Cet article a pour objectif de cerner la impression de technique de traduction entendue comme un des instruments d’analyse textuelle qui permet d’etudier le fonctionnement de l’equivalence par resonance a l’original. Nous rappelons tout d’abord les differentes definitions et categorizations qui ont ete proposees ainsi que lupus erythematosuss confusions terminologiques. conceptuelles et de categorization qui en ont decoule. Nous donnons ensuite notre definition de la technique de traduction en la differenciant de la methode et de la strategie de traduction et proposons une approche dynamique et fonctionnelle de celleci.
Pour terminer. nous definissons chacune diethylstilbestrols frogmans techniques de traduction existantes et en presentons une nouvelle categorization. Cette proposition a ete appliquee dans le cadre d’une recherche Sur la traduction diethylstilbestrols elements culturels dans les traductions en arabe de Cent ans de solitude de Garcia Marquez. ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to clear up the impression of interlingual rendition technique. understood as an instrument of textual analysis that. in combination with other instruments. allows us to analyze how interlingual rendition equality works in relation to the original text.
First. bing definitions and categorizations of interlingual rendition techniques are reviewed and terminological. conceptual and categorization confusions are pointed out. Second. interlingual rendition techniques are redefined. separating them from interlingual rendition method and interlingual rendition schemes. The definition is dynamic and functional. Finally. we present a categorization of interlingual rendition techniques that has been tested in a survey of the interlingual rendition of cultural elements in Arabic interlingual renditions of A Hundred Years of Solitude by Garcia Marquez.
interlingual rendition technique. interlingual rendition method. interlingual rendition scheme. interlingual rendition equality. functionalism 1. Translation TECHNIQUES AS TOOL FOR ANALYSIS: THE EXISTING CONFUSIONS The classs used to analyse interlingual renditions allow us to analyze the manner interlingual rendition works. These classs are related to text. context and procedure. Textual classs describe mechanisms of coherency. coherence and thematic patterned advance. Contextual classs introduce all the extra-textual elements related to the context of beginning text and interlingual rendition production. Procedure classs are designed to reply two basic inquiries.
Which option has the transcriber chosen to transport out the interlingual rendition undertaking. i. e. . which method has been chosen? How has the transcriber solved the jobs that have emerged during the interlingual rendition procedure. i. e. . which schemes have been chosen? However. research ( or learning ) demands may do it of import to see textual micro-units as good. that is to state. how the consequence of the interlingual rendition Meta. XLVII. 4. 2002 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 498 11/21/02. 2:15 PM interlingual rendition techniques revisited 499 maps in relation to the corresponding unit in the beginning text. To make this we need interlingual rendition techniques.
We were made aware of this demand in a survey of the intervention of cultural elements in Arabic interlingual renditions of A Hundred Years of Solitude1. Textual and contextual classs were non sufficient to place. sort and call the options chosen by the transcribers for each unit studied. We needed the class of interlingual rendition techniques that allowed us to depict the existent stairss taken by the transcribers in each textual micro-unit and obtain clear informations about the general methodological option chosen. However. there is some disagreement amongst interlingual rendition bookmans about interlingual rendition techniques.
This dissension is non merely terminological but besides conceptual. There is even a deficiency of consensus as to what name to give to name the classs. different labels are used ( processs. techniques. schemes ) and sometimes they are confused with other constructs. Furthermore. different categorizations have been proposed and the footings frequently overlap. This article presents the definition and categorization of interlingual rendition techniques that we used in our survey of the intervention of cultural elements in Arabic interlingual renditions of A Hundred Years of Solitude.
We besides present a critical reappraisal of earlier definitions and categorizations of interlingual rendition techniques. 2. THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO CLASSIFYING TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES 2. 1. Translation Technical Procedures in the Compared Stylistics. Vinay and Darbelnet’s innovator work Stylistique comparee du francais et de l’anglais ( SCFA ) ( 1958 ) was the first categorization of interlingual rendition techniques that had a clear methodological intent. The term they used was ‘procedes techniques de la traduction. ’ They defined seven basic processs runing on three degrees of manner: lexis. distribution ( morphology and sentence structure ) and message.
