Skip to content
Forum Poetyki
Forum Poetyki
Forum Poetyki

Primary Sidebar

Sections

  • Theories
  • Translations
  • Practices
  • Poetics Dictionary
  • Authorial Comments
  • Poetics Archive
  • Critics
  • Polemics

Information

  • Contact
  • For authors
  • Scientific Council
  • Editorial Board

Universals of Translation

Universals of Translation

Ewa Kraskowska

a b s t r a c t

According to Mona Baker, universals of translation are linguistic features which usually occur in translated rather than original texts and are thought to be independent of the influence of the source language on the target language. Baker first introduced the concept of universals of translation in her 1993 article entitled Corpus linguistics and translation studies – implications and applications and it has been discussed in translation studies ever since.

The question of universals of translation was first raised when descriptive translation studies began to employ corpus linguistics methods. First introduced in the 1970s, corpus linguistics is the study of language by means of text corpora, i.e. large sets of digitalized texts (language samples) which have been selected and organized according to specific criteria (e.g. subject matter, form, time of publication, etc.). Corpora are processed by specialized computer programs in order to analyse various linguistic phenomena. The most popular and comprehensive corpora can be find online. They are usually monolingual corpora of national languages. They are mostly based on written samples, although there are also corpora of spoken (transcribed) language. They include various types of texts, be it literary, journalistic, or scientific, and are used by scientists, editors, writers, teachers, and translators alike.

Comparable and parallel corpora are particularly useful for translators and translation scholars. The latter contain source texts and their translations into one or more languages. Their ancient prototype is the famous Rosetta stone from 196 BC, inscribed with three versions of the same text in Ancient Egyptian, in hieroglyphic and Demotic script respectively, and in Ancient Greek. As we know, without the Rosetta stone, Jean-François Champollion would not have deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs. It should be added that the recent rapid improvements in Google Translate and other translation applications would not have been possible without the dynamic development of such corpora. Comparable corpora, on the other hand, are not compiled in order to develop translation studies and methods, but contain texts that can be compared in accordance with specific parameters, e.g. genre, subject matter, date of publication, etc.

In studies which are supposed to test the universals of translation hypotheses, scholars analyse bilingual corpora which contain pairs of source and target texts1 or monolingual corpora composed of translated and non-translated texts with stylometric tools. The rationale behind the methodology employed to compile a corpus on the example of which one wants to analyse universals (i.e. methods used to select the texts, their number, etc.) remains a controversial issue in translation studies.

According to the most basic definition, universals of translation are typical linguistic features of translated texts which are independent of the language of the source text and the respective language systems.2 However, researchers who agree with Baker’s hypothesis often prefer to talk about tendencies or rights instead of universals, as it is impossible to definitively prove that some features are indeed universal. This notwithstanding, stylometric methods used to analyse comparable corpora actually confirm that on a macro scale such a phenomenon as “translation style” does exist. The following linguistic features are generally categorized as universals of translation: avoidance of repetitions present in the source text, simplification, normalization, discourse transfer, distinctive distribution of lexical items, and, finally, explicitation, which appears to be the most controversial notion. Indeed, literary translators usually try to avoid repetitions. For example, when one translates a book from English into Polish, the monotonous he said is often replaced with such equivalents as rzekł (he uttered), odparł (he replied), or zauważył (he observed). Possible corrections suggested by the authors of the source text and editors also play a role here. The question of self-translation, or the second version of the same text, is particularly interesting in this context. Simplification usually concerns syntax, while normalization is the process of adjusting the language of the source text to the standards of the target language (which usually go against the non-normative stylistic features of the original). Stylometric analyses have demonstrated that simplification and normalization are generally used in the translation of scientific or scholarly texts and feature less frequently in translations of literary works. Discourse transfer is connected with Gideon Toury’s “law of interference” in translation and concerns situations in which the structure of the source text is transferred to the target text, failing to meet the standards of the target language. This phenomenon can be observed, for example, at the level of syntax. Indeed, as a result of unwanted interference, the sentences in the translated text often retain syntactic features of the source language. Translations are also said to exhibit a distinctive distribution of lexical items (i.e. some words appear more frequently in translated than in source or non-translated texts).

