Constructing a Model for Shift Analysis in Translation.pdf
Constructing a Model for Shift Analysis in Translation.pdf
Constructing a Model for Shift Analysis in Translation.pdf
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1.2.2.1.4. SystemBy a 'system' it is meant the closed number of elements among which a choice must be made,e.g., the system of number <strong>in</strong> English and Arabic. In fact, the terms available <strong>in</strong> each system <strong>in</strong>one language can show fundamental differences from the terms of the same system <strong>in</strong> anotherlanguage. This can be considered a major source of obligatory micro shifts at this level oflanguage description. It is worth not<strong>in</strong>g here that the translator is compelled to be bound by theSL writer's choice; otherwise his per<strong>for</strong>mance is dest<strong>in</strong>ed to be erroneous. In cases wherecompatible terms with the source system are tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>in</strong> the target system, the translator hasto bridge the gap by us<strong>in</strong>g some other means, e.g., the use of a lexical marker of number 'two' toexpress duality when translat<strong>in</strong>g from Arabic <strong>in</strong>to English.The occurrence of shifts here can be accounted <strong>for</strong> by means of terms exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the system of<strong>in</strong>dividual languages. What <strong>in</strong>creases the possibility of such occurrence is the fact that all thedescriptive units required <strong>for</strong> the description of a language are systemic <strong>in</strong> nature; they arerealized by means of specific choices of the particular systems of that language. Actually, thesechoices are language-specific and their applicability is governed by three criteria. The first isspecified "<strong>in</strong> terms of rank of unit to which the system is applicable; the second is specified <strong>in</strong>terms of the part the unit is play<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the structure of a higher unit"; the third is specified "<strong>in</strong>terms of the other options which must be chosen be<strong>for</strong>e the options of the given system becomeavailable." (Berry, 1977:13)Now, we should emphasize the mutual <strong>in</strong>tegration of the <strong>in</strong>dividual categories. In this regard,two types of structural surface relations, namely paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, can bestated.Interl<strong>in</strong>gually, different dependency relations are realized by different syntactic means. Oneimportant po<strong>in</strong>t to talk about is word order, as <strong>in</strong> the case of the unilateral dependency relationbetween the head and the adjective <strong>in</strong> English nom<strong>in</strong>al groups. The order of these elements isAdjective + Head while the same relation is realized by the reverse order <strong>in</strong> Arabic, i.e., Head +9
Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesAdjective. The same is true <strong>for</strong> unilateral dependency relation of possession <strong>in</strong> both languages,e.g.,EnglishArabicRobert'sbook/Robert//kitaabu/possessor possessed possessor possessedIn these structures, where one element is typically obligatory while other elements are optional,an agreement between the head and its modifiers is usually observed <strong>in</strong> some languages, e.g.,number and gender agreement between 'noun' and 'adjective' <strong>in</strong> the Arabic nom<strong>in</strong>al group.However, languages vary so widely <strong>in</strong> the restrictions they assign to this agreement. In theEnglish nom<strong>in</strong>al group, <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stance, this agreement is observed between 'articles' and 'nouns' butoverlooked between 'nouns' and 'adjectives.' By contrast, Arabic seeks such agreement <strong>in</strong> bothcases. Aga<strong>in</strong>, this is another potential area of obligatory structural shifts <strong>in</strong> translation.As <strong>for</strong> bilateral dependent structures, the distribution of either constituent elements is differentfrom that of the structure as a whole as <strong>in</strong> the prepositional groups <strong>in</strong> English and Arabic.Follow<strong>in</strong>g Brown and Miller (1980:255), the majority of the syntactic relations <strong>in</strong> all languagesare of this type. Furthermore, the variety of functional labels used to refer to these relationsreflects the variation of these relations <strong>in</strong> different languages.The importance of bilateral dependency relations to the analysis of structural shifts <strong>in</strong> translationcan be appreciated by exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the follow<strong>in</strong>g sentences:-John beats the dog.-Fido is a dog.-John went home.Although one s<strong>in</strong>gle str<strong>in</strong>g of elements could be assigned to the above sentences, namely NP + V10
+ NP, the relation of V with the NP follow<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong> each sentence is different. In order to account<strong>for</strong> this difference, various functional labels are used, e.g., 'predicate,' 'complement,' 'object,' etc.Many bi-directional relations presume that one constituent element requires other constituents tobe <strong>in</strong> a particular case, e.g., <strong>in</strong> a prepositional group with a personal pronoun as a realization ofthe NP, the preposition requires an oblique case <strong>in</strong> English, and an accusative one <strong>in</strong> Arabic. This<strong>in</strong>dicates that languages use different ways <strong>for</strong> implement<strong>in</strong>g these relations, which adds to thelikelihood of structural shifts occurrences <strong>in</strong> this area. The degree of this likelihood <strong>in</strong>creaseswith the fact that none of the constituent elements <strong>in</strong> these structures is optional.In the third type of dependency relations, i.e., co-ord<strong>in</strong>ate dependency, neither constituentdepends syntactically on the other and the distribution of each constituent is the same as that ofthe structure as a whole. In terms of symbols, the description of these structures is:A A' (+) A' (+)...A n , where A is any co-ord<strong>in</strong>ate dependent structure and A', A', A n areconstituent elements of the same distribution. Theoretically, no limit is assigned to the number ofthese elements <strong>in</strong> any given structure. Yet languages may exhibit certa<strong>in</strong> restrictions on the orderof these elements. The order of adjectives <strong>in</strong> the English nom<strong>in</strong>al group is a good example ofthese restrictions which are mostly language-specific. The optional (+) <strong>in</strong> the