Code shifting (transformations)

STAGE 2

where STAGE 1 is communication between the original Sender of information (SL sender or S1) and a translator (receiver of information1 or R1), STAGE 2 is ‘code shifting’ (transformations, performed by a translator) and STAGE 3 – communication between the translator (S2) and the final addressee (target language receiver or R2).

According to this scheme there are two interrelated communicative acts in the process of translation:

• communication between the initial sender of information and a translator – STAGE 1;

• communication between a translator and the final addressee (receiver of information) – STAGE 3.

In this process a translator is changing his (her) role all the time, acting as a receiver (at STAGE 1) and a sender (at STAGE 3) of the respective messages.

Focusing upon the code shifting process, this scheme, however, does not consider social, cultural, political and other extralinguistic factors of communication.

Shveitser following Nida and Taber (1969), suggests another scheme of translation which includes both linguistic and extralinguistic factors.

C1

L1

S 1 TEXT1 R1 TEXT2 R3

communicative L2

situation 1 R2 S2

C2

communicative

situation 2

where C1 – is culture 1 (source culture);

L1 – language 1 (source language);

S1 – sender 1 (source language speaker);

R1 – receiver 1 (source language addressee);

R2 – receiver 2 (translator/ interpreter in the mode of receiving in-coming messages);

S2 – sender 2 (translator/ interpreter in the mode of performing translation);

R3 – receiver 3 (target language receiver);

L2 – language 2 (target language);

C2 – is culture 2 (target culture).

According to this scheme translation may be defined as a two-stage process of interlingual and intercultural communication, during which a translator, on the basis of an analysed and transformed text in L1, creates another text in L2 which replaces the source text in the target language and culture.

It should be also added to this definition that translation is a process aimed at rendering communicative effect of the ST modified by the difference between two languages, two cultures and two communicative situations.

II. The problem of translatability.

In the past the possibilities and value of translation were very often disputed and underestimated. According to some critics the original work is to be regarded as “a living thing” and its translation is to be likened to a “mirror reflection”. As M.Servantes said “translation is like the reverse side of the carpet. The main thing is seen, but everything is blear (затуманене)”.

Nowadays the translatability of any text is no longer questioned.

As V.N.Komissarov writes “replacement of ST by TT of the same communicative value is possible because both texts are produced in human speech governed by the same rules and implying the same relationships between language, reality and human mind”.

Regardless of what their theoretical preferences are, most translatologists acknowledge the possibility of attaining exact faithful translation.