Lecture 5 systematic approaches to the translation unit

The previous lecture focused on the age-old translation strategies «literal» and «free». To (a) great extent, these strategies are linked to different translation units, «literal» being very much centered on adherence to the individual word, while «free» translation aims at capturing the sense of a longer stretch of language.

In this lecture we will begin to examine more systematic approaches to the unit of translation, which refers to «the linguistic level at which ST is recodified in TL», in other words, the element (the unit of translation) used by the translator when working on the ST. It may be the individual word, group, clause, sentence or even the whole text. In first discussing the word as a possible unit of translation, Vinay and Darbelnet draw on Saussure’s key concepts of the linguistic sign, defined by the signifier and signified.

It is very important to remind that the famous Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure invented the linguistic term sign that unifies signifier (означаемое – sound-image or word) and signified (означающее – concept). Importantly, Saussure emphasizes that the sign is by nature arbitrary and can only derive meaning from contrast with other signs in the same system (language).

Vinay and Darbelnet reject the word as a unit of translation since translators focus on the semantic field rather than on the formal properties of the individual signifier. For them, the unit is «the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually». This is what they call the lexicological unit and the unit of thought.

THE LEXICOLOGICAL UNIT

The lexicological units described by Vinay and Darbelnet contain «lexical elements grouped together to form a single element of thought». Illustrative examples they provide, to show the non-correspondence at word level between French and English, are: simple soldat = private (in the army) and tout de suite = immediately. Compare: in Russian «рядовой» (simple soldat = private) and «сразу же» (tout de suite = immediately). Of course, the traditional structure of dictionaries, which divides a language into headwords, means that individual words do tend to be treated in isolation, being divided into different senses. Below is an adapted entry for the Russian word стрела in the Oxford Russian Bilingual Dictionary:

Стрела (заостренный тонкий стержень с узкими лопастями на конце для метания из лука; тонкий безлистный стебель травянистого растения с соцветием наверху)

1. arrow (pointed stick shot from an arrow);

2. arm;

3. crane arm;

4. a botanical shoot.

The bracketed (grouping, classification) descriptors, known as discriminators, summarize the main use, field or collocation for each translation equivalent. For example, sense 1 (стрела) is military sense, with the corresponding translation in English arrow. On the other hand, sense 4 (тонкий безлистный стебель травянистого растения с соцветием наверху) is the botanical sense, with the translation in English shoot of a plant (a botanical shoot). The example in sense 4 is an example of a strong collocation in English. This two-word English unit (a botanical shoot) may be translated in Russian by a single word стрела. Russian and corresponding English words demonstrate how the translation unit (стрела) is not fixed to an individual word across languages.

Reflect on what the unit of translation is in these translation equivalents and illustrative examples.

Passengers flying from the United Kingdom to Madrid Barajas airport in March 2001 were presented with the following leaflet upon arrival:

Due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, we ask ladies-and-gentlemen passengers of flights with origin in the United Kingdom or France, that they disinfect their footwear on the carpets (That is the translation from Spanish in English offered by the Spanish translator). Compare with the correct English text:

DUE TO THE OUTBREAK OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, ALL PASSENGERS ARRIVING FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM OR FRANCE ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO DISINFECT THEIR FOOTWEAR ON THE SPECIAL CARPETS PROVIDED.

Think about what units of translation a translator might use when translating this from English in Russian. Compare and analyze the correct English text with the Spanish-English translation / version.

THE UNIT OF TRANSLATION AS A PRELUDE TO ANALYSIS

Division of ST and TT into the units of translation is of particular importance in Vinay and Darbelnet’s work as a prelude to analysis of changes in translation, the translation shifts (переводческие трансформации). As an illustration of how this division works, and how it might illuminate the process of translation, look at the example, a poster located by the underground ticket office at Heathrow airport, London:

Travelling from Heathrow?

There are easy to follow instructions on the larger self-service touch screen ticket

machines.

Imagine you have been asked to translate this poster into your first language (Russian). Write down your trans­lation and make a note of the translation units you use when dividing up the ST.

This simple text indicates how, in practice, the translation unit will typically tend to be not individual words but small chunks of language building up into the sentence, what the famous translation theorist Eugene Nida calls «meaningful mouthfuls of language».

TRANSLATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

In his Textbook of Translation, Peter Newmark discusses translation using in part a scale that has become well established in linguistics with the work of Michael Halliday. It should be noted that Hallidayan linguistics examines translation at different levels: at the level of the word, collocation and idiom, grammar, thematic and information structure, cohesion and pragmatics. Halliday’s systemic analysis of English grammar is based on the following hierarchical rank scale, starting with the smallest unit: morpheme, word, group of words, clause, sentence.

Halliday’s focus is on the clause as a representation of meaning in a communicative context and Newmark’s is on the sentence as the ‘natural’ unit of translation. Newmark states that transpositions and rearrangements may often occur, but that a sentence would not normally be divided unless there was good reason. He is careful to insist that any ‘rearrangements or ‘recastings’ must respect Functional Sentence Perspective, which is a form of analysis of sentence and information structure created by the Prague School of Linguists. Syntactic structure, known as linear modification, is an important structuring device. However, com­munication is driven forward primarily by ‘communicative dynamism’, that is, by elements that are context-independent and contribute most new information. These are most often, but not always, focused towards the end of a sentence. The part of the sentence containing the new information is known as the rheme, whereas ‘old’ or ‘given’ information is contained in the theme. It should be noted, that this division of theme and rheme differs from a Hallidayan analysis, where theme is always realized in first position, in English grammar at least.

This can be illustrated by the following example in its English versions (the originals are dual, French and English, a not uncommon practice in large inter­national organizations). The text is the Monaco statement on bioethics and the rights of the child, arising from the April 2000 symposium:

Bioethics and the right of the child

The International Symposium on Bioethics and the Rights of the Child, jointly organized by the World Association of Children's Friends (AMADE) and UNESCO, was held in Monaco from 28 to 30 April 2000. It presents hereafter a number of considerations regarding the progress in biology and medicine with a view to reinforcing and implementing the protection of children's rights.

It acknowledged the issue of childhood, as a complex, evolving reality, which now merits specific consideration. Children are fragile beings. However, their autonomy should not be misconceived…

Proceedings of the International Symposium AMADE - UNESCO

on Bioethics and the Rights of the Child,

Monaco, 28-30 April 2000

Study this example and consider how far the sentence would be the most appropriate unit of translation. Translate in Russian and analyze what rearrangements of elements would be possible in Russian translation. (см.: Лекции доц. Е.В. Приказчиковой). Indeed, the Russian translation typically moves the details of the date and location of the meeting to first position but respected the link between the two sentences. Comparison of paragraph two in the Russian version (in your version) and the English version may show that clause and sentence by no means necessarily correspond over languages, even if the development of the paragraph is maintained. If you give back-translation of Russian version of Bioethics text in English, you may get the following text: