Análisis de sensibilidad

First of all, the term transfer is used by some (see for example Catford 1965) as a synonym for the process of translation (Wilss 1982:63).

Secondly, transfer is occasionally understood in the psychological sense as the interference of one language in another, whether in the process of translating or of learning another language; in translation such interference might result in the production of features associated with phenomena such as translationese or the ^thirdcode. However, perhaps the term is used in translationstudies most frequently to refer to the set of processes to which translation belongs and to the other members of which it may be fruitfully compared. Used in this sense the term will thus describe all processes which involve the in-troduction of a text (or other collection of signs) into another language (or non-linguistic system). Thus Reiss & Vermeer, for example, define translation as a “special type of transfer” (1984:108, translated) of signs from one system into another; as instances of other types, they cite the minuting of a conversation, the dramatization of a novel, the filming of a story or the constructing of a cathedral from the archi-tect’s plans (1984:89). In other words, their view of transfer broadly corresponds to Jakobson’s (1959/1966) three-fold concept of transla-tion (see interlingual, intersemiotic and intralingualtranslation).

Similarly, Eco (1976) lists three types of semiotic transfer: copying, transcribing and translating (quoted in Frawley 1984:160). Even-Zohar (1990d) understands transfer as referring to transplantation from one cultural system to another. He talks about the advantages of viewing translation in this wider context; such a shift in perspec-tive would, according to him, have the consequence of elucidating the nature and role of translation (1990d:74). An alternative view of

transfer is offered by Pym, who uses the term text transfer to refer to

“the simple moving of inscribed material from one place and time to another place and time” (1992a:13), or in other words, not to a more general notion than translation, but to something which is a precondition for its taking place at all (1992a:18). Pym also refers to this physical movement as external transfer, and contrasts it with what he terms internal transfer, which denotes the “sets of rules or procedures for adapting structures to new interpretative systems”

(1992b:172), and which for him is basically synonymous with transla-tion (1992b:172-74). Thus for Pym the difference between (external) transfer and translation is that the former is a material movement between cultures which entails neither adaptation nor interpretation (1992b:173), and which is akin to the movement of, for example, merchandise or expertise (1992a:13), while the latter is a semiotic activity which can on occasion become divorced from the physi-cal realities of the accompanying transfer (1992a:13-14). See also

transfer-^orientedtranslationstudies. Further reading: Even-Zohar 1990d; Pym 1992a, 1992b; Reiss & Vermeer 1984.

2 A term used to refer to the second stage of Nida & Taber’s (1969/1982) three-stage model of the translation process. The model which they propose is specifically designed to reflect the process of Bible translation, and is based on elements of Chomsky’s transfor-mational grammar (see for example Chomsky 1965). Nida & Taber’s three stages − which do not necessarily occur strictly sequentially (1969/1982:104) − are ^analysis, transfer and restructuring; transfer is defined as the stage “in which the analyzed material is transferred in the mind of the translator from language A to language B”

(1969/1982:33). Transfer takes place near the level of the kernels

− the “basic structural elements” (1969/1982:39) which are posited for a particular language − which have been derived in the analysis stage. In other words, the translator takes the kernels and, modifying them in the light of his or her knowledge of TL structure, produces forms which “will be optimal for transfer into the receptor language”

(1969/1982:51). During the transfer process kernels are not treated in isolation, as the temporal, spatial and logical relations which exist between them also need to be transferred (1969/1982:104). Furthermore, adjustments are made as necessary: firstly, to redistribute the semantic elements, where the need arises, through such processes as expansion (e.g. of one SL word into several TL words) and synthesis (e.g. of an SL phrase into a single TL word), and secondly, to compensate

for structural differences between SL and TL at the discourse, sentence, word and even sound level. Consequently transfer involves the reconfiguration in TL of sets of semantic and structural SL components, rather than the simple replacement of actual SL elements with their most ^literal TL equivalents; in other words, Nida & Taber envisage the transfer being performed on the basis of ^contextual (rather than ^verbal) consistency, thus contributing towards the establishment of ^dynamicequivalence. It should be pointed out that transfer is not presented as a watertight procedure which guarantees absolute “preservation of meaning”, as in any transfer there is “an inevitable modification in the meaning, generally associated with some degree of loss, especially in the degree of impact of the original communication” (Nida 1969:492). Further reading: Gentzler 1993;

Nida 1969; Nida & Taber 1969/1982.

Transfer-oriented Translation Studies A term used to refer to an approach to historical-descriptive translation research developed by the Göttingen Center for the Cooperative Study of Literary Trans-lation. The transfer-oriented approach grew out of a number of practical research projects, including for example a major study of German translations of American literature. Although they share many of the concerns of ^polysystem theorists and their ^targettext-^oriented ap-proach − such as a view of literature as being composed of ^systems and an interest in the role played by translation in the historical devel-opment of national literatures − some of their conclusions are different from those of the latter group (Gentzler 1993:183-84). Indeed, the very name of the Göttingen group’s approach implies a contrast with target text-oriented (and also ^sourcetext-^oriented) translation studies.

The transfer-oriented approach focusses on a translation “as the result of an act of transfer across lingual, literary, and cultural boundaries”

(Frank 1990a:12); it is thus more comprehensive than a pure TT orientation as it embraces “considerations of the source side, the tar-get side, and of the differences between them” (1990a:12), and also significantly brings the translator into the equation. More specifically, it views literary translation as the result of a compromise on the part of the translator between the demands of four ^norm areas: “the source text as understood by the translator; the source literature, language, and culture as implicated in the text; the state of translation culture (which includes concepts of translation, previous translations of the same and of other texts, etc.); and the target side (for instance in the

form of publisher’s policies, local theater conventions, censorship, etc.)” (1990a:12). Besides these main areas, other more minor factors also need to be taken into consideration, such as the interference of other literatures, the translator’s first-hand experience of the source country, the particular dictionaries consulted by the translator, and the conditions in which the translation was produced (Frank 1992:383). In all of these areas it is of course the perceptions of the translator which are paramount (Frank 1990b:54); thus a translation will inevitably reflect an individual translator’s ethos in that it will have been formed as a result of his or her decisions (Frank 1992:371).