The processs were classified as direct ( or actual ) or oblique. to co-occur with their differentiation between direct ( or misprint ) and oblique interlingual rendition. Actual interlingual rendition occurs when there is an exact structural. lexical. even morphological equality between two linguistic communications. Harmonizing to the writers. this is merely possible when the two linguistic communications are really near to each other. The actual interlingual rendition processs are: • • • Borrowing. A word taken straight from another linguistic communication. e. g. . the English word bulldozer has been incorporated straight into other linguistic communications. Calque.
A foreign word or phrase translated and incorporated into another linguistic communication. e. g. . five de semaine from the English weekend. Actual interlingual rendition. Word for word interlingual rendition. e. g. . The ink is on the tabular array and L’encre est Sur La tabular array. Oblique interlingual rendition occurs when word for word interlingual rendition is impossible. The oblique interlingual rendition processs are: • • 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 Transposition. A displacement of word category. i. e. . verb for noun. noun for preposition e. g. . Expediteur and From. When there is a displacement between two forms. it is called crossed heterotaxy. e. g. . He limped across the street and Il a crossbeam La herb of grace nut boitant.
Modulation. A displacement in point of position. Whereas heterotaxy is a displacement between grammatical classs. transition is a displacement in cognitive classs. Vinay and Darbelnet 499 11/21/02. 2:15 PM 500 Meta. XLVII. 4. 2002 • • posit eleven types of transition: abstract for concrete. cause for consequence. means for consequence. a portion for the whole. geographical alteration. etc. . e. g. . the geographical transition between encre de Chine and Indian ink. Intravaia and Scavee ( 1979 ) studied this process in deepness and reached the decision that it is qualitatively different from the others and that the others can be included within it.
Equality. This accounts for the same state of affairs utilizing a wholly different phrase. e. g. . the interlingual rendition of Proverbs or idiomatic looks like. Comme un chien dans un jeu de quilles and Like a bull in a China store. Adaptation. A displacement in cultural environment. i. e. . to show the message utilizing a different state of affairs. e. g. cycling for the Gallic. cricket for the English and baseball for the Americans. These seven basic processs are complemented by other processs. Except for the processs of compensation and inversion. they are all classified as opposing braces. • • • • • • • 01. Meta 47/4.
Partie 1 Compensation. An point of information. or a stylistic consequence from the ST that can non be reproduced in the same topographic point in the TT is introduced elsewhere in the TT. e. g. . the Gallic interlingual rendition of I was seeking thee. Flathead. from the Jungle Book Kipling used the antediluvian thee. alternatively of you. to show regard. but none of the tantamount Gallic pronoun signifiers ( tu. Te. toi ) have an antediluvian equivalent. so the transcriber expressed the same feeling by utilizing the vocative. O. in another portion of the sentence: En verite. c’est bien toi que je cherche. O Tete-Plate. Concentration vs. Dissolution.
Concentration expresses a signified from the SL with fewer forms in the TL. Dissolution expresses a signified from the SL with more forms in the TL. e. g. . archery is a disintegration of the Gallic tir a l’arc. Amplification vs. Economy. These processs are similar to concentration and disintegration. Amplification occurs when the TL uses more forms to cover syntactic or lexical spreads. Harmonizing to Vinay and Darbelnet. disintegration is a inquiry of langue and version of word. e. g. . He talked himself out of a occupation and Il a perdu SA opportunity pour avoir trop parle.
The opposite process is economic system. e. g. . We’ll monetary value ourselves out of the market and Nous ne pourrons plus vendre Si nous Sommes trop exigeants. Reinforcement vs. Condensation. These are fluctuations of elaboration and economic system that are characteristic of Gallic and English. e. g. . English prepositions or concurrences that need to be reinforced in Gallic by a noun or a verb: To the station and Entree de la gare ; Shall I phone for a cab? and Voulez-vous que je telephone pour faire venir une voiture? Mallblanc ( 1968 ) changed Vinay and Darbelnet’s support for over-characterization. because he found it was more appropriate for the traits of French and German.
He pointed out that German prepositions. such as. in can be translated into French as dans le creux de. dans le fond Delaware. or. dans le sein de. Explicitation vs. Implicitation. Explicitation is to present information from the ST that is inexplicit from the context or the state of affairs. e. g. . to do explicit the patient’s sex when interpreting his patient into Gallic. Implicitation is to let the state of affairs to bespeak information that is explicit in the ST. e. g. . the significance of sortez as travel out or come out depends on the state of affairs. Generalization vs. Particularization.
Generalization is to interpret a term for a more general one. whereas. particularisation is the opposite. e. g. . the English interlingual rendition of guichet. fenetre or devanture by window is a generalisation. Inversion. This is to travel a word or a phrase to another topographic point in a sentence or a paragraph so that it reads of course in the mark linguistic communication. e. g. . Pack individually … for convenient review and Pour faciliter la visite de la douane mettre a portion … . 500 11/21/02. 2:15 PM interlingual rendition techniques revisited 501 Table 1 Vinay and Darbelnet’s interlingual rendition processs Borrowing Bulldozer ( E ) ? Bulldozer ( F ) Calque Fin de semaine ( F ) ?
Week-end ( E ) Literal interlingual rendition L’encre est Sur La tabular array ( F ) ? The ink is on the tabular array ( E ) Transposition Defense de fumer ( F ) ? No smoke ( E ) Crossed heterotaxy He limped across the street ( E ) ? Il a crossbeam La herb of grace en boitant ( F ) Modulation Encre de Chien ( F ) ? Indian Ink ( E ) Equivalence Comme un chien dans un jeu de quilles ( F ) ? Like a bull in a China store ( E ) Adaptation Cyclisme ( F ) ? Cricket ( E ) ? Baseball ( U. S ) Compensation I was seeking thee. Flathead ( E ) ? En verite. c’est bien toi que je cherche. O Tete-Plate ( F ) Dissolution Tir a l’arc ( F ) ? Archery ( E ) Concentration Archery ( E ) ? Tir a l’arc ( F )
Amplification He talked himself out of a occupation ( E ) ? Il a perdu SA opportunity pour avoir trop parle ( F ) Economy Nous ne pourrons plus vendre Si nous Sommes trop exigeants ( F ) ? We’ll monetary value ourselves out of the market ( E ) Reinforcement Shall I phone for a cab? ( E ) ? Voulez-vous que je telephone pour faire venir une voiture? ( F ) Condensation Entree de la garde ( F ) ? To the station ( E ) Explicitation His patient ( E ) ? Son patient / Son patiente ( F ) Implicitation Go out/ Come out ( Tocopherol ) ? Sortez ( F ) Generalization Guichet. fenetre. devanture ( F ) ? Window ( E ) Particularization Window ( E ) ? Guichet. fenetre. devanture ( F ) Articularization.
In all this huge assortment of conditions. … ( E ) ? Et cependant. malgre la diversite diethylstilbestrols conditions. … ( F ) Juxtaposition Et cependant. malgre la diversite diethylstilbestrols conditions. … ( F ) ? In all this huge assortment of conditions. … ( E ) Grammaticalization A adult male in a bluish suit ( E ) ? Un homme vetu de blue ( F ) Lexicalization Un homme vetu de blue ( F ) ? A adult male in a bluish suit ( E ) Inversion Pack individually [ … ] for convenient review ( E ) ? Pour faciliter la visite de la douane mettre a portion [ … ] ( F ) 2. 2. The Bible transcribers From their survey of scriptural interlingual rendition. Nida. Taber and Margot concentrate on inquiries related to cultural transportation.
They propose several classs to be used 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 501 11/21/02. 2:15 PM 502 Meta. XLVII. 4. 2002 when no equality exists in the mark linguistic communication: accommodation techniques. indispensable differentiation. explicative paraphrasing. redundancy and naturalisation. 2. 2. 1. Techniques of accommodation Nida ( 1964 ) proposes three types: add-ons. minuss and changes. They are used: 1 ) to set the signifier of the message to the features of the construction of the mark linguistic communication ; 2 ) to bring forth semantically tantamount constructions ; 3 ) to bring forth appropriate stylistic equalities ; 4 ) to bring forth an tantamount communicative consequence.
• • • Additions. Several of the SCFA processs are included in this class. Nida lists different fortunes that might compel a transcriber to do an add-on: to clear up an elliptic look. to avoid ambiguity in the mark linguistic communication. to alter a grammatical class ( this corresponds to SCFA’s heterotaxy ) . to magnify inexplicit elements ( this corresponds to SCFA’s explicitation ) . to add connections ( this corresponds to SCFA’s articulation required by features of the TL. etc. ) . Examples are as follows.
When interpreting from St Paul’s Epistles. it is appropriate to add the verb write in several topographic points. even though it is non in the beginning text ; a actual interlingual rendition of they tell him of her ( Mark I:30 ) into Mazatec would hold to be amplified to the people at that place told Jesus about the adult female. otherwise. as this linguistic communication makes no differentiations of figure and gender of pronominal affixes it could hold 36 different readings ; He went up to Jerusalem. There he taught the people some linguistic communications require the equivalent of He went up to Jerusalem. Having arrived at that place. he taught the people.
Subtractions. Nida lists four state of affairss where the transcriber should utilize this process. in add-on to when it is required by the TL: unneeded repeat. specified mentions. concurrences and adverbs. For illustration. the name of God appears 32 times in the 31 poetries of Genesis. Nida suggests utilizing pronouns or excluding God. Changes. These alterations have to be made because of mutual exclusivenesss between the two linguistic communications. There are three chief types. 1 ) Changes due to jobs caused by transliteration when a new word is introduced from the beginning linguistic communication. e. g. . the transliteration of Messiah in the Loma linguistic communication. means death’s manus. so it was altered to Mezaya.
2 ) Changes due to structural differences between the two linguistic communications. e. g. . alterations in word order. grammatical classs. etc. ( similar to SCFA’s heterotaxy ) . 3 ) Changes due to semantic misfits. particularly with idiomatic looks. One of the suggestions to work out this sort of job is the usage of a descriptive equivalent i. e. . a satisfactory equivalent for objects. events or properties that do non hold a standard term in the TL. It is used for objects that are unknown in the mark civilization ( e. g. . in Maya the house where the jurisprudence was read for Synagogue ) and for actions that do non hold a lexical equivalent ( e. g. . in Maya desire what another adult male has for covetousness. etc. )
Nida includes footers as another accommodation technique and points out that they have two chief maps: 1 ) To rectify lingual and cultural differences. e. g. . to explicate contradictory imposts. to place unknown geographical or physical points. to give equivalents for weights and steps. to explicate word drama. to add information about proper names. etc. ; 2 ) To add extra information about the historical and cultural context of the text in inquiry.
01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 502 11/21/02. 2:15 PM interlingual rendition techniques revisited 503 2. 2. 2. The indispensable differences Margot ( 1979 ) nowadayss three standards used to warrant cultural version. He refers to them as the indispensable differences. 1 ) 2 ) 3 ) Items that are unknown by the mark civilization. He suggests adding a classifier following to the word ( as Nida does ) . e. g. . the metropolis of Jerusalem or. by utilizing a cultural equivalent ( similar to the SCFA process of version ) . e. g. . in Jesus’ parable ( Matthew 7:16 ) to alter grapes / irritant shrubs and figs / thistles for other workss that are more common in the mark civilization.
However. he warns the reader that this process is non ever possible. Taber y Nida ( 1974 ) list five factors that have to be taken into history when it is used: a ) the symbolic and theological importance of the point in inquiry. B ) its fequency of usage in the Bible. degree Celsius ) its semantic relationship with other words. vitamin D ) similarities of map and signifier between the two points. vitamin E ) the reader’s emotional response. The historical model. Here Margot proposes a lingual instead than a cultural interlingual rendition. on the evidences that historical events can non be modified. Adaptation to the specific state of affairs of the mark audience.
Margot maintains that the translator’s undertaking is to interpret and that it is up to sermonizers. commentarists and Bible survey groups to accommodate the scriptural text to the specific state of affairs of the mark audience. He includes footers as an assistance to cultural version. 2. 2. 3. The explicative paraphrasis Nida. Taber and Margot coincide in separating between legitimate and illicit paraphrasing. The legitimate paraphrasis is a lexical alteration that makes the TT longer than the ST but does non alter the significance ( similar to the SCFA elaboration / disintegration. The illicit paraphrasis makes ST points explicit in the TT.
Nida. Taber and Margot agree this is non the translator’s occupation as it may present subjectiveness. 2. 2. 4. The construct of redundancy Harmonizing to Margot ( 1979 ) . redundancy attempts to accomplish symmetricalness between ST readers and TT readers. This is done either by adding information ( grammatical. syntactic and stylistic elements. etc. ) when differences between the two linguistic communications and civilizations make a similar response impossible for the TT readers. or by stamp downing information when ST elements are excess for the TT readers. e. g. . the Hebrew look. answering. said that is redundant in some other linguistic communications.
This process is really close to SCFA’s implicitation / explicitation. 2. 2. 5. The construct of naturalisation This construct was introduced by Nida ( 1964 ) after utilizing the term natural to specify dynamic equality ( the closest natural equivalent to the beginning linguistic communication message ) . Nida claims that naturalisation can be achieved by taking into history: 1 ) the beginning linguistic communication and civilization understood as a whole ; 2 ) the cultural context of the message ; 3 ) the mark audience. This process is really close to SCFA’s version. 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 503 11/21/02. 2:15 PM 504 Meta. XLVII. 4. 2002 Table 2.
The Bible translators’ proposals Classifier The metropolis of Jerusalem Alteration Messiah ( E ) ? Mezaya ( Loma ) Cultural tantamount grapes / thorn shrubs and figs / thistles? other workss that are more common in the mark civilization Equivalent description Synagogue? The house where the jurisprudence was read ( Maya ) Footnotes 2. 3. Vazquez Ayora’s proficient processs Vazquez Ayora ( 1977 ) uses the term operative proficient processs. although he sometimes refers to them as the interlingual rendition method. He combines the SCFA normative attack with the Bible transcribers. descriptive attack and introduces some new processs:
• • Omission. This is to exclude redundancy and repeat that is characteristic of the SL. e. g. . to interpret The commission has failed to move by La comision no actuo. excluding the verb to neglect and avoiding over-translation: La comision dejo de actuar. Desplacement and Inversion. Displacement corresponds to SCFA’s inversion. where two elements change place. e. g. . The phone rang and Sono el telefono. Table 3 Vazquez Ayora’s part Omission The commission has failed to move ( E ) ? La comision no actuo ( Sp ) Inversion The phone rang ( E ) ? Sono el telefono ( Sp ) 2. 4. Delisle’s part.
Delisle ( 1993 ) introduces some fluctuations to the SCFA processs and maintains the term process for Vinay and Darbelnet’s proposals. However. for some other classs of his ain. he introduces a different nomenclature. e. g. . interlingual rendition schemes. interlingual rendition mistakes. operations in the cognitive procedure of translating… He lists several of these classs as contrasting braces. In his reappraisal of Vinay and Darbelnet. he proposes simplifying the SCFA dualities of reinforcement/condensation and amplification/economy and he reduces them to a individual brace. reinforcement/economy.
Support is to utilize more words in the TT than the ST to show the same thought. He distinguishes three types of support: 1 ) disintegration ; 2 ) explicitation ( these two correspond to their SCFA homonyms ) ; and 3 ) circumlocution ( this corresponds to SCFA’s elaboration ) . Economy is to utilize fewer words in the TT than the ST to show the same thought. He distinguishes three types of economic system: 1 ) concentration ; 2 ) implicitation ( these two correspond to their SCFA homonyms and are in contrast to disintegration and explicitation ) ; and conciseness ( this corresponds to SCFA’s economic system and is in contrast to circumlocution ) . 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 504.
11/21/02. 2:15 PM interlingual rendition techniques revisited 505 The other classs Delisle introduces are: • • • Addition vs. Omission. He defines them as undue circumlocution and conciseness and considers them to be translation mistakes. Addition is to present undue stylistic elements and information that are non in the ST. skip is the indefensible suppression of elements in the ST. Paraphrase. This is defined as inordinate usage of paraphrasis that complicates the TT without stylistic or rhetorical justification. It is besides classified as a interlingual rendition mistake. Delisle’s paraphrasis and add-on coincide with Margot’s bastard paraphrasis.
Dianoetic creative activity. This is an operation in the cognitive procedure of translating by which a non-lexical equality is established that merely works in context. e. g. . In the universe of literature. thoughts become cross-fertilized. the experience of others can be usefully employed to common benefit is translated into Gallic as. Dans le domaine diethylstilbestrols lettres. le choc diethylstilbestrols idees se revele fecond ; il devient possible de profiter de l’experience d’autrui. This construct is close to Nida’s changes caused by semantic mutual exclusivenesss and transliteration. Table 4 Delisle’s parts Dissolution Reinforcement
Explicitation Periphrasis ( + ) Addition ( – ) Paraphrase ( – ) Concentration Economy Implicitation Concession ( + ) Discursive creative activity Omission ( – ) Ideas become cross-fertilized ( E ) ? Le choc diethylstilbestrols idees se revele fecond ( F ) 2. 5. Newmark’s procedures Newmark ( 1988 ) besides uses the term procedures to sort the proposals made by the comparative linguists and by the Bible transcribers. every bit good as some of his ain. These are: • • • 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 Recognized interlingual rendition. This is the the interlingual rendition of a term that is already official or widely accepted. even though it may non be the most equal. e. g. . Gay-Lussac’s Volumengesetz der Gase and Law of uniting volumes. Functional equivalent.
