Chapter 2. Contrastive linguistics and translation studies

2.1. Interconnection of contrastive linguistics and translation studies

Despite the complexity of the translation process there are many aspects of it which admit of a purely linguistic approach. Viewed as an act of interlingual communication translation involves at least two languages that enables to bring together translation theory and contrastive linguistics. J.C. Catford, one of the forefathers of linguistic translation theory abroad, argued that since comparative linguistics is understood as an extension of descriptive linguistics which establishes relations between two or more languages then the theory of translation which is concerned with a certain type of relation between languages should be considered an applied branch of comparative linguistics [Кэтфорд 2004 ].

Yet the majority of scholars believe that though contrastive linguistics and translation theory have much in common and draw upon the findings of each other they should be regarded separately. According to V.G. Gak [Гак 2001], there are three major areas in which issues of contrastive linguistics and translation theory overlap:

1).translation theory as an applied discipline draws upon results of contrastive studies and observations concerning concrete languages, makes use of them in further theoretical translation studies;

2) translation is a sort of bi-lingual experiment in which major problems of general linguistics are tested, compared and verified on the basis of two and more languages;

3) translation is used as a method of research in contrastive linguistics, as many conclusions made in regard to languages compared are drawn on the basis of translation regularities.

The contention that translation is often used as a method of research is also supported by E.M. Mednikova [Mednikova 1976] who claims that translation is one of the basic aspects of comparative study of languages which can be employed with the aim of observing similarities and differences in the two languages. As a matter of fact, it was first exemplified by famous Canadian linguists J.P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet who completed in 1958 the first best known book in comparative French-English stylistics where translation occupies rather a prominent place.

Besides, interlingual translation is viewed as an indispensable part of bilingual lexicography and a convenient tool at all stages of second-language learning.

2.2. Major points of difference between contrastive linguistics and translation studies

The differences between contrastive linguistics and translation studies have been made explicit in various publications (see the articles by E. Coseriu, H.W. Kirkwood, T.P. Krzeszowski in [Новое в зарубежной … 1989]).

According to K.R. Bausch, it is necessary to distinguish three kinds of synchronic comparison of languages in modern linguistics (see the article by Baush K.R. in [Новое в зарубежной … 1978]):

• analytical comparative linguistics studies languages synchronally irrespective of the degree of kinship between them;

• contrastive comparative studies of applied character focus on differences between languages which may cause errors in second-language acquisition;

• translation comparative studies bring to light both common and divergent features of the two languages, and establish them in regard to both language systems and their functioning in speech.

V.N. Komissarov points out various aspects of the method of comparison used in contrastive linguistics and translation studies [Комиссаров 1973]):

(a) comparative linguistics compares systems of the two languages bringing together language units belonging to the same levels (phonetics, lexis, morphology, syntax), whereas comparison in translation studies is based on speech utterances (texts) in SL and TL which may involve units that belong to different language levels (e.g. a word may be compared with a phraseological unit бандероль – book parcel, a morpheme can be compared with a word запеть – start singing);

(b) in comparative linguistics comparison of any two languages is considered valid no matter which of them is chosen as a starting point depending on a researcher’s aims and tasks, while in translation studies of a SLT and a TLT the result of comparison is believed to be a description of a SL lexis, grammar, as well as genre and stylistic peculiarities from the translation point of view. That means using alongside traditional units and categories of comparison in comparative linguistics such objects of comparison which are relevant in translation process (e.g. words having no equivalents, i.e. lacunary lexis) or offer special aspects of analysis (e.g. neologisms are studied not so much because they are found in the vocabulary system, but because of translation problems that arise when dealing with them).

(c) comparative linguistics aims at creating exhaustive systemic level-by-level descriptions of the two languages investigated, whereas translation comparative studies aim at building a system of complex correspondences between a SL and a TL which may comprise interlevel correlations often neglecting the differences between them, but drawing different level units together on the basis of their interchangeability.

(d) in translation comparative studies comparison can be made on the basis of a TL system which raises peculiar problems conditioned by the nature of the language and its categories. If a category is compulsory in a TL that means that a translator will have to make a proper choice between the linguistic forms (at least two) constituting the respective grammatical category. This requires a careful study of these forms in TL and a thorough analysis of correlation between such categories and SL related phenomena that predetermine the choice.

E.Coseriu revealed quite striking differences between contrastive linguistics and translation studies because, in his opinion, not all levels of comparative studies are equally important for them, cf. contrastive studies involve various levels (the type of language, its system, language norm, functioning within a text), whereas translation is mostly concerned with the level of a text [Косериу 1989]. The author argues that this in its turn also implies that a translator is confronted with categories that arise only on a textual level and involve a set of problems that relate to sense which is created by a combination of both linguistic and non-linguistic factors. The author mentions the following points of difference:

1) contrastive linguistics studies a particular language from the point of view of ‘free language technique’, while a text abounds in phraseology, idiomaticity in a broad sense of the word;

2) contrastive linguistics is created on the basis of contrasting entire language systems (‘single functional language’), while a text may incorporate various functional languages simultaneously such as different dialects, styles, etc;

3) contrastive linguistics takes into consideration only ‘existing, ready correspondences’ established between designations in different languages, whereas a text may contain contextually modified units, new designations, authors’ individual coinages;

4) text-production is made in SLT and TLT in keeping with certain traditions which do not coincide in the two languages; there may be differences in particular types of texts and preferred usage of certain language devices in them, etc;

5) a text in translation is connected with sense which may arise from and be based on the combination of both linguistic and extra-linguistic means including the knowledge of the world conditioned by the cultural frames.

Thus, the above mentioned 5 points of difference prove the significance of the textual level for translation with all the consequences that stress the leading role of the functional aspect of contrastive linguistics for translation studies.