See also descriptivetranslation studies. Further reading: Frank 1990a, 1990b, 1992; Gentzler 1993.

Transference Defined by Catford as containing an “implantation of SL meanings into the TL text” (1965:48; emphasis original). In other words, the term refers to a process in which an SL item is used in a TT, but with an SL meaning. This commonly happens when for cultural, geographical or other reasons TL has no suitable equivalent for an SL item and consequently “borrows” the item. However, true transference is uncommon, as such borrowed items typically change their meaning, either because the item acquires a foreign feel or because only one of the total range of meanings which it possesses in SL is transferred. Further reading: Catford 1965.

Transformation See restructuring.

Translat (Translated Text, or Translatum) (German) A term coined by Kade (1968) to circumvent the ambiguity of the word Überset-zung. While this latter word can traditionally denote either the process or the product of translation, the term Translat was specifically de-signed to refer to the translated text, as the product of the process of

translation. Further reading: Kade 1968; Reiss & Vermeer 1984.

Translatability A term used − along with its opposite, untranslat-ability − to discuss the extent to which it is possible to translate either individual words and phrases or entire texts from one language to an-other. Discussion of this concept has arisen from the tension between two basic arguments. The first of these is the indisputable fact that different languages do not “mesh together”, in that the unique configu-rations of grammar, vocabulary and metaphor which one finds in each

language inevitably have some bearing on the types of meaning that can be comfortably expressed in that language; the second is that, in spite of this consideration, translation between languages still occurs, often with an ostensibly high degree of success. Considering translat-ability on the word level, Catford demonstrates that grammatically encoded SL meaning (such as the inbuilt femininity of French elles

“they”) will almost inevitably fail to find a direct reflection in TL and will therefore be “lost”; however, he classifies such minor linguistic discrepancies as being “functionally irrelevant” to the question of

equivalence (1965:94). Other writers discuss word-level lexical incompatibility, which can be caused either by differences between source and target cultural phenomena or by the simple non-existence of a TL word to label a given item or concept (see ^realia and ^voids).

However, it is generally agreed that this type of untranslatability oc-curs only on the level of single lexical items, and can frequently be circumvented by means of paraphrase or explicitation in such a way as to ensure that all the semantic features of ST are retained; furthermore, above the word level other strategies such as compensation can also be employed. Yet it is not enough to consider simple retention of the same basic semantic features as the sole criterion for translatability.

The existence of further semantic dimensions which are added by such concepts as connotation and collocational meaning supports the conclusion that an absolute meaning does not exist independently of any particular language and that translatability can consequently only be a limited notion. In addition to this, textual and contextual features such as implied meaning, as well as formal features such as puns, wordplays and poetic devices, which are notoriously difficult to preserve through the translation process, indicate that meaning is to a large extent generated by a specific text. In the light of such considerations Frawley, for example, argues that there can be no ex-actness in translation in any “but rare and trivial cases” (1984:163), and concludes that “any interlingual translation that seeks to transfer only semantics has lost before it has begun” (1984:168). If this is the case, then any idea of absolute translatability must be abandoned.

The notion of translatability therefore has to be considered in relation to each instance of translation as “a concrete act of performance” (Toury 1980:28), and must be linked with the text-type of ST, the purpose of translation and the translation principles being followed by the translator. Thus for example, texts suited to House’s (1977) notion of

coverttranslation will lend themselves to different kinds of

transla-tion strategies from those for which ^overttranslation would be more appropriate, with the result that different types of equivalence will be established in each of these two types of translation. Similarly, a text which would be considered highly untranslatable using, for example, a strategy based on ^formal equivalence might be held to be more translatable if the opposite approach, that of ^dynamic equivalence, were to be employed. Because of such considerations Wilss concludes that the translatability of a text can “be measured in terms of the degree to which it can be recontextualized in the TL, taking into account all linguistic and extralinguistic factors” (1982:49). See also

indeterminacy and ^tertiumcomparationis. Further reading: Catford 1965; Koller 1979/1992; Toury 1980; Wilss 1977, 1982.

Translation An incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways. For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, ^subtitling and ^machinetranslation; moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the term sometimes also includes interpreting. A number of scholars have also suggested further distinctions between different types of translation (see for example ^covert vs. ^overttranslation, or domesticating vs. foreignizingtranslation). Furthermore, many writers also extend its reference to take in related activities which most would not recognize as translation as such (see for example

diagrammatictranslation, ^inter-^semiotictranslation, ^paraphrase and pseudotranslation 1). Translation is frequently characterized metaphorically, and has − amongst many other things − been compared to playing a ^game or making a ^map. Each of these analogies, however, is only intended to capture one particular facet of translation. Not surprisingly, many formal definitions have also been offered, each of which reflects a particular underlying theoretical model. The linguistic aspects of the translation process have been encapsulated in a large number of definitions, mostly dating from the 1960s or earlier. Thus Catford, for example, defines translation as “the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL)” (1965:20). However, as Sager points out, most older definitions of this type tend to centre around the importance of maintaining some kind of equivalence between ST and TT (1994:121). Thus for Sager Jakobson’s definition is in this