7

The formal properties of texts: Discourse and intertextual issues in translation

In the last chapter, we briefly discussed a grammatical rearrangement of the two lines from `To Autumn':

Autumn is a season of mists and mellow fruitfulness. It is a close bosomfriend of the maturing sun.

We saw that, on the sentential level, this arrangement marks the text as informative, rather than as an expression of excitement. Now, part of this sentential effect derives from the pronoun `It', which explicitly links the second sentence to the first as conveying additional information about Autumn. Such linking of one sentence to another is the most significant feature found on the discourse level.

THE DISCOURSE LEVEL

The textual variables considered on the discourse level are those that distinguish a cohesive and coherent textual flow from a random sequence of unrelated utterances. Strictly speaking, this level is concerned with intersentential relations (relations between sentences) and with relations between larger units, such as paragraphs, chapters, stanzas, and so on. For our purposes, however, it is sometimes useful also to consider relations between parts of sentences on the discourse level, as if the parts were sentences in their own right. We shall see examples of this below, but for the most part we shall be concentrating on intersentential issues, because these are what most clearly illustrate translation issues on the discourse level.

It is useful to distinguish between two aspects of discourse: cohesion and coherence. Following Halliday and Hasan (1976), we define cohesion (adj. cohesive) as the transparent linking of sentences (and larger sections of text) by explicit discourse connectives like `then', `so', `however', and so on. These act as signposts pointing out the thread of discourse running through the text. Coherence (adj. coherent) is a more difficult matter than cohesion, because, by definition, it is not explicitly marked in a text: it is a tacit, but discernible,

72 DISCOURSE AND INTERTEXTUAL ISSUES

thematic or emotional development running through the text. We can illustrate the difference with a simple example:

I was getting hungry. I went downstairs. I knew the kitchen was on the ground floor. I was pretty sure the kitchen must be on the ground floor. I didn't expect to find the kitchen so easily. I made myself a sandwich.

I was getting hungry. So I went downstairs. Well¼I knew the kitchen was on the ground floor. I mean, I was pretty sure it must be there. Still, I didn't expect to find it so easily. Anyway, I made myself a sandwich.

The first text has no intersentential connectives. But it is coherent, thanks to the underlying chronological narrative structure. In the second text, a train of thought is restored by inserting connectives (printed in italics). These act as cohesion markers, setting up a transparent intersentential structure. Some of the cohesion markers link the sentences by explaining or commenting on the speaker's actions: `So', `I mean', `Still', `Anyway'. Others are instances of grammatical anaphoraÐthat is, the replacement of previously used words and phrases by expressions referring back to them; here, the anaphoric elements are `it' (replacing `the kitchen') and `there' (replacing `on the ground floor').

The sentential and discourse levels are by definition closely related. In this example, many of the intersentential connectives also function on the sentential level; rather like illocutionary particles, they give each utterance a particular tone and tell the listener how to take itÐ`So', `Well', `I mean', `Still', `Anyway'. For example, the two versions of the second sentence will almost certainly be spoken differently, because, on the sentential level, they have different functions: the first announces a new fact out of the blue, while in the second, `So' marks the sentence as expressing a response to a situation. `So' therefore has both a sentential and a discourse function here. Punctuation can have a similar double function, as in Practical 6.2Ðfor instance the full stop in line 9, the colon in line 14, the full stop in line 25. It is instructive to see how these have been rendered in the TT, and with what results.

Furthermore, many connectives can be used to join short sentences together to make longer ones. Conjunctions such as `so', `and' or `but' are simple examples. This is another way in which intersentential and sentential functions are often close in practice, even though they are distinguishable in analysis. For instance, `I was getting hungry, so I went downstairs' will probably have a different communicative impact from `I was getting hungry. So I went downstairs'. Similarly, rhetorical anaphoraÐthat is, the repetition of a word or words at the start of successive or closely associated clauses or phrasesÐcan have a discourse function even where it occurs within a single sentence. Take these lines from Carducci's `Pianto antico':

Sei ne la terra fredda,

THINKING ITALIAN TRANSLATION 73

Sei ne la terra negra; Né il sol più ti rallegra Né ti risveglia amor.

(Carducci 1994:104)

Each of these lines could just as easily be a sentence on its own. Either way, the anaphora has a discourse function, connecting the separate clauses/sentences with one another. It is therefore advisable, when examining texts on the discourse level, to pay as much attention to features within sentences as to intersentential features.

