Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for
- Author or Editor: Kinga Klaudy x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
The paper describes how sociolinguistics, revealing the relationship between language and society independently of translation, provides scientifically well-founded descriptions of the relationship between the source language and source language society, and the target language and the target language society, and might thus contribute to exploring the objective rules behind the translators’ decisions.
The author claims that word-order shifts take place in the course of the translation of almost every sentence of translated texts, regardless of language-pair and direction of translation. Some of these shifts are obligatory, since without them we would not get a grammatically correct TL sentence. Another class of word-order shifts is not obligatory but optional. Optional word-order shifts are performed in order to ensure the cohesion of the TL text. Obligatory word-order shifts which lead to a grammatically correct TL sentence may distort the communicative structure: cohesive ties get loose, unimportant elements get highlighted and important elements are blurred. Many optional word-order changes are performed in order to preserve the communicative structure of the sentences, and thus the cohesion of the text. The present paper will discuss the different types of optional word-order shifts in translation from Hungarian into IE languages and vice versa.
This study focuses on the notions of explicitation and implicitation in translation and aims to provide empirical evidence for operational asymmetry (Klaudy 2001). Bi-directional (SL=L1→TL=L2 and SL=L2→TL=L1) comparisons show that when explicitation takes place in the L1→L2 direction, implicitation can be observed in the L2→L1 direction. This phenomenon is referred to as symmetric explicitation. It may also happen, however, that when explicitation is carried out in the L1→L2 direction, no implicitation occurs in the L2→L1 direction. This phenomenon is referred to as asymmetric explicitation. It would be logical to suppose that all cases of language-specific explicitation in the L1→L2 direction are symmetrical (i.e., matched by implicitation in the L2→L1 direction), but this does not seem to be the case. The present paper reports on the findings of an empirical study designed to investigate the validity of the asymmetry hypothesis in the translation of reporting verbs in literary texts translated from English into Hungarian and from Hungarian into English. Using the method of two-way qualitative translation analysis, the study demonstrates that translators tend to prefer the more explicit forms to the more implicit ones in both directions and often fail to perform implicitation. The study may thus provide further evidence for the assumption that semantic explicitation is in fact a universal translation strategy.
Abstract
This paper describes the distinctive features of cultural back-translation. This term is employed here to refer to the translation of source texts into a target language from which most or all of the culture-specific elements of the source text were drawn. It makes an attempt to provide a systematic analysis of the distinctive features of this type of translation with special reference to the concepts of domestication and foreignization. The findings show that cultural back-translation is necessarily domesticating, or more precisely, re-domesticating. Re-domestication has several types: re-domestication proper, repatriation and additional domestication. Domesticating and foreignizing strategies work out differently in cultural back-translation: domestication does not mean adjustment to a different culture but restoring the original cultural context. In re-domestication the distribution of translation strategies used is different from those used in domestication and the purpose and effects of various strategies are different. The whole process from text composition to back-translation may be described as a process of double domestication. It is claimed that while domestication in general reduces readers’ processing effort by sacrificing some contextual effects, redomestication reduces processing effort and at the same time may increase contextual effects. It is concluded that the study of cultural back-translation is worthy of more serious attention and further lines of inquiry are suggested.
In this article, the six authors discuss the question of whether Translation Studies should devote more attention to the linguistic aspect of translation, in view of the tendency in recent years to focus on its social functioning. In the first part, each author tackles one or more aspects of this issue; in the second part, the authors respond to each other's views. Topics covered include what kind of language production translation is, whether translational language arises out of a particular form of communication or is itself a linguistic system, the relationship of Translation Studies to linguistics and other disciplines, the behaviour of particular language pairs when they clash during translation, translational language from the producer's as opposed to the receiver's viewpoint, and the relation of the linguistic to the social and to the cognitive. Reference is made to methodologies such as keystroke logging and the use of corpora, and also to a range of past and present linguistic approaches to translation, from comparative stylistics to relevance theory. Suggestions are offered regarding the directions to be taken by linguistically oriented studies of translation.
