A three-level methodology for descriptive-explanatory Translation Studies
María Calzada Pérez
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).
Throughout its history, research on translation (in its various forms) has been exposed to what Fairclough (1995: 7), drawing on Bakhtin, would call centrifugal and centripetal forces. These have resulted in dichotomies that may once have been firmly defended only to be abandoned (or kept) later on. Amongst these dichotomies, I would especially mention the following: research on literary texts vs. research on non-literary texts; experimental vs. non-experimental [ p. 204 ]methodologies; quantitative vs. qualitative results, and so on. One of the latest of these dichotomies, and currently a cause of great interest to scholars, is that of linguistics vs. cultural studies.
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.
[ p. 237 ]
Bell, Roger T
1984 “Language style as audience design”. Language in society 13. 145–204.
Bell, Roger T.
1991Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London and New York: Longman.
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 II. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1987 131–143.
1975An introduction to systemic linguistics I: Structures and systems. London and Sydney: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
1977An introduction to systemic linguistics II: Levels and links. London and Sydney: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
Bloor, Thomas and Meriel Bloor
1995The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayian approach. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.
1982 “Through glass darkly: Through dark glasses”.
Butt, John and Carmen Benjamin
1988A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.
Calzada Pérez, María
1997Transitivity 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.]
ed.1982Language and literature: An introductory reader in stylistics. London and New York: Routledge.
Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo
2000 “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1. 151–160.
1991Ideology: An introduction. London and New York: Verso.
1994An introduction to systemic functional analysis. London: Pinter.
1995Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.
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.
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.
2000Espais de frontera: Gènere i traducció. Vic: Eumo editorial.
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 4. 179–215.
1994An introduction to functional grammar. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.
1998 “Translating camp talk: Gay identities and cultural transfer”. The translator 4:2. 295–321.
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 StudiesManchesterSt. Jerome
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1990Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.
[ p. 238 ]
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1997The translator as communicator. London and New York: Routledge.
Hodge, Robert and Gunther Kress
1993Language as ideology, Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge.
1982 “Systemic grammar and its use in literary analysis”.
2000 “Institutional illusions: Translating in the EU Commission”. The translator 6:1. 49–67.
1976Halliday: System and function in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J.R. [= Martin R. Jacobson] and Christian Matthiessen and Clare Painter
1997Working with functional grammar. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.
2000 “Audience design in translating”. The translator 6:1. 1–22.
1998Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos.
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.