From Techniques to Types of Solutions

Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 CHAPTER 12 From Techniques to Types of Solutions∗1 Patrick Zabalbeascoa Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Introduction The aim of this paper is to present a brief review of translation techniques and study the development of Vinay and Darbelnet’s initial proposal (henceforth ‘the initial proposal’). For some people, the study of translation techniques is the cornerstone of translation methodology and translator training; for others it is a theoretical anacronysm. Does this mean that some teachers and textbook writers are not keeping up to date with the latest developments in theoretical studies, or does it mean that the theorists have chosen to ‘sweep the issue under the carpet’ and direct their interests elsewhere? We must be very careful not to oversimplify the answer to this, although the real question is, put bluntly, in what way is technique a useful concept? Possible answers might include (i) to better understand or explain certain phenomena (from the theoretical domain); (ii) as categories and tools for description (within descriptive studies); (iii) to make the learning process of trainees more efficient, or to fill in important terminological gaps for reviewers and critics (within the applied extensions). The problems posed by the proposal have been pointed out and discussed by numerous scholars, but that does not seem to have been enough, in many cases, to break the deadlock. The present situation offers us a host of names such as procedures, strategies, shifts, methods, replacements and operations that are synonymous to a greater or lesser degree with techniques, while polysemy is also a fact of many of these terms due to conceptual distinctions that are drawn ∗ This study was carried out as a part of Research Project Num PB 95-0985-C031-01 “Análisis contrastivo de los elementos conectores de la argumentación y de los elementos temporales en textos de especialidad (francés/castellano, inglés/castellano)” financed by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture. 117 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 by different authors, creating much confusion. If we can’t always be original let’s at least try to be clear and coherent in our use or terms and concepts to reduce the degree of confusion. That is the basic aim of this paper. The translating process When dealing with the term process, I propose that we distinguish as much as possible between the concept of a ‘broad context’ where process covers the stages of designing a translation project, selecting the source text (ST), hiring/selecting translator(s), getting the ST to the translator, getting the target text (TT/translation) back from the translator, editing1 of the text and all of the other stages of publishing (or broadcasting, etc.) and distributing a TT and getting it to its target users. In this ‘broad context’ one might even include the process of keeping the text alive by further stages of critical reviews, reprints and editions, appearance in bibliographies, quotations, imitations, and the event that the translation may end up being used as a ST for translation into a third language. So, the ‘broad’ context includes aspects of the initial norm (as coined by Toury, 1980, referring to translation policies), and the various means of rewriting (as proposed by Lefevere, 1992). The concept of initiator is used to refer to the person or institution that starts the process in its broad context, i.e. the initiator sees the need and purpose for the future TT, and acts in order to enable the existence of a translation process, typically, but not necessarily, by paying for the whole project (see patronage in Lefevere, op. cit.); the process is completed, in a way, once it reaches its initially-intended users, whereas the whole life-cycle of the text is not over until it has ceased to be rewritten and is no longer used (i.e. read, listened to, or watched). In any case, the process of translation in its broad context may take weeks, months or years. Process is also used to refer to the linguistic and/or mental operations within the ‘narrow context’ of a translator who is faced with a ST and a commission to translate it. In this case the process begins when the translator starts to analyse a text —as sourcetext-to-be-translated— and goes on for as long as s/he tries to find satisfactory renderings for individual aspects and items of the ST in the TT and for the text as a whole. ‘Narrow context’ studies are primarily interested in linguistic and stylistic phenomena, and focus on a bottom-up analysis of the process; this is also the context for psycholinguistic and cognitive notions of process, nurturing the belief that translation is fundamentally an individual activity, ignoring the possibility of a task carried out by more than one translator (this would force us to consider 118 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 the convenience of studying such things as communication between co-translators, comparison of notes or versions as part of the process). The ‘broad context’ approach is more interested in the sociocultural (systemic) phenomena and favours a top-down analysis. This leaves us with a gray area between narrow and broad for such aspects of translation as teamwork and revision, which are not as widely studied as others which squarely fall within the (narrow) domain of psycholinguistics, or (broad) literary systems, for example. In the narrow context, a ‘long’ process is more of a conceptual label than a strictly chronological one (e.g. the duration of hesitations and thought processes is more interesting than typing speed); from the psycholinguistic point of view