Concept

Definition

Reference

comprehensibility

The issue of comprehensibility is closely related to translatability. To achieve translatability, a text must be comprehensible. The meaning of a text has to be understood in terms of what the ST contains, but it is also subjected to factors such as communicative purpose, target audience, and the purpose of the translation. To explain a text that lacks comprehensibility, Hatim & Munday (2004:14) use the example of text in which “the vocabulary…may be recognizable and the grammar intact, but the sense is quite lacking”. A text that lacks comprehensibility is often the result of a form of poor literal translation (Hatim & Munday, 2004:15). The shift to a more dynamic translation improves comprehensibility

Hatim, B. & Munday, J.  2004.  Translation: and advanced resource book.  1st ed.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

content

Content is what conveys the sense in a given text, as opposed to form which conveys the style of a text. Often a text approaches untranslatability when the form contributes to the construction of meaning (Hatim & Munday, 2004:10). One way of dealing with this is by altering the form to preserve the content. Factors such as text type (communicative purpose), target audience and the purpose of the translator should determine whether the form or the content ought to be preserved, in order to produce a comprehensible translation (Hatim & Munday, 2004:11). It is important to remember that form and content are often both preserved if the decision can be contextually motivated (Hatim & Munday, 2004:15).

contextual motivation

In a case where the form of a ST considerably influences the meaning of the text (intended ambiguity, rhetoric & stylistic devices) a translator may opt for formal equivalence in order to produce a comprehensible translation. However, such a decision should always be contextually motivated. In other words, will the decision enhance or compromise the intended nature of the message and the original purpose of the author and, does this decision reflect the needs of the target audience? Contextual motivation thus functions to preserve three important contextual factors; communicative purpose (Should the focus be on form or content?), purpose of the author (why did the author write the text?) and the needs of the target audience (is the translation tailored to the decoding ability of the target audience?) (Contextual Motivation.pdf, eFundi site).

dynamic equivalence

In such cases where a formal rendering of the ST is unnecessary (e.g. in cases where there is no contextual justification/motivation for preserving ST opaqueness, ambiguity, etc.) a translator might opt for dynamic equivalence where ST explication and adjustment is called for. Adjusting the ST to achieve dynamic equivalence may include explication, redundancy, gisting or reordering a sentence. In this way dynamic equivalence may cater for a wider variety of translation purposes and contextual factors (Hatim & Munday, 2004:43).

equivalence

The term equivalence in translation refers to the translation of text into the TT by paying special attention to the context of the TT audience without losing the intended value or function of the original ST message. As opposed to a blind literal translation (Hatim & Munday, 2004:40).

form

Form, as opposed to content, is what conveys the style of a text. Some texts that contain stylistic elements like sound, rhyme and double meaning (which can be difficult to recreate in the TL) approach untranslatability since these elements form an integral part in constructing the meaning of the text (Hatim & Munday, 2004:10). When dealing with issues of translatability and comprehensibility in texts like poetry, advertising and song, factors such as communicative purpose, target audience and purpose of the translator play an important role in finding a resolution (Hatim & Munday, 2004:15).

formal equivalence

Also referred to as structural correspondence, formal equivalence is the counterpart of dynamic equivalence. It involves the purely formal replacement of a word or phrase in the ST when translating into the TT. This is different to literal translation since it is contextually motivated, while literal translation preserves formal features without regards to the context, meaning or implication of the text. Opting for formal equivalence may be a good idea when trying to preserve deliberate ST ambiguity (formal features in the text that carry contextual value and adds to the overall meaning of the text). Adhering to form will bring the target audience closer to the linguistic or cultural preferences of the ST (Hatim & Munday, 2004:40-41).

translatability

According to Jakobson (1959: 238) “all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language”. This basically means that any expression in a ST can be expressed in another language with an adequate equivalent (Hatim & Munday, 2004:10). However, for a text to be translatable it must be comprehensible in the TL. Thus, the translatability of a text is influenced by the dichotomy between form and content which plays a role in text comprehensibility (Hatim & Munday, 2004:14). A text reaches untranslatability when stylistic elements of form (observed in poetry, for example) can hardly be recreated in the TL without compromising text comprehensibility (Hatim & Munday, 2004:10).

translationese

A form of (poor) literal translation that is caused by ignoring important factors such as communicative purpose, target audience and purpose of the translator (Hatim & Munday, 2004:14). The result is a TT which is overly influenced by the ST or SL (literalism) and which contain translation phenomena such as interference, explication and domestication (Hatim & Munday, 2004:12).

