El documento original (si esto que ves es una copia) está en esta dirección web:

http://xcastro.com/portera.html

Formal Equivalence and Dynamic equivalence caused heated controversy. The concept of equivalence has been one of the key words in translation studies. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years. The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of equivalence.

Eugene Nida, in consultation with other pioneers in the field, developed the theory of "dynamic equivalence" or "functional equivalence," which stressed the importance of transferring meaning, not grammatical form. Nida discussed various kinds of complexity in meaning even at a comparatively early date, beginning with his 1947 publication of Bible Translating. He explicitly spoke about translating "fullest meaning" instead of a bare minimum.

In the book ‘The Theory and Practice of Translation’, Nida (2003:1) [1] indicates that translators were not able to convey the message of the Bible: “Unfortunately translators of religious materials have sometimes not been promoted by the same feeling of urgency to make sense.” Nida reveals the cover about the methods adopted in translating the Bible , the argument shows that there are two main focuses while translating the Bible ; “the older focus in translation was the form of the message ; translators were delighted to reproduce stylistic specialties , plays on words , parallelism, rhymes, rhythms , and new grammatical structures , while the new focus shifted from the form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what the translator must determine is the response of the receptor.” (ibid: 1).

There are problems, however, with dynamic equivalence translations. Since the translator is "freer" from the grammatical forms of the original language s/he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are formal equivalence translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong.

There are some scholars of translation who opposed the theory of Dynamic equivalence such as Eco (2001:5) [2] who argues against Equivalence in meaning; “then translation scholars should have had, at least once in their life, both the experience of translating and that of being translated.” Moreover he sees that ( ibid:9) “Equivalence in meaning cannot be taken as a satisfactory criterion for a correct translation, …… We cannot even accept the naïve idea that equivalence in meaning is provided by synonym, since it is commonly accepted that there are no complete synonym in language. Father is not a synonym for daddy, daddy is not a synonym for papa, and père is not a synonym for padre.”

Eco believes that those who have been involved in the art and craft of translation are definitely in a better position to formulate theoretical reflections on the subject. Moreover, it is perfectly clear to Eco that a successful translation cannot be anchored in the notion of word equivalences.

Eco (ibid:14) sees that “The translator does not translate a text on the basis of the dictionary, but rather “on the basis of the whole history of two literatures. Therefore translating is not only connected with linguistic competence, but with intertextual, psychological, and narrative competence. Thus, the translator is forced at all times to go beyond linguistic competence to the cultural spectrum. Consequently, translations do not constitute a comparison between two languages but the interpretation of two texts in two different languages.” In order for a translation to come to life, “a good translation must generate the same effect aimed at by the original.” Yet all translations are preceded by the interpretive perspective that the translator brings to the text, which means that the translator as interpreter must become visible in the translation.

However, all of his explanations and examples reconfirm his major conviction that the goal of all translations is “to produce in a different language the same effect as the source discourse, and poetic discourse is said to aim at producing an aesthetic effect.” (ibid:93) the discussion of equivalence shows the refined thinking that Eco brings to the analysis of all the other Practical aspects of translation presented in the section “Translating and Being Translated.” (Eco 2001-5)

Basically there are two competing theories of translation. In one, the predominant purpose is to express as exactly as possible the full force and meaning of every word and turn of phrase in the original, and in the other the predominant purpose is to produce a result that does not read like a translation at all, but rather moves in its new dress with the same ease as in its native rendering. In the hands of a good translator neither of these two approaches can ever be entirely ignored.

As a matter of fact, a perfect theory of translation should be an overall concern of all theories and should meet the functional requirements of an accepted and adequate translation theory, that provides some guidelines for translating to facilitate the task and transfer cultural elements in the source language to the target language, and thus achieve the same effect on the target receivers as on the original receivers.

The ability to formulate strategies for translators lies at the heart of the tensions between translation studies (TS) and professional translators and between the applied and non-applied branches of TS. It also affects the relationship which TS has with neighboring disciplines such as linguistics.

Using the translation of emphasis from English into French to illustrate, the article (a) outlines 10 possible procedures and 11 parameters for the translation of emphasis from English into French; (b) contrasts non-applied translation strategies with applied ones and puts forward a minimax principle based on 6 criteria (formal and semantic complexity, reliability, scope, metalanguage, formulation order) which translation strategies should satisfy, in addition to a desirability criterion, in order to meet the needs of the translator; (c) argues that applied and non-applied strategies should retain their specific properties if they are to fulfil their respective functions.

Introduction

Anyone who combines commercial translation activities with working as an academic, involved in both translation studies (TS) research and training students to become professional translators, will be acutely aware of how problematic it is to formulate translation strategies for the benefit of translators. If you are in such a position, you are used to feeling equally uncomfortable about what you hear at times on the subject of strategies at academic conferences and professional translators’ conferences. You are familiar with dismissive remarks from practitioners who reject wholesale the notion of any possible contribution of TS to the concrete resolution of problems at the "wordface," to borrow Wagner’s term (Chesterman and Wagner 2002). Cross, for instance, deems Baker’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies to be "interesting, but irrelevant" (1998:27, quoted by Wagner in Chesterman and Wagner 2002:1). The contention is usually that every problem/text/translation situation is different, which means that generalizations, and therefore reusable strategies, are out of the question. It is also argued that the concepts TS relies upon are so complex, esoteric and remote from translation practice that translators could not even begin to apply them to their tasks (for further arguments, see Robinson 2001:162-163). As Wagner points out: "There can be few professions with such a yawning gap between theory and practice" (Chesterman and Wagner 2002:1), a worrying situation for a group of professionals who have a status and credibility problem, since they can still practise without any formal qualification.

