Van Leuven-Zwart's comparative-descriptive model of translation shifts3

4.4 Van Leuven-Zwart's comparative-descriptive model of
translation shifts
The most detailed attempt to ~roducean d apply a model of shift analysis has
been carried out by Kitty van Leuven-Zwart of Amsterdam. Van Leuven-
Zwart's model takes as its point of departure some of the categories proposed
by Vinay and Darbelnet and Lev9 and applies them to the descriptive
analysis of a translation, attempting both to systematize comparison and to
build in a discourse framework above the sentence level. Originally published
in Dutch in 1984 as a doctoral thesis it is more widely known in its
abbreviated English version which consists of two articles in Target (van
Leuven-Zwart 1989, 1990). The model is 'intended for the description
of integral translations of fictional texts' (1989: 154) and comprises
(1) a comparative model and (2) a descriptive model. Like Popovi;, van
Leuven-Zwart considers that trends identified by these complementary
models provide indications of the translational norms adopted by the
translator. The characteristics of each model are as follows:
1 The comparative model (1989: 155-70) involves a detailed comparison
of ST and TT and a classification of all the microstructural shifts (within
sentences, clauses and phrases). Van Leuven-Zwart's method (1989:
155-7

:

Van Leuven-Zwart first divides selected passages into 'comprehensible
textual unit[s]' called 'transemes'; Ishe sat up quickly' is classed
as a transeme, as is its corresponding Spanish TT phrase 'se
enderezo'.
Next, she defines the 'Architranseme', which is the invariant core
sense of the ST transeme. This serves as an interlingual comparison
or tertlum comparation~s (see chapter 3). In the above example, the
Architranseme is 'to sit up'.
A comparison is then made of each separate transeme with the
Architranseme and the relationship between the two transemes is
established.) :

Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and van Gorp and the Manipulation School

Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and
van Gorp and the Manipulation School

With the influence of Even-Zohar's and Toury's early work in polysystem
theory, the International Comparative Literature Association held several
meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature. Particularly
prominent centres were in Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands, and the

first conferences were held at Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp
(1980).
The key publication of this group of scholars, known as the Manipulation
School or Group, was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of
Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (1985a), edited by Theo Hermans.
In his introduction, 'Translation studies and a new paradigm', Hermans
summarizes the group's view of translated literature:
What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic
system; a conviction that there should he a continual interplay between theoretical
models and practical case studies; an approach to literary translation which is
descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic; and an interest in the norms
and constraints that govern the production and reception of translations. in the
relation between translation and other types of text processing, and in the place
and role of translations both within a given literature and in the interaction
between literatures

Toury and descriptive translation studies

Working with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv was Gideon Toury. After his early
polysystern work on the sociocultural conditions which determine the translation
of foreign literature into Hebrew, Toury focused on developing a general
theory of translation. In chapter 1, we considered Toury's diagrammatic
representation of Holmes's 'map' of translation studies. In his influential
I Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond (Toury 1995: lo), Toury calls
for the development of a properly systematic descriptive branch of the
discipline to replace isolated free-standing studies that are commonplace:

What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and supply-
I
ing tine insights (which many existing studies certainly do), but a systematic branch
proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a methodology and research

techniques made as explicit as possible and justified within translation studies
itself. Only a branch of this kind can ensure that the findings of individual studies
will be intersubjectively testable and comparable, and the studies themselves
replicable.

Toury goes on to propose just such a methodology for the branch of descriptive
translation studies (DTS).
For Toury (1995: 13)' translations first and foremost occupy a position in
the social and literary systems of the target culture, and this position determines
the translation strategies that are employed. With this approach, he is
continuing and building on the polysystem work of Even-Zohar and on
earlier versions of his own work (Toury 1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). Toury
(1995: 36-9 and 102) proposes the following three-phase methodology for
systematic DTS, incorporating a description of the product and the wider
role of the sociocultural system

Descriptive Translation3

Polysystem
theory fed into developments in descriptive translation studies (see
section 7.2), a branch of translation studies that has been crucial in the last
twenty years and which aims at identifying norms and laws of translation.
Developments in the study of norms are discussed in section 7.3 (work by
Chesterman), and work by systems theorists of the related Manipulation
School is described in section 7.4.

