Capitulo 4 Estudio Económico
4.1 Determinación de los costos
exist for them” (Toury 1980:31). The notion of pseudotranslation thus refers to the kind of literary forgery in which a writer attempts to present an original text as if it were a translation. Toury argues that this phenomenon has significance for translation studies for two main reasons. Firstly, pseudotranslation has been used on occasion “to introduce innovations into a literary system, especially when this system is resistant to deviations from canonical models and norms” (1984: 83 see norms). Secondly, pseudotranslations provide a useful insight into prevailing notions of the features which characterize a translated text, as pseudotranslators typically utilize both linguistic and textual items common in genuine translations.
Pseudotranslations have special significance in target text
-oriented approaches to translation as the fact of their existence supports the claim that “the identity of a target text as a translation is determined first and foremost by considerations pertinent to the receptor system, with no necessary connection with the source text”
(1984:81). Popovič ([1976]) uses two terms − pseudotranslation and fictitious translation − to refer to the same phenomenon. A famous example of a pseudotranslation is the Works of Ossian, which James Macpherson published during the 1760s, claiming to have translated them from the original Gaelic, but which it seems he had in fact written himself (see Macpherson 1996). See also polysystemtheory
and system. Further reading: Toury 1980, 1984, 1995.
2 A term used by Radó (1979) to refer to a TT which deviates too greatly from its ST to be considered a translation. The criterion for deciding how to categorize a work is the extent to which the ST and TT logemes correspond. adaptations 1, reworkings in a different genre (for example stage versions) and “travesties” are all according to Radó types of text which should be classified as pseudotransla-tions. Further reading: Radó 1979.
Public Service Interpreting See communityinterpreting.
Pure Language (or Logos, or True Language, or Universal Language) (German die reine Sprache) A term used by Walter Benjamin in his writings on the nature of language and translation.
Kelly describes Benjamin’s approach as a “mixture of mysticism, aesthetics and philosophy” (1979:30), a statement which reflects Benjamin’s view of language as something innately mysterious, sacred and even magical. In an early essay (1916/1977, 1916/1979) the term pure language refers to the language of Paradise which Man used in order to name everything in Creation; this act of naming is viewed by Benjamin here as “the translation of the nameless into name”
and “the translation of an imperfect language into a more perfect one” (1916/1977:151, 1916/1979:117). However, it is in the sense introduced by Benjamin (1923/1963, 1923/1970) that the term pure language is more commonly used and understood. This latter article is concerned with the translator’s task, which Benjamin sees as consisting of various elements. First of all, there is the need to release ST from its dependency on a single linguistic code by “prolonging its life” in another cultural and linguistic setting. Secondly, a good translation will increase and extend the scope and range of TL:
“The translator enriches his tongue by allowing the source language to penetrate and modify it” (Steiner 1975/1992:67). Benjamin elaborates on this point in an extended quotation from Pannwitz (1917), and argues that in a good translation TL should take on some of the characteristics of SL, while a bad translation, on the other hand, merely effects a transfer of information from one language to another. Thirdly, a translation should express “the central recipro-cal relationship between languages” (Benjamin 1923/1963:185, 1923/1970:72). However, Benjamin understands kinship of languages not in the usual historical sense, but rather as a similarity of intention:
the actual words and constructions may differ, but the human experience which all languages point to is invariable. Furthermore, all languages are “fragments of a greater language” (1923/1963:191, 1923/1970:78), which is termed the pure language; translation from one language into another will lead to the two languages being mu-tually supplemented, even reconciled, or, as Steiner has it, “somehow fused” (1975/1992:67). During this process − possibly to be seen as the fitting together of fragments of a broken vessel − the pure language is approximated to more closely in a translated than in an original text: “[the translator] extends his native idiom towards the hidden absolute of meaning” (Steiner 1975/1992:67). In Benjamin’s scheme of things the primary unit of translation is the word; consequently the essence that is the pure language is borne by the words rather than the syntax: “For if the sentence is the wall before the language of the original, literalness is the arcade” (1923/1963:192, 1923/1970:79).
