đánh giá chất lượng bản dịch tiếng việt phần 7 cơn ác mộng trong cuốn tiểu thuyết chạng vạng áp dụng mô hình của j. house

1
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
-***-

LÊ MỸ HẠNH
Post-graduate Course: 16

A TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE
VIETNAMESE VERSION OF PART 7 “NIGHTMARE” IN THE
NOVEL “TWILIGHT” USING J.HOUSE’S MODEL
(ĐÁNH GIÁ CHẤT LƯỢNG BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG VIỆT PHẦN 7 “CƠN ÁC
MỘNG” TRONG CUỐN TIỂU THUYẾT “CHẠNG VẠNG”
ÁP DỤNG MƠ HÌNH CỦA J.HOUSE)

MA MINOR THESIS

Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60 22 15

Hanoi, 2010


2

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
-***-

LÊ MỸ HẠNH
Post-graduate Course: 16

A TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE
VIETNAMESE VERSION OF PART 7 “NIGHTMARE” IN THE
NOVEL “TWILIGHT” USING J.HOUSE’S MODEL
(ĐÁNH GIÁ CHẤT LƯỢNG BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG VIỆT PHẦN 7 “CƠN ÁC
MỘNG” TRONG CUỐN TIỂU THUYẾT “CHẠNG VẠNG”
ÁP DỤNG MƠ HÌNH CỦA J.HOUSE)

MA MINOR THESIS

Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60 22 15

Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Hùng Tiến

Hanoi, 2010

6

TABLES OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Pages

Declaration…………………………………………………………….

i

Acknowledgment……………………………………………………...

ii

Abstract………………………………………………………………..

iii

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………….

vi

INTRODUCTION

1

1. Rationale for the study…………………………………………

1

2. Scope and objectives of the study …………………………….

1

3. Research methodology…………………………………………

2

4. Organization of the study………………………………………

2

Chapter 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW

3

1.1. Translation theory…………………………………………….

3

1.1.1. What is translation?.......................................................

3

1.1.2. Translation procedures, strategies and methods………

3

1.1.3. Translation equivalence ………………………...……

7

1.1.4. Cultural factor in translation………………………….

9

1.1.5. Text types……………………………………………..

10

1.1.6. Two types of translation………………………………

12

1.2. Literary Translation…………………………………………...

13

1.2.1. General characteristics of Literary Language………...

13

1.2.2. Problems of literary translation ………………………

14

1.3. Views and models for translation quality assessment………

16


7
Chapter 2 – APPLICATION OF HOUSE’S MODEL FOR
TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

21

2.1.Overview of the model ………………………………………...

21

2.2. Summary of the original text‘s content ……………………….

23

2.3. Analysis of the original text based on J. House‘s model……..

23

2.3.1. Features of the Source Text in the light of Halliday‘s
functional grammar………………………………………….

23

2.3.2. Analysis of Source Text based on House‘s model……

26

Chapter 3 – DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

33

3.1. Source Text and Translation Text comparison and statement
of quality…………………………………………………………..

33

3.2. Implications for literary translation…………………………..

38

CONCLUSIONS

40

REFERENCES

41

APPENDIX

I - III


8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ST – Source Text
TT – Translation Text
SL – Source Language
TL – Target Language
SLT – Source Language Text
TLT – Target Language Text
TQA - Translation Quality Assessment


9

INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale for the study
In the process of globalization, English, in Vietnam, becomes more and more important. In
fact, there are more and more documents need to be translated such as economic contracts,
laws, politics, literature, ect. Therefore, the need for translation between languages is greater
than ever before. However, the number of good translators or interpreters, especially in
literature such as Duc Hieu, Thai Ba Tan, Thuy Toan, are limited.
There is a fact that there have been many literary translations so far such as Harry Porter,
The last leaf, Twilight, ect. But how much quality of the translations still draws much
discussion. Thus, it is extremely necessary to evaluate the translations, especially literary
translations.
Translation theorists have their own founded criteria for translation quality assessment.
Among them is Julian House, a German linguist, with a model for assessing translation quality.
From the researcher‘s point of view, J.House‘s model is a good one which can be used to
assess literary translation quality, specifically the chapter ―Cơn ác mộng‖ excerpting from the
novel Chạng Vạng by Tinh Thuy (translated from chapter 7 ―Nightmare‖ of the novel Twilight
- a young-adult vampire romance novel written by Stephenie Meyer).

2. Scope and Objectives of the study


Scope and Objectives:

―Twilight‖ - a wildly popular series for young adults - is a novel consisting of twenty four
chapters. However, this study will only focus on analyzing chapter 7 ―Nightmare‖.
Accordingly, it aims to analyze ST and TT under House‘s model to discover how much
quality of the translation text, find out some problems of literary translation, and put forward
some suggestions for this field of translation.
When reading the Literature Review it is easy to see that there are different views and
models on translation quality assessment (TQA). Among them, yet, J. House‘s model which is
based on pragmatic theories of Language Use sounds the most proper to be applied in


10
assessing literary translation, specifically chapter 7 ―Nightmare‖ excerpting from the novel
―Twilight‖.

