Translation Quality Assessment A Model Revisited

Juliane House

A Model Revisited

Copley Square

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/translationqualiOOhous

V'

s

, .• -

Translation Quality Assessment ■*,

?;>

M

ttf#0 I M' I,

»

Transit • . *!. U I »

I

*V

Tiibinger Beitrage zur Linguistik herausgegeben von Gunter Narr

410

Juliane House

Translation Quality Assessment A Model Revisited

gnw Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme House, Juliane: Translation quality assessment: a model revisited / Juliane House. - Tubingen ; Narr, 1997 (Tubinger Beitrage zur Linguistik ; 410) ISBN 3-8233-5075-7 NE:GT

Gedruckt mit Unterstutzung der Johanna und Fritz Buch-Gedachtnisstiftung.

© 1997 • Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen Dischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tubingen Das Werk einschlieOlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschutzt. Jede Verwertung auOerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulassig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere fur Vervielfaltigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Gedruckt auf saurefreiem und alterungsbestandigem Werkdruckpapier. Satz: CompArt, Mbssingen Druck; Laupp&Gbbel, Nehren Verarbeitung; Nadele, Nehren Printed in Germany ISSN 0564-7959 ISBN 3-8233-5075-7

Contents

Introduction

•

VII

CHAPTER 1: Review of Approaches to Evaluating the Quality

of a Translation 1

Anecdotal, Biographical and Neo-hermeneutlc Approaches to Judging Translation Quality

2

3

1

Response-oriented, Behavioural Approaches to Evaluating Translations

4

Text-based Approaches to Evaluating Translations

6

3.1

Literature-oriented Approaches: Descriptive Translation Studies

6

3.2

Post-Modernist and Deconstructionist Approaches

9

3.3

Functionalistic and Action and Reception-theory

3.4 4

1

Related Approaches

11

Linguistically-oriented Approaches

16

Translation Quality Assessment and Translation Equivalence

24

CHAPTER 2: The Original Model for Evaluating Translations

29

1

Fundamental Concepts

29

1.1

Equivalence and Meaning in Translation

29

1.2

Functions of Language versus Functions of Texts

32

2

Towards a Model of Translation Quality Assessment

36

3

Operation of the Model

43

3.1

Method of Analysis and Comparison of Texts

43

3.2

Evaluation Scheme

45

3.3

Justification of Method

46

3.4

Implementation of the Model: Test Cases

48

4

Refinement of the Model

65

4.1

Suggestions for a Translation Typology

65

4.1.1

Overt Translation

66

4.1.2

Covert Translation

69

4.2

Distinguishing between Different Types of Translations and Versions

71

V

CHAPTER

3: Substantiating the Cultural Filter; Evidence from Contrastive Pragmatic Discourse Research

1

2

3

Contrastive Discourse Analyses: German-English

79

1.1

Discourse Phases

80

1.2

Discourse Strategies

81

1.3

Gambits

82

1.4

Speech Acts

.s.

84

2.1

86

Examples in Support of the Five Dimensions

Some Contrastive Pragmatic Studies Supporting 88

Examples of Translations Featuring Cultural Filtering Along the Five Dimensions of Cultural Difference

CHAPTER

1

82

Five Dimensions of Gross-Gultural Difference: English-German

the Hypothesis of the Five Cross-Cultural Dimensions 4

79

4: The Model Revisited

95 101

Criticism of the Original Model of Translation Quality Assessment

101

2

Rethinking the Categories for Analysis

105

3

Rethinking the Overt-covert Dichotomy and Integrating the Results of Contrastive Pragmatic Research

Ill

4

The Meaning of the Cultural Filter

115

5

Rethinking the Notion of “Translation Evaluation”

118

CHAPTER

5: Analysis and Comparison of Source and Translation Texts

CHAPTER

6: Conclusion

121 159

1

Theoretical Aspects of the Model

159

2

Practical Relevance: Some Pedagogic Implications

167

3

Concluding Remarks

168

Appendix

169

Bibliography

194

Author Index Subject Index

VI

:

203 205

Introduction

Some twenty years ago I finished work on the model of translation quality assessment which constituted my Ph.D. dissertation. This was submitted to the University of Toronto, Canada, in February 1976. In 1977, the text was published, virtually unchanged, by the Gunter Narr Verlag. Four years later, in 1981, a second edition was proposed by the publisher. As, at that time, the state of the art in translation theory and particularly in the field of translation quality assessment did not seem to me to have radically changed, a second edition of the model duly appeared with very few changes in it, but carrying a new preface. The book is still selling, apparently, but is practically out of print. The publisher therefore has kindly pointed to the possibility of a further re-print. But this time round it seemed more appropriate and indeed necessary to undertake a more radical re-working of the old text than might be suggested by a new edition. In other words, so much time has since elapsed, that re-thinking the tenets and presuppositions of the original in the framework of the current Zeitgeist is necessary. This book is the outcome of such a revisionary process. Two major sources of new insight have informed the revisionary process. Firstly, of course, review comments made on the original model, and new views, theories and developments inside translation theory are to be put into the balance, as are, secondly, relevant findings from outside translational studies, particularly results of cross-cultural studies, which are Important for Issues of divergent cultural norms, and therefore bear, indirectly at least, on questions concerning whether, how far and under which circumstances such cultural diversification is to be taken into account in the process of translation and in the evaluation of the resulting product. In this secondary revisionary undertaking I have focussed on the language-pair German/English, and an extensive series of contrastive studies of my own. Notwithstanding these revisions, what comes out in the following pages is still on a deeper level the same book, even if the text is scarcely identical. In other words, I have found it possible to retain the essential features of the original model in this book. The text is structured as follows: Chapter 1 of this book reviews and critically examines approaches to translation and translation quality assessment, both those preceding and those following the publication of the original model, which is then sketched in some detail in Chapter 2. The greatest overlap between the current work and the original is therefore to be found in this second Chapter. VII

The model sketched in Chapter 2 distinguishes different kinds of translation, and proposes that cultural filtering is appropriate in some translation types. Chapter 3 investigates the notion of a cultural filter in some detail for the language pair German/English, gathering exemplary evidence from contrastive pragmatic research, including a series of studies by the author comparing these two linguacultures.’ In Chapter 4 the revised model of translation quality assessment is presented. The situational dimensions of analysis are reformulated and restructured, the results of the contrastive-pragmatic research presented in Chapter 3 are taken into account, new concepts such as genre, discourse worlds, and reference frames are Introduced, thereby giving conceptual clarity to the crucial theoretical distinction between major different types of translation, and relativlzing the notion of functional equivalence accordingly. Chapter 5 is devoted to the illustration of the model and its application to a small test corpus: original and translated versions of several texts from different genres are analysed and compared, leading to a discussion of the quality of the translation in each case. A final, sixth. Chapter summarizes the results, attempts to evaluate the model itself, and makes some suggestions for its use in translation teaching programmes.

October 1996

Juliane House

' The term “llnguaculture”, adapted from Agar 1996, will be used throughout this book, roughly in the sense of language community. The newer term is preferred, as it Indicates the close relationship between language and culture. VIII

CHAPTER 1

Review of Approaches to Evaluating the Quality of a Translation

Evaluating the quality of a translation presupposes a theory of translation. Thus different views of translation lead to different concepts of translational quality, and hence different ways of assessing it. In trying to make statements about the quality of a translation, one thus addresses the heart of any theory of translation, l.e., the crucial question of the nature of translation, or, more specifically, the nature of (1) the relationship between a source text and its translation, (2) the relationship between (features of) the text(s) and how they are perceived by human agents (author, translator, reclpient(s)), and (3) the consequences views about these relationships have for determining the borders between a translation and other textual operations. In the following discussion of different approaches to assessing the quality of a translation the relative stance these approaches take vis-a-vis these three important questions will be highlighted.

1

Anecdotal, Biographical and Neo-hermeneutic Approaches to Judging Translation Quality

Anecdotal reflections on the merits and weaknesses of translation have been offered by generations of professional translators, poets and writers, philologists and philosophers. In these essays on translation, the status and relative weight of criteria such as the “faithfulness to the original”, “retention of the originals special flavour”, “preservation of the spirit of the source language” as opposed to concentrating on “a natural flow of the translated text” and the “pleasure and delight of the reader of the translation” have been discussed at great length. The proceedings of a meeting of professional translators (see Cary and Jumpelt 1963), in which the problem of translation quality assessment was 1

discussed, also display a puzzling array of basically vague and unverifiable statements of opinion suggesting, for instance, a connection between the quality of a translation and the personalities of the author, the translator and the audience, or asserting that a good translation is one which does not read like one. A common trend in the anecdotal treatment of translation quality assessment is to first deny the legitimacy of any effort of trying to derive more general rules or principles for translation quality and secondly to list and discuss a series of concrete and random examples of translation problems and their unexplained or inexplicable optimal solutions. A classic example of the bewildering profusion of both vague and mutually exclusive guidelines that a translator should heed when he sets out to produce the “best translation” of a given text is listed in Savory (1968: 50): “1. A translation must give the words of the original. 2. A translation must give the ideas of the original. 3. A translation should read like an original work. 4. A translation should read like a translation. 5. A translation should reflect the style of the original. 6. A translation should possess the style of the translator. 7. A translation should read as a contemporary of the original. 8. A translation should read as a contemporary of the translator...etc.” Instead of striving to set up criteria for evaluating translations that are empirically based, transparent and, at least approximating something like Intersubjectlve reliability, propagators of this approach believe that the quality of a translation can most importantly be linked to the “human factor”, the translator, whose comprehension and interpretation of the original and her decisions and moves towards “the optimal translation” are firmly rooted in personal knowledge, intuitions, interpretative skills and artistic-literary competence. Even in more recent times, such a largely subjective and Intuitive treatment of assessing the quality of translations is still being followed in the field of translation studies. In the “neo-hermeneutlc approach” (cf. e.g., Paepcke 1986; Stolze 1992; Kupsch-Loserelt 1994) the hermeneutic understanding and interpretation of the original and the fabrication of a translation are individual, creative acts that on principle defy systematization, generalization and rule giving. In Stolze’s view, a “good” translation can only come about when the translator “Identifies” herself fully with the text she is translating. Whether such “identification” enables or in fact guarantees a translation of quality, and in either case how it is concretely to be assessed, remains unclear. But maybe this is not really what the neo-hermeneutlcists are after as the following statement by Paepcke seems to reveal: “Textverstehen und Ubersetzungskrltlk slnd wle Schlosser, die den Zugang eroffnen und immer wieder zuschnappen” (1986:131).

2

Kupsch-Losereit (1994) in an article with the title “Die Ubersetzung als Produkt hermeneutischer Verstehensprozesse” does exactly what her title implies, she denies the existence of Popper’s World Three (objective knowledge with a degree of autonomy from authors and Interpreters) claiming that the translator’s comprehension of the source text is “Verstehen von etwas fiir jemanden” (1994: 46), which I take to mean that the translator only understands through the glasses o£his potential target reader. According to Kupsch-Losereit, translation is then above all a “social practice” mainly dependent on the “Sinn- und Bedeutungshorizont” of the translation recipient. She maintains that there is no objectively restitutable meaning of the text, that the intention of the author of the original text cannot be determined, and concludes that the basis of translation is “die Applikation eines Verstehens und nicht der Nachvollzug der Autorintention” (1988: 35). Kupsch-Losereit reveals her position most clearly in the following statement: “Jede Ubersetzung 1st also eine Bearbeltung eines ATS (Ausgangstexts, J.H.), da der Sinn eines Textes sich in jedem geschlchtllchen Moment verandert, und z.B. ein inhaltllch gleicher Satz in zwel Sprachen auf verschiedene Kontexte und Situationen (z.B. Sprecherpositlonen) trifft.” (1988: 35). Such an extreme relativisation of content is in my opinion particularly Inappropriate as a guideline for evaluating translations: a translation is not a private affair but normally carries with it a threefold responsibility to the author, the reader, and the text. To sum up, most of the anecdotal approaches to the evaluation of translations emphasize the belief that the quality of a translation depends largely on the translator’s subjective interpretation and transfer decisions, which are based on his linguistic and cultural intuitive knowledge and experience. With respect to our three basic questions (relationship between original and translation, relationship between (features of) the texts and human agents, and delimitation of translation from other text-processing operations), we can state that the subjective, and neo-hermeneutlc approach to translation evaluation can only shed light on what happens between the translator and (features of) the original text. With regard to the other aspects, it is unenlightening, as it represents a narrow and selective view of translation one-sidedly emphasising one aspect of translation: the process of comprehension and interpretation on the part of the translator. In concentrating on the individual translator’s process of comprehension, the original text, the translation process proper, the relation between original and translation, the expectations of the target text readers are not given the attention they deserve, and the problem of distinguishing between a translation and various types of versions and adaptations is not even recognized. The aversion of propagators of this approach against any kind of objectivizatlon, systematization and rule-hypothesizing in translation procedures leads to a distorted view of translation and a reduction of translation

3

0

evaluation research to examining each individual translation act as an individual creative endeavour.

2

Response-oriented, Behavioural Approaches to Evaluating Translations ^

A second school of translation quality assessment is behaviour- or responseoriented. While adherents of this approach all eschew considerations of the translator s creative actions banning them in a “black box”, in this line of research, too, the pronouncement of general, non-verlfled (or non-verlfiable) principles seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Thus Nida’s three criteria for assessing the quality of a translation are programmatic and general: “1. general efficiency of the communication process, 2. comprehension of intent, 3. equivalence of response” (Nlda, 1964: 182). The third and most important criterion is, of course, closely related to Nida’s well-known basic principle of “Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence of a Translation” (1964, see also de Waard and Nida, 1986) i.e., the manner in which receptors of the translation text respond to the translation text must be equivalent to the manner in which the receptors of the source text respond to the source text. “Equivalent” here clearly does not mean identical, as the responses can never be identical given different cultural, historical and situational settings, let alone different human beings. Assuming that it is true that a translation should produce equivalent responses, the question remains, however, whether the degree to which this requirement is met, can be empirically tested. If it cannot be tested, it seems fruitless to postulate the requirement, and the appeal to “equivalence of response” is really of no more value than the philologists’ and hermeneuticists’ criterion of “capturing the spirit of the original”. Three similar criteria are suggested by Nida and Taber (1969: 173), the correctness with which the receptors understand the message of the original, the ease of comprehension and the involvement a person experiences as a result of the adequacy of the form of the translation. Again, these behavioural criteria need to be further explained and put to the practical test: the crucial question then remains whether the responses in question can be measured. Nida and Taber (1969) themselves suggested the following practical tests: 1) The cloze technique, in which the degree of comprehensibility of a text is related to its “degree of predictability”. The reader is provided with a translation text in which, for example, every fifth word is deleted, and asked to fill in whatever words seem to fit the context best. The greater the number of

4

correct guesses, the easier it is to comprehend the text because its predictability is greater. However, for any detailed qualitative judgment of a translation’s strength and weakness, the cloze technique seems to be too rough an instrument: the criteria of inteJHglblllty and ease of comprehension surely cannot be equated with overall quality of a translation. Further, such a test merely compares several translations, but fails to undertake the more basic task of judging a translation against its source text. 2) Elicitation of respondents’ reactions to several translation alternatives. As with the cloze test, such a test cannot establish true criteria for translation quality because of the non-inclusion of the original text as a yardstick for quality. 3) Reading aloud of the translation text to some other person who will then be asked to explain the contents to several other individuals who were not present at the first reading of the text. This test, which boils down to giving and comparing precis of different translations, relies entirely on the individual who reports on the translation rather than on the translation which is to be tested. 4) Reading aloud of a translation by several Individuals before an audience. Any places in the text at which readers clearly have difficulties in reading the text are taken as indications of translation problems. Again, this test completely lacks reference to the source text and suffers from the relativity of any judgment that lacks a norm (which could be provided by the source text). Other experimental methods, in which observable, verifiable responses are taken as ultimate criteria of translation quality have been suggested, e.g., by Carroll (1966) and MacNamara (1967). They Include (1) asking the opinions of competent judges; (2) testing translations against so-called “criterion translations”, l.e., translations of “proven excellence”; (3) having respondents answer questions about a passage when they had seen either its source text or its translation text. If the answers are equivalent across the respondents, then original and translation are to be considered equivalent; (4) ratings of discrete, randomly ordered sentences taken from human and mechanical translations of scientific articles. Two rating scales were used, one for intelligibility and one for Informativeness. The major weakness of all response-based suggestions for translation evaluation is the weakness of all behaviour-centered approaches: the “black box”, the human mind is not taken into account, such that, for Instance, tests involving expert judges, must take criteria for granted that need to be developed and made explicit in the first place. Other limitations of these studies seem to be (1) that equating overall translation quality with degrees of informativeness and intelligibility is somewhat reductlonlstlc; (2) that the assumption that a “criterion translation” exists

5

throws up more problems than it solves, as the problem of establishing reliable “criteria of excellence” for the criterion translation still remains: such criteria cannot be taken for granted as tests involving expert judges seem to assume, rather their development constitutes the crux of translation quality assessment, and (3) that there is no provision made for a norm against which the results of any response test may be measured, l.e., the basic “double-bind” relationship constitutive for any translation, is not tak^n into account. With respect to the three questions we asked at the beginning of this Chapter, the response-oriented approach to translation quality assessment all but Ignores the raison d’etre of any translation which undeniably lies in the existence of an original text, and the need to present that text “in other words”. Since they ignore the original text, response-based approaches to evaluating translations have nothing to say about the relationship between original and translated text, nor can they shed light on whether a translation is in fact a translation and not a version, an adaptation or another secondary textual product derived from an original text. Both the subjective and the neo-hermeneutlc approaches to translation quality assessment can be described as focussing on human beings Involved in translation: the translator and the reclplent(s) of the translation respectively. In the seventies, a different conceptualization of translation gained ground, mainly in Germany. Translation came to be seen as mainly a text-induced process with the source text being the sine qua non in this reproductive activity.

3

Text-based Approaches to Evaluating Translations

Text-based approaches to translation quality assessment may be Informed by comparative literature (3.1), by philosophy and sociology (3.2), by theories of action and reception (3.3) and by linguistics (3.4).

3.1 Literature-oriented Approaches: Descriptive Translation Studies In this “target-oriented” approach, which draws on comparative literature, the quality of a translation is assessed according to the function of the translation in the system of the target culture literature. Within so-called “descriptive translation studies” researchers look upon literary translations as part of the “polysystem” of the target culture literature (“Polysystem Theory”). In his programmatic article Toury (1985: 20) proclaimed that “a 'translation’ will be taken to be any target-language utterance which is presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds". The source text is

6

thus of little importance in this approach, and the hypothesis that “translations are in fact of one system only” (Toury, 1985: 19), namely the literary system of the target culture, is a clear blue-print for how the issue of translation quality assessment is to be tackled: first the translated text is criticized without reference to the source text, then specific solutions of translation problems are analysed (mlcro-analytlcally) by means of the “mediating functional-relational notion of translation equivalence” (Toury 1985: 21). Researchers working in this paradigm are concerned with literary translators’ typical behaviour patterns and the types of Innovative Influences on the target culture literary system which translations can and do exert. In this approach, the existence of a source text that served as a basis for the translated text is thus played down to a considerable extent. Whether such a text in fact existed and what the exact relationship between original and translation is, is of no major interest to the descriptive translation scholar. A basic problem with this approach is, it seems to me, how one is to determine when a text is a translation and what criteria one is to use for evaluating a translation - but these are questions which a descriptive translation researcher would probably never ask, since he would typically start from the hypothesis that a translation belongs exclusively to the literary system of the target llnguaculture. However, as Roller (1987: 22) has pointed out, even descriptive translation scholars have to make an argued decision about when a translation solution actually counts as one, in other words, regularities and conditioning factors in the process of translation have to be specified. Even in descriptive translation studies, then, one has to work with some normative categories whenever equivalence relations are being examined at a microlevel in the second phase of the analysis. Not all scholars belonging to the descriptive translation studies paradigm, however, play down the Importance of the source text. Thus van den Broeck (1985; 1986), who manages to combine text-linguistic and discourse analytic work with literary concerns, offers what he calls a “model of translation criticism and reviewing” (1985: 55), in which he sketches operations necessary in translation evaluation, among them the comparative analysis of the source text and the translation text, taking account of the relations between the source text and the system of similar and/or other texts originating from the same llnguaculture, between the target text and its readers, and between the target text and other translations of the same source text. Unfortunately, van den Broeck’s insightful and promising model has, as far as I know, not gone beyond these programmatic statements. In his latest comprehensive work Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury (1995) makes a renewed case for descriptive and historicallyoriented translation studies and their descriptive-explanatory goal of applying exhaustive accounts of what has been regarded as “translations” in the recei-

7

vlng or target culture. Toury reiterates his retrospective focus from the translation to the original, and his main orientation is still towards “actual translations” and the textual phenomena that have come to be known in the target linguaculture as translations. He also confirms his belief in the value of detailed descriptions of translations and their semiotic value in the target linguaculture. It is interesting that Toury explicitly states that his theory “entails...a clear wish to retain the notion of equivalence, which y^rious contemporary approaches...have tried to do without” (1995: 61). His historical-empirical concept of equivalence is not a single relationship but “any relation which is found to have characterized translation under a specified set of circumstances” (1995: 61), and it is norms which are responsible for the way this equivalence is realized. As Toury himself states, his view of translation equivalence is “not one target-source relationship at all, establishable on the basis of a particular invariant, rather it is a functional-relational concept, namely that set of relationships which will have been found to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate modes of translation performance for the culture in question” (1995: 86). The strength of Toury s approach is its emphasis on solid empirical work, frequently in the form of detailed case study analyses, and its insistence on contextualization both at the level of the reception situation and the receiving culture at large. The fact that descriptive translation scholars’ focus on contextualization Includes both a “longitudinal” (temporal) and a systemic perspective (paying attention to the relations a translated text has with other texts in the relevant target system), clearly adds to the explanatory adequacy of this approach. The emphasis placed by scholars in the descriptive translation studies paradigm on the context of culture and the reactions of the recipients of a translation and their insistence that “translations are facts of the target culture” put this approach in the vicinity of the response-oriented studies discussed above as well as the Skopos theorists (see below). In its emphasis on detailed mlcroand macro-analyses of texts, however, this approach also shares characteristics with the textual-linguistic one. The major problem with taking this approach as a basis for translation quality assessment is its lack of delimitation of the object of study, or put more simply: on which criteria are we to legitimately say that one text is a translation, another one not, and what exactly are the criteria for judging the merits and weaknesses of a given “translation”? In terms of the three questions asked at the beginning of this Chapter, it is most prominently question two concerning the relationship between (features of) the text and the human agents Involved that are the concern of descriptive translation studies.

8

3.2 Post-Modernist and Deconstructionist Approaches Translation theorists who belong to these approaches (e.g., Graham, 1985; de Man, 1986; Benjamin, 19S9; Derrida, 1985,1992;Venutl, 1992,1995; Gentzler, 1993) attempt to critically re-think translation from a philosophical and sociological vantage point. They undertake to unmask the unequal power relations that are reflected in the translation directions from and into English, and the promotion of further English language hegemony through one-sided translations from English and an ever decreasing number of foreign texts being translated into English. They also try to make the translator’s activity “more visible”, attempting to show the real power translators have in shaping national literatures and influencing literary canons, revealing the hidden process of selecting texts for translation, and the reasons for, and effect of, certain strategies of translation. They also critically examine both translation theories and individual translation acts pointing to their “cannibalistic” and “imperialistic” nature. A radical “striking back” view of translation proudly and reversely using the metaphor of “cannibalism” is the one from the viewpoint of the so-called Third World propagators of post-modern translational aesthetics (see Gentzler 1993: 192ff). In their view, translating means devouring the original, cannibalizing, absorbing and transtextualizing it. Cannibalism is understood as a a break with monological truth as well as a form of nourishment. The original is “eaten up”, and the boundaries and hierarchies between original and translation vanish. Cannibalistic philosophy relativizes the traditional concept of translation as mimetic representation of the original, and the concept of an “original” is relativised, as are the notions of hierarchy and power. Translation is seen as a dialogue not only with the original but with other texts as well: translation is “transtextualisation” with the translator, vampirelike, taking in the original text as his nourishment. The translator thus loses his underdog, self-effacing role acquiring a more important voice as “transtextualizer”. Where is the borderline to simple plagiarising, one wonders ? And are we here still talking of translation ? I don’t think so. The boundaries between translations and other text-transforming activities should be drawn clearly and as objectively as possible. Post-structuralist thinkers have variously taken up and reconsidered Walter Benajmin’s famous essay “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” - one of the texts I chose for my exemplary analyses in Chapter 5 - as a quintessentlally modernist attempt to formulate a theory of translation. Trying to rethink the dichotomy “original” versus “translation”, Derrida (1985) for instance argues that the important point about the fact that a text is “an original” is that it is found to be worthy and valuable enough to be translated, that it is allowed to aqulre what Walter Benjamin has called “ein Uberleben” in its translation. It

9

is from this function of providing an “afterlife” that a translation gains its true value. In post-structural thinking we can thus discover an attempt at an integrative view: “The translation will truly be a moment in the growth of the orglnal, which will complete Itself in enlarging itself... And if the original calls for a complement, it is because at the origin it was not there without fault, full, complete, total, identical to Itself.” (Derrida, 1992: 188). Neither original nor translation form a coherent semantic unity, ;hey are made up of different, pluralistic meanings always going beyond the original author s intention. And even the notion “original author” is deconstructed, e.g., by Foucault (1977), who conceives of the author not as an actual individual, but as a series of subjective positions, determined not by a single harmony of effects, but by gaps and discontinuities, the authors creative role being reduced with new questions being raised as to where the discourse of any particular text comes from. This is reminiscent of Heidegger’s view (in Sein und Zeit) that language Itself, rather than one person, is speaking and man is listening. Venutl (1992, 1995) pleads for making translation visible by seeing it as a reconstitution of another text mediated by linguistic, dlscoursal and ideological differences of the target llnguaculture, and he claims that these differences - which are crucial for poststructural thinking about translation - can be made transparent by two kinds of close analysis: “comparisons of the source- and target-language texts which explore the ratio of loss and gain between them and reveal the translator’s discursive strategy as well as any unforeseen effects, and examinations of discontinuities in the translation itself, the heterogenous textual work of assimilating target-language cultural materials that are intended to reproduce the source-language text, but that inevitably supplement it. The analysis of translation can also include its ideological and institutional determinations, resulting in detailed studies that situate the translated text in its social and historical circumstances and consider its cultural political role”. (1992: 10-11). Similarly, Gentzler (1993) pleads for an explicit comparison of original and translation such that “shifts” from the original can be revealed in the analysis. Such an analysis should give access to unconscious manipulations resulting in mistranslation. The agenda suggested consists of an“elaboratlon of the theoretical, critical, and textual means by which translations can be studied and practiced as a locus of difference.” (1993: 93). Critical theorists of translation, who are mainly concerned with what I have called texts that call for an overt translation, examine the reasons for the elevated status of the original text, the “Invisibility” of translation and the fact that translation ranks lowest on the hierarchy of cultural practices: “The “original” is eternal, the translation dates. The “original” is an unchanging monument of the human imagination ... transcending the linguistic, cultural, and social changes of which the translation is a determinate effect.” (Venutl 1992: 3).

10

This is most clearly diagnosed by a practising translator: “the choices made in translation are never as secure as those made by the author because we are not writing our own material” (Rabassa 1989: 7). The originality of the translation rather lies in its self-effacement, and when a translation reads fluently, when it gives the appearance that it is not translated, it is rated best. This “fluent strategy” designed to efface the translator’s “intervention with the foreign text” has been described by myself as “covert translation strategy” where a translation is not recognized as one, a strategy singularly inappropriate for texts calling, in my terms, for an overt translation, i.e., one openly and unashamedly recognizable as a translation. In critical theory this very process is revealed as resulting in the translator’s self-annihilation and marginallty. As Venuti rightly points out “a fluent strategy effaces the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text: this gets rewritten in the transparent discourse dominating the target-language culture... In this rewriting, a fluent strategy performs a labor of acculturation, which domesticates the foreign text, making it intelligible and even familiar to the target-language reader.” (1992:5). Venuti juxtaposes a resistant translation strategy with a fluent one, by which he means an attempt to counteract the illusionistic effect of transparency in the translated text, which makes the translator’s work visible, “inviting a critical appreciation of its cultural political function and a re-examination of the inferior status it is currently assigned in the law, in publishing, in education” (1992:13). Such strategies also preserve the llnguacultural differences between both texts, i.e., the translation is deliberately “strange” and alienating, which prevents domination of cultural values. This is, in my terminology, an extolling of the virtues of overt translation - translation that is recognized as such, as a locus of living difference rather than as a discursively concealed process of covert assimilation. With respect to the three questions (relationship between original and translation, and between (features of) the texts and human agents, and delimitation of translation and other textual operations), the critical, post-modern approaches are most relevant in their attempts to find answers to the first question, and also to the second one. However, no answers are sought for the question of when a text is a translation, and when a text belongs to a different textual operation.

3.3 Functionalistic and Action and Reception-theory Related Approaches In their functionalistic or “Skopos-theory” of translation, Reifi and Vermeer (1984) claim that it is the “skopos”, i.e., the purpose of a translation, which is overrldlngly Important. Given the primacy of the purpose of a translation, it 11

is the way target culture norms are heeded that is the most important yardstick for assessing the quality of a translation. “Der Zweck (der Translationshandlung) heiligt die Mittel” (Reifi and Vermeer, 1984: 96, 101) is Reifi and Vermeer’s admitted credo, and a translation counts as a “felicitous interaction” whenever it is interpreted by a recipient to be sufficiently coherent (“koharent”) with his situation and no fault is found with transfer, language and Intended meaning” (p. 112). Translation is rather mysteriously seen as “gesamtmenschliches Handeln” which, as a special case of transfer, also provides for the possibility of converting linguistic action into “aktionales Handeln”, and vice versa (p. 91). Reifi and Vermeer (1984) distinguish between “equivalence” and “adequacy.” Equivalence refers to the relationship between an original and its translation, whenever both fulfil the same communicative function; adequacy is the relationship between source and translation where no functional match obtains and the “skopos” of the translation has been consistently attended to. Whether such a terminological distinction is necessary, enlightening and sound is open to debate. Of more relevance for my discussion here is the failure of the authors to spell out exactly how one is to determine whether a given translation is either adequate or equivalent let alone how to linguistically realize the global “skopos” of a translation text. Further, given the crucial role assigned to the purpose of a translation, the source text assumes a minor, secondary importance - it is reduced to a simple “Informationsangebot” i.e., an “offer of information”, with the word “offer” implying of course that it can be accepted or rejected, or changed and “improved upon” as the translator sees fit. However, by its very nature translation is characterized by a double binding relationship: it is simultaneously bound to the source text and to the presuppositions and conditions governing its reception in the target linguistic and cultural system. Operating in the same functionalist paradigm, Holz-Manttari (1984) entertains an equally cavalierly notion of a translation. She states, for Instance, that it is of secondary importance what exactly one means by a “translation” (p. 78). Similarly, Honlg and Kufimaul (1982) deny the original its important status speaking of those who do not share this opinion as having a misguided belief in the “holy original”. Kufimaul (1995) situates himself within “a functional approach” stating that it has a great affinity with the RelfiWermeer approach, and in particular with their insistence that the function of a translation depends on the target readers and their cultural environment. Kufimaul’s concept of “function” (p. 70ff) is, however, difficult to grasp, i.e., he seems to confuse the notions of lllocutlon, function of a passage and function of an entire text, and falls to distinguish between micro- and macro-textual analytical levels and to precisely

12

define what “function” is. In this muddled notion of “function” Kufimaul is not alone, other “functionalist” theorists (see below) also fail to define their concept of function unambiguously (see Kohlmayer 1988 for a similar criticism). In 1986 Kufimaul had already pronounced the following: “Wenn man, wie wlr es tun, von der vorranglgen Funktion des ZS-Textes ausgeht, kann man Im Grunde nicht mehr von textbound equivalence und funktionaler Aquivalenz reden. Denn funktlonale Aquivalenz ware ja elne Ubereinstlmmung der Funktion des ZS-Textes mit der Funktion des AS-Textes. Gerade die aber kann nicht grundsatzlich postullert werden. Der AS-Text als Funktlonsangebot hat vlelerlei potentielle Funktionen. Der ZS-Text aktuallsiert elne dieser Funktionen...” (1986: 225). From this I deduce that Kuftmaul, like Reifi (see my criticism 1977) confuses language functions (in the sense of Biihler and others) with textual functions. Why, however, the translation realizes only one function and the original offers many functions is not clear to me. Kufimaul s idea of “function” in the context of translation is shared by his colleague and collaborator Flonlg, who writes: “Zum andern aber muft sie (die iibersetzungsrelevante Textanalyse, J.H.) ihr Erkenntnisinteresse am ASText durch die Funktion der Ubersetzung, also durch die kommunlkatlven Voraussetzungen in der ZS-Sprache definleren” (1986: 233). To equate the function of the translation with the communicative conditions in the target language - whatever that means - reveals an idiosyncratic notion of function, to say the least. According to Relfi and Vermeer (1984), it is the translator who decides which function he selects for his translation and his route of translation, he is given an Important new role of “co-author” (Vermeer, 1994: 13). The notion of function, critical in their theory, is not clear to me at all. I can only hypothesize that they consider it to be the real-world effect of a text (cf. also Inhoffen 1991 who comes to a similar conclusion). In Reift/Vermeer s Skopos theory, then, the translator is elevated to a much more Important position than he is normally credited with - a fact that, as Wilss (1995) remarked - may Indeed be one of the motivations for setting up Skopos-theory. I would agree that one of the plausible reasons for legitimizing manipulations of the source text is an attempt to lift the translator up from his “invisibleness” (Venutl 1995), and that the sub-text in all the target text/target culture- and response-centered approaches to translation may well “up-grade the status of the translator”. The same concern with the status of the translator (and the concomitant upgrading of his product, the translation text, which must of course be “constructed” (never reconstructed) is evident in Honig’s recent book with the telling title “Konstruktives Ubersetzen” (1995). Flonig worries about the image of the translator “man konnte allerdings den Elndruck gewlnnen, daft der Markt lelchter elne schlechte Ubersetzung akzeptlert als selbstbewuftte

13

Ubersetzer” (p.77), and suggests a qualification profile for a translator that at once reveals the deep shift in values that has occurred through the influence of the functionalistic approach in Germany: “die entscheidende Qualifikatlon der Ubersetzerpersonen liegt demnach nicht auf dem Gebiet der Fremdsprachenkenntnisse und des fachllchen Expertenwissens, sondern darin, daft sle etwas dariiber wlssen, wofiir Texte benutzt werden und wle ihre Wlrkung zustande kommt” (1995: 76). One can imaging the relief translation students will feel at their new “translation” training. One is then no longer surprised to read a little later in the book the dogmatic verdict: “Es kann nur einen Mafistab fiir iibersetzerisches Handeln geben: einen Text abzuliefern, der fiir die (zuvor prazlse definierte) Gruppe von Adressaten funktionsfahlg ist.” (1995: 137). As for the task of translation quality assessment, Honig associates himself closely with the response-oriented approach to translation quality assessment: “Ubersetzungskrltlk, die diesen Namen auch verdlent, sollte immer klar dlagnostizieren, welche Wirkung der iibersetzte Text in seinem Umfeld und fiir seine Reziplenten hat” (1995: 123). As pointed out above (p. 4), it is an empirically open question whether it is in fact possible to “diagnose” precisely the effect a text has in any valid and reliable manner, given the fact that many texts are multiply, ambiguously, and Indeed vaguely addressed. Further, such a statement reminds one strongly of the activities of market research and advertising managers, a similarity that may flatter some translation theorists but depresses this author, as the focus of translation evaluation is shifted away from important Issues of translation Itself. (See here Newmark 1991, who also comments on the emphasis on marketing factors in functionalist theorists’ terminology and Interests.) Vermeer states apodlctlcally that “in translating, priority has to be given to one factor and the others have to be subjected to it - because one cannot serve two masters at the same time” (1994:13), and proceeds from this prescription (which is as such incompatible with the guidelines let alone ethics of any empirical-inductive field of Inquiry) to deny the existence of “the” source text, which he reduces to simple “source material” (Vermeer 1987: 541). Worse still: “Was es ... gewifi nicht glbt, ist “der” Ausgangstext. Es gibt nur einen je spezifisch interpretierten Ausgangstext, sozusagen den Ausgangstext-fiir-denRezlplenten-X Im Zeitpunkt-tx. “Der” Ausgangstext kann also auch nicht Grundlage und Ausgangspunkt fiir “die” Ubersetzung seln (die es ebenso wenlg glbt). Er 1st entthront, die Translation dleser Flktion enthoben” (1986: 42). First of all, surely nobody has ever claimed that there is something like “die Ubersetzung”, so why imply that there is? Further, with this “de-thronlng” of the original, all respect for an original text seems to have evaporated. Such a relativistic view as can be gleaned from the writings of the adherents of functionalistic translatologlsts is anathema to anybody - Including myself

14

- hypothesizing that a text embodies some autonomous meaning, and that this meaning cannot exclusively be seen as emanating from the mind of the individual reader. Also, many texts embody something we might call their “historical meaning”, and in the translation of certain texts it is essential to try to render meaning according to the actual words of the text. As Olson (1996) has pointed out, this type of Interpretation was both at the basis of “the Jewish Way” of reading the Old Testament and of the Reformation: it requires close analysis of the verbal form of the text and its context as well as an analysis of the author, his Intended audience and his choice of expression. It may be understandable that such a regard for the original text is alien to all those who seem to one-sidedly turn their attention to texts of quick consumption, e.g., instructions, advertisements, manuals, leaflets, market and sales reports, business correspondence, mail order catalogues, tourist brochures, sales slips and the like. Those ephemeral “one-off” texts may indeed have so little “core-value” that they can easily be completely re-cast for a new audience. In other words, the selection of texts for translation, and translation analysis and evaluation may well have twisted conceptualizations and the development of theories. Anyone who is Interested in a greater variety of texts, such as academic, literary, and other preservable texts, will not easily want to give up the hope that there is indeed what Popper (1976) has called “World Three”, the world of what he called “objective knowledge” that is embodied in theories, books, and texts - i.e., visible (and valuable) artifacts “with a degree of autonomy from their authors and with special properties for controlling how they will be interpreted” (Olson, 1996: 9) - and how they will be translated, we might pertinently add. It is these properties of non-ephemeral written texts (different from speech) that represent and preserve our intellectual world, which should not be degraded or “de-throned”. Further, what Walter Benjamin in his famous essay “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” (1972) has called “die relne Sprache” designating a language of pure meaning - unobscured and unobscurable by the mediation of any particular language - may be invoked here (as it has also been in post-structuralist thinking), a concept that also Implies a freedom from the fetters of arbitrary interpretation and random subjectivity. As Gentzler (1993:198) has remarked, Benjamin s belief that translation should neither be considered as source or target text-oriented, but as a mode of its own - subject to its own laws - is clearly alien to the functionalist trend in translation studies with its extreme target-orientedness. The functionalistic approach as proposed by ReiB and Vermeer and others cannot, in my estimation, be said to belong to linguistics (cf. Kelletat 1987, who holds the same view), which is regarded as an empirical science. Given the functionalists’ concern with the target culture, the theory might be clas-

15

sified as part of cultural studies. Since its propagators believe that the original is a quantite negligable and emphasize the translation s total dependency on its purpose and its recipients, it is in fact very similar to the response-oriented approaches to assessing translation quality discussed above, and the criticism made above of these approaches hold here too. Since Reift and Vermeer in particular stress that source and translation text act as two offers of information, the translator may legitimately make "ei^enverantwortllche schopferische Entscheidungen” (1984: 75), I can also detect a similarlity to the subjectivist, neo-hermeneutic approach characterized above. As concerns the relevance of the functionalistic approach for the evaluation of translations, Reifi and Vermeer themselves state that it is “auEerst zweifelhaft, ob eine Rechnung in Defiziten und Uberschiissen, die den Zleltextwert am Ausgangstextwert mifit, iiberhaupt sinnvoll 1st” (1984: 112). Since this is what I am trying to do, their approach is of limited use to myself as it would Indeed be to anyone Interested in some sort of yardstick, some norm of assessment provided by the original. With respect to the three questions, the functionalistic approach is not concerned about the relationship between original and translation, nor is it concerned with establishing criteria for delimiting a translation from other textual operations. As it stands, functionalistic approaches are solely concerned with the relationship between (features of) texts and the human agents concerned with them.

3.4 Linguistically-oriented Approaches In these approaches the source text, its linguistic and textual structure and its meaning potential at various levels (including the level of context of situation in a systemic framework), is seen as the most Important, Indeed constitutive factor in translation. To equate linguistic-textual approaches - as has been done (implicitly or explicitly) by Honig and Kufimaul (1982), Snell-Hornby (1986), Kupsch-Losereit (1988) and others - with a narrow concept of traditional or structural syntax and semantics, is Inappropriate. As Roller (1995) has explicated, one may, of course, find “narrow” linguistic approaches (Roller refers to Rlein 1992) that focus on only one aspect of translation, e.g., the semantic one, but there are many others that do not fit this description. Indeed, Catford s 1965 classic “linguistic theory of translation” has already gone beyond the narrow caricature that some members of the self-styled “new orientation in translation studies” have purposefully set up as an object of disdain. Linguistic-textual approaches cover many different schools, the most promising for the development of models of translation assessment being those that encompass pragmatic, socio-cultural and dlscoursal meanings. That it is possible to firmly base one’s approach to translation on a linguistic model

16

which includes textual, situational and cultural aspects of translation was demonstrated twenty years ago in the model the revision of which is the major content of this book. An early and highly influential linguistic-textual approach is Reifi (1971). Reifi suggested that the most Important invariant in translation is the text type to which the source text belongs, as it determines all subsequent choices a translator has to make.-She claims that different types of texts can be differentiated on the basis of Biihler s three functions of language: content-oriented texts, e.g., news, scientific-technical texts, form-oriented texts, such as poems and literary genres, and conative texts, e.g. advertisements and texts of a persuasive bent. To cover translations of texts involving other media than print, Relfi suggested a fourth additional type: subsidiary or audio-medial texts, e.g., operas, radio plays etc., for which different rules of translation apply, if translation adequacy is to be reached. According to Reifi, it is these textual types which have to be kept equivalent in an adequate translation: in the case of content-oriented texts, invariance on the content-plane is the primary consideration; in the case of form-oriented texts, invariance on the content-plane as well as on the expression-plane is to be established to the greatest possible extent; and in the case of conative texts, the “effect” of the source text is to be upheld in the translation text above all other features. An adequate translation of subsidiary texts must keep the adaptation of the “text” proper to such extralinguistlc components as musical rhythm etc. invariant. The determination of the textual types presupposes a careful analysis of the source text, but Relfi’ suggestions are not explicit enough: her pioneer work is programmatic only, she gives no clear Indication as to how one should go about establishing language functions and a source text types. Further, at what level of delicacy this can and should be done is left unexplained. Two other influential publications in the seventies also fall to indicate the exact procedure for source text analysis. Roller (1972) pointed to the necessity of developing a comprehensive linguistic model for translation quality assessment. Such a model should consist of three main stages: (1) source text criticism with a view to transferability into the target language, (2) translation comparison in which the particular methods used in the production of a given translation are described, (3) evaluation of the translation not according to vague, general criteria such as “faithful” or “highly intelligible” but according to “adequate” or “not adequate” in terms of the text-specific features established in (1) and measured by native speakers’ meta-linguistlc judgments. Although presenting insightful, original and stimulating ideas. Roller does not go beyond a very general outline with no suggestions for operationalization. Wilss (1974; 1977) also stresses the necessity of building a consistent model featuring criteria both for the detailed description and interpretation of the

17

source text and for the evaluation of the “dependent” translation text. He suggests that the area of the “norm of usage” in a given language community with reference to a given situational context should be taken as a yardstick. It is the norm of usage which, according to Wilss, as part of any native speaker s competence, accounts for a speaker s ability to make metalinguistic judgments. Therefore a translation may be judged according to whether or not it is adequate vls-a-vls the “normal” standard usage

native speakers in a given si-

tuation. However, there will always be several variants which are legitimately possible within the norm of usage and which depend on the individuals creative choice. Like any linguistic activity, translation is also (apart from being mainly recreative) a creative process which always leaves the translator a freedom of choice between several approximately equivalent possibilities of realizing situational meaning. Moreover, the given situation in which the source text was written is by definition unique, and therefore a notion of norm existing in the source culture is a somewhat optimistic one. Even more optimistic is the idea that there should exist a “norm” for this unique text in the target culture. Further, one should not underestimate the immense difficulties of empirically establishing what any “norm of usage” is. Another classic linguistic-textual contribution to translation evaluation is the work by the Leipzig school (Otto Kade, Gert Jager, Albrecht Neubert) who expressly considered their work on translation as part of linguistics. “Translatlonsllnguistik” investigated translational processes as essentially linguistic processes with analyses of translations focussing on linguistic mechanisms of transfer (cf. Jager, 1973). Especially relevant for translation quality assessment is Neubert s (see e.g., 1985) textual and pragmalingulstlc approach, and in particular his work on the “directedness” of source texts that determine potential equivalence frameworks and set up pragmatic translation types and translation procedures. Early on, Neubert stressed the textual and pragmatic nature of translation (see Neubert 1968) and the obvious relevance of text linguistics for translation. As a proponent of the textually and pragmatically oriented approach to translation evaluation, Neubert claims that “communicative values are the proper objects of translation.” (1994: 19), adding “the often-heard dictum that we translate meanings blurs the fact that it is only communicative values that can be equivalent. Meanings as well as language systems cannot be translated. Equivalence turns out to be a textual phenomenon. It is a relation between texts, source texts and target texts. Textual equivalence, again, is the basis of the equivalence at lower-level units such as partial texts, sentences, phrases, and words ...” (1994: 20). Neubert s approach to translation, however enlightened it is with regard to encompassing pragmatic, situational and pragmatic features of meaning, is not elaborated as a valid model of translation evaluation remaining at an equally programmatic level as Relfi, Roller and Wilss.

18

Trying to go beyond the programmatic nature of the approaches to translation quality assessment criticized in Reif^’, Roller s and Wilss’, and Neubert’s work in particular, the present author set up a linguistically oriented model (1977) that aimed at providing a detailed description and explanation of whether and how a translation is equivalent to its source. This model will be outlined in Chapter 2. Noteworthy in the context of a linguistic textual approach to translation is also Peter Newmark’s (e.g., 1981; 1988) applications of linguistic models (e.g., componential analysis, and case grammmar) to the analysis of translations. For translation evaluation, his distinction between semantic and communicative translation (made at the same time as my own distinction between overt and covert translation (see below), has also been important and fruitful. Newmark has always spoken against the conception of translation as solely a “science” maintaining that the translation process is also a “basic artistic process ... requiring the translator’s taste, wit and elegance” (1981: 137). Consequently he has refrained from setting up a consistent model of translation quality assessment. In his writings on “quality in translation” he strongly emphasizes the fact that “ultimately standards are relative, however much one tries to base them on criteria other than norms... the difficulty lies not so much in knowing or recognizing what a good translation is, as in generalising with trite definitions that are little short of truism, since there are as many types of translations as there are texts” (1988: 192). Although there is of course always a subjective factor in evaluating a translation, and intuition and practice do certainly play a role in translation evaluation, one must not overemphasize this “subjective factor” denying the value of scientific inquiry, which enables one to abstract from the mass of details in individual translations leading to generally valid procedures and evaluative norms. With respect to the three guiding questions for this Chapter, Newmark is thus close to the hermeneutic approach to translation evaluation in that he gives priority to the relationship between (features of) the texts and human beings. In the nineties, four linguistically-oriented books on translation appeared in Britain: Hatlm and Mason (1990), Bell (1991), Gutt (1991) and Baker (1992). Although none of these books treat the evaluation of translations explicitly, the attempt made by their authors to look at translation from the perspective of a broad conception of linguistics Integrating recent research on sociolinguistics, speech act theory, discourse analysis and pragmatics, makes them potentially valuable for translation quality assessment. While necessarily considering words, strings of words and structures, these broadly conceived approaches also consider language in use, linguistic actions as communicative events deeply embedded in situations and cultures. Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990) recognize that any theory of translation and translation assessment must concern itself with how meaning

19

is generated within and between different groups of people in different cultures. They emphasize the fact that translators whose raw material is language must not only have an expert knowledge of the two languages in which they are operating, but also about what these languages can do, how they do it and how they do it for their speakers. Hatim and Mason (1990) give a broad overview of the field of “translation and translating” describing the relevance of linguistics in general as well as sub-fields such as register and discourse analysis, text linguistics as well pragmatics and semiotics. Hatim and Mason (1990) go beyong register analysis on the grounds that the insights which register analysis affords into the communicative dimension of context are Insufficient. They distinguish an additional “pragmatic dimension” with which to take account of the textmakers’s ability to “do things with words”, capturing phenomena such as speech act sequences, inference, Impllcature, presupposition, the cooperative principle. Hatim and Mason also distinguish another dimension with which to supplement register analysis, which they refer to as “semiotic” - i.e., treating communicative items as signs inside a system of signs, including considerations of genre, discourse and textuallty. The separation of a communicative contextual dimension (”register“) from a pragmatic dimension seems to me to be unmotivated, (what is communicative if not pragmatic and vice versa?) considering that any register analysis i.e., correlating user and use dimensions with linguistic phenomena found in the text must needs touch upon pragmatic phenomena such as the ones listed by Hatim and Mason under their pragmatic dimension. Unlike Hatim and Masons (1990) top-down approach. Baker (1992) adopts a bottom-up one claiming that the former, while theoretically more valid, may be more difficult to follow, and an excessive emphasis on “text” and “context” may make one ignore the fact that although “a text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one ... meanings are realized through wordings; and without a theory of wordings ... there is no way of making explicit one’s interpretation of the meanings of a text” (Halllday, 1985: xvii, quoted in Baker, 1992:6). Both Baker’s and Hatim and Mason’s approaches to translation (and by extension to translation evaluation) have gone in a direction in translation studies that follows closely the path linguistics and applied linguistics have taken in widening its perspectives to embrace the levels of context and discourse. In developing an early Hallldayan, pragmatic and discourse analytic approach as the basis for translation quality assessment, I took a step in the same direction fifteen years earlier. Gutt (1991) presents a “relevance-theoretic approach” to translation. In line with this approach, he stresses the point that meaning is far from being determinable in advance of the actual performance of an utterance, but depends on the addressee’s interaction with various contextual factors by means of his

20

ability to make inferences. Context in this theory is bound to the addressee s assumptions about the world, which he uses to interpret the utterance. Interpretation is achieved on the basis of the relevance of a given assumption, which can be roughly described as the likelihood that adequate contextual effects are achieved with minimum processing efforts. Gutt s approach is rather one-sidedly audience related, and can thus also be placed alongside the response-based and functionalistic theories of translation. He also shares with representatives of these schools a tendency to make prescriptive statements, witness the following: “whatever decision the translator reaches is based on his intuitions or beliefs about what is relevant to his audience” (1991: 112). Closely following relevance theorists, Gutt distinguishes two uses of language: descriptive and interpretive, suggesting it is exclusively interpretative use that should be the basis for translation. Translation is thus an instance of “interlingual interpretive use“, with the principle of relevance “heavily constraining the translation with regard to both what it is intended to convey and how it is expressed. Thus if we ask in what respects the intended interpretation of the translation should resemble the original, the answer is: in respects that make it adequately relevant to the audience - that is, that offer adequate contextual effects.” (1991: 101-102). Such a view of translation, in which the principle of relevance is seen as the only guiding principle, is reductlonlstic and simplistic. The theory of translation evaluation offered here is an Imposition of a linguistic-pragmatic theory onto translation, which expressly denies the necessity of rules and principles of translation itself, because “the principles, rules, guidelines of translation are applications of the principle of relevance; thus the proposal is that all the aspects of translation surveyed. Including matters of evaluation, are explicable in terms of the interaction of context, stimulus and Interpretation through the principle of relevance” (1991: 188). Gutt claims that all we need in translation studies is to invoke a notion “believed to be part of general human psychology - the principle of relevance and the ability to engage in Interpretive use” (1991: 121). The logical consequence of such an attitude is also delineated by Gutt with a remarkable selfconfidence that is the outcome of his limited vision: “Since the phenomena of translation can be accounted for by this general theory of ostenslve-lnferentlal communication, there is no need to develop a separate theory of translation.” (1991: 189). In summary, Gutt’s approach is both too general and too narrow. His attempt to subsume translation theory under a cognitive communication theory, can usefully be compared with another recent attempt to reintegrate translation studies into a proper “mother discipline", in this case linguistics. I am referring to Klein s (1992) pronouncement: “am Prozefi des Ubersetzens glbt es nlchts, was iiber die Erforschung der Sprache und des Sprachgebrauchs

21

hlnausfiihren wiirde; ich sehe deshalb keinen inhaltlichen Grund fiir eine eigene Disziplin “Ubersetzungswissenschaft” (1992: 105). Both Klein s and Gutt’s approaches to translation must be seen for what they are: reducing the complex multi-dimensional phenomenon of translation to one dimension, cognitive-communicative and linguistic (semantic) respectively. In German translation studies, the dissertation by Schreiber (1993) marks an important stage in that it successfully tries to^ifferentiate a translation from an interlingual adaptation at a time when the lines beween translation and other text producing actltlvles have become blurred through assumptions about the non-relevance of the original, the overriding Importance of the translation s cultural environment and the upgraded role of the translator as a coauthor (Vermeer 1994: 13). Schreiber s criteria for distinguishing a translation from an adaptation in terms of their respective demands on invariance and variance, the difference between hierarchical demands in a translation and hierarchy-conditioned variance in an adaptation, as well as his distinction of an “Umfeldiibersetzung” (elnbiirgende Ubersetzung), i.e., translation in the wider sense and a “Textiibersetzung” (verfremdende Ubersetzung), i.e., translation proper, are plausibly argued (see here my own covert and overt translation types and the distinctions between a translation and a version). In his discussion of the so-called Umfeldiibersetzung, Schreiber claims that there is a primacy of intention versus a primacy of effect - a laudable and theoretically plausible distinction, especially in the face of much muddled thinking about “intended equivalence” vs “equivalence of effect” and the simplistic equation of “functional equivalence” with “equivalence of effect.” Two recent linguistically oriented approaches which constitute serious attempts to objectify translation quality assessment are Gerzymlsch-Arbogast (1994) and Steiner (1995). Steiner s (1995) approach to translation quality assessment is to my knowledge the only one in Germany - apart from my own - that operates within a systemic approach to language and linguistics. Steiner applies register analysis to the evaluation of translations, and considers the register of a text as the functional variety the text represents, linking up its main variables of field, tenor, and mode with the context of situation, and beyond this the context of culture. Steiner assumes that, in as much as translation is considered to be a phenomenon different from other forms of multilingual text production, the register will remain relatively constant across original and translation, and that, the more certain register values have changed in a translated text, the more the translation wilbno longer be a translation in the narrower sense. Steiner presents a methodologically transparent and highly detailed analysis of an English and a German version of an advertisement which provides a number of interesting Insights thus demonstrating that this type of approach is an extremely valuable one for both translation research and teaching.