The syntax of a given language is portrayed as a wall because of the presence, for example, of implicit information and language-specific, ingrained metaphor, which inevitably ties the meaning of the text to a single linguistic code. It is in the light of such considerations that Benjamin comments that “The interlinear version of the Scrip-tures is the prototype or ideal of all translation” (1923/1963:195, 1923/1970:82); interlinear translation, however, should not be taken to mean a simple, automatic, word-for-word translation, but rather an idealized version of such translation, in which the meaning is “liberated” from the syntax and norms of a single language, and is allowed to shine through the words in its purest, most unobscured form. See also babel (towerof). Further reading: A. Benjamin 1989;
W. Benjamin 1916/1977, 1916/1979, 1923/1963, 1923/1970; de Man 1986; Steiner 1975/1992.
Pure Translation Studies According to Holmes (1988e), the non-applied subdivision of translationstudies. As such, Pure Translation Studies is itself split into a descriptive and a theoretical wing (see
descriptivetranslationstudies, theoreticaltranslationstudies and
translationtheory 2). See also appliedtranslationstudies. Further reading: Holmes 1988e.
Radical Translation A term used by Quine (1959/1966, 1960) to denote the “translation of the language of a hitherto untouched people”
(1960:28). For Quine, whose main concern is with the philosophy of meaning, the significance of such a situation lies in the fact that the
translator has neither linguistic similarities nor common culture to rely on, and so is forced to decipher an alien language from first principles. Quine’s aim is not to recommend a specific translation procedure; on the contrary, radical translation is intended as a hypothetical demonstration of the indeterminacy of meaning. Quine describes the imaginary, but now famous situation of a sighting of a rabbit leading to the utterance of the SL sentence “Gavagai”, which the translator tentatively translates as “Rabbit”. He then argues that such sentences, based on observable phenomena, provide the best point for the translator to gain a toe-hold in SL. The deciphering of the entire language would follow on from such sentences by means of inference, trial and working hypothesis, on the basis of whether the translator’s attempts to “use back” sentences in various situations elicited assent or dissent from the SL informant; when the possible range of application of an SL sentence had been established with reasonable certainty, the translator would suggest a TL sentence as an equivalent. Such correspondences, or analytical hypotheses, Quine argues, are what provide the “parameter of translation”
(1960:76), as they determine the nature of the “translation manual”
which is gradually built up by the translator. However, Quine points out a number of theoretical problems which arise from the notion of radical translation. For example, the sets of circumstances which might elicit apparently equivalent SL and TL sentences may in fact be different, since the two languages will inevitably diverge in how they categorize observable phenomena. Furthermore, speakers of any language carry around with them a certain amount of cultural knowledge (or collateral information); such knowledge, which of course also differs from language to language, will colour the perception of even such apparently culturally neutral events as the sighting of a rabbit. Most important, however, is Quine’s argument that the analytical hypotheses which a translator selects are to a large extent arbitrary. He states that
manuals for translating one language into another can be set up in divergent ways, all compatible with the totality of speech dispositions, yet incompatible with one another.
In countless places they will diverge in giving, as their respective translations of a sentence of the one language, sentences of the other language which stand to each other in no plausible sort of equivalence however loose.
(Quine 1960:27)
The purpose of radical translation is therefore to highlight the notion of indeterminacy in translation, as illustrated by these three factors.
Furthermore, if taken to its logical conclusion it ultimately leads to the discovery that meaning is not absolute: “the discontinuity of radical translation tries our meanings: really sets them over against their verbal embodiments, or, more typically, finds nothing there”
(Quine 1960:76). See also equivalence. Further reading: Harrison 1979; Malmkjær 1993; Quine 1959/1966, 1960.
Rank-bound Translation Described by Catford (1965) as a type of totaltranslation. In accordance with the grammatical system proposed by Halliday (1961) the term rank is used to denote linguis-tic units of various sizes, ranging from a morpheme to a sentence.
A rank-bound translation is therefore one in which “the selection of TL equivalents is deliberately confined to one rank (or a few ranks, low in the rank scale)” (Catford 1965:24; emphasis original); such a translation might thus proceed, for example, on a word-for-word or clause-for-clause basis. A good example of rank-bound translation is provided by the French sentence J’ai laissé mes lunettes sur la table and the English sentence I’ve left my glasses on the table (Catford 1965:76), which exhibit almost total correspondence on all linguistic ranks; however, such examples are uncommon, even when SL and TL have such relatively similar grammatical categories as French and English. In most contexts the TTs produced by this process “are not acceptable texts of the goal language at all” (de Beaugrande 1978:11). However, word-rank-bound translation is used in inter
-lineartranslation to produce a specialized text designed to fulfil a specific purpose. Another practical application for the technique has been proposed by Ure, Rodger & Ellis, who recommend providing a poet-translator unfamiliar with SL with a “crib” in the form of a rank-bound translation; such a procedure, they claim, is superior in
“algorithmic rigour” (1969:14 n. 14) to such alternatives as a rough draft or word-for-word version. See also literal translation 1,
rank-restrictedtheories oftranslation, unboundedtranslation,
unitshift and word-for-wordtranslation. Further reading: Catford 1965; Ure, Rodger & Ellis 1969.