The ability to deliver strategies to practitioners lies at the heart of the tension within TS itself between the so-called "pure" and "applied" branches of the discipline, with many theorists going out of their way to distance themselves from any form of prescriptivism. Chesterman points out how, for several decades, mainstream translation theorists have taken the view that they "should seek to be descriptive, to describe, explain and understand what translators do actually do, not stipulate what they ought to do" (Chesterman and Wagner 2002:2); they "see themselves as studying the translators, not instructing them" (id.). His outline of the current goals of translation theory leaves no room for prescriptivism:

(a) to describe what translators do, what strategies they use and what roles they play, under given linguistic and socio-cultural conditions;

(b) to explain why they do this, what norms they follow, what values underlie these norms; and

(c) to assess the effects of translatorial actions, on readers and also on cultures and intercultural relations more widely. (1997:48)

(a) to explore the nature of possible strategies aimed at the translator for the translation from English into French of a problematic linguistic feature, namely emphasis;

(b) at a more general level, and using emphasis as the main source of illustration for the discussion, to reflect on how translation strategies aimed at translators might usefully be formulated in order to meet their practical requirements, and how they might differ from other translation strategies put forward by translatologists.

The parameters having a bearing on emphasis are frequently ignored by authors who often stop short of making them explicit. Woolner’s list (1998:32-34) includes five of them (type of word emphasized, sentence type, pragmatic function, presence of other emphasizing element, text type). Leaving aside points of detail and external factors (e.g. the translator’s brief), and bearing in mind that what follows does not claim to be exhaustive, a number of additions could be made: linguistic medium, pragmatic context, readership, level of speech, linguistic frequency norms, style. Overall, the amended list includes 11 parameters, ranging from parameters which may obtain for the whole text to some which are more specific:

During the course of this essay, two theoretical approaches to translation – Skopos and Polysystems – will be examined. They will be placed in historical context before the main features of each, accompanied by relevant critique, are discussed in some detail. Case studies will then help determine advantages and disadvantages before a final comparison is made to reveal similarities and differences between the two positions.

Skopos theory lies within the realm of the Functional Linguistic approach to translation theory (Berghout 7/9/05) that originated in Germany during the 1970s and 1980s, signalling a change in thinking from the structural linguistic approach that had dominated the previous twenty years. It follows in the footsteps of Katharina Reiss’ work, which moves the concept of equivalence away from the micro-level of the word or sentence to that of the macro textual level, in which translation options for different text types are proposed (Munday, 2001, pp 73-76). Skopos precedes but is incorporated into Holz-Mänttäri’s theory of translational action where TT emphasis also takes into account some practical issues, including the role of the participants in the translation process (Munday, 2001, pp 77-78); and Christiane Nord’s translation-oriented text analysis, which places more emphasis on the ST than Skopos (Munday, 2001, pp 81-84).

Skopos is the Greek word for “purpose” or “aim” (Munday, 2001, p.78) and, according to Hans Vermeer who introduced the term in the 1970s, it “is a technical term for the aim or purpose of a translation” (Vermeer, 1989, p.227). The German equivalent is skopostheorie and it is detailed in the book Grundlegung einer allgemeine Translationstheorie (Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation) that Vermeer and Katharina Reiss collaborated on in 1984.  The fundamental principle of the Skopos theory lies in determining the reasons for which the translation is being commissioned and the function of the TT in the target culture. This is done in order for the translator to decide upon which methods will be employed in the production of a suitable TT – Vermeer’s “translatum”.

The basic rules of the Skopos theory as laid down by Vermeer and Reiss are:

1) The final version of the TT is determined by its skopos and the role it will play in the target culture.

2) The role of the ST in the source culture may be different to the role of the TT in the target culture.

3) The TT must take into account the receiver’s situation and background knowledge – it must be “internally coherent”.

4) The TT must be faithful to the ST – “coherent with the ST”. Here the translator is the key, as the information provided by the ST must be determined, interpreted and relayed to the target audience.

5) These rules are in order of importance, so skopos has the prime position (Munday, 2001, p.79).

The commissioning of the translation is critical to Skopos theory. Vermeer defines the commission as “the instruction, given by oneself or by someone else, to carry out a given action – here: to translate” (Vermeer, 1989, p.235), so the purpose of a translation can be determined either by the translator him/herself or by another party – an editor or publisher, or the board of directors of a multinational corporation, for example. In the modern world, the commissioning process is usually rather precise in detail, providing information about the aim of the translation, deadlines, payment, etc.  According to Holz-Mänttäri, the translator is the key player in the translation process, “the translator is the expert” (Holz-Mänttäri in Vermeer, 1989, p.235). It is up to the person in this role to determine whether the proposal can be realized within the given specifications.  If not, suggestions and alternatives should be offered in order to achieve realistic outcomes (Vermeer, 1989, p.235).  For example, if the commissioner of a translation needs a 200 page technical report finalised in a couple of days for use in an important boardroom meeting, the translator should offer advice as to the feasibility and offer suggestions on how it can be made to happen, which may also include the renegotiation of the fee because of the tight time frame.

If the commission falls beyond the scope of the specifications, that is if the translator is unable to produce the best possible TT available, then an “optimal” version should be agreed upon (Vermeer, 1989, p.236). Vermeer offers four definitions of the term “optimal”:

- “one of the best translations possible in the given circumstances”

- “one of those that best realize the goal in question”

- “as good as possible in view of the resources available”

- (as good as possible) “in view of the wishes of the client” (Vermeer, 1989, p.236).

