Download
1 / 12
120 likes | 135 Vues
about the authors. Both authors are based at the Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies at Heriot -Watt University, Edinburgh . Hatim and Mason contributed to discourse and register analysis through the two books they co-authored in the 1990s.
E N D
about the authors Both authors are based at the Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies at Heriot -Watt University, Edinburgh. Hatim and Mason contributed to discourse and register analysis through the two books they co-authored in the 1990s. In 1990 they wrote Discourse and the Translator. In 1997 they wrote The Translator as Communicator.
Theirmodel • Hatim and Mason’s model developed out of the Hallidayan model of language; however, they pay extra attention to the ideational and interpersonal functions,rather than just the textual function. • They incorporate into their model a semiotic level of discourse.
Analysis of transitivity shifts Hatim and Mason are concerned with the shifts that the transitivity system of the ST undergoes in the process of translation since this may convey an ideology that differs from the original. As an example, they examine a passage from a French model where the main character kills an Arab on the beach. In the English translation there are changes in the transitivity structure which caused a shift in the ideational function of the text. In the original French ST there are eight material process verbs, of which four are intention action processes.
The literal translation of these to English should read: I clenched my hand vs. my grip closed I touched the polished belly of the butt vs. the smooth underbelly of the butt jogged in my palm I fired vs.I fired I was striking on the door of misfortune vs. another loud, fateful rap on the door of my undoing
Conclusion: Patterns of shifts in the TT made the character more passive than in the ST, although they point that these shifts may be the result of the translator's general understanding of the novel, in which the character was, in fact, passive.
Shifts in modality What is modality? The term modality refers broadly to “attitudinal “ features of language, reflecting the text producer's attitude toward the truth of a proposition expressed by a sentence. It refers to some of the grammatical means (modal auxiliaries, seem, appear, etc.) by which a speaker or writer “qualifies” what would otherwise be an absolute statement. Modality indicates the speaker or author's point of view allowing them to hedge on assertions made by transitive verbs. Models introduce an element of obligation, necessity, willingness, probability or the like into the sentence.
Example of modality shift Literal translation of ST: the water with which she washed her hair must have come from a unique, unknown spring… However, the TT reads: the water with which she washed her hair came from a unique, unknown spring… The source text, with a modal auxiliary, introduces an element of expectation, or inference, into the sentence, whereas the target text conveys an absolute statement, eliminating any sense of possibility.
The influence of the translator's discourse p Hatim and Mason give an example to highlight the influence of the translator's discourse. This example is a Spanish ST translated to English. Although the Spanish ST is about the history of the indigenous Americans before the arrival of the Spaniards in Mexico, the writers show how the European translator imposed a Eurocentric view and consequently changed the whole indigenous perspective through his lexical choices. These choices include expressions such as pre-Columbian and Indian.
Idiolect and Dialect: what's the difference? In linguistics an idiolect is an individual's distinctive and unique use of language including speech. This unique usage encompasses vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. Idiolect is the variety of language unique to the individual. This differs from a dialect, a common set of linguistic characteristics shared among a group of people. Hatim and Mason consider idiolect within the analysis of tenor and register when they examined the Cockney dialect of characters in George Barnard Shaw’s play Pygmalion. The syntactic, lexical and phonetic features of the dialect are recognized by a British audience and associated with the way of speaking and the values of the uneducated London characters in the play. The writers point out that the systematic recurrence of this feature is a noteworthy object of the translator's attention.
The connotations of the dialect are unlikely to be replicated easily in any TT culture, and literary genre conventions in the target language may impose other challenges the translator must be aware of. A translator into Arabic, for example, might adopt a formal classical style since it is generally considered appropriate for literature in Arab cultures.
Discussion of Hatim and Mason’s model Hatim and Mason’s foundations of a model for analyzing texts incorporate and go beyond House's register analysis and Baker's pragmatic analysis. They combine the kind of bottom-up analysis with some top-down consideration of the semiotic level of the text. Language and texts are considered to be realizations of sociocultural messages and power relations. They represent discourse in a wider sense, defined as: modes of speaking and writing which involve social groups in adopting a particular attitude towards areas of sociocultural activity (e.g. racist discourse, bureaucrates, etc.).
Drawbacks However, there are a few issues which need to be considered: • The writers deal with a large number of concepts. • It is not clear that their model can be applied in the conventional sense of the term. This could be overcome by taking their proposals as a list of elements to be considered when examining translation. • Their focus often remains linguistics- centered, both in its terminology and in the phenomena investigated (lexical choice, cohesion, transitivity, style shifting, etc.)
