shfits

A shift is said to occur if, in a given TT, a translation equivalent other than
the formal correspondent occurs for a specific SL element. This is what has
occurred between the French and English texts in Example A4.1

The following example, from a leaflet distributed on board Eurostar trains explaining
the measures being taken to detect smoking, can illustrate these differences.
Example A4.2a English
Please note that smoke detectors will be fitted on-board.
Example A4.2b German
Beachten Sie bitte, daß die Züge mit Rauchdetektoren ausgestattet werden.
[Note you please, that the trains with smokedetectors fitted will-be.].

translation shifts6

Translation shifts
Unit 3 looked at the unit of translation, whether word, phrase or higher level.
The present unit will now discuss models or taxonomies that have been proposed
for examining the small changes or ‘shifts’ that occur between units in a ST–TT pair.
A connecting theme of the examples is rail travel, perhaps a symbolic counterpoint
to the best known taxonomy of translation shifts, devised by Vinay and Darbelnet
and initially inspired by the study of bilingual road signs in Canada.
TRANSLATION SHIFTS
On some international trains in Europe, there is, or used to be, a multilingual
warning notice displayed next to the windows:

Example A4.1
Ne pas se pencher au dehors
Nicht hinauslehnen
È pericoloso sporgersi
Do not lean out of the window
The warning is clear, even if the formis different in each language. The English, the
only one to actually mention the window, is a negative imperative,while the French
and German use a negative infinitive construction (‘not to lean outside’) and the
Italian is a statement (‘[it] is dangerous to lean out’). Of course, these kinds of
differences are typical of translation in general. It is not at all the most common for
the exact structure of the words to be repeated across languages and, even when the
grammatical structure is the same (as in the French and German examples above),
the number of word forms varies from six (ne pas se pencher au dehors) to two (nicht
hinauslehnen).
The small linguistic changes that occur between ST and TT are known as translation
shifts. John Catford was the first scholar to use the term in his A Linguistic Theory
of Translation (1965, see Section B Text B4.1).His definition of shifts is ‘departures
from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL’ (Catford  1965:73). The distinction drawn between formal correspondence and textual
equivalence will be crucial and relates to Saussure’s distinction between langue and
parole:

THE UNIT OF TRANSLATION AS A PRELUDE TO ANALYSIS

THE UNIT OF TRANSLATION AS A PRELUDE TO ANALYSIS
Division of ST and TT into the units of translation is of particular importance in
Vinay and Darbelnet’s work as a prelude to analysis of changes in translation, the
translation shifts that will occupy us in Unit 4.As an illustration of how this division
works, and how it might illuminate the process of translation, look at Example
A3.4a, a poster located by the underground ticket office at Heathrow airport,
London:
Example A3.4a
Travelling from Heathrow?
There are easy to follow instructions on the larger self-service touch screen ticket
machines.

Task A3.3
➤ Before reading further, imagine you have been asked to translate this poster
into your first language (or main foreign language).Write down your translation
and make a note of the translation units you use when dividing up
the ST.

A translator approaching this short text will most probably break it down into the
title (Travelling from Heathrow?) and the instructions in the second sentence.While
that sentence will be taken as a whole, it might also in turn be sub-divided more or
less as follows:
There are/
[easy to follow/instructions]/
[on the/larger/self-service/touch screen/ticket machines]
Here, the slashes (/) indicate small word groups with a distinct semantic meaning
that might be considered separately, while the brackets ([. . .]) enclose larger units
that a practised translator is likely to translate as a whole.
The actual French TT on the poster indicates how this operates in real life:

THE TRANSLATION SHIFT APPROACH1

THE TRANSLATION SHIFT APPROACH
2
4
I 1 Note the similarity with recommendations by Nida and Newmark which were
discussed in chapter 3.
2 This forms the basis of the discourse analysis models discussed in chapter 6.
3 These functions originate in Riihler (1939165) and are later developed by
Halliday. See chapters 5 and 6 for a more detailed explanation.
4 See, for example, Fish (1981) or van Peer (1989).
5 In The Royal River Thames: Westminster to Greenwich Cruise and Sail and Rail
Guide (1997), London: Paton Walker, pp. 7 and 14.

system theories3

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:
1 Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance
or acceptability.
2 Compare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationships between
'coupled pairs' of ST and TT segments, and attempting generalizations
about the underlying concept of translation.
3 Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.

An important additional step is the possibility of repeating phases (1) and (2)
for other pairs of similar texts in order to widen the corpus and to build up a
descriptive profile of translations according to genre, period, author, etc. In
this way, the norms pertaining to each kind of translation can be identified
with the ultimate aim (as more descriptive studies are performed) of stating
j laws of behaviour for translation in general. The concepts of norms and laws
are further discussed in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 below.
I The second step of Toury's methodology is one of the most controversial
areas. The decisions on which ST and TT segments to examine and what the
1 relationships are betureen them is an apparatus which Toury (1995: 85) states
I should be supplied by translation theory. Yet, as we have seen in chapters 4 l
and 5, linguistic translation theory is far from reaching a consensus as to
what that apparatus should be. Most controversially, in earlier papers (1978:
93, 1985: 32), Toury still holds to the use of a hypothetical intermediate
invariant or tertium comparationis (see page 49 for a discussion of this term) as
an 'Adequate Translation' (AT) against which to gauge translation shifts.
However, at the same time he also admits (1978: 88-9) that, in practice, no
translation is ever fully 'adequate'; for this contradiction, and for considerl
i ing the hypothetical invariant to be a universal given, he has been roundly
I ~ criticized (see, e.g., Gentzler 1993: 131-2, Hermans 1999: 56-7).

