torop defines

1. macro-stylistic translation. In this type of translation, the dominant is the expression plane of the prototext, on which the construction of the metatext content plane is also based. In the metatext, we observe a compliant preservation of the meter, of the rhymes, of the strophes (if it is a poem), and of every other formal structure.

It is called "macro-stylistic" because while it preserves, reproduces, or reconstructs the stylistic features of the original, it does not focus on single elements, aiming instead to globally reproduce the general style features of the prototext. For example, in this category fall the translations of poems in rhyme that preserve the meter of the original but, of course, have a semantic content which is different from the original. As Nabkov writes in the preface to his famous translation into English of Pushkin's Evgnij Ongin,

To reproduce the rhymes and yet translate the entire poem literally is mathematically impossible 1.
If the translator chooses an autonomous analytic recoding - "autonomous" in the sense that the dominant of the prototext becomes the absolute dominant of the metatext, obscuring every other subdominant - we get what is called

2. exact translation. Unlike the preceding type, the prototext expression plane dominates to the point that nothing else is left in the metatext. Some researchers call this type "interlinear translation".
The prototext style and syntax form completely swallow the metatext, upsetting the phrase construction rules of the receiving language and bending them to conform to the rules of the original language. The result of this translation can hardly be considered a text. It is an only an aid to gain access to the original. The most widespread use of this kind of translation is the publication of poetry with parallel-translated "text" presented near the original version. This is unreadable as such, useful only as an "explication note" to the prototext. Passing from analytic recoding to synthetic recoding - i.e. a translation based on the expression plane, but aimed at synthesis, in other words at the product of the translation work, which consequently is also the projection of the text onto a hypothetical, potential reader conjectured by the translator - we meet the first type of translation based on the prototext dominant:

3. micro-stylistic translation. The main purpose of this type of translation is to recreate the individual expressive devices of the author. Under this category fall the exoticizing translations (preservation of the realia [cultural words] which remind the reader the cultural distance of the prototext); the localizing translations (modification of the realia and their substitution by similar cultural words of the receiving culture, so as to obliterate the cultural distance of the prototext); and the tropic translations (reproduction of the single rhetoric figures of the prototext).
This type of translation is called "micro-stylistic" because the translation strategy is not based on the reproduction of the whole formal style of the prototext, but on the reproduction of the single style features, paying careful attention to their potential reception by the metatext Model Reader. Our last type of recoding is called autonomous synthetic recoding, in which the prototext dominant becomes absolute, in the metatext, obscuring all other elements (subdominants and secondary elements). Torop calls it

4. quotation translation. In this type of translation, the aim to formally reproduce the expression plane is considered so important that only formal limitations (grammar and syntax) prevent the translator to "copy" the original: lexical precision is the absolute dominant.
The difference between exact translation and quotation translation rests mainly in the fact that the former is interlinear, it does not respect any syntax rules of the receiving language, while the quotation translation is lexically exact, but respects the formal limitations imposed by the receiving language. This is the reason why exact translation is considered analytical (prototext-oriented), while quotation translation is synthetic (it gives a relatively higher priority to readability). Sometimes this kind of translation is called "literal", but we think that this term is too vague and ambiguous to be used in the context of a scientific taxonomy. We will make this point in the third part of this course. Until now, we have examined the four types of recoding translation. In the next unit, we will see the other four types of adequate translation, belonging to the transposing-translation group. Bibliographical references

NABKOV V. Foreword. In Eugene Onegin, by Aleksandr Pushkin, edited by Vladimir Nabkov, 4 vol., Princeton,

Princeton

University

Press,

1975.

ISBN

0-691-01905-3.

TOROP P. La traduzione totale. Ed. by B. Osimo. Modena, Guaraldi Logos, 2000. ISBN 88-8049-195-4. Or. ed. Totalnyj perevod. Tartu, Tartu likooli Kirjastus [Tartu University Press], 1995. ISBN 9985-56-122-8.

Nabkov 1975, p. ix.

statsLogos Group 2008abou