As previously mentioned, the purpose of the commission needs to be clearly stated at the outset so that translation strategies can be put in place. A translator may decide to employ a technique suggested by Dryden in 1680 – metaphrase (word-for-word), paraphrase (sense-for-sense) or imitation (rewrite) (Berghout 10/8/05); or opt for House’s overt or covert translation methods (Munday, 2001, pp 93-94) where ST features are either retained or suppressed, depending on the circumstances. In the case of the 200 page technical report cited above, one concept of the “ideal” translation would be faithful adherence to text type i.e. reproduction of the detailed report. However, because of the obvious time limitations, another text type such as a summary may be proposed as an alternative. This may offer the extra advantage in that the key points raised for discussion in a boardroom meeting may be more easily accessible in a summarised form.

Whatever the final format of the TT, if it fulfils the instructions of the mutually agreed upon commission, then it is deemed to have achieved its purpose and can be considered to be adequate. In light of this, it can be seen that the emphasis of the skopos theory lies firmly on the TT, with the ST playing a role of secondary importance. The major advantage of Skopos, therefore, lies in the fact that the same ST can be translated in different ways depending on its role and purpose in the target culture.

However, Skopos has been criticised on several grounds.  Firstly, it has been said that it does not apply to literary texts, because it could be considered that they serve no purpose. (Munday, 2001, p.81; Vermeer, 1989, p.230). If this were the case, then Skopos cannot claim to be a legitimate general theory for translation, as indicated by the title of Reiss and Vermeer’s 1984 publication. Vermeer argues strongly against this point by insisting that literary works are created with a specific goal in mind, even if it is reduced to the simplest “art for the sake of art” premise (Vermeer, 1989, p.231). The application of skopos to a literary text may, in fact, suppress some of the intended deeper levels of meaning that are open for reflection to readers of the ST. However, Vermeer counters this particular argument by claiming that if the reading of a literary TT on multiple levels is desired, it should be clearly stated at the time of the commission (Vermeer, 1989, p.232). From a linguistic perspective, Skopos has been condemned for being stylistically and semantically loose, as well as for not paying enough attention to TT micro-level features (Munday, 2001, p.81).  Vermeer could, I suppose, counter this criticism in the same manner by claiming that attention to linguistic detail should also be stated in the commissioning process.

In view of these criticisms, it seems that the major weakness of the skopos theory lies in the fact that almost any translation can be justified and any criticism dismissed as long as the final version of the TT satisfactorily fulfils the outcomes stated at the beginning of the assignment. This raises the obvious question as to what actually constitutes translation, with the distinct possibility of linguistic and textual equivalence being discarded if the commissioner doesn’t require it or doesn’t raise it as an issue. Even Vermeer’s rule on TT coherence with the ST is located on the bottom rung of the scale of importance.

A brief case study of the application of the skopos theory, based on personal experience, will hopefully demonstrate the advantages it offers as a practical approach to translation.

Case Study.

The ST is “Sarissa”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique vol.94 (1970) pp 91-107. Originally written in Greek by Manolis Andronicos, it was translated into French by Pierre Amandry and Francis Croissant. It includes four passages in German and twenty short passages from Greek Antiquity (Homer, Xenophon, Theophrastus, etc), all of which have been left unaltered in the French version, as well as five pages of diagrams, maps and sketches. The TT is to be used as a reference source for a university project by Mark Fowler on the construction of the Macedonian sarissa and will form part of the appendix of the final paper.

The commission is one of the key issues in the way the ST has been translated, as the defined field of research centres on the advantages that the metal collar offers in the overall construction of the shaft of the sarissa. After a preliminary reading of the ST and discussions with the commissioner, it was determined that only the final ten pages needed to be addressed, as the first six pages describe the archaeological site, hence deemed irrelevant to the topic of the research paper. Furthermore, working within the constraints of a strict budget and time frame, the overall length of the ST was reduced by approximately 40%.

An analysis of the ST reveals several features that have influenced translation methodology. From a syntactic and stylistic perspective, it is fairly evident that the French text is itself a translation. It was therefore considered necessary to reword several awkward constructions, working within semantic boundaries, so as to render them more accessible to the English-speaking target audience. The German and Greek passages have been left intact, as they fall beyond the translator’s language range. They have, however, been annotated with space allocated in the footnotes for the English. This was done after consultation with the commissioner who has access to German and Greek translators. Since the field of research is specialised, terminology was decided upon after further input from the commissioner – “pointe de lance”, “talon de lance”, “douille” would be translated as “spearhead”, “buttspike” and “collar”. Diagrams and sketches have been transposed and translated in the TT, although the maps have been omitted due to their irrelevance to the research topic. The title itself poses an interesting problem.  Since the French ST is entitled “Sarissa” (an English word), should the English TT be called “Sarisse” (the French word)?  Considering that the purpose of the TT is scientific rather than literary, it was decided to retain the English title in the English text.

From this brief study, it has been shown that the emphasis of the translation lies firmly on the TT. After consultation with the commissioner, the purpose of the TT allows for alteration to macro-level textual features, while modified micro-level features on the word and sentence level renders the TT more accessible to the target audience. With the TT being delivered on time and within budget, and a satisfied commissioner with a completed research project, it can be seen that Skopos offers a successful, practical approach to translation which may not be realizable by other methods.

In the 1970s, a literary approach to translation theory began to emerge, partly as a response to the prescriptive linguistic theories that had monopolised thinking for the previous two decades. Key elements of this new literary approach are the writings of the Manipulation School; systems theories; and Gideon Toury’s descriptive translation studies (DTS), which tries to identify laws in translation, of which Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory – PS (www.art.man.ac.uk) forms a vital part. At the Leuven Conference in 1976, Even-Zohar presented a paper entitled “The Position of Translated Literature in the Literary Polysystem” where he considers the position of translated literature within the literary, cultural and historical contexts of the target culture. He does not advocate the study of individual translations but rather views the body of translated works as a system working within and reacting to a literary system, which, in turn, is working within and reacting to the historical, social and cultural systems of the particular target audience. Therefore, there is a system within a system within systems i.e. the polysystem.