a long process is a complicated one, with lots of stages, operations and research, one where there is a lot of decision-making, cross-checking, double-checking and backtracking. In many bottom-up analyses, time is not even used as an operative factor. A certain vagueness in the notion of process could explain the contradiction between the use of the term ‘strategy’ in translation studies and its use in other fields. When phenomena such as lexical borrowing, or the use of hyperonym in the TT are referred to as ‘strategies’, the implication is that the process is one of gradually building up a text from its smaller constituents. So, are the smaller textual constituents part of the process, or part of the product, or both? Where do we draw the line then between process and product? It probably makes more sense to regard the segments of a TT as constituent elements of the product. The need for terminological coherence Below are related definitions proposed for method, strategy, solution and technique. A method is usually defined as way of doing something in accordance with a predefined plan; it is less sensitive to contingencies than a strategy. From this point of view, the term method would naturally fall in the realm of process rather than product. However, a translation method is almost always used to refer to the global characteristics of the product, especially in relation to its source text. Method is used in product-oriented studies to refer to one or more translational criteria; it can be distinguished from strategy by introducing the requirement that it be identifiable on the basis of the formal and functional characteristics of a TT and its ST. Method is the relationship between the source text and its translation and their respective communicative situations. A good example of a list of normative methods can be found in Newmark (1988); the range covers the ground between the long-standing methods of word-for-word and adaptation, 119 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 with his own ‘communicative’ and ‘semantic’ methods at the centre. Each one comes with a short recommendation for when it applies (or not, as the case may be). Another example can be found in the rank-bound v. nonrestricted methods proposed by Catford (1965). Normative approaches will prescribe certain methods for certain occasions, although they have also aspired to prescribe a single, universal method, whereas descriptive studies aim at finding a pattern in the relationship between each method and other common characteristics of the TTs that have shared the same method (e.g. historical period, political regime, status of translations in the target community). In the paradigm of norm theory and descriptive studies, a given method can be postulated as the name given to a combined group of norms for a given TT. A strategy is a specific pattern of behaviour aimed at solving a problem or attaining a goal; in translation, the goal is the TT according to its specifications. Strategy is proposed here as any conscious action(s) intended to enhance a translator’s performance for a given task, especially in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Strategies of this kind cannot be discovered by descriptive studies of the texts alone since the underlying principle is that a given result might be reached by different paths. In a way, this is related to some of the discoveries of TAPs2 that show how trainees and experienced translators have different behavioural patterns, although this does not necessarily lead to different results (see Kiraly, 1995). It seems useful to distinguish ‘behavioural’ strategies from ‘mental’ activity, where the former would include actions that could be observed directly by the researcher and recorded on video as the translating job is carried out (consulting a dictionary, writing a draft version, underlining while reading, taking a break at certain intervals, etc.). Mental activity refers to the thought processes that can only be detected indirectly by noticing indicators or symptoms (hesitations, mumblings), or otherwise by means of interviews and think-aloud protocols, or by special equipment that can track neural activity. If we take an analogy from chess, mental activity is not included in the strategies. They are always understood to be the actual movement and arrangement of the chess-pieces, and also the strategic distribution of time adapted to the players’ characteristics and the type of moves that are planned or predicted; strategies depend on the desired result (a win or a draw). Here are a few examples of areas where various strategies specifically directed at improved translational performance might be put into practice: text analysis and reading strategies, (TT) writing strategies, research strategies, information processing (finding, retrieving, filing, exchanging, etc.), revision strategies, efficiency-oriented organizational strategies (systematizing, planning, distribution of time, layout of materials), fallback strategies (to adapt to new or 120 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 difficult situations), assessment (of price, difficulty of task, time given), selection strategies for identifying and studying problems and for finding satisfactory solutions. An in-depth study of the complete range of translation strategies would be very useful for applied studies in translator training, including the convenience of different strategies for different levels of expertise and at different levels of a training programme. A solution —rendering, version— is what is reached as a result of a strategy. If translating is accepted as a decision-making process or a problem-solving activity, as it often is, then it makes perfect sense to