above <strong>for</strong>mula ofthese structures is meant to emphasize the possibility of hav<strong>in</strong>g a co-ord<strong>in</strong>ation marker such as'and,' 'or,' etc. <strong>for</strong> some structures. Up to this po<strong>in</strong>t, the need <strong>for</strong> such markers varies<strong>in</strong>terl<strong>in</strong>gually. Hence, another area of shifts can be manifested.The last type of dependency relations is that of the exclusion relation which is useful <strong>for</strong> def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gsome grammatical classes such as the verbs of state <strong>in</strong> English which do not agree withauxiliaries <strong>for</strong> the progressive aspect, and proper nouns which do not take the def<strong>in</strong>ite article'the.'However, it must be mentioned that "dependency relations cannot always be captured <strong>in</strong> astraight<strong>for</strong>ward fashion <strong>in</strong> constituent grammar" (Brown and Miller, 1980:259). What we alsoneed to know is an <strong>in</strong>terpretive mach<strong>in</strong>ery to <strong>in</strong>terpret these relations. In the present case, such amach<strong>in</strong>ery can be borrowed from TG which enters as a supplementary part <strong>in</strong> the syntactic11
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlescomponent of this model of analysis (see Diagram 1). The <strong>in</strong>corporation of this type of grammaris accounted <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g section.1.2.2.1.5. Deep-level <strong>Analysis</strong>The trans<strong>for</strong>mational sub-component is considered to bridge the gap <strong>in</strong> the categorial subcomponent.The need <strong>for</strong> this <strong>in</strong>junction refers to the fact that <strong>in</strong> any translation task, the translator needs toemploy more or less four trans<strong>for</strong>mational syntactic processes, namely, deletion, <strong>in</strong>sertion,permutation, and/or substitution. Each of these processes is b<strong>in</strong>ary <strong>in</strong> nature, i.e., optional (itsadoption depends on the translator's own preference) or obligatory (the translator is compelled toapply it <strong>in</strong> order to produce well-<strong>for</strong>med TL sentences). It goes without say<strong>in</strong>g that languagesexhibit substantial differences <strong>in</strong> the application of TRs and allow different means <strong>for</strong> theapplication of the optional ones. It is these qualitative and quantitative differences which allowus to amplify obligatory and optional syntactic shifts <strong>in</strong> translation. In other words, we wouldcall the shifts motivated by the application of obligatory TRs as obligatory syntactic shifts andthose motivated by the application of the optional ones as optional syntactic shifts.Follow<strong>in</strong>g Nida (1964:65), two practical advantages can be derived from the adoption of thisprocedure. First, the equivalence of different <strong>for</strong>mal (syntactic) structures possess<strong>in</strong>g the samemean<strong>in</strong>gful relation can be seen even <strong>in</strong>terl<strong>in</strong>guistically. Second, the equivalence of <strong>for</strong>mallysimilar structures possess<strong>in</strong>g different mean<strong>in</strong>gs can also be readily seen. And <strong>in</strong> the same waywe would like to add a third one, namely, complex structures can be easily plotted by referenceto their kernel, i.e., deep, structures.So far, the description of the micro level of the present model is complete. The rest of the presentpaper is dedicated to describe <strong>in</strong> detail the second major level of this model, i.e., the macro levelof analysis.12
1.3. Macro-Level <strong>Analysis</strong>At this level, the model is switched to analyze a considerable amount of obligatory and optionalshifts which take place at a level higher than the micro level. In order to account <strong>for</strong> thisrequirement, the present model presupposes an <strong>in</strong>dependent broad level of analysis called themacro-level of analysis.The ma<strong>in</strong> difference between this level and the previous one, i.e., the micro level, comes fromthe direction of analysis. On the one hand, the micro level moves with<strong>in</strong> the doma<strong>in</strong> of thesentence as the maximum unit of the syntactic description. The macro level, on the other hand,moves with<strong>in</strong> the doma<strong>in</strong> of the text. In this sense, the macro level accounts <strong>for</strong> all variables oftexture, culture, style and rhetoric, which contribute to the occurrence of shifts at levels otherthan the syntactic level. Hence, it is broken down <strong>in</strong>to a number of components, each of whichaccounts <strong>for</strong> a particular variable of the above ones. Diagrams 3 and 4 are presented to illustratethis difference between the micro and macro levels of analysis.However, this difference should not be exaggerated. Instead, the two levels should be consideredunitary s<strong>in</strong>ce both would accept the traditional view that the sentence is the locus of structuraland stylistic variation, "though with the proviso that it entails spans wider than sentence"(Hendricks 1976:40-41).What follows is a description of the <strong>in</strong>dividual components with<strong>in</strong> the macro level of analysisalong with their scope of <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> relation to the possibility of shifts with<strong>in</strong> each component.1.3.1. The Semantic ComponentMean<strong>in</strong>g should be the ma<strong>in</strong> preoccupation of all translation. However, the amount of this<strong>in</strong>terest varies accord<strong>in</strong>g to the type of mean<strong>in</strong>g conveyed by the lexical items of a given text. Asfar as translation is concerned, the translator has to do his best to transfer as much of the orig<strong>in</strong>almean<strong>in</strong>g as he can <strong>in</strong>to the TL. But s<strong>in</strong>ce we know that the process of mean<strong>in</strong>g transfer is not astraight<strong>for</strong>ward process, the translator, there<strong>for</strong>e, is often called upon to make some semantic13
