Translation Thesis
Translation Thesis
(R evised 6/03)
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis Acceptance
Complies with University regulations and meets the standards o f the Graduate School for originality
and quality
W
Signed by the final examining committee:
Victor Raskin
Chair
IE
Myrdene Anderson
EV
Salvatore Attardo
Approved by:
Head o f the Graduate Program
n is
This thesis is not to be regarded as confidential.
Major Professor
or
Chair, Final Examining Committee Department Thesis Format Advisor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SEMANTIC AND CULTURAL LOSSES
IN THE TRANSLATION OF LITERARY TEXTS
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
W
of
Purdue University
IE
by
Hanada Al-Masri
EV
PR
May 2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3150731
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
W
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
EV
UMI
UMI Microform 3150731
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To My Beloved Parents: Your Dream Came True.
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
W
Also my special thanks go to all the professors in Linguistics for being a great
source of enlightenment, and for making my learning experience in the United States
both pleasant and fruitful.
IE
Finally, I would like to thank my mother, father, brothers and sisters whose
continuous love, support, and encouragement helped me to go on, and fulfill their dream.
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ viii
W
II. Objectives of Research....................................................................................... 17
A. Data Collection.....................................................................................22
EV
B. Method of Analysis.............................................................................. 23
V. Organization of Dissertation............................................................................. 27
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Page
I. Results...................................................................................................................75
A. Tolerable Losses....................................................................................78
B. Serious Losses........................................................................................ 88
W
B.2. Mistranslation of Meanings......................................................... 93
IE
B.3. Loss of Social Deixis.................................................................... 94
C. Complete Losses....................................................................................99
PR
I. Results.................................................................................................................113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................. 154
APPENDICES
VITA................................................................................................................................... 172
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
Al-Masri, Hanada. Ph.D., Purdue University, May 2004. Semantic and Cultural
Losses in the Translation of Literary Texts. Major Professor: Victor Raskin.
The present study investigates the nature and causes of semantic and cultural
Previous research showed that the losses resulted mainly from the lack of equivalence
W
between the source text and the target text. These losses were explained in terms of
the lack of functional equivalence and the focus on formal equivalence. The present
IE
study proposes, in addition, that losses result from the lack of a balanced equivalence
EV
on the semantic and cultural levels. In particular, it stresses the semiotic equivalence
approach that significantly accounts for both the semantic and pragmatic factors of
the source text. The results of the present study show that linguistic/semantic losses
PR
are losses of verbal signs that affect the source text seriously (blocking the
aesthetic values). Cultural losses, on the other hand, are losses of the hidden cultural
information that reflect the social norms, religious beliefs, and ideological attitudes of
the source text. Whereas semantic losses result from cases of mistranslation,
translation, cultural losses result from the lack of pragmatic equivalence on the
surface level, and/or the deep level of the source text. The results also show that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
semantic and cultural losses could be marginalized in translation by furnishing the
grounds and providing target readers with the background knowledge that facilitates
translation takes place, the translator should resolve the markedness of the linguistic
and cultural elements in the source text by rendering the unfamiliar familiar.
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
plays a great role in breaking down the barriers between two different linguistic cultures,
and enables harmony and mutual understanding. For successful communication between
W
any two different linguistic codes to take place, there needs to be familiarity with the sets
IE
of values, and social/cultural realities that belong to a particular culture. The absence of
such understanding would pose problems in transferring the intended meaning from one
EV
language to another; accordingly, inevitable losses would occur. The translation process
should, therefore, ensure that the translated text presents the key elements of the source
PR
text by well incorporating it in the new product to produce the same effect as was
The problem with translation lies in its complexity. Most of the works on translation
theory begin with the limitation that translation is an interdisciplinary, and a multilevel
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
This emphasizes the fact that translation is not a mere transference of verbal signs
(words), but involves higher levels of semantic, textual and situational contexts, and other
extra-linguistic factors. This is probably why it has been hard for translation scholars to
agree on a unified theory of translation (cf. the essays in Hickey, 1998). In his evaluation
of the current translation theories, Holmes (1994: 97) states “the state of translation
theory is still not very powerful in the sense that it does not explain the phenomena to the
extent that we should like it to”. We can understand the complexity of the translation
process by comparing the reading process in both the source text, and the translated text.
In reading the source text, there is a direct interaction between the source-language author,
W
the text, and the source readers. In translation, however, the process is indirect and
the translator and his target audience. Translation, in this sense, is the process whereby a
EV
third party (translator) intervenes in the communication process by means of which the
source author conveys a message to the readers. The more efficient the translator, the less
PR
The existing literature on the theory, practice, and history of translation is huge
although the greatest bulk has been produced in the 20th century (cf. Bassnett-McGuire,
1980; and Hart, 1998). Such literature broadly defines the process as the matching
between the source text and the target text. Such sort of matching was given different
McGuire, 1980; Larson, 1984; Hart, 1998; Pedersen, 1988; Newmark, 1991). As for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
translation process per se, it was given many various, and sometimes, overlapping
translation to account for the various functions of translation. Koller (1972) proposed the
adopts the term ‘equivalence’. As a working definition for the purpose of this study,
“equivalence” will refer to the sameness of effect that signs in the source and target texts
have on the audience for which they are intended (following Kruger, 2001).