speak of solutions as the end-result of such a process or activity. The TT is the ‘global’ solution to the problem posed by the ST together with the criteria for its translation; the ‘local’ solutions are the renderings of identifiable segments or features of the ST. When local solutions cover clearly identifiable segments of both the ST and the TT they may be said to operate within, and determine, the boundaries of a translation unit. From a prospective point of view, it is a question of parsing the ST into its constituent parts and then replacing them, one at a time, in order to build up the TT (e.g. when grammatical structures are taken as units, transposition is said to occur if the TT solution resorts to a different grammatical category or structure than the one in the replaced segment of the ST). From a retrospective (descriptive) point of view it is more of a question of first finding meaningful bitextual pairs, which means that the length and nature of each segment is determined by the type of solution, which provides evidence of the problem as the translator presumably saw it (yielding: unit = [ST] problem + [TT] solution). Although there is a clear connection between solution and unit of translation two points still have to be made. First, there may be more than one type of solution within the boundaries of a given unit. Second, it may be the case that not all solutions are purely segmental3 in their nature; these solutions are generally referred to as (different forms of) compensation, although there are segmental forms of compensation, too. Technique is usually a concept that is not associated to a decision-making process, but to an acquired skill to be applied according to a prescribed method or procedure (e.g. a way of playing a musical instrument or of painting). In Translation Studies, techniques can be kept in the terminology to refer exclusively to the initial proposal. I do not see the convenience, though, of substituting the initial proposal with the idea of shifts, which clearly owes much to the idea of techniques and does little more than perpetuate the metaphor of displacement in translation. Ian Mason (1994 and 1995) is an example of how an author can pick up the initial proposal and, by combining it with much more recent developments in the field (the insights of textlinguistics and descriptive studies), make it more 121 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 useful to our understanding of the nature of translation and its didactics. The notion of translation technique comes from a prospective (and prescriptive) approach, which involves looking at the ST and deciding what its smallest constituent parts are for the purpose of translation, i.e. a type of parsing, and then considering the most convenient way (technique) of rendering each unit. The basic unit from this angle is the lexical unit, especially ‘content’ words and phrases. The difficulty, complexity, and even the frequency and desirability of each technique is more or less implicitly measured against the ‘ideal’ of literal translation, following Newmark’s motto “translate as literally as possible and as freely as strictly necessary”. From a retrospective point of view, translational units are established on the basis of tracing TT items back to segments of the ST. Once these bitextual4 units are established, what remains to be done is to describe the nature of the relationship between the ST segment and the TT segment, and it is precisely the name given to the relationship between these two segments of ST and TT that we can call ‘solution-type’. A ‘solution-type’, then, is the shared characteristic of a number of different solutions. Notice that this does not lead us automatically to a taxonomy or even an enumeration of mutually exclusive categories if we admit that within a given ST-TT bitextual unit there may be more than one type of relationship. Solution-types may be conceptually incompatible, i.e. mutually exclusive by definition. However, one can also use the results of descriptions of a large corpus of translations to discover conditions that make two ‘solution-types’ incompatible within the same unit. For example, ‘addition’5 and ‘deletion’6 seem to be conceptually incompatible categories, whereas ‘functional equivalence’ and ‘lexical equivalence’ might statistically prove to be highly incompatible, although they may not be so by definition.7 Descriptive studies could also yield incompatible ‘solution-types’ not only within the same unit but also for neighboring units, or for number or density of solution-types over a whole text. For example, how much borrowing is allowed in a given text is a different question to whether borrowing is or is not allowed and for which cases. The training process From the point of view of translator training the word technique conjures up the image of the learner acquiring the necessary set of translation techniques in order to become a qualified professional. This image is somewhat inaccurate, or overambitious, especially when technique is too closely linked to the idea of applying certain mechanical procedures or formulae. If our view of translating is 122 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 one of a decision-making process and effective communicating it is especially important to point out that techniques as formulated by the initial proposal are really types of solutions, and a translator’s skills cover a much wider area than a knowledge of possible low-level correspondences. A trainee needs to develop an awareness of the operative variables in translation and also needs to be exposed to a wide range of sample cases (these might be structured according to a proposal like Newmark’s procedures or by showing proposals from