22

Gerzymisch-Arbogast (1994) presents what she calls an “iibersetzungswissenschaftliches Propadeutikum” as a basis for a more intersubjectlvely verifiable method for translation evaluation. In describing the translational process, Gerzymisch-Arbogast considers the tension in any translation between micro-structural decisions (such as e.g., theme-rheme sequences, reference relations) and macro-structural ones (e.g., textual type). Basing her work on Mudersbach s (e.g., 1992)-theoretical and methodological studies and especially his attempt to specify invariance aspects, she develops a methodology in which she tries to unite both the holistic textual perspective and the detailed micro perspective. A list of different “aspects” is used according to which both original and translation are analysed and evaluated. As opposed to the present author’s model the direction is reversed: i.e., the evaluator proceeds from the translation recording her impression of the translation with regard to certain “aspects” that have crystallized out of a list of phenomena that commanded her attention, i.e., were deemed remarkable or odd. The result is a tentative matrix of aspects, in which each aspect on a horizontal line is correlated with a certain part of the text (vertical line). It is only on the basis of this matrix then that the original is consulted, in order to check whether the “salient points” discovered in the translation are to be found in the original as well, or whether they originate from the translation. Following this “spot checking”, a more holistic analysis is carried out investigating the text’s entire linguistic and artistic make-up. The end result is then a list of aspects Indicating their specific realizations or values in the original and the translation. While Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s approach is certainly a rare and valuable attempt at making translation evaluation more objective and differentiated, the approach seems too strongly “bottom-up”, with too little “top down” provided for systematization and generalization. Further, the assumption that there can be equivalence on the level of culture, while widely accepted in translation studies, is highly dubious, and notions like “Kulturem” developed in a different framework cannot simply be transferred to translation and its concern for equivalence relations. The theoretically crucial distinction between overt and covert translation and their relevance for the possibility of using a “cultural filter” might profitably have been taken into account. In her attempt to demonstrate the operation of her method, GerzymischArbogast refers to Haefs’ controversial translation of Lawrence Norfolk’s Lempriere’s Dictionary trying to present a more objective view of this translation than had been done in the polemical and polarized discussions in the press and the profession. The fact that Gerzymisch-Arbogast has refrained from giving a global judgment of the translation in terms of good or bad stating, in all modesty, that a “sachliche, wissenschaftllch fundlerte Kritlk noch aussteht” (1994: 152) should not be criticized in such an unfair way as was done by Honlg (1995:124). This unfairness is also evident in his recent review (1996:

23

188-193) of Gerzymisch-Arbogast s book, where he misrepresents the goals the author had set herself for this book, claiming it is an “introduction to the science of translation” and blaming the author accordingly to not have provided her readers with a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Gerzymisch-Arbogast states unmistakably that she had meant her book as an introduction to the methodological problems of translating for translation and philology students, and that the book “will ab^r keinen Uberblick iiber herrschende Lehrmeinungen geben. ”(1994:9). How such an unambiguos (and modest) statement of Intention can be misread is beyond my comprehension. Most of the representatives of linguistic-textual approaches aim at going beyond explicating the niceties of individual translation cases and try to establish regularities in the relationship between pairs of source and target texts at various linguistic levels. With regard to the three questions asked at the beginning of this Chapter, linguistic-textual approaches take the relationship between original and translation seriously, but differ in their capacity to provide detailed techniques and procedures of analysis and evaluation (Gerzymisch-Arbogast (1994) and Steiner (1995) are exemplary in this respect). The relationship between (features of) the texts and how they are perceived by human agents has become a concern of all those approaches that consider language in use. Few of the linguistic-textual approaches, however, have examined the question of the consequences of these relationships for determining the differences between translation and other textual operations, a notable exception being Schreiber (1993).

4

Translation Quality Assessment and Translation Equivalence

The fundamental characteristic of a translation is that it is a text that is doubly bound: on the one hand to its source text and on the other hand to the recipient’s communicative conditions. This double-binding nature is the basis of what has been called in many linguistic-textual approaches the equivalence relation. In other words, the equivalence relation equals the relation between a source text and its translation text. It is an Important aim of linguistic-textual approaches to specify, refine, modify and thus to try to operationalize the equivalence relation by differentiating between a number of frameworks of equivalence, e.g., extra-linguistic circumstances, connotatlve and aesthetic values, audience design and last but not least textual and language norms of usage that have emerged from empirical investigations of parallel texts, contrastive rhetoric and contrastive pragmatic and dlcourse analyses. In a recent attempt to make “a case for linguistics in translation theory”, Ivir (1996) expresses the Inherent relativity of the equivalence relation very

24

well:“equivalence is ...relative and not absolute,... it emerges from the context of situation as defined by the interplay of (many different) factors and has no existence outside that context, and in particular... it is not stipulated in advance by an algorithm for the conversion of linguistic units of LI into linguistic units of L2” (1996:155). The notion of equivalence is the conceptual basis of translation and, to quote Catford, “the central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence” (1965:21). The concept of equivalence is essential for translation criticism, and it will therefore be examined and sub-differentiated in what follows. I want to first clarify the relationship between “equivalence” and “invariance”. I here follow Albrecht (1987; 1990): Invariance in translation captures that which is the tertium comparationis in translation. The concept of invariance is not an absolute one, but must be decided in each and every individual case by the goal, the purpose of the translation. Certain demands of invariance are (externally) set up for a translation, and when these demands are fulfilled, the translation is “equivalent”. Equivalence is therefore always and necessarily relative, and has nothing to do with Identity. “Absolute equivalence” would be a contradiction in adiecto. Koller (1992) attempts to describe the equivalence relation in greater detail and to classify equivalence types according to different “Bezugsrahmen” (p. 216), which play a role in determining the type of equivalence. He comes up with the following five “frames of reference”: (1) the extralinguistic referents to which the text relates. The concept of equivalence, which orients itself to the extralinguistic referents is called “denotative equivalence”. (2) the connotations conveyed through the specific means of the verbalisations present in the text. The equivalence relation constituted here is called “connotatlve equivalence”. (3) the linguistic and textual norms of usage (“Gebrauchsnormen”) that characterize a particular text. Koller calls this type of equivalence that relates to certain text types “text normative equivalence”. (4) the recipient (the reader) of the translation, for whom the translation is “specially designed”, such that it can fulfill its communicative function. This type of equivalence that relates to the addressee is called “pragmatic equivalence”. (5) certain aesthetic, formal and idiosyncratic characteristics of the source text. The concept of equivalence that relates to these characteristics of the source text is called “formal-aesthetic equivalence”.

25

Given these different types of equivalence in translation, it becomes immediately clear that not all five types of equivalence can be aimed at in translation, but that - true to the nature of translation as a decision process (Levy 1967) is is necessary for the translator to make a choice, i.e., the translator has to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence that the wants to follow. Given the relative nature of “equivalence” and the fact that it has clearly nothing to do with “identity” it is more than Hirprising that a polemic attack should have been directed against the concept of equivalence, in the course of which an analysis of the English and German dictionary meaning of the term “equivalence” was presented (seeSnell-Hornby 1986:12ff). Snell-Hornby singles out one particular dictionary entry, which supports her claim that equivalence basically equals identity and promptly proceeds to dismiss equivalence as “an illusion” in translation studies. She writes that equivalent means “virtually the same thing”. By contrast, I found the following dictionary entries for “equivalent” and “equivalence” in my own dictionary searches: “having the same value, purpose... etc. as a person or thing of a different kind (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 1995), and having the same relative position or function; corresponding...” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1993), as well as “equivalence is something that has the same use or function as something else” (Collins Cobulld 1987). And in German, too, “Aquivalenz” is not only a term in the “exakte Wissenschaften” as Snell-Hornby claims: in my Brockhaus I read: “das was in gewlssen Fallen gleiche Wirkung hervorzubringen vermag”. Such entries were not mentioned by Snell-Hornby as they would clearly not serve her purpose of discrediting the concept of equivalence in translation studies. The attack against the concept of “equivalence” in the field of translation studies has a slightly dated touch: definitions of equivalence based on formal, syntactic and lexical similarities alone have actually been criticized for a long time, and it has long been recognized that such narrow views of equivalence fall to recognize that two linguistic units in two different languages may be ambiguous in multiple ways. Formal definitions of equivalence have further been revealed as deficient in that they cannot explain appropriate use in communication. This is why functional, communicative or pragmatic equivalence have been accredited concepts in contrastive linguistics for a very long time, focussing as they do on language use rather than structure. It is these types of equivalence which have become particularly relevant for translation, and this is nothing new (cf. Catford 1965). In this Chapter I have discussed different approaches to translation quality assessment and their relative stance vls-a-vls three questions concerning the relationship between original and translation, between (features of) the text(s) and how they are perceived by human agents, and the consequences views of these relationships have for determining the borders between a translation and

26

other textual operations. All three questions implicitly touch upon the crucial concept of equivalence in translation, which was therefore briefly discussed in this Chapter as well. This discussion will be resumed in the next Chapter, in which my original model for translation quality assessment will be presented.

27

f

•

\

*.fr-^.‘

('■'' A' .f-^'

i-J. :

♦« ’

i

■ ’ ♦?»»'. ■-'

I

3>

Kl

'V',

’

,

<

•‘■‘Jd'JW’fti’ - •■ ’•

(• A-

».,!!»/,; . ' * 1 •

I


' ■ -

^“

# v^:

.-j>-'

■ m - ■ $^ .|.w

«r-r# ia

:'ir ‘J -t# iji

•' ■>j ij® Smhi^t'-,

>• • ' ,♦

.

. • •

■

!*?«’ 1

'

rv. 4ia'

•

^ f1

••.‘i

'

tc^c

r . •'

tf f ,

^

. lij.V » k»i»^ *“ir ■ • J—

-.». ' ♦ J‘

r-. .

*•>4 »46 •

'

. •*

>

.. *' ■

■

■' j
•■ jpct c-

“

- ".W ♦ife^

>f

1 t

I

'

4

11 X

CHAPTER 2

The Original Model for Evaluating Translations

1

Fundamental Concepts

1.1 Equivalence and Meaning in Translation The model (House 1977, 2nd ed. 1981) is based on pragmatic theories of language use, and it provides for the analysis of the linguistic-discoursal as well as the situational-cultural particularities of the source and target texts, a comparison of the two texts and the resultant assessment of their relative match. The model draws on pragmatic theory, on Hallidays functional and systemic theory, on notions developed inside the Prague school of language and linguistics, on register theory and stylistics as well as discourse analysis. The model is also based on the notion of "equivalence”: translation is constituted by a “double-binding” relationship both to its source and to the communicative conditions of the receiving llnguaculture, and it is the concept of equivalence which captures this relationship. The concept of equivalence as presented above in Chapter 1 is differentiated in my model according to a empirically derived distinction into overt and covert translation, concepts which will be discussed in greater detail later in this Chapter, but which may be defined for an Intitial purpose as follows: in overt translation, the function of the translation is to enable its readers access to the function of the original in its original linguacultural setting through another language. This means, that there can be no simple functional equivalence, rather a type of “second level” function must be posited, which allows the translation receptor a view of the original through a foreign language while clearly operating in a different discourse world. By contrast, the function of a covert translation is to imitate the original’s function in a different discourse frame, a different discourse world (Edmondson 1981). In this case, an equivalence is sought in and via the vessel of the new language for the function that the original has in its linguacultural setting. One of the means of achieving this functional equivalence is through the employment of a cultural filter, with which shifts and changes along various pragmatic parameters (e.g. the marking of the social role relatl-

onship between author and reader) are conducted. Note that this crucial distinction into overt and covert translation is a dine, not an “either-or” dichotomy, and that it goes some way towards getting out of the double-bind in that a relative leaning towards original or translation is implicit in the distinction. The notion of equivalence, on which the model is based, is related to the preservation of “meaning” across two different languages. There are three aspects of that “meaning” that are particularly Important for translation: a semantic aspect, a pragmatic aspect, and a textual aspect of meaning. I will deal with them in turn. 1) The semantic aspect of meaning consists of the relationship of reference or denotation, l.e., the relationship of linguistic units or symbols to their referents in some possible world, where possible world means any world that the human mind is capable of constructing. This definition takes account of the fact that semantically meaningful utterances occur even though the terms of that utterance have no referent in the real world as is for Instance the case in science fiction. To a large extent, the nature of the universe (l.e., the subjective interpretation of possible worlds) is common to most llnguacultures; the referential aspect of meaning is the one which is most readily accessible, and for which equivalence in translation can most easily be seen to be present or absent. This relative ease of access is one of the reasons why it has been given preference in many earlier linguistic treatments of translation. 2) While semantics studies the relationships between signs and deslgnata, between “words” and “things”, with the elements of sentences which are theoretical constructs being construed into propositions, pragmatics “is 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 1973: 380). Pragmatics thus relates to the correlation between linguistic units and the user(s) of these units in a given communicative situation. Pragmatics is about meaning in speech situations (Leech 1983: 34), as it is manifest in social acts “outside” sentences, and about the “making of meaning as a dynamic process. Involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social, linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance” (Thomas 1995:22). Pragmatic meaning can also be said to belong to what Widdowson (1973 etc.) and Edmondson (1981) have referred to as discourse, l.e., “the communicative use of sentences in the performing of social actions” (Widdowson 19‘73: 69), It is also possible to view so-called “connotatlve meaning”, l.e. the “communicative value an expression has...over and above its purely conceptual content” (Leech 1974: 14) as part of pragmatic meaning.

30

The distinction between semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning underlies the theory of speech acts developed initially by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). Pragmatic meaning is here referred to as the Illocutionary force that an utterance is said to have, i.e. the particular use of an expression on a specific occasion. The Illocutionary force of an utterance is to be differentiated from its propositional content, i.e. the semantic information that an utterance contains. The illocutionary force of an utterance may often be predicted from grammatical features, e.g. word order, mood of the verb, stress, intonation or the presence of performative verbs. In actual speech situations, it is, however, the context which clarifies the illocutionary force of an utterance. Since translation, which handles language in use, i.e. parole, is clearly concerned with instances of acts of speech, considerations of illocutionary force or pragmatic meaning are of great Importance for translation. In effect, in translation we do not operate with sentences at all but with utterances, i.e., units of discourse characterized by their use-value in communication. In certain types of translation then, it is both possible and necessary to aim at equivalence of pragmatic meaning at the expense of semantic meaning. Pragmatic meaning overrides semantic meaning in these cases. And we can then consider a translation a primarily pragmatic reconstruction of its original. 3) The textual aspect of meaning which is to be kept equivalent in translation has been stressed already by Catford (1965) and also by Gleason (1968). They had recognized that translation is also a textual phenomenon. In order to explain this statement, we have to define what is meant by “text”. A text is any stretch of language in which the individual components relate to one another and form a cohesive whole. A text is thus a linkage of sentences into a larger unit. Various relations of co-textual reference take place in the process of text constitution, e.g., theme-rheme sequences, occurrences of pro-forms, substitutions, co-references, ellipses, anaphora. It is these different ways of text constitution which account for the textual meaning that should be kept equivalent in translation. The importance of the textual aspect of meaning has often been neglected in evaluations of translations, although the necessity of achieving connectivity between successive sentences in another language while at the same time retaining the semantic meaning conveyed in the original is Important especially in overt translation. Given these three aspects of meaning which are considered relevant for translation, I can now proceed to give a (tentative) definition of translation: translation is the replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language. Equivalence I take to be the fundamental criterion of translation quality. Thus, an adequate trans-

31

lation text is a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text has a function equivalent to that of its source text. However, as we shall see below (p. 65ff) this requirement needs to be further differentiated given the dine between overt and covert translation. Such a use of the concept of function presupposes that there are elements in any text which - given appropriate analytlq^l tools - can reveal that text s function. The use of the term “function” in this context is open to misinterpretation, mainly because different language functions can co-exist inside what will here be described as an Individual text’s function and because language functions have often been directly, and in my opinion Incorrectly, correlated with textual types. In the following various investigations of language functions and their applications will be briefly discussed in order to sharpen the crucial notion of text function used in the model presented here.

1.2 Functions of Language versus Functions of Texts “Function” can be seen as a fundamental principle of language, in other words, it can be Interpreted as something going beyond the notion of mere “use of language”. It is something that is basic to the evolution of human language, and the organisation of any natural language can be explained in terms of the functions human language has (Halliday and Hasan 1989: 17). Many different classification schemes for the “functions of language” have been proposed. Only some of the most Influential ones will be reviewed to provide some clarity about the way the concept of “function of language” has been used in the literature: 1) Based on his work on meaning and the context of situation and culture, Malinowski (1923) classified the functions of language into two basic ones: the pragmatic and the magical or ritual function, the latter being associated with religious and ceremonial activities in the culture. The pragmatic or practical function was further subclassified as active and narrratlve. It is broad enough to cover what is called the symbolic or representational function in other classlficatory systems. 2) Ogden and Richards (1946), in their classic work The Meaning of Meanings differentiate five functions of language: (1) symbolization of reference (2) expression of attitude to listener (3) expression of attitude to referent (4) promotion of effects Intended

32

(5) support of reference (1946: 227). Having grouped together functions (2), (3), (4) and (5) which form a complex of “emotive functions”, Ogden and Richards (1946: 229) go on to differentiate two basic uses: the symbolic use of language and the emotive or evocative use of language. In the symbolic use of language, the essential considerations are the correctness of the symbolization and the truth of the reference; In the emotive-evocative use of language, the character of the attitude aroused In the addressees Is of prime Importance. 3) Karl Biihler (1965:28ff) made use of a conceptual framework inherited from Plato’s distinction of first person, second person and third person derived from his rhetorical grammar (l.e., the organization of the verbal system of many languages around a category of person, speaker, addressee and everything else). Biihler distinguished three basic functions in his “organon model of language”, each linked to one of the three variables of his model: (1) the “Darstellungsfunktlon” (representational or representative function) is linked to objects and relations in the real world; this function serves to describe extralinguistic reality; (2) the “ Ausdrucksfunktlon” (emotive-expressive function) linked to the speaker/writer of the message and (3) the “Appellfunktion” (conative function) which is centered on the receiver of the message. According to Biihler, the representational function is the central or unmarked function which is present in any message (except in a few interjections); the other two functions are marked functions. As with Ogden and Richard’s model, we can thus again recognize a fundamental division into the absolutely necessary symbolic function and additional functions. 4) One of the most intuitively plausible as well as best argued models of the functions of language is the one developed by Roman Jakobson (1960: 353ff). Jakobson starts out from Biihler’s model taking over Biihler’s three basic functions, but he adds three more functions and fits all of the resulting six functions into the following schema of verbal communication: The addresser sends a message to the addressee; the message requires a context (extralinguistic world) referred to by the addresser, a code at least partially in common to addresser and addressee, and a contact, a physical channel or psychological connection between addresser and addressee. From orientations towards addresser, addressee, or context, Jakobson derives the three Biihlerian functions. From an orientation towards contact, Jakobson derives a phatic function - this function is predominant if a message has the predominant purpose of establishing, prolonging or discontinuing communication. When speech is focussed on the code, it has a metalingual function. The poetic function in Jakobson’s model consists of a focussing on the message for its own sake.

33

However, even in this elaborate six-function model, the basic dichotomy between the primary referential function and all the other “non-referential” secondary functions still holds. Jakobson states that each of the six factors that he has Isolated “determines a different function of language. Although we distinguish six basic aspects of language, we could, however, hardly find verbal messages that would fulfill only one function. The diversity lies not in the monopoly of some one of these several functions. The verbal structure of a message depends primarily on the predominant function” Qakobson 1960: 353). 5) Dell Hymes (1968: 115 ff.) sets up a typology of language functions which is very similar to Jakobson’s, he adds however a new seventh function, the contextual (situational) one. As opposed to Jakobson, he does not subscribe to the view that any given message can be analysed in terms of a hierarchy of functions such that one function is dominant: “The defining characteristic of some speech events may be a balance, harmonious or conflicting, between more than one function. If so, the interpretation of a speech event is far from a matter of assigning it to one of the seven types of function” (1968: 120). 6) Karl Popper (1972), in an attempt to justify the existence of his three worlds and especially “World Three” as the world of “objective contents of thought”, of “knowledge without a knowing subject”, postulates a progression from lower to higher functions in the evolution of human language. He distinguishes four functions of language: an expressive function (using language to express internal states of the individual), a signalling function (using language to communicate information about internal states to other individuals), a descriptive function (using language to describe things in the external world) and an argumentative function (using language to present and evaluate arguments and explanations). The expressive and signalling functions of language corresponding to what Halllday refers to as the “Interpersonal function”, are uppermost in more primitive communicative systems, the descriptive and argumentative functions are those that were responsible for accelerating the evolution of human knowledge. 7) Halllday (1973; Halliday and Hasan 1989) distinguishes three language functions - he calls them metafunctions of systemic theory - that are very similar to the ones distinguished by Popper: the Ideational, the Interpersonal, into two subfunctions, the experiential function, to be thought of as the real world as it is apprehended in our experience, and the logical function, through which language expresses the fundamental logical relations of the semantic system) language functions as a means of conveying and interpreting experience of the world, l.e., it expresses content.

34

Halllday’s ideational function (with its experiential and logical functional components) thus corresponds to Popper’s descriptive and argumentative functions. In its interpersonal function, language acts as an expression of a speaker’s attitudes and his influence on the attitudes and behaviour of the hearer. Through the interpersonal function, language also serves as a means for conveying the speaker’s relationship with his Interlocutor(s), and for expressing social roles including communication roles such as questioner and respondent. Halliday thus seems to merge Popper’s signalling and expressive function in his Interpersonal function, and also Biihler’s “ Ausdruck” and “ Appell” functions, collapsing the speaker and hearer ends of the communication cycle. Through the textual function, language makes links with Itself and with the situation: the construction of texts becomes possible because of this linkage. It Is a kind of “enabling function”, a “resource for ensuring that what Is said Is relevant and relates to Its context ’’(Halliday 1989: 45). The textual function is of a different status from the two other functions in that there Is no corresponding function in the sense of “use”, and because of this one might argue, as did Leech (1983: 57ff), that It should not really be called a function at all. Halliday’s functional theory thus differs from the other approaches mentioned above, in that only the ideational and the Interpersonal functions are comparable to the notion of function used in the other approaches as a basic mode of language in use. Halliday’s textual function - and here I agree with Leech (1983) - really relates to a different intra-language level, to a level of internal organization of linguistic items. Viewed in this way, Halliday’s model also seems to confirm the basic split of language use Into a referential or content-oriented function and a non-referentlal, interpersonal function. This basic division into a cognitive function and an expressive/emotlveconnatlve function is, of course, paralleled by the customary division of meaning Into cognitive (or denotative) meaning Including concepts which people have with regard to the content of verbal communication, and emotive, connotative meaning covering the emotional reactions which people have with regard to various linguistic forms. Having reviewed some ways of characterizing language functions, we are now ready to examine how language functions have been related to textual functions. On the assumption that a text is a stretch of language, the simple equation of textual function with one of the above-mentioned language functions (the “dominant” one) has frequently been undertaken and, as a further step, textual function has been taken to be the basis for textual type. In the context of translation studies, a pioneer work and an influential approach In Germany is Reift (1971) and more recently Rei£ and Vermeer (1984) and Relb (1989), who took Biihler’s three language functions as determining three different textual types: the referential, the emotive-expressive and the conatlve-

35

persuasive textual types. Such an equation of language function and textual function/type is overly simplistic: given that language has functions a to n, and that any text is a self-contained instance of language, it should follow that a text will also exhibit functions a to n, and not - as is presupposed by those who set up functional text typologies - that any text will exhibit one of the functions a to n (e.g “der Informative Texttyp”). I believe that if the notion of a functionally based text typology can have an^ empirical validity, it can only be a probabilistic one as the ground for placing any text Inside text type A can only be that this particular text exhibits language function A to a greater extent than it exhibits other language functions. In other words, while some extremes may be readily characterized, there is a dine between such extremes. This simplistic probabilistic text typology based on a predominant language function exhibited in the text is of no use in terms of determining an individual text s function, let alone of establishing functional equivalence. However, such a typology may be a useful basis for selecting and classifying texts for analysis as well as for providing convenient pre-sclentific labels for the two co-present components of any text’s function which must, of course, be specified more precisely for each individual text as will be shown in the model to be characterized below. I therefore use the traditional dichotomy of the two broad (pre-analytical) functions, which were established to be prevalent in all the theories of functions of language reviewed above, for choosing and grouping a sample of texts and for labelling the two components of the textual function discovered in the individual texts. I adopt Halliday’s terms “ideational” and “interpersonal” as labels for the referential and the non-referentlal functional components (see here Lux 1981, who used Hallldayan functions as an ordering frame for “Textsorten” in a way similar to the one I had suggested).

2

Towards a Model of Translation Quality Assessment

In order to characterize the function of an individual text, “function” must, as we have seen, be defined differently from “functions of language”. I define the function of a text very simply as the application or use which the text has in the particular context of a situation. (Lyons, 1969: 434). Establishing such a function of an individual text Involves the characterization of its “textual profile”, which results from a systematic linguistic-pragmatic analysis of the text in Its context of situation. The phrase “context of situation” is critical here and needs further elaboration. Context originally means literally “con-text”, l.e., that which is with the text, and what is “with the text” goes beyond what is said and written. It includes the situation in which a text unfolds and which must be taken into account for the text’s interpretation.

36

The notion of “context of situation” goes back to the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1923), who in trying to solve the difficulty of translating texts from a culture (the Trobriand Islands) very different from Western culture, operated with the notion of a text “in its living environment”, l.e., the environment enveloping the text, necessary for understanding and interpreting it. While “context of situation” refers to the immediate environment of a text, the notion of “context of culture” refers to the larger cultural background to be taken into account in the interpretation of meaning. These ideas were taken up by Firth (1959), who Integrated them into his own linguistic theory, in particular into his view of meaning as a function of context. Firth (1959) set up a framework for describing the context of situation that contained the participants in the situation, the action of the participants, the effects of the action and other relevant features of the situation. This seminal work Inspired different concepts for describing the context of situation. One of the most well-known and influential ones that is at the same time very similar to Firth’s concepts is Hymes’ (1968) conception of the “ethnography of communlcaton”, in which he considers the following factors for describing a text’s embeddedness in the context of situation: the form and content of the message, the setting, the participants, the intent and effect of the communication, the key, the medium, the genre and the norms of interaction. The basic idea here is that “context of situation” and text should not be viewed as separate entities, rather the context of situation, the context in which the text unfolds, “is encapsulated in the text, not in a kind of piecemeal fashion, nor at the other extreme in any mechanical way, but through a systematic relationship between the social environment on the one hand, and the functional organisation of language on the other.” (Halliday 1989: 11). But how do we get from the context of situation to the text, and vice versa? How is a text to be characterized in terms of its context of situation? Or, coming back to our definition of a textual function as being the use a particular text has in its context of situation, precisely how should we go about determining this function? If we stress the fact that any text is embedded in a unique situation, it follows from this that in order to characterize its textual function, a text must be analysed at the appropriate level of delicacy. For the particular purpose of establishing functional equivalence between a source text and a translation text, the source text has to be analysed first such that the equivalence which may be sought for the translation text can be stated precisely. Since textual function was defined as the use of a text in a particular situation, each individual text must be referred to the particular situation enveloping it and for this a way must then be found for breaking down the broad notion of “situation” into manageable parts, i.e., features of the context of situation or “situational dimensions”.

37

A large number of models (often similar or overlapping) have been suggested featuring such dimensions as abstract components of the context of situation, e.g., in the British Firthian tradition, Halliday et al (1964), Catford (1965), Gregory (1967), Crystal and Davy (1969), and Gregory and Carroll (1978). When I reviewed these models at the time of designing the original model of translation evaluation. Crystal and Davy’s system of situational dimensions seemed the most differentiated and ^aborate one, and I took it as a starting point for the purposes of correlating situations and texts. Crystal and Davy’s system of “situational constraints”, in which the notion of situation is broken down into manageable, l.e. analysable parts, thus served as the basis for my eclectic model of analysis of the two texts Involved in translation. Crystal and Davy’s scheme is as follows: A

Individuality Dialect Time

B

Discourse a. (Simple/Complex) Medium (Speech, Writing) b. (Simple/Complex) Participation (Monologue, Dialogue)

C

Province Status Modality Singularity (Crystal and Davy 1969: 66)

Under A, Individuality refers to the idiosyncratic features of language as used by an individual in unselfconsclous utterance, i.e., features which Identify someone as a specific person, e.g. a person’s handwriting, voice quality or certain pet words or phrases which are over-represented in his speech. Dialect refers to features which mark an author’s geographical origin (regional dialect), where the unmarked case is the national standard language, or his position on a social scale (social dialect), where the unmarked case is the construct of the educated middle class speaker of the standard language. Time refers to those features which provide clues to a text’s temporal provenance. The three dimensions listed under A constitute relatively permanent and stable features pertaining to the language user. The features under B are self-explanatory. It is only the simple/complex option that needs explanation: the category Medium may function in a “removed” or “explanatory”.way whenever Medium is being used as a means to an end rather than as an end in Itself, l.e., the category is conceived as a temporary device meant to facilitate a later switch to the alternative category. This phenomenon is called Complex Medium (e.g. language which is “written to be spoken”, with possible further subclassification) as opposed to the Simple

38

Medium where language stays within one category, i.e., “spoken to be heard” or “written to be read” (in the sense of “not read aloud”). The category Participation may also be complex, i.e., when a text produced, by only one person (a “monologue”) nonetheless contains features which would normally be assumed to characterize a dialogue e.g., imperative forms or question tags. Under C, Province reflects occupational or professional activity. Examples of Province would be “the language of advertising”, “the language of science”, etc. Crystal and Davy point out that “province features should not be identified with the subject matter of an utterance, as has sometimes been suggested in connection with the notion of ”register“. Subject matter insofar as this is a question of the use of distinctive vocabulary, is but one factor among many which contribute to a province s definition” (1969: 73). Status is the term used for the relative social standing of the speaker/writer and listener/reader in terms of formality, respect, politeness, intimacy, etc. Modality refers to differences in the form and medium of communication such as the differences between a report, an essay, or a letter. Modality thus corresponds roughly to the traditional term “Genre”. Singularity is a term for occasional personal Idiosyncrasies which are said to differ from features of Individuality in that they are usually deliberately introduced into a person s speech in order to achieve a specific linguistic effect. For my purpose of constructing a model for situational-functional text analysis and assessment of translation, I eclectically adapted Crystal and Davy’s model in the following manner: I collapsed the three sections A, B, and C into two sections: “Dimensions of Language User” and “Dimensions of language use”, featuring the following subcategories: A.

Dimensions of Language User 1. Geographical Origin 2. Social Class 3. Time

B.

Dimensions of Language Use 1. Medium: simple/ complex 2. Participation: simple/ complex 3. Social Role Relationship 4. Social Attitude 5. Province

In the section “Dimensions of Language User” (A), I considered Crystal and Davy’s two factors under Dialect separately as Geographical Origin and Social Class respectively. These two dimensions as well as the dimension Time are defined in the sense of Crystal and Davy. I omitted the dimension of Indivi-

39

duality on the grounds that the text producer s idiosyncratic linguistic features would be captured in other dimensions. In the section “Dimensions of Language Use” (B), the following modifications of Crystal and Davy’s model were made: 1. Medium : simple/ complex I refined the category of Complex Medium by drawing on the delicate distinctions suggested by Gregory (1967) with respect to writing only due to the nature of the task of translation quality assessment, which Involves written texts only: writing

to be spoken as if not written

not necessarily to be spoken

to be spoken

I to be read as if heard (adapted from Gregory 1967: 189) These distinctions between different combinations of spoken and written modes are Important and necessary because, even if a text is meant to be spoken and is, in fact, at some stage spoken, there is still a difference between genuine spoken language (as in e.g. a conversation) and the above mentioned “spoken” subcategories of the written mode. However, my analysis did in fact reveal that even Gregory’s classification is a relatively unsophisticated analytical tool for the purposes of a delicate stylistic analyses of source and translation texts. Therefore I introduced appropriate refinements in the course of the detailed textual analyses conducted in the original work. In determining features of the spoken mode in the various manifestations of a Complex Medium^ I considered phenomena such as structural simplicity. Incompleteness of sentences, specific manner of text constitution, particular theme-rheme sequencing, subjectivity (marked, for Instance, through the use of modal particles and gambits), high redundancy, etc. 2. Participation : simple/ complex A text may be either a “simple” monologue or dialogue, or a more “complex” mixture involving, in an overt “monologue”, various means of indirect participation elicitation and indirect addressee Involvement manifest linguistically, for Instance, in a characteristic use of pronouns, switches between declarative, imperative and interrogative sentence patterns or the presence of contact parentheses, and exclamations.

40

3. Social Role Relationship I subdivided Crystal and Davy’s dimension Status into two categories: Social Role Relationship and Social Attitude. Under Social Role Relationship I analysed the role relationship between addresser and addressees, which may be either symmetrical (marked by the existence of solidarity or equality) or asymmetrical (marked by the presence of some kind of authority). In considering the addresser’s social role vis-a-vis the addressee(s), account is further taken of the relatively permanent position role (teacher, priest) and the more transient situational role (visitor in a prison, speaker at a given occasion).

4. Social Attitude Under this dimension I described the degrees of social distance or proximity resulting in relative formality or Informality. I adopted the distinctions of different styles suggested by Joos (1961), which consists of five different styles or levels of formality: frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate. In the actual analyses, I provided for the possibility of transitional styles such as e.g. consultative-casual. In Joos’ schema the most neutral style is consultative. It is the norm for conversations or letters between strangers and it is mostly marked negatively, i.e., through the absence of both formal and Informal style markers. In using consultative style, the addresser does not assume that he can leave out certain parts of his message - which he might be able to do in a socially closer relationship where much of the message is “understood”. In consultative style, the author has to be fairly elaborate in supplying background information. A further characteristic of consultative style is the participation of the addressee(s) - hence the term “consultative” - either directly or implicitly. Casual style is especially marked by various degrees of implicitness, in which the addresser may indulge because of the level of intimacy between himself and the addressee(s). Background information is not necessary: casual style is used with friends or “Insiders” of all kinds with whom the addresser has something to share or desires or imagines that there is something to share. Ellipses, contractions, and the use of lexical items and collocations marked [- formal] are characteristic linguistic markers of casual style. The consultative and the casual style levels which can also be called colloquial styles are used to deal with public information. By contrast, intimate style excludes such public Information, it is the language used between people who are personally very close to each other with a maximum of shared background information being available. Its major feature is referred to as “extraction” by Joos, i.e. an extreme type of ellipsis. Formal style deviates from consultative style in that addressee participation is to a large degree omitted. Formal texts are well-structured, elaborate.

41

logically sequenced, and strongly cohesive. They clearly demonstrate advance planning. Frozen style, like intimate style an extreme style, is the most formal, premeditated, often “literary” style. Frozen texts may be consummate products of art meant for the education and edification of the readers, but it may also be used in business letters, in which the social distance between writer and the reader is thus given expression.

^

5. Province The dimension of Province is more comprehensive in my scheme than in Crystal and Davy’s model, as I subsumed both their categories Province and Modality under Province. Province is thus very broadly defined referring not only to the text producer’s occupational and professional activity but also to the field or topic of the text in its widest sense of “area of operation” of the language activity as well as details of the text production as these can be deduced from the text Itself (the notion of “register” is relevant here). I omitted Crystal and Davy’s dimension Singularity just as I omitted Individuality and for the same reasons. Returning now to the earlier discussion of a textual function which is to be kept equivalent in translation, it is now posited that the function of a text can be determined by opening up the linguistic material (the text) in terms of the set of situational constraints discussed above. The evidence in the text which characterizes it on any one particular dimension is, of course. Itself linguistic evidence. The situational dimensions and their linguistic correlates are then considered to be the means by which the text’s function is realized, l.e., the function of a text is established as a result of an analysis of the text along the eight situational dimensions as outlined above. The basic criterion of functional match for translation equivalence can now be refined: a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situationaldimensional means to achieve that function, l.e., for a translation of optimal quality it is desirable to have a match between source and translation text along these dimensions which are found - in the course of the analysis - to contribute in a particular way to each of the two functional components, ideational and interpersonal, of the text’s function. By using situational dimensions for opening up the source text, a particular textual profile is. obtained for the source text. This profile which characterizes the function of the text is then the norm against which the quality of the translation text is to be measured, l.e., a given translation text is analysed using the same dimensional scheme and at the same level of delicacy, and the degree to which its textual profile and function match or do not match the

42

source text’s is the degree to which the translation text is more or less adequate in quality. This was an outline of the provisional theoretical model, which had, in the original model, the status of a hypothesis to be tested with a corpus of texts.

3

Operation of th*e Model

I will now briefly describe the method of operation of the model, outlining the method of analysing and comparing texts by indicating how the various situational dimensions of the model are realized syntactically, lexically, and textually, drawing eclectically on a number of concepts deemed useful for the establishment of linguistic correlates to the situational dimensions. Further, I will briefly present the evaluation scheme for the measurement of mismatches between source and translation texts. Finally, the method of operation of the model will be justified.

3.1 Method of Analysis and Comparison of Texts Starting from the assumption that in order to make qualitative statements about a translation text (TT), TT must be compared with the source text’s (ST) textual profile which determines the norm against which the appropriateness of TT is judged, the first task in my model is a detailed analysis of ST. Using the set of situational dimensions as outlined above, it is necessary to establish text-specific linguistic correlates of the situational dimensions. The grammatical model used for the analysis is a Neo-Firthlan one. In seeking to extend the descriptive power of the model I also made use of the convention of expressing the components of meaning by means of feature symbols such as [+/- human], [+/- abstract]. I also made use of rhetorical-stylistic concepts such as alliteration and anacoluthon, concepts from speech act and pragmatic theory, discourse analysis as well as the concepts of “foregrounding” and “automatization” developed by Prague school linguists (see Flavranek 1964, who coined the terms). Foregrounding is a linguistic device for making the reader conscious of a particular linguistic form such that the linguistic form itself attracts attention, and is felt to be unusual or “de-automatlzed”, as is the case, for instance, in alliteration, assonance, omatopoeia, puns, and wordplays. Automatization is the opposite of foregrounding referring to the conventional, “normal” uses of the devices of language such that the linguistic forms themselves do not attract special attention. On each of the situational dimensions, I differentiated syntactic, lexical and textual means, although it might not always be the case that all three

43

categories are found to be operative on a particular dimension. As all the texts considered in the analyses were written texts, phonology did not play a role. Important in the conception in this model was the inclusion of textual means; which were not considered in Crystal and Davy’s approach, nor were they generally given much attention at the time I was working on the original model. In fact, one of the more serious objections (e.g. by Widdowson 1973) to the Crystal and Davy approach is that they proc^ded too atomlstlcally as they were only concerned with breaking down stretches of language into their constituent linguistic elements without seeking to establish the meaning construed via different ways of sentence connections, thematic movements etc. This objection is not valid for my own approach, as I did take account of textual devices. I based my treatment of textual means of realizing a particular situational feature eclectically on Enkvist’s work on linguistic stylistics (1973), on work done in the Prague school on theme-rheme distribution and on the Insightful work on texts in spoken and written language by Soil (1974), as well as on Edmondson’s early work on discourse analysis later (1981) to be published in his model for discourse analysis. In eclectically adapting strands of the above research, I distinguished three main textual aspects: 1) Theme-dynamics Theme dynamics charts the various patterns of semantic relationships by which “themes” recur in texts (e.g. repetition, anaphoric and cataphoric reference, pro-forms, ellipsis, synonymy, and near-synonymy) and takes account of “functional sentence perspective”, a concept first used by Matheslus (1971). For my purposes, the notion of functional sentence perspective was rather slmplistlcally interpreted as follows: any utterance consists of two basic parts which differ in the function they have in carrying Information: (a) the theme which refers to facts either taken for granted, universally known, or given from the context, and which therefore do not, or only marginally, contribute to the new information conveyed by the total utterance; (b) the rheme containing the main “new” information conveyed by the utterance. Word order is the primary formal means of realizing the theme-rheme distribution: in “normal”, unmarked speech, the theme precedes the rheme (Matheslus’ “objective position”), in emotive speech, however, the rheme precedes the theme (“subjective position”). 2) Clausal Linkage Clausal Linkage is described by a system of basically logical relations between clauses and sentences in a text, e.g. additive, adversative, alternative, causal, explantory, or illative relations.

44

3) Iconic Linkage Iconic Linkage or structural parallelism occurs when two or more sentences in a text cohere because they are, at the surface level, isomorphic. Following Soil (1974: 51), I distinguished between two basic types of text constitution which in analogy to a distinction Introduced by Pike (1967) are referred to as “emlc” and “etlc” texts. An emlc text is one which is solely determined by text-lrrfmanent criteria, and an etic text is one which is determined through text-transcending means, i.e., temporal, personal, or local delctics pointing to various features of the situation enveloping the text, the addresser, and the addressee(s). I also considered textual features such as the overall logical structure, the presence of narrative or other routine formulae, and the presence or absence of redundancy. Following the analysis of ST, TT was analysed in the same manner, and the two resulting textual profiles were compared for their relative matching. In the presentation of the results of the analysis of TT, I restricted myself to listing the mismatches along the various dimensions.

3.2 Evaluation Scheme If a translation text, in order to be adequate, is to fulfill the requirement of a dimensional, and as a result of this, a functional match, then any mismatch along the dimensions is an error. Such dimensional errors were referred to as covertly erroneous errors. These were differentiated from those overtly erroneous errors which resulted either from a mismatch of the denotative meanings of source and translation text elements or from a breach of the target language system. Cases where the denotative meaning of elements of ST were changed by the translator were further subdivided into omissions, additions, and substitutions consisting of either wrong selections or wrong combinations of elements. Cases of breaches of the target language system were subdivided into cases of ungrammaticality, i.e., clear breaches of the language system, and cases of dubious acceptability, i.e., breaches of the norm of usage which I defined as a bundle of linguistic rules underlying the actual use of language as opposed to the language system, which is concerned with the potentialities of a language. Both groups of overtly erroneous errors have traditionally been given more attention whereas covertly erroneous errors, which demand a much more qualitative-descriptive, in-depth analysis, have often been neglected. The relative weighting of individual errors both within the two categories and across them is a problem which varies from individual text to individual text. The final qualitative judgment of a translation text consists, then, of a listing of both covertly and overtly erroneous errors and of a statement of the

45

relative match of the Ideational and the interpersonal functional components of the textual function. The notion that a mismatch on a particular situational dimension constitutes a covert error presupposes: 1)

that the socio-cultural norms, or more specifically the norm-conditioned expectations generated by the texts, are essentially comparable. Obvious differences in the unique cultural heritage must, of course, be stated explicitly and discussed in each particular te^t;

2)

that the differences between the two languages are such that they can largely be overcome in translation, i.e., basic inter-translatability between the two languages is assumed. Again, exceptional cases such as the nonavailability of the German Du-Sie distinction in English must be stated explicitly and treated as exceptions;

3)

that no special secondary function is added to the translation text, i.e., works translated for special audiences (e.g., classical works “translated” for children") or special purposes (e.g., “interlinear translations” which arc designed for a clarification of the structual differences between the two languages involved) arc explicitly excluded. Such translations arc no longer translations but are defined as overt versions of an original text.

Given these three presuppositions, it is thus assumed that the addressees of a translation text form a comparable sub-group in the target community to the sub-group formed by the addressees of the source text in the source language community both being defined as speakers of the contemporary standard language, i.e., that supra-regional variety which is (commonly) used by the educated middle class speaker and which is at the same time accepted by the majority of the whole language community.

3.3 Justification of Method Apart from using the objectively fixed set of situational dimensions as a sort of tertium comparationis, this method of determining the appropriateness of a TT depends of course on the analyst s intuition and on the intuitive judgments of further judges asked to help substantiate certain points. This approach of relying on the analyst’s (as a native speaker, a near-native speaker, and at the same time an expert in translation) seemed to be the only feasible method of putting this type of model into practice. Th is reliance on the analyst-cum-cxpcrts’ evaluation of a translation docs not lead us into the vicinity of the type of nco-hcrmcneutlc approach criticized above, because all the Intuitive judgements involved in this method arc argued, i.e., taken as hypotheses which are being validated as objectively as possible by the reasons given for them. The use of the fixed set of situational dimensions

46

and the use of authentic texts (rather than pre-fabrlcated examples), with which the model was tested, makes my investigation more objective. However, it is of course undeniably true that the decisions about the appropriateness of linguistic elements in any TT must necessarily always contain a subjective and hermeneutic element. Further, it is Important to stress again that equivalence relationships between items belonging to two languages be considered non-absolme ones falling on a dine of more or less equivalent with a range of equivalents in both directions running from more or less probable. (Halllday, McIntosh and Strevens 1964: 124.) To give priority to native speaker and translation expert intuitions and evidence gained partially through Introspection is a legitimate undertaking, if it yields useful Insights. To be concerned with “objectivity” as a goal in itself, l.e., to aim at strictly objective and exhaustively empirical procedures at the cost of gaining useful insights into a phenomenon seems a futile undertaking. In view of the strictly experimental suggestions and studies of translation evaluation inside so-called “response-oriented approaches”, which fail to take account of the complexity of the phenomenon of translation, I can only repeat that a reduction of the problems of evaluating translation to features which can be objectively measured seems less desirable than an intensive analyls of the kind suggested in my model. In the last analysis, translation is a complex hermeneutic process. Translation evaluation - despite the attempt in my model to objectify the process by providing a set of categories - must consequently also be characterized by a necessarily subjective element, due to the fact of course that human beings are Important variables. It seems unlikely therefore that translation quality assessment can ever be completely objectified in the manner of the results of natural science subjects. Within the social sciences, the method I developed may be placed among one of the major modes of social scientific Inquiry, the case study approach, in which an intensive in-depth examination of the many characteristics of one unit is conducted. Case studies have been used with benefit to supplement traditional experiments involving extensive observation of large samples. The case study method which rests on the recognition of the crucial Importance of specifying the complex contextual embeddedness of the phenomenon under study, has two general purposes: (1) to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon on hand, and (2) to develop more general theoretical statements. My work had the added purpose of verifying a scheme of concepts with which I proposed to analyse and evaluate a set of texts and their translations.

47

3.4 Implimentation of the Model: Test Cases In House (1977), the above model of translation quality assessment was tried out with a corpus of eight English and German textual pairs, four belonging to the ideational functional category, and four to the interpersonal functional category. The texts covered a wide range of different “provinces”: a scientific text, an economic text, a journalistic article and^ tourist information brochure make up the ideational set of texts; an excerpt from a sermon, a political speech, a moral anecdote and a dialogue taken from a comedy belong to the interpersonal set of texts. In my original work, I had felt it necessary to exclude from the interpersonal category all those texts which may be considered to be predominantly poetic-aesthetic or “form-oriented”, l.e., in which the form of their linguistic units has taken on a special autonomous value , e.g., poems. In a poeticaesthetic work of art, the usual distinctions between form and content (or meaning) no longer holds. In poetry, the form of a linguistic unit cannot be changed without a corresponding change in (semantic, pragmatic and textual) meaning. And since the form cannot be detached from its meaning, this meaning cannot be expressed in any other way, l.e., through paraphrase, explanation or commentary, borrowing of new words etc. In poetry the slgnlfiers have an autonomous value and can therefore not be exchanged for the slgnlfiers of another language, although they may in fact express the same signified concept or referent. Since the physical nature of slgnlfiers in one language can never be duplicated in another language, the relations of slgnlfiers to signified, which are no longer arbitrary in a poetic-aesthetic work, cannot be expressed in another language. Jakobson (1966) has made the same point, which culminates in his statement that poetry is by definition untranslatable. Similarly Nlda and Taber (1969: 4) state that “anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the message.” Poetic-aesthetic texts are characterized by a maximum of foregrounding: in fact, foregrounding is here used for its own sake such that it is the case that language is then not being used “in the service of communication but in order to place in the foreground the act of expression, the act of speech Itself” (Mukarovsky, 1964: 19). True, in many other texts. Indeed in some of the texts Included in the corpus of my original work, e.g., the religious sermon, the political speech, foregrounding also occurs, l.e., there are cases of alliteration, wordplays etc., which, are difficult or impossible to translate. However, in these cases, foregrounding is always subordinate to communication. The basic purpose of these non-poetlc texts which use foregrounding occasionally is always to draw the addressee’s attention more Intensely to the subject matter expressed by the foregrounded linguistic item but not to the expression Itself. This is the reason for the possibility of translation in cases of non-poetlc texts.

48

In a predominantly poetic-aesthetic text, however, the limits of translatability are reached: a TT is then no longer a translation but a kind of creative transposition. To exemplify the operation of the model for the benefit of readers not familiar with the 1977 book, here are two of the original analyses (see Appendix for the actual texts). II. COMMERCIAL TEXT (ST English; TT German), see Appendix. 1. Analysis of ST and Statement of Function Dimensions of language user: (1) Geographical Origin: non-marked, Standard American English (2) Social Class: non-marked. Educated Middle Class (3) Time: non-marked, contemporary American English Dimensions of language use: (1) Medium: simple: written to he read, as realized by the following linguistic means: syntactic means: a.

absence of elliptical clauses, contractions, contact parentheses and comment parentheses, and any kind of spoken language signals such as well, you see, you know, etc.,

b.

placing of expanded subordinate clauses of purpose before the main clause: this is a focussing device typical of the written mode as its use in spoken language is restricted by performance constraints, e.g., V3,

c.

presence of expanded postnominal modification resulting in the separation of the head of the subject noun phrase and the corresponding finite verb. This construction is typical of the written mode as there are performance constraints in spoken language: IXl.

lexical means: a.

absence of qualifying modal adverblals. Interjections, and other subjectivity markers typical of the spoken mode.

textual means: a.

the text is predominantly emlc. There are a few pronominal references to the addresser and the addressees; however, the Immediate circumstances of the production and reception of the text are clearly irrelevant for the organization of the message. As a result of this, the text is largely determined through text-immanent criteria and is marked by an explicitness and elaborateness typical of the written mode,

49

b.

lack of repetitions resulting in a lack of redundancy,

c.

frequent use of passivization as a typically “written” means of complex syntactic linkage for text-constitutive purposes, i.e., especially for the preservation of the theme-rheme sequence, e.g., II2, IV2, V2,4, Xi, XI2.

(2) Participation: complex: monologue with addressees being directly addressed and given instructions. However, the addj;essees’ potential reactions are not being taken into account by the addresser. The addressee-oriented nature of the text is thus limited to the direct address and the request for action. This characterization is manifest in the following linguistic means: syntactic means: a.

presence of second person personal and possessive pronouns for direct address: Ii, Vi,3,4, VIi,2, VIIi,

b.

presence of requests put to the addressees through the use of the verb require in the passive, modal auxiliaries of obligation, and the mandative subjunctive in a that-c\iuse.\ V3,4, VIi,2,

c.

absence of interrogative sentences. This is indicative of the predominantly monologous character of the text which - with the exception of the participatory devices listed above in a and b - allows for no direct (even Imaginary) participation of the addressees.

