FOURTH YEAR

English Specialization

Module Name: Translation & Interpretation 3+4

Module No. Eng – 4104+ 4112
 Section (A): Translation & Interpretation 3
Long Notes
I. Definitions of Translation
Translation is a phenomenon that has a huge effect on everyday life. This can range from
the translation of a key international treaty to the following multilingual poster that welcomes
customers to a small restaurant near to the home of one of the authors. Translation means (1) the
act or an instance of translating, (2) a written or spoken expression of the meaning of a word,
speech, book, etc. in another language.
The first of these two senses relates to translation as a process, the second to the product.
This immediately means that the term translation encompasses very distinct perspectives. The first
sense focuses on the role of the translator in taking the original or source text (ST) and turning it
into a text in another language (the target text, TT). The second sense centers on the concrete
translation product produced by the translator. This distinction is drawn out by the definition in the
specialist Dictionary of Translation Studies.
The three kinds of Translation
Translation exists between different varieties of the same language and into what might be
considered less conventional languages. Visual phenomena are seen on a daily basis: no-smoking
or exit signs in public places.
The Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobson makes a very important distinction between three
kinds of written translation in his seminal paper, "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation":
a. intralingual translation – translation within the same language, which can involve rewording or
paraphrase;
b. interlingual translation - translation from one language to another, and
c. intersemiotic translation - translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign, for example music
or image.
II. The role of context in translation
In translation, the translator indeed has to be aware of all the varieties of contexts-so many
it is idle to lite them again_ but this does not mean that context is the overriding factor in all
translation, and has primacy over any rule, theory or primary meaning. Context is omnipresent,
but it is relative. It affects technical terms and neologisms less than general words; it permeates a
structured text and touches disjointed texts rather lightly. Where a writer deliberately innovates,
the translator has to follow him, and blow the context.
A translator with his eye on his readership is likely to under-translate, to use more general
words in the interests of clarity, simplicity and sometimes brevity. Under-translation is justified if
an informative text is deficient in clarity. It is not justified if it is unnecessary and is a mere retreat
from a literal translation.
 A good literal translation must be effective in its own right. If it shows SL interference, that
must be the translator’s conscious decision. The less context- bound the words, the more likely a
literal translation. Inevitably, there is a proper place for literal translation as a procedure in all good
translation.
Half the misunderstanding about translation in Britain is due to the fact that so many
teachers tell their pupils to avoid translating a SL word by a similar-looking TL word whenever
possible. Thus, the pupils expand their TL vocabulary and distort their translation.
III. Literal Translation
Varieties of close translation
It may be useful to distinguish literal from word-for-word and one-to-on translation. Word-
for-word translation transfers SL grammar and word order, as well as the primary meanings of all
the SL words, into the translation, and it is normally effective only for brief simple neutral
sentences.
In one-to-one translation, a broader form of translation, each SL word has corresponding
TL word, but their primary (isolated) meanings may differ. One-to-on translation normally respects
collocational meanings, which are the most powerful contextual influence on translation.
Literal translation ranges from one word to one word through group-to-group collocation
to collocation, clause to clause, and sentence to sentence. The longer th unit, the rarer the one-to-
one. Further, single-word metaphors, extended plural-word metaphors and proverbs illustrate a
second figurative semantic scale.
The role of words in their context in translation
All the same, we do translate words, because there is nothing else to translate there are only
the words on the page; there is nothing else there. We do not translate isolated words; we translate
words all more or less (and sometimes less rather than more, but never not at all) bound by their
syntactic, collocational, situational, cultural and individual idiolectal contexts. That is one way of
looking at translation, which suggests it is basically lexical.
Elegant variations on literal or one-to-one translation
Elegant variations on literal or one-to-one translation are common and sometimes satisfy
the translator's understandable wish to write in a style or phrase that is entirely natural to him.
More often, however, they are irritating to the critic. Introduced to exhibit the translator's flair for
colloquialisms or synonymy, and, even when insignificant, unnecessary. They are not justified in
semantic or even communicative translation. They are a temptation (and an indulgence) for any
translator.
IV. Two Tentative General Laws of Translation
The descriptions and generalized principles envisaged were much reinforced by Gideon
Toury in his Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (1995) where two tentative general laws
of translation are proposed:
 1. The law of growing standardization – TTs generally display less linguistic variation than
STs, and
2. The law of interference – common ST lexical and syntactic patterns tend to be copied,
creating unusual patterns in the TT.
In both instances, the contention is that translated language in general displays specific
characteristics, known as universals of translation.
Formal Style
The register and diction (choice of words) of a speaker must satisfy three criteria: they must
be appropriate to (i) the subject, (ii) the occasion, (iii) the audience. The translator or interpreter
must reflect the speaker’s sense of occasion and the more important the occasion, the more accurate
and complete should the reflection be.
For the translator, it is the original writer who dictates the register, diction, style and colour.
The translator is to exhibit his author’s thoughts in such a dress of diction as the author would have
given them, had his language been English.
For the interpreter, it is primarily the speaker who dictates the register, diction, style, tone
and colour of the speech, regardless of the occasion or the audience’s expectations. The speaker is
sovereign, and may choose to deliver a speech quite different from what the audience expected on
a particular occasion.