a number of authors). Finally, a trainee needs to be exposed to as many different problems as possible in order to develop problemsolving, decision-making strategies. It is important to realise that an expert’s strategies and ‘narrow context’ translating process may only be reached gradually, and there may be different appropriate processes for each stage of the learning process, and a different set of strategies for each stage. Hopefully, it is now apparent that a mere presentation of ‘solution-types’ is not enough; it has to be integrated into an awareness-raising, skillsdeveloping, experience-gaining learning process aimed at producing adaptable, informed and resourceful translators. Beyond the initial proposal Certain trends within translation studies are more likely than others to drop or ignore the initial proposal. The notion of technique relies heavily on the concept of equivalence, so schools of thought that have argued against the use of equivalence would understandably make little or no use of the initial proposal. Descriptivists will frown on its aprioristic and underlying prescriptiveness, while polysystem-oriented studies tend to be more interested in comparing translations with target-language originals or other TTs in that language rather than with their STs. Models based on the concept of deverbalization are not really suitable, since they are born out of a psycholinguistic approach and the initial proposal is rooted in comparative stylistics. Equally likely to abandon presentations of techniques are the didactic models which are more focused on developing reading, writing, investigative and analytical skills (i.e. ‘strategies’) in their students, and communicative skills in general as well as ways of dealing with highly specialized situations, rather than getting students to produce, somewhat mechanically, translations that are as similar as possible their teacher’s version by applying certain rules of thumb and transfer procedures. The alternative to abandoning the initial proposal is to build on it, or aspects of it, by putting a finer point on some of its concepts, or use some of the categories for descriptive studies. One can look for norms and frequencies and 123 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 carry out comparative studies in order to propose explanatory accounts of some of the traditional terms (e.g. Mason’s study of ‘borrowing’, 1994). ST—TT relationships Here are levels, or discrete planes, on which ST—TT relationships can be found, based on verbal/nonverbal, formal/functional and segmental/non-segmental distinctions. From this basic framework, various types of ST—TT relationships can be postulated, such as equivalence and compensation, outlined below.  Formal plane of verbal segments (of any meaningful length, including all linguistic and textual units)  Formal plane of nonverbal and paralinguistic segments (gestures, pictures, signs)  Functional plane of abovementioned segments (e.g. cohesive, semantic, referential, communicative, aesthetic, semiotic functions)  Formal plane of nonsegmental aspects (rhyme, alliteration, intonation, layout, etc.)  Functional plane of nonsegmental aspects, i.e. the cohesive, etc. functions of these forms Equivalence Let us consider equivalence as a variable for the lower levels of the text. We could then use it as a basis for offering a list of types of equivalence as a means of classifying translational solutions and proposing categories of solution-types. Equivalence, here, is used to mean: sameness or a degree of similarity that, for practical purposes, justifies being qualified as ‘sameness in difference’ (resulting from two different communication acts). Constituent elements might show equivalence in any one of the following areas:  The functional plane (giving rise to functional equivalence), with a different level for each function, e.g. propositional, interpersonal, aesthetic, intratextual, semiotic equivalence  The formal plane (producing formal equivalence), with a different level for each type of form, e.g. morphological, stylistic, structural, and lexical equivalence  Equivalence of merit, from an evaluative point of view, of such aspects as quality and originality (of the texts as they are perceived by their respective users, not necessarily of the translator’s contribution) 124 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637  Others, including equivalence of explicitness, implicitness, deviation from standard use, vagueness and ambiguity. Compensation Compensation tends to imply compensating for the nonavailability of a literal translation (that is stylistically or pragmatically appropriate) by doing something rather drastic. From a retrospective point of view compensation, like adaptation, is a concept that helps to account for high-level solutions, or patterns of solutions. Let us define compensation as a cause-effect relationship between (one or more levels of) inequivalence and equivalence in a given solution; the intended level/s of equivalence is/are the cause (providing a justification for the compensatory solution) and inequivalence is the necessary effect or sacrifice, which is justified as the best —or only available— means of maintaining equivalence at the desired level. There may be additional ‘systemic’ levels of inequivalence that also justify the compensatory tactic (systemic differences between the two langauges or communication situations). For example, if we compensate for not using rhyme as used in the ST by using alliteration in the TT for the same purpose or function, which could be mnemonic for instance, then the intended equivalence is sameness of mnemonic quality, inequivalence is alliteration where there was rhyme, and systemic inequivalence could