Functional theories of translation

5.0 Introduction
The 1970s and 1980s saw a move away from the static linguistic typologies of
translation shifts and the emergence and flourishing in Germany of a
functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation. In
this chapter, we look at:

1 Katharina Reiss's early work on text type and language function;
2 Justa Holz-Miinttiiri's theory of translational action;
3 Hans J. Vermeer's skopos theory which centred on the purpose of the
TT;
4 Christiane Nord's more detailed text-analysis model which continued
the functionalist tradition in the 1990s.

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.) :

czech

Two other papers on translation shifts by Czech writers were published in
the influential volume The Nuture of Translation: Essays on the Theory and
Practice of Literury Translation (Holmes 1970). FrantiSek Miko concentrates
on discussing different theoretical aspects of what he terms 'shifts of expression'
or style in translation. He maintains (Miko 1970: 66) that retaining the
expressive character or style of the ST is the main and perhaps only goal of
the translator. Miko suggests an analysis of style under categories such as operativity, iconicity, subjectivity, affectation, prominence and contrast. In
the same volume, Anton PopoviP (1970: 85) emphasizes the importance of
the shift of expression concept:
An analysis of the shifts of expression, applied to all levels of the text, will bring to
light the general system of the translation, with its dominant and subordinate
elements.
This is an important development. Shift analysis can be seen as a way of
influencing the system of norms which govern the translation process, a
concept which is discussed in more detail in chapter 7. PopoviP (p. 801, in
terms very similar to LevG1s, relates shifts to the 'literal vs. free' debate,
considering them to arise from the tension between the original text and the
translation ideal, and to be the result of the translator's conscious efforts
faithfully to reproduce the aesthetic totality of the original. A clarification of
these principles is to be seen in Popovii-'s short Dictionary for the Analysis of
Literary Translation (1976), where the entry 'adequacy of translation' is
defined as synonymous with both 'faithfulness to the original' and 'stylistic
equivalence in translation'. Stylistic equivalence is itself defined (p. 6) as
'functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming
at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning'. However, in
their articles neither PopoviE nor Miko applies the ideas in detail to the
analysis of translated texts.

Czech writing on translation shifts1

4.3 Czech writing on translation shifts
Other writing on translation shifts in the 1960s and 1970s from the then
Czechoslovakia introduces a literary aspect, that of the 'expressive function'
or style of a text. JiEi Levjr's ground-breaking work on literary translation
(Urngni pr't.kladu, 1963) - translated into German as Die literarische Ubersetzung:
Theorie einer Kunstgattung (Lev? 1969) - links into the tradition of the
Prague school of structural linguistics. In this book, Lev? looks closely at
the translation of the surface structure of the ST and TT, with particular
attention to poetry translation, and sees literary translation as both a reproductive
and a creative labour with the goal of equivalent aesthetic effect (pp.
65-9). He, too, gives a categorization of features of texts where equivalence
may need to be achieved. These are (p. 19): denotative meaning, connotation,
stylistic arrangement, syntax, sound repetition (rhythm, etc.), vowel length
and articulation. Their importance in a translation depends on the type of
text. Thus, vowel length and articulation must not vary in dubbing, while, in
a technical text, denotative meaning is of prime importance and must not
vary. Levj.'s work was crucial for the development of translation theory in
Czechoslovakia before his early death, and it has subsequently influenced
scholars internationally. Another of his papers, 'Translation as a decision
process' (1967/2000), has also had an important impact, relating the 'gradual
semantic shifting' of translators1 linguistic choices to game theory. Hence,
Lev? sees real-world translation work as being 'pragmatic1:
The translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a
maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves
for the so-called MINIMAX STRATEGY.

translation shifts

As far as translation is concerned, Catford makes an important distinction
between formal correspondence and textual equivalence, which was later to
be developed by Koller (see chapter 3):
A formal correspondent is 'any TL category (unit, class, element of
structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as ~ossible,t he
"same" place in the "economy" of the TL as the given SL category occupies
in the SL' (Catford 1965: 27).
A textual equivalent is 'any TL text or portion of text which is observed
on a particular occasion . . . to be the equivalent of a given SL text or
portion of text'.
Textual equivalence is thus tied to a particular ST-TT pair, while formal
equivalence is a more general system-based concept between a pair of languages.
When the two concepts diverge, a translation shift is deemed to have
occurred. In Catford's own words (2000: 141), translation shifts are thus
'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL
to the TL'.