W
Before proceeding to the objectives and significance of this study, it is worth
presenting, at this point, a brief history of translation. Translation researchers believe that
IE
the most important function of translation is to break down the barriers between different
cultures. This led to the dismissal of the Whorfian proposition, which holds that people of
EV
different cultures view the world differently; hence the impossibility of translation (Hart,
1998: 36). The function of translation has shifted over years. It first started with the
PR
the focus shifted to the pragmatic transference of meaning. After the invention of
printing in the fifteenth century, the role of translation underwent significant changes.
ideas from an alien culture into the other. In addition, communicative translation was a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
looked for one of two solutions: either import words from the foreign culture into the
target culture; or look for approximate equivalents in the target culture. This shift created
the debate between the so-called “literal” versus “free” translations; or what Bassnett-
paragraphs will give a brief summary of three of the central issues of debate among
translation. A detailed presentation will be discussed in chapter two within the framework
W
intended in the source text to the target text. In this regard, Catford (1965: 99) offered
target language for a source-language item. Cultural untranslatability, on the other hand,
EV
occurs when the target-language culture lacks a relevant situational feature for the source-
language text. Catford (ibid: 99) argues that linguistic source-language features are more
PR
absolute than cultural ones. Here, I share Pedersen’s (1988: 17) disagreement with
Catford because linguistic difficulties can be overcome when the translator is bilingually
Pedersen (1988) holds an intermediate position between two extremes: that of the
Whorfian position, where nothing can be translated across linguistic and cultural barriers;
and that held by some Marxist theorists (e.g., Koller, 1972-cited in Pedersen) that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
text which is semantically identical with the original, but one which is situationally
equivalent to it”. Pedersen (1988: 44) holds that translation should necessarily change the
target language-text when expressing ideas unknown to the target language before the
translation in question. To this effect, Pedersen (ibid: 21) emphasizes the element of
adaptation particular to literary translation. That is, the translator should transfer the
effects meant by the source author by giving the target-language audience the best
W
the very condition of the life of signs” (ibid: 42). She remarks “the problem of
translatability concerns the fact that, ultimately, the interpretant of a text can only be a
IE
verbal interpretant from another given language” (Petrilli, ibid: 44). It follows that
translation difficulties should not be attributed to resistance of some sort by the text in
EV
translation. Rather, these difficulties are due to the major focus on verbal signs and
ignoring the nonverbal signs. In this regard, Petrilli disagrees with Jakobson (1971)1, and
PR
argues the text can only be transferred from one language into another, not on the basis of
interlingual translation (that focuses on verbal signs); but on the basis of intersemiotic
translation (that focuses on both verbal and nonverbal signs). More importantly,
that connects the text to its communicative situation. Such “explication”—or what Petrilli
(2003: 28), sometimes called expressability—is the major criterion for translatability. i.e.,
1 Jakobson’s (1971: 261) three types o f translation are: interlingual translation, intralingual translation,
and intersemiotic translation (see chapter two for a detailed discussion).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
(2003: 31) concludes her article by alluding to the advantages of translatability. She
proposes that translatability does not only signify the possibility of translation, but also
indicates an open relation between the source text and the translated one. Translatability
also has the advantage of openness. That is, the translated text may continue to be
We will now turn our discussion to the issue of equivalence, which has been one
of the central and controversial issues in translation. Equivalence has been debated (from
a semiotic and non-semiotic view point) in varying degrees (cf. Bassnett-McGuire, 1980:
W
23-9; and Gorlee, 1994: 170).
that equivalence was pursued along two lines in translation studies: the first lays
EV
emphasis on the semantic problems; hence the transfer of the semantic content from the
source language into the target language. The second explores equivalence in its
PR
application to literary texts (cf. Pedersen, 1988; and Bassnett-McGuire, 1980). Catford
(1965: 36) proposes that the issue of equivalence would be better dealt with in terms of
Relevance, to him, is the ability to communicate messages from the source-language text
into the target-language text. For Catford (ibid: 93-4), the basic concern of translation is
to ensure that all the “relevant” features of the source-language message are
communicated to and reflected in the target text. In cases where translation is read
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
from the view point of the text. He postulates that equivalence must be considered a
to him, these components are arranged hierarchally, so that semantic equivalence takes
priority over syntactic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence modifies both of the other
that “equivalence overall results from the relationship between signs themselves, the
W
relationship between signs and what they stand for, and the relationship between signs,
equivalence, where the source text and the translated text are ideally placed in a one-to-
EV
one correspondence. This means they are to be considered as “codifications of one piece
adopts Peirce’s (CP: 5,448, n, 1,1906) use of the term “equivalence”, which states: “two
signs whose meanings are for all possible purposes equivalent are absolutely equivalent”.
