JoLIE 13/2020

Back to issue page

EXPLICITATION, SIMPLIFICATION AND NEUTRALISATION

IN THE TRANSLATION OF REFERENCE

Mona Arhire

Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania

Abstract

Recurrent features of translation, sometimes labelled as ‘translation universals’, have been intensively investigated within Descriptive Corpus-based Translation Studies. Numerous language pairs have been set under researchers’ lens with a view to observing languages from a contrastive viewpoint, but also individually, in their translational manifestations. This has enabled the identification of characteristic features of the translational facets of languages, which have generated more and more nuanced scholarly theories. This paper examines the occurrence of some of the most frequent features of translation, namely: explicitation, simplification and neutralisation in the translation of reference as a cohesive device.

Methodologically speaking, the investigation combines the theoretical and applied areas of Translation Studies, with an interdisciplinary dimension provided by the fusion of methodological input borrowed from Descriptive Translation Studies, Discourse Analysis and Contrastive Studies. The theoretical component of the research refers to issues of contrastiveness between English and Romanian viewed from a translational angle, in terms of equivalence and the occurrence of the three features of translation. The applied area of Translation Studies comprises the empirical approach to the translation of reference, while addressing not only the researchers’ community, but also the practitioners in translation and the translator training environment. The research applies both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the data selected from John Fowles’ novel Mantissa (1982) and its translation into Romanian by Angela Jianu (Fowles 1995).

The findings provide insights into the nature and functions of referring expressions as formal links, but also as stylistic devices, and shed light into issues related to contrastiveness of reference between English and Romanian, to aspects of equivalence and translatability, as well as to the occurrence of translation universals.

Keywords: Reference; Translation universals; Cohesive devices; Contrastiveness; Equivalence.

References

Arhire, M. (2017). Cohesive devices in translator training: A study based on a Romanian translational learner corpus. Meta Translators’ Journal, 62(1), 155-177. Doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1040471ar

Arhire, M. (2018a). A contrastive-translational approach to substitution. Bulletin of Transilvania University of Braşov Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies, Vol. 11. 60(1), 189-198.

Arhire, M. (2018b). The translation of ellipsis as identity marker in the literary dialogue. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Philologica, 10(3), 19-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/ausp-2018-0025

Baker, M. (1992). In other words. A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies. The challenges that lie ahead. In H. Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation (pp.175-186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak

Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Becher, V. (2010). Abandoning the notion of ‘translation-inherent’ explicitation: Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures 11(1), 1-28. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1

Bidu-Vrănceanu, A., Călărașu, C., Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L., et al. (2001). Dicționar de științe ale limbii. București: Nemira.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E. (1983). Universals of lexical simplification. In C. Faerch, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in inter-language communication (pp.119-139). London and New York: Longman. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00143.x

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 17-35). Tübingen: Narr.

Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. (2000). Written discourse. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham.

Chesterman, A. (2004). Beyond the particular. In A. Mauranen, & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp.33-49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48

Fowles, J. (1982). Mantissa. New York, Boston, London: Little, Brown and Company.

Fowles, J. (1995). Mantisa. (A. Jianu, Trans.). București: Univers. (Original work published in 1982).

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.

Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp.181-219). Delaware: International Reading Association.

Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

House, J. (2008). Beyond intervention: Universals in translation? Transkom 1(1), 6-19.

Ilisei, I., Mihaila, C., Inkpen, D., & Mitkov, R. (2011). The impact of zero pronominal anaphora on translational language: A study on Romanian newspapers. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, Informatica LVI(2), 43-50.

Johnson, K. (2008). A view of QR from ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp.69-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487033

Kenny, D. (1999). CAT tools in an academic environment: What are they good for?. Target 11, 65-82. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.04ken

Kenny, D. (2001). Lexis and creativity in translation: A corpus-based study. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Klaudy, K. (1996). Concretization and generalization of meaning in translation. In M. Thelen, & B. Lewandoska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning Part 3 (pp.141-163). Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht.

Künzli, A. (2004). 2004). I find that a bit exaggerated - Neutralization in Translation. In A. Papaconstantinou (Ed.), Choice and Difference in Translation: The Specifics of Transfer (pp.81-96). Athens: The National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

Larson, M.L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanhan, New York and Oxford: University Press of America.

Leuven-Zwart, K.M. van (1990). Translation and original: Similarities and dissimilarities, II. Target 2(1), 69-95. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.2.1.05leu

Malmkjaer, K. (2008). Norms and nature in translation studies. In M. Rogers, & G. Anderman (Eds.), Incorporating corpora: The linguist and the translator (pp.49-59) Clevedon: Multilingual Matter.

Mauranen, A. (2007). Universal tendencies in translation. In M. Rogers, & G. Anderman (Eds.), Incorporating corpora: The linguist and the translator (pp.32-48). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

McShane, M.J. (2005). A theory of ellipsis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newmark, P. (1987). The use of systemic linguistics in translation analysis and criticism. In R. Steele, & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp.293-304). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.lt2.28new

Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing corpora in translation studies. London and New York: Routledge. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640005

Protopopescu, D., & Vișan, N. (2008). Compensation and translation in James Ellroy’s White Jazz. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 10(2), 41-50.

Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. London and New York: Routledge.

Schäffner, C. (2002). Discourse analysis for translation and translator training: status, needs, methods. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), The role of discourse analysis for translation and in translator training (pp.53-77). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Stoichițoiu-Ichim, A. (2002). Semiotica discursului juridic. București: Editura Universității din București.

Toolan, M. (1998). Language in literature: An introduction to stylistics. London: Hodder Arnold. Publication.

Trosborg, A. (2002). Discourse analysis as part of translator training. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), The role of discourse analysis for translation and in translator training. (pp.9-52). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Toury, G. (2004). Probabilistic explanations in translation studies. Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals? In A. Mauranen, & P. Kuyamaki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp.15-32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.03tou

Wilson, P. (2000). Mind the gap: Ellipsis and stylistic variation in spoken and written English. London: Longman. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315839448

Zanettin, F. (2012). Translation-driven corpora: Corpus resources for descriptive and applied translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Zanettin, F. (2013). Corpus methods for descriptive translation studies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 95, 20-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.618

Zlatnar Moe, M. (2010). Styling popular fiction: A comparison of stylistic shifts in Slovene translations of popular fiction and literary prose. Paper presented at IV Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Literarios de Cultura Popular, Mallorca. Retrieved 19 August, 2019, from http://www.uibcongres.org/congresos/

How to cite this article: Arhire, M. (2020). Explicitation, simplification and neutralisation in the translation of reference. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 13, 29-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2020.13.2

For details on subscription, go to: http://jolie.uab.ro/index.php?pagina=-&id=19&l=en