6

The formal properties of texts: Grammatical and sentential issues in translation

We saw in Chapter 5 that the alliteration and assonance of `Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness' trigger effects over and above the literal meaning of this phrase. We were considering the alliteration and assonance as features on the phonic/graphic level. But, like all utterances, this one can also be considered on the other five levels of textual variables. The extra meanings, for instance, are features on the grammatical level, while part of the effect of Keats's phrase derives from features on the sentential level. It is these two levels that we shall look at in the present chapter.

THE GRAMMATICAL LEVEL

On the grammatical level are considered two things: (1) words, and their formation by affixation, inflection, derivation and compounding; (2) syntax, the arrangement of words into phrases and sentences. It is on the grammatical level that translation loss is generally most immediately obvious, whenever grammatical transposition occurs. Because loss on this level is so common, we shall only give a few examples here. As ever, the question is not whether there is translation loss, but what it consists of and whether it matters. The question does have to be asked, because an essential part of interpreting any text lies in construing the literal meaning conveyed by its grammatical structure.

Words

We are all familiar with dictionaries. They list the practical totality of the words in a given language. This totality is known as the lexis of a language (adj. lexical). But it is vital to remember that meanings are not found exclusively in the words individually listed in the dictionary. Any text shows that the combination of words creates meanings that they do not have in isolation, and even meanings that are not wholly predictable from the literal senses of the words combined.

In translation, lexical loss is very common, but it is just one kind of translation loss among many. It can occur for all sorts of reasons. It very often arises from the fact that exact synonymy between SL words and TL words is relatively rare.

THINKING ITALIAN TRANSLATION 63

display that is liquid and crystal. The Italian expression, however, is less ambiguous, thanks to the preposition and the plural inflexions.

The fact that Italian is more analytical than English gives rise to frequent and typical grammatical differences between the two. We can use the Keats example again here. Keats could have written: `Season of mists and of mellow fruitfulness', or `Season of mists, of mellow fruitfulness'. In both, repeating `of means that the mists and the fruitfulness are identified as two distinct things, whereas Keats's actual phrase melds them into a single, complex sensation. A literal translation of his phrase into Italian could incur significant translation loss on the grammatical level, since Italian syntax offers no choice but to repeat `di', as in `Stagione di foschie e di fecondità matura'. Some form of compensation would be needed to convey the `singleness' of the sensation expressed in the ST.

Things often work the other way round, of course, English grammar not having a nuance that Italian enjoys. An obvious example of this is the fact that the subject pronoun tends to be omitted in Italian, unless it is needed to avoid ambiguity, or for contrast or emphasis. So `Ho aperto la porta' clearly means `I opened the door'. In the following sentence, on the other hand, the `io' is inserted to mark the contrast between two actions : `Ha chiuso la finestra e così io ho aperto la porta.' In such a sentence, the subject of `Ha chiuso' will normally be clear from the context; but if it is not, it will be inserted `Lei', `lei', `lui', etc. In all these cases, however, English must use a pronoun. In many cases, losing the Italian nuance is of no consequence. But where emphasis is involved, the translator may have to find some form of compensation, as we shall see in discussing the sentential level.

Grammatical differences are especially clear in differences in verb systems between languages, which can require special care in translating. To illustrate this, we can start with a simple example from Chapter 2, where we saw that the canonic translation of `Si direbbe che siamo in Italia' is `You would think we were in Italy.' In some contexts, however, a better translation might be: `One/you would say we are in Italy.' Conversely, depending on context, `You would say we were in Italy' could be rendered in various different ways:

Diresti/direste/direbbe/direbbero che siamo/eravamo in Italia. Dicevi/dicevate/diceva/dicevano che eravamo in Italia.

In all these casesÐnot to mention `Sembra di stare in Italia'ÐSL and TL grammatical structures are so different that there is obvious translation loss on the grammatical level. This will not usually matter, as long as the sense is accurate and as clear as in the ST. The many differences in systems of tense and aspect between Italian and English do, however, mean that the translator has always to be careful to avoid unwanted ambiguities or outright mistranslation. The Italian conditional and imperfect offer simple examples. Depending on context, each of the following Italian sentences could be translated in two or three ways:

64 GRAMMATICAL AND SENTENTIAL ISSUES

Pensavo che sarebbe venuto. Either I thought he would have come or I thought he would come.

Poteva partire subito. Either He could [= was able to] leave immediately or He could have left immediately or He might have left immediately.

These few examples are simple, but they are the tip of a big iceberg. The translation loss caused by differences in grammatical structure between SL and TL is often not serious, but it is all too easy, through inattention, to let a degree of calque make the TT unidiomatic. We have already seen plenty of examples of this, especially in Chapter 3, and we shall see plenty more. In fact, translation issues on the grammatical level are so significant that certain problem areas will be illustrated in detail in Chapters 16±19.

Generally, as the discussion so far has suggested, translators give priority to the mot juste and to constructing idiomatic TL sentences, even where this entails translation loss in terms of grammatical structure or economy. Exceptions may be made where, for whatever reason, exoticism is required in the TT. More often, the ST may have salient textual properties resulting from the manipulation of grammatical structure. The marked manipulation of grammatical structure is a common feature in literary or critical texts. The translator has always to decide how distinctive the grammatical structures are, what their function is, and what the aim of the ST is. Only then can a decision be taken about how distinctive the TT's grammar should be. A typical issue is that of syntactic streamlining versus syntactic complexity. The following two texts should be compared in class from this point of view. The first is from an article on art history, the second from Andrea De Carlo's Treno di panna:

Con una tecnica compositiva di facile applicazione, che gli consentiva, come nelle composizioni presepiali contemporanee e con effetti teatrali e situazioni da `commedia dell'arte' quasi simili, di combinare elementi reali e fantastici del paesaggio napoletano lucidamente percepito e oggettivamente riprodotto come nelle vedute urbane di Antonio Joli (ma almeno inizialmente anche con esiti di brillantezza decorativa cui non dovette essere estranea la conoscenza di esempi recenti di Carlo Bonavia) con episodi di vita quotidiana ripresi con cordiale e divertita partecipazione nei sobborghi e nei quartieri popolari sul lungomare napoletano, Pietro Fabris del resto non solo sembrava offrire soluzioni adeguate e tempestive alle recenti esigenze di una colta committenza internazionale interessata alla documentazione di usi, costumi e tradizioni della gente di Napoli, secondo moderne istanze culturali e rinnovati interessi antropologici di matrice illuminista, ma soprattutto forniva l'occasione e i contenuti per una pittura d'immediata presa visiva, piacevole, di facile collocazione e quindi di sicuro successo commerciale.