Culture Bumps, chapter 4.

Practice Ritva eppihalme

Problem-solving:

Theory

and

Leppihalme focuses on the problem-solving aspect of translatorial behaviour. She argues that a wide range of strategies is more likely to lead to successful translations than routine use of only one. The author begins by considering the range of potential strategies for translating allusions, which may be different depending on the following groups: * roper-name ! "# allusions *$ey-phrase !$ # allusions This is so because it is often possible to retain a as a rule re%uires a change in wording. " unchanged, while a $

The translation strategies !or P"# are basically: to keep the name unaltered, to change it, or to omit it. There are some variations, though: &ariations Subcategories

!'# Retention of name !either !'a# use the name as such( unchanged or in its conventional TL !'b# use the name, adding some form. guidance( !'c# use the name, adding a detailed e)planation, e.g. a footnote. !rarely used# !*# Replacement of name by another !beyond the changes re%uired by convention# !*a# replace the name by another SL name( !*b# replace the name by another TL name. !+a# omit the name but transfer the sense by other means, e.g. by a common noun( !+b# omit the name and the allusion altogether.

!+# Omission of name

"ewmark remarks that while personal names are normally retained unaltered there are a number of well-known types of e)ceptions to this rule. ,hanges are re%uired, for instance, for the names of rules, many biblical, classical and literary poems, etc.

The translation of allusions involves the problem of transferring connotations evoked by a name in one language culture into another, where these connotations are much weaker or non-e)istent. The familiarity or lack of it of a name for receivers in the target culture is therefore a factor of vital importance in decision-making. Translators need to be aware of and prepared to use the whole range of strategies where appropriate. Leppihalme-s remarks are based on a study which involves translation between .nglish and /innish, two 0estern language cultures. /innish, with a much shorter history of written documents and literature has a comparatively smaller number. 1 small-scale e)periment conducted in '22' tested the familiarity of a few names for a group of 3' /innish university students and teachers. The higher scores were achieved by those students or teachers who worked with the .nglish language. 4n contrast, the lower scores belonged to those who did not work with .nglish. Leppihalme states that translators need to assume that .nglish-specific names in STs may well be unfamiliar to TT readers( this has implications for the choice of translation strategies. There is no criterion comparable to the treatment of a " for the translation of $ s. Standard translations for $ s e)ist only in cases of transcultural allusions. These are, however, a minority. Therefore the list of strategies for the translation of $ allusions cannot be identical with the " strategies list though the general approach is similar. 1 retentive strategy with regard to $ s can mean either a standard translation !this concerns transcultural allusions# or a minimum change !here the allusiveness disappears#, so that what is retained is the surface meaning only. 5ecognition of the minimum change can be achieved only by those TT readers who are both bilingual and bicultural, while the effect for many general readers may well be a cultural bump. The potential strategies for $ allusions, then, are as follows. $ use of a potential translation( B minimum change, that is, a literal translation, without regard to connotative or conte)tual meaning 6 there is thus no change that would aim specifically at the transfer of connotations( C e)tra-allusive guidance added his7her assessment of the needs sources etc.# which the author, necessary( including the use of material is preformed( in the te)t, where the translator follows of TT readers by adding information !on which his7her viewpoint, did not think typographical means to signal that the

% the use of footnotes, endnotes, translator-s prefaces and other e)plicit e)planations not slipped into the te)t but overtly given as additional information(

& simulated familiarity or internal marking, that is, the addition of intraallusive allusion-signalling features !marked wording or synta)# that depart from the style of the conte)t, thus signalling the presence of borrowed words( ' replacement by a preformed TL item. This is seldom an effective strategy( ( reduction of the allusion to sense by rephrasal, in other words, making its meaning overt and dispensing with the allusive $ itself. This strategy lends itself particularly to often-repeated and hence not especially creative allusions( ) re-creation, using a fusion of techni%ues( creative construction of a passage which hints at the connotations of the allusion or other special effects created by it. This strategy is usually time-consuming * omission of the allusion. /innish translators consider it only as a last resort 1dditionally, the translator may also throw up his7her hands in desperation, stating that there are allusive meanings involved which are beyond translation, or leave the allusion untranslated. The e)amination of the TTs shows that the most common strategies for the translation of allusions in these te)ts are those that involve the least amount of change: retention of the name as such for "s and minimum change for $ s. 8inimum change was the preferred strategy but it is not possible to prove the reason for a given e)ample in the corpus considered. .ither the translator considered it low-effort, did not find a more satisfactory strategy, or missed the allusion. 1 minimum change translation will convey the denotation. ,onversely, a translator who recogni9es the sources and wants to allow readers to participate could re-create the passage with allusive overtones recogni9able to TT readers. 1 method based on Levy-s minima+ idea is proposed as a better option. 4t emphasi9es the use of the full range of strategies instead of routinely opting for minimum change7retention of " as such: minimum of effort, ma)imum of effect. The flow-charts !pages ':; < ':=# start with the strategies presumed to be the most effortless, but encourage the translator to consider other possibilities if those high up on the charts do not lead to satisfactory solutions. */ootnotes or e)planations may be contrary to reader e)pectation and often to present practice in translation of fiction: in /inland, e)planatory footnotes are currently said to suggest academic writing to readers and publishers. 4f the allusion does not appear to have much connection with its source, it may be wiser to treat it like an idiom. Some dead or dying allusions !for

instance those that are biblical# may be transcultural and hence have standard translations. The minima) strategy for transcultural $ allusions is standard translation. The transcultural allusion has connotations in the target culture as well, so that even in translation the allusion offers competent readers the pleasure of recognition and the chance to participate in the literary process, comparable to a ST reader-s participation. Leppihalme concludes the following: * 4f the translation of allusions is seen as a decision-making process where the translator makes a series of >moves, as in a game-, this suggests that these moves can be charted and put into a priority order. Such a priority ordering could be based simply on observations on how translators deal with allusions. * 5eceivers must be taken into account. * 4f a translation is to conform to Levy-s idea of a >minima)- strategy, criteria would need to both translator-oriented !>mini--# and product-oriented !>ma)-#. 1 translator will then choose >that one of the possible solutions which promises a ma)imum of effect with a minimum of effort-. * 1ll decisions depend on factors !including genre, te)t type, function of TT, intended audience, conte)t, etc.# which are considered earlier in the translation process than are the ST allusions. Thus, it is recogni9ed that the >global strategies- which the translator makes initially, regarding the translation task as a whole, will clearly affect >local strategies- too !these are the ones considered by Leppihalme#. * The acceptance of each strategy also depends on target cultural norms, which are not immutable.