(3) Social Role Relationship: Asymmetrical role relationship: addresser has de facto economic authority over the addressees. Position role of addresser: president of an international financing company, of which the addressees are shareholders. Situational role of addresser: representative of the Interests of the company Informing the shareholders about recent developments in the company. The role relationship as manifest in the text may be detailed in the following way: in the interests of his company (I.O.S.), the president is diplomatically indirect, non-committal, and evasive, avoiding any statement of an assumption of direct responsibility for the new VCL-company on the part of I.O.S. The relationship is an impersonal, distant one: the shareholder is not being approached as an individual but as a type, as a member of the class of shareholders. The text’s role relationship is further characterized by a deliberate attempt on the part of the addresser to downplay his own and the company’s power status and give the addressees the illusion of possessing more Influence than they really have. The addresser flatters the addressees and tries to create a feeling of security, loyalty, and trust in the well-being of the company. This characterization of the text’s role relationship has been derived through an examination of the following linguistic means:

50

syntactic means: a.

use of second person singular personal pronoun you and possesive pronoun your in a specific way, i.e., for addressing corporate members not “persons” as such (witness the substitution of each shareholder {or you, e.g., in II3): Vi,3,4, VIi,2, VIIi. Notable is the use of these personal and possessive pronouns in “flattering contexts” only, i.e., in connection with possible rights, actions, etc., on the part of the addressees,

b.

use of the first person plural personal pronoun we to refer to the addresser or the company (I.O.S.) or the Board of Directors, i.e., the addresser avoids referring to himself as an individual (although the letter is personally signed): V4, VIi,

c.

frequency of impersonal constructions using impersonal it and existential there as well as passives: the use of these devices is Indicative of a desire on the part of the addresser to be cautious and “hedgy” and to avoid specifying a causer or agent. In using these devices, the addresser also intends to give the addressees the impression that it is not the company that requires them to do something (e.g., fill out a form) but that they are agents of their own free will merely obeying some ulterior abstract necessity: V3,4, VII, VIIl,4, VIIIl, Xi, xili,

d.

preponderance of [-human] subject noun phrases adding to the impersonal character of the text: IIi,2, IIIi,2, IVi,2, Vi,2,3, VI2, VII2, etc.,

e.

use of subjunctive in a r/7<^f-clause: VII - asked that you designate as opposed to the alternative: asked you to designate. This is a marked choice in English. The effect of the that+V subjunctive construction is such that the addressee is not the direct recipient of a request or command by the addresser but is left his own free agent. In other words, this structure has the illocutionary force of a suggestion whereas the structure asked you to designate would have the illocutionary force of a request in the context of this text.

textual means: a.

deliberate attempt to underplay the role of I.O.S. through putting I.O.S. in non-focussed position in prepositional phrases IV2, VIIIi,2, XI2,

b.

deliberate overall organization of the text such that the addressees are first being presented with the change as a fait accompli and its many positive sides, and that they are only later (paragraph IX) being given the reasons (negative ones) for the change.

(4) Social Attitude Consistent with the Impersonal, distant relationship as outlined above, the social attitude of the addresser towards his addressees as reflected on the level of style, is a formal one:

51

syntactic means: a.

frequency of complex noun phrases showing both multiple premodification, postmodification, and discontinuous modification which add to the text’s abstractness and impersonality. Examples may be found in nearly every sentence, therefore a specific listing is unnecessary,

b.

deletion of conjunction if plus subject-auxiliary inversion: XIIi ... than would have been possible, had those operations ...,

c.

completeness of clauses (no elliptical clauses); absence of contractions (cf.

Medium), d. 'frequency of impersonal constructions using it, there, and passives; preponderance of [-human] subject noun phrases: use of subjunctive in a that-clause (for all of which see above Social Role Relationship).

lexical means: a.

presence of words and phrases marked [+formal] due to their restricted use in Impersonal - in this case, business - situations: e.g.. Ill - declared, payable on and after, shareholders of record as of the close of;V}- expedite the distribution', IX2 - precluded the maintenance of, XIIIi - Very truly yours, a [+formal] letter closing formula, etc.

b.

absence of interjections, qualifying modal adverbials and other subjectivity markers (cf. above, Medium).

textual means: a.

frequent use of passlvlzation as a means of complex syntactic linkage specifically for preserving theme-rheme sequence (cf. above Medium).

(5) Province Commercio-financial circular letter issued by the president of an international financing company to the company’s shareholders. In this letter, the shareholders are being Informed about changes in the set-up of the company. The preliminary label “language of commerce” with which one usually associates a preciseness in giving data of all kinds, textual cohesion, and explicitness, especially explicit allowance for possible alternative interpretations to avoid potential (costly) misunderstandings, can be further explained and justified by examining the use of the following linguistic features in this text:

lexical means: a.

use of precise technical terminology, l.e., special commercio-financial lexical items and collocations, e.g., IIi - pro-rata, dividend, holding company, IVi - stockholder's equity, IV2 - historical earnings, performance, etc.

b.

presence of phrases which precisely define the information given or explicitly state conceivable alternatives: \\\ - on and after December 20,1971;

52

to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on December 17,

1971; VII - a bank (or broker); VI2 - stamp (or seal), c.

absence of foregrounded words and expressions, and of any kind of figurative language.

'

textual means: presence of strong textual cohesion due to the employment of several mechanisms of theme-dynamics and clausal linkage:

theme-dynamics: a.

repetition of lexical items, e.g., IIi,2 - dividend; Hi,2,3, - share; IIIi,2 - contribute, contribution; Vi,2,3, and VII - certificate(s) etc.,

b.

frequency of anaphoric referencing by means of pro-forms for noun phrases, adverbials, predicates, clauses or sentences, e.g., III2 - in return for its contribution; in turn; that company; all of these shares; V2 - That is; V4 - this, etc.

c.

organization of thematic movement in sequences of theme-rheme to insure given-new ordering, e.g., II1-2; Vi-2-3, V4; VI1-2, VII1-2.

clausal linkage achieved through logical connectors: II3 - of course; IV2 - since; V2 - That is, VIIIi - as a result of; VIII2 - therefore, etc.

Statement of Function The function of the text consisting of the two components - ideational and interpersonal - may be summed up in the following way: the addresser s intention is (a) to Inform the addressees of a collection of facts as precisely and efficiently as possible and to request action; (b) to establish a positive rapport with the addressees, to convince and reassure them of the appropriateness and advantages of certain moves by the company, to give the addressees a feeling of importance and power, and at the same time to always attempt to be indirect and non-committal as to the moves announced and their potential consequences. This summary statement of the text’s function has been derived by an examination of the ways in which the dimensions are marked in this text, and the manner in which they contribute to the two functional components: On the dimension Medium, the written to be read mode supports the ideational component of the text’s function by facilitating a condensed, uninterrupted and premeditated information flow unimpeded by any direct presence of the addressees in the act of communication. Similarly, on the dimension Participation, the lack of addressee participation, l.e., the Infrequency of addressee-involving structures, also acts in support of the ideational component by making for a linear, non-alternating and premeditated organization of the message. However, on the same parameter, the few attempts at involving

53

the addressees by addressing them directly, and by putting requests to them, do support the interpersonal component of the textual function. On the dimension Social Role Relationship, the impersonality of the relationship reinforces the ideational component by promoting an economical transmission of facts disregarding the social circumstances of addresser and addressee. However, equally strongly supported on this dimension is the interpersonal component: the same linguistic dcA^ces which create the impersonality are also used to “manipulate” the addressees; e.g., the avoidance of a specification of a responsible causer or agent is used to give the addressees the illusion of their obeying an abstract necessity and not I.O.S.’ interests. Further, the attempt at flattering the addressees, which we discovered on this dimension also obviously filters into the Interpersonal component of the textual function. The dimension Social Attitude, which we defined as formal, operates in support of the ideational component of the textual function in that the frequency of complex, abstract noun phrases and Impersonal structures, and the exclusive presence of complete, well-planned and well-structured sentences provide for an efficiently condensed and objective Information flow. The dimension Province, marked by the use of clearly defined, automatized technical terminology, an explicit consideration of alternative interpretations of certain terms, and strong textual cohesion, clearly supports the ideational component of the text’s function as well. 2. ST and TT Comparison and Statement of Quality Mismatches on the following dimensions have been discovered as a result of the analysis of TT and the comparison of ST and TT: Participation: TT lacks the excpllclt Involvement of the addressees in a few Instances: Vi(2) - as you know ^ bekanntlich; VI i - your dividend certificate

die

Aktienzertifikate VI2 - Your hank ^ die Bank\ VIIi your new company ^ die Value Capital Limited. Social Role Relationship TT IS in certain specified Instances less reassuring and flattering and less noncommittal and diplomatically indirect vis-a-vis I.O.S.’ role and responsibility: IV2 - TT uses active voice: this has the effect of stressing I.O.S. as theme, which is undesirable in this context, because it is thus more strongly suggested that I.O.S. is important with respect to VCL’s future earnings. In view of I.O.S.’ fate, this is certainly not reassuring to the addressees. Vi(2) - as you know ^ bekanntlich: TT is less implicitly flattering to the addressees. V3,4(3) - your assistance is required... for your completion ^ bitten wirSie ... auszufiillen. TT is more direct and forceful. ST expresses the action to be done by the addressees

54

more abstractly and indirectly (nominally); the utterance in ST has the illocutionary force of a subtle suggestion, while the utterance in TT has one of a request. ST tries to suggest that it is not the company that wants something done, but that some extqrnal necessity suggests a course of action to the addressees. VIi - your dividend certificate ^ die Aktienzertifikate: TT does not make an attempt to create in the addressees an idea of their own possessions and is thus less implicitly flattering. VIi - asked that you designate ^ hahen wirSie gebeten: In ST, the addressees are not direct recipients of a request, but are left agents of their own initiative. The utterance has the Illocutionary force of a subtle suggestion; TT lacks this nuance and is thus less careful and indirect; the illocutionary force in TT is one of a request. VIi - will he sent ^ geschickt werden sollen: In ST, the relative clause is a non-restrlctive one, l.e., the sending of the certificates follows automatically from the naming of the bank, and the sending is the company’s responsibility. In TT, the relative clause has to be understood as a restrictive one, such that the Instruction that the certificates should be sent to the designated bank, is the shareholders’ responsibility. Hence ST is more reassuring, while TT undiplomatically throws the onus onto the shareholders. VI2 - your hank (or broker) should indicate

Sie miissen die

Bank (oder einen Makler) bitten: The lack of the possessive pronoun renders the expression in TT less Implicitly flattering; also, the illocutionary force of the utterance in TT is, mainly through the use of the modal rniissen, one of an order. The addressees thus appear to be dependent on the addresser. Such an illocutionary force is directly opposed to the cautious and diplomatic tenor in ST. VIIi - your new company ^ die Value Capital Limited: TT is less implicitly flattering, i.e., it fails to suggest that the addressees are “owners of the company”. VIIi - ST’s impersonal it-clause, which reinforces the non-committal and detached tenor of the text, is not matched in TT, which features Value Capital Limited as agent. TT gives an impression of greater certainty, which is unwarranted given the evasive, impersonal structure it is anticipated in ST. VII4 - present intention ^ z.Z. (zur Zeit): TT’s expression z.Z. has the negative connotation of temporariness and fickleness, which is undesirable given the addresser’s Intention of reassuring his addressees and building up their good-will. VIIIi - ST’s Impersonal there-clause is rendered in TT by a “personalized” construction featuring I.O.S. as subject-agent. Xi - new facilities being established ^ von neuen Einrichtungen: TT suggests that these facilities are, at the time of utterance, already established. TT loses the be+V-ing connotation of ’being set up right now’, a subtle difference, but in TT the addresser again appears to be less non-committal, and carefully evasive. XIi - ST focusses on Value Capital Limited which is in theme-position; the role of I.O.S., from whose failures the addressees’ attention is to be detracted, is thus underplayed. In TT,

55

Value Capital Limited appears in non-focussed position after 1.0.S. is mentioned. Social Attitude TT is in very few instances less formal, i.e. - consistent with the findings on the dimension Social Role Relationship - TT appears to be less distant, and more personal and direct: II4 - er hleiht natiirlich. In this position, n^tiirlich gives the sentence an almost colloquial tone. Initial position of natiirlich or the use of the [+formal] selhstverstdndlich would have been more adequate. V3 - your assistance is required ^ bitten wirSie: TT is more personal, i.e., less socially distant and formal. VI2 - Sie miissen die Bank bitten - a personalized, Informal expression. VIIi - ST’s impersonal it-clause: it is anticipated that is not matched in formality by TT s more direct, non-lmpersonal structure. Province TT is, in a few Instances, less clear, precise, and less textually cohesive than ST: VI2 - Ihre Unterschrift auf dem Dividenden-Zustellungsformular zu bestdtigen - the prepositional phrase auf dem ... is ambiguous; it may either be an adjectival or an adverbial phrase of location, i.e., it may either qualify bestdtigen or Unterschrift. Thus TT appears to be less unambiguously clear. IXi - TT does not preserve the theme-rheme sequence as it starts the clause with the rheme thus losing the textual linkage to the preceding paragraphs. IX2 TT lacks ST’s anaphoric noun phrase these operations (a consequence of the different thematic organization of IXi in TT). XIi beabsichtigt diese - undesirable ambiguity of the anaphoric pronoun diese's referent. Overtly erroneous errors: There are two mismatches of the referential meanings of ST and TT items: II2 - wrong selection: newly established holding company ^ eine nachdem Recht der Bahamas neu gegriindete Gesellschaft Bahamische Holding Gesellschaft would have been more adequate). VIIi - wrong selection: it is anticipated ^ wird die Value Capital Limited. The choice of the future tense in TT does not express the uncertainty of an anticipation (the adverbial voraussichtlich should have been Included). Further, we discovered one breach of the target language system, to be subcategorized as a case of dubious acceptability: III2 - erhielt die I OS 6.2 Mill. Aktien ... die alle von der I OS ... This is a confusing and illogical structure because I.O.S. is the subject of the main clause and it appears in a prepositional phrase in a passivized relative clause. Hence passlvlzation serves no real purpose as it does not omit the agent. We claim that this structure is counter-intuitive, and of dubious acceptability. The following similar example seems to confirm our assumption: Each of us received

56

$20 which was spent by each of us on the spot. This example - and III2 in the present text - is only acceptable if the agents in the main clause and the passivized relative clause are non-identical. Statement of Quality The comparison of ST and TT along the eight parameters shows that there are mismatches on all dimensions of language use but Medium; however, by far the greatest number of mismatches occur on the Social Role Relationship parameter rendering TT in the specified Instances less flattering to the addressees, less diplomatically polite and deliberately non-committal, i.e., blunter and more direct. Clearly, the interpersonal component has been altered through these mismatches. The few mismatches on the dimension Participation which result in TT’s involving the addressees less directly and explicitly in a few (for the addressees positive) Instances also detract from the interpersonal functional component. The few mismatches on Social Attitude which render TT less formal also alter the interpersonal component of the textual function by making TT less socially distant, and carefully polite. The mismatches on Province, which result in TT being less unambiguously clear and textually cohesive, as well as the three overtly erroneous errors affect the ideational component of ST s function by detracting in these few Instances from a clear and efficient passing on of information. From this configuration of mismatches, it becomes clear that, while the ideational component of ST s function is violated to a minor degree only, ST s Interpersonal functional component is violated to a considerable extent as evidenced by the pattern of mismatches along the dimension of Social Role Relationship. Thus, we may say that with regard to the addresser’s Implicit attempt at giving the addressees a feeling of Importance and his desire to be non-committal, indirect, and diplomatic about the consequences of the changes in his company, TT has serious shortcomings which we have specified in detail above. III. JOURNALISTIC ARTICLE (ST English; TT German), see Appendix. 1. Analysis of ST and Statement of Function Dimensions of language user: (1) Geographical Origin: non-marked. Standard American English (2) Social Class: non-marked. Educated Middle Class (3) Time: non-marked, contemporary American English Dimensions of language use: (1) Medium: complex: written to he read as if heard. There are at least two ways in which this text may have been produced: a) the text is an adaptation

57

of lecture notes or even an (edited) transcript of a lecture given by the addresser, or b) the text has been specially prepared to appear as though it originated in the manner of a) above because of the addresser s assessment of the addressees’ The above considerations are substantiated by the following linguistic means: syntactic means:

^

a.

presence of anacolutha: IIi, IVi

b.

presence of elliptical structures: II 3,4

c.

presence of loosely-structured clauses featuring parenthetical and appositional structures either inside the main clause or extraposed, thus creating an impression of lack of premeditation, typical of the spoken mode: IVi, VI2, VIIl2,3.4.

textual means: a.

the text is predominantly etlc, l.e., showing links to the particular participants in the situation in which it is embedded through the frequent use of deictic personal pronouns, l.e., we, involving addresser and addresses together, and you in direct address. See especially paragraph II, in which the addressees’ physiognomy is referred to for Illustration purposes,

b.

looseness in the logical structuring of the text, which is indicative of the lack of premeditation typical of the spoken mode (and which may have been introduced deliberately into this text to simulate this Medium).

(2) Participation: complex: monologue with direct address and personalized Instructions indicative of addressee participation. syntactic means: a.

use of first person plural personal and possessive pronouns as inclusive terms; involving the addressees directly in order to heighten their Interest in the subject matter: Ii, IIIi,2, IVi, VII2, VIIl2,3,

b.

use of second person singular personal and possessive pronouns as direct address forms: IIl2,3,4,

c.

presence of rhetorical, addressee-directing utterances such as: VIIIi What brought the split about}: A rhetorical question through which the addressees are invited to participate in the argument put to them. VIII3 we cannot simply say: which constitutes an admonition of the addressees.

(3) Social Role Relationship: Asymmetrical role relationship: addresser has professional authority over the addressees. Position role of addresser: professor of anthropology.

58

Situational role of addresser: writer of an article for the general lay public about his field of specialization. The role relationship in this text may be characterized as follows: the addresser is fully aware-of the “authority gap” between himself and his addressees in terms of knowledge of his special field, and he does not make any attempt at concealing this fact. This results in a sometimes slightly condescending tone. The following linguistic means have suggested this characterization: syntactic means: a. presence of structures in which instructions given to the addressees acquire a connotation of mild condescension: VII2 - or between animals properly called'. The addresser informs the lay public of the true way of referring to a certain type of animal in a schoolmasterly manner. VIIIi - What brought the split about}'. Rhetorical question exemplifying the distinction between the informed and the uninformed. VIII3 - we cannot simply say: The addresser points out to the unenlightened that things in his field are not as simple as their common sense might suggest they are. textual means: a.

insertion of a whole paragraph (II), clearly with illustrative, educational intention.

(4) Social Attitude Consultative-casual, an informal style which might be glossed as ’conversational, friendly, chatty’. This style level seems to be consistent with the role of an Instructor who adopts a mildly condescending tone vis-a-vis his addressees, i.e., the addresser “steps down” to reach the addressees at what he assumes is their level: syntactic means: a.

presence of anacolutha, elliptical structures as well as parenthetical and appositional structures (cf. above Medium),

b.

simplicity of noun phrases, i.e., lack of multiple premodification or postmodification,

c.

use of ’s-genitive with a [-human] object. This results in personification of the object and achieves an informal, personalized style level: I2 -India’s Siwalik Hills.

lexical means: a.

use of abbreviations for educational institutions. I2 - of Yale., V\-at Yale,

b.

presence of words and phrases marked [-formal] due to their common occurrence in more intimate social situations, e.g.. Ill - these things', III2

59

- belong in (Instead of belong to); IVi - put away in a drawer; Vi- was looking...at (instead of investigating or examining); VIIi - on one hand (omission of article the); VII2 - anything on the human side; VII3 looking for (instead of investigating., etc.); VIIIi - What brought the split about}. (5) Province: Journalistic science article written by a special!^ for the general, non-specialist public. The article is published in a general, “Readers Digest” type magazine which is characterized by its instructional Informative nature. Descriptions of scientific discoveries are not so much factual reports but attractive stories. There is an all-pervading tendency of personalization, dramatization, and concretization of scientific facts. Typical of this “popularization of science” is a concern with linking general life experiences to abstract scientific notions. The following linguistic means are evidence for this description: syntactic means: a.

use of be+Ving forms suggesting an interest in the process of discovery involving a human being (as opposed to a concern with the bare facts of the discovery): Vi, VI2, VII3,

b.

use of 's-genitive for personalization of [-human] noun phrase (cf. above Social Attitude): I2 - India’s Siwalik Hills,

c.

use of the Instantaneous present to achieve a dramatic, theatrical quality: VII2 - thus we also see (the logical connector thus also adds to the dramatic forces of the clause),

d.

use of a rhetorical question for dramatic force (cf. above Social Role Relationship): VIIIi,

e.

omission of the article preceding a noun in apposition. This results in giving the appositive the status of a title and achieving a bombastic, dramatic effect: VII1 - Dryopithecus, ancestor of the apes;

f.

use of personal and possessive pronouns (cf. above Participation) whenever the addressees are being Invited to relate scientific facts to their own range of experience: I1/III2 - our ancestor/our ancestry; and entire paragraph II.

lexical means: a.

use of figurative language, e.g., IIIi - as though he had just set his foot on a path (personification of species); IVi - the tide of scientific opinion...was against Ramapithecus (cliche metaphor plus personification); VIi-Simons rescued...Ramapithecus from burial (personification: only animate beings can be burled), etc.

b.

use of scientifically imprecise words and phrases which are typical of the Province of popularized science text, e.g., Ii - and pointed to some man-

60

like features; II] - these things; IV2 - after almost 30 years; VI1 - other pieces of Ramapithecus; VI2 - in various places from the US. A. to India... a few more fragments; VII2 - anything on the human side, etc. All these items provoke a logical follow-up question: Which/what exactly...} c.

popularized way of giving bibliographic references, i.e., lack of precision in the data given: I2 - G. E. Lewis of Yale; V1 - Elwyn Simons at Yale; IV2 — after almost 30 years, L. S. B. Leakey found a similar fossil at Fort Ternan. Reference is being made to the place where the researcher worked but not to the publication in which he describes his findings.

textual means: a.

use of an introductory formula (as in a fairy tale) to achieve dramatic force: V\- it happened that at the same time;

b.

use of cleaving as a device for giving thematic prominence to the new element in a clause and adding a dramatic note to the utterance: \\-It was out of..that...and, in fact it was;

c.

presence of textual cohesion through repetitions: IIIi - foot; IVi - tide(s), facts; and iconic linkage: It - it was...it was; II3/4 - an ape's are longer ... yours is straighter. These features add to the attractiveness of the text and thus help to catch the addressees’ Interest.

Statement of Function: The function of the text consisting of an interpersonal and an Ideational component may be summed up in the following way: the addresser’s intention is to Inform and Instruct the addressees about scientific facts in such a way that the material presented to the addressees is made “non-technical”, attractive, Interesting, and easily digestible in order to suit the addressees’ level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. The Interpersonal component of the textual function is well marked on each dimension, whereas the ideational component is never visibly marked, but is, of course, implicitly present because the text obviously aims at passing on factual Information to the addressees. The individual dimensions operate in the following way: On the Medium dimension, we found that the text has a complex mode: written to be read as if heard. This mode acts in support of the interpersonal component of the text’s function by promoting a direct involvement of the addressees, suggesting that the addresser is speaking to the addressees (i.e.. Implying his immediate presence). The interpersonal functional component is also supported by the dimension Participation because of the anticipated or implied addressee participation manifest in the frequent use of personal and possessive pronouns and the presence of addressee-directing utterances in the text. Similarly, on the dimension Social Role Relationship, the presence of structures showing a connotation of condescension and the

61

insertion of a whole paragraph of addressee-related illustrations of facts also clearly support the interpersonal functional component. The Social Attitude dimension is marked for consultative-casual style, a style level suitable for informally passing on information to a lay public, l.e., specially geared to the addressees’ assumed need of a colloquial presentation. This dimension therefore also filters into the interpersonal functional component. On the dimension Province, the attempt aNdramatizlng and personalizing scientific facts also promotes the Interpersonal component by making the material attractive and palatable to the addressees. 2. ST and TT Comparison and Statement of Quality Mismatches on the following dimensions have been discovered as a result of the analysis of TT and the comparison of ST and TT: Medium: TT has fewer features characterizing the spoken component of the complex medium written to be read as if heard: a.

TT lacks anacolutha: IIi, IVi,

b.

In two Instances, TT lacks parenthetical and appositional structures which, in ST, express the type of afterthought or “in-between commentary”, typical of the lack of premeditation in the spoken mode: VIIl2(3),3(6).

Participation: TT appears to be less concerned with deliberately involving the addressee: a.

lack of personal pronoun we, l.e., lack of addressee - inclusion: IVi, VII2,

b.

VIIl3(5), lack of second person singular personal and possessive pronouns: IIi,2,3,4. The use of wir {{or you) in IIi invites addressee participation less markedly. The use of Mensch {{or you) in II3 puts the utterance onto a more generalized, l.e., less personalized level, which is not desirable here,

c.

absence of rhetorical, addressee-directing utterance: VIII3 - the utterance in TT lacks the subtle overtones of the utterance in ST where the adressees are being warned against having a too facile approach to the subject matter.

Social Role Relationship: TTd oes not exhibit ST’s slightly condescending tone. Also, the relationship projected in TT is a more symmetrical one, witness the following linguistic means: a.

lack of connotation of condescension which we established to be present in ST: VII2 - the phrase properly called is omitted in TT; VII3 - whole utterance is omitted in TT. This is perhaps the most striking illustration of the fact that the social role relationship as portrayed in TT is markedly

62

different: the jovial, rather trivial remark in VII3, which is clearly designed to make the addresser’s special field palatable to the Ignorant lay public, is omitted in TT. TT thus appears to indicate a more symmetrical relationship. VIIl3(5) - omission in TT of the personal pronoun, i.e., use of an impersonal es-structure; TT is therefore more neutral and less condescending. Further, the naive value judgement expressed in better is omitted and the meanings of better and more successful are collapsed into vorteilhafter. Social Attitude: TT’s style level is, in a considerable number of instances, more formal: syntactic mismatches: a.

lack of anacolutha and parenthetical structures (cf. above. Medium); II2/II4 - Derjemge des Affen, jene der Affen: demonstrative anaphoric pronoun marked [+formal] in German; III2 - use of subjunctive in TT and of conjunction obschon, both of which are marked [+formal]; use of past tense instead of present perfect, the former differing from the latter in terms of formality; presence of extensive prenominal modification in TT: in eine vom Dryopithecus abweichende Richtung, which renders TT more abstract and formal; IV3 - das Fossil, als eine weitere Art von Dryopithecus abgetam -ed participle clause in which the antecedent head is Identical with the deleted subject of the -ed post-modifying clause. The participle is firmly linked with the passive voice, which makes the expression impersonal and [+formal]; VIII5 - es ware...gleichsetzen zu wollen: impersonal es-structure plus infinitive in TT, which is typical of a formal style level.

lexical mismatches: Il4(5) - this length makes an ape's face projecting die Lange der Molaren bedingt, dafl\ the structure is marked as f+formal] in German; IIl2(3) - So Lewis thought ^ dies bewog bewiegen is strongly marked as [+formal] in German); W\i- anything on the human side ^Arten mit Ansdtzen von menschenartigen Merkmalen: TT’s phrase is much more precise and formal; VIII2 - evolution has reasons ^ Die Evolution folgt einem Plan; VIII7 - lichte Walder, gewisse, teils: all of these items are marked [+formal] in German. Province: TT shows in many instances fewer traces of personalization, dramatization, and concretlzation through illustrations and imagery. TT is therefore less true to the Province of “popularized science text”; it is also less journalistically attractive, and less vague and imprecise in its descriptions of scientific facts. Consider the following mismatches:

63

syntactic mismatches: a.

lack of personal and possessive pronouns rendering the tcxtless addressee-oriented (cf. above Medium),

b.

TT lacks equivalent for he+Ving form, e.g., V+a modal adverbial such as gerade, nun, etc., thus falling to emphasize the process of discovery by a human being: Vi, VI2, VII3 (altogether omitted in TT),

c.

4

dramatic quality achieved In ST through> elctlon of the definite article preceding a noun phrase In apposition Is lost in TT: VIIi (an equivalent structure In German is available),

lexical mismatches: a.

lack of scientifically Imprecise words and phrases: IIi - omission of an equivalent structure for these things in TT; II3- molar teeth ^ Molaren, a scientific term in German (as opposed to the general term Backenz'dhne), VII2 - anything on the hitman side ^ Arten mit Ansatzen von menschenartigen Merkmalen (cf. above. Social Attitude); apes ^ Affen ttnd Menschenaffen,

b.

lack of, or use of less evocative, figurative language:

path diverging

- abweichende Richtung; IVi - tide of scientific opinion ^ Meinitngen der Wissenschaft; VIi - rescued ...from burial - verhinderte ... daf: VIIJ2 Evolution has ''reasons” - Die Evolution folgt einem Plan', i.e., TT is far less personalized. Plan, in this case, being something pre-existent and impersonally fixed. textual mismatches: a.

lack of double cleaving in TT which adds dramatic quality to the ST utterance, and lack of iconic linkage: Ii - TT has foregrounded word order only in the second part of the sentence, therefore the emphatic effect of iconic linkage is lost,

b.

lack of equivalent dramatizing Introductory formula in TT for \\ - It happened that,

c.

omission of German equivalent for the logical connector thus in VII2, which adds to the utterance’s dramatic effect (although it really lacks a logical foundation).

Overtly Erroneous Errors: There is one mismatch of denotative meaning to be subclassified as a wrong selection: 11-4(5)- makes an ape's face projecting, yours is straighter

^

bedingt,

daf das Gesicht der Affen - im Vergleich zum menschlichen - an der s ist.

Statement of Quality: I he comparison of ST and TT along the situational parameters shows that there arc mismatches on all five parameters of language use. Our analysis of

64

ST has shown that, while the Interpersonal component of the textual function is marked on all dimensions, the ideational component is-although implicitly present - not specifically marked. This relative markedness of the two components is different in TT. On the dimension Medium, we found that ST s mode written to be read as if heard is not always matched in TT, which appears to lack several “spoken mode elements”. On this dimension, the interpersonal component is less marked, whereas the ideational component is strengthened because the informational content is transmitted more straightforwardly. Similarly, on Participation, TT appears to be less geared to elicit addressee participation; therefore, the interpersonal component is weakened while the ideational one is strengthened through a greater concentration on the information to be transmitted. On the dimension Social Role Relationship, the addresser’s attitude towards the addressees appears to be less condescending, but more neutral and symmetrical. Again, the ideational component is stronger in that TT is more obviously designed to pass on factual information than to adapt the facts to the particular needs of the addressees. On Social Attitude, the ideational functional component is again strengthened at the expense of the interpersonal one, since TT’s style level is, in certain specified instances, less personalized and more formal. On Province, TT appears to be less personalized, dramatized, and journalistically attractive than ST, but rather more precise and sober especially with respect to the use of scientific terms. Again, the interpersonal component of the textual function is violated while the ideational one is developed more strongly. There is one overtly erroneous error, which detracts from the ideational component of passing on factual information. Taken together, Td’ suffers from a distinct mismatch of both the interpersonal and ideational components of the textual function as revealed on all five dimensions of language use. The intention of the addresser to make his material attractive, interesting, and easily digestible for his addressees has not been realized in TT to the same degree as it has been in ST; the addresser’s concern with passing on scientific facts is, on the other hand, clearly - and unwarrantedly - more visible in TT than in ST.

4

Refinement of the Model

4.1 Suggestions for a Translation Typology I had suggested above that attempts at setting up a text typology as a means of gaining insight into, and accounting for, different types of invariance de-

65

mands and (as a result of these) different types of translation equivalence relationships are theoretically not tenable and not fruitful. Underlying such an approach is the presupposition that translation quality is somehow determined by the nature of the source text while the process of translation is itself a constant, i.e., it is presupposed that if one can classify texts successfully, then one will have successfully accounted for differences in translations and the theoretical problems surrounding translation evaluation. This presupposition seems to have been the basis of Relft’ early influential work (who later switched from a source text focus to the other extreme: target text centeredness). In the approach suggested here a different procedure seemed more likely to be insightful, namely to set up a translation typology on the basis of the eight case studies undertaken in the original study, whereby different texts were found to have been treated in different ways in translation. There is however clearly some relation between source text type and appropriate translation type. I suggested a basic division into two major translation types: overt translation and covert translation. 4.1.1

Translation

An overt translation is one in which the addressees of the translation text are quite “overtly” not being directly addressed: thus an overt translation is one which must overtly be a translation not, as it were, a “second original”. In an overt translation the source text is tied in a specific manner to the source language community and its culture. The source text is specifically directed at source culture addressees but at the same time points beyond the source language community because it is, independent of its source language origin, also of potential general human interest. Source texts that call for an overt translation have an established worth or status in the source language community and potentially in other communities. Such source texts may be divided into two groups: 1) overt historically-linked source texts, i.e., those tied to a specific occasion in which a precisely specified source language audience is/was being addressed. Examples from the test sample I analysed in the original corpus are a sermon (by Karl Barth given at a Basel prison) and a political speech (given by Winston Churchill on the steps of the townhall in Bradford in 1942); 2) overt timeless source texts, i.e., those transcending as works of art and aesthetic creations a distinct historical meaning while, of course, always necessarily displaying period and culture-specificity because of the status of the addresser, who is a product of his time and culture. Examples in the test corpus are a moral anecdote (a nineteenth century “Kalendergeschlchte” by the well-known German author Johann Peter Hebei) and a comedy dialogue (an excerpt from Sean O’Casey’s one-act play: “The End of the Beginning”).

66

Both these texts - although timeless and transmitting a general human message - are quite clearly source-culture-specific because they are marked on the language user dimensions (presence of a particular etat de langue and a geographical dialect respectively) and because they have independent status in the language community through belonging to the community’s cultural products. Both texts are “literary” texts having the feature [+ fictional], i.e., the texts are “sltuationally abstract” in that they do not Immediately refer to a unique historic situation, in which both author and readers find themselves. Fictional texts describe a kind of “fictlve reality”, which is, in every reception by an individual reader, newly related to the specific historic reality in the concrete situation in which the reader finds himself. The message in a fictional text is text-contained, which gives the text its independent value: the message “presupposes a wider context so that everything necessary for its interpretation is to be found within the message Itself” (Widdowson 1974: 203). Both groups of source texts, then, historically-linked and timeless ones, conventionally lead to an overt translation. The requirements for this type of translation led to an important modification of the model of translation quality assessment as outlined earlier: a direct match of the original function of the source text is not possible in overt translation, either because the source text is tied to a specific non-repeatable historic event in the source culture (for example, Karl Barth’s sermon or Winston Churchill’s speech, both given at a particular time and place to a particular audience) or because of the unique status (as a literary text) that the source text has in the source culture. In the case of texts that are bound to a specific historic occasion, it is quite obvious that a translator cannot set out to match the original function that ST had for the original addressees but that he must try to match what I called a “second level function”, one that recognizes the “displaced situatlonality” of the two texts and one not only holding for the contemporary, educated middle class native speaker of the target linguaculture but also for their potential counterparts in the source culture who are also not the original addressees. Similarly, in timeless overt translations a second level function must be met. For Instance, in the case of a Kalendergeschichte by Johann Peter Hebei, we have a basically comparable case in that this text, although as a piece of fiction timeless and of general human interest, is tied on a language user dimension to a specific bygone period of time in the source culture. The translator has to operate again with a level of function which this work has for the contemporary addressee in the source culture, for whom the text would clearly be marked as [+archaic], when it was clearly not marked in this manner for the original addressees, who lived in the particular period of time in which the author produced the text. In the case of Sean O’Casey’s particularly Irish brand of comedy, it is the fact that the text is marked for a culture-unique geographical dialect on a

67

language user dimension which necessitates a “topicalization” of the function. The text must be transposed from one cultural area to another. Put more generally, the function that the source text has for a contemporary educated middle class standard English speaker can never be equivalent in the translation text because of the uniqueness of the Intralingulstic variations in any particular culture. In cases of overt translation a similar secoq^d-level function, l.e., a kind of “topicalization” of the original function may have to be posited as a criterion for adequate translation. This second-level function is then the function holding for the contemporary standard language speaker of the target culture and frequently also for their potential counterparts in the source culture, who may also not be the original addressees. In overt translation, the source text as a piece of work with a certain status in the source language community must remain as Intact as possible given the necessary transfer and recoding in another language. On the other hand, cases of overt translation present difficulties precisely because their status in the socio-cultural context of the source language community, which must be topicalized in the target culture, necessitates major changes. It is this dialectical relationship between preservation and alteration which makes the finding of translation equivalents difficult in cases of overt translation. The two examples mentioned above illustrate this difficulty: in the case of the comedy dialogue it is extremely difficult to achieve (even a) second-level functional equivalence as it is necessary to select an “equivalent” target language geographical dialect, l.e., a dialect equivalent in “human or social geography” (cf. Catford 1965: 88). If we consider standard English speakers to be the majority of the potential addressees of O’Casey s comedy, and if we regard Hiberno-English as a rather heavily marked dialect (especially on the grammatical level), whose speakers share a strong folk tradition and are characterized by a marked striving for provincial, or national Independence and distinctiveness, anybody trying to translate O’Casey’s play into German would have to search for an approximately comparable German dialect, e.g.. Bavarian. Many speakers of this dialect share the separatist intentions and the “rootedness” in folk tradition with the Hiberno-English speakers. However, it should be stressed that such markedness on the dimension Geographical Origin clearly presents often Insoluble equivalence problems, and always entails a second level function. In the case of the nineteenth century moral anecdote text, the presence of a marked temporal dialect also presents considerable equivalence problems. Again, the principle of second level or toplcalized function necessitates a selection of approximately comparable [+ archaic] items in the translation text to ensure an overt translation of the source text. An employment of markers of a “comparably archaic” temporal dialect will create “to some extent a translation equivalent of the source language etat de langue” (Catford 1965: 89).

68

Catford s phrase “to some extent” clearly points to the Impossibility of achieving a perfect match because of the uniqueness of the cultural-historical context, and its non-transferability from the source language to the target language. Texts that are linked io a specific historic occasion in the source language community (such as Churchills speech and Karl Barth s sermon in the original work s test corpus) can also present such topicalization problems (although they did not present such problems in the orignal corpus I examined). For instance, it might well have been the case that Churchill or Karl Barth had spoken a regional dialect of their respective mother tongue. However, in view of the fact that the o'yer^-historically-llnked texts have the status of a document of a historical event in the source culture, where the culture specificity and uniqueness is more strongly marked than in the timeless [+ fictional] texts, it seems to be more appropriate in these cases to abstain from finding approximate equivalents for culture-specific geographical, temporal, or social class markedness on the language user dimensions and to provide explanatory notes to the members of the target culture who are exposed to a translation text.

4.1.2

Translation

A covert translation is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture. The translation is covert because it is not marked pragmatically as a translation text of a source text but may, conceivably, have been created in its own right. A covert translation is thus a translation whose source text is not specifically addressed to a particular source culture audience, i.e., it is not particularly tied to the source language and culture. A source text and its covert translation text are pragmatically of equal concern for source and target language addressees. Both are, as it were, equally directly addressed. A source text and its covert translation have equivalent purposes, they are based on contemporary, equivalent needs of a comparable audience in the source and target language communities. In the case of covert translation texts, it is thus both possible and desirable to keep the function of the source text equivalent in the translation text. In the sample texts analysed in my original work, a scientific text (an excerpt from a coursebook in mathematics), a tourist information booklet (advertising brochure on Niirnberg), an economic text (a letter written by the President of an international investment company to the shareholders), and a journalistic text (an article on anthropology, which appeared in a popular magazine the (English Language) UNESCO Courier and the (German Language) UNESCO Kurier (the latter two texts are included in this book) exemplify the category of source texts that led to a covert translation. All these translation texts have direct target language addressees, for whom they are as immediately and “originally” relevant as is the source text for the source language addressees.

69

In the case of the economic text In the test sample, for instance, both source and target language addressees are shareholders of the same (Internationally operating) Investment company, i.e., they differ only accidentally in their respective mother tongues. Similarly, a text taken from a mathematics coursebook is potentially of equal concern for German and English science students; and a journalistic article on an anthropological topic Is of potential equal interest to both German readers of the journal IONESCO Kurier who are Interested in anthropology and English speaking readers of the UNESCO Courier who share this Interest in anthropology. The tourist information booklet is (generally) as much directed at German speaking visitors of Niirnberg as It is directed at English speaking ones. While it Is thus clear that such texts are not source-culture specific. It is the covert type of translation that such texts require which presents more difficulties, and many more subtle, cultural translation problems than those encountered In the case of overt translation, where the particular source culture specificity had to be either left intact and presented as a culturally and historically linked monument, or overtly matched in the target culture setting. If the source text and its translation text are to have equivalent functions, however, which is necessary in a covert translation, the translator has to take different cultural presuppositions in the two language communities Into account in order to meet the needs of the target language addressees in their cultural setting, and In order to keep the textual function equivalent in source and target cultures. When talking about “culture” and “cultural” In this context, I mean the anthropological concept of all those traditional, explicit and Implicit designs for living which act as potential guides for the behaviour of members of the culture. Culture Is seen here as a group s dominant and learned sets of habits, as the totality of Its non-biological Inheritance involving presuppositions, values, and preferences. In a covert translation, the translator has to make allowances for underlying cultural differences by placing what I call a cultural filter between the source text and the translation text. The translator has, as it were, to view the source text through the glasses of a target culture member. A glance at the rich anecdotal literature on translation may lead one to believe that there are Indeed many crucial inter-cultural differences complicating any translation process. However, upon closer examination, most of the Impressive examples of differences are drawn from comparisons of a European language and languages of South East Asia or American Indian languages, etc., where the socio-cultural differences are obviously remarkable. Thus Catford (1965: 90-91) illustrates the importance of considering cultural “undercurrents” in translation by describing how an oriental youth may use honorific forms when talking (at a specific occasion and on a specific matter) to his father.

70

and how an English speaking youth would, in the “same situation”, use only casual style.

4.2 Distinguishing between Different Types of Translations and Versions I hypothesized that, in the case of European cultures such as e.g., the German and British English ones, the differences in the soclo-cultural norms between the two cultures were not substantial and basically knowable. Existing and verified differences of the soclo-cultural norms and presuppositions of cultural knowledge were to be taken care of in covert translation through the application of a cultural filter. It then seemed to me reasonable to assume that the contemporary Western European and North American middle class speakers of the respective standard language, closely related through socio-political and economic ties, did not differ in relevant ways concerning, for instance, their reception of a scientific text, a journalistic article, or a commercial circular letter. Unless presuppositions concerning cultural differences were substantiated by ethnographic, socio-cultural and discourse research, it seemed more reasonable in translation to follow an assumption of basic comparability for such closely related cultures as the Western European and North American ones than to take the liberty in translation of changing the source text on the assumption of existing cultural differences. This did not amount to a claim that differences in values and habits, in understanding, emphasizing or disregarding certain emotions, attitudes etc. did not exist between any two, however closely related, cultures. However, given the goal of achieving functional equivalence in a covert translation, assumptions of cultural difference should be carefully examined before any change in the source text is undertaken. In cases of unproven assumptions of cultural difference, the translator might be led to apply a cultural filter whose application resulting in possibly deliberate mismatches between the source text and the translation text along several situational parameters, was seen as not justified. In other words, I then advised a “non-risk taking” strategy in covert translation when applying a cultural filter, l.e., “when in doubt, leave it out”, or more respectably put, the unmarked assumption is one of cultural compatibility, unless there is evidence to the contrary. As will be demonstrated in the next Chapter, in the case of the German and Anglophone llnguacultures, such evidence seems now to be available, which has important consequences for cultural filtering. In the original study, such evidence was not yet available and consequently I had considered the translation of the commercial letter (see above) as a clear example of unjustified filtering. In this text, the President of Investors Overseas Services (a fraudulent company as it was revealed much later) Informs the

71

shareholders about changes in the set-up of the company that will not exactly be to their advantage. Dimensional changes on the parameter Social Role Relationship are responsible for the fact that the English original s carefully evasive, hedging, and distantly polite tone is changed into a much more direct, blunt, and undiplomatic tone which clearly acts against the textual function, which is characterized in the following way: the addresser’s intention is a) to Inform the addressees of a collection of facts as precisely and efficiently as possible and to request action (ideational functional component), and b) to establish a positive rapport with the addressees, to convince and reassure them of the appropriateness of certain moves undertaken by the company, to give them a feeling of Importance and power and at the same time always to stay indirect and non-committal as to the moves announced and their potential consequences (interpersonal functional component). In the analysis of this Commercial Text and its TT, it was found that TT, along the dimension Social Role Relationship, does not contribute to the interpersonal functional component in the same manner: for example, as you know is translated as hekanntlich, which is potentially less flattering to the addressees as it does not address them personally; In order to avoid the possibility of accidental misdirection of your certificate... your assistance is required. We have enclosed a 'Dividend Instruction Form' for your completion; this should be returned in thepre-addressed envelope... is translated as: Umzu vermeiden, daf Ihre Zertifikate versehentlich fehlgeleitet werden ..., bitten wir Sie, das beigefugte Dividendenzustellungsformular auszufiillen und in dem ebenfalls beigefugten adressierten Umschlag zuriickzuschicken ... In the German translation, the writer appears to be much more forceful, active and direct, while the source text expresses the action to be done by the addressees more abstractly and indirectly (nominally). The utterance in the English source text has the Illocutionary force of a subtle suggestion, while in the translation text it appears to be a request. The original tries to intimate that it is not the company that wants something done, but that some external necessity proposes a course of action to the shareholders. Similarly the German rendering of Your bank (or broker) should indicate as Sie miissen die Bank (oder einen Makler) bitten ... clearly flouts the Interpersonal function of the source text as characterized above: the lack of the possessive pronoun renders the expression in the translation text less implicitly flattering; also, the utterance in the translation is an order mainly through the use of the modal ‘miissen’, which makes the shareholders appear dependent on the President. Such an illocutionary force is directly opposed to the cautious and diplomatic tenor of the original. Many similar dimensional differences could be listed, all of which change the social role relationship between addresser and addressees. The point I made in the original study was that an assumption of the German shareholders’

72

different expectations with regard to such a letter (which may have caused the translator’s changes) was unwarranted since it was not substantiated by facts and only acted to perpetuate the cliche assumption of German addressees preferring such manifestations of a social role relationship. Given my own and others’ contrastive pragmatic research, the model will now have to be “re-visited” in the light of this research. Another example of what I had called “unmotivated mismatches” in a TT is the case of the Journalistic Article (see above), where I observed changes on the dimensions Social Role Relationship and Province, and consequently all other language use dimensions. I had hypothesized - because of a whole pattern of mismatches that my analysis had revealed - that the translator had entertained presuppositions about different social role relationships between writer and reader in the target linguaculture, in this case a professor of anthropology and the interested lay public. The TT which results is markedly different in that a slightly condescending, lightly entertaining and very informal tone in ST is converted into a more serious, scientifically more accurate and certainly less entertaining TT. The presuppositions that German readers prefer this kind of textual profile in a TT of this Province was judged to be unjustified. Again, in the light of the results of contrastive pragmatic research, the application of the cultural filter must be re-assessed. From these examples of culturally conditioned differences the following conclusions were drawn: if a covert translation accommodates, unwarrantedly and in a patterned way, for the target culture group’s different presuppositions about the Social Role Relationship and Social Attitude of addressees vis-a-vis the addresser in a particular Province, then such a translation is no longer a translation but will be defined as a covert version. A covert version is by definition an inadequate translation in that the application of the cultural filter is unjustified. Thus, in the original analyses, the translation texts of the commercial circular and the journalistic article discussed above were judged as covert versions because the translator - in order to preserve the function of the source texts had applied the cultural filter non-objectively and consequently undertook changes on the situational dimensions. Since these changes were at the time not substantiated by research, the translation was judged to be a covert version of the source text. Covert versions must be clearly differentiated from overt versions., which are produced whenever a special function is overtly added to a TT, l.e., (1) in particular when a translation is to reach a particular audience. Examples are special editions for a youthful audience with the resultant omissions, additions, simplifications, or different accentuations of certain features of ST etc., or popularizations of specialist works designed for the lay public, and (2) when TT is given a special added purpose. Examples are Interlingual versions or

73

“linguistic translations”, or resumes and abstracts, where it is the express special purpose of the version producer to pass on only the most essential facts. An altogether different type of systematic mismatching along the dimensions of analyses proposed in the model seems to have occurred in another example taken from the original corpus, namely the case of the Tourist Information Booklet praising the attractions of the city of Niirnberg originally written in German for tourists from all over Qermany and later translated for an English speaking public. Here it was judged that the translator rightly assumed that the addressees of the translation text did not necessarily share the knowledge of the source culture’s inventory of cultural phenomena such as nationally well-known artists or works of art. In this case, then, the supply of added Information was deemed justified, as it seemed to be clearly distinct from the type of assumptions of different expectations on the part of the target culture addressees in the case of the commercial circular. The changes on the parameter Social Role Relationship through the addition of information for the benefit of members of the target culture, were not regarded as covert errors but were explained through the necessity of applying a cultural filter to the source text, which accounted for the changes. In this case, then, the cultural filter operates differently from the cases of the commercial letter and the journalistic article, the two texts included in this volume: it operates primarily on the content, the semantic level, in that it adds information in a more obvious explanatory “surface” way. In the case of the other two texts, the changes which operate on the Interpersonal functional component, go “deeper” and affect values, mentalities, communicative preferences and expectation norms. Differences at this level are more difficult to handle in translation and translation evaluation, and it is only through the type of empirical research decribed in Chapter 3 that relevant hypotheses can be suggested. In the discussion of different types of translation and the distinction between a translation and a version, it was implicitly assumed that a particular text may be adequately translated in only one particular way. The assumption that a particular text necessitates either an overt or a covert translation may, however, not hold in every case. Thus, any text may, for specific purposes, require an overt translation, l.e., it may be viewed as a document which “has independent status” and exists in its own right: for Instance, the commercial circular discussed above may be cited as evidence in a court of law, or its author may, in the course of time, have become a distinguished political or literary figure. In these two Instances, the texts would clearly not have an equivalent function in translation, i.e., in both cases an overt translation would be appropriate, and it should be evaluated as such. Further, there may well be source texts for which the choice overt-orcovert translation is a subjective one, e.g., fairy tales may be viewed as folk

74

products of a particular culture, which would predispose a translator to opt for an overt translation, or as non-culture specific texts, anonymously produced, with the general function of entertaining and educating the young, which would suggest a covert translation; or consider the case of the Bible, which may be treated as either a collection of historical literary documents, in which case an overt translation would seem to be called for, or as a collection of human truths directly relevant to Everyman, in which case a covert translation might seem appropriate. Moreover, it is obvious that the specific purpose for which a “translation” is required, i.e., the spelcific brief a translator is given, will determine whether a translation or an overt version should be aimed at. In other words, just as the decision as to whether an overt or a covert translation is appropriate for a particular text may be conditioned by factors such as the changeable status of the text producer, so clearly the initial choice between translating a given source text and producing a version of it, cannot be made on the basis of features of the text, but is conditioned by the arbitrarily determined purpose for which the translation/version is required. The original assumption in the model that a TT in order to be adequate should have a function equivalent to the function of its ST had to be refined in the light of the crucial distinction between overt and covert translations: it is thus only in cases of covert translation that it is in fact possible to achieve functional equivalence. This functional equivalence is, however, extremely difficult to achieve because differences in the socio-cultural norms of the two linguacultures have to be taken into account, and a cultural filter must be applied. As became clear from the analyses of the test corpus in the original work, such filtering is crucial whenever the original has a well-marked interpersonal component of the textual function. It is the interpersonal component which presents the most difficult (and interesting) problems of translation equivalence. In the case of the Scientific Text (taken from a mathematics textbook) the problems were relatively reduced - precisely because the interpersonal component of this text s function was not strongly marked. In the case of other texts’ calling for a covert translation (the commercial text, the tourist brochure and the journalistic article) however, the matching of the interpersonal component of the textual function (especially on the Social Role Relationship dimension) clearly presented the most subtle problems for the translator who had to apply a cultural filter in his translation. From the viewpoint of the translation evaluator, the lack of objective knowledge about differences in the socio-cultural norms makes it difficult to assess the legitimacy of any changes made as a result of the application of the cultural filter. Empirical cross-cultural pragmatic research is of critical importance here in that it can add to our knowledge of cross-cultural differences.