The notion of “system” does, perhaps, need some clarification at this point. Literature viewed as a system can be traced back to Russian Formalist thinking of the 1920s when Yury Tynjanov is credited with being the first person to describe literature in these terms (Hermans, 1999, p.104). Translated literature itself is also considered to operate as a system in at least two ways – firstly, in the way that the TL chooses works for translation and secondly, in the way translation methodology varies according to the influence of other systems (Munday, 2001, p.109). Even-Zohar himself emphasises the fact that translated literature functions systemically:

“I conceive of translated literature not only as an integral system within any literary polysystem but as a most active system within it.” (1976, p.200).

PS functions as a system on the level of a series of relationships between apparent opposites. These are:

- canonized (high) and non-canonized (low) forms, which opened the door for the consideration of detective and children’s stories and their role in translation

- centre and periphery

- primary (innovative) and secondary (stagnant) models

- ST and TT

- translated and non-translated texts (Hermans, 1999,  p.42).

The key idea of PS is that there is a continual repositioning of genres in relation to each other, “a continual struggle for power between various interest groups” (Hermans, 1999, p.42), which helps give rise to the dynamic nature of literature.  If literature is to remain vibrant, it needs to be in a constant state of fluctuation, with established, familiar, canonized forms being constantly nudged and eventually replaced by newer, more innovative, peripheral models. Therefore, translated literature does not occupy a fixed position in a literary system because the system itself is in a constant state of change, although Even-Zohar proposes that the secondary position is really the normal position for translated literature (Munday, 2001, p.110). However, even though change to the core comes from the peripheral, new literary forms, when translated literature occupies this position, it is generally perceived to be fairly conservative, working within the confines of the target culture.

Even-Zohar does insist that there are occasions when translated literature forms part of the nucleus and it is then that the boundaries between translated and original literature begin to merge, being virtually indistinguishable from one another (Even-Zohar, 1976, p.200). There are three possible scenarios when this may occur:

1) When an emerging literature from a relatively new culture adopts translations from more established literatures in order to fill the gaps that exist within its own system, due to it being unable to instantly create a wide range of text types and genres. Translated literature introduces features and techniques that did not previously exist, such as new poetic structures.

2) When a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger nation, it may rely on imported literature from the dominant culture in order to keep its literary system dynamic, as well as being possibly the only source available for the creation of new genres, for example Breton culture in Brittany may rely heavily on literary styles from France in order to fill the gaps that exist in its own literary system.

3) When there are turning points in literary history, such as when established forms lose popularity or when there is no existing model. This could conceivably be the role that Harry Potter occupies in Chinese Mandarin.

There are also occasions when translated literature can occupy both a central position and a peripheral position within a literary system. This may occur when major social changes are taking place. Even-Zohar exemplifies this with the role of translated literature in Israel in the early 1900s when literature from Russian into Hebrew was more dominant than translations from English, German or Polish (Munday, 2001, p.110; Even-Zohar, 1976, p.202).

Having briefly discussed the theoretical workings of the polysystem approach, it now remains to be seen how it affects translation methodology. Even-Zohar says that when a translated work occupies a central position in the literary polysystem of the target culture, it is generally strong in itself and doesn’t need to conform to target culture conventions.  The translator doesn’t try to adapt to TL models, staying close to the original ST. If the position of translated literature is weak, the reverse trend occurs. The translator tends to adopt more features from the target culture, so the translation becomes target culture dominant, often providing a less than satisfactory translation (Even-Zohar, 1976, pp 203-204; Munday, 2001, p.110).

PS is important because it moves translation away from the traditional ST-TT linguistic comparisons of shift and equivalence towards the viewing of translation in a social, cultural and historical context. There is also a change from the study of individual texts as a systemic approach tries to uncover the universal laws and principles that govern translation. It is also quite significant because it can be applied to other systems besides strictly literary systems eg television programming and politics (I would like to develop this theme but space restrictions prevent me from doing so here), therefore making the system itself universal.

PS has been widely criticised on a number of issues:

- Gentzler questions Even-Zohar’s objectivity, claims that the universal laws are too abstract, criticises the level of input and the relevance of Russian Formalism, and states that little thought has been given to limitations placed on translation and texts (Munday, 2001, p.111).

- Berman condemns Even-Zohar’s proposition that translated literature generally occupies a role of secondary importance in the target culture because “it downplays their creative and formative aspect” (Hermans, 1999, p.154). Berman also thinks that translated literature remains a separate entity within the target culture. 

- Susan Bassnett thinks that the comments describing target literature as “young”, “weak” “vacuum”, etc are highly subjective. Subjectivity also dominates the definition as to what constitutes canonized and non-canonized literature.  She questions the abstract nature of the theory which tends to neglect concrete examples while, at the same time, wondering whether the theory has progressed much beyond the ideas of Russian Formalism of the 1920s (Bassnett & Lefevere 1998: 127 in Hermans, 1999, p.109).

- André Lefevere claims that Even-Zohar is presumptuous in his claim that the systems he describes actually exist, condemns the abstract nature of the theory, and describes the terms “primary” and “secondary” as “superfluous” (Hermans, 1999, p.125).