Based on Peirce’s universal categories (firstness, secondness, and thirdness), Gorlee (ibid:
174) proposed the term “semiotic equivalence”. It consists of three aspects termed
(these types of equivalence will be discussed further in chapter two under the semiotic
perspective to translation). Kruger (2001: 183) postulates that the semiotic approach
offers the “full deployment of the meaning potential of the original sign (source text) in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
the translation”. According to Kruger, the semiotic approach sets by far the highest
of meaning, rather than the form); and adaptive or functional translation (focusing on
recreation of the intention or signification of the source text) (cf. Hart, 1998; and
different scholars.
W
Newmark’s (1991) main contribution to the general theory of translation lies in
comply with the usually accepted syntactic correspondences for the two languages in
EV
widely. That is, a translation can be, more or less, semantic; more or less, communicative.
Accordingly, Newmark (ibid: 11) proposes “there is no reason why a basically semantic
translation should not also be strongly communicative”. Newmark sketches the features
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
language oriented. In evaluating the two kinds of translation, Newmark {ibid.: 11)
proposes that semantic translation is usually “more awkward, more detailed, more
complex, but briefer”. Communicative translation, on the contrary, is “easy reading, more
Newmark (1991: 106) believes that opponents of literal translation avoid it for
two reasons: either because they associate it with “translationese”, or they want to leave
their own mark on the translation, to be more colloquial, informal, or idiomatic than the
W
of a stretch of the source language text (a) plainly falsifies its meaning, or (b) violates
usage for no apparent reason. Newmark (ibid: 78) defines the phenomenon as “an error
IE
due to ignorance or carelessness which is common when the TL [target language] is not
the translator’s language of habitual use, and not uncommon when it is”. To avoid such
EV
which rests on the assumption that there is a limit to the areas of meaning of words as
PR
well as sentences, “every word of the original has to be accounted for though not
Hart (1998) agrees with Newmark on the applicability of both types of translation
(formal, and dynamic), and adds that the choice of either is based on the value/ type of
text. Hart {ibid: 170) believes it is broadly sufficient to use mainly dominant formal
which have basically truth-values. In this case, “the linguistic signs function more or less
on a literal, objective, and surface level with their original” (Hart, ibid: 170). This is due
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
to the fact that the corresponding frames exist already in the other culture and only the
labels have to be changed to conform to the new linguistic and cultural circumstances.
One the other hand, dynamic pragmatic equivalence is more sufficient when the text is
based on implicit values, where the linguistic signs per se do not reflect the whole truth
about the socio-cultural realities. In this regard, Hart (ibid: 171) postulates “the audience
must possess specific previous knowledge in order to understand the implicit sense of the
communication”. This knowledge enables the audience to perceive rapidly the contrast
W
the translation should bring together the contextual effects of the text to allow the
audience an adequate access to the translated text. He describes the process as follows:
IE
If we ask how the translation should be expressed, the answer is: it should
be expressed in such a manner that it yields the intended interpretation
[emphasis is added] without putting the audience to unnecessary
EV
The skopos theory allows for adaptation of the source text to be adequate to the needs and
ends prescribed for the target text. In this regard, Hart (1998: 46) comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
argues that the communicative value of the source text is more important than
faithfulness (literal translation). This allows the translator of a literary text a great degree
of freedom, as long as he adheres to the overall meaning of the source text. To this effect,
accuracy and faithfulness are not primary prerequisites like in other types of translation.
W
More importantly, the translator should be close to the mentality and thinking as well as
translation of Art. Benjamin (ibid: 78) states, “What can fidelity really do for the
rendering of meaning? Fidelity in the translation of individual works can almost never
PR
fully reproduce the meaning they have in the original”. For Benjamin, the essence of
translation lies in the multiplicity of languages. In this regard, Benjamin (ibid: 78)
emphasizes;
into the translated one, as Benjamin suggested, I believe it is equally important to retain
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
the meaning of the source text. In the quotation above, Benjamin minimized the role of
signification should go hand in hand in the translation process. Benjamin sums up his
view by stating: “real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not
block its light, but allows the pure language...to shine upon the original” (Benjamin,
1968: 82).
standpoint. He (ibid: 228) views the relation between the source-language text and the
W
According to Bamstone, the purpose of literal translation is referential. That is, to transfer
the meaning of the word as faithfully as possible, hence, “signifier A leads to signifier B”
IE
(Bamstone, ibid: 229). Free translation, on the other hand, is ‘metalingual’. Its purpose is
to “reinvent the formal qualities of the message, to ‘recreate’ dramatically the signifier
EV
itself’. That is to say, “signifier B conveys a visibly different version of signifier A”.
In sum, I share the view that “what we accept as a theory depends on what we
PR
want from the theory” (Neubert and Shreve, 1992: 33) Communicative translation would
be more appropriate, if we opt for a translation that is target-reader oriented; that informs
the reader effectively and appropriately; and that creates an effect on the target reader as
close as possible to that on the source reader. If, however the goal is to render
semantically, and syntactically equivalent text to that of the source language; then
translation, the significance of the source-text message should be given priority over the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.