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesadjustments <strong>in</strong> order to accomplish this task. In our case, such semantic adjustments are analyzedas semantic shifts, which can be obligatory or optional. The <strong>for</strong>mer are dictated by theunavoidable semantic gaps between the SL and TL. Such gaps are ma<strong>in</strong>ly caused by somecultural and conceptual differences between the two languages. The latter <strong>in</strong> turn arise when thetranslator attempts to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> the gist of the orig<strong>in</strong>al mean<strong>in</strong>g while practic<strong>in</strong>g some means ofsemantic polish<strong>in</strong>g.The analysis of both types of shifts has to be carried out by extract<strong>in</strong>g the semantic relationswith<strong>in</strong> the lexical items of the ST then exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the possibility of convey<strong>in</strong>g similar relations<strong>in</strong>to the TL by similar or different <strong>for</strong>mal devices. It should be mentioned here that mean<strong>in</strong>gextraction should be made <strong>in</strong> the light of the immediate situation <strong>in</strong> which the ST functions;otherwise, the analysis is dest<strong>in</strong>ed to be vague. This relation is discussed below.1.3.1.1. The Relation between Mean<strong>in</strong>g and SituationLanguage is per<strong>for</strong>med <strong>in</strong> order to serve a variety of functions over its 'ideational' function (cf.Halliday, 1976). In per<strong>for</strong>m<strong>in</strong>g all these functions, language is determ<strong>in</strong>ed situationally, i.e., theselection of l<strong>in</strong>guistic elements to convey a particular mean<strong>in</strong>g is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by the elements ofthe situation <strong>in</strong> which these elements are used. This same relation is described as one of<strong>in</strong>clusion; the <strong>for</strong>mer <strong>in</strong>cludes or presupposes the latter.As far as the present model is concerned, the relation of <strong>in</strong>clusion between mean<strong>in</strong>g and situationbr<strong>in</strong>gs about significant implications, the first of which is the necessity of tak<strong>in</strong>g the situationalvariables <strong>in</strong>to account <strong>in</strong> def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the ST. The second implication goes asfollows. In addition to the impact of situation on the realization of mean<strong>in</strong>g, part of this mean<strong>in</strong>gis mapped by the l<strong>in</strong>guistic organization of the language <strong>in</strong> which this mean<strong>in</strong>g is encoded.Hence, one can safely generalize that if the context of situation is changed "changes will<strong>in</strong>evitably take place <strong>in</strong> the l<strong>in</strong>guistic texture. Conversely, if a shift is carried out on the l<strong>in</strong>guisticlevel, this context of situation will also change." (Wilss, 1982:71).The above generalization necessitates the adoption of a broader view of the concept of mean<strong>in</strong>g.Such an extended view of mean<strong>in</strong>g applies to all text types <strong>in</strong> general and those hav<strong>in</strong>g figurative14
semantic relations <strong>in</strong> particular, i.e., literary texts. In this regard, Nida (1985:119) states:We are no longer limited to the idea that mean<strong>in</strong>g is centered <strong>in</strong> words or even <strong>in</strong>grammatical situations. Everyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> language from sound symbolism to complexrhetorical structures carries mean<strong>in</strong>g...In written communications, even the <strong>for</strong>mat carries mean<strong>in</strong>g. Even the color ofb<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is significant. For example, most people do not wish a Bible with a yellowcover, but Bibles with gold cover are very popular.Of course, our model does not go as far as Nida does. His words are cited to emphasize thatmean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> its widest sense would serve the purpose of the present paper. To put it differently,the analysis of semantic shifts will be carried out <strong>in</strong> terms of the situation <strong>in</strong> which language isused.Hence, only the paradigmatic relations could be considered with<strong>in</strong> the semantic component ofthe macro level of analysis. This is so because such relations are semantics proper. The othertypes of relations, due to their textual and stylistic values, will be accounted <strong>for</strong> with<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>dependent components at the same level.1.3.1.2. Paradigmatic Relations: Synonymy and Semantic FieldsThe significance of synonymy as a paradigmatic semantic relation to translation is stated byBald<strong>in</strong>ger (1980:251) as follows: "<strong>Translation</strong> is noth<strong>in</strong>g than a problem of synonymy." It isevident, then, that Bald<strong>in</strong>ger perceives synonymy <strong>in</strong> its widest sense to mean, <strong>in</strong> translation, thesearch <strong>for</strong> equivalent mean<strong>in</strong>g on all l<strong>in</strong>guistic levels. However, translation, strictly speak<strong>in</strong>g,cannot be perceived as a simple task of haphazard match<strong>in</strong>g of SL lexical items with their TLcounterparts. Any <strong>in</strong>dividual can do this by rely<strong>in</strong>g on a bil<strong>in</strong>gual dictionary. By contrast, thetranslator needs to analyze the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the SL lexical items be<strong>for</strong>e attempt<strong>in</strong>g to f<strong>in</strong>d TLequivalents <strong>for</strong> these items. In his search <strong>for</strong> efficient lexical equivalents <strong>in</strong> the TL, the translatorhas to play the role of a competent proxy on behalf of his readers; he must identify the areas ofcultural overlap and l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>terference between the two languages. His suffer<strong>in</strong>g starts at this15
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesstage: identical symbols <strong>in</strong> the two languages do not necessarily convey the same mean<strong>in</strong>g.Much worse is the difference <strong>in</strong> people's experiences and the variation of conceptual boundariesfrom one language to another "<strong>in</strong> a way that defies pr<strong>in</strong>cipled explanation" (Leech, 1974:3).Know<strong>in</strong>g that lexical items are the vehicles by which people's experience is encoded and theirconcepts are expressed leads to the conclusion that shifts <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terl<strong>in</strong>gual synonymy are <strong>in</strong>evitablephenomena <strong>in</strong> translation.Apart from the problem of denotation <strong>in</strong> the study of synonymy, Nida (1964:89) captures thestructural specification of words as another source <strong>for</strong> semantic shifts <strong>in</strong> this area. In this regard,he states:The area of cultural specification, however, is likely to provide thegreatest difficulties <strong>for</strong> the translator. In translat<strong>in</strong>g a text whichrepresents an area of cultural specification <strong>in</strong> the source language but not<strong>in</strong> the receptor language, the translator must frequently construct all sortsof descriptive equivalents so as to make <strong>in</strong>telligible someth<strong>in</strong>g, which isquite <strong>for</strong>eign to the receptor.In our op<strong>in</strong>ion, this process of f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g semantically equivalent lexical items is carried out byper<strong>for</strong>m<strong>in</strong>g a variety of shifts <strong>in</strong> the central and/or peripheral components of the ST lexicalitems. By means of careful contextual condition<strong>in</strong>g, the translator may remove or <strong>in</strong>sert somecomponential values associated with the ST lexical items. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Nida (1969:107), "<strong>in</strong>many <strong>in</strong>stances, shifts of components <strong>in</strong>volve only a shift from a literal etymological mean<strong>in</strong>g toone which is functionally more relevant." Nida's example <strong>for</strong> this case is the translation of theword 'devil' whose etymological mean<strong>in</strong>g is 'Satan.' If translated, say, <strong>in</strong>to Arabic, the wordwould mean noth<strong>in</strong>g unless an etymological shift is used, i.e., the translator has to refer to itsetymological orig<strong>in</strong> then transfer it <strong>in</strong>to the TL. Another type of componential shift goes fromgeneric to specific mean<strong>in</strong>g or vice versa.As <strong>for</strong> the relation between the lexical items and their referents, which is the core of theirreferential mean<strong>in</strong>g, the translator is likely to face three situations. The first one is "the existence16
of a term (and its correspond<strong>in</strong>g referent) <strong>in</strong> the receptor language, but with an equivalentfunction be<strong>in</strong>g per<strong>for</strong>med by another referent" (ibid. 44). A good example <strong>for</strong> such a situationarises when translat<strong>in</strong>g from English <strong>in</strong>to a language which has no word <strong>for</strong> 'snow.' Thetranslator has to replace the word 'snow' <strong>in</strong> the phrase 'as white as snow' by another word, whichrefers to a white-colored object.The second situation is "the existence of the referent <strong>in</strong> the receptor language, but with adifferent function from what it has <strong>in</strong> the source language."(ibid.). The English word 'owl' and itsArabic equivalent 'buum' represent a good example <strong>for</strong> such a problem. In English, it refers to aclass of birds with positive connotation, i.e., wisdom and good omen. Arabic has exactly theopposite connotation <strong>for</strong> the same referent, the fact which necessitates f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g another wordreferr<strong>in</strong>g to an object with similar connotations.The third situation is "the non-existence of the referent <strong>in</strong> the receptor language and no otherreferent with a parallel function" (ibid.45). The translation of any lexical item denot<strong>in</strong>gtechnological <strong>in</strong>ventions from English <strong>in</strong>to Arabic provides a good example <strong>for</strong> such a problem.Here, the translator is compelled to <strong>for</strong>ce <strong>for</strong>eign words <strong>in</strong>to the TT or to use descriptive phrasesto expla<strong>in</strong> the mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>dividual lexical items.In all the situations discussed above, the translator f<strong>in</strong>ds himself obliged to adopt some strategiesso as to bridge these semantic gaps. In this regard, Jacobson's (1959:234) words would serve toconclude the discussion:Wherever there is deficiency, term<strong>in</strong>ology may be qualified and amplifiedby loan words or loan translations or semantic shifts and f<strong>in</strong>ally, bycircumlocutions.1.4. The Textual ComponentTo be described as such, a text should exhibit two k<strong>in</strong>ds of structural and cohesive relations:local and global (Hendricks, 1976:41). The first can be accounted <strong>for</strong> by 'Sentence Grammar' on17
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articleswhich enough has already been said. The second k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>cludes the relations which cannot beaccounted <strong>for</strong> "without reference to <strong>in</strong>ter-sentence features and to portions of the text beyond thesentence under consideration" (Enkvist, 1973:111). Consequently, the <strong>in</strong>clusion of such acomponent would <strong>in</strong>evitably presume reliance on text l<strong>in</strong>guistics. As a matter of fact, the<strong>in</strong>corporation of this l<strong>in</strong>guistic approach is an essential procedural condition <strong>for</strong> the macro levelof analysis. In other words, the analysis cannot be carried out on randomly chosen sentenceswithout tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account that these sentences should exhibit the property of global cohesion <strong>in</strong>addition to their local cohesion. This particular requirement is satisfied by <strong>in</strong>sert<strong>in</strong>g a textualcomponent with<strong>in</strong> the macro level. The analysis with<strong>in</strong> this component will focus on theelements with<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual sentences which, <strong>in</strong> addition to play<strong>in</strong>g a role <strong>in</strong> the structure of thesentence itself, also contribute to its <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>in</strong>to the textual whole, by mak<strong>in</strong>g it dependent <strong>in</strong>some way on other sentences with<strong>in</strong> the same text. These dependent sentences convey<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation about one another, which makes them constitute a cohesive whole. There are twoother sources of this <strong>in</strong>terdependence, namely, textual and discoursal. The <strong>for</strong>mer refers to thevariety of global and local cohesive markers with<strong>in</strong> the portions of the text while the latter refersto the functional dependency among these portions. The latter dimension imposes the <strong>in</strong>clusionof another macro discipl<strong>in</strong>e of language description, namely, 'discourse analysis.' This meansthat the question to be asked about any l<strong>in</strong>guistic unit is what the user hopes to achieve with thisparticular bit of language, i.e., its use, <strong>in</strong> addition to its <strong>for</strong>m. This issue is accounted <strong>for</strong> by thepragmatic component with<strong>in</strong> the macro level. The description of this component will be givenafter the description of the present component.By now, it is obvious that the textual component of shift analysis views the data <strong>in</strong> their broadscope. Hence, this analysis will be carried out <strong>in</strong> terms of the textual well-<strong>for</strong>medness whichentails such variables as collocation, reiteration, ellipsis, references, substitution and the like.1.5.The Pragmatic ComponentStal<strong>in</strong>ker (1973:38) def<strong>in</strong>es pragmatics as "the study of purposes <strong>for</strong> which sentences are used, ofthe real-world conditions under which a sentence may be appropriately used and alternate." In18