75

In the case of overt translation a second level function must be aimed at in translation. Since in an overt translation the ST is, in a way, “sacrosanct” due to its status (as a work of art or a historical document) the translator cannot strive for simple functional equivalence in the target culture, which would involve the undertaking of adjustments of cultural presuppositions, he has to restrict himself to “simply” transposing the ST from the source to the target culture, giving target culture members the opportunity to have access to the original via the medium of the foreign language. Overt translations are more “straightforward” since their STs are taken over unaltered, l.e., are merely transplanted into a new environment with no provisions being made for the TT addressee s (potentially different) norms of expectation. This can be demonstrated by the fact that in one of the texts of the original corpus, the Religious Sermon, the two references to local source culture phenomena are best translated by the exact source language terms “Fastnacht” and “Mustermesse” to be explained, outside the body of the text in a footnote. The sourceculture orientation is clearly brought out through this procedure. The difficulty of evaluation in the case of overt translation is also reduced since considerations of “cultural filtering” can be omitted. The major difficulty in translating overtly is, of course, the finding of linguistic-cultural “equivalents” on the language user dimensions. However, here we deal with overt manifestations of cultural phenomena which must be transferred only because they happen to be manifest linguistically in ST. A judgement whether a “translation” of culture-specific user characteristics is adequate in an overt translation cannot be objectively given, i.e., the degree of correspondence in terms of social status between dialects in two different cultures cannot be measured at the present time since no completed cultural-comparative studies exist. Such an evaluation must therefore necessarily remain to a certain degree a subjective matter. However, as opposed to the difficulty of dealing with differences of cultural presuppositions with respect to Social Role Relationship, Social Attitude etc. in a particular text, which characterizes the evaluation of covert translation, the explicit overt transference necessary in an overt translation is still easier to pin down and diagnose. As regards the evaluation of different translation texts of the same source text, my model facilitates an evaluative statement only to the extent that the relative importance of the individual situational dimensions has been demonstrated in the analysis of the source text. A relative weighting of covertly erroneous and overtly erroneous errors can only be achieved through a consideration of each individual textual pair. However, the subgroup of overtly erroneous errors referred to as “mismatches of the denotative meanings of elements of the source and translation texts”, will detract more seriously from the quality of a translation text, whenever the source text has a strongly marked ideational functional component, e.g., mismatches of the denotative meaning

76

of items in a science text are likely to be rated higher than a mismatch on Social Attitude. A detailed hierarchy of errors for any individual case can, however, only be given for a particular comparison of two or more texts depending in any particular case on the objectives of the evaluation, or in the case of translation in the context of foreign language teaching, on the objectives set by the teacher. In the original study I chose my corpus of sample texts in such a way that they represented a wide range of different “genres”. Given the range of genres and subject matters, I believe that I was able to demonstrate successfully the practicality of the suggested model, and that I was able to make some valid generalizations concerning the establishment and the nature of translation equivalence being closely tied to the two basic translation types I hypothesized. I believe that these results are valid for the particular corpus I analysed but also for other STs and TTs that can, on account of the criteria suggested in my model, be placed along the covert-overt continuum, with clear-cut endpoints marking texts that unambiguously call for an overt or a covert translation. A particular ST does not necessarily require once and for all either a covert or an overt translation, given the different, dynamic ways of viewing a text and different purposes for which a translation may, in the course of time, be required. However, in clarifying the distinction overt-covert, and in detailing the consequences in translation practice and evaluation which follow the choice of a particular predominant translation type, the original model has succeeded in shedding some light on a theoretically problematical area of translation. In evaluating translations, a version must be distinguished from a translation, and an overt translation from a covert translation. These categories are designed to clarify the nature of the equivalence required for a translation of optimal quality. In translation, this equivalence is to be one of function, function being determined by a pragmatic analysis, i.e., a detailed opening up of a particular source text and its translation text. Returning to the three questions (relationship between original and translation, between texts and human agents, distinction between translation and other textual operations) asked initially (p. 1) to judge the differences in theoretical and empirical potential between different approaches to translation and translation evaluation, the model presented here is firmly based on the assumption that translation is a double-bind operation. As opposed to views that show a one-sided concern with the translation, its receptors and the conditions holding for the translation s reception in the target culture, the model takes account of both original and translation by positing a dine along which it can be shown which tie of the double-bind has priority in any particular case, the two endpoints of the dine being marked by the concepts overt translation (source text focussed) and covert translation (target text focussed). The relationship between (features of) the text(s) and the human agents Involved

77

(as author, translator, reader), is explicitly taken care of in the model through the provision of an elaborate system of pragmatic-functional analysis of original and translation, with the covert-overt dine on which a translation is to be placed determining the type of reception sought and likely to be achieved. Finally, the model explicitly provides for the means of distinguishing a translation from other types of textual operations by specifying the conditions holding for a translation to turn into a version^The notion of a cultural filter which is to be applied in covert translation cases needs to be substantiated through language-pair specific contrastive pragmatic research. In the next Chapter I will present examples of such research relevant for German-English and English-German cultural filtering.

78

CHAPTER 3 Substantiating the Cultural Filter: Evidence from Contrastive Pragmatic Discourse Research

One of the most intriguing “open questions” that emerged from the original model, is the nature of the cultural filter to be applied in covert translation, where the differences in communicative preferences, mentalities, and values are taken into account in translation. In the original model, it was hypothesized in the two exemplary analyses of covert translations (which are reprinted in Chapter 2) that the cultural filter was not legitimately applied in these cases. This hypothesis needed closer examination, the assumption being that research into differences in the socio-culturally determined communicative preferences in the two linguacultures (English and German) involved might give more substance to the notion of cultural filter^ and consequently a better basis for judgments of the legitimacy of the application of a cultural filter in covert translation. In this Chapter I will therefore outline some contrastive pragmatic and discourse studies I have conducted over the past twenty years and indicate the results and hypotheses I have formulated on the basis of these studies.

1

Contrastive Discourse Analyses: German-English

In the seventies and eighties I conducted a number of contrastive pragmatic analyses comparing the discourse of German and English native speakers, the subjects being students at German and English universities. (Cf. House 1979; 1984; 1993; 1996a,b; Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989; and see the references below.) The data collection methods were open, self-directed dyadic role plays, often followed by retrospective interviews and discourse completion tests combined with meta-pragmatic assessment tests, as well as naturalistic data drawn from interactions between English and German native speakers. In the following I want to briefly describe the discourse phenomena Investigated and to summarize the results indicating their relevance for the

79

cultural filter (English-German) in the model of translation quality assessment. The analyses undertaken were based on the discourse analysis model provided in Edmondson (1981) and the interactional grammar of Edmondson and House (1981) as well as on the categories of analysis developed within the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989).

^

The data was elicited in the framework of two projects to be described in greater detail in what follows. The first project supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft dealt with the acquisition of communicative competence by German learners of English (cf. Edmondson et al 1984). It Involved dialogic speech, which was elicited in open role-play from German native speakers, English native speakers and German learners of English. The discourse type was dyadic face-to-face conversations in everyday situations of some interactional complexity. The role plays were based on a number of abstract interactional bases and the role relationship between the two participants was such that the two parameters [+/-authority] and [+/-famlliarlty] led subjects to produce a wide variety of different speech acts in different social constellations. In this framework I conducted various contrastive discourse analyses using the data produced by the German and the English native speakers. These contrastive pragmatic analyses were conducted mainly in order to establish the presence or absence of pragmatic differences in the verbal behaviour of English and German speakers. The analyses were conducted on one of the three following levels: (1) On the most “superficial” level, those tokens were compared which correspond pragmatically in the two llnguacultures, given the different systems of selection holding for the various types in the two llnguacultures. (2) On a “deeper” level, norms of expectation with regard to certain illocutionary acts and their sequencing were taken into consideration. (3) On an even “deeper” level, the social functions of the analytic categories were investigated, l.e., their respective positions alongside parameters such as [+/-authority] and [+/-famlliarlty], as well as the resulting degrees of “directness”, types of politeness, and formality. A comparison was made in the following areas:

1.1 Discourse phases Discourse phases, l.e., discourse opening and closing phases were analysed in terms of their various structural elements, their sequencing, the interactional functions of these structures, and their linguistic realizations (House 1979; 1982a; 1984).

80

In the analysis of opening and closing phases in'English and German interactions I found that certain opening acts such as the Territory Invasion Signal {Excuse me) or closing acts such as the Extractor (/ really must go now) tend to be realized by routine formulae by the English native speakers, whereas the German speakers tend to prefer lengthy ad-hoc content-oriented expressions, which result in a noticeably greater verbosity in the German interactions. In opening and closing-phatic talk a whole series of routine formulae have no readily available equivalent formulae in English. Thus: Nice to see you^ Nice to have met you, Lovely talking to you, Let’s keep in touch etc. tend to be formulated in an ad-hoc manner, in which greater emphasis on the respective content or subject matter of the interaction is placed, as in e.g., Wie schon, dajl ich Sie mal wieder treffe, wir haben uns ja schon iiher einen Monat nicht mehr gesehen etc. Also, the use of moves with which to explicitly introduce a topic was found to be more frequent in German.

1.2 Discourse Strategies The analysis of discourse strategies (House 1979; 1982b, 1984) i.e., supportive moves used in an anticipatory and prophylactic manner (such as e.g., Checkson-availability {Are you free tonight), Getting-a-pre-commitment {Can you do me a favour). Disarming the Interlocutor (/ don’t want to bore you with unnecessary details), or muddling your way through an issue by expanding it verbosely) revealed the following tendencies: (1) German speakers tend to prefer the use of content-oriented and self-referenced strategies with which they explicitly introduce a topic {Ich habe eine Frage) expand on it {Also mein Hauptpunkt hier ist folgender, und ich willversuchen, die wesentlichsten Punkte in allerKiirze darzustellen...) or provide reasons and justifications of different kinds, whereas English native speakers tend to select strategies which are more interpersonallyoriented such as e.g., a Dlsarmer (/ hate bothering you but...). The preferred self-referencing in German as opposed to the “other-orlentedness” in English can also be demonstrated with the following two examples: Are you busy at the moment vs Store ichf Kann ich Sie einen Moment storenf and Is this seat taken/Is anyone sitting here^ vs Ist dieser Platz noch frei (i.e., “for me”). (2) There is more ad-hoc formulation in German and a greater reliance on pre-fabrlcated expressions or conversational routines in English. For example: Can you do me a favour vs ich wollte mal fragen, ob du mir da mal aushelfen kannst.

81

1.3 Gambits The analysis of gambits (House 1979; 1982c; 1984) i.e., discourse elements such as well, you know, you see, question tags, etc. that function to “lubricate” an ongoing discourse in different ways, and also serve the speaker as time-gaining routines during speech production revealed that Germans tend to prefer content-oriented and self-referenced types of gambits such as e.g., starters {ja also) used in prefacing ones message or undersborers {und das ist mein Hauptpunkt hier) used to emphasize the importance of the content of a message, whereas English speakers prefer gambit types with which they explicitly address their conversational partner such as e.g., cajolers {you see) used to coax the Interlocutor into heightened attention or sympathy.

1.4 Speech Acts The analysis of the realization of speech acts, especially requests and complaints (House 1979; 1984; 1985; House and Kasper 1981) as potentially facethreatening acts was one of the most important parts of my work. Phenomena such as directness and politeness in the use of speech act were investigated, and different “levels of directness” were suggested ranging e.g., in the case of requests from the most direct level, the raw imperative to the most Indirect “hints” with which speakers skirt around a subject. German subjects tend to prefer more direct expressions, a tendency which must however not automatically be equated with a preference for utterances reduced in politeness. The Pikean distinction between emic and etic perspectives of culture-conditioned behaviour is relevant here. For example: (Situation: A wants B to to P): Don't you think it might he a good idea if you did P vs Also ich finde Du solltest P tun). In the second, larger and internationally operating project, the “CrossCultural Speech Act Realization Project” (Blum-Kulka, House, Kasper 1989), which involved cross-cultural pragmatic contrast between seven different languages and language varieties, I again conducted a number of German-Engllsh contrastive pragmatic analyses (House 1989a,b; Blum-Kulka and House 1989; House and Kasper 1987). The data was elicited in this project through the method of using a (written) discourse completion test, i.e., everyday dialogic situations (16 altogether) with a blank left in each situation for the insertion of a certain speech act were presented to subjects (university students) on a questionnaire. This data was triangulated with retrospective interviews and so-called metapragmatic assessment tests, i.e., tests in which subjects were asked to assess e.g., the appropriateness of certain utterances in a given situation or the level of politeness or directness in a set of utterances, the social role

82

relationship, or the rights and obligations of participants holding in a given situation. The result of my analyses with 200 German and 100 English subjects basically confirmed the results of my work in the previous project: German subjects tend to opt for more direct realizations of requests, and they prefer to surround their requests with more content-oriented discourse strategies than the English nativ.e speakers (who tend to prefer interpersonally active and routinized strategies). In their realization of apologies, Germans tend to choose self-referenced moves wheras the English native speakers more frequently select moves conventionally expressing concern for alter, e.g., YouWe not upset, are you vs Ich wollte Dich nicht krdnken, are the most frequently realized English and German expressions of apology in a work-place situation where one collague had Insulted the other with a careless remark. Germans were again found to use discourse strategies with which to explicitly Introduce topics, and to justify and give reasons for e.g., a request more frequently than English native speakers. English native speakers also tend to use more routinized expressions in realizing apologies than German speakers, i.e., in many of the apology situations presented to subjects in the project, English native speakers use the illocutionary force indicating device: sorry in places where the German subjects realize a surprising variety of different tokens: (Oh) Entschuldigung, Entschuldigen Sie hitte, Verzeihung, Tut mir leid, Pardon, Sorry, as well as a number of different combinations of these tokens. More recently, I have tried to look into the manifestations and causes of cross-cultural misunderstandings between German and English speakers (House 1993; 1996a,b). Data was collected in authentic conversations, interviews, self-reports and field-notes. Results so far suggest that a substantial part of German-English cross-cultural misunderstandings result from differences in the pragmatic areas outlined above. Further, a recent investigation into attempts to develop pragmatic fluency in German learners of English in an Instructional setting has clearly demonstrated that many of the pragmatically inappropriate utterances on the part of these learners stem from the difference in orientation in the German and Anglophone linguacultures: towards a message to be transmitted as opposed to an interactional, addressee-oriented and conventionally routinized orientation (see House 1996c).

83

2

Five Dimensions of Cross-Cultural Difference: English-German

From all these individual results of a whole series of cross-cultural pragmatic analyses based on different subjects, data and methodologies, a consistent pattern emerges: in a variety of everyday situations, German subjects tended to interact in ways that were more direct, more e:{plicit, more self-referenced and more content-oriented. German speakers were also found to be less prone to resort to using verbal routines than English speakers. The pattern of cross-cultural differences that has emerged from my German-Engllsh contrastive pragmatic analyses can be displayed along five dimensions as in Tab. 1:

Dimensions of Cross-Cultural Difference (German-English) Directness

Indirectness

Orientation towards Self

<=>

Orientation towards Other

Orientation towards Content

<=>

Orientation towards Persons

Explicitness

<=>

Implicitness

Ad-hoc Formulation

<=>

Use of Verbal Routines

Table 1: Dimensions of Cross-Cultural Difference (German-English)

Along these dimensions, Germans were found to give preference to positions on the left hand side. It must be stressed again, that these are continua or dines rather than clear-cut dichotomies, that we are dealing here with tendencies rather than categorical distinctions. At this stage of the discussion one might also pose the question whether results such as the ones described above and especially the hypothesized five dimensions as generalizations from these results increase existing prejudices and stereotypes. Admittedly, this is a real danger. However there are at least three ways how this danger can be minimized: (1) Conduct further empirical cross-cultural pragmatic research, which draws on different and larger samples and is designed to falsify the results so far achieved;

84

(2) Involve blcultural experts in the interpretation and evaluation of the data; (3) Extend bicultural contrastive studies towards multicultural ones, which might relativise the results of blcultural contrastive studies. Returning to the results of the cross-cultural German-Engllsh studies described above, they Imply that in German discourse, “transactional language use” (to use Brown and Yule’s 1983 terms), which Is primarily message-oriented, tends to be valued differently from interactional, addressee-oriented language use. And in terms of the two Hallidayan language functions, the ideational and the Interpersonal, It Is the ideational one, which seems to be given a different focus In German interactions - often at the expense of the interpersonal one. Further, one might conclude on the basis of the hypothesized five dimensions that some of the Gricean Maxims (Grice 1975) seem to operate differently in the German linguaculture, i.e., the Maxim of Quantity (“Make your contribution as informative as is required” and “Do not make your contribution more Informative than is required”), and the Maxim of Manner (“Be brief”) do not seem to have the validity they have for Anglophone cultures, for which they were conceived. In looking for a “deeper” explanation for these results, it is necessary to look for the cultural-historical roots of the differences found along the hypothesized dimensions, and try to link up differences in interactional style and cultural ethos with a richer ethnographic context considering the history, philosophy, religion, educational system, political and social developments, conventionalized cultural practices of the llnguacultures involved. Preliminary hypotheses explaining the roots of some of the German communicative preferences discussed above point to phenomena in German society such as the following: (1) a break-up of a so-called national identity and a loss of a sense of community (“Gemelnschaft”) (with an ensuing heightened Individualism), (2) a break-up of etiquette, of a behavioral canon of rules of conventional behaviour in post-war Germany, (3) an educational system that has traditionally tended to place greater emphasis on the transmission of knowledge, of content and subject matter, and on the development of “inner virtues”, feeling and character, rather than on conventional social values, let alone the transmission of the particular Anglo-Saxon brand of an “etiquette of simulation”, where rules of communicative behaviour are implicitly handed down from generation to generation “to sound as if you mean it” when, e.g., expressing thanks, apologies, compliments and other “face-lifting” speech acts. The results of my cross-cultural (and misunderstanding) research has pointed to the generalization that such “impression management” is less strongly valued in the German linguaculture.

85

(4) as in other European countries, the legal system features pre-established statutes, laws, and regulations. This is very different from the Anglo-Saxon pragmatic and negotiable case law system (cf. Legrand 1996). Influences on communicative patterns such as the ones briefly sketched above (for a more extensive discussion see House forthcoming), need further systematic Investigation, and an equally systematic attempt to link them to empirically established cross-cultural communicative differences. An Important research task for the future is, it seems to me, to try to investigate the underlying reasons for the historical development of such deepseated differences in communicative orientations. What we would need here are longitudinal studies to supplement existing cross-sectional studies.

2.1 Examples in Support of the Five Dimensions To elucidate the dimensions I have distilled from a variety of pragmallnguistlc studies, I will now list a number of examples taken from various different cultural practices and discourse types. The first set of examples is taken from a corpus of German signs, which appear in many different walks of life. In many cases these signs were also provided with an official translation that nicely reveals the German-English dimensional differences with respect to a focus on content vs an Interpersonal focus in the demonstration of German explicitness, and the apparent need felt by those responsible for the signs to explain and justify them: (1) Sign at Frankfurt airport (displayed at a building site; original German) Damit die Zukunft schneller kommt! vs We apologize for any inconvenience work on our building extension is causing you! The difference in perspective, l.e., focus on content in German, Interpersonal focus in the English translation is clearly noticeable here. (2) Sign displayed in many different places in the University of Hamburg: Zur Vermeidung von Gesundheitsschaden und unzumutharen Beldstigungen ist in den Hallen, Fluren, Treppenhdusern und Veranstaltungsrdumen dieses Gehaudes mit Ausnahme der Cafeteria und der Eingangshalle das RAUCHEN UNTERSAGT Bitte nehmen Sie Rucksicht auf die Gesundheit Ihrer Mitmenschen! The English translation of this sign which not only explicitly names the areas where it is operative but also justifies its own existence as it were (“Zur Ver-

86

meidung von Gesundheitsschaden”), would most likely be a simple “No smoking” (this was suggested to me by Anglophone observers puzzled by the sign). (3) Traffic sign in Hambjjrg s Ohlsdorf cemetery:

30 km/h Anf dem Friedhof This sign seems to explicitize the obvious: when the addressees are driving through this cemetery, one would assume that they know where they are, so the addition “Auf dem Friedhof” seems overly explicit. (4) Sign in a hotel bathroom

Lieher Gast! Weniger Wdsche und weniger Waschmittel schUtzen unsere Umwelt. Bitte entscheiden Sie selhst, oh Ihre Handtiicher gewaschen werden sollen. Nochmals henutzen: Fiandtucher bitte hdngen lassen. Neue Handtiicher: Handtiicher auf den Boden legen. vs

Dear guest, will you please decide for yourself whether your towels shall he washed. Use again: please leave your towels on the towel rack. Clean towels: please put your towels on the floor. In the German original, but not in the translation, an explicit justification for the request is offered in the first sentence. Further, the German original seems slightly less polite than the translation, l.e., mentioning “bitte” twice may have seemed too much for the German writer, whereas the English translation inserts a “please” in each of the requests. (5) Advice given by airport personnel

Ladies and Gentlemen, please do not leave your luggage unattended at any time! vs

Meine Damen und Herren, bitte lassen Sie Ihr Gepdck aus Sicherheitsgriinden me unbeaufsichtigt. Here again the German addressees are provided with an expllct reason or justification for the request made. The following examples are taken from the TV comedy series Mr. Bean, which was dubbed in German TV and also shows the difference in focus on (explicit) content and on the level of directness in utterances: (6) Everybody out now please! vs Die Badezeit ist zu Ende The translation shows a focus on a rule or rather the content of the rule, whereas the English original focusses on the human beings and their actions.

87

(7) Will you get out of there please! vs Weg da! The level of directness in the English original is much lower than the one in the German translation. (8) Watch your step! vs Vorsicht Stufe! Even in this conventionalized form, the German translation reveals a contentfocus, the English original an Interpersonal orte. (9) Mind the Baby, Mr. Bean! vs Babysitter wider Widen! The last example, (9) is an example of what I would call the German predilection for “letting the cat out of the bag” in the interest of being explicit. Manymore examples can be found in the translations of TV film titles, of which I will only list a few here: (10) Where are the Children^ vs Grenzenloses Leid einer Mutter {\\)Jack the Bear vs My Dad - ein ganz unglaublicher Vater (12) A Gunfight vs Duell in Mexico (13) Trapped and Deceived vs Wenn Eltem ihre Tochter verraten (14) Mommie Dearest vs Meine Hebe Rabenmutter In the German translations of the film titles in (10) to (14) the content of the films is “given away”, i.e., the titles explicitly tell the reader what to expect in the film. Having provided a few examples of the operation of these dimensions in “real life” in a number of different textual types, parallel texts and covert translations, I will now briefly refer to some studies relevant for, and supportive of, the findings of my own cross-cultural work.

3

Some Contrastive Pragmatic Studies Supporting the Hypothesis of the Five Cross-Cultural Dimensions

While there is direct support for these findings for instance, from Byrnes (1986), Kotthoff (1989), Blellck (1991) and Fetzer (1996) who also compared English and German oral discourse, it is interesting to see that my results, which were achieved with oral data, are comparable to the results of a number of contrastive pragmatic analyses in the area of written text production as well. Cross-cultural comparisons of texts and investigations of attitudes towards specific text types are fields of research which are becoming increasingly popular. They are of particular relevance for the teaching of writing and for

88

translation theory and practice. (Cf. House 1994 for an overview, and see Kaplan 1987; 1996; Purves 1988; Connor and Kaplan 1987.) Research methodologies include comparisons of texts written by members of different cultures^ in terms of cohesive devices, textual organization, presence and nature of reader or writer perspective, and judgments of a text’s effectiveness by expert raters in the two cultures. With regard to the two linguacultures, with which I am here primarily concerned, Michael Clyne (1981; 1987; 1994) has revealed the impact of cultural values on discourse pointing to the culture-specificity of discourse structuring in written academic texts. Clyne compared a large corpus of academic discourse (linguistics and sociology texts) written by Germans in both German and English and by English native speakers. All texts compared were chosen and matched according to the discipline and sub-discipline, type of text (article, book chapter, published conference paper), topic, intention of the text, and the author’s gender. Clyne’s results show the following; 1)

Texts composed by Germans tend to be less “linear” and show more digressions, which were found to fulfill particular functions in German academic texts: “they enable writers to add a theoretical component to an empirical text, a historical overview, ideological dimension, or simply more content, or engage in a continuing polemic with members of a competing school ... these are all crucial aspects of German Intellectual style and German culture” (Clyne 1994: 163).

2)

Germans focus much more on the content they are presenting than on how this content is to be presented and/or received by readers.

3)

German texts are often “writer-oriented” rather than “reader-oriented”, or, put differently, it is the reader’s responsibility to make sense of a text, with the writer not being burdened with the task of making his text palatable to his readers (see Hinds 1987 on reader- vs writer- responsibility).

Clyne’s finding can be Informally confirmed through the obvservation that in German translations of reader-friendly, “simple” English terms or titles one notices a trend towards “complexlflcation”, see e.g., John Austin’s famous work entitled How to do things with words and its German rendering as Zur Theorie derSprechakte. Similarly, consider the German adaptation of an American course of studies called Public Health as Gesundheitswissenschaften, or the way Social Management is rendered as Betriebswirtschaft im Sozialwesen. Clyne also pointed out that there seems to be a much clearer division between academic writing and non-academic writing in the German lingua culture. By contrast, native English speakers’ academic articles tend to be more similar to non-academic texts and thus more reader-oriented. Clyne (1994) set out to interpret the contrast he found in terms of different essay-writing norms that are transmitted by the educational systems in Engllsh-

89

and German speaking countries. According to Clyne, then, more weight is attached to form in the English school tradition, which has an effect on style preference, i.e., whereas the German scholar wishes to present his/her credentials as a “Wissenschaftler”, the English-speaking scholar alms to show that his/her argument is sound and well thought out. Other researchers, who compared so-called “intellectual styles” or “cultural thought patterns” (i.e., ways of turning thoughts into language) have suggested deep-seated differences between makers of different llnguacultures that determine different discourse styles in speech and writing. Thus Kaplan (1966) in his classic “doodles article” entitled “Cultural Thought Patterns” suggested the existence of five discourse types based on genetic language types: the linear and logical progression in English, the parallel constructions with the first idea completed in the second part of a composition in Semitic languages, the circularity with which a topic is looked at from different angles in Oriental languages, the licence to digress and Introduce “extraneous” material in Romance languages, and lastly and similarly to Romance discourse, the freedom to digress lenghtily using parenthetical amplifications and subordinate elements in Russian. German would be placed somewhere in between Romance languages and Russian, such that the difference between the typical German discourse type and the typical English one hypothesized by Kaplan is marked. Indeed. Kaplan s hypotheses also confirm my own German-Engllsh contrastive studies. As opposed to the more linguistically oriented Investigations of text productions, a more speculative, non-emplrlcal approach to looking at cross-cultural differences in writing is the one exemplified by Galtung (1985). On the basis of his familiarity with scholars from different cultural backgrounds, Galtung hypothesized four different “Intellectual styles”, which he called “Sachsonisch”, “Galllsch”, “Nlpponisch”, and “Teutonisch”, designating their respective backgrounds. Galtung correlates his styles with their relative strengths and weaknesses in terms of the analysis of paradigms, the production of theses, the formation of theories, and the ability to provide commentaries on other Intellectuals. For Instance, the Saxonic Intellectual style is very strong on the production of (hypo)theses, where the Teutonic one is weak. The Saxonic style is weak on theory formation, where the Teutonic style is very strong, and the Teutonic style is also superior to the Saxonic one in terms of paradigm analyis. Teutonic Intellectual style, according to Galtung, is more elitist, individualistic, and monologue-oriented as well as polarized, involving an attack on others’ weak points, whereas the Saxonic style is more “democratic”, non-polarlzed, and alms more at dialogue and a harmonization of different viewpoints. Commenting on Galtung’s speculations, Clyne states that “while (Galtung’s) categories help account for some aspects of German academic discourse, the ’’democratic'* characteristics of the ’’Saxonic** are not

90

necessarily accompanied by tolerance for variation, cultural and otherwise” (1994:28). Relevant is here also a study by Kusch and Schroder (1989), who compared German and English texts by Habermas and Davidson confirming the hypothesized differences between Teutonic and Saxonlc “Intellectual styles” as well as Clyne s differences between German and English academic discourse. They also admitted, however, that it is extremely difficult to operationalize concepts such as “Intellectual style” or “linearity”, let alone generalize from results based on a very small corpus of texts. Another attempt to provide empirical support for Clyne s and Galtung’s theses is Gnutzmann and Oldenburg (1991), who compared Introductions and conclusions in academic articles in the journals Language and Linguistische Berichte. They found that introductions in both journals are highly conventionalized but conclusions display culture-conditioned differences: in Language, authors routinely highlight the importance of their own work, in the German journal, however, a (more modest) summary is provided. Other influential approaches investigating cultural differences in value orientations are the psychosoclally oriented cross-cultural studies by Hofstede s (e.g. 1984; 1991) on comparative “work-related” values, and Halls classification of cultures according to certain dimensions (cf. Hall 1976; Hall and Hall 1983). Hofstede Investigated differences in cultural values on the basis of a questionnaire study with over a 100.000 employees in a large multi-national company in 40 countries, triangulated by other empirical studies. He suggested four cross-cultural dimensions along which cultures differ: Individualism vs collectivism, power distance, masculinity vs feminity, and uncertainty avoidance. The dimension “uncertainty avoidance” captures the way culture members handle uncertainty and ambiguity. Wherever there is a low tolerance for uncertain situations, there will also be a need for explicit rules and structures, with which events can be anticipated and controlled. According to Hofstede, members of the German culture tend to have a high value on the uncertainty avoidance parameter. The parameter “uncertainty avoidance” can be related to my dimensions “directness vs Indirectness” and “explicitness vs implicitness”, in that the need to express oneself directly and explicitly may be said to stem from a drive to reduce uncertainty. I can also detect a similarity with the “self vs other” orientation in my dimensional scheme and Hofstede’s dimension “collectlvistic vs Individualistic” cultures, respectively displaying an “us vs an I-feeling” or a “responsibility to others/society vs responsibility to self”. According to my findings, Germans appear to be more on the individualistic end of the scale than Anglo-Americans. From an anthropological vantage point, Edward T. Hall (1976) attempted to classify cultures and Indeed mentalities according to “hidden differences”

91

In terms of preferences of “high or low context” and “monochronic or polychronic time” in culture-conditioned communication. In high-context communication “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is explicitly coded...” (1976: 79) whereas in low-context communication “the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code” (1976: 79). Hall (1983) further distinguishes polychrone and monochrone cultures. Individuals in monochrone (“M-time”) cultures tend to do only “one thing at a time” taking'schedules, plans and temporal commitments very seriously, whereas Individuals in polychrone (“P-tlme”) cultures do several things at the same time, taking plans, schedules, dates etc., with a grain of salt. German communication patterns and preferences would then be more on the low-context and the monochrome end of Hall’s continua than anglophone communication patterns and preferences. Hall and Hall (1983: 65) go as far as deducing from these findings a culturally conditioned difference between American “friendliness” as opposed to German “seriousness”. One of the most important themes in a corpus of interviews I conducted with American exchange students (House 1996a) was, in fact, “friendliness”, and how and why it is felt to be absent in the context of the German culture. The link to the Anglophone focus on persons versus the German focus on content is obvious. Further, there is certainly a similarity between Hall’s two dimensions of context and time and my hypothesized dimensions of implicitness vs explicitness and orientation towards content vs orientation towards addressees. Cross-cultural differences in the realization of spoken and written discourse and the communicative preferences of members of different llnguacultures (with particular reference to German vs English discourse) have also been the topic of much recent “textual-pragmatic” research, involving a variety of different text types. I will very briefly sketch some of the results of studies which I see as particularly relevant for my attempt here to substantiate the cultural filter in German-Engllsh/ English-German translations. These studies can thus also be taken to provide converging evidence for some or all of my hypothesized dimensions. Relevant support for my hypotheses of German-Engllsh communicative differences is given in Agar (1992) who in a review of Werner Holly’s “Polltikersprache ...” - a review of a book from one intellectual tradition in the context of another - spelled out Anglosaxon and German differences very similar to the ones I have hypothesized: Content-focus versus reader-focus, explicitness vs implicitness, bottom-up data-driven approaches vs top-down priority of fundamental, theoretical Issues. Leaving out other nationalities. Agar quotes a joke that makes this points nicely: An American and a German go off to study elephants. The American comes back with a brief essay entitled

92

“How to Use an Elephant”. The German comes back with 11 volumes entitled “Introduction to Elephant Science” (1992: 161). In a short insightful article, Luchtenberg (1994) contrasts American and German software manuals, coming up with results that basically confirm my hypotheses about German and English content vs Interpersonal orientation, as well as directness vs indirectness in communicative orientation. Her title says it all: “A friendly voice to help you vs. working thoroughly through your manual: Pragmatic differences between American and German software manuals”. Luchtenberg gives a number of examples taken from German software manuals, that reveal how “the friendly helping voice” in the English original is changed for the German user such that he is made to feel guilty for not having properly read the Instructions running the risk of needlessly bothering the Customer Support Department. The German software user is given orders as though he were a schoolboy who failed to do his homework, whereas the American user’s cry for help is seen as perfectly legitimate, even though he is expected “to have exhausted all other help avenues”. Compare: WordPerfect is hacked by a customer support system designed to offer you fast, courteous service. If you've exhausted all other Help avenues and need a friendly voice to help you with your problem, follow these steps ... (1994:316). The German reader has to make do with the following: WordPerfect hat ein Support-Zentrum eingerichtet, dessen Mitarheiter Ihnen hei Prohlemen kompetente Unterstutzung anhieten. Wenn Sie trotz der m WordPerfect zur Verfiigung stehenden Hilfsquellen ein Problem nicht losen konnten, wenden Sie sich an unser Support-Zentrum (1994: 316). Luchtenberg’s study touches on an important difference in the notion of “service” in the Anglo-Saxon and German linguacultures, which might be explained with reference to the hypothesized dimensional differences of selforientation and content-orientation versus Interpersonal orientation in communicative styles. Another study supporting my results is Ventola (1995a). She contrasts the use of English as a lingua franca in written communication by Finnish and German native speakers confirming the German predilection for content-rich, author-focussed communicative styles. Another contrastive pragmatic study relevant for my discussion here is Schmitt’s (1995) comparison of German and English safety precautions, warning labels etc., in which he finds that the usage in the English manuals is

93

practically standardized, whereas usage in German manuals seems to vary widely. I take this finding to support my hypothesis of the difference between German and English speakers’ reliance on routinized linguistic tokens in many discourse areas. Similarly, Busch-Lauer (1995), who compared English and German articles in medical journals, comes to the conclusion that the English texts she examined display a certain normative pattern, whereas the German texts are more random and variable, and that German authors often Introduce additional propositions into the text in the form of “Exkurse”. Gopferich (1995) analysed Instructions and product descriptions and found the German exemplars more reticent and objective, whereas the English instructions and descriptions were found to be much more interpersonally oriented frequently resembling advertisements. Finally, Fiedler (1994), who compared linguistic articles in Esperanto, English and German, found that the German articles were “less personal”. However, she also observed that German publications tend to become more interpersonally focussed due to the dominance of English in the scientific community. All the above studies provide converging evidence for the assumption that culture-conditioned preferences of focus, structuring and the use of routinized or ad-hoc tokens strongly influence writing styles. Fiedler’s (1994) finding of the changeable nature of language-specific styles should however sound a note of caution, l.e., itshould not be forgotten that, as Mauranen (1993) has pointed out, “in contrasting texts and cultures, it is necessary to abstract from a considerable amount of variation... categorical, that is absolute, differences would be a surprising result... not only owing to the Inherent variability of national cultures but also because of culture contact and Intercultural Influences. Writers and cultures have different kinds and amount of contact with other cultures. The differences... are therefore broad tendencies rather than exact dichotomies” (1993: 2). In other words, in cross-cultural studies focussing on differences in communicative styles, one should always remind oneself that these styles are historically conditioned and dynamic, and that one is therefore most pressingly “faced with the question about the possible directions and effects of the transmission of intellectual values across languages and cultures” (Duszak, 1994: 295). This question is, of course, also highly relevant for translation studies and the evaluation of translations. In setting up my five dimensions of cross-cultural difference, I started with a series of detailed contrastive pragmallngulstlc analyses, suggesting differences in English and German interactional norms, from which I hypothesized differences in discourse orientations. In doing so, I implicitly suggest, of course, that language use is linked to culture and mentality, and that linguistic differences in the realization of discourse phenomena may be taken to

94

reflect “deeper” differences, at a conceptual-cognitive and emotive level, in cultural preference and expectation patterns. This type of “deep difference” can have serious consequences for the process of translation in that they are likely to influence a translator s decisions about changes in the original text. The translator may consciously or unconsciously apply a cultural filter in covert translation to account for cross-cultural differences in the expectation norms holding in the two cultures concerned. In the following I want to give a few examples of translations and/or parallel texts in order to show how the empirically derived dimensions can help understand and explain the occurrence of cultural shifts in covert translation.

4

Examples of Translations Featuring Cultural Filtering Along the Five Dimensions of Cultural Difference

The examples are taken from different genres. The first two textual pairs (15) and (16), are instructions for use: one for using oven ware, the other one for setting up a perpetual calendar. In (15) the original is German, in (16) it is English. In both cases the German preference for greater explicitness is noticeable. {\5)KERAFOUR ist in unahhdngigen Priifungsinstituten auf Ofenfestigkeit und Mikrowellenhestdndigkeit getestet warden. Damit Sie lange Freude an ihm hahen, gehen wir Ihnen einige kurze Gebrauchshinweise: (1) Stellen Sie nie ein leeres, kaltes Gefdjl in den erhitzten Ofen (als leer gilt auch ein nur innen mit Fett hestrichenes Gefdjl). (2) Lassen Sie tiefgefrorene Kost vor dem Uberbacken erst auftauen, da sich so die Lebensdauer ihres KFRAFOUR-Teiles wesentlich erhoht. (J) Spiilen Sie das Gefdjl nach Gebrauch nicht mit kaltem Wasser. Bei Gebrauch sollte die Ofentemperatur 300 Grad nicht iiberschreiten. (4) Stellen Sie das KFRAFO UR-Teil nicht auf den Flektroherd oder gar in die offene Flamme. Viel Spajl und guten Appetit.

vs KFRAFOUR oven-to-table pieces have been tested by independent research institutes and are considered ovenproof and micro-wave resistant. Here are a few simple rules for using KFRAFOUR. (1) Never put a cold and empty piece into the heated oven. (2) Do not put deep frozen food immediately in the KFRAFOU R-piece into the oven. (3)

Clean the piece with warm water after use. The working temperature in the oven should never exceed 300 oc.

95

(4) NeveruseaKERAFOUR-pieceon the open flame or on the hot oven. Enjoy cooking with KERAFOUR. In the second sentence, the German original gives a reason for this instruction “Damit sie lange Freude an ihm haben”, which is left out in the translation. And under (1), the original - unlike the translation - defines precisely the conditions under which the Kerafour-plece is to be considered “empty”. One is reminded of (the then fire-inspector) Wh^f s famous example of a fire breaking out because of an erroneous conception of a gas-filled vessel being “empty” - whether the German text producer thought of the potentially costly consequences of a misinterpretation of “empty” or whatever else the reason for his greater explicitness may have been, the interesting fact remains that the entire bracket is left out in the English translation (but is retained in the French translation). Example (16) also shows that the German translator is more explicit and provides more details than is the case in the English original. {\6)Perpetual Calendar You have in your possession a very sensitive calendary do not damage it by riskily pressing the buttons. Follow our instructions to allow it to live ... Push colored tabs to uppermost position once they have come to an end. vs

Dauerkalender Sie sind der Besitzer eines leicht zu beschadigenden Kalenders; drucken Sie nicht auf die Fasten bevor der Kalender an der Wand hdngt, sonst zerbrechen Sie ihn. Lesen Sie die Gebrauchsanweisung ... Schieben Sie jedes farbige Pldttchen mittels eines Schiebeknopfes nach oben, sobald das Ende der Skala erreicht ist.

In specifying the consequences of inappropriate handling (“sonst zerbrechen sie ihn”) and the time during which such handling should be avoided (“bevor der Kalender an der Wand hangt”), as well as the Instrument to be used (“mittels eines Schiebeknopfes”) in the instruction, the German translation is much more explicit as regards the Information conveyed than the English original. The next two examples, (17) and (18), are advertisements. (17) is an extract from an advertisement for coffee from Colombia. I suspect (but was not able to verify this) the English text is the original and the German text is the translation, but even if they were both translations from Spanish, the points I want to make still hold: (17) (The advertisement features a picture showing a young man tasting coffee) COLOMBIA Look at the concentrated face of this coffee taster. This is how conscientious Colombians are about their mild and noble Highland coffee.

96

Our friend’s profession is an important one in Colombia; his tongue is incorruptible. He himself is severe, but today he is just as mild as his much praised Highland coffee. This year’s crop can only be rated excellent. Find out for yourself over'there in far-off Europe. vs KOLUMBIEN Wie ernst man in Kolumbien seinen edlen, milden Hochlandkaffee nimmt, konnen Sie an der konzentrierten Miene dieses Herrn erkennen. Er ubt einen der wichtigsten Berufe hierzulande aus. Er ist Kaffeetester. Seme "Zunge ist unbestechlich. Er selbst ist sehr streng. Doch heute ist er so milde wie der viel geriihmte Kaffee. “Dieser Ernte kann man nur das Pradikat excellent geben”. Wohl bekomm’s im weitentfemten Europa. The English text is interpersonally more potent than the German one: in the first paragraph, the reader is directly asked to do something, which immediately involves him personally. In the second sentence the reader is helped along with an interpretation of the picture he has looked at. The first paragraph in the German text consists of one long sentence which is more difficult to grasp than the two short English ones. The reader is only indirectly addressed in German, the imparting of information is given greater weight, and a greater social distance is erected between the coffee taster and the reader, he is “dieser Herr” in German, whereas he is simply “our friend” in the second paragraph in English. In German he is “sehr streng”, in English only “severe”. And the ending, too, is more personal in the English text, as the reader is again personally and directly addressed, the German “Wohl bekomm s” is more conventionally Impersonal. Example (18) is taken from Smith and Kleln-Braley (1997). Both the English and the German translations are based on a French original. (18) (Picture of a vampish lady) AIR FRANCE The chances of her being seated next to you are so slim that you won’t regret the extra space between our seats. L’Espace Europe We know how hard it is for business travellers to have to concentrate on their work while waging the eternal battle of the armrest, so we have re-arranged the space between our L’Espace Europe seats. Where there used to be rows of three seats, there are now two seats separated by a little table. Your seat is much wider, more comfortable and the total space more conducive to a little privacy. Now, when you take a seat in one of our planes, you take your seat in space. (Picture of seats with table). The Right to Privacy. Air France introduces passengers’ rights. vs

97

AIR FRANCE Ihre Chancen stehen schlecht, dajl sie nehen Ihnen sitzt. Ihrem Komfort zuliehe hahen wir den Abstand zwischen den Sitzen spiirhar vergrojlert. UEspace Europe Geschaftsreisende wollen im FlugzeugAkten studieren, Zeitung lesen oder sich in Ruhe auf eine Sitzung vorhereiten. Am liehsten ohne Tuchfuhlung zum Nachbarn. Oder zur Nachbarin. Darum haben wir unsere UEspace Europe von Grund auf neu gestaltet. Grdjfer, schoner, bequemer und vor allem mit viel willkommener Ablagefldche zwischen den Sitzen. Fur viel Ellbogenfreiheit beim Lesen, Essen und Entspannen genau die richtige Distanz. Und auch fur ein anregendes Gesprdch. (Picture of seats with table.) Ihr Recht auf Distanz. Bei Air France sind Sie mit Recht Fluggast. Smith and Klein-Braley (1997) comment that the German advertisement provides more precise specification of activities than the English one. While the passengers in the English advertisement genetically “concentrate on their work”, their German counterparts are involved more explicitly in “Akten studieren, Zeitung lesen oder sich in Ruhe auf eine Sitzung vorhereiten”, and whereas the English readers are not informed about the reasons why passengers need space, the German reader learns that space is needed to enable the passenger to “lesen, essen und entspannen”. Further, Smith and Klein-Braley also point out in their perceptive analysis that the English advertisement attempts to directly address the reader as potential consumer through frequent repetition of “you” and “your”, whereas such an Interpersonal appeal is only present in the heading and slogan in the German advertisement. We have here a good example of the provision of more Information for the German reader coupled with an interpersonally less effective addressee Involvement. These findings support two of my hypothesized dimensions of cross-cultural differences in communicative preference - focus on content and explicitness (see also Smith and Klein-Braley 1997 for further examples of the strategy of giving German consumers more information in advertisements than the English one). In this Chapter, I have presented my own and others’ research on crosscultural differences in communicative preferences, norms and values. I have presented five dimensions of cross-cultural differences English-German as well as a number of studies that provide converging evidence for these dimensions. I have also discussed various examples of English-German, GermanEnglish covert translations and parallel texts, in which a cultural filter seems to have been applied. The notion of a cultural filter was Introduced in the original model of translation quality assessment in order to capture cultural shifts in translation. The filter has now been given substance through the research results and the cross-cultural dimensions presented in this Chapter.

98

How the cultural filter In its substantiated form can be integrated into the model for translation quality assessment will be shown in the next Chapter which presents the model in its revised form.

99

'^ni

v* \

I

.

‘T .'W r.'ifx. -

*

■

•

fe »

.

ni-'^ ■

-'iM'

••?-.■

. <•{

'»;■ v ■•

'

»i»

'■«

-‘r ..

r>

/iA<juS«

.w* 5.‘it woH

,-;#p

♦((

»

'

,

»'./'.

-

ii.—

*

•

. ♦

*•

,J

.

'. < »

ji

■

/•

-

’

*■

J.

V-.

j.

-

.

1*»'

.

■

-^

.'f '.I

. •

t

: r -

t

I

'

!•(:•

■■

_ -

.1

'

. '

'lij

. V

« ' * • K,

»

«

.►.. I

‘

'

,

>

,

.

. •!■

I

.

♦ X

.

•

»

_

•

'V*'

.

,

c

I

I

. ■

I

.-

> . ) :

1 ^ !».*

4' . '

.

>i *■

'<

11

* I •«<>

'2

CHAPTER 4

The Model Revisited

In the 20 years since the model of translation quality assessment was first published, it has been used by practising translators, by students of translation and by translation scholars. The model was favourably reviewed as a pioneer work and as an empirically based attempt to make the evaluation of translations more objective. However, it has, of course, also been criticized. These criticisms will be briefly discussed and, if found appropriate, taken into account in the revision of the model. The revision will concern the categories for analysis, in particular those originally used for register analysis, the dis-tinctlon between overt and covert translation including the cultural filter now substantiated by empirical research, as well as a re-consideration of the whole notion of “translation evaluation”.

1

Criticism of the Original Model of Translation Quality Assessment

Four major aspects of the model have been criticized: 1)

The nature of the analytical categories and the terminology used.

2)

Lack of Intersubjective verifiability of the analyses.

3)

The “limits of translatability”.

4)

The distinction between overt and covert translation.

I will deal with these points in turn.

1) The nature of the analytical categories and the terminology used Newmark critically remarks that the “categorizations are too rigid” (1981: 182), as well as “jargon-ridden” (1979: 61), and that in fact the whole critical apparatus is too complicated, but he has not elaborated on this point. In a

number of “personal communications”, however, he has made it clear that he objects mostly to needlessly jargonized terms such as “overtly erroneous er»

rors . Slote (1978) and Crisp (1981) also mention the complexity, unwleldlness and cumbersomeness of the entire categorlal apparatus that would make it too complicated to be used in translation classes or by practicing translators working under time pressure: “To be truly useful, the eight categories should be tightened up, reduced to six at the most. The very bulk o^the analytic tools would prove to be a stumbling block to pragmatic use of the model” (Slote 1978:175). A certain complexity and differentiation of the categorlal apparatus is, however, necessary if the analysis is to facilitate insightful results, and any reduction of analytic delicacy through less finely-grained analytical categories may yield less reliable results. Thus, while certainly attempting to dejargonlze the analytic categories, I do not think it is possible to substantially reduce their complexity. What can be achieved though is a re-grouping into fewer more general categories (such as Field or Tenor), which, despite a necessary subcategorlsation, make the overall organization of the categorlal system more transparent and simpler. A more serious criticism is made by Brotherton (1981). Brotherton claims that “the situational dimensions do not seem to provide any alignment for an interpretation of the basic content of the source text, particularly as no allowance is made for implicit elements” (1981: 19). He also finds fault with the categorization of features as textual, syntactic, and lexical claiming that, in many examples, the features allocated to one of these categories could with equal justification be ascribed to either or both of the other two categories. As to the point about the non-consideration of the basic content of the source text: apart from being explicitly accounted for through the parameter Province, content is implicitly considered in the way the other dimensions feed into the ideational functional component. Therefore the type of textual analysis provided in the model clearly does take account of content. The claim that the general fit of linguistic, l.e., textual, syntactic and lexical features with the situational categories is certainly correct, however this is due to the nature of language and does not point to a basic shortcoming of the model.

2) Lack of intersubjective verifiability of the analyses Konigs (1981: 205) criticises the lack of intersubjective verifiability of the analyses provided in the model. What is to be “verified”? The linguistic facts are laid out, and can be argued in detail, should differences of interpretation arise. So I do not think the analyses as such lack “intersubjective verifiability” - on the contrary, the whole analytical apparatus is designed to explicate the basis

102

of any global judgement. It is conceded, of course tha't the Interpretation of mismatches in the formation of an assessment of quality “contains” an interpretative hermeneutic element. Indeed, I expressly stated that, in the last analysis, “translation is a copiplex hermeneutic process” (House 1981: 64). This is an important point, and I will take it up again, when I discuss the nature of translation evaluation in general (see 5 below). It is this “relativisation” of the model which surprises Wilss (1980), who states: “Ferner fiillt auf, daft House ihren modelltheoretischen Ansatz im Verlauf ihrer Untersuchung in erheblichem Umfang relativiert. Gerade weil sie dezidiert und mit Recht die Notwendigkeit eines rationalen Umgangs mit Ubersetzungstexten betont und - Gott sei Dank - den theoretisch und methodisch vagen Begriff der ”Wirkungsidentitat“ oder ”Wirkungsanalogie“ zwischen ausgangs- und zielsprachlichem Text nicht thematisiert, ist ihre ... Parteinahme fiir die Subjektivitat des libersetzungskritischen Urteils eine Uberraschung” (Wilss 1980: 5). However, as emphasized above, the whole analytical apparatus enables the evaluator to make the analyses and interpretations transparent, explicit and non-subjective- but only to a certain point, i.e., the ultimate judgment of quality resulting from the analyses contains necessarily a hermeneutic, subjective component.

3) The “limits of translatability” The fact that I deliberately excluded poetic-asthetic texts from my analyses (basing my views on Jakobson, Politzer and Wellek) disturbs a number of critics, among them Slote (1978) and Brotherton (1981). The exclusion of pure poetic-aesthetic texts from the scope of the analytic procedure provided inside the model was then justified with reference to the fact that in the case of poetic-aesthetic texts, the usual distinction between form and content (or meaning) no longer holds, i.e., the physical nature of the slgnlflers in one language can never be duplicated in another language. While I still believe in the truth of this viewpoint, the model is and has to be applicable to literary texts, indeed the tensions that arose in the process of revising the model between covert and overt translations and the issue of cultural filtering and cultural transferability are distinctly relevant with regard to the translation of works of aesthetic and literary value. One of the reasons why such texts were (and are) excluded from further consideration is that they are outside my professional focus of Interest. This does not mean, of course, that poetic-aesthetic text cannot and should not be considered by anybody using the model in translation quality assessment.

103

4) The distinction between covert and overt translations Newmark (1981) states that the two “translation methods” are not analysed properly in terms of their real differences, and he clearly prefers his own distinction between semantic and communicative translation claiming that “House confusingly distinguishes ‘overt" (l.e., semantic) from ‘covert’ (i.e., communicative) translation... unfortunately she does not distinguish stylistically between the two types of translation” (1981: 52). Newmarl^ emphasizes, however, the necessity of making the distinction, as it clearly sets up an opposition against assuming that all translating is (nothing but) communicating, with the less effort expected from the reader, the better. Newmark felt that this crucial distinction represents “a challenge to the prevailing view that everything must always be done for the reader of a translation, that he must have everything served up to him, that he is therefore the unifying and generalizing factor for every text type and translation procedure. Which I cannot accept” (1981: 68). I cannot either, I may add, and I cannot agree more with Newmark today, 15 years later, when what he called “the prevailing view” seems to be more “prevailing” than ever. Relfi and Vermeer (1984: 48ff) claim that three definitional criteria for a translation, l.e., form, meaning and function are not clearly distinguished one from the other In the model. To substantiate this claim, they point to the {overt) translation of Hebei’s moral anecdote, the function of which was originally to give a moral lesson. In translation, however, the functions might be many different ones, e.g., to allow linguistic comparisons, to demonstrate the aesthetics of the composition etc. This statement shows that Relft and Vermeer misunderstood the notion of an overt translation, which has a second level function that Is not different but is in fact closely related to the function of the original text in that it allows target culture readers access to the original function. If, however, different secondary functions were added to the translation, an overt version would result in the terms of my model, i.e., a bilingual textual operation which Is no longer considered to be a translation. Fal£ (1981) makes the point that what was called refinement of the model (following the analyses of the test corpus) was In fact “a mere relativlsation of the model, and the distinction made between covert and overt translation is valuable only in so far as it has to be conceded that two such types of translation exist. Moreover, the usefulness of this differentiation to the translator himself seems practically null, since a particular source text ’’does not necessarily require either a covert or,an overt translation, given the different ways of viewing a text and different special purposes for which a translation may be requlred“. House, p. 210” (Faifi 1981: 80). Surely, this criticism is Invalid: if “elther-or” holds, then this makes the distinction particularly relevant rather than the opposite.

