350 likes | 586 Views
Explicitation Profile and Translator Style. Renata Kamenická Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic kamenick @ phil.muni.cz. Concepts. Explicitation ~ translation universals + simplification, normalization, avoidance of repetition etc. Explicitation ~ the third code. Concepts.
E N D
Explicitation Profile and Translator Style Renata Kamenická Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic kamenick@phil.muni.cz
Concepts Explicitation ~ translation universals +simplification, normalization, avoidance of repetition etc. Explicitation~ the third code
Concepts Translator’s style vs. author’s style Baker, 2000 Bosseaux, 2001 Winters, 2004 Saldanha, 2005
Concepts Typology of explicitation (Klaudy) Obligatory ~ due to language system Optional ~ to preserve “naturalness“ Pragmatic ~ bridging the cultural gap Translation-inherent ~ inherent to the translation process
Concepts Explicitationprofile = a set of characteristics describing the translator’s behaviour in terms of explicitation with respect to a certain text (/translation in general?)
Concepts Language metafunctions (Halliday) Ideational – experiential – logical Interpersonal Textual
Explicitation at the crossection of approaches studying: • the individual x the general in translation • translation as a process x as a product • cognitive aspects x sociocultural aspects (norms)
Studying explicitation through - parallel corpora (Vanderauwera, Øveras) - comparable corpora (Baker, Olohan, …) - parallel corpora again?
Material parallel corpus of literary texts – novels by different translators
Objectives To link patterns of explicitation choices ~ the translator’s style with respect to a specific literary text the translator’s style in general the stage of the translator’s career etc.
Characteristics of explicitation behaviour shared by different translators? • Individual characteristics of explicitation behaviour? • In/dependence of explicitation profile of/on a particular text? • Stability of explicitation profile over time? • “Prototypical“ expl. profiles?
Sampling frame Shortlist Inclusion criteria - contemporary translations (1945-) - contemporary originals (1940-) - novels – not historical, not non-fiction, not detective fiction, not experimental
Final criterion: maximum span of time maximum number of relevant translations
Radoslav Nenadál (b. 1929) 1973 – 1991 Antonín Přidal (b. 1935) 1974 – 1991 10 novels each
Pilot study Nenadál (1990): Falconer – J. Cheever Přidal (1984): Small World – D. Lodge
“Explicitation phenomena“ = explicitation + implicitation → explicitation/implicitation profile
Language metafunctions (Halliday) Ideational – experiential – logical Interpersonal Textual
Experiential explicitation / implicitation • Logical explicitation / implicitation • Interpersonal explicitation / implicitation • Textual explicitation / implicitation
Halliday: language as social semiotic meaning potential → instantialization „polyphony“
Systemic functional linguistics Ideational function the „observer function“ the clause as a figure in the flow of events
Systemic functional linguistics Interpersonal function the „intruder function“ the clause as a move in dialogic interaction
Systemic functional linguistics Textual function meaning as texture the clause as a message in the flow of information
Pilot study - material 3 sections of 5,000 words each (parallel text) Section 1 – opening of the novel Section 2 Section 3
Experiential E/I • Logical E/I • Interpersonal E/I • Textual E/I • Narrator level of discourse • Characters’ level of discourse
Results - general E rate 50 / 5,000 words 1 occurrence / 100 words fairly stable rates
Translator 1 (Nenadál) E >I (E rate 3 times higher) E: more varied EXP-N, IP-CH I: fairly stable EXP-N Translator 2 (Přidal) E ~ I E: more varied highly variable I: fairly stable EXP-N Results – translator-specific
Translator 1 (Nenadál) Explicitation preferred over implicitation Avoidance of repetitions „Summarizing“ Translator 2 (Přidal) Flexible management of meaning potential Repetitions: ? E/I compensation Results – translator-specific
Other results Problematic cases of explicitation generalizing vs. specificity pragmatic explicitation → refining the definitions?
? Klaudy and Károly, 2003: A SL unit of a more general meaning is replaced by a TL unit of a more special meaning → EXPLICITATION
? E: “No one can figure out how she can stand being married to Howard.“ Cz*: “No one can figure out how she can stand being married to that kind of man.“
? E: „terminal One at Heathrow“ Cz*: „the main building of the London airport“
Other results Systemic differences between E and Cz “but“ in E and Cz
E: “They made their trip back to their home in the swamp after dark, and Farragut could not see this.“ Cz*: „They made their trip to their home in the swamp after dark, but Farragut could not see this.“