this sense the mean<strong>in</strong>g of a s<strong>in</strong>gle expression may vary <strong>in</strong> accordance with the purposes beh<strong>in</strong>d itand the conditions surround<strong>in</strong>g the communicative act.This view of mean<strong>in</strong>g, which necessitates the <strong>in</strong>clusion of a pragmatic component <strong>in</strong> any propersemantic analysis, corresponds to what Widdowson (1973:69) refers to as "the communicativeuse of sentences <strong>in</strong> the per<strong>for</strong>m<strong>in</strong>g of social actions." Leech (1974:141) uses the term'connotative mean<strong>in</strong>g' to refer to the same type of mean<strong>in</strong>g. To him, the connotation of anexpression is the "communicative value an expression has...over and above its purely conceptualmean<strong>in</strong>g."In contrast to the l<strong>in</strong>guistic mean<strong>in</strong>g, which can be extracted from the grammatical relationswith<strong>in</strong> a given text, pragmatic mean<strong>in</strong>g can only be analyzed by referr<strong>in</strong>g to the cultural and/orl<strong>in</strong>guistic context of that text. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, the analysis of pragmatic shifts <strong>in</strong> translation canonly be carried out by attend<strong>in</strong>g to the immediate cultural context of situation of the ST andmatch<strong>in</strong>g it with that <strong>in</strong> the TL so as to put a f<strong>in</strong>ger on the possible areas of shifts when thetranslator tries to convey the same message <strong>in</strong>to the TL. In this connection, reference is to bemade to speech acts theory as <strong>in</strong>itiated by some pragmatists, e.g., Aust<strong>in</strong> (1965 ). This means thatthe analysis should account <strong>for</strong> variables such as the <strong>in</strong>tentions of the writer or speaker, hisexpectation, the time of utterance, the truth value of the propositions expressed, other speech actsbe<strong>in</strong>g per<strong>for</strong>med <strong>in</strong> the same situation, and so on. In other words, the analysis will take <strong>in</strong>toconsideration the major functions of language as a means of communication <strong>in</strong> a social sett<strong>in</strong>g.What is important here is that the realization of these functions varies greatly from one languageto another, which adds to the necessity of us<strong>in</strong>g a pragmatic component <strong>in</strong> the present model. Infact, this variation <strong>in</strong> the realization of the pragmatic functions of language goes is expressed <strong>in</strong>two phases. First, languages employ different <strong>for</strong>mal devices <strong>for</strong> realiz<strong>in</strong>g similar speech acts.These <strong>for</strong>mal variations <strong>in</strong>clude all lexical and syntactic means allowed by the grammar of eachlanguage. Second, the contextual spectrum, which imposes the per<strong>for</strong>m<strong>in</strong>g of particular acts,differs considerably from one culture to another. Furthermore, at a higher level of delicacy,"cultures may also differ <strong>in</strong> the rules <strong>for</strong> when certa<strong>in</strong> speech acts can be appropriatelyper<strong>for</strong>med." (Benthalia and Davies, 1989:102). In this regard, one may refer to the considerabledifferences between English and Arabic <strong>in</strong> the k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>for</strong>mulas commonly used to per<strong>for</strong>m the19
the second:- Medic<strong>in</strong>es can kill and there<strong>for</strong>e should be kept out of children's reach.- Medic<strong>in</strong>es can kill; they should be kept out of children's reach.Kaplan (1972:ix) attributes this ability to the fact that this is how speakers of English organizetheir thought by means of culture-specific devices known as 'rhetorical devices.' The culturalrestrictedness of these devices implies the <strong>in</strong>evitable occurrence of shifts <strong>in</strong> this particular area<strong>for</strong> which this particular component is dedicated. In his attempt to characterize the rhetoricalstructure of a number of languages, Kaplan (ibid. 61) views English as 'direct' whereas muchoriental writ<strong>in</strong>gs are '<strong>in</strong>direct' or 'circulocutionary.' Accord<strong>in</strong>g to him, the speakers of Semiticlanguages tend to transfer a complex series of parallel constructions to English. There<strong>for</strong>e, thisgives evidence <strong>for</strong> the likelihood of shifts <strong>in</strong> this particular area.Languages may also exhibit many differences <strong>in</strong> other phases of rhetoric such as <strong>for</strong>eground<strong>in</strong>g,irony, allegory, metaphor, simile, metonym, etc., The reason beh<strong>in</strong>d these differences is selfevident:these phases are associated with people's conceptual experiences and ideologies. In thisregard, the variations between English and Arabic <strong>in</strong> the area of simile and metaphor represent agood example. In consequence, this particular component has been <strong>in</strong>cluded so as to account <strong>for</strong>the possible shifts that may arise with some major rhetorical devices, e.g., metaphor, idiomaticexpressions, <strong>for</strong>eground<strong>in</strong>g and metonym.1.7. The Stylistic ComponentStyle is the last area to be dealt with at the macro level of analysis. Hence, we shall considercerta<strong>in</strong> overall features of style which contribute to the occurrence of shifts of various levels ofthe TL text. Furthermore, we do not <strong>in</strong>tend to restrict the term 'stylistic' to its literary conception.Instead, follow<strong>in</strong>g Fowler (1966:15), I hold the view that style is "a property of all texts,"without, however, go<strong>in</strong>g as far as to overlook the fact that literary texts exhibit some stylisticfeatures more clearly than non-literary ones. With this clear precaution <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, we assume that21
