Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 13:2 (2001) ► pp.203–239

A three-level methodology for descriptive-explanatory Translation Studies

| Universidad Jaime I (Spain)
Drawing mainly on Vidal (1998), Tymoczko (2000) and Harvey (forthcoming), Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) and Mason (2000), the present paper proposes a threefold analytical methodology consisting of: description, ideological explanation, and perlocutionary exploration of texts. In practice, the article examines the speeches uttered in Spanish and English before the European Parliament (EP) on 9th March 1993. The main focus of the study is transitivity shifts and their connection to ideological issues. This corpus has been chosen for various reasons. Amongst them, the paper sets out to test the conclusions reached by prior research (Trosborg 1997a; Koskinen 2000). Three basic questions are posed: 1. Are EP speeches odd, ‘out of place’/ ‘strange’/ ‘unusual’ (in short literal) as Koskinen (2000) maintains? (Descriptive component of analysis); 2. Does translation affect the ideological output of original texts? (Explanatory component of analysis); 3.Which perlocutionary questions may be raised as a result of the previous questions? (Perlocutionary component of analysis).
Keywords: CDA, description, explanation, European Parliament, Halliday, ideology, illocutionary, perlocutionary, translational shifts, transitivity
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Theoretical intertexts
  • 2.Theory put to work: Preliminary remarks
    • 2.1EP speeches as the research corpus
    • 2.2Some basic notions on transitivity
  • 3.A critical analysis of EP speeches
    • 3.1Description
      • 3.1.1Expansion
      • 3.1.2Contraction
      • 3.1.3Dematerialization
      • 3.1.4Materialization
      • 3.1.5Different types of material processes
      • 3.1.6Number of processes in source text and target text
    • 3.2Explanation
    • 3.3Exploring repercussions
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 June 2002
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.02cal
References (45)
References
Baker, Mona. 1996. “Linguistic and cultural studies: Complementary or competing paradigms in Translation Studies?”. Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller and Erich Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1996. 9–19.Google Scholar
Bell, Roger T. 1984. “Language style as audience design”. Language in society 131. 145–204.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Benson, James D. and William S. Greaves. 1987. “A comparison of process types in Poe and Melville”. Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold, eds. Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday II1. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1987. 131–143.Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret. 1975. An introduction to systemic linguistics I: Structures and systems. London and Sydney: B.T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
. 1977. An introduction to systemic linguistics II: Levels and links. London and Sydney: B.T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
Bloor, Thomas and Meriel Bloor. 1995. The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayian approach. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Burton, Dreirdre. 1982. “Through glass darkly: Through dark glasses”. Carter 1982 : 195–214.Google Scholar
Butt, John and Carmen Benjamin. 1988. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Calzada Pérez, María. 1997. Transitivity in translation: The interdependence of texture and context. A contrastive study of original and translated speeches in English and Spanish from the European Parliament. Edinburgh: Harriot Watt University. [Unpublished PhD Thesis.]Google Scholar
Carter, Rolanded. 1982. Language and literature: An introductory reader in stylistics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo. 2000. “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1. 151–160.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An introduction. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 1994. An introduction to systemic functional analysis. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1996. “On critical linguistics”. Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, eds. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. 3–14.Google Scholar
Francis, Gill and Anneliese Kramer-Dahl. 1992. “Grammaticalizing the medical case”. Michail Toolan, ed. Language, text and context: Essays in stylistics. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 56–90.Google Scholar
Godayol, Pilar. 2000. Espais de frontera: Gènere i traducció. Vic: Eumo editorial.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967a. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English”. Part I: Journal of linguistics 3:1. 37–81; Part II: 1967b. Journal of linguistics 3:2. 199–244; Part III: 1968. Journal of linguistics 41. 179–215.Google Scholar
1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harvey, Keith. 1998. “Translating camp talk: Gay identities and cultural transfer”. The translator 4:2. 295–321.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. “‘Events’ and ‘horizons’: Reading ideologies in the ‘binding’ of a translation”. To appear in María Calzada Pérez, ed. Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology / Ideologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1997. The translator as communicator. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hodge, Robert and Gunther Kress. 1993. Language as ideology, Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris. 1982. “Systemic grammar and its use in literary analysis”. Carter 1982 :83–99.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000. “Institutional illusions: Translating in the EU Commission”. The translator 6:1. 49–67.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 1976. Halliday: System and function in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. [= Martin R. Jacobson] and Christian Matthiessen and Clare Painter. 1997. Working with functional grammar. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian. 2000. “Audience design in translating”. The translator 6:1. 1–22.Google Scholar
Moliner, Maria. 1998. Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina. 2000. “Translating linguistic markers of ideology”. Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier, eds. Translation in context: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. 177–186.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1996. “Open letter on hybrids and translation”. Available online from [URL] (July 14, 2001).Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 1997. “Strategies of translating political texts”. Trosborg 1997 :119–143.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seco, Manuel. 1998. Diccionario de dudas y dificultades de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 1993. Language, ideology and point of view. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The new Oxford dictionary of English. 1998. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 1996. Introducing functional grammar. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1990. Ideology and modern culture: Critical and social theory in the era of mass communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Annaed. 1997. Text typology and translation. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997a. “Translating hybrid political texts”. Trosborg 1997 :145–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a postcolonial context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Translation and political engagement: Activisim, social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts”. The translator 6:1. 23–47.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Vidal Claramonte, Maria del Carmen África. 1998. El futuro de la traducción: Últimas teorías, nuevas aplicaciones. València: Alfons el Magnànim.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2022. Interpreting nonmainstream ideology (Euroscepticism) in the European Parliament. Perspectives 30:4 ► pp. 678 ff. DOI logo
Pan, Hanting & Meifang Zhang
2022. Translation and Linguistics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Xi
2021. Construing Community with a Shared Future in President Xi Jinping’s Diplomatic Discourse (2013–2018): The Role of Personal Pronouns we and they. Critical Arts 35:3 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Li, Xin
2018. Introduction. In The Reconstruction of Modality in Chinese-English Government Press Conference Interpreting [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 1], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Hailing & Canzhong Wu
2018. Images of the Chinese government projected in its work reports: Transformation through translation. Lingua 214 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo
Ayyad, Ahmad Y.
2012. Uncovering ideology in translation. Journal of Language and Politics 11:2 ► pp. 250 ff. DOI logo
Schäffner, Christina
2012. Unknown agents in translated political discourse. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 24:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Schäffner, Christina
2019. Translation and Discourse Analysis. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 10:3 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Koskinen, Kaisa
2011. Institutional translation. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 2], ► pp. 54 ff. DOI logo
Koskinen, Kaisa
2021. Shared culture?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Changsoo
2007. A Study of Transitivity Shifts in English-to-Korean Translation1. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 5:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Chunshen
2004. Repetition and signification. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 16:2 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.