WEEK 3- PRINCIPLES OF CORRESPONDANCE & SHIFT OF EXPRESSION

* Nida is seen as the beginner of the functionalist approach in translation. His education and academic background is though based on linguistics and he is a Bible translator. These are important factors that would effect his approach and study on translation.

First of all, his active role in missionary acts of the Christianity via Bible translation is worth dealing with. Because the mission he adopted on that point is quite effective in his works on translation. His religious side seems to effect his translational acts. But it is open to question whether it is ethical according to the translation norms. Also, his area of research and addressee is almost always related to the Bible. So it is quite interesting to find out that he has come out with approaches that are applicable to different genres, texts etc.

Probably his most important contribution to the translation studies is two approaches that he has developed. They are quite beneficial on the point that they broaden the definition of equivalence. The concept of equivalence is generally held as a subject matter in the analysis of translational units, be it words, sentences etc. With his definitions of the approaches, the word also gains a new meaning on the textual-cultural unity bases. The first one is the formal equivalence which can be compared to an source oriented approach. In this approach what is more important is the source text and it is to be reflected in the target language though with the expense of natural expression. On that point, it would be a good idea to adopt when the source text is a culture-bound one. But I am not sure about the acceptability of such kind of translation. Because, despite the fact that fluency, ease of comprehension are too simple and vague terms to define a translation, unfortunately what is generally expected from a translation can easily be specified with these terms. That is why, though this kind of translation might be good for the target reader to acquire acquaintance with the source language structure, I do not think that translator would be thanked for this but blamed. I can not say that I am opposed to it, but I am aware of the fact that it may bring about certain problems in the real life situations. The latter is the dynamic equivalence which can be compared to the target-language oriented approaches. The basic goal is to maintain readability and get the same effect on the reader of the target text as the reader of the source text. But from this very beginning, whether it is possible to evaluate the sameness of the effect between these different cultures is left unanswered. It is also viewed applicable to make omissions, changes on the translation to present the feature of natural expression. However, this is also very dangerous in my opinion. Because, he does not talk about any limits on these changes which may result in texts called translation which are in fact totally different from the source texts in extreme situations. But as there is not clear cut boundaries between these two approaches, what is realized in accordance with the approach of dynamic equivalence may be similar to formal equivalence in some respect. Nida also questions the definition of translation, and states that there are numerous definitions available and it makes it harder to study on translation, on which I totally agree with him.

Furthermore, an interesting point drew my attention. He has a different understanding on adaptation. He does not seem to view it as a subbranch of translation but as a method that is applied in translation partially and it is quite surprising to learn that for a natural (?) translation adaptation on grammar and lexicon are essential. This statement is problematic from the very beginning? First of all what is natural translation? What does he mean with grammar adaptation and lexicon? Is it the adaptation of the target language to the source language determinants or the visa versa?

* Popovic touches upon the nature of the language in general and is effects on the acts between languages (interlingual acts). He at the first hand accepts that the translator is to make some changes as result of the requirement of the source and target languages. What is important is that he develops an understanding on the underlying motives of these natural changes, arrangements etc. realized by the translator. This point is quite inspiring and can also provide the translation critics with a good basis in their evaluations as well as to some scholars who perform detailed text analysis in their descriptive studies. Moreover, he states that the motive behind these shifts is to make target text closer to the original. This is also different from what would be expected. Because when there are amendments in the texts we generally tend to think that the similarity and parallelism distance between the source text and target text is increased. However, what he suggests is the opposite. But what is meant with getting close is not clear. The term “shift of expression” as its name would suggest means that changes in the expression. To understand it better it would be a good ideal to learn what the meaning of “expression” is : “to show a feeling, idea, view etc.” that is to say it is closely related to meaning. Then do shifts in expression mean changes in meaning? At that time how can it be an act to make TT closer to ST? Also, as said before form and content are I indivisible. Then does shift of expression also mean to amend the form? I take this term as finding an alternative way to say the same thing. I mean different translational choices during the decision making process of the translator may be explainable on the basis of this term and this is quite useful for the people who want to get rid of the vague, slippery terms like faithful, free, equivalent etc.

He also deals with different genres and their requirements in the translational process. But I do not agree with him on his point about the superiority/inferiority of genres to one another. It is not clear according to what this superiority/inferiority is determined and let alone the clarity of this point, how can it be possible for a poem to be superior to a prose or for a technical text to be inferior to a literary one?

Furthermore, he makes his point on the spatial-temporal context of meaning. That is to say, meaning changes according to time ans place. As the conditions change when they change, all the elements that lead the perception of the target text change. This takes place in the natural flow of life and one may derive from here that the meaning changes on its on. But shifts in expression are consciously made decisions of the translator. In this perspective, how would we explain these natural changes in the meaning and would it be possible to determine whether these changes are made according to the very original meaning of the source text or according to the newly gained meaning of it in new spatial-temporal conditions? Moreover, his explanation on the phenomena of the translation is quite interesting. He defines translation as both creation and reproduction. But aren't these terms contradictory? If you create something then it is a new thing. If you reproduce something it is new production of a source (text in our context). While the former would end up with a new text, the latter would end up with a text which may appear to be new but not inherently. I do not say that translation is not a creative act, as you make up a whole from the limitless options of your target language. My point is that when we explain the very nature of translation as creation it would be difficult to analyze a translation. Because you can not put barriers to a creation process and it may be almost impossible to find basis for the decisions of the translator, its limits and conditions and explain them on the ground of the term “shift of expression” , all which at the same time would change the position of the translator before the author.

REFERENCES

Nida, Eugene. 2000. “Principles of Correspondance.” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation
Studies Reader. London: Routledge. p: 126-141

Popovic, Anton. 1970. “The Concept ‘Shift of Expression’ in Translation Analysis.” In James

Holmes, ed. The Nature of Translation: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. p: 78-87