Concept

Definition

Reference

grammar

The grammar of a language refers to its own system of rules, which, in this case, can be defined as prescriptive notions that determine how words should collate to form correct sentences that contain the fundamental contextual details required to accurately report experience, according to that specific language (Baker, 1992:83). The branches of grammar include the morphology of words and the syntax of sentences (Baker, 1992:)

Baker, M.  1992.  In other words: a coursebook on translation.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Oxford University Press.  2019.  Lexico.com.  https://www.lexico.com/definition/grammar Date of access: 23 April 2020.

morphology

Morphology refers to the structure or form of a word as it is determined by the grammatical system to which it belongs (OUP, 2019). Any grammatical system is, of course, informed by those notions and aspects of reported experience that a given language requires to be made explicit (Baker, 1992:83). These grammatical categories, according to which the morphology of words change, typically indicate notions like time, gender, number, shape visibility, person, proximity, animacy, etc., and thus include options like plural or singular, male or female, morning or evening and so on (Baker, 1992:82).

Baker, M.  1992.  In other words: a coursebook on translation.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Oxford University Press.  2019.  Lexico.com.  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/morphology   Date of access: 23 April 2020..

syntax

In basic terms, syntax, in the context of the grammatical system of a specific language, determines how words can be arranged to form logical sentences (OUP, 2019). Syntax regulates the structure of phrases, clauses and sentences (Baker, 1992:83). Furthermore, Baker (1992:83) defines syntax as “the linear sequences of classes of words such as noun, verb, adverb and adjective, and functional elements such as subject, predicator, and object, which are allowed in a given language”.

Baker, M.  1992.  In other words: a coursebook on translation.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Oxford University Press.  2019.  Lexico.com.  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/syntax   Date of access: 23 April 2020.

system

A system refers to a set of contrasting distinctions or options also known as rules or principles that govern a framework or method, in this case, for the classification, arrangement and overall behaviour of words (Baker, 1992:117).

Baker, M.  1992.  In other words: a coursebook on translation.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Oxford University Press.  2019.  Lexico.com.  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/system   Date of access: 28 April 2020.

Concept

Definition

Reference

fixed expression

Fixed expressions are, as the term implies, fixed patterns of language that consist of specific words strung together in a certain order that cannot be changed or adapted. In this sense, they closely resemble idioms, although unlike idioms, the meaning of a fixed expression can be easily deduced. Take for example the famous proverb practice what you preach which is easy to understand. Expressions perform a stabilizing function in communication since they convey a varied range of experiences and connotations that can be applied to many different contexts. According to Baker (1992:64) fixed expressions “encapsulate stereotyped aspects of experience” as observed in situation- or register-specific formulae such as Merry Christmas and Yours sincerely.

Baker, M.  1992.  In other words: a coursebook on translation.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

idiom

Idioms are like fixed expressions in that they have a determined form that cannot normally be altered. However, unlike fixed expressions, idioms do not always make apparent sense (Baker, 1992:63). They usually violate truth conditions (e.g. It is raining cats and dogs) and they often do not follow the grammatical rules of the language (e.g. Blow someone to kingdom come). Finally, they should generally not be interpreted literally (e.g. Like water off a ducks back). The following are the parameters that apply to idioms when used under normal circumstances, as outlined by Baker (1992:65):

1. The order of words cannot be changed (e.g. the short and the long of it).
2. A word cannot be deleted from it (e.g. the short of it).
3. A word cannot be added to it (e.g. face the classical music).
4. A word cannot be replaced with another (e.g. bury a hatchet).
5. The grammatical structure cannot be changed (e.g. the music was faced)

Of course there are always exceptions which may make it particularly difficult for translators to recognize idioms in instances where (Baker, 1992:66):

• They are misleading due their seemingly transparent literal interpretation when they are in fact meant idiomatically (or both literally and idiomatically as a play on words).
• They may appear to have a close equivalent in the target language, which actually has a totally or partially different meaning.

It should be noted that although idioms generally do not flout the above-mentioned rules, there are contexts and situations in which a language user may consciously choose to disregard the norms in order to create a certain effect or to emphasize a specific aspect of meaning (Baker, 1992:64). Such spontaneous language use cannot be predicted or accounted for and relies on the intuitive manipulation of the language that can only be achieved by a user with native knowledge of it. It is thus for ethical reasons that translators are required to translate only into their mother tongue or language of habitual use, as stated by The Code of Professional Ethics of The Translators’ Guild of Great Britain (Baker, 1992:64).

Concept

Definition

Reference

equivalence

As a translator, it is important to maintain equivalence at word level. Equivalence at word level refers to replacing one word in the ST with its translation in the TT. However, this is not as simple a task as one might initially have thought. It involves establishing the relationship between a word and its different elements of meaning in the context of the ST and finding an equivalent correspondent (not necessarily a direct translation) in the TT that conveys the same sense as the original intended meaning.

