CC BY
222
УДК 81’25
T. A. Volkova
Translation Model Parameters Revised:
Text, Discourse, and Communication*
В статье анализируется наметившийся в настоящее время сдвиг парадигмы в моделировании процесса перевода, подходы к моделированию процесса перевода. Текст, дискурс и коммуникация рассматриваются как параметры моделирования процесса перевода. Описана авторская дискурсивно-коммуникативная модель перевода, позволяющая установить взаимосвязь параметров текста, дискурса и коммуникации и переводческих решений, образующих стратегию перевода.
The article addresses an existing paradigm shift in and approaches to translation modelling. Text, discourse, and communication are regarded as the basis for translation modelling. An original discourse and communication translation model described in the paper establishes a link between textual, discursive, and communicative parameters and decisions made by the translator that build up the translation strategy.
Ключевые слова: модель перевода, метод моделирования, сдвиг парадигмы, дискурсивно-коммуникативная модель перевода, институциональный дискурс, стратегия перевода.
Key words: translation model, modelling method, paradigm shift, discourse and communication translation model, institutional discourse, translation strategy.
1. Introduction
Definitions of a model vary in different scientific areas. A model is viewed as a deductive system, an interpretation of a formal system, an abstract notion for a reference standard, a set of general phenomenal features, or a general plan for describing a system. A model is defined as a visualized or materially realized system that reflects or reproduces an object, substituting it and providing new information about the object. A model is always a specific structure, more or less illustrative, finite, and available for observation or action [21]. A model can only be a model of something if there is someone who perceives it as such, and who recognizes the appropriate relation between model and prototype. The modelling operation therefore involves three components: a prototype, a model, and a human subject [20, p. 154].
A modelling method suggests researching objects of cognition basing on their models; creating and studying models of existing objects and phenomena
© Волкова Т.А., 2012
* Публикация осуществляется при финансовой поддержке РГНФ, грант 12-3401206 а2 (целевой конкурс поддержки молодых ученых 2012 года, проект «Моделирование процесса перевода: интеграция подходов в современной лингвистике»). (Published with financial support of the Russian Foundation for Humanities (12-34-01206 а2, Translation Modelling: Integrating Approaches in Modern Linguistics)).
211
(organic and nonorganic systems, engineering devices, constructed objects, and various physical, chemical, biological, and social processes) in order to define or enhance their features, streamline their development and management processes, etc. [16, p. 381]. Modelling an object is seen as an integral active research program that includes a sequence of methods and techniques used for a systematic presentation of a subject field (subjects) to gain information that cannot be gained using a descriptive approach. Modern linguistics widely uses the modelling method, as well as applied methods and models of particular segments of explored linguistic or cultural reality. It appears that active and systematic approaches may form the basis for establishing model linguistics as a paradigm of linguistic reality modelling [4].
Models range from iconic or diagrammatic representations (known as analogue models) to conceptual and theoretical models. Neither model nor prototype need to be physical realities: they can be abstract, mental or hypothetical entities [20, p. 154]. Researchers also describe hypothetical models, reproducing models [17, 18; 11], and explanatory models [10]. Explanatory models can essentially be used when no linguistic results similar to those produced by human action are expected. Models of this type should provide noncontradictory explanations of linguistic mechanisms in general, if language is modelled, and explanations of particular segments of a modelled phenomenon, if these segments are modelled. The value of reproducing models lies in producing a result similar to that caused by human action [10, p. 21].
Theoretical, or conceptual, models are hypothetical constructs which are derived from an established field of knowledge and then tentatively projected onto a new, wholly or partly unknown domain [20, p. 155]. Analogue models are used to represent those characteristics of a prototype which are considered relevant in a given context. They serve an intellectual and pedagogic purpose in visually foregrounding pertinent features while ignoring others [ibid.].
2. Translation Modelling: a Paradigm Shift
Theo Hermans considers the relevance of models in the context of translation from four different angles: (a) the use of theoretical models as heuristic tools in translation studies, (b) the use of diagrammatic or analogue models to represent certain aspects of translation, (c) the view of translating as a modelling activity, and (d) the relation between models and norms [20, p. 154155].
