Lecture 6 translation shifts

The present lecture discusses models or taxonomies (principles of classification) that have been proposed for examining the small changes or ‘shifts’ that occur between units in a ST – TT pair. A connecting theme of the examples is rail travel, perhaps a symbolic counterpoint to the best known taxonomy of translation shifts, devised by Vinay and Darbelnet and initially inspired by the study of bilingual road signs in Canada.

TRANSLATION SHIFTS

On some international trains in Europe, there is, or used to be, a multilingual warning notice displayed next to the windows (remember the Russian version of this warning): in English do not lean out of the window; in French Ne pas se pencher an dehors; in German Nicht hinauslehnen; in Italian Ё pericoloso sporgersi.

The warning is clear, even if the form is different in each language. The English, the only one in the above list of warnings to actually mention the window (compare with the Russian version), is a negative imperative, while the French and German use a negative infinitive construction (back-translation in English: ‘not to lean outside’) and the Italian is a statement (back-translation in English: ‘[it] is dangerous to lean out’). Of course, these kinds of differences are typical of translation in general. It is not at all the most common for the exact structure of the words to be repeated across languages and, even when the grammatical structure is the same (as in the French and German examples above), the number of word forms varies from 7 in English (do not lean out of the window) to two in German (nicht hinauslehnen).

The small linguistic changes that occur between ST and TT are known as translation shifts. John Catford was the first scholar to use the term in his «A Linguistic Theory of Translation». His definition of shifts is «departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL». The distinction drawn between formal correspondence and textual equivalence will be crucial and relates to Saussure’s distinction between langue (язык) and parole (речь).

LANGUE AND PAROLE

Language has two facets, one to do with the linguistic system (a fairly stable langue), the other with all that which a speaker might say or understand while using language (a variable parole). Noam Chomsky was probably right in categorically excluding activities such as translation from the purview of his own research into syntactic structures. The so-called ‘linguistics-oriented’ translation theory has not interacted well with translation practice simply because it has systematically sought neatness of categories at the expense of being true to what people say or do with language, which is what gets trans­lated ultimately. In parole-oriented translation theory and practice, we are concerned not so much with the systemic similarities and differences between languages as with the communicative process in all its aspects, with conventions (both linguistic and rhetorical) and with translation as mediation between different languages and cultures.

FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE

A formal correspondent is defined by Catford as ‘any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the "same" place in the "economy" of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL’. In simplified terms, this means a TL piece of language, which plays the same role in the TL system as an SL piece of language, plays in the SL system. Thus, a noun such as fenetre might be said generally to occupy a similar place in the French language system as the noun window does in English. Formal correspondence therefore involves a comparison and description of the language systems (Saussure’s langue) but not a comparison of specific ST-TT pairs (textual equivalence).

TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE

A textual equivalent is defined as ‘any TL text or portion of text which is observed [...] to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text’ (Catford). Whereas formal correspondence has to do with the general, non-specific, relationship between elements in two languages, textual equivalence focuses on the relations that exist between elements in a specific ST – TT pair (Saussure’s parole). In above example, the English textual equivalent for the French expression ‘au dehors’ is ‘out of the window’, the formal correspondent outside is not used.

TRANSLATION SHIFT

A shift is said to occur if, in a given TT, a translation equivalent other than the formal correspondent occurs for a specific SL element. This is what has occurred between the French and English texts in the example.

The following example, from a leaflet distributed on board Eurostar trains explain­ing the measures being taken to detect smoking, can illustrate these differences.

In English: Please note that smoke detectors will be fitted on-board.

In German: Beachten Sie bitte, da6 die Zuge mit Rauchdetektoren ausgestafrtet werden.

Back-translation from German in English: Note you please, that the trains with smoke detectors fitted will-be.

Look at these two examples. How many departures from formal correspon­dence can you detect? How do you decide what a departure is?

Analysing these examples, it is clear that there are many formal correspondences at lexical and grammatical levels:

please – bitte

beachten – note

that – daB

smoke detectors – Rauchdetektoren

will be – warden.

Systemic differences between the languages must be accepted. These include word-order changes and the construction of the German imperative with the addition of the pronoun Sie (you). However, there is a clear departure from formal correspondence in the translation of the ST on-board and the restructuring of the second clause. In this text, the only possible textual equivalent for on-board is die Zuge (the trains) which is added with a change of grammatical subject (ST smoke detectors to TT die Zuge). The analyst then has to decide whether ausgestattet is a formal correspondent of fitted. A dictionary definition is not enough since some dictionaries may give ausstatten as a translation of to equip or fit our but not/if. However, the role occupied by ausgestattet and fitted in the two languages is very similar, so it is highly unlikely that we would class this as a shift.

Catford was the first to use the term shift, but the most comprehensive taxonomy of translation shifts (классификация переводческих трансформаций), based on their ‘translation procedures’, was set out by the Canadians Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet in their «A Comparative Stylistics of French and English». While it is true that they approach the subject from the point of view of comparative or contrastive stylistics, using parallel non-translated as well as translated texts, they describe a detailed and systematic model for the analysis and comparison of a ST – TT pair. The first step involves identification and numbering of the ST units and the units of translation. This is followed by a matching of the two.

The Eurostar ST has been reproduced below together with the German translation. Look at the translation units that are matched up and, using the back-translation to help you, note any ‘mismatches’, denoting shifts.

Example

Eurostar

English

Please note that smoke detectors will be fitted on-board. Any misconduct will result in necessary action being taken by rail staff and/or police.

German

Beachten Sie bitte, daB die Zuge mit Rauchdetektoren ausgestattet werden. Jeder VerstoB wird mit den erforderlichen MaBnahmen durch das Bahnpersonal und/oder die Polizei geahndet.

Back-translation

Note please that the trains with smokedetectors fitted will be. Each violation will-be with the necessary measures through the railstaff and/or the police punished.

ST – TT pair

1. Please – bitte

2. Note – beachten Sie

3. That – DaB

Die Zuge

4. Smoke detectors – mit Rauchdetektoren

5. Will be fitted ausgestattet warden

6. On-board

7. Any misconduct – jeder-VerstoB

8. Will result in – wird … mit

9. Necessary action – den enforderlichen MaBnahmen

10. Being taken – geahndet

11. By rail staff – durch das Bahnpersonal

12. And / or – und / oder

13. Police – die Polizei.

Clear shifts in the second sentence can be seen in translation unit 7, where any misconduct becomes the more specific and stronger ‘each violation’ in the German, and in units 8 and 10, where will result in ... being taken is altered to ‘will ... with ... be punished’. Yet numerous issues arise when this type of analysis is undertaken, not least what the translation unit is. This is illustrated by the term smoke detectors in this versions.

Identifying that a shift has taken place leads to questions such as what kind of shift, what form of classification we can use and what the importance of the shifts is. As will begin to become clear, Vinay and Darbelnet’s categorization of translation procedures is very detailed. They name two ‘methods’ covering seven procedures:

1) direct translation, which covers borrowing, calque and literal translation, and

2) oblique translation, which is transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation.

These procedures are applied on three levels of language: