The unit of translation

Saussures _ Linguistic sign :

Vinay & Darbelnets _ Lexicological Unit or Unit of
Thought
Word
?
Signifier?
Theme ?

Morpheme ?
Signified
?
Rheme
?

Segment of the utterance ?

Prelude to analysis ?
Levels of translation ?

Because of the difficulty of analysing the translation process, there is no

full agreement as to what the unit of translation is. As is clear for some
theorists to stress that the major unit must be the text itself, that it is
impossible to translate well unless the significance of the whole text has
been established. Vinay and Darbelnets Comparative Stylistics of
French and English first appeared in 1958. The authors define their unit
of translation as the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs
are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually.

Unit of translation refers to the linguistic level at which ST is recodified in TL :. In

other words, the element used by the translator when working on the ST. It may be the
individual word, group, clause, sentence or even the whole text. The famous Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure invented the linguistic term sign that unifies signifier
(sound-image or word) and signified (concept). Importantly, Saussure emphasizes that
the sign is by nature arbitrary and can only derive meaning from contrast with other
signs in the same system (language).
Thus, the signifier tree recalls the real-world signified plant with a trunk; it can be
contrasted with signifiers such as bush, a different kind of plant. But the selection of tree
for this designation is arbitrary and only occurs in the English-language system. In
French, the signifier arbre is used for this plant.
The units of translation we postulate here are lexicological units within which
lexical elements are grouped together to form a single element of thought.
It would be more correct to say: the unit of translation is the predominant element of
thought within such a segment of the utterance.
There may be superposition of ideas within the same unit. For example, to loom
conveys both the idea of a ghost hanging in mid-air and, at the same time, that of
imminence or threat, but, whether seen as a single lexical item in a dictionary or from
the point of view of the morpho-syntactic structure in which the word might occur, the
two ideas cannot be separated. They are superimposed. It is what Bally refers to as an
accumulation of meanings. In such cases the translation may be able to retain only one
signified, preferably that which in the context has priority. This is the reason why it is
almost impossible to fully translate poetry.

The lexicological units described by Vinay and Darbelnet contain lexical

elements grouped together to form a single element of thought. Illustrative examples
they provide, to show the non-correspondence at word level between French and
English, are: simple soldat = private (in the army) and tout de suite = immediately. Of
course, the traditional structure of dictionaries, which divides a language into
headwords, means that individual words do tend to be treated in isolation, being
divided into different senses. Below is an adapted entry for the Spanish word brote in
the Oxford Spanish bilingual dictionary (third edition, 2003):
Example A 3.1
brote m
a. (botanical) shoot; as in: echar brotes = to sprout, put out
shoots
b. (of rebellion, violence) outbreak
c. (of an illness) outbreak

The bracketed descriptors, known as discriminators, summarize the main use, field or
collocation for each translation equivalent. Thus, sense c is the illness sense, with
the corresponding translation outbreak. On the other hand, sense a is the botanical
sense, with the translation shoot, of a plant. The example in sense a, echar brotes, is
an example of a strong collocation in Spanish. This two-word unit may be translated in
English by a single verb, sprout, or by a phrasal verb plus object, put out shoots,which
demonstrates how the translation unit is not fixed to an individual word across
languages. This is brought out even more strongly in the entry for outbreak on the
English side of the dictionary:
Example A 3.2
outbreak n = a. (of war) estallido m; = b. (of hostilities) comienzo m; = c.
(of cholera, influenza) brote m;

Example A3.3
Spanish ST---Segn OM n 4295 de 2 de marzo de 2001
DEBIDO AL BROTE DE FIEBRE AFTOSA, ROGAMOS A LOS SEORES PASAJEROS DE LOS VUELOS
CON ORIGEN EN EL REINO UNIDO O FRANCIA, DESINFECTEN SU CALZADO EN LAS ALFOMBRAS.

[Due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, we ask ladies-and-gentlemen

passengers of flights with origin in the United Kingdom or France, that they disinfect
their footwear on the carpets.]

Example A3.3b English TT

DUE TO THE OUTBREAK OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, ALL PASSENGERS ARRIVING FROM
THE UNITED KINGDOM OR FRANCE ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO DISINFECT THEIR FOOTWEAR ON
THE SPECIAL CARPETS PROVIDED.

If we focus on the first line of the ST, our particular interest is in the expressions brote, fiebre
aftosa and rogamos. The first two have established equivalents in this scientific context,
outbreak and foot-and-mouth disease respectively. Note that fiebre aftosa must be
considered as a separate translation unit, a multi-word lexicological unit, and translated
accordingly as foot-and-mouth disease and not aphtose fever, for example.
When it comes to the word rogamos it can clearly be seen that it is impossible to translate
the word individually. A translator needs to consider the whole structure rogamos a los
seores pasajeros . . . desinfecten su calzado (request-we ladies-andgentlemen passengers .
. . they disinfect their footwear . . .) and its politeness function in context before translating.
It is in such instances that restructuring is most likely to occur. In this case, the English
politeness formula prefers a passive (are requested) and the addition of the adverb kindly in
order to reduce any abruptness that might be caused by a literal translation from the
Spanish: all passengers . . . are kindly requested to disinfect their footwear. While a word

THE UNIT OF TRANSLATION AS A PRELUDE TO ANALYSIS

Division of ST and TT into the units of translation is of particular importance in Vinay and
Darbelnets work as a prelude to analysis of changes in translation. Example A3.4a, a poster
located by the underground ticket office at Heathrow airport, London:
Example A3.4a
Travelling from Heathrow?
There are easy to follow instructions on the larger self-service touch screen ticket machines.
- imagine you have been asked to translate this poster into your first language
- Write down your translation and make a note of the translation units you use
- A translator approaching this short text will most probably break it down into the title
(Travelling from Heathrow?) and the instructions in the second sentence. While that sentence
will be taken as a whole, it might also in turn be sub-divided more or less as follows:
There are/
[easy to follow/instructions]/
[on the/larger/self-service/touch screen/ticket machines]
Here, the slashes (/) indicate small word groups with a distinct semantic meaning that might be
considered separately, while the brackets ([. . .]) enclose larger units that a practised translator
is likely to translate as a whole.
The actual French TT on the poster indicates how this operates in real life:
Example A3.4b
Vous partez de Heathrow?
Les distributeurs de billets cran tactile vous fourniront des instructions claires et simples en
franais.
[You leave from Heathrow?
The distributors of tickets with screen touchable to-you provide-will some instructions clear and
simple in French.]

The title is translated as a question, but with the grammatical subject filled out
(You leave from Heathrow?) . The second sentence has been restructured to
produce an instruction that functions in French. The different STTT elements line
up as follows, with O standing for an omission or zero translation:

There are / [easy to follow / instructions] / on / [the / larger /

[vous fourniront] / [claires et simples / des instructions] / / [les / /
self-service / touch screen / ticket machines ]
/ / cran tactile / distributeurs de billets] / en franais
It is clear that the French has translated the larger self-service ticket machines as
a single unit (les distributeurs de billets), with the solid-sounding distributeurs
incorporating by implication not only the concept of self-service but also perhaps
the comparator larger from the ST. Note also how the definite article the has
necessarily been considered as part of the same translation unit as ticket
machines, giving the plural form les in les distributeurs de billets in the French.
Easy to follow has been rendered by two adjectives linked by an additive
conjunction, claires et simples (clear and simple). There are two additions in the
TT: en franais (in French), to reassure the reader that the instructions will be
easy to follow for them in their own language, and vous fourniront (to you will
provide), which has taken over the function of the English existential verb form
there are.
This simple text indicates how, in practice, the translation unit will typically tend
to be not individual words but small chunks of language building up into the
sentence, what the famous translation theorist Eugene Nida calls meaningful
mouthfuls of language.

TRANSLATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

In his Textbook of Translation (1988), Peter Newmark discusses translation

using in part a scale that has become well established in linguistics with the
work of Michael Halliday . It should be noted that Hallidayan linguistics also
informs much of Mona Bakers influential In Other Words (1992), which, too,
examines translation at different levels, although in Bakers case it is levels
of equivalence (at the level of the word, collocation and idiom, grammar,
thematic and information structure, cohesion and pragmatics). Hallidays
systemic analysis of English grammar is based on the following hierarchical
rank scale, starting with the smallest unit
morpheme
word
group
clause
sentence

Word and group are the ranks that we have discussed most so far in this unit.
But Hallidays focus is on the clause as a representation of meaning in a
communicative context and Newmarks is on the sentence as the natural
unit of translation. Newmark states that transpositions and rearrangements
may often occur, but that a sentence would not normally be divided unless
there was good reason. He is careful to insist that any rearrangements or
recastings must respect Functional Sentence Perspective.

Briefly, the unit of translation is normally the linguistic unit which

the translator uses when translating. Translation theorists have
proposed various units, from individual word and group to
clause and sentence and even higher levels such as text and
intertextual levels (e.g. Beaugrande 1978, see Unit 9).
Importantly, Newmark (1988: 667) makes the crucial point that
all lengths of language can, at different moments and also
simultaneously, be used as units of translation in the course of
the translation activity. While it may be that the translator most
often works at the sentence level, paying specific attention to
problems raised by individual words or groups in that context, it
is also important to take into account the function of the whole
text and references to extra-textual features. Of course, texts
themselves are not isolated but function within their own sociocultural and ideological environment.
In Albanian burr
In English can

According to the particular role they play in the message, several types of units
of translation can be recognised:
a. Functional units, i.e. units whose elements have the same syntactic function, e.g.:
Il habite
He lives
Saint-Sauveur,
at Saint-Sauveur,
a deux pas,
a short distance away
en meuble,
in furnished rooms
chez ses parents.
with his parents
b. Semantic units, i.e. units of meaning, e.g.:
le grand film
the main feature
prendre place
to sit (or: to stand)
c. Dialectic units, i.e. expressing a reasoning, e.g.:
en effet
really
puisque, aussi, bien since, however, also, well
d. Prosodic units, i.e. units whose elements have the same intonation:
You dont say!
Ca alors!
Youre telling me!
Vous ne mapprenez rien!
The last three categories constitute units of translation. Unless they are very short,
functional units may contain more than a single unit of thought. If we now look at the
relationship between units of translation and words within a text, three different cases
can arise:

a. Simple units
These units correspond to a single word. It is obviously the simplest case and listed here in
first place because it is widely used and also because it enables us to give a better definition of
the remaining two. In the following sentences there are as many units as there are words and
each word can be replaced individually without changing the sentence structure.
Il gagne cinq mille dollars.
Elle recoit trois cents francs.

He earns five thousand dollars.

She receives three hundred francs.

b. Diluted units
These units extend over several words which together form a lexicological unit, because the
whole group of words expresses a single idea. We take our examples from both languages:
simple
tout de suite

soldat private
immediately

c. Fractional units
These units consist of only a fraction of a word, which means that the speaker is therefore still
aware of the constituent elements of the word, e.g.:
Two units
One unit
relever quelquun qui est tombe
relever une erreur [spot, point out]
re-cover [recouvrir]
recover [recouvrer]
In English, wordstress can reveal the difference between single and multiple units, e.g.
black bird vs black-bird.
The identification of units of translation also depends upon another classification in which the
degree of cohesion between the elements is taken into account. Unfortunately, this involves a
variable criterion and the categories we shall try to establish are, above all, fixed points
between which we may expect to find intermediary cases which are more difficult to classify.

a. Unified groups, in contrast to one-word units, refer to highly coherent units of

two or more words such as idioms. The unity of meaning is very clear and is often
marked by a syntactic characteristic such as the omission of an article before a
noun. In general, even the least experienced translators can detect this kind of
unit without any difficulty.
a bout portant
point-blank
b. Affinity groups are units whose elements are more difficult to detect and in
which the cohesion between the words is less evident. We identify five separate
types:

i. Phrases of Intensity
focused around a noun:
une pluie diluvienne a downpour
focused around an adjective, a past participle, or a verb:
grievement blesse
seriously injured
reflechir murement
to give careful consideration

Such groupings exist in both languages, but they can only rarely be translated
literally. For example, English has its own special tendency to reinforce an
adjective, e.g.:
Drink your coffee while it is nice and hot. Buvez votre cafe bien chaud.
He was good and mad.
Il etait furieux.

The reinforcement of big by great is reminiscent of childrens language. Certain

ii. Verbal phrases

In these cases a verb followed by a noun (e.g. faire une promenade)
corresponds, in principle, to a simple verb (e.g. se promener) of the same
family as the noun:
faire une promenade
to take a walk
pousser un soupir to heave a sigh

The simple verb without its associated complement may be quite rare, e.g.
the case of heave, or not occur at all. Groups formed by a noun and verb
with a single meaning within the sentence should also be considered as
units of thought. The verb does not necessarily have a literal correspondent.
passer un examen
to take an exam

Many simple English verbs correspond to French verbal phrases, e.g.:

mettre en danger
to endanger
fermer a clef
to lock

iii. Many French adjectival and adverbial phrases form units in the
same way as their English counterparts do in the form of single words, e.g.:
sans condition
unconditionally

iv. Many units consist of a noun and an adjective, but without the intensification
noted above. The adjective is often an everyday word which acquires a more
technical meaning, e.g.:
les grands magasins department stores
un haut fourneau a blast furnace

v. Beyond these easily defined units, translators are faced with a maze of phrases in
which they have to try and identify the lexicological units. Dictionaries give
numerous examples of these, but there are no complete lists, and all for good
reason. The following examples have been selected at random to illustrate the
variety of these units.

le regime des pluies the rainfall

mettre au point to overhaul, perfect, clarify

The translation of a word usually depends upon its context. A unit of translation
provides a limited context; it forms a syntactic unit where one element determines
the translation of the other.

For example, in rgime des pluies, rgime corresponds to fall.

On the other hand, the context is created by the usage, and it is unlikely that these
words should recur in the same order with a different meaning association. At the
same time, the unit of translation is anchored in the system of the language, for it is
also a memory association.