A translation model is viewed as a tentative description of a sequence of intellectual operations that a translator performs in order to translate the source text in whole or in part [8]. A linguistic model of translation process describes it as a sequence of source text (ST) transformations that should theoretically produce the desired result and create the target text (TT). Any translation model is hypothetical since there is no direct evidence that a translator acts exactly as the model suggests. However, when the translation result predicted in the model
coincides with the result produced by the translator, this proves the explanatory power of the model [7, p. 36-37].
Translation process comprises at least two stages: understanding the source text and selecting a translation variant. These steps form the transition from the source text to the target text. Translators often do not realize what guided them through the process and made them choose a particular variant, and their actions are often intuitive. This, however, does not mean that the choice is completely random or accidental. It is determined, to a large extent, by the mechanisms used to create a message in the source and target languages. Translation theory tries to explore the transition from the source text to the target text and find out what regular patterns form the basis for translator's actions [8]. To the extent that translating involves a process of decision making which takes place in a communicative context, the activity is governed by norms. Norms may be regarded as social regulation mechanisms which make certain choices and decisions by the translator more likely than others [20, p. 156].
As Lev L. Nelyubin puts it, a translation model (a model of translation activity) comprises four levels outlining the main stages of the creative process of translation. The first level can be described in terms of identification and initial understanding of words and general structure of the text. The next level of translator’s actions suggests more explicit factors of deeper understanding and making sense both of particular text units (words, phrases, and phraseological unities) and larger segments (sentences, utterance-length unities, and text as a whole). A set of translator’s actions aimed at reproducing the sense and style of the source text using the means of the target language can be referred to the third level of the model. The fourth self-check level is the final assessment performed by the translator [12, p. 114-115].
Christiane Nord suggests that the translation process includes interpretation of the translation brief, source-text analysis and comparison with target-text profile, decision on translation strategy and procedures, and production of target text and quality control [14, p. 117]. The results of the interpretation of the brief are compared to the material offered by the source text, and the result of this comparison leads to a decision with regard to the appropriate translation strategy. Drawing on her/his transfer competence and creativity, the translator then will put this strategy into practice, producing a suitable target text, before a phase of quality control will check whether the target text really meets the requirements of the brief. This process may entail quite a few changes with regard to wording or syntax or even the overall construction of the text [ibid.].
Translation models reveal certain functional aspects of linguistic mechanism of translation. Even though a translator can achieve the necessary result in some way other than suggested by any of the known translation models, understanding the functions of these models may help the translator complete the challenging translation tasks [8]. Most translation models have limited
explanatory power and therefore do not claim to be the basis for a real translation of a text with the necessary level of equivalence. The tasks of a model lie in describing the sequence of actions that meet a given translation challenge under given conditions. A translation model outlines the translation process in general, provides a general direction of the translator's thought, and describes the consecutive stages of moving from the source text to the target text. A more detailed description of the translation process can be developed through describing the types of intellectual operations that the translator uses to find the needed translation variant. It is suggested that there is an immediate connection between the ST and TT units, and the source unit can produce the target unit through certain transformations. Viewing the translation process as the transformation of ST units into TT units is metaphoric [ibid.].
As Yury N. Marchuk rightfully points out, the emergence of machine translation and a heuristic approach to translation produced a special perspective on the problem of collecting data from a text required for the formal process of translation. Numerous models of human translation are not easily formalized [11]. For example, almost each model defines the stages of translation activity, but it is quite difficult to draw the formal lines between the stages. How can we describe the translation strategy as an algorithm, a sequence of differentiated actions, each performed on particular data and producing a particular result? How can we specify the mentality of a (possible) receiver? What are the parameters to accurately and consistently assess translation adequacy taking into account all the possible conditions in which the translation functions? A list of these questions remains open [ibid.].
Translation modelling issues are explored by different authors (V.V. Andriyanov, V.N. Bazylev, L.S. Barkhudarov, V.G. Gak, Yu.I. Gurova, V.V. Gusev, S.V. Yevteyev, O. Kade, V.N. Komissarov, A.N. Kryukov, E.Yu. Kunitsyna, J.C. Catford, L.L. Latyshev, M. Lederer, A.G. Minchenkov, R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev, E. Nida, C. Nord, I.I. Revzin, Ya.I. Retsker, V.Yu. Rozentsveig, A.P. Sedykh, D. Seleskovitch, E.A. Selivanova, S.V. Tyulenev, A.V. Fedorov, L.G. Fedyuchenko, M.Ya. Zwilling, A.D. Shveitser, A.F. Shiryaev, et al.). In describing various translation models authors refer to them as hermeneutic, dialogic, informative, cognitive and heuristic, communicative, constellational, linguistic and culturological, ludic, psycholinguistic, semantic, semiotic, situational and denotative, transformational, functional and pragmatic (dynamic). Researchers also put forward an empathetic model in working out a translation strategy and suggest using frames in analyzing the source text structure, describe linguistic and cultural translation patterns based on the preferred structural and functional models of representing reality in different languages, a model of social regulation of translation activity, communication of translation, a concept of interpretative and generative discourse, etc.
