DIRECT VS INDIRECT TRANSLATION1

DIRECT VS INDIRECT TRANSLATION
The degree of latitude which translators enjoy may be seen in terms of another
distinction which the relevance model of translation has had to adopt: direct and
indirect translation. This dichotomy addresses the need ‘to distinguish between
translations where the translator is free to elaborate or summarize [i.e. indirectly]
and those where he has to somehow stick to the explicit contents of the original’
[directly] (Gutt 1991:122). Obviously, this is not an either/or choice but rather the
two ends of a continuum. Indirect translations are intended to survive on their
own, and involve whatever changes the translator deems necessary to maximize
relevance for a new audience (i.e. the predominantly ‘descriptive’ mode of the tourist
brochure type of translation in the example discussed above). Direct translations,
on the other hand, are more closely tied to the original, a case of what we have called
‘interpretive’ resemblance.Guided by a notion of faithfulness, the translator designs
a direct translation in such a way that it resembles the original ‘closely enough in
relevant respects’ (Sperber and Wilson 1986:137

).

DESCRIPTIVE VS INTERPRETIVE1

DESCRIPTIVE VS INTERPRETIVE
In dealing with these form–content problems, the relevance model of translation
employs a range of cognitive tools, including inference and the ability to perceive
and interact with textual salience functionally.An important distinction entertained
by the text user relates to two ways of using language:‘ descriptive’ and ‘interpretive’.
These reflect the two ways our minds entertain thoughts.An utterance is said to be
descriptive if it is intended to be true of a state of affairs in some possible world.On
the other hand, an utterance is said to be interpretive if it is intended by the speaker
not to represent his or her own thoughts but those of someone else.
To see the descriptive vs interpretive dichotomy in practical translation terms, let
us consider two translation situations, one involving the production in English of
a tourist brochure (with the instruction of producing a text that is ultra-functional
in guiding tourists round a city), the other the production of an advert (with the
instruction that the translation is for use by top planners of marketing strategy).
Thus, while the resultant English tourist brochure could conceivably be composed
without reference to the original, the translation of the advertisement would be
crucially dependent on the ST

The tourist brochure would be an instance of descriptive use in that the TT is
intended to achieve relevance in its own right, whereas the advertisement translation
could succeed only in virtue of its resemblance to some SL original. In practice,
this points to a greater freedom enjoyed by the translator of the tourist brochure
(hence the luxury of producing what is almost akin to an original text). The advertisement’s
translator, on the other hand, can work only interpretively (resigned to
the limitations of a medium called translation).

Task A8.7
➤ To what extent do you think ‘interpretive’ translation is tantamount to ‘literal’
translation, and ‘descriptive’ translation to ‘free’ translation?
➤ Find a tourist brochure and translate a portion into another language.Comment
on whether your translation is interpretive or descriptive. Can you conceive
of how the tourist brochure might sound, were you to adopt an alternative
strategy?
Task A8.8
➤ What problems are likely to be encountered in translating a sacred text
descriptively?

Descriptive2

Gideon Toury is the Israeli scholar who
has been the prime proponent of Descriptive Translation Studies, a branch of the
discipline that sets out to describe translation by comparing and analysing ST–TT
pairs. In his work, Toury initially used a supposed ‘invariant’ as a form of comparison
(Toury 1980), but in his major work Descriptive Translation Studies – and
Beyond (Toury 1995) he drops this in favour of a more flexible ‘ad-hoc’ approach
to the selection of features, dependent on the characteristics of the specific texts
under consideration. Importantly, he warns against ‘the totally negative kind of
reasoning required by the search for shifts’ (Toury 1995:84) in which error and
failure and loss in translation are highlighted. Instead, for Toury translation shift
analysis is most valuable as a form of ‘discovery’, ‘a step towards the formulation of
explanatory hypotheses’ about the practice of translation (1995:85)

Descriptive1

Here Holmes uses ‘translating’ for the process and ‘translation’ for the product. The
descriptions and generalized principles envisaged were much reinforced by Gideon
Toury in his Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (1995) where two tentative
general ‘laws’ of translation are proposed:
1. the law of growing standardization – TTs generally display less linguistic
variation than STs, and
2. the law of interference – common ST lexical and syntactic patterns tend to be
copied, creating unusual patterns in the TT.
In both instances, the contention is that translated language in general displays
specific characteristics, known as universals of translation.

Descriptive translation studies and beyond

This title has been replaced by Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond: Revised edition (2012)

A replacement of the author's well-known book on Translation Theory, In Search of a Theory of Translation (1980), this book makes a case for Descriptive Translation Studies as a scholarly activity as well as a branch of the discipline, having immediate consequences for issues of both a theoretical and applied nature. Methodological discussions are complemented by an assortment of case studies of various scopes and levels, with emphasis on the need to contextualize whatever one sets out to focus on.

Part One deals with the position of descriptive studies within TS and justifies the author's choice to devote a whole book to the subject. Part Two gives a detailed rationale for descriptive studies in translation and serves as a framework for the case studies comprising Part Three. Concrete descriptive issues are here tackled within ever growing contexts of a higher level: texts and modes of translational behaviour — in the appropriate cultural setup; textual components — in texts, and through these texts, in cultural constellations. Part Four asks the question: What is knowledge accumulated through descriptive studies performed within one and the same framework likely to yield in terms of theory and practice?This is an excellent book for higher-level translation courses.

ttttttt

rertt

System Theories

Key concepts :

-  Even-Zohar's polysystem theory (1970s) sees translated literature as part of the
cultural, literary and historical system of the TL.

- Toury (1 995) puts forward a methodology for descriptive translation studies
(DTS) as a non-prescriptive means of understanding the 'norms' at work in the
translation process and of discovering the general 'laws' of translation.

- In DTS, equivalence is functional-historical and related to the continuum of
'acceptability' and 'adequacy'.

- Other systems approaches include the Manipulation School.




Key texts :
 
  -  Chesterman, A. (1997) Memes of Translation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins, chapter 3.
 - Even-Zohar, 1. (197812000) 'The position of translated literature within the literary
 - polysystem', in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000). pp. 192-7.
 - Gentzler, E. (1 993) Contemporary Translotion Theories, London and New York: Routledge,
chapter 5.
 - Hermans, T. (ed.) (1 985a) The Monipulotion of Literature, Beckenham: Croom Helm.
 - Hermans, T. (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St Jerome. chapters 6 to 8.
Toury, G. (197812000) 'The nature and role of norms in literary translation', in L. Venuti
(ed.) (2000), pp. 198-2 l I.
Toury, G. (1 995) Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond, Amsterdam and Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.

Descriptive Translation Studiesxc

Descriptive Translation Studies

Descriptive Translation Studies

Descriptive Translation Studies