- Philippe Codde believes that PS has become outdated as other systemic theories are presented as alternatives (2003, p.26)

- Theo Hermans argues against one of Even-Zohar’s most fundamental principles by saying that the target culture may not necessarily select the ST. He cites the example of the period of European colonization when France and England were seen to be “dumping literary items on a colonized population” (1999, p.111). He also claims that the series of binary opposites that constitute the polysystem theory don’t take into account those factors that are not diametrically opposed.

While PS could be seen to offer an intellectual approach to translation, I believe that it remains far too abstract in its presentation because it doesn’t provide concrete evidence, doesn’t venture into specifics, or offer functioning examples. No mention is made of the concept of overt and covert translations (this comes later), although Even-Zohar says that it is difficult to differentiate translated from original literature when placed in the central position.  I would now like to examine two case studies in order to exemplify the workings of PS.

Case Study 1.  Translated literature at the centre of the polysystem.

In the 1970s, “Planet of the Apes” starring Charlton Heston appeared in cinemas across the United States and throughout many countries of the world. Its widespread popularity and box office success placed it firmly at the centre of popular culture and indeed remains so today with numerous television repeats and the success of the 2001 remake. The movie provides an excellent example of translated science fiction occupying the centre of the literary polysystem of the English-speaking Western world, since few people realise that “Planet of the Apes” has been derived from an original French novel entitled “La planète des singes” by Pierre Boulle, published in 1963.

In order to occupy such a key position in the literary polysystem, “La planète des singes” has been subjected to the influence of several translation theories. Skopos would have been initially applied in order for the TT’s purpose in the target culture to be determined i.e. to produce a screenplay and ultimately a movie that will earn the movie companies a lot of money. Holz-Mänttäri’s theory of translational action, involving players in the translation process, is a key feature with the roles of the initiator and commissioner being filled by Hollywood executives and the roles of TT user and TT receiver being filled by movie theatres and the audience (Munday, 2001, p.77). Dryden’s intersemiotic method also figures prominently as Boulle’s novel is transformed into a screenplay by William Broyles Jr (www.imdb.com). Finally, the ultimate TT exists as a covert translation, since many ST features have been suppressed.  “Le professeur Antelle”, “le physicien Arthur Levain” and “le journaliste Ulysse Mérou” from the original have been replaced by “Astronaut Taylor”, “Astronaut Dodge” and “Astronaut Landon’ (www.movieprop.com); while Paris’ Orly Airport has been replaced by the Statue of Liberty in the final scene of the American version, to mention just a few examples.

The advantage of polysystems in this instance is fairly clear, as it embraces the application of multiple theories under the umbrella of one general theory. The chief disadvantage, however, is that Even-Zohar is not clear enough about this in the enunciation of his theory.

Case Study 2.  Translated literature at the periphery of the polysystem.

Often, when a piece of translated literature occupies the peripheral position in the polysystem, the reader is aware that what is being read is, in fact, a translated text. Juliane House calls this an overt translation (Munday, 2001, p.93) – a translation with ST orientation that tends to retain some of its original cultural identity. These texts are sometimes found on the shelves of newsagencies, in some obscure section in bookshops, in a rack at the train station, or in airport departure lounges.

The translation of Émile Zola’s Germinal by Leonard Tancock in 1954 supports this idea, since the target audience is aware that they are reading an account of coal mining conditions in northern France in the 1800s. The TT retains all of the proper nouns of the ST (eg “Étienne”, “Plassens in Provence”, “Pierre Rougon”, “Antoine Macquart”, etc on p.8), with no attempt at cultural camouflage. The same features are evident in peripheral literature translated into French. La Guerre des Rose (1985) by Warren Alder (translated by Christiane Cozzolino) retains the names of the American characters and places, as does Glenn Savan’s White Palace (1973) (translated by Isabelle Reinharez), which doesn’t even try to mask the title. The same features are evident in Mon Michaël (1973) by Amos Oz (translated by Rina Viers), which retains all Hebrew proper nouns and references to Israel from the Hebrew original.  Furthermore, these four translations have all retained ST format. Germinal in particular could possibly have been presented in an abbreviated English version, however, the seven part French model remains intact.

These two case studies reveal a possible discrepancy in Even-Zohar’s theory concerning translation techniques and position in the polysystem. According to him, if translated literature occupies the central position, it possesses ST orientation. If it is peripheral, it possesses TT orientation (1976, pp 203-204). These two cases tend to reveal the opposite trend with “Planet of the Apes” conforming more to TT expectations and Germinal, La Guerre des Rose, White Palace and Mon Michaël retaining many ST features. However, if Tintin by Hergé can be thought of as occupying a central position as translated work in the English literary polysystem, it does conform to Even-Zohar’s ideas because it is heavily ST orientated. It can be argued, therefore, that central and peripheral positions can be viewed in a highly subjective manner, as does Susan Bassnett (1998).  Despite this dilemma, it is clear that relative position in the polysystem for all literary works, not just translated works, is a reflection of social and cultural tastes and historical trends.

After examining in some detail the Skopos theory and the Polysystems Theory, it can be seen that they were both conceived around the same time in the 1970s, partly as a reaction to the structural linguistic approach to translation theory.  Skopos offers a Functional Linguistic approach which is heavily TT oriented, while Polysystems provides a literary approach that can be either ST or TT oriented, depending on the position translated literature occupies in the literary polysystem of the target culture at a particular time. Skopos provides a practical approach to translation that allows for the individual ST to be translated in different ways, depending on the purpose it will serve in the target culture.  Polysystems is an intellectual, systemic, perhaps even universal approach that moves away from the examination of individual texts, allowing for the possible inclusion of several theories under the one umbrella. Skopos can be applied to both literary and non-literary texts, whereas Polysystems, being a literary approach, could be seen as neglecting non-literary work, although it does allow for the inclusion of “lower” genres, such as police novels, to be viewed in terms of translation theory.