This is to utilize a culturally impersonal word and to add a specifying term. e. g. . baccalaureat = Gallic secondary school go forthing test ; Sejm = Polish parliament. It is really similar to Margot’s cultural equivalent. and in the SCFA nomenclature it would be an version ( secondary school go forthing exam / parliament ) with an explicitation ( French/ Polish ) . Naturalization. Newmark’s definition is non the same as Nida’s. For Nida. it comes from transportation ( SCFA’s adoption ) and consists of accommodating a SL word to the phonic and morphological norms of the TL. e. g. . the German word Performanz and the English public presentation. 505 11/21/02. 2:15 PM 506 Meta. XLVII. 4. 2002.
Translation label. This is a probationary interlingual rendition. normally of a new term. and a actual interlingual rendition could be acceptable. e. g. . Erbschaftssprache or langue d’heritage from the English heritage linguistic communication. Newmark includes the option of work outing a job by uniting two or more processs ( he called these solutions doubles. three-base hits or quartets ) . Newmark besides adds synonymity as another class. Table 5 Newmark’s processs Recognized interlingual rendition Volumengesetz der Gase ( G ) ? Law of uniting volumes ( E ) .
Functional tantamount Baccalaureat ( F ) ? Baccalaureat. secondary school go forthing test ( E ) Naturalization Performance ( E ) ? Performanz ( G ) Translation label Heritage linguistic communication ( E ) ? Langue d’heritage ( F ) 3. CRITICAL REVIEW OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES As we have seen. there is no general understanding about this instrument of analysis and there is confusion about nomenclature. constructs and categorization. The most serious confusions are the undermentioned. 3. 1. Terminological confusion and over-lapping footings Terminological diverseness and the imbrication of footings make it hard to utilize these footings and to be understood.
The same construct is expressed with different names and the categorizations vary. covering different countries of jobs. In one categorization one term may over-lap another in a different system of categorization. The class itself is given different names. for illustration. Delisle uses process. interlingual rendition scheme. etc. 3. 2. The confusion between interlingual rendition procedure and interlingual rendition consequence This confusion was established by Vinay y Darbelnet’s innovator proposal. when they presented the processs as a description of the ways open to the transcriber in the interlingual rendition procedure.
However. the processs. as they are presented in the SCFA do non mention to the procedure followed by the transcriber. but to the concluding consequence. The confusion has persisted and interlingual rendition techniques have been confused with other interlingual rendition classs: method and schemes. In some of the proposals there is a conceptual confusion between techniques and interlingual rendition method. Vinay y Darbelnet introduced the confusion by spliting the processs following the traditional methodological duality between actual and free interlingual rendition.
As they worked with isolated units they did non separate between classs that affect the whole text and classs that refer to little units. Furthermore. the caption of their book. Methode de traduction. caused even more confusion. In our sentiment ( see 4. 1. ) . a differentiation should bemade between interlingual rendition method. that is portion of the procedure. a planetary pick that affects the whole interlingual rendition. and interlingual rendition techniques that describe the consequence and impact smaller subdivisions of the interlingual rendition. 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 506
11/21/02. 2:15 PM interlingual rendition techniques revisited 507 The SCFA usage of the term processs created confusion wirh another class related to the procedure: interlingual rendition schemes. Procedures are related to the differentiation between declaratory cognition ( what you know ) and procedural or operative cognition ( know-how ) ( Anderson 1983 ) . Procedures are an of import portion of procedural cognition. they are related to cognizing how to make something. the ability to organize actions to make a specific end ( Pozo. Gonzalo and Postigo 1993 ) .