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesevery language has its own stylistic conventions which may differ from those of other languages,which may cause stylistic shifts to arise when two languages are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> terms of thefunction of these conventions and their <strong>for</strong>mal carriers, i.e., their l<strong>in</strong>guistic realizations. Whentwo or more TL expressions are available at the translator's disposal to express the same SLmean<strong>in</strong>g, stylistic shifts become possible. Obviously, the role of content here is to serve as thestart<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>for</strong> shift analysis. The other issue relevant to the analysis of stylistic shifts is theproblem of style def<strong>in</strong>ition. The need <strong>for</strong> a satisfactory def<strong>in</strong>ition of the term 'style' would help usget rid of the complexities of literary criticism. In other words, we need to restrict this term so asto account <strong>for</strong> the measurement of stylistic shifts <strong>in</strong> the TT regardless of their type. This meansthat this term should be def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> purely l<strong>in</strong>guistic terms rather than def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g it as a literaryconcept.Here, it is necessary to emphasize the overwhelm<strong>in</strong>gly optional nature of stylistic shifts. In otherwords, I perceive these shifts as TL structural alternative means of express<strong>in</strong>g a s<strong>in</strong>gle SLmessage at various levels of language use.Interl<strong>in</strong>gually, stylistic shifts can be expla<strong>in</strong>ed with reference to the same dist<strong>in</strong>ction betweenobligatory and optional application of language rules. An obligatory rule <strong>in</strong> one language couldbe optional <strong>in</strong> another. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, the analyst's task is to analyze the orig<strong>in</strong>al writer's typicalstrategies <strong>in</strong> utiliz<strong>in</strong>g optional trans<strong>for</strong>mations and his use of different k<strong>in</strong>ds of trans<strong>for</strong>mationaloperations to compare them with those of the translator.The second important po<strong>in</strong>t presumed by Galper<strong>in</strong>'s statement refers to the variety ofimplications conjo<strong>in</strong>ed with the term 'style.' The po<strong>in</strong>t can put more concretely as follows: thedef<strong>in</strong>ition of style "implies that words [and other l<strong>in</strong>guistic units] on a page might been different,or differently arranged, without a correspond<strong>in</strong>g difference <strong>in</strong> substance" (Ohman, 1964:430).One significant implication of this statement is that a dist<strong>in</strong>ction should be made between the<strong>for</strong>m of the message and its content. The follow<strong>in</strong>g section is a discussion of this issue.1.7.1. Dichotomy of Form and Content:22
Nida and Taber's (1969:105-6) statement <strong>in</strong> favor of this dichotomy seems the best start <strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>for</strong> this section. It reads as follows:In translat<strong>in</strong>g the message from one language to another, it is the contentwhich must be preserved at any level; the <strong>for</strong>m, except <strong>in</strong> special cases,such as poetry, is largely secondary, s<strong>in</strong>ce with<strong>in</strong> each language the rules<strong>for</strong> relat<strong>in</strong>g content are highly complex, arbitrary and variable... Ofcourse if by co<strong>in</strong>cidence, it is possible to convey the same content <strong>in</strong> thereceptor language <strong>in</strong> a <strong>for</strong>m which resembles that of the source, so muchthe better, we preserve the <strong>for</strong>m when we can, but more often it has to betransferred precisely <strong>in</strong> order to preserve the content. An excessive ef<strong>for</strong>tto preserve the <strong>for</strong>m <strong>in</strong>evitably results <strong>in</strong> a serious loss or distortion of themessage.The implication of the above statement is evident: stylistic shifts are expected with thetranslator's ef<strong>for</strong>t to preserve the balance between <strong>for</strong>m and content of the message on the onehand and his tendency to reflect his character on the other.Although some scholars tend to restrict the criterion of <strong>for</strong>m to literary texts, our position here isthat "there is probably no absolute <strong>for</strong>mal dist<strong>in</strong>ction between literature and non-literature:neither of these two categories is <strong>for</strong>mally homogenous." (Fowler, 1966:16). However, thisgeneralization should not be misunderstood as to deny the existence of literature. Instead, it ismeant as be<strong>in</strong>g a work<strong>in</strong>g hypothesis necessary <strong>for</strong> the task of analyz<strong>in</strong>g stylistic shifts with<strong>in</strong> al<strong>in</strong>guistic framework. To put it more clearly, we assume that all examples of language useexhibit a l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>for</strong>m susceptible <strong>for</strong> empirical <strong>in</strong>vestigation (ibid.). Furthermore, it makes nodifference if the designation 'literature' is used <strong>for</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> class of constructions, s<strong>in</strong>cemembers of this class exhibit <strong>for</strong>mal differences among themselves as well as compared to othermembers outside this class. In short, "there is no constant, or a set of constants, whichdifferentiates all members of the class 'literature' from the members of the class ''non-literature.'"(ibid.11). Even when we agree on the importance of <strong>for</strong>m to literature, this does not trivialize thefact that l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>for</strong>ms exist and should be taken as an essential area of <strong>in</strong>vestigation <strong>in</strong> all23