Section (B): Translation & Interpretation 4

V. Humor
Humor is difficult to translate and even more difficult to interpret. For a simultaneous
interpreter to draw a laugh from the audience at the same time that those hearing the original joke
burst into laughter is a rare feat. An interpreter must be attentive to the purpose of the purpose of
the humor. Many speakers will begin a speech on a humorous note just to be clever or simply to
establish rapport with audience.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for simultaneous interpreters to render a complex
verse form like a limerick into French, Spanish, and Chinese while preserving the humor. In such
cases it is helpful but not indispensable for the joke to be accurately translated; the joke is merely
an ‘opening gambit’. On the other hand, jokes are sometimes used to convey a key point of the
speech. In those cases, the message is more important than the humor, and it is the content of the
message, not the humorous ‘sugar coating’, that the interpreter should strive to translate.
Although the joke must sometimes be sacrificed to the message, it is of course preferable
to preserve the humor whenever possible, since it can often be part of the message. Moreover,
speakers sometimes use humor to revive a somnolent debate or to break the ice when the
negotiation has come to a deadlock.
VI. Figure of Speech
Words are often used to form units of meaning in ways that convey more than what the
rules of grammar dictate. Such combinations of words are used deliberately because they are more
than the sum of their parts and thus serve as a kind of shorthand, which makes them especially
useful to interpreters. Translators and interpreters must be alert to figurative by rendered by a
different figure of speech in another language. E.g a metaphor by a proverb, or by non-figurative
language.
1. Simile: a figure of speech comparing two things, often introduced by “as” or “like”, for example:
She looked at me like I was speaking in some strange alien tongue.
2. Hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration used as a figure of speech.
3. Metaphor: Figure of speech in which a word of phrase literally denoting one kind of object or
idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness between them.
4. Extended metaphor: a metaphor which the speaker elaborates upon in order to convey further
aspects of his main ideas.
5. Mixed metaphor: the addition to a metaphor of another element which is incongruous or renders
the metaphor absurd through an unfortunate choice of words or images,
6. Synecdoche: a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole (as in “50 sail ” for 50
ships), or the whole for a part (as in “the smiling year” for spring)
7. Metonymy: use of the name of one thing for that of which it is an attribute or with which it is
associated, for example: “The Crown”, for the king.
8. Apostrophe: an incidental remark addressed to an imaginary person or to a personified inanimate
object, for example: “Oh! Cruel fate”
9. Oxymoron: a contradiction in terms, for example: “Make haste slowly”
10. Epigram: a terse, sage, or witty, often paradoxical saying
Short Notes
VII. 1. Argumentation
Argumentation relies primarily on logic and /or emotion, in varying doses. An interpreter
must be alert to both and remember that they are not mutually exclusive and that neither is better
per se. A logically sound argument can be embellished or made more compelling by a poetic choice
of words, or a moral argument can be stated in such powerful terms that it overwhelms all logical
objections. If a speaker's logic is faulty, the interpreter's voice must not betray the absurdity. And
if the speaker waxes lyrical to a degree that the interpreter finds ridiculous, the interpreter's voice
must not betray his skepticism. This requires interpreters to develop some appreciation of both
logical and emotive rhetoric.
 2. Economic Discourse
Writing and oral presentations on economics can be highly technical. The translation and
interpretation of those specialized technical materials is beyond the scope of this book. However,
much of the vocabulary of business and economic commentary consists not of technical terms
(e.g., "demand elasticity") but of conventional descriptors (e.g., "a sluggish market".) And many
general presentations, especially in international for a, include a good deal of economic
description, often as the basis of or justification for a statement of position or a policy argument.
Translators and interpreters must therefore have at their fingertips a good basic vocabulary for
economic description.
VIII. 1. Translation Research and Interpreting Research
The classic translation research (TR) paradigm remains that of literary translation, thereby
excluding much of what is actually done day by day in the translation profession and perpetuating
the notion of the subservient translator in a professionally inferior position to the author.
Interpreting research (IR) operates much more in the 'here and now', its paradigm is practice
in the booth rather than a more abstract theoretical model. Following the IR model, starting from
real-life practice and working back to academic theory may ultimately be a better model for IR.
2. Comprehensibility and Translatability
Such literal translations often fail to take account of one simple fact of language and
translation, namely that not all text or text users are the same. Not all texts are as "serious" as the
Bible or the works of Dickens, nor are they all as "pragmatic" as marriage certificates or
instructions on a medicine bottle.
The problem with many published TTs of the kind cited earlier is essentially one of
impaired "comprehensibility", an issue closely related to "translatability". Translatability is
relative notion and has to do with the extent to which, despite obvious differences in linguistics
structure (grammar, vocabulary, etc.), meaning can still be adequately expressed across languages.
An important criterion to heed must be TT comprehensibility.

********************************************************