Rank-restricted Theories of Translation One of six types of
partial theory of translation identified by Holmes (1988e). A rank-restricted theory of translation is defined as one which is only
concerned with the features of translation at linguistic ranks lower than entire texts (see rank-bound translation). At the time when Holmes first wrote his now famous article (i.e. the early 1970s), most linguistically-oriented research fell within this particular category as the focus there was usually on the ranks of word, word-group or sentence (see linguistictranslation 1). However, Holmes predicted that the advent of text linguistics would eventually be likely to lead to the development of linguistic methods of translation analysis at the text rank also (1988e:75); this has to a large extent now been borne out by the arrival of approaches of the type outlined in pragmatic
translation 1. See also area-restricted, medium-restricted,
problem-restricted, text-type restricted and time-restricted
theoriesoftranslation. Further reading: Holmes 1988e.
Reader-oriented Machine Translation A term used by Sager (1994) to refer to the speedy production of a TL version of a text by means of machine translation in order simply to inform the TL reader of the content of ST. According to Sager, readers are sometimes prepared to accept machine-produced texts even if they are difficult to read, provided that they are produced quickly and inexpensively (1994:281). The result of such a procedure is “raw output”, or in other words an artificial product which may require more reading effort than a human translation simply because it has not been post
-edited; however, it has the advantage of being available more quickly than a more “polished” version, and can now be relied on to contain a relatively small number of lexical or terminological mistakes (1994:282). Sager points out that people who frequently use such translations develop the ability to read the artificial machine-produced language which they typically contain with a high degree of fluency (1994:282). As an example of reader-oriented machine translation in action Sager cites the system SYSTRAN, which is used by the US Air Force to help survey scientific and technical literature (1994:283).
See also industrial process (translationas) and writer-oriented
machinetranslation. Further reading: Sager 1994.
Realia (Russian Realii) Defined by Vlakhov & Florin (1970) as textual elements which provide local and historical colour. One of the most recalcitrantly untranslatable features of an ST, realia are generally confined to literary rather than technical translation.
Vlakhov & Florin define realia as follows: “words (and collocations)
of a national language which denote objects, concepts and phenomena characteristic of the geographical surroundings, culture, everyday realities or socio-historical specifics of a people, nation, country or tribe, and which thus convey national, local or historical colour;
such words have no exact equivalents in other languages” (1970:438, translated). There are four categories of realia: a) geographical and ethnographical (e.g. mistral, Hakka), b) folkloric and mythological (e.g. Baba Yaga, leprechaun), c) everyday items (e.g. hurdy-gurdy, rupee) and d) socio-historical (e.g. Bezirk, Infanta). Vlakhov & Florin suggest six strategies for translating realia: transcription, calque, formation of a new word, assimilation, approximate translation and descriptive translation (see explicitation). When selecting the most appropriate strategy, the translator should seek to retain some local colour without encumbering the reader with an excess of new, frequently impenetrable lexical items, and should also be mindful of the influence, whether enriching or polluting, which the new coinings may exert on TL. See also culturaltransposition and voids. Further reading: Florin 1993; Lehmuskallio et al. 1991; Leighton 1991;
Vlakhov & Florin 1970.
Receptor Language Defined by Nida & Taber as “the language into which a message is translated from the original or source language” (1969/1982:205, emphasis removed). In other words, as regards referential meaning the term receptor language is basically synonymous with the probably more widespread term target
language. However, its use tends to be associated with certain areas of translation studies, perhaps most notably Bible translation.
Furthermore, some writers encourage its adoption because the overtones which it conveys are perceived as being more appropriate to a discussion of translation than those of its main rival. Thus Nida, for example, argues that its use emphasizes the fact that the message is not shot at a target, but must rather be “decoded by those who receive it” (1969:484). See also directionoftranslation and source
language.