Baker, M.  1992.  In other words: a coursebook on translation.  1st ed.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

morpheme

Morphemes are seen as the minimal formal element of meaning, while words can contain several elements of meaning. This is because morphemes cannot contain more than one element of meaning and cannot be further analysed (Baker, 2018: 11). Furthermore, morphemes have different grammatical functions such as:

• Marking plurality (funds)
• Marking gender (hostess)
• Marking tense (considered)
• Changing the class of a word (like[verb] – likeable [noun])
• Adding element of meaning (negation, unhappy)

As an example, consider the morphology of the word “inconceivable”. Inconceivable is one word that is comprised out of three morphemes: in which has the meaning of “not”; conceive which means “to think of” or “to imagine” and; able meaning “able to be” or “fit to be”. Thus, inconceivable can be paraphrased as “cannot conceive/imagine” (Baker, 2018: 11). However, according to Baker (2018: 12) this theoretical distinction between words and morphemes only accounts for elements of meaning expressed on the surface and does not offer a model for analysing different types of lexical meaning.

morphology

One way of determining different elements of meaning contained within a unit of language (e.g. a word) is by breaking down the word structure into its smaller components, such as morphemes (refer to morphemes) (Baker, 2018: 11). Thus, analysing the morphology of a word can provide a clearer understanding of the meaning derived from a word. This is useful in effectively translating the meaning of a word with no sensible orthographic correspondent in the TT.

untranslatability

The process of translation becomes more complex when a translator is confronted with issues such as a lack of equivalence at word level. Baker (2018: 10) poses the question “What does a translator do when there is no word in the target language which expresses the same meaning as the source language word?”. In such cases, a specific word may seem to be untranslatable. However, it is not the word that needs to be translated, rather it is the sense or meaning attached to that word that needs to be transferred to the TT. Thus, resolving an issue of non-equivalence at word level involves analysis of the relationship between word and meaning (Baker, 2018: 11). It is important to remember that “there is no one-to-one correspondence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within or across languages” (Baker, 2018: 11). This can be demonstrated by the verb type which is translated into three words in Spanish; “pasar a maquina”. Instead of focusing on the translation for a single word, the translator should focus on isolating and analysing different elements of meaning conveyed in a unit of language (e.g. a word) and determining how that meaning can be transferred to the TT. For example, this can be done by paraphrasing the meaning signified by a word after having determined the different elements of meaning contained within its structural constituents (e.g. morphemes).

word

Baker (2018: 11) cites a simple definition for word as the smallest unit of meaning that can be used on its own, while written word is defined as “any sequence of letters with an orthographic space on either side”. However, it cannot be said that there exists a one-to-one relationship between word and meaning. Meaning can be understood from smaller units of language (such as the morpheme); from larger, more complex units of language, and also from various structures and linguistic devices (Baker 2018: 11). This can be demonstrated by analysing the elements of meaning contained within in a word. Take for example the word rebuild which contains two different elements of meaning. Meaning is carried by the morpheme re meaning “to do again” and by build, meaning “to build/construct”. Thus, “to build again” is understood from the word rebuild.

Concept

Definition

Reference

intralingual translation

Translation between two different varieties or dialects of the same language which involves the “replacement of lexical items with their equivalent items that are more suited to the target audience”. Ex. UK: Harry Potter and the philosopher’s stone USA: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. May also include rewording or paraphrasing (text editing?) (Hatim & Munday, 2004:5).

Hatim, B. & Munday, J.  2004.  Translation: and advanced resource book.  1st ed.  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

interlingual translation

Translation from one language (source text) to another (target text) (Hatim & Munday, 2004:5).

intersemiotic translation

Translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign (music or an image). Ex. Translating Morse-code into a verbal message (Hatim & Munday, 2004:5).

translation

Translation is a very broad term. In the first traditional sense it relates to the process of the translator transferring written text from the source text (ST) into the target text (TT). It also relates to the concrete written product produced by the translator. Moreover, the term translation may evoke other terms such as interpreting and machine translation, although generally translation is applied to written texts. Machine translation broadens the understanding of the term in a modern professional context where computerized analysis is married with human analysis. Furthermore, the term also introduces sub-types such as the type of the written product (literary, technical) but also the translation forms such as audiovisual translation, interpreting, etc. (Hatim & Munday, 2004:3 – 6).

In summary, Hatim & Munday (2004:6) define translation as

“1. The process of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by a translator, or translators, in a specific socio-cultural context.

2. The written product, or TT, which results from that process and which functions in the socio-cultural context of the TL.

3. The cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena which are an integral part of 1 and 2.”

translation studies

In the past, key questions of linguistics (such as equivalence and translatability) have been the centre of Translation Studies. This field came into being thanks to Netherlands-based scholar James S. Holmes, who mapped out the field of Translation Studies in his work published in 1972, The Name and the Nature of Translation Studies. Holmes divided the field into ‘pure’  (academic) Translation Studies (with descriptive and theoretical components) and ‘applied’ (vocational) Translation Studies (including translator training, translation aids and translation criticism). Holmes (1988:71) considers the objective of ‘pure’ Translation Studies to be the following:

“1. to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience, and

2. to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted.”

Based on this, the assertion is that translated language in general seems to show certain characteristics, known as universals of translation.

Translation studies have evolved to such an extent that it is seen as an interdisciplinary field which overlaps with various other fields. The goal of modern Translation Studies is to describe the translation process and to identify trends and universals (Hatim & Munday, 2004:7).