The paper focuses on a textual shift that was observed in a comparison between the Italian nominalized infinitive and its Slovene translations. The nominalized infinitive essentially allows a process to be worded as a nominal structure, while (at least partly) retaining its verbal nature; in the framework of systemic functional grammar, it is explained as a type of grammatical metaphor, i.e. nominalization. The absence of a parallel structure in the grammar of Slovene requires the translator to look for other means of expression. A corpus analysis, carried out with the aid of a parallel corpus which comprises both literary and non-literary Italian texts and their Slovene translations, shows that the dual (nominal and verbal) nature of the nominalized infinitive is reflected in two main types of translation equivalents and several minor ones. It is argued that the strategies displayed in the choice of these translation equivalents can be viewed as instances of obligatory explicitation, either norm-governed or strategic. Thus the main goals of the paper are to identify the textual shifts and strategies found in the parallel corpus and to see whether they can be explained as manifestations of explicitation.
Authors:Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič, and Tanja Žigon
The article explores the interaction among three key figures in the process of publication of a literary translation into a language of low diffusion: the translator, the editor and the language reviser (the latter specific to the Slovene situation). The aim of the research is to identify who has the strongest position of power in the decision-making process of the production of a literary translation, especially when conflict arises. Information was gathered from the three groups with questionnaires, interviews and an analysis of public statements. The questions focused on the selection of the translator and language reviser, the translation process, the revision process and conflict resolution. A cross-comparison of the results indicates that despite the automatic central position of the editors, they tend to yield their decision-making power to translators, while language revisers have a more subservient, consulting role.