Reconstructions, Translation with (French Traduction avec Reconstructions) According to Gouadec (1990), one of seven types of translation which serve to meet the various translation needs which arise in a professional environment. In translation with reconstructions ST is translated in its entirety without regard to its form. The aim of such a translation is to communicate the content of ST in the simplest
way possible; all the information is thus immediately accessible to the TL reader (1990:335). See also absolutetranslation, abstract
translation, diagrammatic translation, keyword translation,
selective translation and sight translation. Further reading:
Gouadec 1990; Sager 1994.
Redundancy Described by Nida (1964) as a feature of all natural languages which should be preserved through the translation process. According to Nida, the information contained in any communication needs to be diluted, and the effects of any possible interference (or “noise”) overcome, by the inclusion of a certain amount of redundancy, the purpose of which is to “raise the predictability”
(1964:127) of what is being communicated and in so doing ease the receptor’s task of decoding the message. Redundancy is thus defined as “the expression more than once of the same units of information”
(Nida & Taber 1969/1982:205), or in other words the inclusion of unnecessary or repeated information within a text. Nida calculates that natural languages “normally tend to produce messages of about 50 percent redundancy” (1964:129); such redundancy can be, for example, phonetic, lexical, collocational or grammatical in nature.
However, in translated texts this figure can fall dramatically. This is partly because the translator can increase the unpredictability (or information) contained in the text by following SL patterns too literally; in such circumstances, the resulting TL awkwardness increases the target receptor’s processing effort. However, another reason is that TL receptors will not share the cultural background of their SL counterparts and so will not be able to make all the inferences required for a proper understanding of the text. Because of this, texts need to be “drawn out” in the translation process by incorporating a degree of linguistic redundancy and by making implicit information more explicit. Failure to do this will lead to the receptor being “overloaded” with information. According to Nida
& Taber, such a procedure is essential if dynamicequivalence is to be achieved, which leads to the conclusion that “there is a tendency for all good translations to be somewhat longer than the originals”
(1969/1982:163). See also communication load and explicitation. Further reading: Nida 1964; Nida & Taber 1969/1982.
Refraction A general term used by Lefevere in the early 1980s to refer to the range of literary processes to which translation can be
said to belong. Lefevere defines refraction as “the adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience, with the intention of influ-encing the way in which that audience reads the work” (1982:4). Of the various processes which can be classified as refraction the most
“obvious” is translation, while other types include criticism, com-mentary, historiography, teaching, anthologizing and the production of plays (1982:4). Lefevere argues that these activities are carried out against the background of the prevailing literary climate and political ideology, and that these factors act as a “spectrum” through which writers and their works are “refracted” before they reach their audience (1982:4). Lefevere remarks on the fact that refraction has not been properly studied as a phenomenon (1982:5), in spite of the fact that the works of refractors have played an “immense” part not only in disseminating the writings of individual authors, but also in influencing the way in which entire literary systems have developed (1982:5). It should be noted that, as Hermans points out, the term refraction has more recently been replaced by rewriting (1994:139).
See also patronage. Further reading: Lefevere 1982.
Regulative Translational Conventions A term used by Nord (1991b) to denote one of two types of translational convention. Nord bases the concept on Searle’s (1969) notion of regulative rules, or the conventions which determine how a person should behave in a given situation (an example being the rules of etiquette which provide guidelines on how to conduct interpersonal relationships). By analogy, Nord’s concept refers to “the generally accepted forms of handling certain translation problems below the text rank” (1991b:100). The examples which she cites of such problems are “proper names, culture-bound realities or realia, quotations, etc.” (1991b:100; see realia); in all of these areas, translational practice varies from culture to culture, while the specific regulative translational conventions which operate are determined by a given culture’s constitutivetranslationalconventions. See also
professionalnorms. Further reading: Nord 1991b.
Relay Interpreting A term used to refer to the practice of interpret-ing between two (usually less widely spoken) languages via a third, mediating language (Seleskovitch & Lederer 1989:199). Encountered in conference interpreting, such a procedure is sometimes neces-sitated when no single interpreter is present who is able to work with
both SL and TL. Thus for example, in a conference at which English,
both SL and TL. Thus for example, in a conference at which English,