104

2

Rethinking the Categories for Analysis

In the following theoretical argument I wish to review the framework for the analytic categories, and, specifically clarify the relationship between textual function, linguistic characteristics and social use of a text by introducing the category genre. The framework in the original model for textual analysis and the establishment of textual function was register analysis. The notion of register proposes an intimate relationship of text to context. Register, l.e., functional language variation, refers to what the context-of-sltuation requires as appropriate linguistic realizations in a text. Register is thus basically a “contextual category correlating groupings of linguistic features with recurrent situational features” (Gregory and Carroll 1978: 4). In the literature reviewed in Chapter 2, registers are also described as sets of particular foregrounded lexicogrammatlcal choices. Bhatia (1993: 5) speaks of registers enabling “surface-level linguistic descriptions” of texts. However, one may need another category to explain “deeper” similarities or differences between texts. Assigning entire texts to different registers on the basis of the realized choices revealed in the analysis may be forbiddingly complex. Further, two texts may have similar linguistic features but may still be intuitively felt to be texts of a different type. Thus, it may be advisable to look for a text’s overall patterning in order to be able to decide which texts might belong to the same register. If texts are found to belong to the same register, they can be said to belong to the same “deeper”, underlying generic structure (Halllday 1978), which defines them as belonging to the same genre. In other words, the concept of genre refers to discourse types, it is a category “superordinate” to register. While Hasan (1978) seems to have looked upon register and genre as synonyms, Halllday originally saw genre as “language as projection of higherlevel semiotic structure” (1978: 134) suggesting that “the concept of generic stucture can be brought within the general framework of the concept of register” (1978: 145). Following Halllday and Hasan’s seminal work, text-based register analysis has thus more recently (Halllday 1989; Halllday and Hasan 1989; Martin 1989; 1993) been extended to take account of the semiotic dimension and of different types of discourse or genres - although the notion of “genre” was already foreshadowed in Crystal and Davy’s (1969) situational dimension “Modality” - a dimension I had not considered in the original model. In the revised version of the model I will, however, integrate genre into the categorlal system. Before demonstrating how this is done, I want to give a brief review of some recent relevant literature on genre. Genres such as e.g., the academic paper or the market report, are conceived as cultural discourse types featuring different configurations of lexical and

105

grammatical units characterized as registers, with different register choices realizing different genres. Or, put differently, genres result from social identifications in terms of use, source or function, and registers are the result of decisions inside a genre choice concerning field, mode and tenor. For example: suppose a publisher tries to sell a children s book that no child can understand, then this is an unsuccessful Instance of the genre, because the register is wrong. Martin (1989) argues that genres constrain the ways in which the individual register variables operate in combination with each other in a particular culture and in a complete text (cf. also Couture 1986, who stresses the point that genres are completable structured texts, while registers represent more generalizable stylistic choices). Different topics may thus be conventionally more or less suitable for an academic lecture, and such conventions may vary across cultures. Genre links texts to culture in that they “refer to the staged purposeful social processes through which a culture is realized in a language” (Martin and Rotherby 1986: 243). For the comparison and evaluation of texts in translation evaluation, questions of genre are potentially Important in that each of the texts will be “related to ‘certain shared knowledge’ about the nature of the other texts of the same kind, that is, to the concept of ‘genre’.” (Ventola 1995b: 121). According to Martin (1989; 1993) register and genre are both semiotic systems realized by language, a special kind of semiotic system. The relationship between genre-register-language is seen in terms of semiotic planes which relate to one another in a Fljelmslevian “content-expression” type, i.e., the genre is the content-plane of register, and register is the expression-plane of genre. Register in turn is the content-plane of language, with language being the expression-plane of register. This relationship can be represented as in figure 1 (adapted from Ventola 1984: 277). The fact that a plane functions as an expression-plane of higher semiotics is indicated by setting the semiotic boxes placed on top of each other and by showing realization on the lower planes through the dotted lines.

Genre Reg ister Language/Text

Fig. 1: Genre-Register-Language/Text

The relationship between genre and register is then such that generic choices are realized by register choices, which in turn are realized by linguistic choices

106

that make up linguistic structures in the instantiation of a text. We are able to categorize texts into particular genres on the basis of what we know about texts and their intertextuality and the social uses of texts, l.e., genre is taken as the basis on which we arguable to classify texts as of the same kind. Genre has been approached from many different angles: literary, sociological, folklorlstic, psychological, anthropological. I will here restrict myself to considering the linguistic ones. Inside linguistics, as we have seen above, it was mostly systemic (Hallldayan) linguists who explored the concept of genre. However, other linguistic approaches have also concerned themselves with genre: in the framework of ethnographically oriented linguistics, Hymes juxtaposes genre and speech event: “Genres often coincide with speech events, but must be treated as analytically Independent of them. They may occur in (or as) different events. The sermon as a genre is typically identified with a certain place in a church service, but its properties may be invoked for serious or humorous effects in other situations ” (Hymes 1974: 61). Hymes insight that genres are to be treated as analytically independent of speech events is particularly relevant for my purpose of establishing categories for the analysis and comparison of original and translation: a translation embeds the text and its genre in a new speech event in the case of an overt translation, and it recreates an “equivalent” speech event in the case of covert translation. Theoretically, the genre of a text is something to be kept equivalent in both overt and covert translation. From a sociolinguistic vantage point, Ferguson (1994) sees genre as a conventionalized message form that “recurs regularly in a community (in terms of semantic content, participants, occasions of use, and so on) and will tend over time to develop an identifying internal structure, differentiated from other message types in the community.” (1994: 21). To summarize this brief discussion of genre which is to serve as a new category in the revised model, I will define genre for my purposes here as follows: genre is a socially established category characterized in terms of occurrence of use, source and a communicative purpose or any combination of these. Inside my model, genre might serve as a category linking register (which realizes genre) and the individual textual function (which exemplifies genre). The resultant revised model consists then of four levels: function of the individual text, genre, register and language/text. Whereas the original model adapted Crystal and Davy’s (1969) system of categories for register analysis, the categorial system will now be revised in such a way that, while retaining a number of both Crystal and Davy’s and my own “old” categories, I now subsume them under the simplifying Hallldayan “trinity” Field, Tenor, Mode (see Halllday and Martin 1993). I also make use

107

of Biber s (1994) “Analytical Framework for Register Studies” for some conceptual differentiations. On the basis of the above considerations and in adaptation of Martin (1993: 120) the following scheme results:

Fig. 2: A Scheme for Analysing and Comparing Original and Translation Texts

The register categories FIELD, TENOR and MODE are explained and/or subdifferentiated in the following manner: FIELD: refers to the nature of the social action that is taking place, it captures “what is going on”, i.e., the field of activity, the topic, the content of the text or its subject matter. Here I will differentiate degrees of generality, specificity or “granularity” in lexical items according to rubrics of specialized, general, popular. This dimension is similar to Crystal and Davy’s Province, which however specifies some features that will now be subsumed under Genre (e.g., professional character of a field as in a religious sermon). TENOR: refers to who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, the addresser and the addressees, and the relationship between them in terms of social power

108

and social distance, as well as the “degree of emotional charge” in the relationship between addresser and addressee(s) (Halliday 1978: 33). Included here are the addressers temporal, geographical, social provenance as well as his intellectual, emotional or affective stance (his “personal viewpoint”) vis-a-vis the content he is portraying and the communicative task he is engaged in. Stance is reminiscent of Crystal and Davy’s category Individuality - which I once rejected, but now feel is an Important, if often neglected, variable (see Ochs 1989 and Taavitsainen 1994 for recent convincing pleas to take the category of “subjectivity”, “personal affect”, “stance” and the role of affect in meaning making more seriously). The subdivisions of the dimension Social Attitude in the original model in terms of Joos’ five styles will be simplified such that a tripartite division into formal - consultative - informal is now adopted for a more economic analysis. MODE This category captures both parts of Crystal and Davy’s (1969) parameter “Discourse”, i.e.. Medium and Participation in their simple and complex manifestations. In my scheme, therefore, MODE refers to both the channel - spoken or written (which can be “simple”, e.g., “written to be read” or “complex”, e.g., “written to be spoken as if not written”), and the degree to which potential or real participation is allowed for between the Interlocutors. Participation can also be “simple”, i.e., a monologue with no addressee participation “built into the text” or “complex” with various addressee-involving mechanisms characterizing the text (see also Chapter 2, p. 40 for a more detailed description of these categories). In taking account of the differences in texts between the spoken and the written medium, I will additionally, when appropriate, make use of the empirically established (corpus-based) oral-literate dimensions hypothesized by Biber (1988). Biber proposes correlates of medium by suggesting dimensions along which linguistic choices may reflect medium. These parameters are as follows: (1) Involved vs Informational Text Production (2) Explicit vs Situation-Dependent Reference (3) Abstract vs Non-Abstract Presentation of Information. Along the dimension of Involved vs Informational text production (cf. also Chafe 1982), spoken genres tend to veer towards Involved production, written genres towards informational production. Thus, with respect to each of these three dimensions, the poles characterize academic exposition and conversation respectively. However, as regards dimension (1), among written genres, personal letters are clearly marked by “Involvedness”, and among the spoken genres.

109

prepared speeches and broadcasts are strongly marked for informational production. Along dimension (2), written genres are strongly marked for explicit reference, spoken ones for situation-dependent reference. But public speeches and interviews behave like written genres along this dimension, and fiction genres resemble spoken ones. Along dimension (3), written genres tend to be full of abstract information, spoken genres tend to lack it. But fiction genres and personal letters resemble spoken genres a^ong this dimension. Thus, none of the dimensions defines an absolute spoken/written distinction, l.e., Biber (1988) confirms (on the basis of large-scale corpus analyses) the pioneer insights and register analyses by Gregory (1967), Crystal and Davy (1969) and others who set up categories such as “complex medium” and “complex participation”. Biber (1988) shows that it is possible within each mode to override the salient situational characteristics of the mode and to overcome the situational constraints operative in each medium, thus creating discourse that is atypical for that medium. Such findings and insights are, of course, directly relevant to the type of cross-linguistic textual comparison that I propose as an Integral part of translation quality assessment. However, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparisons of texts require first of all considerable research into the range of oral and written speech situations and the distribution and functions of linguistic features Inside each of the linguacultures involved (cf. e.g., Besnier 1988, for a careful ethnographic analysis preceding contrast). The type of linguistic-textual analysis in which linguistic features discovered in the text are correlated with the register categories FIELD, TENOR and MODE is not changed from the original model as outlined above, neither is the way a “statement” of the INDIVIDUAL TEXTUAL FUNCTION consisting of an Interpersonal and an ideational functional component, is derived from the register analysis. Additions and modifications Include the introduction of the category GENRE, “in between” as it were the register characterisation and the textual function, as well as the subdivisions of the register categories TENOR {Author's Provenance and Stance^ Social Role Relationship and Social Attitude) and MODE {Medium as reflected by linguistic choices along the three parameters “involved vs Informational”, “explicit vs situation-dependent”, and “abstract vs non-abstract Information”). The exact analytical procedure will be exemplified in Chapter 5 with a small corpus of texts. Before I can proceed to present an application of the new categorlal system to a corpus of texts, however, the Important distinction between overt and covert translation needs to be re-considered.

110

3

Rethinking the Overt-covert Dichotomy and Integrating the Results of Contrastive Pragmatic Research /

One of the more important theoretical distinctions resulting from the translation analysis and evaluation of the original corpus was the dichotomy overt versus covert translation. Related but not Identical distinctions have cropped up in the literature on translation providing different variations on the century old theme of literal vs free translation, in particular Dlller and Kornelius’ (1978) prlmare vs sekundare Ubersetzung, Newmark’s (1981) semantic vs communicative translation, Nord s (1988) dokumentarlsche vs instrumentelle Ubersetzung; Gutts (1991) direct vs indirect translation; Pyms (1992) observational vs participative posltlonings; and Schreiber s (1993) Textiibersetzung versus Umfeldiibersetzung. While certainly valuable in their own rights, few of these distinctions are an integrative part of a model or a theory of translation, in which the relation of the two hypothesized types of translation to certain translation procedures, types of equivalences and possibilities for change along extrallngulstic dimensions are systematically accounted for. However, it is exactly such a link between theory and practice which is attempted through the empirically derived distinction between covert and overt translation. The idea behind the opposition covert vs overt translation is thus not only to present the translator with two possible lines of action, it also involves important conceptual distinctions. While the basic original distinction between overt and covert translation (see Chapter 2) will be retained, I will try to develop the distinction and achieve greater explanatory adequacy by relating it to the revised analytic model and to the concepts of “frame” and “frame shifting” as conceived by Bateson (1972) and Goffman (1974), as well as to Edmondson’s (1981) concepts of “discourse worlds” and “world shifts”. These concepts are of explanatory value for the notions overt and covert. Translation involves text transfer l.e., “the material moving of texts across space and time” (Pym 1992). Whenever texts move, they also shift frames and discourse worlds. “Frame”, for Bateson (1972) a psychological concept and in a sense the psychological pendant to the often more “socially” conceived concept of context, delimits a class or set of messages or meaningful actions. It often operates unconsciously as an explanatory principle. “Like a picture frame, the (psychological) frame tells the Interlocutor that he must not use the same line of thinking in interpreting the picture that he might use in interpreting the wallpaper outside the frame.” (Bateson, 1972: 187-188). A frame is metacommunlcative: any message that defines a frame gives the receiver instructions in his interpretation of the message Included in the frame. An explicit frame-setting message would, for instance, be “This is ironic”.

Ill

Similarly, the notion of a “discourse world” refers to a superordinate framework for Interpreting meaning in a certain way: “A discourse world is to be understood as an application of the notion of a possible world derived from logical semantics to the pragmatic interpretation of conversational behaviour” (Edmondson, 1981; 201). In Edmondsons model of discourse analysis the locutionary act acquires an Illocutionary value by reference to an operant discourse world. World switching or the handllngspf two discourse worlds occurs for Instance when the teacher moves from an “unreal” instructionary world to the “real” world of the classroom. Returning now to the twin concepts of overt and covert translation: in overt translation only a “second level function” can be reached because the translation embeds the text in a new speech event, which gives it also a new frame. An overt translation is a case of “language mention” (as opposed to “language use” in covert translation). Overt translation is thus similar to a citation or quotation. The notions overt translation and second-level function in overt translation can be clarified through reference to the four levels in the revised analytic model (FUNCTION-GENRE-REGISTER-LANGUAGE/TEXT): an original text and its overt translation are to be equivalent at the level of LANGUAGE/TEXT and REGISTER (with its various dimensions) as well as GENRE. At the level of the INDIVIDUAL TEXTUAL FUNCTION, functional equivalence is still possible but it is of a different nature: it can be described as enabling access to the function the original text has (had) in its discourse world or frame. As this access is realized in the target llnguaculture via the translation text, a switch in the discourse world and the frame becomes necessary, i.e., the translation is differently framed, it operates in its own frame and discourse world, and can thus reach at best what I have called “second-level functional equivalence”. This type of functional equivalence is achieved through the required equivalence at the LANGUAGEA’EXT and REGISTER levels, which facilitates the co-activation of the original’s frame and discourse world. In this way members of the target llnguaculture may eavesdrop, as it were, i.e., be enabled to appreciate the original textual function, albeit at a distance. The work of the translator in overt translation is Important: the results of her work are clearly visible. Since it is the translator’s task to allow persons in the target culture to gain access to the source text and its cultural impact on source culture persons, the translator puts target culture members in a position to observe, be worked upon and evaluate the original text’s function as members of the target culture. In presenting this analysis of the relationship between overt translation and psychologically and socially conceived notions of context (frame, discourse world and register), I basically agree with Gutt’s (1991: 165) statement that

112

direct translation (the term he uses as a rough equivalent for overt translation) should be processed with respect to the original context. However, I believe that my analysis is more differentiated and has thus greater explanatory value. The case of a literary*work, which I had originally classified as “timeless, of general time/space-transcending human and aesthetic interest” seems to be a special one. While it is of course true that the literary work carries/creates its own cultural frame of reference, textual interpretation is, in part, both timebound, and culture-bound. The suggestion is then that for an established work of literature, two discourse worlds co-exist for the contemporary reader situated in the llnguaculture of the writer, and both are co-actlvated by the readership of the translation, such that three discourse worlds can be said in this instance to co-exist. This situation is represented in Figure 3, which, however, takes no account of the location of a translation (and Indeed of different translations) along the temporal axis. In other words. Inside the framework developed inside Fig. 3, the contemporary reader of bowdlerised Shakespeare translated into German can access the text via four discourse-worlds, possibly all at once. For example, Joseph Conrad s place in English literary tradition gives his work a particular “function” for the (Informed) English reader. This “function” presumably does not hold for the German reader. Nor should it! The translation is, on the whole, to be overt^ in the sense that no cultural filtering is in principle licensed. The German reader can, however, in theory, get the relevant intertexts by simply reading a number of English writers in translation.

Now

Temporal Axis

Then

The Text (functioning in linguaculture 1) Original readership (discourse world 1)

Contemporary readership (discourse world 2)

The TRANSLATED Text (functioning in linguaculture 2) Contemporary readership (discourse world 3)

Fig. 3: Reading Historically-established Literary Texts

113

In overt translation the reader can/will operate in different worlds (as will the quality assessor). Clearly, in the overt case, a reader can be moved, upset, horrified as though he were in fact a member of the source linguaculture - this is what Wordsworth called the “willing suspension of disbelief”. But more often than not (perhaps via footnotes), the reader will be made aware of entering into the “as though” game. As distinct from overt translation, in cove^ translation, the translator attempts to re-create an equivalent speech event. Consequently, the function of a covert translation is to recreate, reproduce or represent in the translation text the function the original has in its llnguacultural framework and discourse world. A covert translation operates quite “overtly” in the different frame and discourse world provided in the target linguaculture without wishing to coactlvate the discourse world in which the original had unfolded. Covert translation is thus at the same time psycholinguistically less complex than overt translation and more deceptive. The translator s task is, in a sense, to cheat, and to be hidden behind his feat, the transmutation of the original. The cultural filter he employs is so skillfully integrated into the fabric of the text that the seams do not show. Since functional equivalence is aimed at, changes at the levels of LANGUAGE/TEXT and REGISTER may if necessary be undertaken. The result may be a very real distance from the original text, which is why covert translations are received as if they were in fact originals. This characteristic belying of their origins in covert translation texts creates ethical problems because of the deception of the origins of the text. Pym (1992) points to the danger Inherent in such a procedure, and he points out that what he terms “radical misrepresentations of transfer” should also be critically examined as “an eclipse of intercultural distance and thus as potentially pernicious imposition of cultural homogeneity.” (1992: 185). One is reminded here of Venuti’s (1992 and see above p. 11) preference for a translation to openly show points of difference. In the terms provided in the revised analytic model, the following situation seems to hold in the case of covert translation: at the levels of LANGUAGE/ TEXT and REGISTER (with its dimensions of FIELD, TENOR and MODE) the original and a covert translation need not be equivalent, i.e., the original can be manipulated using a cultural filter to be based on cross-cultural empirical research. At the level of GENRE, and at the level of the INDIVIDUAL TEXTUAL FUNCTION, equivalence is necessary, i.e., the distinction between a translation and an overt version (where a special secondary function is added overtly to the translation) as well as between a translation and a covert version (resulting from an unjustified application of a cultural filter) made in the original model, still holds in the revised model. Consider also the following case: if, in a covert translation situation, the GENRE established for the original text

114

does not exist in the target linguaculture, then translation {covert or otherwise) IS

impossible, i.e., a version results. In an overt translation situation, it is irre-

levant whether the GENRE holds in the target linguaculture. In the embedded or “secondary” world of course, GENRE is noted “ +

i.e., kept constant.

Overt and covert translations differ on the dimension of REGISTER and the demands of equivalence of the communicative values of the linguistic units in the two texts. They also clearly differ in terms of the possibility of reaching equivalence of the INDIVIDUAL TEXTUAL FUNCTION. These differences can be displayed in the following diagram:

Is strict equivalence the translational goal? Level Overt Translation

Covert Translation

Primary level function

NO

YES

Secondary level function

YES

(does not apply)

Genre

YES

YES

Register

YES

NO

Language/Text

YES

NO

Fig. 4: The Dimension Overt-Covert Translation

4

The Meaning of the Cultural Filter

The cultural filter to be applied in a covert translation has been given some substance in my own work on Anglophone and German communicative differences and priorities along a set of hypothesized dimensions. Converging evidence from a number of cross-cultural (German-Engllsh) studies suggest that there are German communicative preferences which differ from Anglophone ones along five dimensions: directness, self-reference, content-focus, explicitness, and routine-reliance. To see what this means for the analysis of covert translations, let us look again at the two texts from the original corpus, the commercial text and the journalistic article, which were analysed and judged as covert versions (cf. Chapter 2 for the original analyses of these texts and the Appendix for the texts themselves). In both cases, the analysis and the resultant evaluation may now be revised in the light of results of the contrastive pragmatic German-

115

English research described above. It must be pointed out at this stage (and see also below 5) - and this is another “revision” of the original model - that it is necessary to distinguish much more between the analysis proper and the judgment, the evaluation. Unlike the scientifically (linguistically) based analysis, the evaluative judgment is ultimately not a scientific one, but rather a reflection of a social, political, ethical, moral or personal stance. With this qualification in mind, we can ^e-analyse and re-evaluate the commercial and the journalistic text. In the commercial text, the finding that the Interpersonal functional component had been drastically altered due to changes along the parameters Social Role Relationship and Participation may now be considered to have a basis in the different communicative preferences of readers in the two llnguacultures. In other words, although the German translation text was found to be more direct and blunt, l.e., to exhibit a much less notlcable attempt to explicitly involve the addressees rendering it less flattering to the addressees, less diplomatically polite and less deliberately noncommittal, these changes may well have been achieved in accordance with the type of directness and content-focus (vs an interpersonal focus) discovered in German communication norms. The changes, which were called “mismatches” in the original analysis leading to “serious shortcomings” of the translation text, can now be seen in a different light, l.e., as the natural consequence of the differences in communicative norms in the two llnguacultures. Similarly, what was diagnosed as a mismatch in the original analysis of the translation of the journalistic article (see Chapter 3 and Appendix) must be re-analysed in view of the results of their German-Engllsh contrastive findings. As in the commercial text, the Interpersonal functional component had been changed or rather substantially weakened in the German translation of the journalistic text through differences along the parameters Medium, Participation, Social Role Relationship, Social Attitude and Province. Taking account of all the changes along these parameters, the analysis had revealed that the Ideational functional component had been “upgraded” to a remarkable degree in the German text making it much more “content-focussed”, more concerned with the transmission of Information than with a consideration of the readers’ reception of this information as had been the case in the original. The transmission of information being of prime Importance, the German text has become less personalized, less dramatized, less journalistically attractive but rather more precise and sober, which was reflected for Instance in the use of scientific terms. In the final “statement of quality” (see above p. 65) it was pointed out that the American author’s intention of making his material easily digestible and interesting for his audience, had failed to come across in the German translation, mainly because the author’s concern with passing on scientific facts had become much more important in the translation - “unwarrantedly” so as was then found. Given the results of the contrastive pragmatic

116

analyses, however, this analysis must now be revised, T.e., the translator may well have been aware of the differences in communicative norms and expectations in the German and English-speaking linguacultures, and his translation consequently did no more than reflect these differences. In other words, what was listed as a cluster of mismatches may no longer count as such, and the translation originally diagnosed as a covert version can be seen as a covert translation. The Integration of an empirically verified cultural filter into the revised model would at first sight mean that there is generally greater certainty as to when a translation is no longer a translation but rather a covert version. Given the fact that for the language pair English-German some relevant work exists, and that many studies have been conducted over the past ten years or so in the area of contrastive pragmatics involving other languages as well, there surely exists a better basis for making and evaluating covert translations in a non-arbltrary way. However, given the dynamic nature of communicative and societal norms and the evolving process of research, both translators and translation critics will still have to be maximally aware of research results and hypotheses in the area of cross-cultural pragmatics to help them judge the appropriateness of changes through the application of a cultural filter in any given language pair. Further, as mentioned above, it is Important to be aware of the difference between (scientifically based) analysis and (social) judgment in evaluating translations. To differentiate between a covert version and a covert translation presupposes a judgment of social norms, but such norms are not stable and static but dynamic and subject to manifold influences. In the final analysis, however, such judgments of norms are of limited value for an Individual text, and the type of case study judgments I am making here on the basis of an individual textual profile or norm. In other words, despite the cross-cultural pragmatic evidence provided for the cultural filter, I am strongly cautioning against making quick decisions about what is a covert version and what is a translation. While theoretically upholding the distinction between a covert translation and a covert version because it is necessary for conceptual clarity, it may be difficult in practice to make an unambiguous judgment. While such a pronouncement may be taken to be “relativistic”, I believe it is advisable to maintain such position in the face of our never-completed knowledge of communicative norms in any two linguacultures, rather than make precnptlve statements preclosing our minds to the complexity of translation. This touches of course on the more general point of the nature of evaluating the quality of a translation as opposed to comparing textual profiles, and describing and explaining differences established in the analysis.

117

5

Rethinking the Notion of “Translation Evaluation”

My approach to translation quality assessment is thus not “absolutely evaluative”. Indeed, the relativism commented on by Wilss (see above, p. 103) merits elaboration and reinforcement. The model was never and is not now intended to provide for” absolute evaluation” and the following statement still holds: “a detailed hierarchy of errors for any lndivl4ual case can only be given for a particular comparison of two or more texts depending in any particular case on the objective of the evaluation” (1981: 209). Gutt’s (1991: 13) criticism that the model provided only the basis for systematic comparison, but not for value judgments, as those would have to follow an “assumed detailed hierarchy of errors which is specific for the set of texts to be compared and the objective of the evaluation” is, however, not valid as the model clearly lays open the many factors that might theoretically have Influenced the translator in making certain decisions and rejecting others, thus providing the basis for evaluation in a particular case, which is much more constructive than feebly claiming, as Gutt does, that “whatever decision the translator reaches is based on his intuitions or beliefs about what is relevant to his audience.” (1991: 112). Instead of taking the psychological category of readers’ “intuitions and beliefs” as the cornerstone of translation evaluation, the model presented here is a text-based, linguistic one in the broad Hallldayan conception of linguistics, which looks at language in social life and focusses on texts, the products of human decision processes that are the most tangible and least ambiguously analysable entitles. In the type of detailed comparison and evaluation of source and translation texts provided for in the model, the evaluator is not put in a position to give easy judgments of “good” or “bad” in translation. Rather, the model prepares the ground for the analysis of a large number of evaluation cases that would, in any Individual case, not be totally predictable, however. This is so because, in the last analysis, any evaluation, depends on a large variety of factors which condition social evaluative judgments. These judgments are dependent on, or rather follow from, the analytic, comparative process in translation evaluation. The model, however, is based on the assumption that translation is a linguistic phenomenon (in the Hallldayan sense of linguistics), and the linguistic analyses provide a basis for judgement and grounds for arguing an evaluative judgment - which, in fact, means that there is less an opposition between analysis and judgement, rather the latter follows from the former. The choice of an overt or a covert translation depends not just on the translator himself, or on the text or the translator’s personal interpretation of the text, but also, and to a considerable extent, on the reasons for the translation, on the implied readers, on publishing and marketing policies. In other

118

words, in translation there are many factors that cannot be controlled by the translator and have nothing to do with translation as a linguistic procedure or with the translator’s linguacultural competence. Such factors are social factors, they concern human agepts and socio-political or even ideological constraints that normally have far greater power and Influence than the translator. Still, a translation is also a linguistic-textual phenomenon and can be legitimately described, analysed and assessed as such. I consider the concept of “quality” in translation - after all, the point of the whole model - problematical if it is meant to refer to value judgments alone. It is problematical especially if one does not know anything about, or does not take into account (for various reasons), the Ideals and ideas about translation quality the translator, reviewer, or researcher entertains. It is difficult to pass a “final judgment” of the quality of a translation that fulfil the demands of objectivity. Can one therefore refer to the model as “twenty years of interesting errors”? Surely not! As a field of Inquiry, translation criticism will always have to move from a macro-analytical focus to a micro-analytical one, from considerations of Ideology, function, genre, register to the communicative value of individual linguistic units in order to enable the reconstruction of the translator’s choices and his decision processes in as objective a manner as possible. This is a highly complex and, in the last analysis, probabilistic undertaking. If one refrains from giving prescriptive, dogmatic and global judgments rather than reveal exactly where and with what consequences and possibly why a translation in an individual case is what It is in relation to its original, one proves that one has some respect for both the subject of translation and the translator.

119

iV

I '.M

V.*

-1

■*lj.jV»

f. Ws;.

■

’’fj )*^tx'- Tt^t' »■ *-* I’ lf' jsi tas II "'jtw rr ‘I. ■ns^W'w'»■*

«rii/

>

‘

'.I

■’'■

■•.

I.'*

ri

■ *:■- 1M.

'-.4.'**!'''*

♦!'

'

*.4tr»i ; 7 ?■•

'*‘j

. .

I.

►

. li,* i. i.

t*»<J. l\

'i;

.

‘

•».*nfi'".'* ^<^'

-

'

V»>

t _

,

H*''

‘ ^

■« J

. .’

!i'^

Ui ».. 1. •

.!

»J ,«(

VO

■■

ii

' d^ ..

V >

f

j

I*

aiAfc •i'^v

»' i' . . U

, , i rt5i>'i 1/ ,

I

•

'!

■

■

!#l/i'S

" ‘ fvu*.;*.*’ »

7

'-

r-j

|l

.

•'v-:- * ’V

' «■' *. ">

' '

•• . *. ^/i.'-

iU/ .»'7iii; *

' .i>rf«

^

* ' *»'“> •vft.fsyiv* ' ^ v!

. ^.■•"

! .il* wj,

■'

«wl -v.? :..i

brtit ai ••■- 'ipTH.

r. 0

. ..*

®

‘ f--'Oi .4|j,.>

.C



■»*

‘ i

.i>-

i

• *.

n •

■

■

•'

...

■■''4’■ * ^«(||

, i l

»■ .

■>■'

T'' *•

I*. .•r_

' ".

't

vi> ^/v^'. ••>

^ '

’

i.

"■-V

^Jlf( Jt t?-”* •

.*1/1 fi

i*

^

.■* C*

f SO'Jtt ’t

'‘ii£>|>jji

!L^<<>. ^ ' '»

-

•'

»..*■' *

t

**y

/Kacvklua^'i r-* ''•ft’fj ,•

i-i^nr

wi goaatj

■

.

•

ii

’. *1

’;:2

*/

'

tJc *<:. rr, ^If ;ltJU'^
<'t» 4

; /-.

. v: ",

1.

<4, fn«o.\

^

"'' *'

#Oi6ti yi ..-

‘

'

t

.. y fH’£l£V«fl

• ' . • t*»►''‘■(M ^ !

'

If,"-

,

•

>1

.)

T* -. *

».

1^

U

■*

(
1'* I 11 ft , yiw

. ^ ti ^t/O !*.!i* » >/O’‘0

:

"5 . '

.

‘4 7<*

Ite.^ .

'.***

, «*«■ --ii’l* • K-t

't. •

«

: a

* ■ M (y > i

-I ■• ;

■

• •

1

.

t ► »

'

r n

I .W

. ■

"'t* K

..

* , i

"V

I

0

/

CHAPTER 5

Analysis and Comparison of Source and Translation Texts

In this Chapter I want to demonstrate the viability of the revised model of translation quality assessment by presenting a number of “model analyses” of original texts and their covert or overt translations. The texts are to be found in the Appendix. For easy reference in the presentation of the analyses paragraphs are numbered sequentially in Roman numerals. The texts are: 1.

An English children’s book translated into German (taken from a larger corpus of children’s books and their translation, cf. House (forthcoming).

2.

An excerpt from an autobiography by a Nobel prize winning scientist written in English and translated into German.

3.

An excerpt from Walter Benjamin’s famous essay “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” and its English translation.

4.

A passage from Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners and its German translation.

I have deliberately refrained from including in my sample analyses texts for immediate practical use and fast consumption, such as Instructions for use, advertisements, signs, day-to-day journalism etc., l.e., texts in whose translation the step from a covert translation to different forms of multilingual text production is dangerously small. I have exluded such texts because 1)1 have already given a number of examples of translations of such textual types in connection with the discussion of cultural filters in covert translations (Chapter 3), 2) I have Included two such texts and their translations from the corpus of the original model for translation quality assessment presenting in full the original analyses and re-discussing the employment of the filter and their status as covert translations or versions (Chapter 2), and 3) I want to make a case for texts that go beyond ephemeral textual exemplars.

121

TEXT

l: Childrens Book

Jill Murphy Five Minutes^ Peace (original English, translation German) see Appendix

Analysis of the Original FIELD

^

This is a simple little picture book story about an elephant family: Mrs Large and the children Lester, Laura and the baby. Mrs Large wants “five minutes peace” and retreats to the bathroom but is soon disturbed by all three children. This is however not taken as a dlsquletenlng occurrence but rather seen as part of ordinary family life with young children. The story designed to be read to young children is told with warmth, good-natured common-sense, a dry sort of humour and realism. Lexical means: Preponderance of lexical items that are likely to be part of the competence of young children from their interactions in the Immediate home and neighbourhood environment. Syntactic means: Short clauses with simple structures throughout the text. Textual means: Strong textual cohesion to make the text easily comprehensible and digestible for young children. Textual cohesion is achieved through iconic linkage as well as theme dynamics. Iconic linkage between a number of clauses highlighting (for the children’s benefit) a similarity of actions and behaviors, and heightening the dramatic effects, which is also often further intensified through foregrounded, rhematlc structures: IX: Can I see ... Can I have ... Can I get... VI; VII: So Lester played. So Laura read. VII; VIII: In came Laura. In came the little one. Ill; XI: Where are you going ... To the ... Why ... Because I want five minutes peace from you lot. That's why. Structural parallelism between II and XL Theme Dynamics: Thematic movement frequently arranged in sequences of theme-rheme movements to ensure given-new ordering, e.g., I. Foregrounded rhematlc fronting XII: And off she went... VII: In came Laura

122

TENOR Author's Temporal, Geographical and Social Provenance: Unmarked, contemporary, standard middle-class British English Author's Personal {Emotional and Intellectual) Stance: The author clearly views the family life she portrays with humour, involvement, empathy and a sense of the absurdly funny characterizing the domestic life a mother with young children routinely experiences. However, she never sentimentalizes her characters: although elephants, the characters keep their dignity and their names: Mrs Large, Lester, Laura. Syntactic means: Presence of structures describing typically stressful situations with laconic humour and empathy. I: The children were having breakfast. This was not a pleasant sight. (The picture nicely attests to this statement!) Social Role Relationship Author - reader(s): author puts herself on a par with her double-tiered addressees, i.e., both the parents reading this story and the children as the “endreceivers” or secondary addressees. The relationship if one of empathy and familiarity. Author - characters in the story: respect for the individuality of the children shown through the names they are given, and the fact that they are allowed to act Individually not only collectively as “the children”. Mother-children in the story: however stressed and thwarted in her intentions, Mrs Large is still humourously indulgent with her children, very human in her inconsistency and reluctant tolerance. Lexical means: Humourous effect through precise specification of time allowed for Mrs Large s moments of peace: XII: three minutes and forty-five seconds, and precise specification of the children’s performance in the bathroom: VI;VII: three and a half times, four and a half pages. Syntactic means: Presence of short-clipped, “matter-of-fact” clauses producing an effect of resigned dry humour: III: That's why, VI: So Lester played, VII: So Laura read. IX: Mrs Large groaned', XII:... before they all came to join her. Textual means: Humourous effect of “setting the scene” through detailed and deliberate enumeration of all the things Mrs Large put on her tray to Indicate the level of preparation for her five minutes’ peace, when the following, second paragraph

123

presents a stark contrast in its dialogic make-up describing the thwarting of her intent. Social Attitude Informal style level: conversational, the type of talk commonly occurring in a family. Syntactic means: Presence of elliptical structures: IV: downstairs, by yourselves. Simplicity of noun phrases: lack of pre- and post-modification. Use of s genitive:/2:^^e minutes' peace Lexical means: Use of lexical items marked as informal through their use in settings marked by a lack of social distance: II: stuffed, sneaked', \W\from you lot, IV: trailed up the stairs', V: plonked on ... got in ... got out. MODE Medium complex: written to be read aloud as if not written, creating for the child hearer the illusion that the person doing the reading aloud is Inventing it simultaneously with the reading. This medium, then, is designed to simulate real-life spontaneous language. Along Blber’s three dimensions. Involved vs informational, explicit vs situation-dependent, and abstract vs non-abstract, this text is clearly on the involved, situation-dependent and non-abstract end of the dimensions. Syntactic means: Frequency of elliptical structures typical of oral conversational encounters where the situation automatically disambiguates the Incomplete utterances; frequencies of contractions; frequency of short coordinated clauses linked with and. Phonological means: Presence of emphatic stress frequent in oral encounters, and marked in writing through italics. Textual means: Ample use of repetition for redundancy throughout the text designed to make comprehension easier. Participation Complex: monologue with built-in (fictional) dialogic parts.

124

Syntactic means: Predominance of first and second person personal and possessive pronouns to indicate direct conversational Interaction inside the story, frequent switches in the text between declarative, interrogative, exclamatory and Imperative utterances, which is typical of the creation of an on-going interaction between the participants in the (fictional) family scenario. m

Textual means: Interactants alternate very frequently in the encounters portrayed in the scenarios; in fact, the text as a whole is characterized by heavy use of direct speech. GENRE Children’s picture book designed to be read aloud to children by adults, often as a bed-time story. The primary goals of such books are, then, to entertain children, to calm them down and to give them reassurance so they can settle down. In the English tradition, children’s books often use humour to gently socialize the young into a not always humourous world in the family and beyond it. In the text presented here and in Its analysis I have omitted the pictures as they would not have added anything that the text Itself did not make explicit. In fact, the pictures are the same In the German translation and the English original, except for the front cover where the German edition adds more pictorial detail.

Statement of Function The function of this text consisting of an Ideational and an interpersonal functional component may be summed up as follows: although the ideational functional component is not marked on any of the dimensions, it is nevertheless Implicitly present In the text, in that the text informs its readers about a certain event involving the protagonists depicted In the text. In other words: it tells a story! But the ideational component is clearly less Important than the interpersonal one, which is marked on all the dimensions used for the analysis of the text. The particular GENRE, a children’s picture book of which this text is an example, determines that the interpersonal function Is primary. Its purpose being to provide a feeling of “ Geborgenheit”, a sense of belonging, reassurance, warmth and good-feeling to settle a child down for the night or otherwise. On the dimension of FIELD, too, the interpersonal component is strongly marked: the description of a typical piece of family life where a mother struggles with her three young children Is presented In a light-hearted, good-natured and humourous way, at the same time making the story easily digestible and comprehensible. On TENOR, we have seen that the Author’s Personal Stance as

125

well as the social role relationship and social attitude strongly mark the interpersonal functional component: the relationship between both author and readers and between the (fictional) mother and her children are characterized by common sense and good humour. The informal style level also clearly operates interpersonally by enhancing the text’s intimate humorously human quality. On MODE, the medium characterized as “written to be read as if not written” being marked as Involved, situatlon-;dependent and non-abstract, as well as the many dialogic stretches in the text very clearly feed into the interpersonal functional component because of the emotive effect of (simulated) spontaneous directness, with the readers’/listeners’ Interest being focussed on the dialogue participants as living “human” beings.

Comparison of Original and Translation and Statement of Quality Mismatches along the following dimensions were discovered in the analysis of the translation and the comparison of translation and original: FIELD Lexical mismatches: Greater explicitness through the addition of more finely granulated, descriptive verbs and through greater detail and explanation, as well as the introduction of generic terms: I: Wenn die Elefantenkinderfruhstiickten, ging es meistens laut und unordentlich zu vs The children were having breakfast. This was not a pleasant sight. In this first paragraph the difference between original and translation is particularly marked: the German sentence explicitly describes what the English sentence implies. II: Mutter Elefant holte ein Tahlett und stellte ihr Friihstuck drauf: Teekanne, Milchkrug ... vs Mrs Large took a tray from the cupboard. She set it with a large teapot, a milk jug. The German text Introduces an explicitly explanatory generic term Friihstuck ... IV: “Nein ” sagte Mutter Elefant bestimmt vs “A/o ” said Mrs Large’, IV: murrte vs muttered’, V: gemiitliches heifles Bad vs deep, hot bath’, VI: Du sagst immer ich soli fleifig iiben vs Tve been practising ...you told me to’, VIII: Baby Elefant schleppte sovielSpielsachen an, wie er nur konnte vs... a trunkful of toys', X: Scblieflich sprangeh ... Baby E. war so aufgeregt, dafl vs they all got in. The little one was in such a hurry that... Syntactic mismatches: Loss of structural simplicity in the translation: paragraph I

126

Textual mismatches: Loss of Cohesion: III: Wohin gehst du Mama vs where are you going with that tray (when the tray and what was on it was described in detail in the preceding paragraph); III: Because I want five minutes peace from you lot vs weilich 5 Minuten Ruhe hahen mochte; IV: “Diirfen wir mitkommenf” fragte Elefantchen vs “Can we corned” asked Lester as they trailed up the stairs behind her. The German translation fails to link up with the clause where Mrs Large asked them to play downstairs; VIA^II: Elefantchen hegann zu floten vs So Lester played] Elefantinchen hegann zu lesen vs So Laura read (missing clausal linkage). Loss of iconic linkage resulting in both loss of cohesion and aesthetic pleasure: VII/VIII: Darf ich dir eine Geschichte vorlesen ... - Baby Elefant schleppte vs In came Laura - In came the little one. The dramatic effect achieved through iconic linkage and the rhematic fronting is lost in the translation. Explicit addition of a closing “punchline” not present in the original: XII: bevor die Kinder kamen, damit ihre Mutter nicht so alleine ware vs before they all came to join her. TENOR Author's Personal (Emotional and Intellectual) Stance Loss of humour, sentlmentallzation and Infantillzatlon of characters in the story: Lexical mismatches: All the names of the characters have been sentimentalized and de-individualized: Mutter Elefant vs Mrs Large] Elefantchen vs Lester] Elefantinchen vs Laura] the little one/baby vs Baby Elefant. Textual mismatches: Loss of humour in the initial paragraph setting the tone of the book: Wenn die Elefantenkinderfriihstuckten ging eslautund unordentlich zu vs The children were having breakfast. This was not a pleasant sight. Social Role Relationship between author-readers, between author and the characters in the story, and between the story’s protagonists: these three role relationships, which are all changed in the translation, are clearly interdependent such that the relationship between the story protagonists is a reflection of the author’s assessment of her readers and the author’s view of her characters. Lexical mismatches: The relationship between the mother and her children reveals a lack of respect for the individuality of the children, and with it a lack of politeness, and both

127

a sentimentalization and a certain “negativisation” of the children and their behaviour. This is evident from the names chosen in the German translation (see above) and the fact that individual children s answers are changed in German to collective answers: XI: ‘"Wamm” fragten die Kinder wie aus einem Mund vs '‘Why” asked Lester. The characters are to represent children, 6f course - they are elephants only in the picture - the original text does not tell us this, the German translation, however, does! The whole point in the original is the usual duality between distancing and identity that is at the core of children s stories. In the translation, this duality and complexity is lost to a one-sided explicitness. Further, whereas the children throughout the original are seen as individuals building up a strategy together in order to outwit their mother, the translation frequently lumps them together as "die Kinder”. In the following examples, the children are not addressed by their names in German: VI.- ...fragte ein Stimmchen vs asked Lester (which also sentimentalizes the original). IX: "Darf ich mir die Bilder in der Zeitung ansehen ...” vs "Can I see the cartoons in the paper” asked Laura. VII: "Nein”, sagte Mutter Elefant vs "No, Laura”. We can thus discover a consistent pattern in the translation of leaving out the children s names. The lack of politeness, which this omission clearly Implies, is reinforced, if we look at another example also showing how the children are not taken seriously as individuals the way they are in the English original: not only is the individual child not addressed by her name, the mother also falls to answer her: VII: Du magst ihn lieher als mich. Das ist nicht fair - Also fang schon an vs You like him better than me. It's not fair - Oh, don't be silly, Laura ...Go on then. Ill: from you lot vs 0 realization. Although the children are regarded as one collective entity by the authorial voice in the German translation, the translation does miss out on the mother s fake-indignant, goodnaturedly humourous lumping the children together asyow lot. This phrase is omitted in the German translation - the humorous tone in the original is lost. The point here is also that for the mother the children are both Individuals and you lot - in other words, of course she loves them. This complexity of the mother’s feelings is not realized in the translation. The role assignment is made explicit in different ways in German and English:

128

IV: “Ich will nicht mehr das Baby sein” murrte Baby Elefant vs “Tm not a baby” muttered the little one. In the German translation, this remonstration is possible, because the translation says the little one is a Baby, the original does not make it explicit that he is a baby. Also, the German resembles an adult reasoning, the English original is a little one*s utterance. VI: Darf ichf Nur eine Minute vs Qan If Please just for one minute. VII: Darf ich Dir eine Geschichte... vorlesen vs can I read you a page and VI: was vorspielen vs my tune. Loss of subtlety of the children s individual and collective strategy in the translation. Syntactic mismatches: The relationship between the mother and the children is sometimes marked by a greater directness in the translation: IV: Geht spielen und zwar ins Kinderzimmer vs you can play. Downstairs. The difference in the directness levels is one between the illocutionary force of an order and a suggestion. VI: Du sagst immer ich soli fleijlig iiben vs Fve been practising, you told me to. In German, the complaint about not being allowed to play is much more direct than the English one. Social Attitude Loss of informal style in some Instances, which reduces the humourous effect: Lexical mismatches: III: No German equivalent {or you lot III: in das Badezimmer: oddly formal in its avoidance of the more common contracted form ins V: setzte die Badehaube auf vs plonked on her bath-hat GENRE In as much as the translation is still a children’s picture book to be read to a child, there has been no change in the GENRE. However, the “framing” is totally different in German: both the initial and the final paragraph set a very different tone. The children were having breakfast. This was not a pleasant sight vs Wenn die Elefantenkinder fruhstuckten, ging es meistens laut und unordentlich zu. The first paragraph sets the frame “this is how this story will be told”. In the original, the immediacy of the events taking place in the story is reflected in a simple detached statement, which, at the same time, sets the story’s tone as humourous and affectionate. In the translation, the first paragraph is a description not an occurrence, with reflection substituting for affection. Com-

129

pare also the ending, where there is again a commentary in the German translation, i.e., the story ends as it began, the frame is complete: And off she went downstairs, where she had three minutes and forty-five seconds of peace before they all came to join her vs Und sie hatte drei Minuten undfiinfundvierzigSekunden Ruhe, hevor die Kinder kamen, damitihre Mutter nicht so allein ware. In the translation, the story is thus framec^ifferently, and in keeping with this frame, the child addressees are led through the story, the characters are explicitly elephantlzed for them and they are provided with commentaries, whereas the original insinuates, implies through laconic statements. As the analysis of a larger corpus of German-Engllsh and English-German children s books translations has revealed (House, forthcoming) there may well be differences as regards children s books between the German and English linguacultures: there is a German tendency towards depicting a different role relationship between children and adults, there is a much more sentlmentalizatlon and infantilization in German children s books, as well as less humour, a far greater explicitness and a greater need to impose edifying ideas and ideology on the stories told in children’s books. Some of these tendencies have been revealed in the above register analysis of original and translation. Overt Errors I: wenn die Elefantenkinder friihstuckten, ging es meistens unordentlich und laut zu vs the children were having breakfast. This was not a pleasant sight. II: stellte thr Fruhstiick drauf vs 0 III:0 vs with that tray IV: ich will nicht mehr das Baby sein vs Tm not a baby V: gemutlich vs deep; gofl Tee in die Tasse vs poured herself a cup of tea VI: was vs my tune VII: eine Geschichte vs a page VII: ins Kinderzimmer vs downstairs VIII soviel Spielsachen wie er nur tragen konnte vs a trunkful of toys IX: omission of asked Laura, asked Lester, asked the little one X: war so aufgeregt, daft vs was in such a hurry that XI: warum, fragten die Kinder wie aus einem Munde vs Why, asked Lester XII: addition: damit ihre Mutter nicht so allein ware.

Statement of Quality The analysis of original and translation has revealed a number of mismatches along the dimensions of FIELD and TENOR, and a consequent change of the interpersonal functional component, but also various Overt Errors which

130

detract from the ideational component and change the transmission of information. On FIELD a greater explicitness in the translation was established in a number of cases and a loss of cohesion through the omission of referential Identiy, repetitions and iconic linkage. The Interpersonal functional component is changed in that explicitness of content guides and directs a reader’s/ listener’s imagination and interpretation much more closely. The loss of cohesion reduces the aesthetic pleasure a well-made story will elicit. On TENOR the Author’s Stance is changed such that the dry, subtle humour is often lost and a new sentimentalized, infantilized key is Introduced. The role relationship portrayed (as well as the one implicit in the authorreader/listener relationship) is different in that the characters’ individuality is lost, their image is more negative and there is a greater directness in requests and complaints. The style level is in certain Instances less informal and less designed to communicate “closeness”. These register differences reflect a culturally conditioned difference in the realization of GENRE between English and German children’s books (as established by analyses of a larger corpus, see House forthcoming). This difference is most clearly visible in the different framing evident in the German translation: adult commentaries and explicit “interpretation guides” are provided, where the English original trusts the reader’s creative imagination. The greater explicitness in the German translation is clearly in line with the differences in German and English communicative preferences established in cross-cultural pragmatic research, so is the markedly stronger interpersonal focus in the English original. The translation can then be described as a covert one with a cultural filter having been applied. One wonders, however, if the translator’s choice might not have been different, l.e., why did she not opt for an overt translation? Why do translators of children’s books feel licensed to change as they see fit instead of providing the children with access to the original? (In my corpus of 52 children’s books I found that all the translations examined are covert translations.) Is it possible that children in their intelligent and imaginative capacities to learn and be exposed to the strange world of the original are largely underrated? Why is there not a greater respect for the original children’s book - especially if the original is a little literary masterpiece? One answer to these questions may be that the current one-sided reception-oriented climate may have played a role, another is, of course, marketoriented strategies pursued by publishers who squeeze the originals via their translations into the GENRE realization dominant in the target culture.

131

TEXT

2 Autobiography

Extract from Richard P. Feynman Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman (original English; translation German), see Appendix. The Dignified Professor

Analysis of the Original

^

FIELD Anecdotal autobiographical account about events of the private life of a famous Nobel-prize winning physics professor. In this excerpt, the author describes in a readable and attractive way his knowledge of and experiences with different types of university jobs for people with “great minds”. Lexical means: Preponderance of everyday “human Interest” lexical items, no technical terms. Syntactic means: Short simple clauses throughout this excerpt (and the text as a whole). Textual means: Strong cohesion achieved through a) repetition and iconic linkage, b) the organization in sequences of theme-rheme to ensure given-new ordering and c) anaphoric referencing by means of pro-forms for noun phrases, adverblals, clauses or sentences. a)

II: Nothing happens ... still no ideas come ... nothing happens ... Nothing I, II, IV: When I don’t have any ideas ... so they don’t get any ideas ... and they’re not getting any ideas ... you’ve got wonderful ideas ... you’re not getting any ideas... V: you can think about elementary things... These things... The elementary things are easy to think about... V: The elementary things are easy to think about... if you can’t think of a new thought... If you do think of something new V: Is there a better wayf Are there any new problems^ Are there any new thoughts^ IV/V: Tm teaching my class... If you’re teaching a class

b)

V: If you ’re teaching a class, you can think about elementary things... These things...

c)

Those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study ... These poor bastards.

132

TENOR Author’s Temporal, Social, and Geographical Provenance: Unmarked, contemporary middle class standard American English Author’s Personal (Emotional and Intellectual) Stance: Humourous, light, detached, and down-to-earth, with a keen eye for the absurd in human nature. m

Lexical means: Humourous lexical items such as II: these poor bastards for Nobel-prize winning scientists in one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning; III: the experimental guys', IV: teaching described as the greatest pain in the neck; it drives you nuts. Syntactic means: Lively description with frequent changes between declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamatory structures. Social Role Relationship Despite the fact that the author is a famous “dignified professor” of consldcrabl e Intellectual standing and world-wide importance in the world of science, he comes across as a humble and unpretentious person. However, at times the authority of the famous professor also makes Itself felt in his pronouncements about teaching and life in general. Syntactic means: Author makes himself more approachable through frequent insertion of simulated direct speech, e.g., I: At least I’m living. Presence of multiple rhetorical questions to drive home the author’s own ideas of the function of teaching for a university professor: V: Is there a better way to present them^ Are there any new problemsf Are there any new thoughts^ Use of utterances expressing a firm conviction stated by the author as expert, V: If you do think of something new, you’re rather pleased ... VI: It’s not so easy to remind yourself of these things. Textual means: Humourous effect of opposition in VII and VIII, l.e., presenting himself as very “human” in that first a certain belief or standpoint is described only to show immediately afterwards how it was broken: / would never accept any position ... But once I was offered such a position. Social Attitude consultative, conversational, friendly, revealing no great social distance between author and audience.

133

Lexical means: Use of colloquial lexical items throughout, sometimes Informal ones those poor bastards etc. (see above under Author^s Stance)^ and use of modal particles, gambits and lexical items indicating vagueness, e.g., kind of, just etc. Syntactic means: Frequent use of contractions and simple noun phrases lacking pre- and postmodification.