To show the importance of these considerations for translation, we can subject a short Italian text to a bit of intersentential and sentential restructuring and see what difference this makes. If an intralingual restructuring makes a significant difference, it is likely that an interlingual one will also do so. Take the De Carlo text from p. 66 (Jill and the narrator are saying goodbye in a deserted street in Los Angeles):

Jill mi ha fatto un cenno con la mano. Ha detto `Okay, vado'. Poi si è sporta verso di me e ha chiesto se ero libero sabato. Le ho detto di sì. Lei ha detto `Magari facciamo qualcosa'. Ho detto `Bene. Ciao'. Ho chiuso la portiera. Lei è andata via veloce verso la freeway.

(De Carlo 1981:75)

This terse, staccato writing might suggest the dispassionate eye of a camera. In fact, however, there are connective elements which deny it any such `objectivity'. First, the adverb `Poi' is a cohesion marker, denoting a chronological succession of events. The conjunction `e' does the same. Both imply a degree of narratorial control (which the camera can never have), and, in the situation narrated, they imply some degree of intention, cause and effect. Second, `Le ho detto di sì' denotes a reply to a previous question; this link is more explicit than it would be in the more simple `Ho detto ªSìº'. Finally, the subject pronoun `Lei', which occurs twice, is not absolutely necessary for clarity, because Jill and the narrator are the only two people involved. Its presence explicitly marks the characters' utterances as linked with one another: they are a coherent exchange, not a random accumulation of disconnected sentences.

Let us see what happens if the text is stripped of its connective elements:

Jill mi ha fatto un cenno con la mano. Ha detto `Okay, vado'. Si è sporta verso di me. Ha chiesto se ero libero sabato. Ho detto `Sì'. Ha detto `Magari facciamo qualcosa'. Ho detto `Bene. Ciao'. Ho chiuso la portiera. È andata via veloce verso la freeway.

74 DISCOURSE AND INTERTEXTUAL ISSUES

Interestingly, the text remains coherent, because of the chronological narrative structure and the reader's knowledge of the context.

However, additional coherence, with different implications, can be created if connective elements are introduced both on the sentential level and on the intersentential level:

Facendomi un cenno con la mano Jill ha detto che sarebbe andata e, sporgendosi verso di me, ha chiesto se fossi libero il sabato seguente. Alla mia risposta affermativa ha detto che avremmo potuto fare qualcosa, al che ho acconsentito e 1'ho salutata. Poi, dopo che ho chiuso la portiera, lei è andata via veloce verso la freeway.

`Facendomi' creates a temporal link between Jill's wave and her words, and welds them into a single complex action. The same is true of her leaning out (`sporgendosi') and asking if he will be free. The `e' then links these two complex actions so closely with one another that they in turn become one, an even more complex action. In this restructuring, there are also three instances of indirect speech: `ha detto che' (twice) and `ha chiesto se'. These integrate her words seamlessly into the narrative, which loses the discontinuities of the original. Likewise, `Alla mia risposta' explicitly links her next words with his reply to her question, binding all three into a smoothly unfolding single event; `al che' has a similar function. Finally, `Poi, dopo che' introduces an explicit chronological connection.

The effect of these devices is to introduce a greater degree of explicit coherence than there is in the original. Taken together, they imply that, before embarking on the narrative, the narrator has thought about these events and sorted them out into a significant pattern. This smooth, controlled narrative flow has a very different effect from De Carlo's original, where the narrator does not seem to have stood back and got events into perspective. In the original, the relative lack of connective elements implies a narrator who either cannot or will not make much sense of events; a whole text written in this style might even suggest that the world itself is absurd. In our restructuring, on the other hand, the connective elements perhaps imply that the world can be understood, and that the narrator has the selfconfidence and intellectual ability to understand it.

Other connectives than these could have been used, of courseÐfor instance `Quando le ho detto di sì' instead of `Alla mia risposta affermativa', or `allora ho detto ªBeneº' instead of `al che ho acconsentito'. These would result in a less formal register, certainly less elegant, and perhaps giving less of an impression of narrative control.

An important conclusion from these analyses is that translators should be aware of the affective and thematic consequences of wholesale interference with the sentential and intersentential functions of cohesion markers and other connectives. For instance, if the first paragraph of the Tabucchi text in Practical 6.1 were translated into a set of shorter sentences, the effect would be