be the fact that the typical mnemonic device of the TT users is alliteration and not rhyme, or the fact that one language favours rhyme in those situations where the other language uses alliteration. Each type of compensatory solution can be—and, traditionally tends to be— labelled according to the most obvious type of inequivalence (although omission or rearrangement can be seen as means of compensation they are also undeniably aspects of inequivalence). The attempt, for instance, to produce the same punning effect in a part of the TT that is different to the location of its ST counterpart is often referred to as “compensation in place” (I think a better term would be “compensation by displacement”), rather than “punning compensation”. So, apart from types of equivalence for classifying solutions there is also the possibility of ascribing solutions to “compensation by ...”, completing the phrase for each category with such options as: (i) omission or addition, not only of segmental units, but also semantic, stylistic and pragmatic features; (ii) substitution (by omitting something and adding something else as part of the same solution), including the substitution of verbal for nonverbal signs and vice versa, or one type of figure of speech for another; (iii) increased explicitation (and, conversely, increased implicitness); (iv) displacement, as shown above; (v) 125 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 rearrangement, the elements are grouped together in a different way, or the order in which they appear is different. Conclusion In this paper I have argued for a more coherent terminology in the field and proposed terms and definitions to that effect. We have a history and a tradition in Translation Studies, and these cannot and should not be ignored, nor should they be perpetuated in the theoretical and pedagogical domains. My answer to this situation is to propose that the term techniques be given a historical dimension to refer exclusively to Vinay and Darbelnet’s initial proposal and to similar proposals by other authors such as Newmark. For the theoretical field, the recommendation is to continue working in establishing discrete categories along the lines of what is proposed above for equivalence and compensation. We need to change a single list of overlapping categories such as the initial proposal, probably for several lists of solution-types (one for types of equivalence, another for types of compensation, etc.) which contain a more coherent set of categories for research and for better communication among scholars. The conclusion for translator training is that the initial proposal, if used at all, should be presented with great caution. The purpose of grouping solutions into solution-types is to provide meaningful samples of options for the trainee and illustrations of translator behaviour. Ultimately, the future translator will have to deal with situations and contingencies that have not been presented in class or studied in the literature, and it is with this in mind that strategies and attitudes are to be worked on. Strategies and ‘solution-types’ are to be presented as mind-openers, not as a closed set of categories that act as blinkers in the search for optimal solutions and fully satisfactory translations. Notes 1 Post-editing of the TT is what usually comes to mind, but pre-editing of the ST must also be contemplated. 2 Think-aloud protocols, whereby translators are asked to verbalise their thoughts as they go along. 3 See ST–TT relationships below. 4 Bitext as proposed by Harris, 1988 and dealt with in Toury, 1995: 96. 5 Presumably of a TT segment that has no ST equivalent of the same rank. 6 A ST segment with no equivalent of the same rank in the TT, or the TT segment is ‘empty’. 7 In some accounts there seems to be a strong implication that when a solution is at the same time a lexical equivalent and a functional equivalent it counts as lexical equivalent, so functional equivalence as a label is actually meant for functional equivalents that cannot be classified as lexical equivalents, thus making them mutually exclusive by definition. 126 Patrick Zabalbeascoa, “From Techniques of Translation to Types of Solutions” Beeby, A. Et al. (eds) Investigating Translation, John Benjamins, 2000, ISBN: 902721637 References Catford, J. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London: Oxford University Press. Harris, B. 1988. “Bi-text: A New Concept in Translation Theory”, Language Monthly 54. Kiraly, D. 1995. Pathways to Translation Pedagogy and Process, Ohio. The Kent State University Press. Lefevere, A. 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London: Routledge. Lörscher, W. 1991. Translation Performance, and Translation Strategies, a Psycholinguistic Investigation, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Mason, I. 1994. “Techniques of Translation Revisited: a text-linguistic review of ‘borrowing’ and ‘modulation’”, p. 61-72, in Hurtado, A. (ed) Estudis sobre la traducció, Castelló: Universitat Jaume I. -------------- 1995. “Translation <<Techniques>>: A Procedural Approach”, p. 59-68, in Mason, I. and Pagnoulle, C. (eds) Cross Words. Issues and Debates in Literary and Non-literary Translation, University of Liège. Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation, London: Prentice Hall. Toury, G. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. -------------- 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s. Vinay, J.; Darbelnet, J. 1957. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais, Paris: Didier. Author: Patrick Zabalbeascoa Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Departament de Traducció i Filologia La Rambla 30-32, Barcelona 08002, Spain. – Email: [email protected] 127