Finally, explicitation is transformation which consists of making explicit in the target text what is implicit in the source text or of making even more explicit what is already explicit in the source text. In other words, explicitation occurs when what is implied in the source text is expressed explicitly in the target text or if a given section of the source text has been emphasized in the target text using some lexical means. Explicitation is also independent of systemic differences. […] Another proof for explicitation is the fact that we can rewrite the target text so that it is less explicit.3

An example of such a transformation is Bronisław Zieliński’s take on John Donne’s famous phrase “no man is an island” in the Polish translation of Ernest Hemingway’s For whom the bell tolls (whose title is also a quote). Zieliński explicitly translated the short phrase “no man is an island” as “no man is a self-contained island” (“żaden człowiek nie jest samoistną wyspą”).

Explicitation thus resembles a translation technique called overtranslation. Overtranslation, or amplified translation, consists of inserting additional information in the target text. However, overtranslation is the result of the translator’s conscious decision and usually concerns specific moments in the text, whereas explicitation is a semi-unconscious global cognitive process. Therefore, according to Andrew Chesterman, explicitation manifest itself “beyond the particular”4 and that is why it can be described as a representative example of Mona Baker’s universal of translation.

translated by Małgorzata Olsza

A b s t r a c t

In the present article, I discuss the concept of the so-called universals of translation, which appeared in connection with the development of corpus linguistics. The hypothesis about the existence of such universals was put forward by Mona Baker in 1993 and it has been discussed in Translation Studies ever since. I also briefly summarize the critical discussion surrounding Baker’s hypothesis.


1 In Poland, such studies are carried out by Jan Rybicki, see: idem, Original, Translation, Inflation. Are All Translations Longer than Their Originals?, „Digital Humanities” 2010.

2 Routlege Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies, ed. M. Baker, London–New York 2005, p. 288-291.

3 E. Gumul, Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting. A Study into Explicitating Behaviour of Trainee Interpreters, Katowice 2017, p. 325.

4 A. Chesterman, Beyond the particular, [in:] Translation Universals. Do they exist?, ed. A. Mauranen, P. Kujamäkki, Amsterdam–Philadelphia 2004, p. 33-50.

Posted in Słownik poetologiczny
Tagged Ewa Kraskowska, fall 2018
Previous Post: Barriers and Possibilities – Haiku Poetry in Poland
Next Post: Uniwersalia przekładowe

Secondary Sidebar

Najnowszy numer – wiosna-lato 2022 (28-29)

Latest Issue – spring-summer 2022 (28-29)

Archiwum

  • zima 2022
  • jesień 2021
  • lato 2021
  • wiosna 2021
  • zima 2021
  • jesień 2020
  • lato 2020
  • wiosna 2020
  • zima 2020
  • jesień 2019
  • lato 2019
  • zima/wiosna 2019
  • jesień 2018
  • lato 2018
  • zima/wiosna 2018
  • jesień 2017
  • wiosna/lato 2017
  • zima 2017
  • jesień 2016
  • wiosna/lato 2016
  • zima 2016
  • jesień 2015
  • lato 2015

Archive

  • winter 2022
  • fall 2021
  • summer 2021
  • spring 2021
  • winter 2021
  • fall 2020
  • summer 2020
  • spring 2020
  • winter 2020
  • fall 2019
  • summer 2019
  • winter/spring 2019
  • fall 2018
  • summer 2018
  • winter/spring 2018
  • fall 2017
  • spring/summer 2017
  • winter 2017
  • fall 2016
  • spring/summer 2016
  • winter 2016
  • fall 2015
  • summer 2015

Tags

Agnieszka Kwiatkowska Agnieszka Waligóra Cezary Rosiński Elżbieta Winiecka Ewa Kraskowska fall 2015 fall 2016 fall 2017 fall 2018 fall 2019 fall 2021 Gerard Ronge jesień 2015 jesień 2016 jesień 2017 jesień 2018 jesień 2019 jesień 2021 Joanna Grądziel-Wójcik lato 2015 lato 2018 lato 2020 lato 2021 Lucyna Marzec spring/summer 2016 spring/summer 2017 spring 2021 summer 2015 summer 2018 summer 2020 summer 2021 Tomasz Mizerkiewicz winter/spring 2018 winter/spring 2019 winter 2016 winter 2017 winter 2021 wiosna/lato 2016 wiosna/lato 2017 wiosna 2021 zima/wiosna 2018 zima/wiosna 2019 zima 2016 zima 2017 zima 2021

Copyright © 2023.

Korzystając ze strony wyrażają Państwo zgodę na wykorzystywanie przez nas plików cookies.Zgoda