3. Research methodology


Research Questions
The study aims at finding answers to the two following questions:
-



How much is the quality of Translation Text according to House‘s model ?
What are problems and implications for literary translation?

Subjects of the study
The subjects of this study are English and Vietnamese literary texts, J. House‘s model

on translation quality assessment, M A K Halliday‘s functional grammar.


Research method of the study
Qualitative analysis is employed to study individual texts closely. Moreover, since the

study is a descriptive-analytical one, descriptive and comparative techniques are used to
evaluate the translation text.
Specifically, data for this research is collected through the procedure of critical
analyzing. The analysis is based on J. House‘s model.
Under House‘s model, the analysis and comparison of ST and TT are carried out in
two sections: Dimensions of Language User and Dimensions of Language Use. In Language
User, three situational dimensions which refer to the features marking the provenance of a text
producer are introduced including Geographical origin, Social class, and Time. In Language
Use, five situational dimensions such as Medium, Participation, Social relationship, Social
attitude, and Province are applied for the analysis and comparison. Also, on each of the
dimensions, the researcher analyses the texts on three aspects: syntactic, lexical, textual means.

4. Organization of the study
The first chapter of the study will be literature review in which some related concepts
of translation theory and some typical models of translation quality assessment are discussed.
In the second chapter, the research will introduce an overview of the original text‘s
content, and J. House‘s model applied to analyze the ST.


11

In order to exemplify and demonstrate this TQA model, in the third chapter, the
researcher will apply J. House‘s model to analyze and compare English source text and its
Vietnamese translation text.

CHAPTER 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses the theoretical background of the study which firstly explores
some related concepts, and then some typical models of translation quality assessment.

1.1. Translation theory
1.1.1. What is translation?
There have been many different definitions of translation so far. From the researcher‘s
point of view, however, 5 following definitions should be taken into consideration:
-

Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or
statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language.
(Peter Newmark, 1988)

-

Translation deals with the signs and attempts to preserve semiotic, as well other
pragmatic and communicative, properties which signs display. (Basil Hatim and Ian
Mason, 1990)

-

Translation is the replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically and
pragmatically equivalent text in the target language. (J.House, 1977)

-

Translation is to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence to the
message of the source language, first in meaning and second in style. (Nida, 1975)

-

Translation means the replacement of a text in one language (Source Language) by an
equivalent in another language (Target language). (Cartford, 1965)
The five definitions of Peter Newmark, Basil Hatim and Ian Mason, J.House, Nida,

and Carford are expressed in different ways. However, they all share the same essence of
translation which lies in the preservation of semantic, pragmatic, and textual aspects of
meaning across two different languages.
1.1.2. Translation procedures, strategies and methods


12
As far as we know, translation is not a facial job. There is no problem to translate from
a source language to a target language if language is just a classification for a set of general or
universal concepts. But translation covers not only word for word translation but also many
other factors. The concepts of one language may differ radically from those of another. This is
because each language articulates or organizes the word in different way. The bigger the gap
between the SL and the TL gets, the more difficult the process of transfer will be. The
difference between the two languages and the difference in cultures makes the process of
translating a real challenge. Therefore, the translator is required to be thoroughly aware of
translation procedures, strategies and methods.

Translation methods
Concerning translation methods, there are many different classifications. Basing on

Peter Newmark‘s classifications, however, there are eight methods in translating which are
divided into two main groups called semantic translation and communicative translation. They
are put in the form of a flattened V diagram as follows:

SL emphasis

TL emphasis

Word-for-word translation

Adaption

Literal translation
Faithful translation
Semantic translation

Free translation
Idiomatic translation
Communicative translation

Source: V diagram of translation method (P.Newmark, 1988:45)

a. Word-for-word translation: The source language word is translated into another
language by their most common meanings, which can also be out of context at times,
especially in idioms and proverbs.
b. Literal translation: A literal translation is a translation that follows closely the form of
the source language. It is a case when the grammatical constructions of the source
language are translated to their nearest target language but the lexical words are
translated singly, out of context. (P.Newmark, 1988:46)

13
c. Faithful translation: This translation method means not putting in too much that isn't
there; trying to maintain a respectable degree of similarity of tone and form; and
hoping that the impression made on the reader in the receiving language resembles as
closely as possible the impression made on the reader in the original language. In other
words, the translation interprets the exact contextual meaning of the original within the
constraints of the grammatical structures of the target language.
d. