Gunilla Anderman († 2007) was Professor of Translation Studies at the University of Surrey where she taught translation theory, translation of drama and translation of children’s literature, fields in which she has published and lectured widely in the UK as well as internationally. She was also a professional translator with translations of Scandinavian plays staged in the UK, USA and South Africa. Her latest book is Europe on Stage: Translation and Theatre (2005). She was joint editor of the series Translating Europe.

Margaret Rogers is Professor of Translation and Terminology Studies and Director of the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Surrey. She initiated the Terminology Network in the Institute of Translation and Interpreting, UK, and is a founder member of the Association of Terminology and Lexicography. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of Terminology, LSP and Professional Communication and Fachsprache as well as being a member of the Executive Board of the International Institute for Terminology Research.

Translation Today

Trends and Perspectives

By Gunilla Anderman, Margaret Rogers

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2003 Gunilla Anderman, Margaret Rogers and the authors of individual chapters
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-85359-618-6

Contents

Acknowledgements, vii,
Contributors: A Short Profile, viii,
1 Introduction, 1,
Part 1,
2 Round-table Discussion on Translation in the New Millennium, 13,
Part 2,
3 No Global Communication Without Translation Peter Newmark, 55,
4 Some of Peter Newmark’s Translation Categories Revisited Albrecht Neubert, 68,
5 Looking Forward to the Translation: On ‘A Dynamic Reflection of Human Activities’ Kirsten Malmkjxr, 76,
6 With Translation in Mind Marshall Morris, 86,
7 Tracing Back (in Awe) a Hundred-year History of Spanish Translations: Washington Irving’s The Alhambra Raquel Merino, 92,
8 The Troubled Identity of Literary Translation Piotr Kuhiwczak, 112,
9 Interlinear Translation and Discourse á la Mark Twain Gunnar Magnusson, 125,
10 Meaning, Truth and Morality in Translation Martin Weston, 140,
11 The Decline of the Native Speaker David Graddol, 152,
12 English as Lingua Franca and its Influence on Discourse Norms in Other Languages Juliane House, 168,
13 Interpreting and Translation in the UK Public Services: The Pursuit of Excellence versus, and via, Expediency Ann Corsellis OBE, 180,
14 Audiovisual Translation in the Third Millennium Jorge Díaz Cintas, 192,
15 Translation and Interpreting Assessment in the Context of Educational Measurement Stuart Campbell and Sandra Hale, 205,
16 A Comment on Translation Ethics and Education Gerard McAlester, 225,
Index, 228,

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

GUNILLA ANDERMAN and MARGARET ROGERS

On the afternoon of Friday 1 October 1999, the day immediately following St Jerome’s day, scholars of Translation Studies from around the world assembled at the University of Surrey to participate in a symposium to pay tribute to Professor Peter Newmark and his work. Following the presentation of Peter Newmark’s keynote paper entitled ‘No global communication without translation’, the proceedings continued with an at times very lively Round Table discussion, as Peter Newmark jostled with translation theorists and scholars, answering their questions related to the paper, and in turn challenging their responses. The event concluded with a dinner and the presentation of a Liber Amicorum – Word, Text, Translation including contributions from scholars and friends engaged in the field of Translation Studies.

The present volume, Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives, owes its origins to this event. It consists of the keynote paper, a record of the Round Table discussion, and contributions to the discussion on the eight topics chosen by Peter Newmark for consideration as translation issues in the new millennium and of particular interest to him. The topics selected and discussed in this volume are: ‘The nature of translation’; ‘Types and kinds of translation’; ‘Valid and deficient texts’; ‘English as the lingua franca of translation’; ‘Social translation and interpreting’; ‘Later modes of translation’; ‘The assessment of translation’; and ‘The university and the market’.

The book is divided into two main parts. The first part contains the kick-off summary by Peter Newmark of his keynote paper, as well as a record of the ensuing Round-table discussion. Participating in the discussion were the following contributors to the Liber Amicorum as well as two colleagues from Multilingual Matters, Mike Grover and Tommi Grover:

Gunilla Anderman, University of Surrey, UK (Chair)

Reiner Arntz, University of Hildesheim, Germany

Simon Chau, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

David Connolly, translator and translation consultant, European Educational Organization, Athens, Greece

John Dodds, University of Trieste, Italy

Piotr Kuhiwczak, University of Warwick, UK

Hans Lindquist, Vaxjo University, Sweden

Sylfest Lomheim, Agder College, Norway

Gerard McAlester, Tampere University Finland

Albrecht Neubert, Emeritus Professor, Leipzig University, Germany

Peter Newmark, University of Surrey, UK

Monica Pedrola, postgraduate student at the University of Trieste, Italy

Margaret Rogers, University of Surrey, UK

Mike Shields, The Translators Association

Gideon Toury, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Contributors to the volume absent on the day were Patrick Chaffey, University of Oslo, Norway; Jan Firbas, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; Viggo Hjornager-Pedersen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Eugene Nida, University of Michigan, USA; Eithne O’Connell, Dublin City University, Ireland; and Mary Snell-Hornby, University of Vienna, Austria. Janet Fraser, University of Westminster, UK was able to attend in the evening. Members of professional organisations attending included Graham Cross of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) and Eyvor Fogarty, ITI and Federation Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT), with Henry Pavlovich, Institute of Linguists, joining after the Round Table discussion.

The second part of the book starts with Peter Newmark’s full-length keynote paper, followed by contributions on each selected topic by participants attending the symposium as well as scholars and practitioners invited to contribute. We are grateful for this further opportunity to include papers from Peter’s many friends and colleagues previously unable to contribute to Word, Text, Translation. In addition, in order to extend the discussion of ‘English as the lingua franca of translation’, a chapter by David Graddol has also been included, reproduced by kind permission of AILA and the author.

It is our hope that the present volume will have retained some of the liveliness of the discussion on the day, and that the views expressed by the participants and assembled authors will in years to come provide an interesting record of a cross-section of views on trends and issues of concern in Translation Studies at the beginning of the new millennium.

The nature of translation, the first topic ambitiously tackled in Peter Newmark’s paper, is a heading under which most writing on translation could be accommodated. The papers in this section tackle broad issues, ranging from a reassessment of semantic/communicative translation, Peter Newmark’s well-known concepts, through an intriguing view of the source text-target text (ST-TT) relationship, and an experiential view of literary translation informed by a number of other disciplines, to the reception of texts as translations or original works. A common theme is the creative aspect of translation, seen from different perspectives.

Engaging with Peter Newmark’s widely-acknowledged distinction between semantic and communicative approaches to translation, Albrecht Neubert views the translator (cf. also Kuhiwczak (this volume)) as both interpreter/critic and creator; he argues that, rather than being two types of translation, semantic and communicative translation (for which he prefers to use the semiotic label pragmatic) constitute two complementary methods within one type, although operating at different levels. Semantic translation is concerned with procedures, communicative with intentions, the latter acting as a filter for the former. Neubert also challenges Newmark’s claims about the untranslatability of certain English words on the basis of his work in corpus studies, pointing to the importance of context and meaning potential for words. Referring to an English word such as privacy, considered by Newmark as ‘untranslatable’ in some languages, Neubert shows how the translator might make expert use of the context in the TT, just as the ST contextualised its meanings; this in turn enables Neubert to render privacy in German in a number of different ways. Newmark’s point, however, is that in certain situations context may not always be readily available to allow easy transfer of individual lexical items from ST to TT. Evidence supporting this claim may be gleaned from the fact that privacy has now been borrowed into Italian as ‘la privacy’ (cf. John Dodd’s comment in the Round Table discussion).

Attempts to define ‘translation’ are legion and various, often reflecting specific aspects of the social and ideological contexts of their provenance. In describing translation as ‘a dynamic reflection of human activities’, Peter Newmark allows us a tantalising glimpse of a more universal world. In her contribution ‘Looking forward to the translation: on a dynamic reflection of human activities’, Kirsten Malmkjær attempts to elaborate this view from the perspective of philosophical semantics, at the same time engaging with one of the most challenging ideas to emerge in Translation Studies in recent years, namely Toury’s ‘Source Text Postulate’ (1995: 33–4). What is challenging is the fact that a ST has to be postulated at all rather than presupposed. Malmkjær concludes – unsurprisingly but for novel reasons – that one of the factors distinguishing translations from monolingual communications is indeed the influence of the ST on the TT, a view which she nevertheless argues is consistent with Toury’s TT-oriented view of equivalence. Central to Malmkjær’s argument is the so-called ‘forward-looking nature’ of human communication, according to which a translation can be seen as a future but, in some sense, still shaped response to the original text. In other words, translations can be understood as being at the confluence of two dimensions: temporal (past and future language use) and linguistic (source and target languages). Translations are therefore distinguished from monolingual communications not only by the obvious bilingual factor, but also by the realisation of the less predictable, temporal perspective in an instance of language use which cannot be fully anticipated. It is in this interaction between the ST, an aspect of the past, and the TT, a text (to be) created in the future, that Malmkjær sees a truly ‘dynamic reflection of human activity’, as envisaged in Newmark’s paper.

As readers of The Linguist and Peter Newmark’s books will know, the style of writing which he uses often manifests itself in concise to-the-point observations on aspects of translation, frequently wide-ranging and, often, stimulating and highly personal. Similarly, in his equally very personal contribution, Marshall Morris seeks to stimulate the thoughts of fellow literary translators by pointing to different sources of inspiration which, he argues, can support and enlighten the translation process. In presenting his thoughts ‘With translation in mind’, Morris refers to sources in linguistics, psychology, history, philosophy, sociology and social anthropology. The emphasis throughout is on the experiential aspects of translating, a perspective which may often be lost in more rationally-based analyses.

