8

Literal meaning and translation issues

Translation is concerned with meaning. However, the term `meaning' is elastic and indeterminate, especially when applied to a whole text. This is true even of literal (or `cognitive' or `denotative') meaningsÐthat is, those that are fully supported by ordinary semantic conventions, such as the convention that `window' refers to a particular kind of aperture in a wall or roof. In the case of words, it is this literal meaning that is given in dictionary definitions. Yet even the dictionary definition of a word has its problems. This is because it imposes, by abstraction and crystallization of a core meaning, a rigidity of meaning that words do not often show in reality. In addition, once words are put into a context, their literal meanings become even more flexible. These two facts make it difficult to pin down the precise literal meanings in any text of any complexity. The more literary the text, the more this is so; but it is true even of the most soberly informative texts. In this chapter, we shall discuss three degrees of semantic equivalenceÐthat is, how close given expressions are to having identical literal meanings.

SYNONYMY

Literal meaning is a matter of categories into which a language divides the totality of communicable experience. Thus, the literal meaning of the word `pencil' consists in the fact that all over the world there are similar objects that are included in the category of `pencil'Ðand all sorts of other objects that are excluded from it. To define a literal meaning is to specify the `range' covered by a word or phrase in such a way that it is clear what items are included in that range or category and what items are excluded. It is helpful to visualize literal meanings as circles, because circles can be used to give a rough measure of semantic equivalence. So, for instance, the expressions `my mother's father' and `my maternal grandfather' may be represented as two separate circles. The two ranges of literal meaning, however, coincide perfectly: that is, in every specific instance of use, `my mother's father' and `my maternal grandfather' include and exclude exactly the same referents. This can be visualized as drawing two circles of exactly the same size, sliding them on top of each other and seeing that they cover one another exactly, as in the figure:

82 THINKING ITALIAN TRANSLATION

This exemplifies the strongest form of semantic equivalence, full synonymy: the two expressions are synonyms of one another, having exactly the same range of literal meaning.

Comparisons of literal meaning can also be made between expressions from different languages. For example, `The carburettor is blocked' and `Il carburatore è bloccato' cover exactly the same range of situations, and are therefore fully synonymous, as in the figure:

HYPERONYMY-HYPONYMY

Unfortunately, full synonymy is exceptional. Even the nearest semantic equivalent for translating the literal meaning of an ST expression usually falls short of being a full TL synonym. Compare `The carburettor was blocked' with `Il carburatore era bloccato'. The English phrase could be referring to an event, not a state. This would have to be expressed in Italian as `Il carburatore fu

LITERAL MEANING AND TRANSLATION ISSUES 83

bloccato', `Il carburatore si è bloccato', `Il carburatore si bloccò' or `Il carburatore è stato bloccato'. In fact, in some contexts, Italian would even require a pluperfectÐ`era stato bloccato' or `si era bloccato'. (Strictly speaking, there are even more possibilities: `fu stato bloccato' and `si fu bloccato'. But these are unlikely, so we shall leave them out of the diagram.) The English phrase, then, covers a range of situations that is divided between at least seven different expressions in Italian: the English phrase is wider than any of the Italian ones. This can be shown as follows:

The relationship between `The carburettor was blocked' and each of the seven Italian expressions is known as hyperonymy-hyponymy. An expression with a wider, less specific, range of literal meaning is a hyperonym (or `superordinate') of one with a narrower and more specific literal meaning. Conversely, the narrower one is a hyponym of the wider one. So `The carburettor was blocked' is a hyperonym of `Il carburatore era bloccato',

`Il carburatore è stato bloccato', etc.; and they are all hyponyms of the English phrase.

Hyperonymy-hyponymy is so widespread that one can say that the entire fabric of linguistic reference is built up on such relationships. The same external reality can be phrased in an indefinite number of waysÐcompare `I bought a Collins-Sansoni dictionary' with these increasingly general phrasings: `I bought

84 THINKING ITALIAN TRANSLATION

an Italian dictionary', `I bought a dictionary', `I bought a book', `I bought something'. Each of these phrasings is a hyperonym of the ones before it.

When there is no full TL synonym for a given ST expression (e.g. `The carburettor was blocked'), the translator has to look for an acceptable TL hyperonym or hyponym. In fact, translators do this automatically. For example, in most contexts SL `nipote' can only be translated by a TL hyponym, either `granddaughter' or `grandson' or `niece' or `nephew'. Each of these is narrower in literal meaning than `nipote'. Conversely, each of the English words can only be translated into Italian with a hyperonym, the wider and less specific `nipote'.

