Why change the subject? On changes in subject selection in translation from English into Norwegian

Stig Johansson

Abstract

This paper reports on a study of syntactic changes in alternative translations of a short story and a scientific article, each translated by a group of ten professional translators. The subject is kept in approximately nine cases out of ten, with a somewhat higher degree of change in the scientific article. Where changes occur, they can very often be traced to differences between the languages on the lexical or syntactic level, but absolute differences signalled by identical behaviour of a whole translator group are as good as non-existent. After more features have been studied, it may be possible to identify profiles for the individual translators—and the two translator groups—showing to what extent their choices are guided by adequacy in relation to the source text vs. acceptability in relation to the target language.

Keywords
Table of contents

The project presented in this paper should be seen against the background of our work on the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC), a bidirectional translation corpus containing English and Norwegian original texts and their translations into the other language. The design of the ENPC makes it possible to carry out studies of different kinds, focusing both on language contrasts and on translation (Johansson 1998). For the user of the corpus, it is often felt as a problem that there is just one translation of each text, although we know that “an actual translation exists against the background of shadow translations—possible alternative translations defined by the systemic potential of the target [ p. 30 ]language” (Matthiessen 2001: 83). Individual translations may differ depending upon who the intended receiver is and how the translator has viewed the translation task; and there may of course be outright mistakes in translation.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

English original texts

Byatt, A. S.
1996 “A lamia in the Cevennes”. Christopher Hope and Peter Porter, eds. New writing 5. Vintage, in association with The British Council, 1996. 1–17.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn
1979 “Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity”. Margaret Bullowa, ed. Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1979 321–347.Google Scholar
Abbreviations
Byatt (original), transl. 1–10; Trevarthen (original), transl.1–10. References to the original texts are followed by sentence numbers.

Secondary sources

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 and Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1993 233–250.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Chevalier, Jean-Claude
1995 “D’une figure de traduction: Le changement de ‘sujet’”. J. C. Chevalier and Marie-France Delport, eds. Problèmes linguistiques de la traduction: L’horlogerie de Saint Jérôme. Paris: L’Harmattan 1995 27–44.Google Scholar
[ p. 51 ]
Ebeling, Jarle
2000Presentative constructions in English and Norwegian: A corpus-based contrastive study. Oslo: Unipub. [Acta Humaniora 68.]Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeannette
2002 “Information structure and the use of cleft sentences in English and Norwegian”. Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Bergljot Behrens, eds. Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi 2002 113–128. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1994An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Johansson, Mats
2002Clefts in English and Swedish: A contrastive study of it-clefts and WH-clefts in original texts and translations. Department of English, Lund University. [Doctoral dissertation.] Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Stig
1997 “Using the English–Norwegian Parallel Corpus: A corpus for contrastive analysis and translation studies”. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and James Melia, eds. PALC’97: Practical applications in language corpora. University of Łódź, 1997. 282–296.Google Scholar
1998 “On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research”. Stig Johansson and Signe Oksefjell, eds. Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1998 3–24.Google Scholar
2001a “The English verb seem and its correspondences in Norwegian: What seems to be the problem?Karin Aijmer, ed. A wealth of English: Studies in honour of Göran Kjellmer. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis 2001 221–245.Google Scholar
2001b “The German and Norwegian correspondences to the English construction type that’s what”. Linguistics 39:3. 583–605.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004a “What is a person in English and Norwegian?” Karin Aijmer and Holde Hasselgård, eds. Translation and corpora. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis 2004.Google Scholar
2004b “Viewing languages through multilingual corpora, with special reference to the generic person in English, German, and Norwegian”. Languages in contrast 4:2 (2002/2003) 261–280.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. “Sentence openings in translations from English into Norwegian”. To appear in Norsk Lingvistik Tidskrift.
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
2001 “The environments of translation”. Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop, eds. Exploring translation and multilingual text production. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter 2001 41–124.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Øverås, Linn
1998 “In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation”. Meta 43:4. 571–588.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.[ p. 52 ]Crossref logoGoogle Scholar