The Classification of Transfer Operations I

1. The Classification of Transfer Operations I Aspects: cause, aim, level, nature etc. of the operation Obligatory (automatic) transfer operations: performed due to the differences between the lexical/grammatical structures of the two languages (e.g. E prepositions → H inflections/postpositions, E passive → H active, changes in word order, etc.); means the ability to distance oneself from the SL and not to actually select the TL equivalent. Optional (non-automatic) transfer operations: performed over and above obligatory transform operations (replacement of E infinitives or participles with H finite verbs)

2. The Classification of Transfer Operations II According to level of operation 1/ word-level: replacement of SL lexical units with TL ones; 2/ phrase-level: e.g. E NP with a postmodifier → H NP with a premodifier; 3/ sentence-level: e.g. E passive → H active; 4/ discourse-level: e.g. unification of subjects within a paragraph (specification or omission of a thematic subjec to maintain coherence: e.g. She gazed out over her dark garden → A lány kinézett a sötét kertbe, etc.)

3. The Classification of Transfer Operations III According to scope and cause: 1/ lexical: • differentiation/specification; • generalization (a TL item with a wider sense) • conceptual expansion (replacing the cause with its consequence, e.g. The Indian summer was nearly over, the clocks had been altered→ A vénasszonyok nyara már csaknem véget ért, visszaállt a téli időszámítás. • antonymous translation; • total transformation (replacing a SL word with a TL one that carries an entirely different meaning, e.g. He had not heard her coming→ Nem hallotta, hogy Mabel ott van a közelben.

4. The Classification of Transfer Operations IV 2/ Grammatical: • Replacements • Transpositions • Insertions • Omissions 3/ Stylistic: necessitated by the genre or text type. E.g. reaching impersonality in scientific texts: E passive → H 1st/3rd plur 4/ Pragmatic: necessitated by the TL culture (use of diminutives common in R, unusual/funny in H) The latter two, however, can be treated as realisations of lexical/grammatical transfer

5. The Classification of Transfer Operations V Translation approached either as a: 1/ product: it is legitimate to investigate the levels at which equivalence is realised (see, e.g. Komissarov); 2/ process: hard to determine the level of the translator’s decisions → cannot be a basis of classification Lexical, grammatical, etc. (see above, slide 3-4) operations may refer to their 1/ scope: do they affect the lexical or the grammatical system? 2/ cause: do they follow from the lexical/grammatical differences of the two languages? Scope is used in determining the two main types (lexical + grammatical); Cause is used in explaining the operations

6. The Classification of Transfer Operations VI Thus, according to the scope of the operation: 1/ Lexical types: • Narrowing ofmeaning (differentiation and specification) • Broadening • Contraction • Distribution • Omission • Addition • Exchange • Antonymous translation • Total transformation • Compensation

7. The Classification of Transfer Operations VII 2/ Grammatical types: • Grammatical specification and generalisation • Division • Contraction • Omission • Addition • Transpositions • Replacements

8. The Classification of Transfer Operations VIII Transfer operations and principles from the point of view of the translator 1/ The principle of following the TL norm: follows from Translators’ main goal: to make sure that the information is passed on to TL readers. 2/ The principle of cooperation: involves explicitation – expressing sg in the TL text in a clearer manner and more words and with more words than in the original; translators generally prefer “playing it safe”. 3/ The principle of following the translation norm: • the immense translational experience of previous generations; • the conventions followed by translators at a given time, in a given style and among particular circumstances, under which translators tend to use particular solutions.

9. The Classification of Transfer Operations IX General transfer strategies used by translators I a particular series of conscious transfer operations. 1/ Explicitation: information that is implicit in the SL text is made explicit in the TL one, „a process which consists in introducing information into the TL which present implicitly in the SL, but it can be derived from the context or the situation” (Vinay 1995). In Nida’s formulation (1964), it takes place when „important semantic elements carried implicitly in the SL may require explicit identification in the receptor language”. An example from Luke’s Gospel (11:31) „queen of the South” → Tarascan „woman who was ruling in a south country” – a culture/language isolate in Mexico where queen is not known. Explicitation generally involves addition.

10. The Classification of Transfer Operations X General transfer strategies used by translators II 2/ Implicitation: opposite of explicitation, „a process which consists in letting the TL situation or context define certain details which were explicit in the SL. E.g,: The American unmanned space probe reached the planet Mars on Sunday → Az amerikai űrszonda vasárnap elérte a Marsot. Implicitation generally involves omission.

11. The Classification of Transfer Operations XI Other transfer strategies used by translators • Translator as language mediator: language pair specific transfer strategies and implies routine of transfer to overcome difficulties resulting from differences between languages – an inalienable part of a translator’s competence; • Translator as cultural mediator: knowing two cultures, most translators have developed routine-like transfer operations to bridge cultural gaps (culture-specific transfer strategies); • Individual transfer strategies: there are translators who: - chop up sentences, others would not because the SL text is more important for them than the TL reader; - “augment” lexical elements, e.g. reporting verbs, others would not because the SL text is more important for them than the translation norm, etc.

12. The Classification of Transfer Operations XII Indo-European – Hungarian transfer typology Great differences in the lexical and grammatical systems: • analytical morph. and lexical structuring in IEu vs synthetic morph. and lexical structuring in H; • synthetic sentence structuring in IEu vs analytical sentence structuring in H; • dominantly SVO order in IEu vs dominantly SOV order in H; • Complementation of NPs to the right in IEu vs to the left in H, etc.

13. The Classification of Transfer Operations XIII Experience of practising translators 1/ H likes to use verbs when IEu languages use nouns. 2/ H likes to use active when IEu languages use passive 3/ When you translate from Ieu languages into H, you have to begin the translation from the end of the sentence. 4/ H cannot manage the long chains of complements in postposition to the nouns. 5/ IEu languages force H to use this long nominal chain, but we do not like it. 6/ IEu languages cannot evoke the whole richness of the H verbs. 7/ When translating from Ieu languages into H an impoverishment of the H language takes place, against which translators have to fight, etc.

14. The Classification of Transfer Operations XIV Similar behaviour (contrast with H) of IEu languages in translation Budapest travel guide: Hol is kezdjük? Where shall we begin our journey? Par ou commencer notre flannerie? Wo sollen wir unseren Spaziergang beginnen? Otkuda nachat’ nasu progulku?

15. Lexical Transfer Operations I Lexical Transfer Operations: a collective term for all the systemic and routine-like operative moves to handle the difficulties stemming from the different lexical systems and cultural contexts of the two languages (also – partly - described by contrastive lexicography and recorded in bilingual dictionaries). They are 1/ triggered by differences in the lexical systems and 2/ influence the lexical structure of the sentence.

16. Lexical Transfer Operations II “The translator does nothing more but replaces an SL word with a TL word of identical meaning.” 1/ Can any word in any language be identical in its meaning with ahy other word in any other language? 2/ Is it indeed the meaning that has to remain unchanged? 1/ No,because meaning is language-bound, just like, e.g. morphology, cf. E chair – H szék, 2/ No, because what remains unchanged is the sense: the relationship between the linguistic sign and a certain segment of reality – objects, events, persons, etc.