RSSReview: Evaluation in Translation
Aug 24
AUTHOR: Jeremy Munday
TITLE: Evaluation in Translation
SUBTITLE: Critical points of translator decision-making
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
YEAR: 2012
REVIEWER: Daniele Russo, University of Milan
SUMMARY
The overarching idea of this volume is that translation and interpretation can
be seen as a means through which different perspectives from both political
and personal viewpoints can be transferred into a target culture; therefore,
this book investigates the linguistic signs of a translator’s intervention and
subjective evaluation when translating an oral or written text. The main
theoretical model adopted is drawn from appraisal theory (Martin and White
2008), which sets out to describe the different components of a speaker’s
attitude, the strength of that attitude (gradation) and the degree of
alignment between the speakers, the sources of attitude and the receiver
(engagement). This theory is based on Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday
1994, Halliday and Mathiessen [sic] 2004) and focuses specifically on the
interpersonal metafunction of language that relates to the social
interactivity between the writer and the reader. The author investigates the
translator’s mediation, or intervention, through an analysis of evaluation
based upon the appraisal model in various translational contexts.
The volume is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 is a theoretical
introduction to the main notions regarding appraisal theory and how these can
be applied to translation. The theory is subsequently tested on a range of
translational contexts in order to reveal the points wherein subjectivity can
be encountered and the decision-making processes associated with them. The
following chapters are dedicated to these scenarios.
Chapter 2 investigates the simultaneous interpreting of a key political event
— US President Barack Obama’s inaugural address given on the 20th January
2009 in Washington DC. This speech received world-wide coverage and was
translated or interpreted in different languages in various media in a great
number of countries. This variety of versions provides a good opportunity to
analyze the strategies adopted by the translators. In this chapter three
different translations into Spanish are analyzed, along with written
translations of the same speech, and translations into other languages as well
(namely French, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, and American Sign Language). As in
this speech judgment is expressed mainly through lexical expressions, the
author suggests that the “graduation” (standardization) of certain critical
points is context-dependent and is performed by translators and interpreters
to maintain the style of the speech and convey the message by avoiding
culture-specific references that are not easily grasped by foreign audiences.
The viewpoints of professional technical translators as to what is critical in
a text are dealt with in Chapter 3, in which the author presents a survey
which he carried out through direct telephone and email interviews and by
analysing a number of discussions on the online forums KudoZ and SENSE. The
data shows that evaluation strategies are deemed fundamental even in the
translation of technical texts, which are usually believed to be more
objective and less subject to interpretation. In this process information
technologies are vital to cover gaps in the translator’s encyclopedic
knowledge and the lack of direct correspondences between source and target
texts.
Chapter 4 focuses upon the literary translator and reviser. In this chapter
translator archives are used to research decision-making processes through the
revisions made at different points of drafts involving multiple subjects, i.e.
author, translator, editor, and reviser. The analysis of the exchange of ideas
between these subjects helps to explain some of these decisions and to point
out the main difficulties in their texts. Three case studies are described:
the revision of the Penguin translation of a text by the 1st century Roman
historian Tacitus, in which paratexts and extratextual factors play a vital
role in determining translation strategy; the translation and revisions of
novels and essays of the Peruvian Nobel prize winner Mario Vargas Llosa, where
the copious correspondence between all the participants show us their points
of view; and the translation and self-revision by translator David Bellos of
the novel “Life: A User’s Manual” by George Perec. These texts are accompanied
by a great number of archival documents, which, in the author’s opinion, have
so far been underutilized by translation scholars. In the first case, the
paratextual material (preface and endnotes) imposes a specific reading on the
reader, which underlines the misinterpretation of the text by Nazi Germany
(the translation was carried out in the end of World War II) in supporting its
political agenda. In the second case the correspondence between the translator
and Vargas Llosa points out that the most culture-specific elements of the
source texts, such as Peruvian expressions and word related to the flora and
fauna of that country, tend to be more standardized in the target texts,
possibly to bring the narrative context closer to the target reader. Perec’s
novel, the third case study, is characterized by word puzzles, puns and a
large number of intertextual references, all of which represent a great
challenge for a translator. The analysis of the translator’s self-revision of
this translated text show the translator’s intention to make the language more
idiomatic through lexical and syntactic changes in order to avoid calques from
the French text.
