The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies

P, Q, R, SUsuf Hussain

http://www.extranslation.com/

PolysystemMARK SHUTTLEWORTH

A polysystem is a system of systems which interact to bring about a process of evolution (Even-Zohar’s model).

In the literary polysystem, different literary genres vie for the domination of the center.

“Genre” includes not only masterpieces, but also children’s literature, popular fiction and translated works.

Literary evolution is caused by “the unavoidable competition generated by the state of heterogeneity” (Even-Zohar, 1990:91).

o Primary (innovative) against secondary (conservative) literary models.

A primary form is accepted into the center, and becomes conservative.

Then a newer model evicts it from the center of the polysystem.

Discussion covers: o Role of translated literature in a literary

polysystem.o Theoretical implications for translation studies. “Translation is an activity that is dependent on

the relations within a certain cultural system” (Even-Zohar, 1990).

Translated literature can occupy a central position when:

1. a “young” literature looks for ready-made models.

2. original literature is “peripheral”. 3. At time of crisis (New ideas via translation). Translated literature: conforms to already existing models or introduces original elements.

A new target-oriented approach associated with Gideon Toury, with three insights:

1) translation is a specific instance of the inter-systemic transfer.

2) Focus is shifted from equivalence to the translated text as an entity in a polysystem.

3) The target text is: not the product of linguistic selections. shaped by systemic constrains (genre and literary

taste).

A number of scholars have questioned the necessity of the primary/secondary distinction (Lefevere 1983b:194; Gentzler 1993:122).

Gentzler suggests that the influence of Russian Formalism is too strong.

The most significant extension is found in Toury (1980a), with translation norms.

PragmaticsBASIL HATIM

“The study of the purposes for which sentences are used, of the real world conditions under which a sentence may be appropriately used as an utterance” (Stalnaker 1972:380).

Speech acts: acts we perform when we complain, request, or apologize.

An utterance has a “sense”, a “force” and an “effect”.

e.g. “Shut the door” is in a sense an imperative that carries the force of a request, which could be used to annoy the hearer.

Austin (1962) labeled them: locution, illocution and perlocution, respectively.

Communication breakdown is caused more often by speech act misperception than by linguistic expression miscomprehension.

e.g. Journalist: what were the contents of the letter you handed to King Fahad?

Tunisian minister’s response (Arabic): “this is a matter solely for the Saudis to consider.”

Interpreter’s Arabic literal rendering: “This matter concerns the Saudis.”

This inviting answer misled the English journalist into more questioning, only to be rebuked by the minister. (Hatim 1986; Hatim and Mason 1997).

Speech acts are not necessarily the same in all languages and cultures.

Speech act interpretation depends on their position within sequences.

This led to the notion of the “illocutionary structure” of a text, determining its progression and its coherence (Ferrara 1980).

Overall effect has to be relayed and not a series of unstructured sequences (i.e. speech act by speech act).

In Text Act, speech act is assessed in terms of its contribution to the “global” coherence of the entire text (Horner 1975).

Entire text formats began to be considered from the viewpoint of pragmatics.

For example, argumentative texts display a global problem-solving structure, with the “problem” section being “assertive”, and the “solution” section “directive” (illocutionary value).

Speech act indeterminacy resolved by reference to text’s global organization (Hatim and Mason 1990a).

e.g. describing a given peace plan as slightly better than the previous ones could pragmatically mean “only slightly and therefore negligibly better” or “appreciably better”. This can be settled only when we read but there are reasons for hope.

Implied Meaning

In communication, being sincere is a social obligation (Austin 1962; Searle 1969; among others).

Grice concentrated on when interaction may be intentionally thwarted, leading to implicature (Grice 1975).

Within “the Cooperative Principle”, he identified Maxims, that should be adhered to, if no “good reason” not to.

Maxims

1. QuantityMake your contribution as informative as is required; 2. Quality Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence; 3. RelevanceBe relevant; 4. MannerBe communicatively orderly.

Maxims obeyed, or disturbed by: “flouting” (deliberate non-compliance

with the rules). Implicature from “flouting” determines

translator intervention extent. Implying is possible even when a given

maxim is adhered to where non-adherence would be the norm.

Flouted here is politeness, which sanctions flouting Quality as a norm (Leech 1983).

e.g. Dentist: … Why didn’t you let me give you gas?o Young Lady: Because you said it would be five

shillings extra.o Dentist: [shocked] Oh, don’t say that. It makes me

feel as if I had hurt you for the sake of five shillings.o Young Lady: Well, so you have (Shaw’s You Never

Can Tell).

Relevance in Translation

Gutt (1991/2000) describes translation in terms of a general theory of human cognition.