Procedures include the usage of simple techniques and accomplishments. every bit good as expert usage of schemes ( Pozo y Postigo 1993 ) . Schemes are an indispensable component in job resolution. Therefore. in relation to work outing interlingual rendition jobs. we think a differentiation should be made between techniques and schemes. Techniques describe the consequence obtained and can be used to sort different types of interlingual rendition solutions. Schemes are related to the mechanisms used by transcribers throughout the the whole interlingual rendition procedure to happen a solution to the jobs they find.
The proficient processs ( the name itself is equivocal ) affect the consequences and non the procedure. so they should be distinguished from schemes. We propose they should be called interlingual rendition techniques. 3. 3. The confusion between issues related to linguistic communication braces and text braces Vinay y Darbelnet’s original proposal besides led to a confusion between linguistic communication jobs and text jobs. Their work was based on comparative linguistics and all the illustrations used to exemplify their processs were decontextualized. In add-on. because they gave a individual interlingual rendition for each lingual point. the consequence was braces of fixed equalities.
This led to a confusion between comparative lingual phenomena ( and the classs needed to analyze their similarities and differences ) and phenomena related to interpreting texts ( that need other classs ) . The usage of interlingual rendition techniques following the SCFA attack is limited to the categorization of differences between linguistic communication systems. non the textual solutions needed for interlingual rendition. For illustration. SCFA’s adoption. heterotaxy and inversion. or. Vazquez Ayora’s skip. should non be considered as interlingual rendition techniques.
They are non a textual option unfastened to the transcriber. but an duty imposed by the features of the linguistic communication brace. 4. A DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES Our proposal is based on two premises: 1 ) the demand to separate between method. scheme and technique ; 2 ) the demand for an dynamic and functional construct of interlingual rendition techniques. 4. 1. The demand to separate between method. scheme and technique We think that interlingual rendition method. schemes and techniques are basically different classs. ( Hurtado 1996 ) . 4. 1. 1. Translation method and interlingual rendition techniques.
Translation method refers to the manner a peculiar interlingual rendition procedure is carried out in footings of the translator’s aim. i. e. . a planetary option that affects the whole text. There are several interlingual rendition methods that may be chosen. depending on the purpose of 01. Meta 47/4. Partie 1 507 11/21/02. 2:15 PM 508 Meta. XLVII. 4. 2002 the interlingual rendition: interpretative-communicative ( interlingual rendition of the sense ) . actual ( lingual transcodification ) . free ( alteration of semiotic and communicative classs ) and philological ( academic or critical interlingual rendition ) ( see Hurtado Albir 1999: 32 ) .
Each solution the transcriber chooses when interpreting a text responds to the planetary option that affects the whole text ( the interlingual rendition method ) and depends on the purpose of the interlingual rendition. The interlingual rendition method affects the manner micro-units of the text are translated: the interlingual rendition techniques. Therefore. we should separate between the method chosen by the transcriber. e. g. . actual or version. that affects the whole text. and the interlingual rendition techniques. e. g. . actual interlingual rendition or version. that affect microunits of the text.
Logically. method and maps should work harmoniously in the text. For illustration. if the purpose of a interlingual rendition method is to bring forth a foreignising version. so borrowing will be one of the most often used interlingual rendition techniques. ( Cf. This has been shown in Molina ( 1998 ) . where she analyses the three interlingual renditions into Arabic of Garcia Marquez’s A Hundred Years of Solitude. Each interlingual rendition had adopted a different interlingual rendition method. and the techniques were studied in relation to the method chosen ) . 4. 1. 2.
Translation scheme and interlingual rendition techniques Whatever method is chosen. the transcriber may meet jobs in the interlingual rendition procedure. either because of a peculiarly hard unit. or because there may be a spread in the translator’s cognition or accomplishments. This is when interlingual rendition schemes are activated. Schemes are the processs ( witting or unconscious. verbal or gestural ) used by the transcriber to work out jobs that emerge when transporting out the interlingual rendition procedure with a peculiar aim in head ( Hurtado Albir 1996. 1999 ) .
Translators use schemes for comprehension ( e. g. . distinguish chief and secondary thoughts. set up conceptual relationships. hunt for information ) and for reformulation ( e. g. . paraphrasis. retranslate. state out loud. avoid words that are close to the original ) . Because schemes play an indispensable function in job work outing. they are a cardinal portion of the subcompetencies that make up interlingual rendition competency. Schemes open the manner to happening a suited solution for a interlingual rendition unit. The solution will be materialized by utilizing a peculiar techniqu.