Poor Relations and Black Sheep in Translation Studies
Dominic Stewart |
School for Translators and Interpreters, Forlì, University of Bologna
The opposition of translation into the mother tongue (L1 translation) vs. translation into the foreign language (L2 translation), with its clear relationship of superiority/inferiority in translation circles, is just one of a series of binary oppositions prevalent in the literature with an apparently similar relationship. These include principally (i) target language vs. source language, and (ii) original texts vs. translated texts. This paper examines what implications such oppositions might have for the L1 translation vs. L2 translation issue, particularly within the developing field of corpus linguistics, subsequently taking a look at some L1 and L2 translations and reflecting upon their degree of acceptability or unacceptability in the light of the discussions proposed.
Article outline
0.Introduction
1.Opposition 1: L1 Translation vs. L2 Translation
2.Opposition 2: Target Language vs. Source Language
2.1.Preliminary Remarks
2.2.TL vs. SL and the Rise of Corpus Linguistics
3.Opposition 3: Original Texts vs. Translated Texts
3.1.Distribution Patterns in Translated Texts
3.2.The Status of Translated Text
3.3.Readers’ Reactions to Translated Texts
4.Implications of the Oppositions Discussed for L2 Translation
4.1.The Bad News
4.2.The Good News
5.Translation: Parameters of Acceptability
5.1.L1 and L2 Translation: Banana Skins and Tightropes
5.2.Readers’ Expectations: Tourist Literature
5.3.Tourist Literature: A Test Case of L2 Translation
ed.1979Translation and Translators: An International Directory and Guide. New York: R.R. Bowker Company.
Crystal, David
1987The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dodds, John
1995 “All’antica commedia degli errori: Or Crappy English in Italian Restaurants”. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione. Edizioni Università di Trieste 1. 143–147.
Duff, Alan
1981The Third Language: Recurrent Problems of Translation into English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Frawley, William
1984 “Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation”. William Frawley, ed. Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives. London-Toronto: Associated University Presses 1984 159–175.
1998a “The English Comparable Corpus: A Resource and a Methodology”. Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson, eds. Unity in Diversity: Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome 1998 101–112.
Laviosa, Sara
ed.1998bL’Approche basée sur le corpus/The Corpus-Based Approach. Special issue of Meta 43:4.
Laviosa, Sara
1998c “Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose”.
Laviosa 1998b
: 557–570.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1997 “Investigating Simplification in an English Comparable Corpus of Newspaper Articles”. Klaudy Kinga and János Kohn, eds. Transferre Necesse Est: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5–7 September, 1996. Budapest: Hungary 1997 531–540.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1998 “Universals of Translation”.
Baker 1998a
: 288–291.
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van and Ton Naaijkens
eds.1991Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
1992 “Teaching Translation into a Foreign Language—Status, Scope and Aims”. Cay Dollerup and Annette Loddegaard, eds. Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Papers from the First Language International Conference. Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May-2 June 1991. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1992 291–297.
Newmark, Peter
1981Approaches to Translation. London: Pergamon.
Parks, Gerald
1998 “Towards a Sociology of Translation”. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione. Edizioni Università di Trieste 3. 25–35.
Pym, Anthony
1992 “In Search of a New Rationale for the Prose Translation Class at University Level”. Interface: Journal of Applied Linguistics 6:2. 73–82.
1991Qu’est-ce qu’une traduction acceptable en B?: Les conditions d’acceptabilité de la traduction fonctionnelle réalisée dans la langue seconde du traducteur. Oslo: University of Oslo. [Doctoral Thesis.]
Shuttleworth, Mark and Moira Cowie
1997A Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1995Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stewart, Dominic
1999 “Translators into the Foreign Language: Charlatans or Professionals?”. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione. Edizioni Università di Trieste 4. 41–67.
Taylor, Christopher
1998Language to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toury, Gideon
1991 “Experimentation in Translation Studies: Achievements, Prospects and Some Pitfalls”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1991 45–66.
1995The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London-New York: Routledge.
Weizman, Elda and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
1987 “Identifying and Interpreting Translated Texts: On the Role of Pragmatic Adjustment”. Gideon Toury, ed. Translation Across Cultures. New Delhi: Bahri Publications 1987 61–73.
Cited by
Cited by 7 other publications
Chen, Wallace
2004. Inuestigating explicitation of conjunctions in translated Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language Matters 35:1 ► pp. 295 ff.
King, Ross
2020. CAN KOREAN-TO-ENGLISH LITERARY TRANSLATION BE TAUGHT?. Translation Review 108:1 ► pp. 23 ff.
2021. The Impact of Directionality on Cognitive Patterns in the Translation of Metaphors. In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 201 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.