PARTICULARIZING TRANSLATION AND

GENERALIZING TRANSLATION

Translating by a hyponym results in a TT expression with a narrower and more specific literal meaning than the ST expression. TT `niece' is more specific than ST `nipote', adding particulars not present in the ST expression. We shall call this particularizing translation, or particularization for short.

Translating by a hyperonym results in a TT expression with a wider and less specific literal meaning than the ST expression. TT `nipote' is more general than ST `grandson', omitting particulars given by the ST. We shall call this generalizing translation, or generalization for short.

Particularization and generalization both entail a degree of translation loss on the grammatical level: detail is added to, or omitted from, the ST message. However, translating by a hyponym or a hyperonym is standard practice and entirely unremarkable, unless the TL hyponym or hyperonym is unnecessary, inappropriate or misleading.

Particularizing translation, for instance, is acceptable if the TL offers no suitable alternative and if the added detail does not clash with the overall context of ST or TT. Thus `Facciamo un giro' could be translated in several ways: `We're going for a walk/ride/drive/sail', etc. Each of these particularizations is unavoidable. Only the context will make it clear which hyponym to use. Even translating `Facciamo' inevitably entails particularization, since it can be either declarative (`We're going for¼') or imperative (`Let's go for¼'): English is forced to choose one or the other.

Particularizing translation is not acceptable if the TL does offer a suitable alternative to the addition of detail or if the added detail does clash with the overall context of ST or TT. Take `ballerine' and the four TTs in the following example:

Le ballerine dei night sono sexy.

(a)The nightclub ballerinas are sexy.

(b)Nightclub ballerinas are sexy.

(c)The nightclub dancers are sexy.

(d)Nightclub dancers are sexy.

LITERAL MEANING AND TRANSLATION ISSUES 85

In all four TTs, there is unavoidable particularization, because `Le ballerine' can denote either all dancers in general or the particular dancers who are the subject of discussion. Which option to choose depends on the context. As long as the option chosen is the right one, this particularization is unremarkable. (Likewise, only context will show whether `ballerine dei night' is best rendered as `nightclub dancers', `dancers in/from nightclubs' or `dancers in/from the nightclubs'.) However, in TTs (a) and (b), there is a truly unacceptable particularization. Italian `ballerina' can denote a ballerina, a ballroom dancer, a go-go dancer, etc. English `ballerinas' clashes with the context of nightclubs. `Dancers' is a better translation, because it collo cates well with `nightclub'.

This example shows very clearly how difficult it is to avoid some degree of particularization or generalization. In fact, on its own, `dancers' is actually a generalization'. it omits the gender-specific detail of ST `ballerine' (as distinct from `ballerini'). In most contexts, this would not matter. If it were absolutely necessary to specify the gender, the translator would probably be better advised to make it clear by compensation in the TT context than to commit a stylistic horror like `nightclub dancing girls' or `female nightclub dancers'.

Similar considerations apply to generalizing translation as to particularizing translation. Generalization is acceptable if the TL offers no suitable alternative and if the omitted detail is either unimportant in the ST or is implied in the TT context. As long as these conditions obtain, `nightclub dancers' is probably the best rendering of `ballerine dei night'. Here is another example. In the sitting room, all there is to sit on is a sofa, covered with papers, and two armchairs, one of them occupied. The priest comes to call and his host says: `Si accomodi in poltrona'. The most natural translation is `Have a/the chair', not `Have an/the armchair': if the only chairs in the room are armchairs, English normally makes do with the hyperonym `chair'. In this situation, the generalization is not only acceptable, but arguably more idiomatic than `armchair'.

Generalizing translation is not acceptable if the TL does offer suitable alternatives, or if the omitted details are important in the ST but not implied or compensated for in the TT context. For example, in the sitting room there are two armchairs, both occupied, and an ordinary chair with no arms. The priest is at the front door and the daughter of the house asks where she should invite him to sit. Her anticlerical father says: `Che prenda la sedia'. In this case, the hyperonym `chair' is no use, because there are three chairs in the room. `He can have the chair with no arms' is accurate in literal meaning, but implausible. An idiomatic translation needs compensationÐsomething like `He's not having an armchair', or a particularization of `sedia', as in `He can have the dining/kitchen/wooden/hard chair'. Any of these particularizations would be acceptable, as long as it fitted in contextually.

For an example of compensation in handling the relation between hyperonymy and hyponymy, see the translation and discussion of `ricerca' on pp. 39±0.