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesother examples of language use. The <strong>in</strong>separability of <strong>for</strong>m and content goes with the view that<strong>for</strong>m has a function and the translator has to discover and transfer it to the TL (cf. Crystal andDavy, 1969; Leech and Short, 1981; Hatim and Mason, 1990). In this sense, the translator's taskis not only to transfer the content of the message but also to transfer its <strong>for</strong>m as far as possible.However, follow<strong>in</strong>g Nida (1985:24) "languages clearly do not differ primarily <strong>in</strong> what they cancommunicate, but <strong>in</strong> how they do it." This is an overt reference to the occurrence of stylisticshifts <strong>in</strong> translation at two levels. On the one hand, there is the <strong>in</strong>trasentential level wherelanguages differ <strong>in</strong> their optional and obligatory rules of sentence <strong>for</strong>mation. On the other hand,stylistic shifts are also likely to occur at the <strong>in</strong>ter-sentential macro level where language mayexhibit substantial differences <strong>in</strong> the rules of text <strong>for</strong>mation and message organization.Consequently, the analysis of these shifts will be carried out on both levels <strong>in</strong> parallel with theaxis of obligatory and optional shifts.Now the conclusion to be drawn is that 'stylistic shifts' is a cover term used to refer to the varietyof macro <strong>for</strong>mal modifications of the ST when transferred <strong>in</strong>to the TL. The occurrence of theseshifts, moreover, can only be predicted by referr<strong>in</strong>g to the rhetorical and stylistic conventions ofeach language <strong>in</strong> question <strong>in</strong> addition to the translator's preference, choice, and ability.Be<strong>for</strong>e mov<strong>in</strong>g to the framework of analyz<strong>in</strong>g stylistic shifts, it should be mentioned here that thecontribution of <strong>for</strong>m to the mean<strong>in</strong>g of a text varies accord<strong>in</strong>g to the text type. The amount ofstylistic shifts varies accord<strong>in</strong>gly. In some genres, e.g., prose, poetry, religious texts, etc., <strong>for</strong>mhas a cohesive and an aesthetic function which conveys "the creative will of the writer and lendthe text an outward shape" (Wilss, 1982:76).1.7.2. The Role of the TranslatorAmong all factors affect<strong>in</strong>g the occurrence of stylistic shifts, the role of the translator stands asthe most recognizable factor. The majority of optional shifts tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>in</strong> translation can beattributed to the differences between the orig<strong>in</strong>al writer and the translator as two text-producers.However, the impacts of these differences are usually suppressed by the literary norms of the TL24
and the norms of the translation activity itself. More important is the translator's relation to thetext given. This relation is neatly described by Popovic (1970:80) as follows:It is not the translator's only bus<strong>in</strong>ess to 'identify' himself with theorig<strong>in</strong>al; that would merely result <strong>in</strong> transparent translation. Thetranslator also has the right to differ organically, to be <strong>in</strong>dependent, aslong as <strong>in</strong>dependence is pursued <strong>for</strong> the sake of the orig<strong>in</strong>al, a techniqueapplied <strong>in</strong> order to reproduce it as a liv<strong>in</strong>g work... Thus shifts do not occurbecause the translator wishes to 'change' a work, but because he strives toreproduce it as faithfully as possible and to grasp it <strong>in</strong> its totality.Popovic's statement rem<strong>in</strong>ds us of many factors, which affect the translator's adoption of aparticular style <strong>in</strong> render<strong>in</strong>g a particular text <strong>in</strong>to another language. One of these factors is theliterary norms that may differ <strong>in</strong> the SL and TL, the case which leaves the translator with threechoices: to imitate the orig<strong>in</strong>al style, to rely on the TL stylistic norms, or to compromise the twoby practic<strong>in</strong>g his own stylistic prejudice. The last two options would naturally result <strong>in</strong> a greatdeal of stylistic shifts.The other po<strong>in</strong>t is that some languages may have much more highly developed aesthetic andrhetorical patterns than other languages, which gives the translator more freedom to choose theway he likes <strong>in</strong> express<strong>in</strong>g the orig<strong>in</strong>al message. Moreover, the range and ref<strong>in</strong>ement of someliterary genres could be more developed <strong>in</strong> one language than <strong>in</strong> another. Both cases are typicallyapplicable to the translation of elevated literature such as poems, epics, religious texts, etc.The third factor relevant to the role of the translator <strong>in</strong> stylistic shifts relates to the 'nationalfeatures' of the ST. In this regard Zora Jesenka (quoted by Popovic, 1970:81) has the follow<strong>in</strong>gto say:Both the translator and the reader are the children of their generation,which displays its own character <strong>in</strong> its manner of perception andexpression. And the older the work we translate and the more distant theculture which produced it, the more crucial culture is the question of how25
Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesto preserve the temporal and national features of the orig<strong>in</strong>al and to makethem accessible to the actual perception of the present reader.Thus, it is the aim of mak<strong>in</strong>g such literary works accessible to the TL reader that encourages thetranslator to use stylistic shifts. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Popovic (ibid.), such shifts are expected as a rule"because the identity and difference <strong>in</strong> relation to the orig<strong>in</strong>al cannot be solved without someresidue." Up to this po<strong>in</strong>t, the translator's dilemma becomes evident: he would never strive topreserve all the s<strong>in</strong>gularities of the orig<strong>in</strong>al but rather he would try to reflect his own identitywhile preserv<strong>in</strong>g the gist of the orig<strong>in</strong>al message. Furthermore, he will try to make use ofcontemporary equivalents and comprehensible by his perceptive reader. Do<strong>in</strong>g all these tasks, thetranslator will display much of his translation skill and literary taste. Skill and literary taste aretwo prerequisites to produce a 'natural' translation because the act of substitut<strong>in</strong>g the SL normsby TL ones is a highly subjective issue that demands creative <strong>in</strong>tuition on the part of thetranslator. Aga<strong>in</strong>, this is so because direct transfer of specific stylistic features from the SL <strong>in</strong>tothe TL is h<strong>in</strong>dered by both the organic character of the ST components and the divergencebetween the two stylistic norms of both languages, on the other. This transfer becomes possible"only by means of an equivalent function, namely by appropriate shifts." (Popovic, ibid.83).To sum up, our perception of the role of the translator is that he is a per<strong>for</strong>mer of a dual task. Onthe one hand, he has to adhere as much as he can to the content of the message, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g its<strong>for</strong>m (if it is part of this content); on the other hand, he tries to reflect his identity and tends toproduce a 'natural' text. This tendency, we believe, can best be achieved by means of a set ofstylistic shifts.ConclusionsThe first noteworthy conclusion of this paper is that the phenomenon of 'shift' should beredef<strong>in</strong>ed positively as the consequence of the translator's ef<strong>for</strong>t to establish translationequivalence (TE) between two different language-systems: that of the SL and that of the TL.26