Relevance: To achieve maximum benefit at minimum processing cost.

There are two ways of using language: “descriptive” and “interpretive”.

An utterance is “descriptive” if it is true of a state of affairs, and “interpretive” if it represents someone else’s thought or utterance.

Translation is said to be an instance of “inter-lingual interpretive use” (Gutt 1991).

Relevance deals with not only the content but also the style.

The notion of “communicative clues” is proposed as a possible solution to inter-linguistic disparity.

e.g., focal effects (such as emphasis) may be achieved by prosodic stress in some languages; Stress can be replaced by syntactic means (clefting as in “it is X which..”).

e.g Arabic news reports tend to vary ‘verbs of saying’ (‘declare’ when no ‘declaration’ exists, ‘announce’ when no ‘announcement’ exists, and so on). or noteworthy for something that is not ‘worth noting’ at all.

Gutt further distinguishes between direct and indirect translation.

Direct: the translator is free to elaborate or summarize.

Indirect: He has to stick to the original contents.

SemioticsUBALDO STECCONI

A theory of how we produce, interpret and negotiate meaning through signs.

Structural semiotics initiated by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), and interpretive semiotics elaborated by C. S. Peirce (1839-1914).

According to the first, “a language is a set of inter-related systems whose elements have no validity independently of the relations of equivalence and contrast” (Lyons 1968).

In practice, translators compare semiotic structures on lexical items, sense levels, narrative structures. etc.

Interpretive semiotics is centred on Semiosis. Semiosis is “an action, an influence which

involves a sign, its object and its interpretant” (Peirce 1931).

Interpretant is an effect of the sign which says something more about the object.

Major contributions in the structuralist tradition include Toury (1986), with the semiotic nature of translating.

Roman Jackobson extended translation beyond inter-linguistic translation to include intra-linguistic and intersemiotic translation.

“translating has to be conceived as an irreversible process, and the equivalence relationships as unidirectional” (Toury 1986).

Conditions that set translation apart from non-translation. Similarity: a new text similar to existing semiotic

material in the source environment. Difference: No T-semiosis without reference to

difference between the source and target environments.

Mediation: A text that doesn’t mediate between source and target environments can’t be labeled as translation.

Two additional concepts are required for T-semiosis: events and norms.

Translation events include translated texts in the target environment.

These events are regulated by translation norms.

One has to examine the category of events and the norms for a complete answer regarding what translation is.

Sociological Approaches

MOIRA INGHILLERI

Sociological perspectives introduced approaches for investigating translation activity as a social phenomenon.

Bourdieu’s view of the social foregrounds social practices, not individual actions.

Social theory needs to recognize the actor-networks and examine the associations made by actors (Latour).

Luhmann (1985) presents a view of society composed of functional systems (e.g. laws, fine arts, sciences).

Translation scholars have explored the relevance of these theories to translation.

This includes the relationship between translator agency, social structure, historical, social and cognitive processes.

This also informs the conceptualization of empirical research to examine translation activity, including training within contexts.

Latour’s theory: to theorize the translation process from the perspectives of the actors involved (Buzelin 2005).

Luhmann’s theory: to conceptualize translation and to examine the relationship between training and practice (Hermans, 2007).

Sociological perspectives: expanded the focus of analysis beyond

literary texts to include non-literary. identified translators’ positionings as

crucial to translation process and products.

StrategiesJOHN KEARNS

Strategy is a course of action undertaken to achieve a particular goal in an optimal way.

In translation studies, other terms (procedures, techniques,..) means the same thing (Chesterman, 2005).

Two different senses of “translation strategy” (Molina and Hurtado Albir, 2002)

A) procedural sense a translation strategy: “a potentially

conscious procedure for the solution of a problem which an individual is faced with when translating a text segment” (Lorscher, 1991:76).

B) textual sense description of the results of procedures not

procedures.

“local” and “global” strategies (Jaaskelainen 1993)

Local strategies relate to the language structures and lexical items, while “global strategies” pertain to textual style. “comprehension strategies” and “production

strategies”. Production strategies: syntactic/grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic (Chesterman, 1997) .

Global Strategies literal/free”; formal/dynamic (Nida), semantic

/communicative” (Newmark); documentary” /instrumental (Nord), overt/covert (House), etc.

“foreignizing” and “domesticating” translation strategies (Venuti 1995a).

A move from equivalence-based to norm-based theoretical models with the rise of DTS.

Strategies are “ways in which translators seek to conform to norms … not to achieve equivalence, …” (Chesterman,1997: 88).

Thank you

For more rich content about English Arabic translation, please be my guest in the website: http://www.extranslation.com/