The role of the translator is an important feature of both theories. Skopos allows for a considerable amount of input from the translator in determining strategies after negotiating directly with the commissioner. While the role of the translator may not seem to be as dominant in Polysystems Theory, a great deal of subjectivity is required in order to be able to reflect the cultural and historical status of the literary work in the target culture.

Both theories could be criticised over a number of issues.  Skopos could be seen as a possible justification for the production of almost any translation, regardless of accuracy and quality. In the quest to uncover universal laws in translation, Polysystems, with its roots in Russian Formalism, could be viewed as archaic, too abstract, offering little in the way of evidence of its practical application. However, both approaches are not prescriptive, offering an alternative to word-for-word, sense-for-sense, equivalence and shift issues.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Warren. La Guerre des Rose.  Translated by Christiane Cozzolino. Paris: Le livre de poche, 1985.

Andronicos, Manolis, “Sarissa.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Vol.94 pp 91-107. 1970.

Berghout, Dr Anita. Lectures 10/8/2005; 7/9/2005. University of Newcastle.

Boulle, Pierre. La planète des singes.  Paris: Julliard, 1963.

Codde, Philippe. “Polysystem Theory Revisited: A New Comparative Introduction.” pp. 25-37
Poetics Today. Vol.24, No.1, Spring 2003.

Even-Zohar, Itamar. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.” 1976.
In Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader.  (2^nd Edition).
New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp199 – 204.

Fowler, Mark. “Construction of the Macedonian Sarissa.  The Advantages of the Addition of a Shaft Joint.”
University of Newcastle, 2005. Awaiting publication.

Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems. Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St Jerome, 1999.

Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications.
London: Routledge, 2001.

Nam Fung Chang. “The Cultural Turn of Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystems Studies-Promises and Problems.”
www.art.man.ac.uk

Oz, Amos. Mon Michaël. Translated by Rina Viers. Paris: Livre de poche. 1973.

Savan, Glenn. White Palace. Translated by Isabelle Reinharez. Paris: Pocket, 1973.

Vermeer, Hans. “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” 1989.
In Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader.  (2^nd Edition).
New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp227-237.

In this article, I take issue with certain claims made by translation memory (TM) and content management system (CMS) vendors. In addition to the lingo of "fuzzy matches" and "exact matches," there is the publicity claiming, "Don't pay twice to translate the same word," and "Save up to 80% on your production costs." I beg to diverge on that last one. My figures are a bit different. First, one must understand what is the target, and what can be obtained from it.How is redundancy billed?
What does it imply if it is saved from the translation bill?

Most translation work is paid on a per word basis. This system is far from perfect, but all in all, everyone has become accustomed it. Some word combinations can easily be translated easily, while others are tough. Some parts of text are repeated, while others require endless research to solve ambiguity. In fact, it turns out that pricing based on the concept of word count is a sort of package deal that assumes that some parts will pay a lot, while others will hardly pay at all.

For translators, reusing parts of text that have been previously translated, either in the same text or in previous texts, has always been part of the price billed to customers. However, TM has radically altered the way in which translators do their work. Yet, pricing schemes and cost structures rarely take this into account.What share of the savings should the customer expect?

The customer should expect his fair share of the savings that new technologies bring, but not those very ambitious figures provided by software vendors. The savings should be based on reality, not at the expense of individual translators.

To determine what is fair, one needs to understand the nature of texts. Some texts are what we call "narrative continuous," requiring careful attention to grammar, syntax, ambiguity, etc. "Discontinuous" texts are much easier to translate for they are usually parts lists, very standardized technical procedures and the like. They are processed on the basis of terminology rather than translation.

Outlined below are three examples that demonstrate how very often translation savings are not value-added by the new technologies.

1. Course manuals for students and trainers. The trainer's manual contains 100% of the student's text, plus additional explanations and test answers inserted throughout the text. [3 scenarios]
2. An updated release of a user's guide in which 80% of the words are recurring. However, there is no log of changes in the text. Since the software is a new release, the structure and formatting of the document have been changed. [2 scenarios]
3. A list of items for a catalog of office supplies. Around 90% of the items are the same as in the previous release of the catalog, but most prices have changed.

The customer's project manager (PM) is both technically and linguistically qualified to do a good translation herself. She hopes that the student's manual will cost nothing, since the text is contained in the trainer's manual. The company has recently invested in a TM package.

1. The PM outsources the text and requires the translator to create a TM for the user's manual. The translator uses the same software as the company, so she analyses the text and submits her bid. Since there are almost no internal matches identified by the tool, she knows that she will gain nothing in the short term while translating the trainer's manual. In addition, she will spend time to enter sentences into TM. NOTE: The trainer's manual contains 30% more text than the student's manual.
2. During the translation of the trainer's guide, the translator retrieves around 10% of the text, i.e., sentences that are similar to others in the same text, and reuses them. Result: the translator saves time on around 10% of the sentences, but she loses 10% because of the additional time required to use TM. In addition, she must now invest a certain amount of time to modify these retrieved sentences, usually around 40% of the time required to translate the same sentences without TM. Therefore, the translator really ends up spending 10% to save 6%, giving away 4% to the customer.
3. The translator now returns this text, along with its new TM, to the customer. The PM then sends the student's manual with the newly created TM to the same translator. The latter knows that she must carefully proofread the text to ensure that everything is correct, and that there is nothing abnormal in the memory. This type of proofreading requires approximately 20% to 30% of the time normally needed for a full translation.
4. Time must be added to review the quality of the TM. History shows that resolving technical problems and managing TMs take around 10% of the total translation time. Obviously, when a translator has little or no experience with TM, the review time is longer.
5. Total time spent at this point in the process by the independent professional translator: 20% (proofreading) + 10% (fixing problems and managing TMs) = 30%.
6. In this case, the formatting of the two manuals is not identical, so the PM must spend an additional 10% of her time proofreading. This brings the total time spent to retrieve text that contains exact matches up to 40%.