In Chapter 5 translation variation is the object of an experiment involving
the translations by various translator-trainee students of the same extract of
about 300 words from Jorge Luis Borges’s short story “Emma Zunz.” The purpose
of the experiment is to see what remains invariant in most of the students’
target texts and what is subject to the most variation. The results are then
compared with some of the students’ translations in the technical field. The
conclusion of this study is that in literary texts, variation is mostly found
on the syntagmatic axis of language (more specifically, at the level of the
individual word) whereas in technical texts the paradigmatic axis (the
disposition of phrases in sentences) is most often involved.
The author’s final conclusions are presented in Chapter 6. He insists on the
usefulness of appraisal theory for the study of translation. The different
case studies in the previous chapters tell us much about the process of
establishing equivalents between source text and target text involved in
translation. As a constant evaluative process, translation requires checking
all possible target texts against the source text in order to balance the
gains and losses of each choice. Therefore, translators mostly show a
“tactical” attitude as they both reproduce and rework the source text (more
often unconsciously but sometimes consciously). This chapter concludes with
future directions of this research, such as the effects of the translator’s
experience in translation choices, the impact of text genre and selections,
and the investigation of reader response.
EVALUATION
The translational contexts summarized in the previous section constitute an
analysis of critical points (as defined by the author) in different modes
(oral or written translation), different genres, different languages, and with
different levels of expertise. This multiple perspective makes this volume
innovative for both its subject matter and the methodology. It is a book worth
reading for researchers and postgraduates studying translation theory and
practice, as it succeeds in combining a sound theoretical framework with
relevant case studies.
In order to tackle the issue of texts being influenced by the translator’s
views this book focuses on the translation process — rather than the product
— and points out the problem areas wherein the translator’s ideology can
interpose between the source text and the foreign reader. The appraisal model
is also tested in order to determine to what extent it can help when analyzing
the translator’s work. The findings of the empirical case studies indicate
that variation is dependent upon word class, as if in every text there is an
invariant core and another part susceptible of variation. Concrete nouns (e.g.
‘table, man, money’) proved the most stable in translation, as well as
abstract words with a precise semantic meaning (e.g. ‘fear’). The elements
that are more likely to show variation are adverbs and modal particles acting
as modifiers (e.g. ‘badly’), culture-specific references (e.g. ‘patchwork
heritage’), descriptive or judging adjectives (e.g. ‘shrinking, deprived,
run-down’), and verbs denoting attitude (e.g. ‘wield, harness’). In literary
translation, in particular, the author observes that markedness is often
reduced — and significantly never increased — in the initial stages but
intensification is adjusted at the revision stage, although the main concern
mostly remains a stylistic natural rendering in the target text.
The case studies analyzed in the book deal with a number of languages with the
support of English translations for those who do not command all of them. The
range of texts is so varied (literary texts, technical texts, students’
translations, oral political speeches, etc.) that Translation Studies scholars
will find interesting contributions for their specific genre of interest.
Compared with previous work in the field this book shows a very pragmatic
approach and provides sensible explanations for the role of evaluation in
translation. Furthermore, this book offer insights about further improvements
in translator and interpreter training and provides valuable contributions to
descriptive translation studies. The most valuable aspect of this book is that
it bridges the gap between academics and industry professionals.
REFERENCES
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London,
Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K and Christopher Mathiessen [sic]. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London, Arnold.
Martin, James R. and Peter R. R. White. 2008. The Language of Evaluation:
Appraisal in English. London, Palgrave.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Dr. Daniele Russo is a faculty member at the University of Milan, where he
teaches English Language and English Linguistics to undergraduates. His
research interests include translation criticism, diachronic linguistics,
medical specialised language and translation. He is also a translator of
fiction and specialised literature.
Recent Comments