J. C. Catford (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford: OUP,
Chapter 12, pp. 73-82.
1.1 Level shifts. By a shift of level we mean that a SL item at one linguistic level has
a TL translation equivalent at a different level.
We have already pointed out that translation between the levels of phonology and
graphology – or between either of these levels and the levels of grammar and lexis –
is impossible. Translation between these levels is absolutely ruled out by our theory,
which posits ‘relationship to the same substance’ as the necessary condition of
translation equivalence. We are left, then, with shifts from grammar to lexis and viceversa
as the only possible level shifts in translation; and such shifts are, of course,
quite common.
1.11 Examples of level shifts are sometimes encountered in the translation of the
verbal aspects of Russian and English. Both these language have an aspectual
opposition – of very roughly the same type – seen most clearly in the ‘past’ or preterite
tense: the opposition between Russian imperfective and perfective (e.g. pisal and napisal),
and between English simple and continuous (wrote and was writing).
There is, however, an important difference between the two aspect systems, namely
that the polarity of marking is not the same. In Russian, the (contextually) marked term
in the system is the perfective; this explicitly refers to the uniqueness or completion of the
event. The imperfective is unmarked – in other words it is relatively neutral in these
respects (the event may or may not actually be unique or completed, etc., but at any
rate the imperfective is indifferent to these features – does not explicitly refer to this
‘perfectiveness’).1
In English, the (contextually and morphologically) marked term is the continuous;
this explicitly refers to the development, the progress, of the event. The ‘simple’ form is
neutral in this respect (the event may or may not actually be in progress, but the simple
form does not explicitly refer to this aspect of the event).
We indicate these differences in the following diagram, in which the marked terms
in the Russian and English aspect systems are enclosed in rectangles:
1.12 One result of this difference between Russian and English is that Russian
imperfective (e.g. pisal) is translatable with almost equal frequency by English simple
(wrote) or continuous (was writing). But the marked terms (napisal – was writing) are
mutually untranslatable.
A Russian writer can create a certain contrastive effect by using an imperfective and
then, so to speak, ‘capping’ this by using the (marked) perfective. In such a case, the
same effect of explicit, contrastive, reference to completion may have to be translated
into English by a change of lexical item. The following example2 shows this
Cˇto zˇe delal Bel’tov v prodolzˇenie etix des’ati let? Vse ili pocˇti vse. Cˇ to on sdelal?
Nicˇego ili pocˇti nicˇego.’
Here the imperfective, delal, is ‘capped’ by the perfective sdelal. Delal can be translated
by either did or was doing – but, since there is no contextual reason to make explicit
reference to the progress of the event, the former is the better translation. We can thus
say ‘What did Beltov do . . .?’ The Russian perfective, with its marked insistence on
completion can cap this effectively: ‘What did he do and complete?’ But the English marked
term insists on the progress of the event, so cannot be used here. (‘What was he doing’
is obviously inappropriate.) In English, in this case, we must use a different lexical
verb: a lexical item which includes reference to completion in its contextual meaning,
e.g. achieve.3 The whole passage can thus be translated:
What did Beltov do during these ten years? Everything, or almost everything.
What did he achieve? Nothing, or almost nothing?
:
