Article published in:
Target
Vol. 13:2 (2001) ► pp. 265–288

Enriching translations, simplified language?

An alternative viewpoint to lexical simplification

| Research Institute for the Languages of Finland
Intuitively, the suggestion that lexical simplification be a translation universal seems to run counter to the established idea of translation as enrichment. The present paper seeks to relate the two ideas, simplification and enrichment, while addressing the issue of testing hypotheses about universality in Translation Studies, especially in Corpus Translation Studies. The nature of the data used and its implications to the results are discussed. Finnish 19th century texts constitute a case in point on the problems that heterogeneous data may give rise to, and it is suggested that alternative ways of studying lexical phenomena are needed, in order to complement the findings in Corpus Translation Studies.
Keywords: translation history, simplification, enrichment, universals, lexical variation, corpus studies
Published online: 13 June 2002
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.04pal
References

References

Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1993 233–250.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “Corpora in Translation Studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research”. Target 7:2. 223–243.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. 1998 Routledge ecyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ② ③
1999 “Réexplorer la langue de la traduction: une approche par corpus”. Laviosa 1999:480–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi
eds. 1999 Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ②
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Eddie A. Levenston
1983 “Universals of lexical simplification”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in interlanguage communication.New York and London: Longman 1983 119–139.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne and Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson
eds. 1998 Unity in diversity?: Current trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
① ②
Burke, Peter and Roy Porter
eds. 1987 The social history of language. Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burnley, J. David
1989 “Late medieval English translation: Types and reflections”. Ellis 1989:37–53.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1997 Memes of translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “The Finnish tradition”. Baker 1998:401–409.Google Scholar
Ellis, Roger
ed. 1989 The medieval translator. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
① ②
Eronen, Riitta
2000 “Sanat kuin perhoset” [Words like butterflies]. Kielikello 1/2000 29–31.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1990 Polysystem studies [special issue of Poetics today 11:1].Google Scholar
[ p. 286 ]
Fishman, Joshua
1997 In praise of the beloved language: A comparative view of positive ethnolinguistic consciousness. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
1994 “Vers une histoire sociale de la terminologie”. Snell-Hornby et al. 1994:255–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Genette, Gérard
1987 Seuils. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
2000 Translation and relevance, second edition. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Haarala, Risto
1989 “Sanat tiedon ja taidon palveluksessa” [Words in the service of knowledge and skills]. Vesikansa 1989:259–275.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1985 “Images of translation”. Hermans 1985a:103–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. 1985a The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
① ②
Hobsbawm, Eric
1991 Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacquemond, Richard
1992 “Translation and cultural hegemony: The case of French-Arabic translation”. Lawrence Venuti, ed. Rethinking translation. London and New York: Routledge 1992 139–158.Google Scholar
Jussila, Raimo
1988 “Agricolan sanasto ja nykysuomi” [Agricola’s lexicon and modern Finnish]. Esko Koivusalo, ed. Mikael Agricolan kieli [Mikael Agricola’s language]. Helsinki: SKS 1988 203–228.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Corpora in Translation Studies”. Baker 1998:50–53.Google Scholar
2000 “Lexical hide-and-seek: Looking for creativity in a parallel corpus”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000. 93–104.Google Scholar
Kiuru, Silva
2000a “ ‘Ilveillys kahdessa näytelmässä’: 1800-luvun teatteritermejä” [“A comedy in two acts”: Theatre terminology in the 19th century]. Kielikello 1/2000 13–18.Google Scholar
2000b “Näkökulmia 1800-luvun kirjasuomen variaatioon” [Paragraphs on variation in 19th century written Finnish]. Outi Paloposki and Henna Makkonen-Craig, eds. Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen kritiikki [Translated literature and translation criticism]. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino 2000 243–264.Google Scholar
2001 “Ensimmäisten suomenkielisten näytelmien kieli” [The language of the first Finnish plays]. Virittäjä 1/2001 59–73.Google Scholar
Kohtamäki, Ilmari
1956 Ankara puutarhuri: August Ahlqvist suomen kielen ja kirjallisuuden arvostelijana [The stern gardener: August Ahlqvist and his critique of the Finnish language and literature]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Korpel, Luc
1993 ”Rhetoric and Dutch translation theory (1760–1820)”. Target 5:1. 55–70.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2000 Beyond ambivalence. Tampere: University of Tampere. [Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 774.]Google Scholar
Laine, Tuija
2000 Ylösherätys suruttomille: Englantilaisperäinen hartauskirjallisuus Suomessa Ruotsin vallan aikana [English devotional literature in Finland during the Swedish era]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Lambert, José
1995 “Translation, systems and research: The contribution of Polysystem Studies to Translation Studies”. TTR VIII:1. 105–152.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, José and Hendrik van Gorp
1985 “On describing translations”. Hermans 1985a:42–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 287 ]
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1996 The English comparable corpus (ECC): A resource and a methodology for the empirical study of translation. University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. [Unpublished PhD thesis.]Google Scholar
1998 “Universals of translation”. Baker 1998:288–291.Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara
1998 “The English comparable corpus: A resource and a methodology”. Bowker et al. 1998:101–112.Google Scholar
ed. 1999 The corpus-based approach. [special issue of Meta 43:4].Google Scholar
① ② ③
1999a “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose”. Laviosa 1999:557–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehikoinen, Laila and Silva Kiuru
1989 Kirjasuomen kehitys [The development of written Finnish]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Lilius, Pirkko
1994 Språkval och ordval i tillfällesdiktningen i Finland 1700–1749 [Choice of language and words in occasional poems in Finland 1700–1749]. Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland.Google Scholar
Machan, Tim William
1989 “Chaucer as translator”. Ellis 1989:55–67.Google Scholar
Norton, Glyn
1987 “The politics of translation in early Renaissance France: Confrontations of policy and theory during the reign of Francis I”. Brigitte Schultze, ed. Die literarische Übersetzung I: Fallstudien zu ihrer Kulturgeschichte. Berlin: Erich Schmidt 1987 1–13.Google Scholar
Novalis
1974 Werke und Briefe, herausgegeben von Alfred Kelletat. München: Winkler-Verlag.Google Scholar
Paloposki, Outi
2001 “Originality and the defence of translation”. The translator 7:1. 71–89.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parvio, Martti
1990 “Piispa Ericus Erici (Sorolainen) ja hänen Postillansa” [Bishop Ericus Erici and his Postilla]. Ericus Erici: Postilla II. (Facsimile of the 1625 edition). Helsinki: SKS 1990 989–1132.Google Scholar
Prasad, G.J.V.
1999 “Writing translation: The strange case of the Indian English novel”. Bassnett and Trivedi 1999:41–57.Google Scholar
Pääkkönen, Irmeli
1994 Suomalainen sydämestä [A Finn by his heart]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Rintala, Päivi
1998 “Kielikäsitys ja kielenohjailu” [Conception of language and language planning]. Sananjalka 40. 47–65.Google Scholar
Robyns, Clem
1994 “Translation and discursive identity”. Clem Robyns, ed. Translation and the (re)production of culture: Selected papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1989–1991. Leuven: CERA 1994 57–81.Google Scholar
De Rynck, Patrick
1994 Review of Luc Korpel. Over het nut en de wijze der vertalingen. Nederlandse vertaalreflectie (1750–1820) in een Westeuropees kader. Target 6:2. 261–264.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, Paula
1989 “Vierassanat” [Foreign words]. Vesikansa 1989:64–109.Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1988 “Pragmatics and the explicitation hypothesis”. TTR 1:2. 106–113.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl
eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins
St.-Pierre, Paul
1998 “Theory and practice: Translation in India”. Bowker et al. 1998:47–56.Google Scholar
Susam-Sarajeva, S¸ebnem
forthcoming. Translation and travelling theory: The role of translation in the migration of literary theories across culture and power differentials. London: University College London. [PhD thesis, to be submitted in 2002.]
Thomas, George
1991 Linguistic purism. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980 In Search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
[ p. 288 ]
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna
1997 “Translating hybrid political texts”. Anna Trosborg, ed. Text typology and translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1997 145–158.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
1999a “Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies”. Laviosa 1999:652–660. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999b Translation in a postcolonial context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985 Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a “minority” literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vesikansa, Jouko
ed. 1989 Nykysuomen sanavarat [The lexicon of modern Finnish]. Porvoo-Helsinki-Juva: WSOY.Google Scholar
① ②
Vieira, Else Ribeiro Pires
1994 “A postmodern translation aesthetics in Brazil”. Snell-Hornby et al. 1994:65–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viswanatha, Vanamala and Sherry Simon
1999 “Shifting grounds of exchange: B.M. Srikantalah and Kannada translation”. Bassnett and Trivedi 1999:162–181.Google Scholar
Wollin, Lars
1992 “Pådrivare eller vindflöjel?: Översättaren i stilhistorien” [Forerunner or weathercock?: The translator in the history of style]. Peter Cassirer and Sven-Göran Malmgren, eds. Stilsymposiet i Göteborg 21–23.5.1992, Symposiehandlingar [Style symposium in Gothenburg 21–23.5.1992, collected seminar papers] 1992 71–91.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Wen, Ting-hui
2012. Using a Parallel Corpus to Study the Translation of Personal Pronouns. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 10:2 ► pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Zhu, Chunshen
2004. Repetition and signification. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 16:2 ► pp. 227 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2021. 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.