FINAL RESULT: In this case, the customer will almost certainly be frustrated, since her expectation was a 100% savings on the user's manual. However, her savings has shrunk to 60%, even though the translator has given up 4%, too, rather than paying for her software. There is a "negative added value" for the translator. The overall cost of the process is 44%.

An archaic invoice for this project would look as follows:

1. The PM sends the text to be translated at the normal rate.
2. When the translation returns, he aligns it very quickly.
3. He then validates the alignment, which should take around 3% of the normal translation time. Since he needs to align 130% of the student's manual, 3% becomes 4%. He must also create entries in the database, which takes around 10 % of the translation time.
4. The PM must invest approximately 10% of his time to maintain the memories.
5. He applies the translation memory to the text of the student's guide.
6. He must proofread the text to make sure that it does not contain any false translations. This requires at least 20% of translation time.
7. Partial totals for time spent: 4% for alignment, 10% for entries, 20% for proofreading, 10% for TM management, which add up to 44%.

The customer expected a 100% saving, which has now be reduced to only 56%. What does it take to save the 70% and more promised by TM vendors?Example 1: Course Manuals for Students and Trainers (Scenario 3)

The customer expects a saving of 100% on the student's guide, even though his company has not invested in TM software. Instead, he hires a translator, who is the proud owner of this state-of-the-art new software, and agrees to bill only 10% on the 100% matches, since it is the machine that will do all of the work. The translator assumes that 10% for a few minutes of work is good enough.

1. The translator translates the manual and enters each and every sentence in the memory. Doing so lengthens his working time by 10%. Since his TM software does not recognize fuzzy matches, he receives no compensation for those. Of course, managing his translation memories also takes a toll of 10% on his time. However, he does this willingly, assuming that his investment will pay off someday.
2. When the translator receives the second document, he is able to retrieve most of the text. However, he must now spend approximately 10% of his translation time in formatting.
3. The translator must then verify that every translation is in the correct place, which takes around 10% of the translation time, and then translate the few phrases and sentences that were not retrieved by the software (e.g., the insertion of a paragraph in the middle of a sentence, etc.).
4. TOTAL: the translator has now spent an additional 40% of the translation time, but has only billed 10%. This represents a mortgage on holidays for a few years if he continues to work this way!

FINAL RESULT: The customer is happy, having almost realized his expected 100% savings. He also believes that he has been generous with the translator. He will tell everybody that implementation of such software can generate savings of up to 90%.

Of course, the reality is that a large part of the savings has come directly out of the translator's pocket. The added value has been largely overstated and constituted a transfer of expenses from the customer to the supplier.Example 2: Updated Release of a User's Guide (Scenario 1)

The customer expects savings of 80%, since the TM software recognizes 80% of the words.

1. The PM sends the project out to bid and finds a translator willing to accept an 80% reduction in his normal rate. However, he requires the customer's TM.
2. The PM provides the TM, but this product stores the sentences and the terminology in the same repository, handling complete sentences and phrases in the same manner. The translator, on the other hand, has invested in an industry-standard product that distinguishes between terminology, phrases and sentences. Therefore, a large volume of the words recognized by the software of the customer is of no use at all to the translator.
3. The translator imports the memory, only to discover that a large percentage of words recognized by the customer's software are not recognized by his package. At this point, only 36%, instead of 80%, of the text is recognized.
4. The translator has just lost a full hour playing with the content and the conversion. He calls the PM and explains the situation. The PM does not need his software right now, so he sends the dongle and the software to the translator, who then invests a few more hours to familiarize himself with the product.
5. This time, the results are 80%. However, since the software does not always insert the correct gender, i.e. feminine or masculine, in phrases that make up translation units, the translator realizes that he must spend as much time using TM as it would have taken to do the full translation. Therefore, his real savings are approximately 25%, and when he finishes the job, he is totally exhausted.
6. TOTAL: the translator bills 20% for 75% of his effort, plus he does not charge for the hours required to convert the TM, learn the new product, etc. On top of this, if he doesn't win more contracts in which he can use the same software, he will lose the knowledge that he has gained.

RESULT: The customer is satisfied, but the translator is short-changed, similar to the crow in a Lafontaine tale.Example 2: Updated Release of a User's Guide (Scenario 2)

The customer has been told that 80% of the words are the same as in the last version. He believes the text comparison feature in his software and therefore expects an 80% savings.

1. His PM has processed the previous text with an industry-standard TM product that handles sentences and phrases separately. Around 30% of the sentences are exact matches, while 50% are fuzzy matches.
2. When sent out for bid, translators respond with a cost of 20% for exact matches and 75% for fuzzy matches. After some negotiation, it is agreed that it will be 10% for exact matches and 50% for fuzzy matches. Translators often consider that reviewing context takes roughly 10% of the translation time, while fuzzy matches require between 30% and 75% (due to gender, verb tenses and the like).
3. The PM sends the text to the freelance translator who processes the text. Of course, he has to work a lot on the formatting, which varies from the last version, because customers always want their texts to look "better and improved." However, the translator is satisfied overall.
4. The translator then bills 50% of words at 50% for fuzzy matches, that is 25% + 10% of the 30% (exact matches), that is 3%, plus the remaining full 20% which is brand new text.