CONCLUSION1

CONCLUSION
Information technology has transformed not only the working practice of the
professional translator but also the way in which translation is studied. Although
the goal of fully automatic translation may still lie in the future (and some would
say will always remain a pipe-dream), technology is already allowing research into
areas that previously relied on anecdotal evidence. This is particularly the case with
the rapid rise in corpus linguistics which means that large amounts of naturally
occurring language can be examined rapidly and accurately. The possibilities are
enormous for contrastive analysis of languages, Descriptive Translation Studies
(ST–TT comparisons) and the study of universal features of translation (see
Project 1 below) as well as the generation of new texts (Bateman,Matthiessen and
Zeng 1999

------------------------------------------------------------

DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION :  In RELEVANCE theory, this is the use of language
normally as true or false of a given state of affairs. In
translation, this mode amounts to a ‘free’ translation.
Compare COVERT TRANSLATION

 : DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION
STUDIES (DTS):

A branch of Translation Studies, developed in most
detail by Toury (1995), that involves the EMPIRICAL,
non-PRESCRIPTIVE analysis of STs and TTs with the
aim of identifying general characteristics and LAWS
OF TRANSLATION

----------------------------

PRESCRIPTIVE :  An approach to translation which seeks to dictate
rules for ‘correct’ translation. Compare DESCRIPTIVE
TRANSLATION STUDIES...).

Example1

Example C8.1a English ST
Access all areas
Wherever you want to be
Land Rover’s entry into the fiercely competitive SUV market raised more than a few
eyebrows.
Make no mistake; it’s a real Land Rover. The car you can drive down the highway
can negotiate adrenaline-pumping steep, muddy hills and rough ground with similar
quiet authority

Consider Example C8.1a from a sample of publicity material for Freelander in
English, alongside a back-translation of the parallel Arabic version.
Note how almost the entire Arabic version is an ‘addition’, drastically rewording
the original. This is an extreme case of ‘descriptive’ translation.
➤ What kind of effect might this TT have on the target reader in a language with
which you are familiar? Is the effect compatible with the function of the text?
➤ Translate the above English ST ‘interpretively’ (adhering as far as possible
to the ST structure, etc.) into a language of your choice. What difference
in effect can you discern when comparing your version with the Arabic TT
above? Would you still regard your ‘interpretive’ version as a piece of effective
advertising?.

E x p l o r a t i o n

In Section A, we mentioned the use of translation shift analysis in Descriptive
Translation Studies as a means of producing hypotheses and making generalizations
about translation. Find several ST–TT pairs in your own languages.
Analyse them according to Vinay and Darbelnet’s procedures.What general
trends emerge in the analysis? What are the most frequent types of translation
procedures? What hypotheses can you suggest concerning what is happening
in these translations? How would it be possible to test these hypotheses?

Textual pragmatics and equivalence

Fundamental to any linguistic-textual approach in descriptive translation studies
is the assumption that translations are characterised by a double linkage: first by their
link to the source text and second by the link to the communicative conditions on the receiver’s
side. This double linkage is central in defining (and this means in particular: in differentiating)
the equivalence relation. The process of differentiating this double linkage,
and of thereby rendering it operational, is achieved by distinguishing between various
frameworks of equivalence; at this stage, (translational) equivalence merely means that
a special relationship – which can be designated as the translation relationship – is
apparent between two texts, a source (primary) one and a resultant one.
The specification of the equivalence relation follows from the definition of relational
frameworks; its application presupposes that the relational frameworks be specified.
Linguistic/textual units which differ in nature and range are regarded as target-language
equivalents if they correspond to source-language elements according to the equivalence
relations specified in a set of relational frameworks. Target-language equivalents
answer to translational units in the source text; both the similarities and the differences
between the units of the source-language and their target-language equivalents result
from the degree to which the values assigned to the relational frameworks are
preserved.

W h a t i s t r a n s l a t i o n ?

Translation Studies thus has two main objectives:
(1) to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest
themselves in the world of our experience, and (2) to establish general principles by
means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted. The two branches
of pure Translation Studies concerning themselves with these objectives can be
designated descriptive translation studies (DTS) or translation description (TD) and theoretical
translation studies (ThTS) or translation theory (TTh).
1.11
Of these two, it is perhaps appropriate to give first consideration to descriptive translation
studies, as the branch of the discipline which constantly maintains the closest contact
with the empirical phenomena under study. There would seem to be three major kinds
of research in DTS, which may be distinguished by their focus as product-oriented,
function-oriented, and process-oriented.

The other main branch of pure Translation Studies, theoretical translation studies or
translation theory, as its name implies, is not interested in describing existing translations,
observed translation functions, or experimentally determined translating
processes, but in using the results of descriptive translation studies, in combination
with the information available from related fields and disciplines, to evolve principles,
theories, and models which will serve to explain and predict what translating and
translations are and will be..

A g e n t s o f p o w e r i n t r a n s l a t i o n

This term has had many uses in Translation Studies, but its most influential
has been through the descriptive translation theorists, notably Gideon Toury,
who view norms as translation behaviour typically obtaining under specific
socio-cultural or textual situations (Toury 1995:54–5). These TT-oriented
norms encompass not only translation strategy but also how, if at all, a TT
fits into the literary and social culture of the target system. Other norms are
those proposed by Chesterman (1997), namely ‘product and expectancy
norms’ (governed by the readers’ expectations of what a translation should
be) and ‘professional norms’ (governing the translator and the translation
process).