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.
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.
1995The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayian approach. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Edward Arnold.
1982 “Through glass darkly: Through dark glasses”. Carter 1982: 195–214.
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.
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
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.