RESULT: Rather than paying 20% of the total bill, the customer will pay a more equitable 58%. The customer feels a bit of frustration, but in fact, he just paid the right price.Example 3: Updated Office Supply Catalog

Here is a glorious exception where the customer can save 70%, 80% or more, especially if there is an item ID that clearly identifies the item. In this case, the translation probably doesn't even need to be proofread since only the prices have changed. But...do we really need TM for such projects? Wouldn't a database containing the description in the appropriate languages, a place for a conversion factor for the various currencies and a price field be a better solution?  

A translator is a language specialist who understands creative uses of language and that sentences can be ambiguous due to neologisms, false friends, etc. He is familiar with and knows how to handle the many other challenges in correctly translating the reality of one culture into another. A translator's compensation should reflect this. A more equitable bill for some of the work described in the examples above would look something like this:

This is a difference of $1,195… equal to 87% of what the translator was paid! In other words, the translator has been paid a little bit more than half of what he should be! However, everyone seems to find it normal that the parts that are particularly lucrative should be deducted from the translator's wages.

Let me be clear, I don't want to say that we should reject TM software. It is clear that these software are here to stay, and that they are very often productivity enhancers. However, the added value must be shared with translators, instead of becoming a pretext to minimize the importance of good work.

As a matter of fact, many of the words counted as "saved" by TM tools are, in fact, as easy and fast (sometimes faster) to handle through a good global replacement feature. E.g., when there is a sentence in English instructing a user to do XXX and then to "press Enter," it can easily and quickly be translated into French with the same text every time ["et appuyer sur la touche Entre (Enter)"].

Preprocessing text with Content Management Systems

This is worst than bad! CMS vendors claim, "You only have to pay for the new content." In real life, that means that the translator receives a few sentences, or a paragraph, and must read many paragraphs to understand the context each time.

In addition, language aspects such as gender, formality, etc. are not really handled by these systems that pretend to manage content. In fact, these programs only manage changes, and usually do it right only in English. In some instances, a gender change may imply in a language such as French or Spanish that all other sentences with gender-specific content must also be reviewed and changed. Also, depending on who is speaking, the social conventions may change completely the way things are said in another language. For example, in Canada, if I don't know the person to whom I am speaking, I use the pronoun "vous", while I use "tu" if I am speaking to a friend. To be polite in some countries may mean doing business or not (as in Japan).

Elements that should be considered for an equitable evaluation Text Type: Continuous or discontinuous

Usually, a translator earns more for continuous text than for discontinuous text.

Sentence Length

As mentioned earlier, headers, footers and titles in general are easy to translate. The fact that a program can match them to their respective translations automatically does not necessarily speed up translation. Even worse is the fact that some tools force translators to confirm each occurrence of a phrase, actually making the job much, much longer. Yet, customers demand rebates for the imagined savings, at the translator's expense. Shame!

Customer Loyalty

If customers always sent their texts to the same translator, at least the investment in TM would make financial sense for the translator. However, reality is a bit different. Large corporations usually have more than one translation provider, while some prefer to handle their own TMs.

Far too often, the following happens: a translator translates a text for the first time, inserting all of the translation into a TM. However, when the corporation updates the product, it sends the first TM to a different translator who bid half a cent less than the first translator. Translators should charge to use an empty translation memory, since next time, the company will demand that the price of the translation be lower.

Why not be equitable?

Some people say that translation is the main cost of some products or services. Then, if it is the main cost, it is probably also the main revenue multiplier.

Suppose that a company produces something in English, and then translates into languages that have ten times less people in terms of customers. With each new translation, there is a new market, new opportunities. Butif you consider it only as a cost, then all you want is to lower that cost.

Let's look at two examples. A home appliance manufacturer in Canada is able to produce a microwave at an excellent price/quality ratio. The company is proud of its product and decides to include a book of recipes with lots of illustrations on high gloss paper. Making such a book really costs a lot, so they decide to "save" on translation.

The book has approximately 150 pages with around 10,000 words. The company provides each customer with two books, one in French and one in English. A very well-paid translator charges 25 cents a word, so the total translation bill is $2,500.

At the risk of damaging its image with a poor translation, the company might be able to save at most $2,000 by sending the text to a less-qualified translator. People who view translation only as a cost factor probably think this is great. However, customers reading a poorly translated book will probably think that anyone making such a decision should be fired.

Hardly anyone will contest the claim that translation is one of the main costs in the software industry. I say that this is perfectly false! Let us suppose that a good programmer writes an award-winning computer-based training program to teach Java. He sells 1,000,000 copies in English. When he and his editor consider the second release, they want to increase sales by improving the software. However, the real revenue-generating opportunity lies in allowing people who do not speak English access to the software by translating it.

Each new language implies a cost, yet generates a certain amount of income… not bad! Eventually, if a good translation always generates 100 or 1000 times its cost, all one can hope is that this type of cost will reach millions.  Translation should not be considered only as an expense, but rather as an essential part of development. It should receive as much funding as any other essential activity. A poor translation causes as much trouble as poor writing. And poor writing is like delivering a program made at lower costs, but full of bugs. It is a guaranteed path to bankruptcy.

Customers do not buy services that are under a certain level of quality. The translation delivered in high tech industries very often is just on that tiny line.

However, trying to reduce translation costs is normal when it is done in the same manner as trying to reduce other costs. Would you change your programmers for a matter of 2% in their salaries? Well, lots of companies do just that with their translation providers, without having the faintest idea as to whether the lowest bidder can actually deliver reasonable-quality translation at a fair price.

- Translator X from Canada

 By Korina Hansel,
an experienced Germany-based freelance translator & author
and member of the Babelport SiteTeam,
Leipzig, GERMANY