It is admitted that the terms “theory” and “model” are used almost interchangeably. In some cases a model is quite rightfully regarded as a result of the theory applied [11] (cf. information translation theory, communicative and functional translation theory, cultural translation concept, psycholinguistic translation theory, semantic and semiotic translation model, semantic translation theory, regular equivalents theory, equivalence levels theory, transformational translation model, transformational translation theory [12, 13]). A model, like a theory, is created to describe a particular scientific subject field [4]. On the other hand, a scope of a theory is a complex of statements connected by the laws of logic and special scientific laws that “immediately” reflect regular, necessary, and universal links and relations inherent to reality. A scope of a model is represented as a set of some typical situations, structures, schemata, and complexes of idealized objects that implement these regular links and relations. Reflecting reality (an object) in a simplified and abstract way is a property that a theory and a model have in common. Turning this reflection into a separate specific and therefore more or less evident system is a property that distinguishes a model from a theory [21, p. 15].
Foundations of a model may include equivalence, correspondence, shift, deconstruction, function, and discourse [2]. Researchers come to the conclusion that a translation model based on interlingual comparison can hardly be regarded as a full-fledged cognitive basis for working out a translation strategy. Linguistic models should be set against those based on activity-oriented translation perceptions [6]. Natalia L. Galeyeva suggests that in a variety of translation theories or models a substitutional and transformational approach and an activity-oriented approach have ontologized and acquired a status of a relatively complete “translation worldview”. The approaches vary in their relation to agent and activity. Substitutional and transformational ontology is mainly focused on streamlining the search for transformations and substitutions. In activity-oriented ontology translation is not restricted to manipulating various linguistic means, but is the speech activity in itself performed according to the program determined by the original [5, p. 18].
Comparing traditional (structural) and cognitive and activity-oriented (personally oriented) trends in translation studies, researchers point out a number of differences concerning their scope (studying the limits of language sign variations in source and target texts v. exploring the nature of translation activity), objectives (achieving adequacy in translation v. creating a target text suitable for communication), and a research object definition (partial v. integral, translation units v. translation strategy). The methods that are used differ, too: monoparadigmatic v. polyparadigmatic, methods based on lexical and grammatical equivalence v. methods based on discourse analysis, substitutional and transformational approach v. cognitive approach, and formal analysis v. interpretative analysis [2].
As Susan Bassnett puts it, central to the many theories of translation articulated by non-European writers are a redefinition of the terminology of faithfulness and equivalence, the importance of highlighting the visibility of the translator, and a shift of emphasis that views translation as an act of creative rewriting [3, p. 6].
Activity-oriented translation theory is defined as a psychotypical / interpretative theory [22]. Since constructing a translation object is a complex process that requires intellectual efforts of a translator, a concept of reflection in translation activity is introduced. Reflection is viewed as the basis for activity-oriented translation theories, and translation is perceived as a reflexive activity, a complex intellectual activity, and a process fully dependent on the translator’s competence as a translating personality [2]. Translating in itself can be seen as a modelling activity in that the result of the operation, i.e. the translated text, commonly claims, explicitly or implicitly, to represent an anterior discourse in a way comparable to the representational function of models [20, p. 156].
3. Discourse and Communication Translation Model
The basis for the discourse and communication translation model [23] is formed by a two-level structure of translation strategies included in the general scheme of text, discourse, and communication interrelation. As Yury E. Prokhorov puts it, text and discourse exist in the structure and content of communication [19]. Elaborating further, he concludes that text and discourse are not characterized by a genus-species relation. Discourse is not an intermediate link between a system and a text, it is not a text taken together with its extralinguistic parameters, nor is a text viewed as discourse less the extralinguistic parameters. Text and discourse are referred to as “figures of communication” [ibid, p. 33]. Communication consists of three unmergeable but indissolubly linked components that include a material figure of reality, which serves as a framework and a basis for communication, an introverted figure of text, which determines the content and language parameters of communication, and an extroverted figure of discourse, which determines the content and speech parameters of communication participants interaction [ibid, p. 34-35].