^

Presence elliptical structure: II, VII. Textual means: Ample use of repetition for redundancy throughout the text; clausal linkage with conjunction so marked for informality. MODE Medium Written to be read as if spoken: in fact, as indicated in the preface, the entire text was originally spoken i.e., “told to Ralph Leighton”, transcribed and edited. This medium can be described along Blber s oral-written continuum as involved, situation-dependent and non-abstract. Lexical means: Use of colloquial lexical items as well as vague and loose formulations frequent in oral styles: I: something ..., Vm making some contribution', II: this lovely house by the woods there; V: these things ... Syntactic means: Presence of anacolutha: I: Vm making some contribution - it's just psychological. V: if you can't think of anew thought, no harm done. Presence of elliptical structures (see Social Attitude). Frequency of coordinated and apposltional structures strongly creating an Impression of impromptu formulation, i.e., lack of premeditation. Emphatic-emotive use of language: V: if you do think ... Participation complex: monologue with many Instances of readers being directly addressed. Syntactic means: Predominant use of first and second person possessive and personal pronouns indicating a situated interactional context. Frequent switch of clausal mood. Use of rhetorical addressee-directing utterances: V. Textual means: This is a predominantly etlc text drawing its readers into the text through ample use of deictic pronouns.

134

GENRE Autobiography of a famous person. The goals of such works are to share with a larger public the person s private life, his habits, convictions and beliefs in order to satisfy a certain voyeurism on the part of the public, and to give the public the opportunity to learn something from an exemplary life.

Statement of Function *

The function of this text consisting of an ideational and an interpersonal functional component may be summed up as follows: the author s intention is to tell a good story about his personal experiences. He also wants to convey to his readers his philosophy of life and work in such a way that his thoughts are presented in a totally non-technlcal. Interesting, entertaining and highly readable fashion. The interpersonal functional component is strongly marked through the GENRE of the text and on each of the dimensions, whereas the ideational component, although of course present, recedes into the background. On FIELD, the abundance of colloquial lexical items, the absence of technical academic terms, the presence of simple clause structures and the massive occurrence of redundancy through repetition and iconic linkage - all acting to make the text pleasant to read - clearly feed into the interpersonal functional component. On TENOR, the author s humourous and unpretentious “presentation of self” but also his occasional emphasis of his role as experienced professor is evidenced linguistically by the use of gambits, vagueness particles, rhetorical questions, funny colloquialisms and humourous utterances giving expert advice re the connection between teaching and research clearly support the interpersonal component. The consultative style level marked through Informal lexical items, contractions, gambits, ellipses and repetitons also helps to make this text Interpersonally successful. On MODE, both the fact that the Medium of this text is “written to be read as if spoken” (involved, situation-dependent and non-abstract) and that Participation is marked by frequent dialogic parts Interspersed in the monologic framework supports the Interpersonal functional component. Linguistically this is achieved through many instances of directly involving the readers via the easily digestible form of a personal narrative (elliptical and coordinate structures, emphatic and emotive lexical items, eticness of text, rhetorical questions and frequent switch between declarative, interrogative and Imperative structures).

135

Comparison of Original and Translation and Statement of Quality FIELD Greater abstractness of nouns in German: IV, V: Ich hahe ja meinen Unterricht. Wenn man unterrichtet... vs Vm teaching my class. If your teaching a class ... However, this type of mismatch cannot be seen as a covert error, since there is no conventionally established German equivalent for “classroom teaching” other than “Unterricht”. Still, the effect is surely one of reduced Interpersonal force, as “class” suggests a group of human beings, whereas “Unterricht” refers to the abstract “process of Instruction”.

TENOR Author's Personal Stance Lexical mismatches: Reduced humour through neutralized, “flattened” lexical items: II: arme Kerle vs poor bastards; III: die Leute, die Experimente machen vs the experimental guys; IV: macht einen wahnsinnig vs it's driving you nuts; grofte Geduldsprobevs greatest pain in the neck; II: heschleicht einen ein Schuldgefuhl oder eine Depression vs a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you. Social Role Relationship Syntactic mismatches: Lack of personal pronouns throughout the text. Impersonal pronouns used in German Instead, e.g., man, einem vs you produces a less personal “touch”. This is not to be counted as a mismatch though, as this usage is normative in German. Still, the effect is one of reduced Interpersonal effectiveness. Social Attitude The style level is less personal {see Social Role Relationship and Personal stance), also certain lexical items are markedly more formal in German: VI: zu Zeiten vs at times; V: ...dajl man eine neue Methode hat, die Dinge zu hetrachten vs a new way of looking at it.

MODE Medium The German translation resembles the “spoken” part in “written to be spoken” less than the English original does: Syntactic mismatches: Lack of anacolutha V: Wenn einem nichts Neues dazu einfdllt, so schadet das nichts vs If you can't think of a new thought, no harm done.

136

Textual mismatches: The etic nature of the text is reduced through lack of deictic pronouns in German, i.e., lack of direct address of reader(s), which is a hallmark of spokenness. We can thus say that the text is less involved and less situation-dependent, to use Biber s criteria. Participation The translation is sometimes less dialogic through a lack of direct address of the readers (see TENOR and Medium). The German Impersonal pronouns (however normative in German in this type of text) and the English “you” clearly differ in their potential of Involving readers.

Statement of Quality This text’s Ideational and Interpersonal functional component are kept up to a large extent in the translation resulting in a basically compatible second level function. In other words, this is clearly an overt translation - an autobiography is a classic candidate for an overt translation in that the author’s original voice, the whole point of an autobiography, is to be respected as much as possible, and the readers should be given the opportunity to have unimpeded access to this voice. The ideational functional component is left unaltered. The interpersonal one was changed slightly in the translation along the following dimensions: On FIELD, a more abstract noun had to be chosen in the German translation {Unterricht vs class)., a noun typically used in German whenever classroom learning is thematized. Along TENOR, the humourous, easy-going tone and the consultative style is rendered in places slightly less humourous and more formal, thus less interpersonally oriented. On MODE, the translation is less efficient in its simulation of “spokenness” (it is less involved and less situation-dependent) through the lack of second person pronouns, again a choice made in accordance with German norms of usage. In general, given the differences in German and Anglophone communicative preferences, a cultural filter may have been applied in the translation. If we were dealing with a case of covert translation, the application of this filter would clearly be justified considering the empirical findings of a generally less strong Interpersonal focus and a less well developed reader-involvement in German texts. But if one believes that this is a case for translating overtly, where the readers of the German translation should be given “direct”, unfiltered access to the original, then the cultural filter, however empirically verified, should not have been applied. On such a view, then, the (admittedly very few) mismatches, i.e., those wherever German norms of usage did not allow maximal dimensional matches, would have to be seen as distracting from the interpersonal force of the translation and distracting from its second level equivalence.

137

TEXT

3: Philosophical Essay

Excerpt from Walter Benjamin “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” (original German, translation English) see Appendix.

Analysis of the Original and Statement of Function FIELD

^

This is one of the most Important 20th century statements about translation. Walter Benjamin, a German literary essayist, art critic and philosopher wrote “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” in 1923 as a preface to his own translation of Baudelaire’s Tableauxparisiens. It is a rich, multi-layered text with a potential for various different interpretations. Most recently, the essay has been discussed in postmodernist circles. It is both about a theory of language and about the nature of the complex task of translation, which Benjamin himself had engaged in abundantly. Because the essay prefaces Benjamin’s own Baudelaire translation and is supposed to explain this word-for-word translation, in which the syntactic structures of the original are kept up as far as possible, the essay must be seen in conjunction with this translation. Indeed, it can be seen as a justification for it: Benjamin wrote to Rang and Hofmannsthal that he was well aware of the problems of this translation. Others such as Werner Kraft critically commented on the translation saying that it does not have its “own language” (Kraft quoted in Wiesenthal, 1973: 109) - a judgment in line with the “Wortlichkeit” which Benjamin praises, and with his rejection of the “zuchtlose Freihelt schlechter Ubersetzer”. The essay Itself is an academic text, a very “well-made” text, l.e., one which is extremely carefully formulated and thought out, with the language - due to the careful planning that has gone into the construction of the text - acquiring a great importance: it is part of the message. Lexical means: Use of precise, explicit and unambiguous lexical items and phrases revealing care, planning and a concern for clarity, e.g., I: ... den Aufnehmenden\ indicating precisely the process in which the recipient is finding himself at the moment of perception; ein hestimmtes Puhlikum oder dessen Reprasentanten; ample use of quotation marks to indicate how exactly a term is to be (or not to be) Interpreted; II: das Unfajlhare, Geheimnisvolle, “Dichterische”; III: oder, und eigentlicher ...; IV: ... aus seinem “Uherlehen”: the frequent use of Inverted commas in the text can be taken as evidence for the author’s search for preciseness, and his unwillingness to be satisfied with terms that are unable to capture the exact meaning he had Intended to convey.

138

Syntactic means: Complex syntactic structures featuring long sentences, subordinated clauses and multiple embedding. Textual means:

•»

^

Presence of strong textual cohesion due to the employment of several mechanisms of theme dynamics, clausal linkage and Iconic linkage. a)

Repetition of lexical items and phrases throughout the text and use of anaphoric and cataphoric pronominal reference.

b)

Ample use of opposites and synechdoches.

c)

Frequency of clausal linkage through a multitude of different logical connectors such as denn, daher, wenn dann, dem gegeniiher, demnach etc. resulting in logical structuring of entire text.

d)

Chains of theme-rheme sequences to secure given-new ordering.

I cannot list here all the examples elucidating the cohesive phenomena as there are far too many of them. One stretch, the beginning of paragraph III may suffice: Uhersetzung ist eine Form. Sie als solche zu erfassen, gilt es zuriickzugehen auf das Original Denn in ihm liegt deren Gesetz als in dessen Ubersetzharkeit heschlossen. Die Frage nach der Ubersetzbarkeit eines Werkes ist doppelsinnig. Sie kann bedeuten: ob es unter der Gesamtheit seiner Leser je seinen zuldnglichen Ubersetzer finden werde? oder, und eigentlicher, ob es seinem Wesen nach Ubersetzung zulasse und demnach - der Bedeutung dieser Form gemdjl - auch verlange. This stretch of text features repetition {Ubersetzbarkeit, Ubersetzung), anaphoric reference (e.g., denn in ihm liegt deren Gesetz als in dessen Ubersetzbarkeit, sie kann bedeuten) and cataphoric reference {doppelsinnig) and clausal linkage {denn, demnach). e)

Frequent iconic linkage.

f)

Explicit numerical structuring ...die erste, die zweite etc.

TENOR Author's Temporal, Social and Geographical Provenance Unmarked geographically and socially, but marked temporally, l.e., through the frequent use of the subjunctive, which is much more Infrequently used in contemporary German. Author's Personal Stance The author is emphatically convinced of the truth of his theory of language and translation. With almost messianic zeal he defends this theory and the method of translation that goes with it, a theory and method that was and is not uncontested. The author s style (as well as the content of his essay) is often provocative as if to deliberately pre-empt protest and contradiction. A good example is the very first sentence: Nirgends erweist sich einem Kunstwerk oder

139

einer Kunstform gegenuher die Riicksicht auf den Aufnehmenden fur deren Erkenntnis fruchthar. Syntactic means: Frequent use of rhetorical questions for emotive emphasis. These questions are not so much directed at the text s readers but seem to be directed at the author himself. For Instance: II: Gilt eine Ubersetzung den Lesem, die das

Original nicht verstehenf... Was sagt denn eine Dichtungf Textual means: Frequency of foregrounded rhematic structures for emotive effects, e.g. IV:

1st dock die Ubersetzung spdter als das Original und bezeichnet sie dock...; Dajl eine Ubersetzung niemals, so gut sie auch sei, etwasfiir das Original zu bedeuten vermag, leuchtet ein; In vollig unmetaphorischer Sachlichkeit ist der Gedanke vom Leben undFortleben der Kunstwerke zu erfassen... II: Was aberaufer der Mitteilung in einer Dichtung steht... II: denn in ihm liegt deren Gesetz ... Social Role Relationship The author Is an expert who explicates his theories with the authority of someone who Is convinced of their correctness. However, the relationship between author and readers recedes into the background: It Is considered of no great importance and is definitely subservient to the cognitive content of the text. The relationship can thus be described as highly impersonal. This impression of impersonality is based on the following linguistic features: Lexical and syntactic means: Great care has been taken to construct this text: every word and phrase seems to be deliberately selected, as if the “message” of the text had to be proven In the text Itself, I.e., Its lexical and syntactic realization. a)

Absence of first and second person pronouns.

b)

Frequency and complexity of [-human] noun phrases.

c)

Use of verbs which merely signal logical connection and thus mainly point to other semantically more significant textual content, i.e., they shift attention away from themselves to the noun phrases and therefore heighten the impression of abstractness and impersonality. I:... ist sogar der Begriff

eines '‘idealen” Aufnehmenden in alien kunsttheoretischen Erorterungen vom Ubel, wed diese lediglich gehalten sind, Dasein und Wesen des Menschen iiberhaupt vorauszusetzen. So setztauch die Kunst selbst dessen leibliches und geistiges Wesen voraus - seine Aufmerksamkeit aber in keinem ihrer Werke. IV.- In vollig unmetaphorischer Sachlichkeit ist der Gedanke vom Leben und Fortleben der Kunstwerke zu erfassen... d)

Use of rhetorical questions to make the material presented more salient (see Personal Stance).

140

Social Attitude Formal, i.e., marked by social distance and (resulting from this) impersonality. Syntactic means: Complex sentence structures featuring long clauses, ample subordination, appositional and parenthetical constructions, and especially the placing of subordinate clauses before the main clause, a focussing device typical of formal style: e.g., I: Nicht genug, dajl... IV: Dajl eine Uhersetzung niemals, so gut sie auch seiy ... V: Dajl man nicht der organischen Leiblichkeit allein Lehen zusprechen diirfe..., etc. Lexical means: Frequency of words and phrases marked [+abstract] due to their restricted use in formal academic treatises. Absence of interjections, qualifying modal adverblals and other subjectivity markers. MODE Medium Simple: written to be read This Medium can be characterized on Blber s continua as being strongly informational, explicit, and abstract. Syntactic means: Absence of any kind of spoken language phenomena such as anacolutha, structural redundancy, short and simple coordinate structures. Lexical means: Absence of gambits, interjections and other subjectivity markers typical of the spoken mode. Textual means: This text is completely emlc, i.e., there are no explicit references to the texts s author and its readers. Indeed, the Immediate circumstances of production and reception are clearly Irrelevant for both the organization and the reception of the message. As a result of this, the text is constituted solely through textimmanent criteria, and is marked by an explicitness, elaborateness, and calculated unamblguity typical of the written mode. The text is also strongly cohesive (see FIELD) due to a plethora of cohesion-creating devices. Participation Simple: Monologue No participation of addressees is evident in this text. Readers are not taken into account at all. Even the frequent rhetorical questions are not directed at the readers, but are designed to make the message more expressive, more salient, more aesthetically pleasing.

141

GENRE Philosophical essay in which the author attempts to develop his own theory of translation, and with this, a theory of langauge.

Statement of Function The function of this text consisting of the two components, the ideational and the interpersonal, may be summed up as follows: the author s intention is to explain and justify (via the presentation of a theory of language and translation) the manner in which he had translated Baudelaire s Tableaux parisiens. In fact this text is a preface to these translations. The text is totally writer-oriented, with no consideration of the reader being manifest in the text. The “message” of the text is extremely carefully formulated, every word seems to be well thought out, the structure enables therefore a well-organized flow of thought. Given the above characterisation and the text’s GENRE, the ideational functional component is overall strongly marked, the Interpersonal one, while co-present, is not marked, except on the dimension of TENOR. On FIELD, the careful choice of precisely apposite lexical items, the use of intricately embedded structures and the frequency with which various cohesive devices are used, clearly feeds into the ideational functional component. On TENOR, the Author's Stance is characterized by an intensity, an almost messianic zeal and a conviction that the theory he is presenting justifies his own translation. While this authorial stance supports the Interpersonal component in that the author’s own involvement potentially affects his readers, the readers do not seem to be “present” in the text at all, and the Role Relationship is Impersonal to the point of being absent. On Social Attitude the style level is formal. Taken together, the dimension TENOR supports the Ideational functional component more strongly because the information flow is given priority and it is unimpeded by social considerations Involving the addressees. On MODE, the written to be read Medium with its highly informational, explicit and abstract nature supports the ideational functional component by facilitating a condensed, complete and premeditated Information flow. On Participation^ the totally monologous nature of the text, where even the frequent rhetorical questions are non-dialoglc, solely serving to emphasize the message, also supports the ideational functional component. In this text, therefore, author and message are more Important than the conditions holding for the text’s receivers, and this is of course consistent with the author’s message, l.e., “considerations of the receiver” do not seem to exist.

142

Comparison of Original and Translation and Statement of Quality The translation I examine here is the “standard” one by Harry Zohn, which has been heavily criticized in the literature, e.g., by de Man (1986), who prefers Jacobs’ (1975) translation, and Johnston (1992). Given the content of this essay. It would seem to be of prime importance that the translation be consistent with that content. In the particular case of the analysis of this text, treating the topic of translation in a particular way, this criterion should be taken into account. FIELD Lexixal mismatches: Less precise terms are chosen: I: first sentence: receiver vs der Aufnehmende\ the processual aspect is not captured in the translation (’’Percelver” as suggested by Jacobs might be more adequate). Although the English translation manages to express the notion of “process” through the phrase In the appreciation of a work of art..., it deviates from Benjamin’s original expression, in which the Kunstwerk is personalized. This is important in the context of Benjamin’s theory, as the work of art is thus given more prominence. The translation, where the work of art is hidden as an object in a prepositonal phrase, clearly loses this nuance. The next sentence is also not precise enough in that the lexical item gehalten sind clearly expresses some obligation which gets lost in the translation : "... since all it posits is the existence and nature of man as such vs weil diese lediglich gehalten sind, Dasein und Wesen des Menschen Uherhaupt vorauszusetzen ... There are many similar lexical infelicities. I cannot list them all, a few examples may suffice: I: vom Wege abfiihrt vs misleading-, vom Uhel vs. detrimental, III: In solcher Loslosung vs in this sense. The translation is not as precise as the original in that it lacks an equivalent expression for the original’s Loslosung, which through being more anaphorically specific also creates cohesion in the original. IV: Flowering vs Entfaltung: the English term adds a nuance not present in the original’s more neutral Entfaltung. (“Unfolding” would be more suitable); IV:... ein Zusammenhang des Lehens vs a vital connection. In all these cases, the use of equivalent English metaphors would have been possible. Textual mismatches: Lack of Cohesion through 1) frequent lack of clausal linkage, e.g., I: Denn kein Gedicht... vs No poem-, II: Das ist denn auch das Erkennungszeichen vs This is the hallmark ...; Ill: Ihm gegenuher ist darauf hinzuweisen, dafl... vs it should he pointed out ...-,W-.Denn von derGeschichte, nichtvon derNaturausvs In the final analysis, the range...; V: Daher entsteht dem Philosophen die Aufgahe ... vs The philo-

143

sopher’s task consists... There are many more examples in which the translation simply omits the conjunctions. 2) Loss of repetition e.g., in II, where the English equivalent Mitteilung, mitteilen vary (unnecessarily): communicate, imparting and transmitting information, statement i.e., Was teilt sie mitf Ihr Wesentliches ist nicht Mitteilung... die Mitteilung vs What does it communicate... its essential quality is not statement or the imparting of information. TENOR

^

Author's Personal Stance Textual mismatches: Frequent loss of foregrounded, dramatic (rhematic) structures in the translation. In the case of the essay s first provocative sentence, this loss is critical: Nirgends erweist sich einem Kunstwerk oder einer Kunstform gegeniiber die Rucksicht auf den Aufnehmenden fur deren Erkenntnis fruchtbar vs In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. The emotive Impact of the German sentence could have easily been retained in English: Nowhere does consideration for the perceiver with respect to a work of art or an art form prove fruitful for their understanding. IV: Dajl eine Ubersetzung niemals etwasfur das Originalzu bedeuten vermag, leuchtet ein vs It is plausible that no translation ...; Ist doch die Ubersetzung spdter als das Original... vs For a translation comes later than the original, Vielmehr nur wenn allem demjenigen, wovon es Geschichte gibt... Leben zuerkannt wird, kommt dessen Begriff zu seinem Recht vs The concept of life is given its due only if everything that has a history of its own ... is credited with life. W: In ihnen erreicht das Leben des Originals seine... Entfaltung vs The life of the originals attains in them its ... flowering. Loss of simulated emphatic elliptical answer to rhetorical questions: II: Was tedt sie mitf Sehr wenig dem, der sie versteht vs What does it communicated It “tells" very little to those who understand it. Social Role Relationship Syntactic mismatches: The translation is often rendered less Impersonal through the use of personal pronouns: IV: (der Zusammenhang) darf ein naturlicher genannt werden vs we may call this connection ...; II:... welche man demnach ... definieren darf vs which consequently 'we may define ...; Was aber aufler der Mitteilung in emer Ubersetzung steht... vs But we do not generally regard ...; V: Die Geschichte der grojlen Kunstwerke kennt... vs The history of the great works of art tells us about...

144

Social Attitude The style level is slightly less formal due to the use of personal pronouns (see Social Role Relationship), and a lack of focussing devices typical of formal style such as placing subordinate clauses before main clauses. MODE Medium Textual mismatches: The translation text is not completely emic through the use of first person personal pronouns, i.e., more situation-dependent. Participation The use of inclusive we Involves readers minimally, but still more than the original does. Overt Errors The following lexical error is a serious blunder (which is also critically commented upon by de Man), because it changes the meaning of the original completely and should have been avoided by anyone having really understood the original: II:... ist darauf hinzuweisen, daft gewisse Relationshegriffe ihren guten ... Sinn behalten, wenn sie nicht von vorneherein ausschlieftlich auf den Menschen bezogen werden vs ... that certain correlative concepts retain their ... significance, if they are referred exclusively to man. Interestingly enough, the same error was made by the French translator in his translation of Benjamin s essay into French, which causes de Man to furiously claim that both translators didn’t seem “to have the slightest idea of what Benjamin is saying; so much so that when Benjamin says certain things rather simply in one way - for example he says something is not - the translators, who at least know German well enough to know the difference between something is and something is not - don’t see it! and put absolutely and literally the opposite of what Benjamin has said. This is remarkable because the two translators ... are very good translators ...” (de Man 1986: 79). Is it possible that the translators own ideas of translation and especially a translation’s “recipient design” has played a role here? One can only speculate, but the fact remains that this is a serious overt error.

Statement of Quality The comparison of original and translation along the situational parameters shows that there are a number of mismatches on FIELD in the translation, where Benjamin’s precise, thoughtful formulation is frequently not rendered with the same care and attention to detailed shades of meaning, and where the original’s intricate web of textual cohesion is often destroyed due to a lack of

145

repetition, explicit clausal linkage, and theme-rheme sequencing. These mismatches detract from the text s ideational functional component. On TENOR, Benjamin’s Personal Stance which comes across forcefully e.g., in the original’s foregrounded emphatic clause structures is not always kept up in the translation, and the impersonality characterizing the original’s Social Role Relationship is thwarted through the introduction of inclusive we-pronouns in the translation. Both the Interpersonal and the Ideational functional components are affected. The original’s great (and deliberate) social distance between author and readers and the resulting formal style leA^el characterizing the dimension Social Attitude is sometimes, due to the presence of de-complexified clause structures, less formal in the translation. On MODE, the translation’s occasional use of personal pronouns deviates slightly from the entirely non-partlclpatory written nature of the original, also affecting both functional components, but in a minor way. One serious overt error was found in the passage examined. Taken together, the ideational functional component and, to a much lesser degree, the Interpersonal one (which is, with the exception of the Author's Personal Stance, not marked at all in the original) are affected through changes in the translation. The changes of the ideational functional component are critical in a text whose Ideational functional component is marked strongly in the first place. The analysis of the entire text, of which this passage is but a small part, confirms this finding. This text would seem to be a classic case for an overt translation because of the status of the author and the status of the text, because of the particularly close connection in this text of content and the language used to express it, and last but not least because of the nature of the content; a particular theory of translation. The translation examined here might however have been translated covertly, in that a cultural filter may have been consciously or unconsciously applied. The original was found to be more explicit and (slightly) less Interpersonally focussed than the translation which appeared to be less precise and less explicit, l.e., weaker on the Ideational functional component. This is in line with the English-German communicative preferences. One might, of course, argue that a covert translation and an application of a cultural filter is justified for this text as it makes it easier for Anglophone readers to understand this difficult text. However, given the importance of this text, the status of its author and the nature of its content, an overt translation would do more justice to it. This is the stance I am taking here. However, this is a social not a scientific judgement, l.e., it is not based on the type of close linguistic-textual analysis of the source text the model provides. The plausibility of allocating a text to be translated overty or covertly depends on social factors l.e., the status of the author and the text.

146

TEXT

4: History Text jr

Excerpt from Daniel Jonah Goldhagen/Zii/er 5 Willing Executioners. Ordina-. ry Germans and the Holocaust. (Original English, translation German) see Appendix.

^ «•

Analysis of the Original FIELD This is an academic text from the field of history based on the author’s PhD dissertation. The author, a young Harvard historian, puts forward a new, provocative hypothesis designed to better explain the holocaust. According to this hypothesis, the holocaust did not originate with a small group of Nazi maniacs, rather it was made possible because “ordinary Germans” willingly cooperated and executed the crimes. Paragraph III in the selected excerpt demonstrates this hypothesis well in that Goldhagen here explicitly equates Nazis with Germans: he introduces a quote about how ^a poison of diseased hatred permeates the blood of the Nazis’^ but interprets and prefaces it in the following way:... to Jewish victims it appeared as if its hold on Germans could he captured and conveyed only in organic terms ...”. The book is now a bestseller. It has had a controversial reception not only in Germany but worldwide. While being clearly an academic historical text, it also shows the author’s strong personal, emotional and Intellectual involvement (see TENOR). Lexical means: Given the central thesis of this work, the author makes sure that the word German (often in the collocation ordinary Germans or in opposition to Jewish and Jews) is mentioned frequently in order to drive the message home. An important piece of evidence (see paragraph IV) for this deliberate, regular and insistent use of the lexical item German is the express Insertion, in brackets, of the word “German” in a quote where it was not present originally and where this non-presence was unlikely to cause a misinterpretation given the disambiguating co-text. Especially marked is the frequent (negativising) collocation these Germans as in VI: After successful kills, these Germans were in the habit of rewarding themselves... Syntactic means: Frequency of long, complex clauses featuring subordination, coordination and apposition. Textual means: Strong cohesion achieved through repetition of (emotive) key terms such as German, ordinary Germans, Jews, Jewish (see above), antisemitic, antisemi-

147

tism, genocide, eliminationist, exterminationist, annihilation, hatred, slaughter, kill, cruelty, metastized etc. TENOR Author’s Temporal, Social and Geographical Provenance: Unmarked contemporary middle-class standard American English Author’s Personal (Emotional and Intellectual) Stance: The author has both the professional Interest of a historian In his subject and a personal one - his father, to whom he has dedicated this book, Is a holocaust surv'lvor - and his deep personal Involvement Is strongly noticeable In the book. The following linguistic phenomena provide evidence of this Involvement, which Is unusual In an academic text, and Is also likely to have an even stronger emotive effect on the readers of the book than would have been the case anyway given the enormity of the topic. Lexical means: a)

extremely frequent use of Intenslflers, superlatives and lexical Items marked either [+concrete] or [+emotlve] or both. Due to this frequency, I can only list a selection here: h strongly tended, virulent eliminationist antisemitism, fully two thirds, enthusiastic support, enormous number of ordinary Germans, genocial assault, significant dissatisfaction and (principled) dissent, ... trenchantly put it, exceedingly close; II: virulent exterminationist form, act barbarously against Jews; III: So profound and near universal..., profound hatred; IV: gigantic catastrophe, depth of hatred, hatred of emotion; V: systematic killing; VIII: near universal, terrorize, orgy of killing; IX: concentrated slaughter, mass annihilation, slaughter of the Jews; X: vast majority of the German people, inescapable truth, enormous number of ordinary, most of the rest of their fellow Germans.

b)

Ample use of metaphoric language to express emotive Involvement: e.g., I: metastize, the putative Jewish illness, the German body social, the social pathology ofJewry; II: metastized, given free rein; III: poison of diseased hatred, lain dormant; VI: slaughter ofJews; IX: slaughter of the Jews.

Textual means: a)

Frequency of Iconic linkage for strong emotional effect: II: Genocide was immanent in ... It was immanent in ... And it was immanent in... VI, VII, VIII, IX, X (and more frequently In textual passages not examined here): These were the beliefs that... The beliefs that... These beliefs that were ... etc.

b)

Use of foregrounded, rhematlc structures for rhetorical effect, e.g.. Ill: So profound and near universal was ...; V: It is the masses, the ordinary Germans ... whom Kaplan exposes ...

148

Social Role Relationship The text IS both designed to address historians and tKe general public. As a professional historian in his field, the author clearly demonstrates that he is an expert in the subject he is treating. He puts forward his main thesis which IS

provocative and new with an air of full authority, quoting extensively from

primary sources he has had access to. Lexical means: Presence of [+abstract] noun phrases, often Latin based, e.g., eliminationist antisemitic ideology. Markedly frequent use of intensifiers, superlatives and [+emotive] lexical items and metaphoric language (see Personal Stance) Syntactic means: Absence of personal pronouns as behooves an academic text. Presence of lengthy, multiply embedded clauses. Textual means: Frequency of effective rhetorical opposition through adversative structures often featuring iconic linkage for heightened rhetorical effect: e.g., VIII: they did not choose ... hut instead... that prepared men ... not to hate, hut to esteem ...; X:... that prepared not just the Germans... hut also the vast majority of the German people... Use of iconic linkage and foregrounded rhematlc structures for emotive effect on readers (see Personal Stance). Social Attitude Formal-Consultative: A carefully pre-medltated style with well planned, logically constructed clauses and carefully selected and combined lexical items. However, the label “consultative” in conjunction with “formal” is justified as the author - despite engaging in scientific discourse with its structural density and close lexical packaging of information - also deliberately Involves his addressees through an Intensely emotive language, (see TENOR) which reduces social distance. The texts style may thus also be characterized as “rhetorical”: the material is presented for a certain effect, l.e., to convince readers of the truth of the author’s thesis. This characterization is based on the following linguistic evidence: Lexical means: Frequency of [+abstract], often Latin-based noun phrases which arc often heavily pre- or post-modified, e.g., I: eliminationist antisemitic ideology, the Germans* twentieth century conception of the Jews, putative social pathology, the latter part of the pre-genocidal nineteenth century, VI: the men of Police battalion 61 *s First company, IX: the German perpetrators rejoicing proudly in their mass annihilation of the Jews.

149

Syntactical means; a)

Absence of contractions.

b)

Frequency of long sentences featuring multiple embedding and revealing careful planning for rhythmic and aesthetic effect.

MODE

Medium Simple: Written to be read While the medium in this text can be characterized along Biber s dimensions as explicit and abstract but also - which is marked for this medium - as highly Involved. Lexical means: Absence of interjections, anacolutha and other characteristics of the spoken mode. Presence of [+ abstract] noun phrases. Due to the high frequency of [+emotive] lexical items the text is marked for involvedness. Syntactic means: Absence of elliptical clauses, contractions, contact and comment parentheses and other kinds of spoken language signals such as gambits, modal particles etc. Frequency of long and complex clauses featuring subordination, apposition and multiple coordination. Textual means: The text is emlc, l.e., there is no pronominal reference to author or readers, because the immediate circumstances of the text’s production and reception are Irrelevant for the organization of the message. As a result of this, the text is determined through text-immanent criteria and is marked through the explicitness and elaborateness of the monologously written mode. Still, through the presence of a number of rhetorical devices such as patterned repetition, iconic linkage, foregrounded rhematic structures etc., this text is also strongly “Involved”.

Participation Simple: Monologue The reactions of the readers are never directly elicited, l.e., there are no overt participation devices such as e.g., pronouns, questions directly addressing readers, speech acts with the illocutionary force of e.g., a request, etc. In this text, it is clearly the content and the way this content is presented which is of utmost Importance. Reader participation in this text is thus implicit and is expressed through the values on the other situational dimensions.

150

GENRE Academic text featuring a provocative hypothesis and re-lnterpretation of the causes of historical facts.

Statement of Function r ••

The function of the text consisting of an ideational and an Interpersonal component may be summed up as follows: the author’s intention is to (1) inform his readers of his research into a period of German history presenting a new hypothesis about the causes of certain historical facts, (2) to convince his readers of the correctness of this hypothesis and to make an emotional plea for its plausibility. The interpersonal functional component is strongly marked, with the Ideational one being of course also present, as the GENRE of the text is a history text. On FIELD the hammering repetition of key lexical items (German, Jews, antisemltlc, genocide) strongly support the interpersonal functional component. The clustering of abstract lexical terms and the frequency of complex clause structures mark the text Ideationally as an academic history text. On TENOR, the Author’s Personal and Emotive Stance is very strongly marked in this text. It is the reason for the author’s refraining from presenting the results of his research in the conventional Impersonal academic manner, and for the fact that he presents in detail vivid and concrete Images of atrocities and horror. The Interpersonal component of this text’s function is therefore heavily marked. On Social Role Relationship, the author’s assumption of professional and moral authority supports the interpersonal component. The fact that there is a complete lack of direct Involvement of the readers marks the text Ideationally as an academic text. On Social Attitude, the formal-consultative style level marked by premeditated complex structures and carefully selected lexis as well as the text’s emotionally involving and rhetorically effective lexical and syntactic choices also support both functional components. On MODE, the written to be read Medium, which is here marked as explicit and abstract but also highly Involved, feeds into both the Ideational and the Interpersonal functional component. The totally monologous nature of the text along Participation feeds into the Ideational functional component, as it is the efficient organization of content which such a value supports. Taken together, the strong marking of the Interpersonal component is remarkable for an academic text.

Comparison of Original and Translation and Statement of Quality Mismatches along the following dimensions were discovered following a detailed analysis of the two texts:

151

FIELD Lexical mismatches: The haunting repetition of the word German and the various collocations with German (such as ordinary Germans) are not kept up in the German translation. Given the central claim of this work, this is a serious change, and if one considers that, given the text s and the author s prominent status, it might be translated overtly, it is a crucial mismatch, indeed. This critical change (or mismatch) can be found not only throughout this passage but also in the entire book. I will glv6a few examples of the numerous substitutions for, and omissions of, equivalents of the word German in the translation. I: derfUr das zwanzigste Jahrhundert typischen Vorstellungen von den Juden vs the Germans' twentieth-century conception of the Jews;... losten jedenfalls weder Unruhe noch Dissens in der Bevolkerung aus vs failed to produce significant dissatisfaction and (principled) dissent within the general German populace;... die erschreckenden Diagnosen und Prognosen vs The dire diagnosis and prognosis for Germany; III: Germans' profound hatred ofJews vs der tiefe... Haf; IV: Die Massen ... vs the (German) masses (here the author explicitly Inserts ""German" in brackets in a quote, although the cotext disambiguates perfectly; VI: Sie brachten die Offiziere...dazu, sich wie so viele Beteiligte ... vs ... that prepared officers ... to boast like so many other Germans engaged in the slaughter; VI: ... diese Polizeireservisten vs ... these German reservists ...; Nach erfolgreichen Mordeinsatzen belohnten sie sich gern ... vs after successful kills, these Germans were in the habit of...; VIII: Die immer gleichen Vorstellungen und Bilderbewogen auch die ganz gewohnlichen Manner des Polizeibatallions 307, den Hauptmann nicht ... vs ... these were the beliefs that prepared the men of Police Battalion 309, ordinary Germans ... Especially Important in Goldhagen’s work is the constant juxtaposition of the words German and Jews (and their various derivations). This opposition is of course destroyed if the word German is deleted as e.g., in I: den jiidischen Biirgem zundchst den gesellschaftlichen Einfluf zu nehmen und sie dann ganz aus der Gesellschaft auszuschlieflen vs to eliminate German Jewish citizens first from the influence of German society and then from society itself. There are many similar examples. In paragraph IX, the omission of (the equivalent of) German is most noticeable: in IX, the word German is mentioned 8 times in the English original with Deutsch figuring only 3 times in the translation. Apart from the word German, other key terms such as antisemitism, genocide, eliminationist, exterminationist, are also not repeated with the same frequency as is the case in the original: Paragraph I exemplifies this tendency. A comparison of the first two sentences in the original and the translation makes it already clear that the translation often avoids direct mention of the horrors - which is the exact opposite of one of the main purposes of the orl-

152

ginal: Even though the eliminationist antisemitic ideology was multipotential in action, it strongly tended, given the Germans^ twentieth century conception of the Jews, to metastize into its most extreme, exterminationist variant, promising a commensurate political “solution''^ to the putative ‘‘problem”. The elective affinity between a person subscribing to a racially based, virulent eliminationist antisemitism and a person concluding that an exterminationist “solution ” was desirable could already be seen in the latter part of the pre-genocidal nineteenth century vs Diese Ausprdgung des Judenhasses liejl also viele Handlungsmdglichkeiten offen. Abersie tendierte, gerade vordem Hintergrund der fiir das zwanzigste Jahrhundert typischen Vorstellungen von den Juden, zur extremsten Variante, zurdefimtiven “Losung”. Daf zwischenrassistischen Antisemiten, die fiir eine gewaltsame Aussonderung der Juden pladierten, und solchen, die die “Losung” in der Vernichtung sahen, eine Wahlverwandtschaft bestand, wurde bereits Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts deutlich. TENOR Author's Personal Stance Lexical mismatches; The translation fails to provide equivalents of intensifiers, upgrading adjectives and superlatives as well as [+emotlve], and starkly concrete lexical items designed to both express the Author's Personal Stance and emotionally involve the readers. In the original these lexical items are used to drive home the extent of the horror and to stress the fact that it was the vast majority of ordinary Germans which were willing executioners of the Nazi crimes. In falling to find equivalents of these words, the German translation tones the entire text down, a serious difference as it thwarts the author s intention to make a provocatively strong case. I: zwei Drittelws fully two thirds; wurde von der deutschen Bevolkerung geteilt vs produced enthusiastic support among the German population; jeder Schritt des Programms vs every major feature of the evolving eliminationist program; eine grofe Zahl von ganz gewohnlichen Deutschen vs an enormous number of ordinary Germans; ...die Juden zu ermorden vs ... their willing slaughter of the Jews; II; das spdtere Programm vs the society's protogenocidalprogram; III;... so allgemein verbreitet vs So profound and near universal...; VI; Vorstellungen und Bildervs belief. Belief \s much stronger than Vorstellungen und Bilder. Belief, unlike Vorstellungen und Bilder, refers to something one is convinced of and that guides or conditions ones behaviour. The choice of such a “strong” word as belief is therefore important in that it helps cement Goldhagen s thesis. The fact that the word belief‘m the structure these are the beliefs is repeated very frequently (with some minor variations), makes its toneddown versions in German all the more critical.

153

V: Kaplan heobachtet ganz gewohnliche Deutsche vs It is the masses, the ordinary Germans... whom Kaplan exposes. The connotation of “expose” is totally lost in the neutral German “heobachten”\ VI: wie so viele Beteiligte vs like so many other Germans engaged in the slaughter, VII:... die Deutsche dazu bewogen ... und spdter auch wie die Manner des Polizeibataillons 101 am Vernichtungsprogramm teilzuhaben vs... thatprepared the men of Police Battalion 101 and so many other Germans to be eager killers. The abstract German version flattens and avoids the impact of “eager killers”’, VIII: eine kleine Minderheit, die Zuriickhaltung iibte vs the tiny minority...; X: die grofie Mehrheit der Deutschen vs the vast majority of the German people. There are also two omissions which can be interpreted as being in line with the general pattern of flattening and neutralizing the author’s main thesis, the omitted stretches being particularly strong versions of it: II: 0 in German vs Under the proper circumstances, eliminationist antisemitism metastized into its most virulent exterminationist form and ordinary Germans became willing genocidal killers', VIII: 0 in German vs the cruelty in the camps having been near universal. Textual mismatches: a)

Iconic linkage: II: no equivalent structural parallelism for: Genocide was immanent..it was immanent..And it was immanent.

b)

Loss of foregrounded rhematlc structures in III: Der Antisemitismus war wahrend der Nazizeit... vs So profound and near universal was antisemitism-, V: Kaplan beobachtet ganz gewohnliche Deutsche ... vs It is the masses, the ordinary Germans ... whom Kaplan exposes.

Social Attitude The style level in the German translation is more formal, more neutral, and socially distant due to the lack of rhetorical intensity and emotionally gripping, addressee-involving linguistic devices as characterized under AUTHOR’S STANCE and FIELD above. MODE Medium Due to the lack of rhetorical devices such as repetition, iconic linkage, foregrounded structures and [+emotlve] lexical items including Intenslflers and superlatives the translation is less Involved and more informative than the original. Participation The translation is even more monologous than the original due to the absence of (+emotive) linguistic devices (cf. the values along the other situational dimensions).

154

GENRE The GENRE of the original - an academic history text with a provocative new thesis and a strong emotional appeal is realized differently in German in that the Author*s Stance^ as well as his rhetorical strategies are toned down considerably in the translation - at least in the passages I selected. Having conducted a more cursory analysis of the complete text, I would hypothesize, however, that this analysis holds for the whole book.

Statement of Quality There is a pattern of differences between translation and original along the dimensions of FIELD and TENOR, which strongly affect the interpersonal functional component of the translation. The differences on the dimension FIELD, where the repetition of the key word German is consistently ignored, and other key concepts and terms are also either missed out or toned down, detract from the interpersonal component making the text less provocatively effective and emotionally intense. On TENOR, there is a pattern of changes in the author’s intellectual, emotional and moral stance due to the omission and/or downtonlng of Intensifiers, superlatives and other upgrading devices as well as [+emotive] lexical items, and the lack of Iconic linkage and foregrounded rhematic structures in the translation. These changes also Influence the translation’s style level, making it more formal, and the original’s monologous character is reinforced in the translation due to a lack of rhetorical and emotive devices. All these changes have an effect on the realization of the GENRE: the translation is more of a serious academic document rather than a provocative text expertly trying to convince its readers minds and hearts. While this analysis, which is based on an analysis of only a few pages taken out of a 600 page volume is of course not representative as a sample, I still believe that I am in a position to hypothesize - and a cursory analysis of the entire text supports this hypothesis - that the German translation of Goldhagen’s book reduces the Impact of the original in the areas I mentioned. I thus essentially confirm the claim made in an article in the magazine Der Spiegel (August 12, 1996) that “die Ubersetzung glattet Goldhagens Thesen”. It is Interesting to consider the author’s rejection of this claim in a letter to the editor in the following issue of Der Spiegel (19.8.1996), where he calls the claim “absurd” and denies the Spiegel’s brief exposition any validity stating that the cited examples were trivial “Spitzfindigkeiten” taken out of context. Seeing that my analysis has exposed a pattern of mismatches consistent with the Spiegel’s claims, one wonders why this denial was made. An Interview with the translator revealed the appropriateness of the Spiegel's and my own analysis, and a claim was made that the changes had been imposed by the publisher for political and marketing reasons.

155

In his letter to the Spiegel, Goldhagen also comments on the book’s title Hitler's Willing Executioners and its translation into German as Hitlers willige Vollstrecker, once again a toned-down rendering: Vollstrecker in German conventionally collocates with Testament as e.g., in “Testamentsvollstrecker”, whereas the English word executioner in the context of this book is more equivalent to a “Henker” or “Scharfrichter” in German. Despite Goldhagen’s claims that these lexical items are too narrow in meaning given the wider meaning potential of executioner, the fact remains that there is a whole pattern of differences, i.e., there is convergingevidence for the hypothesis that the German translation is systematically toned down in many specifiable instances and on different linguistic levels. The last sentence of the book is also revealing in this connection. In the English original we read; The camp reveals the essence of the Germany that gave itself to Nazism, no less than the perpetrators reveal the slaughter and barbarism that ordinary Germans were willing to perpetrate in order to save Germany and the German people from the ultimate danger “DER JUDE”. The German translation renders this sentence as follows: Das Lager offenhart das Wesen Deutschlands, das sich dem Nationalsozialismus ausgeliefert hatte - so wie die Morde und die Barharei der Tdter die Bereitschaft ganz gewohnlicher Deutscher offenharen, Deutschland und das deutsche Volk vor seinem vermeintlich gefdhrlichsten Feind zu retten: “DEM JUDEN”. The German translation of this last sentence again removes the Germans out of the unbearably strong accusatory light that Goldhagen throws on them, toning the original down and, in this Instance, even commenting upon it. “To give oneself” implies a free will on the part of the one doing the giving, and a belief that this giving is something positive, whereas the German “ausllefern” implies something negative, it is frequently used in the passive voice implying that one can’t help it as in e.g., “ich war Ihm ausgeliefert”. Even in the active voice, this connotation is retained, i.e., “Deutschland hatte sich dem Nationalsozialismus ausgeliefert” implies that it is the Nationalsozialismus that is negative and bad, not so much the Germans themselves. A more serious change of the meaning of the original’s last sentence, however, is the following: “the perpetrators reveal the slaughter and barbarism that ordinary Germans were willing to perpetrate” surely means: “die Tdter offenharen das Abschlachten und die Barharei, die ganz gewohnliche Deutsche willentlich durchfiihrten”, and not, as in the translation "... so wie die Morde und die Barharei der Tdter die Bereitschaft ganz gewohnlicher Deutscher offenharen, Deutschland... zu retten”. As it stands, the translation clears those ordinary Germans of the blame and guilt, which is of course in stark contrast to the preceding 600 pages (at least in the original). With regard to my assessment of the translation and the problems surrounding the decision for an overt or a covert translation to be made and the

156

placing of a cultural filter between original and translation in the process of covertly translating, one might argue that the German translation of the Goldhagen text Is covert, and that a cultural filter has been used changing a strongly Interpersonally active text Into a more content-based sober and scientific one that Is more In keeping with the German conventions for academic texts (see Chapter 3). On the other hand, given the status the author and his book has attained through the Intense discussion of his theses especially In Germany, one might argue that an overt translation would have been more appropriate, whose function It is to give German readers access to the original (in an unadulterated fashion). In order to enable them to judge the book for themselves. This Is the position I am taking here - knowing full well, however, that political and marketing considerations on the part of publishers and all those exerting an Influence on them are often more powerful and can overrule any translator’s professional and ethical decision to allow the readers of the translation undlstorted access to the author’s original voice.

157

:. /H 2.^’

*f^ *

V *'

’:

■

* '".*’*

■*'

irT3->i

.,' ^rr>'r'*^ ,Shil|^»f| fQ '♦*/ ,.>

-ir-

, .i

• ■-

:i .

■.,:!;.'I'x-

..>>jis«...;..

.,

^

'i

•

f,iu. i;«- V-;

- “!• •, I .:

v"

I

tM

•

I*

•►« .*

■

•

' ^

.•:

:

I ^*•4

i»»

■#. iS' ^

1 i I

•

fr>4* »v«^J'

»

'■*

'■ '

I <»*

Ts

'i

4.

•

" ’ ' I . .,'

t

,

•%. ’

'

«. I»

j

'

.

,

• ' ■ ■"

- ■

* *

••* f

.•■■*• ■ 4

' :

,-

.4,

‘^/•»-' ■•

«.

'«•.

.

»

*.•

V

* ^

,|

^. »• —

I ,

.V

*

^*1

».

lk?>' * K
■ <

•

^

' A

^ • ♦ ». { ( ,i .

^

^ J -*0 i

> • ; *./»<'

If ,.v ..'!^

/ Vs, •. !

-

• i •

iir'^t|«*

j fI»'

-•■■^ - *■

.!:,

.•* - *

»-«J ♦ 1 ■

•

i ,•

• •

‘ f»/ I

^ I"

<

T"’'!’’

.•*

. . •.

‘

■

.

f

> '.' i

.•!«<*%•“»

. . 'I

V

.■lit.*.!-* ► . S.

#*

■bf «r.f

* "*

.'' •-i dk^Xt' t

AiV

•

*v

■

■».

M

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion

In this final Chapter I shall both re-present the central theses that have been developed in the preceding Chapters, and develop selected theoretical and practical aspects of the model presented in some detail.

1

Theoretical Aspects of the Model

In this book I have presented a revision of a model of translation quality assessment. Central concepts of the original model have been retained, but made more accessible, and more relevant to actual concerns in translational theory and practice. The book has therefore both Introduced new concepts specifically in terms of the analytic apparatus suggested for categorial linguistic analysis, and at the same time retained the central notion of source and target text comparison as the basis for translation quality assessment, even when this text-based approach has for many specialists in the translational field been overtaken by a more target-audience-oriented notion of translational appropriateness. I believe this recent shift of focus in translational studies to be fundamentally misguided. The analytical categories are revised in such a way that the three levels of analysis: LANGUAGE/TEXT, REGISTER and GENRE are related exponentially, and at the same time each level contributes to the characterisation of a functional profile for the individual source or target text. The notion of GENRE is of theoretical Interest, though this interest has not been developed in detail in these pages so far. I have proposed to use the term in its everyday sense, while applying some restrictions. What counts as a GENRE cannot therefore be manipulated by academic whim, but is to be discovered in the everyday practice of the llnguaculture in question. The category remains therefore a socially-determined, pre-scientlflc category in the sense that its parameters cannot be set by scientific decree. Consequently, of

159

course, it Is conceded that the concept remains fuzzy-edged. Two factors contribute to this lack of clarity. Firstly, we have the issue of degree of delicacy in distinguishing one GENRE from another. If “speech” constitutes a GENRE does “speech given at a dinner-party held for fund-raising purposes” also constitute a GENRE? The category is for my purposes to be conceived very broadly, but precisely how broadly is a priori difficult to establish. Secondly, we have the issue of criteria for distinction - as GENRES can be characterised and distinguished on many dimensions simultaneously, the use of different distinguishing criteria will lead to different categorial results. Take for example the instance of a verbal delivery in a formal setting which is designed to introduce another person, who will later address the assembled company. Informally we could assign such an event to the category “speech” and/or the category “Introduction”. It is both. Note that the categorlal assignment “Introductory speech” does not resolve the theoretical issue at stake, firstly because it simply transposes the categorlal issue to one of degree of delicacy, and secondly because it leaves open the hierarchical issue, l.e., the question as to whether we are handling a speech used as an introduction, or an introduction realised via a speech. I have adopted the position that GENRE is to be conceived so broadly that an inventory of generic categories subsumes all texts across all cultures. However, I have not attempted the rather daunting task of spelling out what this Inventory might contain. Further, while any text in any culture can, in principle, be assigned to a GENRE, it is not the case that every GENRE has textual realisations in every culture. The category GENRE is therefore universal in the sense of universal grammar - it can accommodate all Instances, but not every instantiation would realise all its exponents: in different cultures, certain GENRES might have “null realisations”. It follows that inside the theory developed in this book, a translation of a particular text will belong to the same GENRE as the original, be that translation overt or covert. In the case that the GENRE to which the source text is to be assigned has a null realisation in the target llnguaculture, and a covertly functional equivalence is desired, then clearly translation as such is not possible: a different version of the source text will have to be substituted, or Indeed some non-verbal realisation. Crudely, if a greeting ritual in one culture is perfomed by extensive, conventionalised verbal means, in another by the exchange of gifts, in another by the rubbing of noses, bowing or the shaking of hands, it is inappropriate to describe these different behavioural modes as “covert translations” one of another. Leaving such theoretical cases aside, I wish to propose that in the translational process, GENRE stays Intact, although register-shifting and cultural filtering may accompany the translation process in the covert case, and although an additional GENRE may be superimposed in the case of the overt translation (the translation serves, for example, to exemplify cultural, textual.