Psychologically, the occurrence of these shifts reflects the translator's awareness of the l<strong>in</strong>guisticand non-l<strong>in</strong>guistic discrepancies between the SL and TL. In this sense, shifts can be def<strong>in</strong>ed asproblem-solv<strong>in</strong>g strategies adopted consciously to m<strong>in</strong>imize the <strong>in</strong>evitable loss of mean<strong>in</strong>g whenrender<strong>in</strong>g a text from one language <strong>in</strong>to another.Second, s<strong>in</strong>ce translation proper is concerned with the transfer of mean<strong>in</strong>g, the analysis of shifts<strong>in</strong> translation should take <strong>in</strong>to account the non-l<strong>in</strong>guistic factors—<strong>in</strong> addition to the l<strong>in</strong>guisticones—so as to achieve a comprehensive analysis of these shifts.Third, shifts <strong>in</strong> translation constitute a counterclaim to language universals ; there<strong>for</strong>e, theseshifts can be better exam<strong>in</strong>ed with<strong>in</strong> the doma<strong>in</strong> of 'difference' <strong>in</strong> translation. This conclusion isbased on the assumption that languages do not differ primarily <strong>in</strong> what they communicate but <strong>in</strong>how they do so. Consequently, CA has been proved as a powerful diagnostic tool <strong>for</strong> shiftanalysis.Fourth, the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between various types of shifts at various levels necessitates thedist<strong>in</strong>ction between various types of equivalence <strong>in</strong> translation, e.g., functional, pragmatic,textual, collocational, rhetorical, etc.Fifth, the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between micro-level and macro-level shifts is compatible with thedist<strong>in</strong>ction between various types of translation, e.g., literal, free, etc. The same dist<strong>in</strong>ction isalso compatible with the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between various units of translation, e.g., word, sentence,paragraph, etc.Sixth, the postulation of the terms, 'optional' and 'obligatory' shifts satisfies the need to account<strong>for</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic and non-l<strong>in</strong>guistic differences between the languages <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> this process.F<strong>in</strong>ally, we assume <strong>for</strong> our model, as it is described above, a universal operation regardless of thelanguages <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> this task.References27
Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesAust<strong>in</strong>, J. L. (1965) How to Do Th<strong>in</strong>gs with Words. New York: Macmilan.Bald<strong>in</strong>ger, K. (1980) Semantic Theory. New York: St.Mart<strong>in</strong>'s Press.Benthahila, A. and Davies, E. (1989) 'Culture and Language Use: A Problem <strong>for</strong> ForeignLanguage Teach<strong>in</strong>g.' IRAL, Vol xxvii/2, 1989, p.102.Berry, H. M. (1977) Introduction to Systemic L<strong>in</strong>guistics 2. and L<strong>in</strong>ks. Bats<strong>for</strong>d and Sons.Brown, E. K., and Miller, J. E. (1980) Syntax: A Levels L<strong>in</strong>guistic Introduction to SentenceStructure. London: Hutch<strong>in</strong>son & Co. (publishers) Ltd.Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969) Investigat<strong>in</strong>g English Style. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Enkvist, N. E. (1973) L<strong>in</strong>guistic Stylistics. Mouton, The Hague.Fowler, R (1966) L<strong>in</strong>guistic Theory and the study of literature.' In N.G.Leech (ed.) L<strong>in</strong>guisticsand the Figures of Rhetoric. pp. 135-56.Halliday, M. A. K. (1961) 'Categories of the Theory of Grammar,' Word 1961 17.3.241-92. (Also<strong>in</strong> G. R. Kress (1976) (ed.) 52-72.Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh and P. Strevens (1964). The L<strong>in</strong>guistic Sciences and LanguageTeach<strong>in</strong>g. London: Longman.Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion <strong>in</strong> English. London, Longman.Hatim, B., and Mason, I (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Hendricks, W. (1976) Grammars of Style and Styles of Grammar. Amsterdam: North HollandPublish<strong>in</strong>g Company.Jacobson, R. (1959) 'On L<strong>in</strong>guistic Aspects of <strong>Translation</strong>.' In R. A. Brower (ed.) On <strong>Translation</strong>28
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 232-9.James, C. (1980) Contrastive <strong>Analysis</strong>, London: Ox<strong>for</strong>d University Press.Kaplan, F. (1972) -, London: Ox<strong>for</strong>d University Press.Leech, J. (1974) Semantics. London: Hazell Watson & V<strong>in</strong>ery Ltd.Leech, G. N., and Short, M. H., (1981) Style <strong>in</strong> Fiction: A L<strong>in</strong>guistic Introduction to EnglishFictional Prose. New York: Longman Group Ltd.Muir, J. (1972) A Modern Approach to English Grammar. Bats<strong>for</strong>d and Sons.Nida, E, (1964). Toward a Science of <strong>Translation</strong>. Leiden, E. J. Brill._______, (1969). 'Science of <strong>Translation</strong>,' Language, Vol.45, No.3, 1969, pp. 495-497.Nida, E., and Taber, C., (1969). The Theory and Practice of <strong>Translation</strong>. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Nida, E., (1985) ' Translat<strong>in</strong>g means Translat<strong>in</strong>g Mean<strong>in</strong>g,' Publication of FIT, UNISCO, PP.119-25.Ohman, Richard (1964) 'Modes of order,' In Donald C. Freeman (ed.) L<strong>in</strong>guistics and LiteraryStyle. Holt, R<strong>in</strong>ehart and W<strong>in</strong>ston, Inc. 1970, pp. 209-42.Popovic, A (1970) "The concept 'shift of expression' <strong>in</strong> <strong>Translation</strong>," <strong>in</strong> Holmes, J. (ed.) TheNature of <strong>Translation</strong>. Mouton: The Hague.Stal<strong>in</strong>ker, R. C. (1973) 'Pragmatics,' In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) Semantics of NaturalLanguages.Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Widdowson, H. G. (1973) An Applied L<strong>in</strong>guistic Approach to Discourse <strong>Analysis</strong>. UnpublishedPh. D thesis, University of Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh.Wills, W. (1982) The Science of <strong>Translation</strong>: Problems and Methods. Tub<strong>in</strong>gen: Gunter Narr29
Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesVerlag.30