In the discourse and communication translation model (fig. 1) linguistic (stylistic, lexical and semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic) peculiarities of source text, its discursive characteristics (text authorship, addressness, and narrative), discourse nodal points (for more on the term see [9]), discourse constitutive features (goals, values, chronotopos, linguistic expression, topic and participants of discourse, and interdiscursivity), communicative functions, typical features and strategies define decisions made by the translator and build up translation microstrategies on the textual level and translation macrostrategies on discursive and communicative levels.
Fig. 1: Discourse and Communication Translation Model
It seems fair to note that the process of translation generally includes the stages of preparation, translation proper, and analysis of results. Vilen N. Komissarov points out that studying a source text before starting to translate it, using a draft (literal) translation or selecting a final translation variant, and the predominant use of pre-translation analysis or post-translation editing refer to the elements of translation strategy [7, p. 337]. Irina S. Alekseeva divides the translation process into the following stages: 1) pre-translation analysis, 2) analytical variative search, and 3) analyzing translation results [1, p. 144].
A general typology of translation strategies in the discourse and communication translation model therefore includes a general translation strategy (the translator’s commitment to understand the source text as fully as possible and find its most accurate equivalent in the target language), translation process stages, translation macrostrategies (discursive and communicative levels), and translation microstrategies (textual level).
When modelling the translation process and describing it in some abstract terms, researchers differentiate between statics and dynamics, elements of declarative and procedural language description that interact closely for translation purposes [11]. Describing the translation process with the help of translation models includes two interrelated aspects: 1) a general description of a model defining the possible scope of its application (explanatory power of a model), and 2) types of translation operations (transformations) carried out in the framework of a model. A translation model can be either primarily
extralinguistic or based on some structural and semantic features of language units [8].
Exploring text, discourse, and communication features, defining the corresponding translation difficulties, and streamlining decisions made by the translator to work out translation strategies in the discourse and communication translation model can in this respect be viewed as translation operations. A scope of the model application includes various kinds of institutional discourse and a range of relevant texts. The model has been used to analyze diplomatic, political, legal, scientific, teaching, touristic, and mass media discourse, discourse of negotiation and discourse of advertising, and to define the basic features of relevant texts and work out translation strategies, as well as explore interdiscursivity in various kinds of institutional discourse. The model has also been applied to interpreting a guided tour, to conference interpreting preparation, and to teaching consecutive interpreting [23].
A complex analysis of the source text according to the model allows the translator to define linguistic, background, sociocultural and other data that cause translation difficulties, and find possible solutions. The discourse and communication translation model is explanatory in character and provides a range of parameters for working out a translation strategy.
4. Conclusions
It should be noted that textual features and the way they influence the translation process are considered in a number of existing theories. Elements of the discourse and communication translation model correlate with certain pretranslation analysis components put forward by Irina S. Alekseeva: collecting extralinguistic text data (author, receiver, time of creation and publication, intertextual relations, and information about the source), information composition and density, translation brief, translation dominants, and text genre [1]. Olga V. Petrova describes the following components of pre-translation analysis: text topic, source text (communicative) goal, target text goal, receiver, text composition, and genre and stylistic characteristics of a text [15]. In the framework of the discourse and communication translation model analyzing linguistic features of a text and functions of communication allows us to determine information composition and density, text genre, and text function. A translator receives a translation brief from the client and/or determines it by analyzing lexical and semantic, pragmatic, and other features of text, its discursive characteristics, discourse nodal points and constitutive features, typical features of communication, communicative functions and strategies in order to get an idea of source text and target text goals.
However, the interaction between discourse parameters (discourse nodal points, discourse goals and values, chronotopos, topic and participants of discourse, interdiscursivity, and linguistic expression of discourse formed by the textual characteristics) and communication parameters (functions, typical features, and strategies of communication) are apparently not reflected in
existing translation models. The discourse and communication translation model predicts possible translation difficulties, establishes a link between textual, discursive, and communicative parameters and decisions made by the translator that build up the translation strategy and determine the translation result (target text), thus giving researchers and translators new information about the translation process.