160

rhetorical or other features of the source culture). By definition, then, if the GENRE is changed with no apparent necessity, one may no longer be able to speak of a translation, but should refer to a version. The category of GENRE relates an individual pair of texts to this broader category, and enables thereby intra-generic comparison, and, possibly, generalisation. In my own research (House forthcoming), it has for example been possible to examine a larger corpus of texts belonging to the specific GENRE of children’s books. The analysis and comparison of 52 German and English texts inside this GENRE, together with their translations, gives explanatory weight to the analysis of any one single textual pair, in that the results of the analysis of one original and its translation can be related to a system of translational norms and options operating within this particular GENRE, across this intercultural gap. The model developed in this book thus opens up the possibility of research into culturally-conditioned translational norms, which are likely to differ for different GENRES. More research with large corpora of texts belonging to different GENRES would thus give greater explanatory value to any individual translation analysis. The second major theoretical thrust of the model developed in this book concerns cultural filtering, and the overt-covert distinction. As indicated at several points in the book, and particularly in Chapter 3, an empirical rationale for cultural filtering has been proposed for the translational pair German/English, in that extensive cross-cultural pragmatic research into differences of communicative preferences in the German and Anglophone

llnguacultures has

established

a number of differences. The

establishment of such differences does not though in itself resolve questions of cultural filtering in the evaluation of translations between German and English. It allows us rather to pin them down more concretely. Let us accept for example that at a particular point in time, children’s literature in German exhibits systematic differences from texts of the same GENRE in another linguaculture, for example English. Suppose we then establish empirically - as in fact I claim to have done - that these differences can be given a plausible explanation - grounds are proposed for “skewing” in the translation of English children’s books into German. Do such empirical facts “justify” skewing, or cultural filtering? The answer is of course affirmative - I have already revised my earlier negative judgement concerning similar cases in Chapter 4 of this book. But does this mean that a case of non-filtered (but covertly intentloned) translation thus becomes inappropriate? There is, it seems to me, no simple answer to this question. In the case of children’s books, it would be a rash decision indeed to suggest that non-filtering leads to inadequate or non-appropriate translation. Presumably two factors would Influence the degree of freedom to be tolerated in cultural filtering: the rigidity of the norms holding for books of the relevant GENRE written in the target language, and the

161

general rigidity with which social norms are observed and upheld in the linguaculture in question. We need, of course, also to bear in mind that social norms may either be imposed top-down, or simply be established over time bottom-up. In either case they are and should be open to change: there is no ground whatsoever, then, for assuming or decreeing that a translation may not by definition be a potential agent for such change. A further theoretical issue here is the question of reciprocity of skew. In other words, if it is deemed appropriate and normative to filter when translating (in a certain way, namely covertly) frorrlslinguaculture A to linguaculture B, then we might logically suggest that it is equally warranted and indeed necessary to filter in the opposite way when translating from B into A. Is this logical conclusion justified? Firstly, how far such bi-directional skewing takes place is of course an empirical issue, but I know of no studies that explicitly address it. My own work - especially with children’s literature - suggests for the translation pair English and German that skewing is in this case often but not necessarily always reciprocal, in that German children’s literature translated into English is not consistently filtered towards the norm for children’s literature written in English to the extent that children’s books translated into German are so filtered. I hypothesise that this is not an isolated case, and that there is such a thing as preferred direction of skew. If this is so, and if in fact bi-directional skewing is found not to obtain with other language pairs, it would be of interest to Investigate why. One might then develop a dlrectlonof-skew hypothesis, predicting, possibly, skewing on a probability scale, given genre, language pair, and direction of fit. These proposals are not in the least fanciful. Inside research into language teaching and learning, for example, a so-called contrastive hypothesis was developed in the sixties, which suggested that the degree of difference between two languages correlated with the degree of difficulty with which a speaker of one of that pair of languages could be expected to learn the other. It did not take long to establish, however, that direction of fit, and type of difference were, amongst other things, important factors Inside any contrastive hypothesis (see Edmondson and House 1993: 208ff for a brief overview). The issue of cultural cross-over in translation is also related to the issue of behavioural norms inside a foreign language culture. In other words, if research (and experience) establish that speakers of language X have rather different interpersonal behavioural norms in everyday interaction than speakers of language Y, this clearly does not entail that it is the task of foreign language teachers to train speakers of X learning Y to adopt the norms of that target linguaculture, and vice versa (see for example Edmondson and House 1982 on the issue of politeness, and see House 1997 on politeness and translation). Questions of cultural filtering are of course directly relevant to the question as to which type of translation is being attempted. The central distinction

IS between overt and covert translation. These translational types are seen, however, as endpoints along a continuum, such that unclear cases will in practice arise. An overt translation aims at what I call second-level-functional equivalence. At this secondary level the target text should attempt to match the GENRE, REGISTER and LINGUISTIC STRATEGIES of the source text. This equivalence occurs at a second level., however, precisely because, given the envisaged readership, the translated text must have a different reception from that which obtains for the original, source-culture readership. An overt translation allows members of the target culture access to the function of the original. The translation lets them eavesdrop, so to speak, and invites them to perceive the text, as though they were direct addressees enabling them to appreciate the original s function, albeit at a distance. The metaphor of “levels” has further been given a cognitive, information-processing interpretation in this book inside frame theory, or the postulate of co-existing discourse worlds. Thus in an overt translation, the discourse world of the original is activated together with, and at the same time as, the cultural and contextual discourse world actually operant for the reader in the target linguaculture. She may well be moved, enthralled, engrossed by the translated text, only to be reminded by the occasional reference (possibly commented on in a footnote), or indeed by a “mistranslation” that the reading experience occurs across a cultural gap. In overt work, then, the translator is explicitly a mediator. Her role is Important: the resultant text is clearly her work. This transparent role derives, however, not from the changes to the original text caused by the translator’s hand, but by virtue of the fact that the reader is thereby given access to a text in a new language (the most obvious case is the translation of literary works). The paradox is then that in the overt case, the translator has the least leeway to alter the fabric and content of the text, but has a clearly recognisable role and function for the reader. In covert translation, on the other hand, it is the task of the translator to be invisible, but at the same time to transmute the original such that the function it has in its original situational and cultural environment is re-created in the target linguaculture. To this end, various “filtering” devices, and translational compromises may well be necessary. At the levels of

LANGUAGE/TEXT and REGISTER, the translation does not

need, then, to be equivalent with its original. An equivalent function is to be aimed at, although it is differently framed, and operates in the target culture and discourse world. In order to achieve this, changes at the levels of REGISTER, and the LINGUISTIC/TEXTUAL realisation thereof, may be warranted. In covert translation, the translator’s work is hidden. It is, essentially, the translator’s task to cheat, i.e. to achieve in translation a second original, hiding its source. This can be done relatively easily with authorless texts or texts that have dispensable authors, as is the case with light-weight journalistic texts.

163

Instructions, tourist brochures or advertisements. However, it is important to clearly demarcate the lines between what is still a translation and what is “a new text for a new event in a new culture”. In the terms provided in my model, a covert translation despite changes (brought about for example via cultural filtering) on the LINGUISTIC and REGISTER levels must be functionally equivalent to the original. The paradox can now be reformulated as follows: in an overt case, the translator has to make, as it were, as few changes as possible, and will be held openly accountable for the degree of succes^with which this is achieved; in a covert translation, the translator is implicitly licensed to make as many substantive changes as necessary, and in fact is only likely to be “caught out” and held accountable in the case that not enough change was wrought, such that the resultant text is in fact perceived to be a translation. The concept of “functional equivalence” is thus differentiated inside the covert-overt distinction. The above discussion of categories of GENRE, types of cultural filtering, and the overt-covert distinction feeds naturally into a discussion of evaluation. What makes one translation more “successful” than another, how can the analytic apparatus developed in this book, together with the model for which it is to operate, embracing the concepts and distinctions discussed above, in fact give us an assessment of translation quality? A first point is that there is no scientific basis for determining that a given source text requires a translation of the one kind or the other by virtue of its status, function, content or anything else. In other words, it is not warranted to claim that in translating any text, only an overt (or only a covert) translation is possible. This is not to say that “anything goes” along the covert!overt continuum. There are for example Issues of consistency and transparency that can be invoked in assessing translation value. The point concerns not arbitrary fusion of overtly and covertly translated elements in one piece of translational work, but the decision to follow the one translational strategy or the other. The reader is further reminded that I have been at pains to draw the line between a translation in the technical sense of a “functionally equivalent” text in one of the senses adumbrated, and new texts or versions based in different ways on a source text. It seems to me however that a model of the kind presented in this book, and Indeed a model of any other kind that aspires to be open to professional discussion and evaluation, cannot be prescriptive on this issue. The reason is that just as the provenance of a source text is Itself embedded in a soclo-cultural milieu, which of course will be taken into account in analysing that source text, so too is the translational Imperative culturallyembedded. It is the outcome of a cultural/business negotiation in a particular social context, and not the result of the application of a theory of translational quality assessment to a given set of social parameters. The task of a model for translation quality assessment is therefore not to ask whether a particular trans-

164

lational blueprint, task, or attempt is or was licensed, but to assess as objectively as possible what has emerged from the set of circumstances Inside which the translation task or purpose was conceived. Different texts and other cultural products are put to many different uses in society, be it the playing of Beethoven in a radio clip to sell chocolate, the use of some advertising jingle based on Shakespeare, pictures of Einstein on posters for anything, or Indeed the use or misuse of literary quotation by politicians. Such facets of our current society are doubtless of professional interest to sociologists, marketing experts and students of rhetoric amongst others in different scientific communities, but not necessarily of interest to musicologists, students of Shakespeare, theoretical physicists and literary critics. In other words, while one may decry the fact that certain texts are translated and used in certain ways, this has as far as I can see nothing to do with their evaluation inside translation quality theory. If, then, it is the case that the translation theorist cannot qua expert decree that a specific text requires an overt as opposed to a covert translation, or vice versa, it follows that as regards mismatches which result from some form of cultural filtering, an evaluative judgement can only be relative - despite the evidence provided in empirical validation of the cultural filter^ as is the case for the language pair English-German. The case of the Goldhagen text, discussed at length in Ghapter 5 may be seen as a crucial example. I have shown that systematic changes to the original English text have been perpetrated in the translation of this book. It is plausible to suggest that the grounds for such filtering have little if anything to do with German conventions concerning historical texts or indeed with German communicative preferences. It seems more likely that the “skewing” in this text is in part at least occasioned by the nature of the content of the text. Thus we have in this sense a “covert” translation of what must be classified as a work of historical scholarship in terms of GENRE, although a priori an overt translation might be deemed to be normative. The point here is that a theory of translation quality assessment is not into the business of postulating marketing motives, publishers’ power, best-seller aspirations, or indeed simple decent-mlndedness, a desire to avoid unnecessary offence, a sense of cultural tact or any other fancied motives to the translational strategy pursued in this or any other translational instance. Nor is it the business of a translation quality theory to say, regardless of motive, that filtering in this or any other particular case, was unwarranted, resulting in a qualitatively inferior translation. We may note here en passant that in our everyday use of language the idea of tailoring what we say to the recipient is not only normative, but in fact determines the communicative occasion. Thus, an utterance of the kind “If I had been writing in language X, of course, I would have written it differently” is perfectly normative.

165

In other words, it must be emphasized again that the model provides for the linguistic analyis, description and comparison of texts, linking them with situational and cultural contexts, and (through the category of GENRE) with other texts of the same communicative purpose. This is to be conducted within the framework of a theory of differentiated translational purposes {overt versus covert). This type of description, interpretation and explanation, enabled via the model and the metalanguage it provides is not to be confused with the type of “good vs bad” evaluative judgment m^e on the basis of social, political, ethical or moral norms or individual persuasion. In the present climate, in which the criterion of scientific validity is in danger of being usurped by criteria such as social acceptability, political correctenss, or simply emotional commitment, it seems Important to stress this distinction. As regards translation, many contemporary studies appear to confuse a concern with translation as a phenomenon in its own right, i.e., as a linguistictextual operation, with issues such as what translation is for, or what it should, might, or indeed must be for. A one-sided concern with the covert end of the dine not only reduces the Importance of the source text in translation, but also blurs the borders between translations and other multilingual textual procedures. It is one of the purposes of the model developed in this book to provide means of conceptually separating a translation from a version, through positing functional equivalence between source and translation text as a sine qua non in translation. At the same time, I have, in the above discussion, suggested that in critical Instances (cf. the Goldhagen text), a distinction is to be maintained between the descriptive-explanatory, scientific moments in translation evaluation, as opposed to soclo-psychologlcally based value judgments, which may well surface in any critical account. This does not mean that the attempt to develop a model of translation quality assessment is pointless. On the contrary. A detailed analysis of the “hows” and the “whys” of translated texts versus their originals has to be the descriptive foundation for an argued assessment of whether and to what degree a given translation may be seen to be adequate or not. Acknowledging the inevitably subjective element in any value judgment does not, then, invalidate the objective part of translation evaluation, it merely reinforces its necessity. Like language itself, translation quality assessment has two functional components, the ideational and the interpersonal. In other words, two steps may be distinguished: the first relates to analysis, description and explanation based on knowledge (of linguistic conventions), and empirical research, while the second relates to judgments of values, to social and moral questions of relevance and appropriateness and, of course, to personal preference or taste. Both components are implicit in translation quality assessments. The second is pointless without the first. To judge is easy: to understand is less so. If we can make explicit the grounds of our judgements, on the basis of an

166

*

argued set of procedures such as those developed in this book, then, in the case of disagreement, we can talk and discuss: if we do not, we can merely disagree.

2

Practical Relevance: Some Pedagogic Implications

Any attempt to teach translational competence is premissed on the assumption that one knows what translational competence is. Therefore a theory of translation and of translation quality assessment must underlie any pedagogic training for translators. Transposing this logic, it seems justified to posit some pedagogic principles, which derive from the argumentation and empirical evidence brought forward in the foregoing pages. The following principles and procedures are therefore suggested: (1) The difference between overt and covert as essential choices in translation should be explicitly taught. (2) Model analyses of parallel texts and translations based on the evaluation model can be used in the teaching of translation. (3) Different translations of one and the same source text, possibly into different languages, can be analysed and compared using the framework of the model and the metalanguage provided. (4) Source texts can be first analysed with the model s categories and then translated or rendered as overt or covert versions. (5) Source Texts belonging to different GENRES can be translated such that Individual register dimensions are deliberately changed. (6) Conversions of overt into covert translations and vice versa can be profitably undertaken as they highlight the changes necessary on the different levels of analysis, and the resultant type of functional equivalence. (7) Corpora of texts and their translations belonging to particular GENRES can be analysed on the basis of the model with the resultant differences in realizing generic choices in individual textual examples serving as important base-line data. (8) One can usefully compare the translation strategies that suggest themselves in different GENRES, with special attention given to the contrast between ephemeral, authorless, or multiply-authored texts and texts that gain status though having a recognized author. (9) Translation students might well be presented with cross-cultural research involving relevant language pairs. These suggestions are, of course, very general, as can perhaps be excused given the purpose of this book. I therefore leave the detailed practical realization and empirical testing of the above suggestions to experienced translation teachers.

167

3

Concluding Remarks

At the beginning of this book I asked three questions that a theory of translation should try to answer. These questions concerned the relationship between source and target texts, the relationship between those texts and the relevant set of their human users (readerships, author, translator), and the delimitation of translation from other cross-cultural uses of source texts. I have tried to present my views on al^three questions by developing a model which deals in detail with both text-internal issues of analysis and comparison, and also with text-external constraints concerning llnguacultural norms and expectations. I have tried further to relate these two perspectives, and to Integrate them into one theory, while retaining a basic distinction between two translational types, and making a sharp distinction between empirically-motivated and socially-conditioned grounds forjudging a translation. I have thus fulfilled my overt purposes in writing this book. About my covert purposes the reader may merely speculate.

168

*

Appendix A: The following two texts (each in its original and in a translated version) are analysed in chapter 2 II Commercial Text ST: M. F. Meissner, President, Investors Overseas Services, Letter to Shareholders:

December 27, 1971 I

1

Dear Shareholder,

II

1

The Board of Directors of I.O.S., Ltd. has declared; a prorata dividend payable on and after December 20, 1971, to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on December

2

17, 1971. / The dividend consists of shares of Value Capital Limited, a newly established Bahamian holding company, and will be paid on the basis of one share of Value Capital Limited for each

3

whole ten shares held of I.O.S., Ltd. / Of course, each shareholder continues ownership of any share that he now holds of lOS.

III

1

In organizing Value Capital Limited, lOS contributed to it certain companies including IVM (the Dutch Insurance company), IVM Invest Management Company Limited, ILI Luxembourg, ILI Bermuda, lOS Real Estate Holdings, IPI Management Co., and Resources Services Limited, together with certain other contrac-

2

tual rights and assets. / In return for its contribution, lOS received 6.2 million shares of Value Capital Limited (the total of the issued and outstanding shares of that Company), and, in turn, is distributing to its shareholders all of these shares.

IV

1

The total stockholders’ equity of Value Capital Limited

2

is $1.3 million. / Since future earnings of Value Capital Limited will not be controlled by lOS, historical earnings performance would not be Indicative of expected future performance.

V

1

The dividend will be represented by bearer certificates

2

which, as you know, are negotiable instruments. / That is, they may be traded by anyone in possession of the

169

3

certificate. / In order to avoid the possibility of accidental misdirection of your certificates, and to expedite the

4

distrubiton, your assistance is required. / We have enclosed a “Dividend Instruction Form” for your completion; this should be returned in the pre-addressed envelope.

VI

1

As you will note, we have asked that you designate a bank (or broker) to which your dividend certificates will be

2

sent. / Your bank (or broker) should- Indicate its confirmation of your signature by executing the bottom half of the “Dividend Instruction Form” Including its official signature and stamp (or seal).

VII 1

It is anticipated that your new Company will issue its first report, covering its financial position at May 31, 1972, as

2

soon as possible following that date. / This report will include full details on the Company’s organization,

3

management and plans for future development. / In the interim period, the 15,000 to 20,000 shareholders of Value Capital Limited can expect that public trading of their shares

4

will develop. / It is the present intention of Value Capital Limited to secure the listing of its shares on a recognized exchange at the earliest possible time.

VIII1

As a result of the dividend by lOS of its complete holdings of Value Capital shares, there remains no equity ownership or

2

control of Value Capital in the hands of lOS. / Therefore the future market value of Value Capital shares should in no way be related to, or depend upon, the future development of lOS.

IX

1

The principal reason for the establishment of Value Capital Limited, and the distribution of its ownership to the lOS share holders, was to permit the continuation and expansion of essential communication with the hundreds of

2

thousands of fund clients. / Recent Swiss legislation precluded the maintenance of these operations from Switzerland as in the past.

X

1

Value Capital’s client service functions will be conducted from new facilities being established outside of

2

Switzerland. / The implementation of these client services should result in a residual benefit to the business of the principal operating subsidiaries, lOS Insurance Floldings and

XI

1

Transglobal Financial Services, which are retained by lOS. Value Capital Limited additionally Intends to establish an international Insurance operation based upon the three

170

2 insurance companies which lOS contributed to it. / Certain of the other Value Capital operations were contributed by lOS in order to provide an immediate income flow to the new Company and thus insure stability throughout its formative phase. XII 1

It IS expected that the lOS shareholders will realize a greater growth.potential through their direct Interest in the new Value Capital Limited operations than would have been possible had those operations remained within the lOS group.

XIII1

Very truly yours, Milton M. Meissner President

TT: M. F. Meissner, President, Investors Overseas Services, Brief an die Aktionare: 27. Dezemher 1971 I

1

Sehr geehrter Aktionar,

II

1

Der Verwaltungsrat der I.O.S., Ltd. hat eine anteilige Dividende beschlossen, die ab 20. Dezember 1971 an alle Aktionare zur Ausschiittung gelangt, die zum GeschaftsschluE am 17. Dezem-

2

ber 1971 reglstriert sind. / Die Dividende besteht aus Aktien der Value Capital Limited, einer nach dem Recht der Bahamas neu-

3

gegriindeten Gesellschaft./ Jeder Aktionar erhalt auf je voile zehn Aktien der I.O.S., Ltd. eine Aktle der Value Capital Limited. /

4

Er bleibt natiirlich weiterhin Eigentiimer aller seiner bisherigen Aktien der I.O.S., Ltd.

III

1

Bel der Griindung der Value Capital Limited iibertrug die lOS auf dlese Gesellschaft bestimmte Gesellschaften, einschliefillch der IVM (die nlederlandische Versicherungsgesellschaft), IVM Invest Management Company Limited, ILI Luxembourg, ILI Bermuda, lOS Real Estate Holdings, IPI Management Co. und Resources Services Limited, sowie bestimmte vertragliche Rechte

2

und Aktiva. / Als Gegenlelstung erhlelt die lOS 6.2 Millionen Aktien der Value Capital Limited (die gesamte Zahl der von dieser Gesellschaft ausgegebenen und in Umlauf gesetzten Aktien), die alle von der lOS an ihre Aktionare verteilt werden.

IV

1

Das gesamte Elgenkapital der Value Capital Limited be-

2

tragt 1.3 Millionen Dollar./ Da die lOS keinen Einfluft auf die zukiinftlge Gewlnnentwlcklung der Value Capital Limited haben wird. 171

wiirde die bisherige Ertragsleistung keinen Aufschlufi iiber die Gewinnentwicklung geben. V

1

Die Dividende wird durch Inhaberzertifikate verbrieft. /

2

Diese sind bekanntlich frei begebbare Urkunden, d.h., sie konnen

3

von jedem veraufiert werden, der in ihren Besitz gelangt. / Um zu vermeiden, daft Ihre Zertifikate versehentlich fehlgeleitet werden und um die Zustellung zu b^schleunigen, bitten wir Sie, das beigefiigte Dividenden-Zustellungsformular (Dividend Instruction Form) auszufiillen und in dem ebenfalls beigelegten adressierten Umschlag zuriickzuschicken.

VI

1

Wie Sie feststellen werden, haben wir Sie gebeten, eine Bank (oder einen Makler) zu benennen, an den die Aktienzertifikate

2

geschickt werden sollen. / Sie miissen die Bank (oder den Makler) bitten, Ihre Unterschrift auf dem Dividenden-Zustelllmgsformular

3

zu bestatigen. /Hierfiir ist auf dem unteren Teil des Formulars eine Stelle vorgesehen, wo die Betreffenden unterzeichnen und ihren

VII 1

Stempel anbringen. Den ersten Bericht iiber ihre Finanziage zum 31. Mai 1972 wird die Value Capital Limited so bald wie moglich nach dem be-

2

sagten Datum veroffentllchen. / Der Bericht wird u.a. iiber den Aufbau der Gesellschaft, ihre Verwaltung und Entwlcklungsplane

3

voile Auskunft geben. / In der Zwlschenzeit konnen die 15.000 bis 20000 Aktlonare der Value Capital Limited erwarten, daft slch

4

der offentliche Handel ihrer Aktlen entwlckeln wird. / Die Value Capital Limited beabslchtlgt z.Z., die Zulassung ihrer Aktlen zum Borsenhandel an einer anerkannten Borse moglichst bald zu erlangen.

VIII1 2

Durch die Dividendenausschiittung begibt slch die lOS aller von Ihr gehaltenen Aktien der Value Capital Limited. /Infolgedessen verfiigt sie in Zukunft weder iiber Antelle am Kapltal der Value Capital Limited noch iiber einen beherrschenden ElnfluB auf diese

3

Gesellschaft. / Irgendein Zusammenhang zwlschen der welteren Entwlcklung der lOS und dem kunftlgen Kurs der Value CapltalAktlen sollte deshalb ausgeschlossen sein.

IX

1

Die Aufrechterhaltung und weltere Entwlcklung wesentllcher Kommunlkatlonen mlt den Hunderttausenden von Kunden waren die Hauptgriinde fiir die Errichtung der Value Capital Limited und fiir die dlrekte Betelllgung der lOS-Aktlonare an dleser Gesellschaft./

2

Infolge neuer schwelzerlscher Gesetzesbestlmmung war die Fortfiihrung des blsherlgen Betriebes von der Schweiz aus unmogllch geworden.

X

172

1

Die Dlenstleistungen der Value Capital Limited fur die

Kunden werden von neuen Einrichtungen aufierhalb der Schweiz 2

erbracht. / Aus diesen Dienstleistungen diirften sich fiir das Geschaft der wlchtigsten im Besitz der lOS verbleibenden Tochterbetriebsgesellschaften, lOS Insurance Holdings und Transglobal Financial Services, restliche Gewinne ergeben.

XI

1

Ausgehend von den drei Versicherungsgesellschaften, welche die lOS auf die Value Capital Limited iibertragen hat, beabsichtlgt dlese aufierdem, eln Internationales Versicherungsunternehmen

2

aufzubauen. / Gewlsse andere Betriebe slnd von der lOS auf die Value Capital Limited iibertragen worden, um zu gewahrleisten, daB die neue Gesellschaft iiber sofortige Einnahmen verfiigt und somit die Stabllltat in der Errlchtungsperiode gesichert ist.

XII 1

Durch ihre direkte Beteillgung an der neugegrundeten Value Capital Limited wlrd sich fiir die lOS-Aktlonare vorausslchtllch ein grofieres Wachstumspotentlal ergeben, als ihnen die auf die neue Gesellschaft iibertragenen Unternehmen hatten bleten konnen, wenn sie in der lOS-Gruppe verblieben waren.

XIIIl

Mit freundllchem Cruft Milton F . Meissner Prasident

III Journalistic Article ST: Excerpt from William W Howells, “Homo Sapiens: 20 million years in the making”, in The UNESCO Courier. August-September 1972. 6-8. I

1

It was out of Dryopithecus stock that man emerged, and, in fact it was from among the fossils of Dryopithecus that our an-

2

cestor Ramapithecus became known. / G. E. Lewis of Yale in 1934 described the first upper jaw, found in India’s Slwalik Hills, and pointed to some man-like features.

II

1

Your own mouth will show you these things, where you

2

can feel them with your finger. / Your dental archis short and rounded in front, while that of apes has become increasingly longer and broad across the front, with large canine teeth and

3

broad incisors. / Your molar teeth have the cusp and furrow pat-

4

tern of Dryopithecus, but are square; an ape’s are longer. / This length makes an ape’s face projecting; yours is straighten

III

1

Approaches to the human shape could be seen in the small fragment of Ramapithecus as though he had just set his foot on a path diverging from Dryopithecus, although unfortunately we have

173

2 not found the foot, only the jaw. / So Lewis thought Ramapithecus might belong in our ancestry. IV

1

But the tide of scientific opinion - and such tides are apt to influence, not facts, but the way we see facts - was against Ramapithecus, and the fossil was put away in a drawer as sim-

2

ply one more kind of Dryopithecus. / After almost thirty years, however, L.S.B. Leakey found a very similar fossil at Fort Ternan in Kenya, which he could date as being 14 million years old.

V

1

It happened that at the same time, Elwyn Simons at Yale

2

was looking once again at Ramapithecus. / He was Impressed with what Lewis had pointed to, and saw the same features in Leakey’s new specimen.

VI

1

Perhaps more important, Simons rescued other pieces of

2

Ramapithecus from burial in museum drawers. / He began examining old collections in various places from the U.S.A. to India, and recognized a few more fragments with the same special features, fragments which had previously been misnamed and Ignored, but which he identified as fossils of Ramapithecus.

VII 1

This careful sorting out made it easier to see the slight distinctions between Ramapithecus on one hand and Dryopithecus,

2

ancestor of the apes, on the other. / Thus we also see the beginnings of the separating paths of human and ape evolution, or between animals properly called pongids (apes) and those called

3

homlnids (anything on the human side of the same group). / So palaeontology is not all looking for fossils in old river banks.

VIII1/2 What brought the split about?/ Evolution has “reasons”It follows lines of successful adaptatlon-but we know so little about Ramapithecus having only his jaws and teeth, that we can3

not see the “reason”. / We cannot simply say that it is better or more successful to be “human”, because that really means nothing, and Ramapithecus certainly resembled the ancestral apes

4

far more than he resembled man. / Like some chimpanzee populations he seems to have lived in an open wood and, again like chimpanzees, it is probable that he was still a tree-user.

TT; Excerpt from William W. Howells, “Zwanzlg Mlllionen Jahre unterwegs zum Menschen”, in UNESCO Kurier. August-September 1972. 5-7. I

I

Der Mensch 1st aus der Art des Dryopithecus hervorgegangen, und uber die Dryopithecus-Fosslllen wurde unser

174

2

Vorfahr, der Ramapithecus bekannt. / G. E. Lewis aus Yale beschrieb 1934 den ersten Fund eines Oberkiefers im indischen Siwalik-Gebirge und wies dabei auf einige menschenartige Merkmale bin. .

1

Wenn wir in unserem Mund mit dem Finger den Zahnboden entlangfahren, stellen wir fest, daft er kurz ist und vorne

2

gebogen. / Derjenige des Affen ist lang und vorne breit, mit

3

groften Eck- und scharfen Schneidezahnen. / Die Molaren des Menschen haben dieselben Flocker und dasselbe Furchenmuster

4

wie die des Dryopithecus, sind aber quadratisch. / Jene der

5

Affen sind langer. / Die Lange der Molaren bedingt, daft das Gesicht der Affen - im Vergleich zum menschlichen - anders ist.

1

Annaherungen an eine menschliche Gesichtsform konnten aus kleineren Fragmenten vom Ramapithecus heraus-

2

gelesen werden. / Es schien als ob er seinen Fuft in eine vom Dryopithecus abweichende Richtung gesetzt habe-obschon wir leider nicht seinen Fuft, sondern bloft seinen

3

Kiefer fanden. / Dies bewog Lewis, ihn in unsere Ahnenreihe aufzunehmen,

1

Doch die Meinungen der Wissenschaft sind beeinfluftbar - nicht allein durch Tatsachen, sondern durch die Art und

2

Weise, wie die Tatsachen ausgelegt werden. / Damals war

3

man gegen den Ramapithecus. / Das Fossil, als eine weitere Art von Dryopithecus abgetan, verschwand vorerst in einer

4

Fort Ternan, Kenia, einen ahnlichen Fund, dessen Alter auf vierzehn Millionen Jahre geschatzt wird.

1

Der Zufall wollte es, daft sich Elwyn Simons in Yale zur selben Zeit nochmals mit dem Ramapithecus beschaftigte. /

2

Lewis’ Bemerkungen leuchteten ihm eln, und er erkannte an Leakey’s neuem Exemplar die glelchen Merkmale.

1

Was vielleicht noch wichtiger war: Simons verhinderte damlt, daft weitere Funde vom Ramapithecus in Museen ver-

2

schwanden und vergessen wurden. / Von den Vereinigten Staaten bis Indien schaute er sich zahlreiche alte Sammlungen an und entdeckte einige weitere Fragmente mit denselben Merkmalen. /

3

Fragmente, die bis dahln falsch benannt oder Ignorlert worden waren, die er aber als Fossilien des Ramapithecus identiflzieren konnte.

1

Dieses sorgfaltlge Aussortieren erleichterte das Erkennen der felnen Unterschiede zwlschen dem Ramapithecus einerseits und dem Dryopithecus, dem Vorlaufer der

175

2

Menschenaffen, andererseits. / An diesem Punkt der Evolutionsgeschichte beginnt die Trennung von Menschenaffen und Menschen oder, allgemeiner gefafit, von Pongiden (Affen und Menschenaffen) und Hominiden (alle Arten mit Ansatzen von menschenartigen Merkmalen). VIII1/2 Weshalb aber diese Trennung? / Die Evolution folgt 3 einem Plan./ Ziel ist eine moglichst^orteilhafte Adaptation. / 4 Wir wissen aber so wenig fiber den Ramapithecus-wir haben ja nur seinen Kiefer und seine Zahne - daft wir hier keinen 5 Plan erkennen konnen. / Es ware unsinnig, “menschlich” mit 6 “vorteilhafter” gleichsetzen zu wollen. / Bestimmt stand der 7 Ramapithecus dem Affen naher als dem Menschen. / Wie gewisse Schimpansenarten, so vermutet man, lebte er in lichten Waldern, tells noch immer auf Baumen.

B:

The following four texts (each in its original and in a translated version) are analysed in chapter 5.

TEXT

1: Children’s Book

ST: Jill Murphy Five Minutes Peace. London: Walker Books, 1986. I. The children were having breakfast. This was not a pleasant sight. II. Mrs Large took a tray from the cupboard. She set it with a teapot, a milk jug, her favourite cup and saucer, a plate of marmalade toast and a leftover cake from yesterday. She stuffed the morning paper into her pocket and sneaked off towards the door. III. “Where are you going with that tray. Mum?” asked Laura. “To the bathroom,” said Mrs Large. “Why” asked the other two children. “Because I want five minutes’ peace from you lot,” said Mrs Large. “That’s why.” IV. “Can we come?” asked Lester as they trailed up the stairs behind her. “No,” said Mrs Large, “you can’t. ’’What shall we do then?“ asked Laura. ’’You can play,“ said Mrs Large. ’’Downstairs. By yourselves. And keep an eye on the baby.“ ’’I’m not a baby,“ muttered the little one.

176

V. Mrs Large ran a deep, hot bath. She emptied half a bottle of bath-foam into the water, plonked on her bath-hat and got in. She poured herself a cup of tea and lay back with her ey£s closed. It was heaven. VI. “Can I play my tune?” asked Lester. Mrs Large opened one eye. “Must you?” she asked. “IVe been practising,” said Lester. “You told me to. Can I? Please, just for one minute.” “Go on then,” sighed Mrs Large. So Lester played. He played “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” three and a half times.

VII. In came Laura. “Can I read you a page from my reading book?” she asked. “No, Laura,” said Mrs Large. “Go on, all of you, off downstairs.” “You let Lester play his tune,” said Laura. “I heard. You like him better than me. It’s not fair.” “Oh, don’t be silly, Laura,” said Mrs Large. “Go on then. Just one page.” So Laura read. She read four and a half pages of “Little Red Riding Hood”. VIII. In came the little one with a trunkful of toys. “For you!” he beamed, flinging them all into the bath water. “Thank you, dear,” said Mrs Large weakly. IX. “Can I see the cartoons in the paper?” asked Laura. “Can I have the cake?” asked Lester. “Can I get in with you?” asked the little one. Mrs Large groaned. X. In the end they all got in. The little one was in such a hurry that he forgot to take off his pyjamas. XL Mrs Large got out. She dried herself, put on her dressing-gown and headed for the door. “Where are you going now, Mum?” asked Laura. “To the kitchen,” said Mrs Large. “Why?” asked Lester. “Because I want five minutes’ peace from you lot,” said Mrs Large. “That’s why.” XII. And off she went downstairs, where she had three minutes and forty-five seconds of peace before they all came to join her.

177

TT: Jill M.UYip\iyNurFunfMinutenRuh. Miinchen: Annette Betz Verlag. 1987 Aus dem Englischen von Britta Groifi. I. Wenn die Elefantenkinder friihstiickten, ging es meistens unordentlich und laut zu.

Mutter Elefant holte ein Tablett und stellte ihr Fruhstiick drauf: Teekanne, Milchkrug, ihre Lieblingstasse, einen Teller voll Toast mit Butter und Marmelade und einen Krapfen vom Vortag. Sie stopfte die Morgenzeitung in die Tasche ihres Schlafmantels und schlich zur Kiichentiir. III. “Wohin gehst du, Mama” fragte Elefantinchen. “In das Badezimmer” sagte Mutter Elefant. “Warum?” fragten die Kinder. “Well Ich fiinf Minuten Rube haben mochte”, sagte Mutter Elefant. “Ganz elnfach deshalb.” IV. “Diirfen wir mltkommen?” fragte Elefantchen. “Neln”, sagte Mutter Elefant bestimmt. “Ihr diirft nlcht! ”. “Was sollen wir denn tun?” fragte Elefantinchen. “Geht splelen”, sagte Mutter Elefant. “Und zwar ins Klnderzlmmer. Und pafit auf das Baby auf.” “Ich will nlcht mehr das Baby seln”, murrte Baby Elefant. V. Mutter Elefant machte sich ein gemiitliches helloes Bad. Sie leerte elne halbe Flasche Badeschaum in das Wasser, setzte die Badehaube auf und stleg in die Wanne. Sie gofi Tee in die Tasse und lehnte sich mit geschlossenen Augen zuriick. Es war himmlisch! VI. “Darf ich dir was vorsplelen?” fragte ein Stlmmchen. Mutter Elefant offnete ein Auge. “Mufi das seln?” fragte sie. “Du sagst Immer, ich soil flelfiig iiben”, sagte Elefantchen. “Darf ich ? Nur elne Minute. ” “Also fang an” seufzte Mutter Elefant. Elefantchen begann zu floten. Er splelte “ Alle Voglein slnd schon da” drel und ein halbes Mai. VII. “Darf ich dir eine Geschlchte aus dem Lesebuch vorlesen?” fragte Elefantinchen. “Neln,” sagte Mutter Elefant. “Raus mit euch. Geht hlnunter ins Kinderzimmer.” “Du hast Elefantchen erlaubt, Flote zu splelen”, sagte Elefantinchen. “Ich habs gehort. Du magst ihn lieber als mlch. Das 1st nicht fair.” “Also fang schon an. Aber nur eine Seite.” Elefantinchen begann zu lesen. Sie las vierelnhalb Selten aus der Geschlchte von “Rotkiippchen”.

178

VIII. Baby Elefant schleppte soviel Spielsachen an, wie er nur tragen konnte. “Fiir dich! ” strahlte er und warf alle in die Badewanne. “Danke, Liebes”, sagte Mutter Elefant schwach. IX. “Darf ich mir die Bilder in der Zeitung ansehen?” “Darf ich den Krapfen haben?” “Darf ich zu dir in die Badewanne kommen?” Mutter Elefant stohnte. X. Schliefilich sprangen alle drei in die Badewanne. Baby Elefant war so aufgeregt, daft er vergafi, den Pyjama auszuziehen. XI. Mutter Elefant stieg aus der Badewanne. Sie rieb sich trocken, zog den Schlafmantel an und ging Richtung Ttir. “Wohin gehst du denn jetzt, Mama?” fragte Elefantinchen. “In die Kiiche”, sagte Mutter Elefant. “Warum?” fragten die Kinder wie aus einem Mund. “Weil ich fiinf Minuten Ruhe haben mochte”, sagte Mutter Elefant. “Ganz einfach deshalb”. XII. Und sie hatte drei Minuten und fiinfundvierzig Sekunden Ruhe, bevor die Kinder kamen, damit ihre Mutter nicht so allein ware.

TEXT

2: Autobiography

ST: Excerpt from Richard P. Feynman Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character, as told to Ralph Leighton, edited by Edward Hutchings, New York: Bantam Books, 1985, pp. 149-150.

The Dignified Professor I. I don’t believe I can really do without teaching. The reason is, I have to have something so that when I don’t have any ideas and I’m not getting anywhere I can say to myself, “At least I’m living; at least I’m doing something; I’m making some contribution” - it’s just psychological. II. When I was at Princeton m the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this

179

lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves OK? So they don’t get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they’re not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come. III. Nothing happens because there’s not enough real activity and challenge: You’re not in contact with the experimental guys. You don’t have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing! IV. In any thinking process there are moments when everything is going good and you’ve got wonderful ideas. Teaching is an interruption, and so it’s the greatest pain in the neck in the world. And then there are the longer periods of time when not much is coming to you. You’re not getting any ideas, and if you’re doing nothing at all, it drives you nuts! You can’t even say I’m teaching my class. V. If you’re teaching a class, you can think about the elementary things that you know very well. These things are kind of fun and delightful. It doesn’t do any harm to think them over again. Is there a better way to present them? Are there any new problems associated with them? Are there any new thoughts you can make about them? The elementary things are easy to think about; if you can’t think of a new thought, no harm done; what you thought about it before is good enough for the class. If you do think of something new, you’re rather pleased that you have a new way of looking at it. VI. The questions of the students are often the source of new research. They often ask profound questions that I’ve thought about at times and then given up on, so to speak, for a while. It wouldn’t do me any harm to think about them again and see if I can go any further now. The students may not be able to see the thing I want to answer, or the subtleties I want to think about, but they remind me of a problem by asking questions in the neighborhood of that problem. It’s not so easy to remind yourself of these things. VII. So I find that teaching and the students keep life going, and I would never accept any position in which somebody has Invented a happy situation for me where I don’t have to teach. Never. VIII. But once I was offered such a position ...

180

TT: Excerpt from Richard P. Feynman “Sie belieben wohl zu scherzen, Mr. Feynman!” Abenteuer eines neugierigen Physikers, Gesammelt von Ralph Leighton, Heraiisgegeben von Edward Hutchings. Aus dem Amerikanischen von Hans-Joachlm Metzger. Miinchen: Piper, 1985, S. 219-221.

Der wurdevolle Professor I. Ich glaube, ohne zu lehren kann ich iiberhaupt nicht auskommen. Der Grund 1st, ich muft etwas haben, so daft ich mir, wenn ich kelne Ideen habe und nicht weiterkomme, sagen kann: “Zumindest lebe ich; zumindest tue ich etwas; ich lelste Irgendeinen Beltrag” - das ist rein psychologlsch. II. Als ich in den 40er Jahren in Princeton war, konnte ich sehen, was mlt den groBen Gelstern am Institute for Advanced Study passierte, die speziell wegen ihrer ungeheuren Gehlrne ausgewahlt worden waren und denen man nun die Gelegenheit gab, in diesem schdnen Haus da am Wald zu sltzen, ohne unterrichten zu miissen, ohne Irgendwelche Verpflichtungen. Diese armen Kerle konnten jetzt sitzen und ganz ungestort nachdenken, o.k.? und dann fallt ihnen eine Zeitlang nichts eln: Sie haben jede Mogllchkeit, etwas zu tun, und es fallt ihnen nichts ein. Ich glaube, in so einer Situation beschleicht einen eln Schuldgefiihl oder eine Depression, und man fangt an, sich Sorgen zu machen, well einem nichts elnfallt. Und nichts tut sich. Es kommen Immer noch kelne Einfalle. III. Es tut sich nichts, well es nicht genugend wirkliche Aktlvltat und Herausforderung gibt: Man hat keinen Kontakt zu den Leuten, die Experlmente machen. Man mu£ nicht dariiber nachdenken, wie man die Fragen der Studenten beantwortet. Nichts! IV. Bei jeder geistigen Arbeit gibt es Momente, in denen alles gut liiuft und man tolle Einfalle hat. Unterrlchten zu miissen, bedeutet eine Unterbrechung, und deshalb 1st das die groftte Geduldsprobe, die man sich vorstellen kann. Und dann gibt es die langeren Phasen, in denen einem nicht vlel kommt. Man hat kelne Einfalle, und wenn man nichts zu tun hat, macht einen das wahnsinnlg! Man kann nicht elnmal sagen: “Ich habe ja melnen Unterrlcht.” V. Wenn man unterrichtet, kann man iiber die elementaren Dlnge nachdenken, die man sehr gut kennt. Das macht irgendwle Spa£ und befrledlgt einen sehr.

181

Es schadet nichts, wenn man sie noch einmal iiberdenkt. Kann man sie besser darstellen? Gibt es irgendwelche neuen Probleme, die mit ihnen in Zusammenhang stehen? Kann man irgendwelche neuen Uberlegungen iiber sie anstellen? Es ist so leicht, iiber die elementaren Dinge nachzudenken; wenn einem nichts Neues dazu einfallt, so schadet das nichts; die Gedanken, die man sich vorher dariiber gemacht hat, geniigen fiir den Unterricht. Wenn einem aber tatsachlich etwas Neues einfallt, freut t^an sich sehr, daft man eine neue Methode hat, die Dinge zu betrachten. VI. Die Fragen der Studenten sind oft die Quelle neuer Forschungen. Sie stellen oft tiefgrundige Fragen, iiber die ich zu Zeiten nachgedacht und die ich dann fiir eine Weile gewissermaften aufgegeben habe. Es wiirde mir nicht schaden, wieder iiber sie nachzudenken und zu sehen, ob ich jetzt weiterkomme. Die Studenten sehen vielleicht nicht, worauf ich eine Antwort finden mochte oder iiber welche Feinheiten ich nachdenken mochte, aber sie erinnern mich an ein Problem. Wenn sie Fragen stellen, die in der Nachbarschaft dieses Problems llegen. Sich selbst an diese Dinge zu erinnern, ist nicht so einfach. VII. Ich finde also, daft der Unterricht und die Studenten dafiir sorgen, daft das Leben weitergeht, und ich wiirde nie eine Position akzeptleren, bei der mir jemand eine angenehme Stellung elngerichtet hat, wo ich nicht zu lehren brauche. Nlemals. VIII. Aber einmal 1st mir tatsachlich eine solche Position angeboten worden...

TEXT

3: Philosophical Essay

ST: Excerpt from Walter Benjamin “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” in: W. Benjamin Gesammelte Schriften Bd. IV/1 WA Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/ Main, 1972. Vorwort des Ubersetzers (W. Benjamin) zu der Ubersetzung Charles Baudelaire Tableaux Parisien. S. 9-21. I. Nlrgends erwelst sich einem Kunstwerk oder elner Kunstform gegeniiber die Riicksicht auf den Aufnehmenden fiir deren Erkenntnls fruchtbar. Nicht genug, daft jede Beziehung auf ein bestlmmtes Publlkum oder dessen Reprasentanten vom Wege abfuhrt, 1st sogar der Begrlff elnes Idealen Aufnehmenden in alien kunsttheoretlschen Erorterungen vom Ubel, well diese ledlglich gehalten sind, Daseln und Wesen des Menschen iiberhaupt vorauszusetzen. So setzt auch die Kunst selbst dessen lelbllches und geistiges Wesen voraus - seine

182

Aufmerksamkeit aber in keinem ihrer Werke. Denn kein Gedlcht gilt dem Leser, kein Bild dem Beschauer, keine Symphonic der Horerschaft. II. Gilt eine Ubersetzung den Lesern, die das Original nicht verstehen? Das scheint hinreichend den Rangunterschied im Bereiche der Kunst zwischen beiden zu erkliiren. Uberdies scheint es der einzig mogliche Grund, “Dasselbe” wiederholt zu sagen. Was “sagt” denn eine Dlchtung? Was tellt sie mlt? Sehr wenlg dem, der sie versteht. Ihr Wesentllches ist nicht Mitteilung, nicht Aussage. Dennoch konnte diejenige Ubersetzung, welche vermltteln will, nichts vermitteln als die Mitteilung - also Unwesentllches. Das 1st denn auch ein Erkennungszeichen der schlechten Ubersetzungen. Was aber aufier der Mitteilung in einer Dlchtung steht - und auch der schlechte Ubersetzer gibt zu, daft es das Wesentllche 1st - gilt es nicht allgemein als das Unfafibare, Gehelmnisvolle, "Dichterische”? Das der Ubersetzer nur wiedergeben kann, Indem er auch dlchtet? Daher riihrt in der Tat ein zweites Merkmal der schlechten Ubersetzung, welche man demnach als eine ungenaue Ubermittlung eines unwesentlichen Inhalts definieren darf. Dabei bleibt es, solange die Ubersetzung sich anheischig macht, dem Leser zu dienen. Ware sie aber fiir den Leser bestimmt, so miifite es auch das Original sein. Besteht das Original nicht um dessentwillen, wie liefie sich dann die Ubersetzung aus dieser Bezlehung verstehen? III. Ubersetzung ist eine Form. Sie als solche zu erfassen, gilt es zuriickzugehen auf das Original. Denn in Ihm liegt deren Gesetz als in dessen Ubersetzbarkelt beschlossen. Die Frage nach der Ubersetzbarkelt eines Werkes ist doppelsinnig. Sie kann bedeuten: ob es unter der Gesamthelt seiner Leser je selnen zulanglichen Ubersetzer finden werde? oder, und eigentlicher: ob es seinem Wesen nach Ubersetzung zulasse und demnach - der Bedeutung dieser Form gemafi - auch verlange. Grundsatzllch ist die erste Frage nur problematlsch, die zwelte apodiktlsch zu entscheiden. Nur das oberflachllche Denken wird, indem es den selbstandigen Sinn der letzten leugnet, beide fiir gleichbedeutend erklaren. Ihm gegeniiber ist darauf hinzuweisen, daft gewisse Relationsbegriffe Ihren guten, ja viellelcht besten Sinn behalten, wenn sie nicht von vorne herein ausschliefilich auf den Menschen bezogen werden. So durfte von einem unvergel^lichen Leben oder Augenblick gesprochen werden, auch wenn alle Menschen sie vergessen hatten. Wenn namlich deren Wesen es forderte, nicht vergessen zu werden, so wiirde jenes Pradikat nichts Falsches, sondern nur eine Forderung, der Menschen nicht entsprechen, und zugleich auch wohl den Verweis auf einen Berelch enthalten, in dem ihr entsprochen ware: auf ein Gedenken Gottes. Entsprechend bliebe die Ubersetzbarkelt sprachllcher Gebllde auch dann zu erwagen, wenn diese fiir die Menschen uniibersetzbar waren. Und sollten sie das bel einem strengen Begriff von Ubersetzung nicht 183

wlrklich bis zu einem gewissen Grade sein? - In solcher Loslosung ist die Frage zu stellen, ob Ubersetzung bestimmter Sprachgebilde zu fordern sei. Denn es gilt der Satz: Wenn Ubersetzung eine Form ist, so muft Ubersetzbarkeit gewissen Werken wesentlich sein. IV. Ubersetzbarkeit eignet gewissen Werken wesentlich - das heifit nicht, ihre Ubersetzung ist wesentlich fiir sie selbst, sc^dern will besagen, daft eine bestimmte Bedeutung, die den Originalen innewohnt, sich in ihrer Obersetzbarkeit auftere. Da£ eine Ubersetzung niemals, so gut sie auch sei, etwas fiir das Original zu bedeuten vermag, leuchtet ein. Dennoch steht sie mit diesem kraft seiner Ubersetzbarkeit im nachsten Zusammenhang. Ja, dieser Zusammenhang ist um so inniger, als er fiir das Original selbst nichts mehr bedeutet. Er darf ein natiirlicher genannt werden und zwar genauer ein Zusammenhang des Lebens. So wie die Aufterungen des Lebens innigst mit dem Lebendigen zusammenhangen, ohne ihm etwas zu bedeuten, geht die Ubersetzung aus dem Original hervor. Zwar nicht aus seinem Leben so sehr denn aus seinem “Uberleben”. Ist doch die Ubersetzung spater als das Original und bezeichnet sie doch bei den bedeutenden Werken, die da ihre erwahlten Ubersetzer niemals Im Zeitalter ihrer Entstehung finden, das Stadium ihres Fortlebens. In volllg unmetaphorischer Sachlichkelt ist der Gedanke vom Leben und Fortleben der Kunstwerke zu erfassen. Daft man nicht der organlschen Lelblichkeit allein Leben zusprechen diirfe, 1st selbst in Zelten des befangensten Denkens vermutet worden. Aber nicht darum kann es sich handeln, unter dem schwachen Szepter der Seele dessen Herrschaft auszudehnen, wie es Fechner versuchte; geschwelge daft Leben aus den noch weniger maftgebllchen Momenten des Anlmalischen deflnlert werden konnte, wie aus Empfindung, die es nur gelegentllch kennzelchnen kann. Vielmehr nur wenn allem demjenlgen, wovon es Geschlchte gibt und was nicht allein ihr Schauplatz 1st, Leben zuerkannt wlrd, kommt dessen Begrlff zu seinem Recht. Denn von der Geschlchte, nicht von der Natur aus, geschwelge von so schwankender wie Empfindung und Seele, ist zuletzt der Umkrels des Lebens zu bestimmen. Daher entsteht dem Phllosophen die Aufgabe, alles natiirliche Leben aus dem umfassenderen der Geschlchte zu verstehen. Und 1st nicht wenlgstens das Fortleben der Werke unverglelchllch viel leichter zu erkennen als dasjenlge der Geschopfe? Die Geschlchte der groften Kunstwerke kennt ihre Deszendenz aus den Quellen, ihre Gestaltung im Zeitalter des Kiinstlers und die Perlode ihres grundsatzllch ewlgen Fortlebens bei den nachfolgenden Generatlonen. Dieses letzte helftt, wo es zutage trltt, Ruhm. V. Ubersetzungen, die mehr als Vermlttlungen slnd, entstehen, wenn im Fortleben ein Werk das Zeitalter seines Ruhmes erreicht hat. Sie dlenen daher nicht

184

sowohl diesem, wie schlechte Ubersetzer es fiir ihre Arbeit zu beanspruchen pflegen, als daft sie ihm ihr Dasein verdanken. In ihnen erreicht das Leben des Originals seine stets erneute spateste und umfassendste Entfaltung.

TT: Excerpt from Walter Benjamin “The task of the translator” in: Andrew Chesterman ed. Readings in Translation Theory. Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989. Translated by Harry Zohn, pp. 14-17. I. In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. Not only is any reference to a certain public or its representatives misleading, but even the concept of an “ideal” receiver is detrimental in the theoretical consideration of art, since all it posits is the existence and nature of man as such. Art, in the same way, posits man’s physical and spiritual existence, but in none of its works is it concerned with his response. No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener. II. Is a translation meant for readers who do not understand the original? This would seem to explain adequately the divergence of their standing in the realm of art. Moreover, it seems to be the only conceivable reason for saying “the same thing” repeatedly. For what does a literary work “say”? What does it communicate? It “tells” very little to those who understand it. Its essential quality is not statement or the imparting of information. Yet any translation which intends to perform a transmitting function cannot transmit anything but Information - hence, something inessential. This is the hallmark of bad translations. But do we not generally regard as the essential substance of a literary work that it contains in addition to Information - as even a poor translator will admit - the unfathomable, the mysterious, the “poetic”, something that a translator can reproduce only if he is also a poet? This, actually is the cause of another characteristic of inferior translation, which consequently we may define as the inaccurate transmission of an inessential content. This will be true whenever a translation undertakes to serve the reader. However, if it were Intended for the reader, the same would have to apply to the original. If the original does not exist for the reader’s sake, how could the translation be understood on the basis of this premise? III. Translation is a mode. To comprehend it as mode one must go back to the original, for that contains the law governing the translation: its translatabllity. The question of whether a work is translatable has a dual meaning. Either:

185

Will an adequate translator ever be found among the totality of its readers? Or, more pertinently: Does its nature lend itself to translation and, therefore, in view of the significance of the mode, call for it? In principle, the first question can be decided only contingently; the second, however, apodictlcally. Only superficial thinking will deny the Independent meaning of the latter and declare both questions to be of equal significance ... It should be pointed out that certain correlative concepts retain their meaning, and possibly their foremost significance, if they are referred exclusively to man. One might, for example, speak of an unforgettable life or moment even if all men had forgotten it. If the nature of such a life or moment required that it be unforgotten, that predicate would not imply a falsehood but merely a claim not fulfilled by men, and probably also a reference to a realm in which it is fulfilled; God’s remembrance. Analogously, the translatabillty of linguistic creations ought to be considered even if men should prove unable to translate them. Given a strict concept of translation, would they not really be translatable to some degree? The question as to whether the translation of certain linguistic creations is called for ought to be posted in this sense. For this thought is valid here: If translation is a mode, translatabillty must be an essential feature of certain works. IV. Translatabillty is an essential quality of certain works, which is not to say that it is essential that they be translated; it means rather that a specific significance Inherent in the original manifests itself in its translatabillty. It is plausible that no translation, however good it may be, can have any significance as regards the original. Yet, by virtue of its translatabillty the original is closely connected with the translation; in fact, this connection is all the closer since it is no longer of importance to the original. We may call this connection a natural one, or, more specifically, a vital connection. Just as the manifestations of life are intimately connected with the phenomenon of life without being of importance to it, a translation Issues from the original - not so much from its life as from its afterlife. For a translation comes later than the original, and since the important works of world literature never find their chosen translators at the time of their origin, their translation marks their stage of continued life. The idea of life and afterlife in works of art should be regarded with an entirely unmetaphorlcal objectivity. Even in times of narrowly prejudiced thought there was an inkling that life was not limited to organic corporeality. But it cannot be a matter of extending its dominion under the feeble scepter of the soul, as Fechner tried to do, or, conversely, of basing its definition on the even less conclusive factors of animality, such as sensation, which characterize life only occasionally. The concept of life is given its due only if everything that has a history of its own, and is not merely the setting for history, is credited

186

with life. In the final analysis, the range of life must be determined by history rather than by nature, least of all by such tenuous factors as sensation and soul. The philosopher s task consists in comprehending all of natural life through the more encompassing-life of history. And indeed, is not the continued life of works of art far easier to recognize than the continual life of animal species? The history of the great works of art tells us about their antecedents, their realization In the age of the artist, their potentially eternal afterlife In succeeding generations. Where this last manifests Itself, It Is called fame.