At times throughout history the dividing line between translation and adaptation has been difficult to draw, as for instance in the United Kingdom during the Victorian Age (cf. Hale, 2001). In her analysis of a number of Spanish translations of Washington Irving’s The Alhambra, Raquel Merino illustrates how the boundary between translation and adaptation becomes hard to identify in the context of a popular text which is reproduced in both the source language (SL) and the target language (TL) in a number of versions. ‘Tracing back (in awe) a hundred-year history of Spanish translations: Washington Irving’s The Alhambra‘ describes an ongoing study to (i) compile a bibliographical catalogue of Spanish versions of the Alhambra text, and (ii) trace the texts themselves. Based on the texts so far identified, Merino chooses a number of characteristics which she then uses as a basis of comparison between STs and TTs; in addition she also compares individual STs and TTs. A study of these characteristics, including the sequence of the tales, the number of tales, and the text of selected opening paragraphs, leads to the provisional conclusion that some texts presented as translations are more likely to be adaptations.

Questions raised in relation to the second topic, ‘Types and kinds of translation’, move us along the continuum of questions about translation from the general to the more specific, on the one hand to consider the hermeneutic and creative aspects of translation in the context of literary translation, and on the other to consider the relative importance of typological and stylistic factors in translation.

Piotr Kuhiwczak’s pithy and coolly-evaluative chapter sets literary translation in the context of literary criticism and creative writing rather than that of Applied Linguistics. Literary translation, he points out (like the study of English literature), has a relatively recent provenance in the early twentieth century; it further develops, he argues, ‘the characteristic features of both creative writing and literary criticism’. Having raised some consequent questions about the teaching of literary translation, in which a case-by-case approach is the norm and a now unfashionably evaluative framework based on text typology is recommended, Kuhiwczak goes on to discuss the translation of one of the types identified, namely highly-conventionalised texts. In so doing, he illustrates that a translation can sometimes improve stylistic aspects of the original, at the same time missing its poignancy and allusions. His conclusion invites us to consider whether the technical details of translation analysis enable us as readers to understand the nature of translation.

The second chapter in this section adopts a linguistic perspective. A recurrent issue in the assessment of contrastive phenomena is the relative weight of establishing, on the one hand, typological factors, and, on the other, stylistic ideals. Using Mark Twain’s views as a starting point, Gunnar Magnusson’s paper discusses typological differences and their effects on style and discourse in English and German. The contrastive topics selected for discussion are: gender, case, compounds, and separable verbs. Magnusson’s discussion extends beyond formal comparisons to the use to which available structures are put in discourse, that is texts, the milieu of translators. The relative complexity of German is compared with English, both formally and stylistically, using numerous examples from Mark Twain’s well-known essays on the German language. Magnusson ends with a radical proposal of his own, to which, he surmises, Mark Twain would not have been unsympathetic. If the capitalisation of nouns were abolished, as happened in 1948 in the case of the Danish language, the additional difficulties experienced in processing structures such as nominal embeddings would lead to formal as well as stylistic changes.

In his contribution on ‘Meaning, truth, and morality in translation’, Martin Weston, like Peter Newmark, adopts a view of translating and interpreting which prioritises language use over more abstract models. He does, however, disagree with Newmark about the translator’s duty with respect to texts which are ethically ‘deficient’. Which brings us to the third topic: ‘Valid and deficient texts’. Weston sets out by reexamining the triadic model of interpreting and translating in which an intermediate stage of ‘disembodied’ meaning is interposed between the SL and TL. Basing his critique on the abstractness – and therefore inaccessibility – of the pensée non formulée or the deverbalised thought, as well as its implied but unjustified universality, he also rejects a four-part model, in which the intermediate stage is split into SL and TL meaning. Instead, Weston appeals to a Wittgensteinian notion of meaning as the use to which language is put, as articulated in the work of the linguist W. Haas. For the translator, the expressions with which he or she works are therefore the key to translating, not ‘mythological entities and correspondences’. Clearly influenced by his professional experience in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, Weston challenges Peter Newmark’s injunction for the translator to intervene in the interests of ‘truth’, arguing that the translator’s duty is to the text at all times.

Asymmetry in translation, in particular literary translation, attracted the early attention of translation theorists of the Polysystem School. Accordingly, translation into English, as a global lingua franca, normally exhibits a greater degree of assimilation than translation into lesser used European languages. While this ‘domesticating’ tendency has been critically evaluated by some authors with respect to literary texts, Peter Newmark’s remarks on the status of ‘English as a lingua franca of translation’ – our fourth topic – are practically motivated: English is accessible to the speakers of many languages. In his intriguingly entitled piece on English, ‘The decline of the native speaker’, David Graddol argues that in the future English, as a lingua franca, will be used mainly in multilingual contexts as a second language for communication between non-native speakers. Peter Newmark’s examples of the inappropriate use of English in, for example, the context of tourism demonstrate the need for revision when translators are of necessity second-language users. Graddol’s carefully analysed and evaluated statistics show a clear trend: more English, but in the context of growing multilingualism rather than at the cost of other languages. For translation, this implies a growing demand for translators working into English, increasingly to be met by non-native speakers; as a result, a growing training need for language two (L2) translators as well as language one (L1) speaker revisers may be anticipated.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Translation Today by Gunilla Anderman, Margaret Rogers. Copyright © 2003 Gunilla Anderman, Margaret Rogers and the authors of individual chapters. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.