Researching interdiscursivity takes textual, discursive and communicative parameters to a new level of interaction in the translation process, giving additional opportunities for working out a translation strategy. The discourse and communication translation model provides the following parameters for interdiscursivity analysis: field (topic), tenor (participants), goals, values, and nodal points of discourse, linguistic features and discursive characteristics of a relevant text (mode of discourse), typical features, functions, and strategies of communication.
In the long term the discourse and communication translation model provides theoretical and methodological background for integral translation modelling based on text, discourse, and communication interrelation, which in its turn can serve as a basis for systematizing existing translation models and interdisciplinary approaches to translation process modelling. Broadening the scope of the discourse and communication translation model application by using new data provides detailed characteristics of other kinds of institutional discourse and allows the translator to work out translation strategies for a range of relevant texts.
References
1. Alekseeva I.S. Professional Translator Training: textbook of translation and interpreting for translators and trainers. - St. Petersburg: Soyuz Publishing, 2001 (In Russian).
2. Alekseeva L.M. Translation as a Reflexive Activity / L.M. Alekseeva // Vestnik of Perm University. Russian and Foreign Philology. - Perm: Perm State University, 2010. -Issue 1. - P. 45-51 (In Russian).
3. Bassnett S. Translation Studies. - London-New York: Routledge, 2002.
4. Belousov K.I. Theory and Methodology of Polystructural Text Synthesis: monograph. - Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2009 (In Russian).
5. Galeyeva N.L. Basics of Activity-Oriented Translation Theory. - Tver: Tver State University Publishing, 1997 (In Russian).
6. Gusev V.V. Empathetic Model in Working out a Translation Strategy // Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. - Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University, 2003. -Issue 840: Translation as Cognitive Activity. - P. 26-41 (In Russian)
7. Komissarov V.N. Modern Translation Studies: textbook. - Moscow: ETS, 2002 (In Russian).
8. Komissarov V.N. Translation Theory (Linguistic Aspects): textbook for institutes and faculties of foreign languages. - Moscow: Higher School Publishing House, 1990 (In Russian).
9. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. - London: Verso, 1985.
10. Marchuk Yu.N. Computer Linguistics: textbook. - Moscow: AST: Vostok-Zapad, 2007 (In Russian).
11. Marchuk Yu.N. Translation Models: textbook for students of higher education institutions. - Moscow: Academia Publishing, 2010 (In Russian).
12. Nelyubin L.L. Explanatory Dictionary of Translation Terms. - Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2003 (In Russian).
13. Nelyubin L.L., Knyazeva E.G. Translation Didactics: textbook. - Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2009 (In Russian).
14. Nord C. Jack of All Trades, Master of None? // Vestnik of Nizhny Novgorod State University. - Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University, 2009. - Issue
4. - P. 114-121.
15. Petrova O.V. Model of Pre-Translation Text Analysis // Methodical Background for Translator Training: Nizhny Novgorod Experience: monograph. - Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University, 2007. - P. 38-42 (In Russian).
16. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary / Chief Editor: Ilyichev L.F., Fedoseyev P.N. et al. - Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983 (In Russian).
17. Piotrovsky R.G. Engineering Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. - Leningrad: Nauka (Leningrad Branch), 1979 (In Russian).
18. Piotrovsky R.G. Linguistic Automation and Its Verbal and Cognitive Grounds: textbook / R.G. Piotrovsky. - Minsk: Minsk State Linguistic University, 1999 (In Russian).
19. Prokhorov Yu. E. Reality. Text. Discourse: textbook. - Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2006 (In Russian).
20. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies / Edited by Mona Baker. - London and New York, 2001.
21. Shtoff V.A. Modelling and Philosophy. - Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka (Leningrad Branch), 1966 (In Russian).
22. Sorokin Yu.A. Interpretative or Activity-Oriented Translation Theory? //
Linguistic Consciousness and World Image: collected works / Executive Editor:
N.V. Ufimtseva. - Moscow: Institute of Linguistics Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000. -P. 107-115 (In Russian).
23. Volkova T. A. Discourse and Communication Translation Model: monograph / T.A. Volkova. - Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2010 (In Russian).