V. Translations that are more than transmissions of subject matter come Into being when In the course of Its survival a work has reached the age of Its fame. Contrary, therefore, to the claims of bad translators, such translations do not so much serve the work as owe their existence to It. The life of the originals attains In them to Its ever-renewed latest and most abundant flowering.

TEXT

4: History Text

ST: Excerpt from Daniel Jonah Goldhagen Hitler's Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.

London: Little, Brown, 1996, pp. 444-454. I. Even though the elmlnatlonlst antlsemltlc Ideology was multlpotentlal In action, It strongly tended, given the Germans’ twentieth-century conception of the Jews, to metastasize Into Its most extreme, extermlnatlonlst variant, promising a commensurate political “solution” to the putative “problem.” The elective affinity between a person subscribing to a racially based, virulent ellmlnatlonlst antisemitism and a person concluding that an extermlnatlonlst “solution” was desirable could already be seen In the latter part of the pre-genocldal nineteenth century. Fully two thirds of the prominent antlsemltlc polemicists proposing “solutions” to the “Jewish Problem”, who were examined In one study, agitated during this period explicitly for a genocldal assault against the Jews. The belief that promoted the Nazis’ steps to eliminate German Jewish citizens first from Influence In German society and then from the society Itself - aside from some cases where the material Interests of Germans were severely harmed - produced enthusiastic support among the German population for the ellmlnatlonlst measures. Indeed, every major feature of the evolving ellmlnatlonlst program, from verbal violence to ghettolzatlon to the killing Itself, was willingly abetted by an enormous number of ordinary Germans and failed to produce significant dissatisfaction and (principled) dissent within the general German populace. The dire diagnosis and prognosis for

187

Germany - should the Germans not succeed in eradicating the putative Jewish illness from the German body social engendered both the exclusionary measures, eventually seen as but temporary and insufficient, and the exterminatory Impulse. These beliefs justified extermination as the Germans’ appropriate final treatment for the putative social pathology of Jewry. As one physician who worked for a time in Auschwitz explains, the nexus between belief and action - between Germans’ antisemitism a^d their willing slaughter of the Jews, who were considered by Germans to be, in his words, the “arch enemies of Germany” - was exceedingly close. “The step,” as this man trenchantly puts it, “from the monstrous accusations leveled at the Jews, to their annihilation is only a millimeter long.” II. Genocide was Immanent in the conversation of Germany society. It was immanent in its language and emotion. It was Immanent in the structure of cognition. And it was immanent in the society’s proto-genocidal practice of the 1930s. Under the proper circumstances, eliminationist antisemitism metastasized into its most virulent exterminationlst form, and ordinary Germans became willing genocidal killers. The autonomous power of the eliminationist antisemitism, once given free rein, to shape the Germans’ actions, to Induce Germans voluntarily on their own initiative to act barbarously towards Jews, was such that Germans who were not even formally engaged in the persecution and extermination of the Jews routinely assaulted Jews physically, not to mention verbally. III. So profound and near universal was the antisemitism during the Nazi period that to the Jewish victims it appeared as if its hold on Germans could be captured and conveyed only in organic terms: “A poison of diseased hatred permeates the blood of the Nazis.” Once activated, Germans’ profound hatred of Jews, which had in the 1930s by necessity lain relatively dormant, so possessed them that it appeared to exude from their every pore. Kaplan, the keen diarist of the Warsaw ghetto, observed many Germans from September 1939 until March 1940 when he penned his evaluation derived from their actions and words. IV. “The gigantic catastrophe which has descended on Polish Jewry has no parallel, even in the darkest period of Jewish history. First, in the depth of hatred. This is not just hatred whose source is in a party platform, and which was invented for political purposes. It is a hatred of emotion, whose source is some psychopathic malady. In its outward manifestations it functions as physiological hatred, which imagines the object of hatred to be unclean in body, a leper who

188

has no place within the camp. The (German) masses have absorbed this sort of qualitative hatred V. Significantly, this characterisation ... (is) based on the words and acts of Germans - of SS men, policemen, soldiers, administrators, and those working in the economy - before the formal genocidal program of systematic killing had begun. It is the masses, the ordinary Germans, not the Nazi ideologues and theoreticians, whom Kaplan exposes. The causal link between the Germans’ beliefs and actions is palpable ... VI. These were the beliefs that prepared officers of Police Regiment 25 to boast, like so many other Germans engaged in the slaughter, and to believe themselves “to have accomplished feats of heroism by these killings”. These were the beliefs that led so many ordinary Germans to kill for pleasure ... These same beliefs moved the men of Police Battalion bl’s First Company, who guarded the Warsaw ghetto and eagerly shot Jews attempting to sneak in or out of the ghetto during 1941-1942, to create a recreational shrine to their slaughter of Jews. These German reservists turned a room in their quarters into a bar ... After successful kills, these Germans were in the habit of rewarding themselves by holding special “victory celebrations” (Siegesfeiern). VII. The beliefs about Jews that governed the German people’s assent and contributions to the elimlnationlst program of the 1930s were the beliefs that prepared the men of Police Battalion 101 and so many other Germans to be eager killers who volunteered again and again for their “Jew-hunts”. VIII. These were the beliefs that led so many ordinary Germans who degraded, brutalized, and tortured Jews m camps and elsewhere — the cruelty in the camps having been near universal - to choose to do so. They did not choose (like the tiny minority who showed that restraint was possible) not to hit, or, if under supervision, to hit in a manner that would do the least damage, but instead regularly chose to terrorize, to inflict pain, and to maim. These were the beliefs that prepared the men of Police Battalion 309, ordinary Germans, not to hate, but to esteem the captain who had led them in their orgy of killing and synagogue-burning in Blalystok in a manner similar to the glowing evaluations of “Papa” Trapp given by the men of Police Battalion 101 ... IX. These were the beliefs that led Germans to take joy, make merry, and celebrate their genocide of the Jews, such as with the party (Abschlufifeier) thrown

189

upon the closing down of the Chelmno extermination camp in April 1943 to reward its German staff for a job well done. By then, the Germans had killed over 145 000 Jews in Chelmno. The German perpetrators’ rejoicing proudly in their mass annihilation of the Jews occurred also at the conclusion of the more concentrated slaughter of twelve thousand Jews on the “Blood Sunday” of October 12,1941, in Stanlslawow, where the Germans there threw a victory celebration. Yet another such celebration '^as organized in August 1941, during the heady days in the midst of the Germans’ campaign of extermination of Latvian Jewry. On the occasion of their slaughter of the Jews of Cesls, the local German security police and members of the German military assembled to eat and drink at what they dubbed a death banquet (Totenmahl) for the Jews. During their festivities, the celebrants drank repeated toasts to the extermination of the Jews. X. The beliefs that were already the common property of the German people upon Hitler’s assumption of power and which led the German people to assent and contribute to the ellmlnatlonist measures of the 1930s were the beliefs that prepared not just the Germans who by circumstances, chance, or choice ended up as perpetrators but also the vast majority of the German people to understand, assent to, and, when possible, do their part to further the extermination, root and branch, of the Jewish people. The Inescapable truth is that, regarding Jews, German political culture had evolved to the point where an enormous number of ordinary, representative Germans became - and most of the rest of their fellow Germans were fit to be - Hitler’s willing executioners.

TT: Excerpt from Daniel Jonah Goldhagen Hitlers willige Vollstrecker. Ganz

gewohnliche Deutsche und der Holocaust. Berlin; Sledler Verlag, 1996. Aus dem Amerlkanischen von Klaus Kochmann. S. 520-531 I. Diese Auspriigung des Judenhasses llefi also vlele Handlungsmogllchkelten offen. Aber sie tendlerte, gerade vor dem Hlntergrund der fiir das zwanzlgste Jahrhundert typlschen Vorstellungen von den Juden, zur extremsten Varlante, zur deflnitiven “Losung”. DaB zwischen rasslstlschen Antlsemlten, die fiir elne gewaltsame Aussonderung der Juden pliidlerten, und solchen, die die “Losung” in der Vernlchtung sahen, eine Wahlverwandtschaft bestand, wurde berelts Ende des neurizehnten Jahrhunderts deutllch. Es glbt eine Untersuchung fiber promlnente antisemltlsche Autoren, die “Losungen” fiir die “Judenfrage” vorschlugen; zwei Drlttel von Ihnen pladlerten bereits Im letzten Jahrhundert fiir die vollige Vernlchtung der Juden. Die Uberzeugungen, die die Nationalsozialisten dazu

190

brachten,

den judischen

Biirgern

zunachst den

gesellschaftlichen Einfufi zu nehmen und sie dann ganz aus der Gesellschaft auszuschlie^en, wurden von der deutschen Bevolkerung geteilt und fiihrten zu entsprechendem Anklang der eliminatorischen Maftnahmen. Jeder Schritt des Programms, von der yerbalen Gewalttatigkelt bis zur Ghettoisierung und Vernichtung fand Zustimmung bei einer grofien Zahl von ganz gewohnlichen Deutschen, losten jedenfalls weder Unruhe noch Dissens in der Bevolkerung aus. Die erschreckenden Diagnosen und Prognosen - fiir den Fall, daft es den Deutschen nicht gelingen sollte, die vermeintliche jiidische Krankheit aus dem deutschen Gesellschaftskorper zu entfernen - forderten die Unterstiitzung, die die eliminatorischen Mafinahmen fanden, und man sah diese schliefilich als vorlaufig und unzureichend an, was wiederum den Drang zur Vernichtung bestarkte. Was nicht erstaunen kann, wenn man die Juden tatsachlich als Krankheit am Volkskorper betrachtete. Eln Arzt, der eine Zeltlang in Auschwitz Dienst tat, hat den aul^erordentllch engen Zusammenhang zwlschen Uberzeugung und Handeln - zwlschen dem Antlsemitismus der Deutschen und ihrer Bereitschaft, die als “Erzfeinde Deutschlands” betrachteten Juden zu ermorden - genau erfafit: Der Schritt von den ungeheuerlichen Anschuldlgungen gegen die Juden bis zum Wunsch, sie zu vernlchten, sei nicht langer “als ein Millimeter”. II. Der Volkermord gehorte zum gesellschaftlichen “Gesprach” der Deutschen. Er war in Ihre Sprache und Gefiihle elngelassen und gehorte zum kognitlven Modell, war Bestandteil der Praktlken und Handlungen, mit denen in den dreifiiger Jahren das spatere Programm vorbereitet wurde. Nachdem die Bedingungen relf, die autonome Kraft des eliminatorischen Antlsemitismus elnmal freigesetzt war, erwies slch dieser als so stark, daft selbst diejenlgen Deutschen, die offiziell nlchts mit der Verfolgung und Vernichtung der Juden zu tun hatten, Juden wie selbstverstandlich korperlich angrlffen, von verbalen Attacken ganz zu schwelgen. III. Der Antlsemitismus war wahrend der NS-Zeit so allgemeln verbreltet, dafi die jiidischen Opfer den Elndruck hatten, sie konnten die Macht, die er fiber die Deutschen gewonnen hatte, nur in elnem gleichsam medlzlnlschen Bild erfassen; “Das Blut der Nationalsozlallsten ist von einem krankhaften Hafi verglftet”. Als der tiefe, in den dreifiiger Jahren aufgrund der aufieren Umstande schlummernde Hafi elnmal aktlviert war, hat er die Deutschen so gepackt, daI5 sie ihn aus jeder Pore auszuschwltzen schlenen. Kaplan, der leldenschaftllche Chronist, konnte von September 1939 bis Marz 1940 vlele Deutsche bei ihrem Tun und Reden beobachten. IV. “Die glgantische Katastrophe, die fiber die polnlsche Judenhelt gekommen war, hat keine Parallele, nicht elnmal in den dunkelsten Perioden der jfidlschen

191

Geschichte. Das betrifft zunachst die Tiefe des Hasses. Das ist nicht nur ein Haft, dessen Quelle ein Parteiprogramm ist und der zu politischen Zwecken erfunden wurde. Es ist ein Hafi des Gefiihls, dessen Quelle eine seelische Erkrankung 1st. Nach seinen aufterlichen Anzeichen verlauft er als physiologischer Hal^, der slch das Hafiobjekt als korperlich unrein vorstellt, als elnen Aussatzigen, der aufierhalb des Lagers wohnen muft. Die Massen haben diese Art qualltativen Hasses in slch absorbiert V. Wohlgemerkt, diese Charakterlslerung stiitzt slch ... auf Taten und Worte von SS-Mannern, Pollzlsten, Soldaten, Verwaltungsbedlensteten und Wirtschaftsleuten, bevor das offizlelle, systematische Morden begann. Kaplan beobachtet ganz gewohnllche Deutsche und kelne NS-ldeologen. Der kausale Zusammenhang zwlschen den Auffassungen und den Handlungen der Deutschen 1st augenfalllg... VI. Es waren Immer die glelchen Vorstellungen und Bllder von den Juden. Sle brachten die Offizlere des Polizelregiments 25 dazu, slch wle so vlele Beteillgte zu riihmen, “durch Erschlel^ungen ... Heldentaten vollbracht zu haben”. Sie liefien vlele ganz gewohnllche Deutsche an Ihren Mordeinsatzen Gefallen finden ... Die gleichen Vorstellungen und Beweggrtinde liefien die Manner des Polizeibatalllons 61, die das Warschauer Ghetto bewachten, pfllchtbesessen auf Juden schiefien, die sich in den Jahren 1941/42 als Kurlere aus dem Ghetto hlnaus- und wleder zuriickschllchen. Diese Polizelreservlsten richteten slch eine Art Heldengedenkstatte ein, in der sle slch von Ihrer morderlschen Arbeit erholen konnten: sle verwandelten elnen Raum in ihrem Quartier in eine Bar ... Nach erfolgreichen Mordeinsatzen belohnten sie sich gern selbst mit besonderen “Slegesfelern”. VII. Es waren immer die gleichen Vorstellungen und Bllder von den Juden, die Deutsche dazu bewogen, dem elimlnatorlschen Programm der drelfilger Jahre zuzustlmmen, sich daran zu betelllgen und spater auch wle die Manner des Polizeibatalllons 101 am Vernlchtungsprogramm tellzuhaben; jene wurden wle viele andere zu eifrlgen Mordern, die slch immer wleder freiwillig zu “Judenjagden” meldeten. VIII. Es waren immer die .gleichen Vorstellungen und Bllder von den Juden, aus denen heraus slch vlele gewohnllche Deutsche dazu entschieden, in Lagern und anderswo Juden zu ernledrigen, brutal zu behandeln und zu quiilen. Sle entschieden slch nicht - wle eine klelne Mlnderheit, die Zuriickhaltung iibte -, nur dann zu schlagen, wenn sie unter Aufslcht standen, nur so zu schlagen.

192

daft sie moglichst wenig Schaden annchteten, sondern sie entschlossen slch, ihre Opfer regelmafiig zu terrorisieren, ihnen Schmerz zuzufiigen und sie zu Kriippeln zu machen. Die immer gleichen Vorstellungen und Bilder bewogen auch die ganz gewohnlichen Manner des Polizeibataillons 307, den Hauptmann nicht etwa zu hassen, der sie in diese Orgie aus Mord und Brandschatzung in Bialystok gefiihrt hatte, nein, sie schatzten ihn ahnlich wie die Manner des Polizeibataillons 101 ihren “Papa” Trapp. IX. Es waren immer die gleichen Vorstellungen und Bilder von den Juden. Sie sorgten dafiir, daft die Deutschen an ihren Morden Genugtuung fanden, daft die Tater ihre Taten frohllch felerten; so etwa mlt jener “Abschluf^feier” anlafilich der Schliefiung des Vernlchtungslagers Chelmno im April 1943, mit der die deutsche Mannschaft dafiir belohnt wurde, dafi sie ihre Arbeit so tadellos verrichtet hatte. Bis April 1943 hatten die Deutschen in Chelmno mehr als 145 000 Juden umgebracht. Auch nach der Mordorgie, bei der am 12. Oktober 1941, dem “Blutsonntag” von Stanislawow, 12 000 Juden starben, veranstalteten die Tater voller Stolz eine Slegesfeier. Ein weiteres Fest dleser Art wurde im August 1941, als der Vernichtungsfeldzug gegen die lettlschen Juden in vollem Gang war, organlsiert. Nach der Ermordung der Juden von Cesis versammelten sich Angehorige der Sicherheitspolizel und der Wehrmacht zu einem, wie sie es nannten, “Totenmahl fiir die Juden” Die Feiernden erhoben mehrfach ihre Glaser, um auf die Vernlchtung der Juden zu trinken. X. Es waren also die immer gleichen Vorstellungen und Bilder von den Juden, die berelts zum Zeitpunkt der Machtiibernahme Hitlers den Deutschen eigen waren und diese dazu brachten, den antisemitlschen MaEnahmen der drelfilger Jahre zuzustlmmen und sie zu unterstiitzen. Mehr noch: Sie berelteten nicht nur all jene, die durch die Umstande. durch Zufall oder in freier Entscheidung zu Tatern wurden, auf ihre Aufgabe vor, sondern sie veranlafiten auch die grofte Mehrhelt der Deutschen, die totale Vernlchtung des judischen Volkes zu verstehen, Ihr belzupflichten und sie nach Moglichkelt zu fordern. Man mufi den Tatsachen ins Auge sehen: Die deutsche Politlk und Kultur hatte slch bis zu einem Punkt entwickelt, an dem die melsten Deutschen hatten werden konnen, was eine ungeheure Zahl ganz gewohnlicher Deutscher tatsiichllch wurde: Hitlers willige Vollstrecker.

193

Bibliography Agar, M. 1992 “Review of Werner Holly 1990. Politikersprache”. Language in Society 21, 158-160. Agar, M. 1996 “The Slippery Surface: Shifting between Language and Culture”. Plenary talk given at the LAUD Symposium on “The Cultural Context in Communication Across Languages”, Duisburg, March 1996. Albrecht,]. 1987 “ Wissenschaftstheoretischer Status und praktischer Nutzen der Ubersetzungswissenschaft” in R. Ehnert and W. Schleyer eds. Ubersetzen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Regensburg: AKDAF, 9-23. Albrecht,]. 1990 “Invarianz, Aquivalenz, Adaquatheit” in R. Arntz and G. Thome eds. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Festschrift fur Wolfram Wilss. Tubingen: Narr, 71-81. Austin, ].L. 1962 Flow to do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press. Baker, M. 1992 In Other Words. A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge. Bateson, G. 1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bell, R. 1991 Translation and Translating: theory and practice. London: Longman. Benjamin, A. 1989 Translation and the Nature of Philosophy. A New Theory of Words. London: Routledge. Benjamin, W. 1972 “Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers” in W. Benjamin Gesammelte Schriften Bd. IV/1 WA. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Vorwort des Ubersetzers (WBenjamin) zu der Ubersetzung Charles Baudelaire Tableaux Parisien, 9-21. Besnier, N. 1988 “The Linguistic Relationships of Spoken and Written Nukulaelae Registers”. Language 64:4, 707-736. Bhatia, V. 1993 Analysing Genre. Language Use in Professsional Settings. London: Longman. Biber, D. 1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. 1994 “An Analytic Framework for Register Studies” in D. Biber and E. Finegan eds., 31-58. Biber, D. and E. Finegan 1994 eds. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bielick, B. 1991 “Aufforderungen in englischen und deutschen Dialogen”. Paper given at the 22. Annual GAL Congress, Mainz 1991. Blum-Kulka, S. and ]. House 1989 “Cross-Cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior” in Blum-Kulka, House, Kasper eds. 1989, 123-154. Blum-Kulka, S.,]. House and G. Kasper eds. 1989 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, N.].: Ablex. Broeck, R. van den 1985 “Second Thoughts on Translation Criticism. A Model of its Analytic Function” in T Hermans ed. The Manipulation of Literature. London: Croom Helm, 54-62.

194

Broeck, R. van den 1986 Contrastive Discourse Analysis as aTool for the Interpretation of Shifts in Translated Texts” in House and Blum-Kulka ed. 37-47. Brotherton, A. 1981 Review of Translation Quality Assessment by Juliane House” van Taalto Taal 25:\, 16-19. Brown, G. and G. Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biihler, K. 1965 Sprachtheorie. 2nd.ed. Stuttgart: Fischer. Busch-Lauer, I. 1995 Kontrastive Fachtextanalyse am Beispiel englischer und deutscher Zeitschriftenartikel der Medizin” in B. Spillner ed. Fachkommunikation. Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 71-73. Byrnes, H. 1986 Interactional style in German and American Conversation”. Text 6:2, 189-207. Carroll, J.B. 1966 “An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translation”. Mechanical Translation 9, 55-66. Cary, E. and W. Jumpelt eds. 1963 equality in Translation. New York: Macmillan. Catford, J.C. 1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. Chafe, W.L. 1982 “Integration and Involvement In Speaking” in D. Tannen ed. Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 35-54. Clyne, M. 1981 “Culture and Discourse Structure”./o«rn^/ of Pragmatics 5, 61-66. Clyne, M. 1987 “Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts: English and German”.of Pragmatics 11, 211-247. Clyne, M. 1994 Intercultural Communication at Work. Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeraity Press. Connor, U. and R. Kaplan 1987 eds. Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts. Reading, Mass.: Addlson-Wesley. Couture, B. 1986 ed. Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Crisp, S. 1981 “Review of Juliane House A Model for Translation Quality Assessment”. The Bible Translator 32:3, 346-348. Crystal, D. and D. Davy 1969 Investigating English Style. London: Longman. de Man, P. 1986 The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Derrida, J. 1985 “Roundtable on Translation” in C.V. MacDonald ed. The Ear of the Other: Autobiography, Transference, Translation. New York: Schocken. Derrida, J. 1992 “From Des Tours de Babel” in R. Schulte and J. Biguenet eds. Theories of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 218-227. Diller, H.-J. and J. Kornellus 1978 Linguistische Probleme der Ubersetzung. Tubingen: NIemeyer. Duszak, A. 1994 “Academic Discourse and Intellectual Styles”. Journal of Pragmatics 21,291-313. Edmondson, W.J. 1981 Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis. London: Longman. Edmondson, W.J. and J. House 1981 LePs Talk and Talk About It. A Pedagogic Interactional Grammar of English. Miinchen: Urban und Schwarzenberg. Edmondson, W.J. and J. House 1982 “Hoflichkelt als Lernziel im Engllschunterricht” Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 4, 218-227.

195

Edmondson, W.J. and J. House 1993 Einfiihrung in die Sprachlehrforschung. Tubingen: Francke. Edmondson, WJ., J. House, G. Kasper, B. Stemmer 1984 “Learning the Pragmatics of Discourse. A Project Report”. Applied Linguistics 5, 113-127. Enkvist, N.E. 1973 Linguistic Stylistics. The Hague: Mouton. Faifi, K. 1981 “Review of Juliane House A Model for Translation Quality Assessment”. IRAL 19, 79-80. Ferguson, C.A. 1994 “Dialect, Register, and Gen'Fe: Working Assumptions About Conventionalization” in D. Biber and E. Finegan eds., 15-30. Fetzer, A. 1996 “Preference Organization und Sprechfertigkeit im Englisch-Deutschen Kontext. Vom propositionalen Schlagabtausch zur interkulturellen Kompetenz”. GAL Bulletin 24, 63-80. Fiedler, S. 1994 “Linguistische Fachtexte im Englischen, Deutschen und Esperanto (ein interkultureller Vergleich)” in B. Spillner ed. Fachkommunikation. Frankfurt: Lang, 68-71. Firth, J.R. 1959 Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. Foucault, M. 1977 Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Ed. and transl. D.F. Bouchard and S. Simon Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Galtung, J. 1985 “Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil. Ein vergleichender Essay liber sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft” in A. Wierlacher ed. Das Eigene und das Fremde. Prolegomena zu einer interkulturellen Germanistik. Miinchen: indicium, 151-193. Gentzler, E. 1993 Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 1994 Ubersetzungswissenschaftliches Propadeutikum. Tubingen: Francke. Gleason, H.A. 1968 “Contrastive Analysis in Discourse Structure” 'm Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, J.E. Alatis ed. no. 21. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 39-63. Gnutzmann, C. and H. Oldenburg 1991 “Contrastive Text Linguistics in LSP-Research: Theoretical Considerations and some Preliminary Findings” in H. Schroder ed. Subject-oriented Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 103-136. Goffman, E. 1974 Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Gopferich, S. 1995 “Textsorten und Translationsprobleme: Ein Kanon fiir Ubersetzungsiibungen zur Fachsprache der Technik” in W. Borner and K. Vogel eds. Der Text im Fremdsprachen-unterricht. Bochum: AKS Verlag, 163-196. Graham, J.F. ed. 1985 Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gregory, M. 1967 “Aspects of Varieties Differentiation”. Journal of Linguistics 3, 177-198. Gregory, M. and S. Carroll 1978 Language and Situation. Language Varieties and their Social Contexts. London: Routledge. Grice, H.P. 1975 “Logic and Conversation” in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan eds. Syntax and Semantics vol 3. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. Gutt, E.-A. 1991 Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell. Hall, E.T. 1976 Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E.T. 1983 The Dance of Life. The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Double.day.

196

Hall, E.T and M.R. Hall 1983 Hidden Differences. Studies in International Communication. How to Communicate with the Germans. Hamburg: Gruner und Jahr. Halliday, M.A.K. 1973 Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978 Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1989 Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan 1989 Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin 1993 Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Palmer. Halliday, M.A.K., A. McIntosh and P. Strevens 1964 The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman. Hasan, R. 1978 “Text in the Systemic-functional Model” in W.U. Dressier ed. Current Trends in Text Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. Hatim, B. and 1. Mason 1990 Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. Havranek, B. 1964 “The Functional Differentiation of the Standard Language” in P. Garvin ed. and transl. A Prague School Reader on Aesthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 3-16. Hinds, J. 1987 “Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology” in U. Connor and R. Kaplan eds., 141-152. Hofstede, G. 1984 Culture’s Consequences. New York: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1991 Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill. Holz-Manttari, J. 1984 Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Annales Academicae Scientiarum Fennicae. Honig, H. G. 1986 “Ubersetzen zwischen Reflex und Reflexion - ein Modell der iibersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse” in M. Snell-Hornby ed. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Fine Neuorientierung. Tubingen: Francke, 230-251. Honig, H.G. 1995 Konstruktives Ubersetzen. Tubingen: Stauffenburg. Honig, H.G. 1996 “Review of H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast Ubersetzungs- wissenschaftliches Propadeutikum” Target 8, 188-193. Honig. H.G. and P. KuBmaul 1982 Strategie der Ubersetzung. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tubingen: Narr. House,]. 1977 (2nd. ed. 1981) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: Narr. House, J. 1979 “Interaktionsnormen in deutschen und englischen Alltagsdialogen”. Linguistische Berichte 59, 76-90. House, J. 1982a “Opening and Closing Phases in English and German Dialogues”. Grazer Linguistische Studien 16, 52-83. House, J. 1982b “Conversational Strategies in German and English Dialogues” in G. Nickel and D. Nehls eds. Error Analysis, Contrastive Linguistics and Second Language Learning. Heidelberg: Groos, 131-146. House, J. 1982c “Gambits in deutschen und englischen Alltagsdialogen”. Grazer Linguistische Studien 17/18, 110-132. House,]. 1984 “Some Methodological Problems and Perspectives in Contrastive Discourse Analysis”. Applied Linguistics 5, 245-55.

197

House, J. 1985 “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Universals in Language Usage”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 20, 5-15. House, J. 1989a “Politeness in English and German” in S.Blum-Kulka et al. eds., 96-122. House, J. 1989b “Excuse me please: Apologizing in a Foreign Language” in B. Kettemann et al eds. Englisch als Zweitsprache. Tubingen: Narr, 303-328. House, J. 1993 “Toward a Model for the Analysis of Inappropriate Responses in Native/Non-Native Interactions” in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka eds. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Pr'bss, 163-184. House,]. 1994 “Text/Rhetoric” in The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford: Pergamon, 4581—4584. House, J. 1996a “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case of German and English” in M. Hellinger and U. Ammon eds. Contrastive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 345-361. House, J. 1996b “Developing Pragmatic Fluency in English as a Foreign Language”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 225-252. House, J. 1996c “The Role of Cross-Cultural Discourse Analysis in the Development of Intercultual Competence”. Plenary Talk given at the LAUD Symposium on “The Cultural Context in Communication Across Languages”. Duisburg, March, 1996. House, J. 1997 “Politeness and Translation” in L. Hickey ed. The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. House, J. forthcoming Cross-Cultural Pragmatics and Translation. House,], and G. Kasper 1981 “Politeness Markers in English and German” in F. Coulmas ed. Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, 157-185. House, ]. and S. Blum-Kulka eds. 1986 Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tubingen: Narr. House, ]. and G. Kasper 1987 “Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requesting in a Foreign Language” in W. Lorscher and R. Schulze eds. Perspectives on Language in Performance. Tubingen: Narr. 1250-1288. Hymes, D. 1968 “The Ethnography of Speaking” in].A. Fishman ed. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, 99-138. Hymes, D. 1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics: an Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Inhoffen, N. 1991 “‘Skopos’ und ‘Kulturtransfer’. Zu zwei Schliisselbegriffen der neueren iibersetzungswissenschaftlichen Diskussion” in C. Schmitt ed. Neue Methoden der Sprachmittlung. Heidelberg: Egert, 21—47. Ivir, V. 1996 “A Case for Linguistics in Translation Theory” Target 8, 149-157. ]ager; G. 1973 “Invarianz und Transferierbarkeit” in A. Neubert Neue Beitrdge zu Grundfragen der Ubersetzungswissenschaft. ]acobs, C. 1975 “The Monstrosity of Translation”, Modern Language Notes 90, 755-766. ]akobson, R. 1960 “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics” inTA. Sebeoked. Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press, 350-377. ]akobson, R. 1966 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” in R.A. Brower ed. On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 232-239. ]ohn5ton, ]. 1992 “Translation as Simulacrum” in L. Venuti ed., 42-56.

198

M

Joos, M. 1961 The Five Clocks. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Kaplan, R.B. 1966 Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education”. Language Learning 16, 1-20. Kaplan, R.B. 1987 “Culturaj^Thought Patterns Revisited” in U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan eds., 9-20. Kaplan, R.B. 1996 “Is There a Problem in Reading and Writing Texts Across Languages?” Working Paper. Duisburg: LAUD. Kelletat, A.F. 1987 “Die Riickschritte der Ubersetzungstheorie” in R. Ehnert and W. Schleyer eds. Uhersetzen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Regensburg: AKADAF, 33-49. Klein, W. 1992 “Was kann sich die Ubersetzungswissenschaft von der Linguistik erwarten?”. Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 84, 104-123. Kohlmayer, R. 1988 “Der Literaturiibersetzer zwischen Original und Markt. Fine Kritik funktionalistischer Ubersetzungstheorien”. Lehende Sprachen 33, 145-156. Koller, W. 1972 (4th ed. 1992) Grundprobleme der Ubersetzungstheorie. Bern: Francke. Koller, W. 1987 “Zum Gegenstand der Ubersetzungswissenschaft” in R. Arntz and G. Thome eds. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Tubingen: Narr, 19-30. Koller, W. 1995 “The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies” Target 7, 191-222. Konigs, F. 1981 “Ubersetzung und Fremdsprachenunterricht - vereinbar oder unvereinbar?” in K.-R. Bausch and F.-R. Weller eds. Ubersetzen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Frankfurt: Diesterweg, 203-216. Kotthoff, FI. 1989 Pro und Kontra in der Fremdsprache. Frankfurt: Lang. Kupsch-Losereit, S. 1988 “Die Ubersetzung als soziale Praxis. Ihre Abhangigkeit vom Sinn-und Bedeutungshorizontdes Kez\p{et\ien”. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 17,28-40. Kupsch-Losereit, S. 1994 “Die Ubersetzung als Produkt hermeneutischer Verstehensprozesse” in M. Snell-Hornby et al eds. Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 45-54. Kusch, M. and H. Schroder 1989 “Contrastive Discourse Analysis: The Case of Davidson vs Habermas” in M. Kusch and H. Schroder eds. Text-Interpretation-Argumentation. Hamburg: Buske. KuBmaul, P. 1986 “Ubersetzen als Entscheidungsprozeh. Die Rolle der Fehleranalyse in der Ubersetzungsdidaktik” in M. Snell-Hornby ed. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Fine Neuorientierung. Tubingen: Francke, 206-230. Kufimaul, P. 1995 Training the Translator. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Leech, G. 1974 Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Leech, G. 1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Legrand, P. 1996 “European Legal Systems are not Converging”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45, 52-81. Levy, J. 1967 “Translation as a Decision Process” in To Honor Roman Jakobson on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton. 1171—1182. Levy, J. 1969 Die literarische Ubersetzung. Theorie einer Kunstgattung. Frankfurt/ Main: Athenaum.

199

Luchtenberg, S. 1994 "A Friendly Voice to Help You vs Working Through Your Manual: Pragmatic Differences Between American and German Software Manuals”./o«rnal of Pragmatics 21, 315-319. Lux, F. 1981 Text, Situation, Textsorte. Probleme der Textsortenanalyse, dargestellt am Beispiel der britischen Registerlinguistik. Tubingen: Narr. Lyons,]. 1969 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacNamara, J. 1967 "The Bilingual’s Linguistic'Terformance: A Psychological Overview”. The Journal of Social Issues 23, 58- 77. Malinowski, B. 1923 “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages” in C.K. Ogden and LA. Richards The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcour, Brace and World, 296-336. Martin, J.R. 1989 Factual Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J.R. 1993 “A Contextual Theory of Language” in B. Cope and M. Kalantzis eds. The Powers of Literacy. A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. London: Falmer, 116-136. Martin, J.R. and J. Rotherby 1986 “What a Functional Approach to the Writing Task Can Show Teachers About ’’Good Writing"” in B. Couture ed., 241-265. Mathesius, V. 1971 “Die funktionale Linguistik” in E. Benes and J. Vachek eds. Stilistik und Soziolinguistik. Miinchen: List, 1-18. Mauranen, A. 1993 Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Lang. Mudersbach, K. 1992 “Modell zum Kulturvergleich”. Vortrag vor dem Pfalzer Dozenten-Kolloquium am 4.12.1992 in Germershelm. Mukarovsky, J. 1964 “Standard Language and Poetic Language” in PL. Garvin ed. and transl. A Prague School Reader on Aesthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 17-30. Neubert, A. 1968 “Pragmatische Aspekte der Ubersetzung” in idem ed. Grundfragen der Ubersetzungwissenschaft. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopadle, 21-33. Neubert, A. 1985 Text and Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopadle. Neubert, A. 1994 “Theory and Practice in Translation and in Translation Studies: the Textual Approach” in A. Kruger ed. New Perspectives on Teaching Translators and Interpreters in South Africa. Pretoria: University of South Africa, 10-26. Newmark, P. 1979 “Review of J. House A Model for Translation Quality Assessment”. The Incorporated Linguist 18, 61-62. Newmark, P. 1981 Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon. Newmark, P. 1988 A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall. Newmark, P. 1991 “The Curse of Dogma in Translation Studies” Lebende Sprachen 3, 105-108. Nida, E.A. 1964 Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill. Nida, E.A. and C.R. Taber 1969 The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. Nord, C. 1988 Textanalyse und Ubersetzen. Heidelberg: Groos. Ochs, E. ed. 1989 “The Pragmatics of Affect”. Text 9, 1-123. Ogden, C.K. and LA. Richards 1946 8th ed. The Meaning of Meaning London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Olson, D. 1996 “Language and Literacy: What Writing Does to Language and Mind”. Ajinual Review of Applied Linguistics 16, 3-13. 200

Paepcke, R 1986 “Textverstehen-Textubersetzen-Ubersetzungskritik” inSnell-Hornby ed. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung. Tubingen: Francke, 106-132. Pike, K. 1967 2nd. ed. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Human Behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Popper, K. 1972 Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Popper, K. 1976 Unended Quest. Glasgow: Collins. Purves, A. 1988 Writing Across Cultures. Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Newbury Park: Sage. Pym, A. 1992 “The Relations Between Translation and Material Text Transfer” Target 4, 171-189. Rabassa, G, 1989 “No Two Snowflakes are Alike: Translation as Metaphor” in J. Biguenet and R. Schulte eds. The Craft of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1-12. Reifi, K. 1971 Mdglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ubersetzungskritik. Miinchen: Hueber. ReiB, K. 1989 “Ubersetzungstheorie und Praxis der Ubersetzungs-kritik” in R Konigs ed. Ubersetzungswissenschaft und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Munchen: GoetheInstitut. ReiB, K. and H.J. Vermeer 1984 Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Savory, T. 1968 The Art of Translation. Boston: The Writer. Schmitt, P.A. 1995 “Warnhinweise in deutschen und englischen Anleitungen: ein interkultureller Vergleich” in Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lemen 24, 197-222. Schreiber, M. 1993 Ubersetzung und Bearbeitung. Zur Differenzierung und Abgrenzung des Ubersetzungsbegriffs. Tubingen: Narr. Searle, J.R. 1969 Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slote, D. 1978 “Review of J. House A Model for Translation Quality Assessment”. Meta 23, 174-175. Smith, V. and C. Klein-Braley 1997 “Advertising-a Five-Stage Strategy for Translation” in M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarova, K. Kaindl eds. Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected Papers from the EST Congress, Prague 199^ Amsterdam: Benjamins. Snell-Hornby, M. 1986 “Ubersetzen, Sprache, Kultur” in M. Snell-Hornby ed. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung. Tubingen: Francke, 9-29. Soli, L. 1974 Gesprochenes und Geschriebenes Franzdsisch. Berlin: Schmidt. Stalnaker, R.C. 1973 “Pragmatics” in D. Davidson and G. Harman eds. Semantics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 380-397. Steiner, E. 1995 “An Extended Register Analysis as a Form of Text Analysis for Translation”. To appear in Festschrift fiir A. Neubert. Tubingen: Narr. Stolze, R. 1992 Hermeneutisches Ubersetzen. Tubingen: Narr. Swales, J.M. 1990 Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taavitsainen, I. 1994 “Subjectivity as a Text-Type Marker in Historical Stylistics” Language and Literature 3, 197-212.

201

Thomas J. 1995 Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Toury, G. 1985 In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Toury, G. 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ventola, E. 1984 “Orientation to Social Semiotics in Foreign Language Teaching”. Applied Linguistics 5, 275-286. Ventola, E. 1995a “Englisch als lingua franca der schriftlichen Wissenschaftskommunikation in Finnland und in Deutschland” Jh H. Kretzenbacher and H. Weinrich eds. Linguistik der Wissenschaftssprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, 353-386. Ventola, E. 1995b “What’s in an Academic Text” in B. Warvik et al. eds. Organization in Discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference. Anglicana Turkuensia 14, 109-128. Venuti, L. ed. 1992 Rethinking Translation. Discourse, Sujectivity, Ideology. London: New York. Venuti, L. 1995 The Translator's Invisibility. A History of Translation. London: Routledge. Vermeer, H.J. 1986 “Ubersetzen als kultureller Transfer” in M. Snell-Hornby ed. Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Line Neuorientierung. Tubingen: Francke, 30-53. Vermeer, H.J. 1987 “Literarische Ubersetzung als Versuch interkultureller Kommunikation” in A. Wierlacher ed. Perspektiven und Verfahren interkultureller Germanistik Miinchen: Gesellschaft fiir interkulturelle Germanistik, 541-549. Vermeer, H.J. 1994 “Translation today: Old and new problems” in M. Snell-Hornby et al eds. Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-16. Waard, J. de and E. Nida 1986 From One Language to Another. Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Nelson. Wiesenthal, L. 1973 Zur Wissenschaftstheorie Walter Benjamins. Frankfurt: Athenaum. Widdowson, H. 1973 “Directions in the Teaching of Discourse” in S.P. Corder and E. Roulet eds. Theoretical Linguistic Models in Applied Linguistics. Paris: Didier, 65-76. Widdowson, H. 1974 “Stylistics” in J. P. B. Allen and S. P. Corder eds. Techniques in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press. Wilss, W. 1974 “Probleme und Perspektiven der Ubersetzungskritik”. IRAL 12, 23-41. Wilss, W. 1977 Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Probleme und Methoden. Stuttgart: Klett. Wilss, W. 1980 Rezenslon von J. House A Model for Translation Quality Assessment for K.-R. Bausch and F.-R. Weller eds. Ubersetzen und Fremdsprachenuntern'c/7f. Frankfurt: Diesterweg. Wilss, W. 1995 “Die Rolle des Ubersetzers im Ubersetzungsprozel^” To appear in Festschrift fur A. Neubert. Tubingen: Narr. Wilss, W. 1996 Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

0

202

Jt

r

Author Index

Agar,M. VIII (Fn), 92 Albrecht, J. 25 Austin,]. 89 Austin, J.L. 31 Baker, M. 19, 20 Barth, K. 66, 67, 69 Bateson, G. Ill Bell, R. 19 Benjamin, W, 9, 15, 121, 145 Besnier, N. 110 Biber, D. 108, 109, 110, 150 Bielick, B. 86 Blum-Kulka, S. 79, 80, 82 Broeck, R. van den 7 Brotherton, A. 102, 103 Brown, G. 85 Biihler, K. 17,33,35 Busch-Lauer, I. 94 Byrnes, H. 86 Carroll, J.B. 5 Carroll, S. 38, 105 Cary, E, 1 Catford, J.C 16, 25, 26, 31, 38, 68, 69, 70 Chafe, W.L. 109 Churchill, W, 66, 67, 69 Clyne, M. 89,90,91 Connor, U. 89 Couture, B, 106 Crisp, S. 102 Crystal, D. 38,39,40,41,42,44,105,107, 108,109, no Davidson, D. 91 Davy, D. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110 deMan, P. 9, 143, 145 Derrida,]. 9, 10 Diller, H.-]. 111 Duszak, A. 94

Edmondson, W.]. 29, 30, 44, 80, 112, 162 Enkvist, N.E. 44 FaiB, K. 104 Ferguson, C.A. 107 Fetzer, A. 86 Feynman, R.P. 132, 179 Fiedler, S. 94 Firth, ].R. 37 Foucault, M. 10 Gaining,]. 90,91 Gentzler, E. 9, 10, 15 Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 22, 23, 24 Gleason, H.A. 31 Gnutzmann, C. 91 Coffman, E. Ill Goldhagen, D.]. 121, 147, 155, 156, 157 Gopferich, S. 94 Graham, ].F. 9 Gregory, M. 38, 40, 105, 110 Grice, H.P 85 Gutt, E.-A. 19,20,21,22,112,118 Habermas,]. 91 Hall, E.T. 91,92 Hall,M.R. 91,92 Halliday, M.A.K. 20,29,32,34,35,36,37, 38,47, 85, 105, 107, 109, 118 Hasan, R. 32,34, 105 Hatim, B. 19, 20 Havranek, B. 43 Hebei, ].P. 66,67, 104 Heidegger, M. 10 Hinds,]. 89 Hofstede, G. 91 Holly, W. 93 Holz-Miinttari, ]. 12 Honig, H.G. 12, 13, 14, 16,23 House, ]. 29, 48, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 92, 103, 104, 121, 131, 161, 162

203

Hymes, D. 34, 37, 107 Inhoffen, N. 13 Ivir, V. 24 Jacobs, C. 143 Jager, G. 18 Jakobson, R. 33, 34, 48, 103 Johnston,]. 143 Joos, M. 41, 109 Jumpelt, W. 1 Kade, O. 18 Kaplan, R.B. 89, 90 Kasper, G. 79, 80, 82 Kelletat, A.E 15 Klein, W. 16,21,22 Klein-Baley, C. 97, 98 Kohlmayer, R. 13 Roller, W. 16,17,18,19,25 Roller, W. 7 Konigs, F. 102 Kornelius,J. Ill Kotthoff, H, 86 Kupsch-Losereit, S. 2, 3, 16 Kusch, M. 91 Kufimaul, P. 12, 13, 16 Leech, G. 30, 35 Levy,]. 26 Luchtenberg, S. 93 Lyons, J. 36

Ochs, E. 109 Ogden, C.K. 32,33 Oldenburg, H. 91 Olson, D. 15 Paepcke, F. 2 Pike, K. 45 Plat<^ 33 Politzer, R. 103 Popper, K. 3, 15, 34, 35 Purves, A. 89 Pym, A. Ill, 114 Rabassa, G. 11 Reifi, K. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 35, 66, 104 Richards, LA. 32, 33 Rotherby, ]. 106 Savory, T. 2 Schmitt, P.A. 93 Schreiber, M. 22, 24, 111 Schroder, H. 91 Searle, J.R. 31 Slote, D. 102, 103 Smith, V. 98 Snell-Hornby, M. 16, 26 Soil, L. 44, 45 Stalnaker, R.C. 30 Steiner, E. 22, 24 Stolze, R. 2 Strevens, P. 47

MacNamara, J. 5 Malinowski, B. 32, 37 Martin, J.R. 105,106,107,108 Mason,!. 19,20 Mathesius, V. 44 Mauranen, A. 94 McIntosh, A. 47 Mukarovsky, J. 48 Murphy,]. 122,178

Ventola, E. 93, 106 Venuti, L. 9, 10, 11, 13, 114 Vermeer, H.J. 11, 12,13,14, 15, 16,22,35, 104

Neubert, A. 18,19 Newmark, P. 14, 19, 101,'104, 111 Nida, E.A. 4, 48 Nord, Ch. 111

Waard,].de 4 Wellek, R. 103 Widdowson, H. 30, 44, 67 Wilss, W. 13, 17, 18, 19, 103, 118

O’Casey, S. 66, 67, 68

Yule, G. 85

204

Taavitsainen, 1. 109 Taber, C.R. 4, 48 Thomas,]. 30 Toury, G. 6, 7, 8

M

Subject Index

ad-hoc formulation 84 approach - action related 11 - anecdotal 1 - behavioural 2 - biographical 1 - deconstructionist 9 - functionalistic 11, 15 - linguistically oriented 16 - literature-oriented 6 - neo-hermeneutic 1, 2 - post-modernist 9 - reception theory related 11 - relevance-theoretic 20 - response-oriented 2 - text-based 6 aspect of meaning - pragmatic 30 - semantic 30 - textual 31 clausal linkage 44 components - functional 42 - ideational 42 - interpersonal 42 content focus 86,115 context of situation 37, 38 contrastive discourse analyses 79 contrastive pragmatic discourse research 79 contrastive pragmatic studies 88 covert 29, 161, 163, 166 covert translation 69, 70,104,111,114,115 covert version 73,117 covert-overt dine 78 covert-overt continuum 77,164 covertly erroneous errors 45 cultural filter 29, 71, 74, 115, 117

cultural filtering 161,162 descriptive translation studies 6, 7 dialect 38 dimension 38 dimensions of cross-cultural difference 84 dimensions of language use 39 dimensions of language user 39 directness 84, 88, 115 discourse phases 80 discourse strategies 81 discourse world 112 equivalence 12, 18, 24, 25, 30, 163 - dynamic 4 - functional 112,164 explicitness 84, 87, 115 field 108 frame 111 function - conative 33 - emotive-expressive 33 - ideational 35 - interpersonal 34 - representational 33 - textual 34 functions of language 32 functions of text 32 gambit 82 genre 105, 106, 159, 160 Iconic linkage 45 implicitness 84 indirectness 84 individuality 38 interpersonal focus 88 Invariance 25

205

invisibility of translation 10

primary level function 115 province 39, 42

justification of method 46 language 159 level - casual 41 - consultative 41 - formal 41 - frozen 41 - intellectual 41 - intimate 41 medium 38 - complex 38, 40 - simple 39, 40 method of analysis - Neo Firthian 43 modality 39 mode 108 norm of usage 18 orientation - towards content 84 - towards other 84 - towards persons 84 - towards self 84 original analyses 49 original model of quality assessment 29, 101

overt 29, 161, 163, 166 overt translation 66, 67, 68, 76, 104, 111, 114, 115 overt version 73 overt-covert dichotomy 111 overtly erroneous errors 45 participation 39 - complex 40 - simple 40 pedagogic implications 167 polysystem theory 6 presentation of information - abstract 109 - non-abstract 109

206

quality in translation, judgment of translation 1, 119 reader - vs writer responsibility 89 ref^nce - explicit 109 - situation-dependent 109 register 106, 159 register analysis 105,107 routine reliance 115 second level 163 secondary level function 15,46 self-reference 115 singularity 39 situational-functional text analysis 39 social attitude 41, 109 social role relationship 41 source texts - overt historically-linked 66 - overt timeless 66 speech act 82 status 39 style - casual 41 - consultative 41 - formal 41 - frozen 41 - intellectual 41 - Intimate 41 tenor 108 text 159 text production - informational 109 - involved 109 text transfer 111 text type 17 text - commercial 49 - conative 17 - content oriented 17 - emic 45

- etic 45 - form-oriented 17 - poetic-aesthetic 48 textual profile 42 theme dynamics 44 theoretical aspects of the model 159 time 38 translation equivalence ”8, 115

- second-level-functional equivalence 163 translation evaluation 4, 6, 118 translation typology 65 use of verbal routines 84 version 160 World Three 15,34

207

BOS ON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 04232 784 9

Studies on Translation Wolfram Wilss

Veronica Smith

Ubersetzungsunterricht

Thinking in a Foreign Language

Eine Einfiihrung Begriffliche Grundlagen und methodische Orientierungen narr studienbiicher 1996, X, 229 S., DM 34,80/OS 254,-/SFr 34,80 ISBN 3-8233-4958-9

Radegundis Stolze

'Xn Investigation into Essay Writing and Translation by L2 Learners Tiibinger Beitrage zur Linguistik 393, 1994, XII, 217 Seiten, DM 58,-/OS 423,-/SFr 55,ISBN 3-8233-5058-7

• •

Ubersetzungstheorien

Franz Pochhacker

Eine Einfiihrung

Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln

narr studienbiicher 1994, 253 Seiten, DM 29,80/OS 218,-/SFr 29,80 ISBN 3-8233-4956-2 #

Johann Strutz / Peter V. Zima (Hrsg.)

Literarische Polyphonic Ubersetzung und Mehrsprachigkeit in der Literatur 1996, 249 Seiten, DM 68,-/OS 496,-/SFr 65,ISBN 3-8233-5163-X

Language in Performance 10,1994, XII, 306 S., DM 78,-/OS 569,-/SFr 74,ISBN 3-8233-4079-4

Elzbieta Tabakowska

Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation Language in Performance 9, 1993, V, 146 S., DM 64,-/OS 467,-/SFr 61,ISBN 3-8233-4078-6

Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.) Cornelia Lauber

Selbstportrats Zum soziologischen Profil von Literaturubersetzern aus dem Franzosischen Transfer 10, 1996, VIII, 140 Seiten, DM 58,-/OS 423,-/SFr 55,ISBN 3-8233-4089-1

Empirical Research Studies in Translation and Intercultural Studies Selected Papers of the TRANSIF Seminar 4, Savonlinna Language in Performance 5, 1991, 184 S., DM 48,-/OS 350,-/SFr 46,ISBN 3-8233-4075-1

Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen

translationqualiOOhous translationqualiOOhous

This is a compieteiy revised and updated version of one of the standard works on transiation theory. The originai modei was one of the first attempts to appiy pragmatic theories of ianguage use to the assessment of transiation quaiity. This pragmatic perspective is now enriched in the iight of research into the interdependency of ianguage, situation and cuiture. Specificaiiy, issues of cuiture-specific discourse behaviour modes, vaiue-systems and perspectives are confronted with the demands of intercuiturai communication imposed by the transiationai task, in the iight of detaiied contrastive studies of the ianguagepair German and Engiish, the author iiiustrates the workings of a so-caiied “cuiturai fiiter” in different types of text under different conditions, in the iight of these findings, the notions of ‘covert’ and ‘overt’ transiation and their appropriacy under different sociai constraints are radicaiiy revised. The new modei for the anaiysis of source text and transiation is appiied to a corpus of German/Engiish/ Engiish/German transiations. The book is therefore rich in both theory and iiiustrative data.

ISBN 3-8233-5075-7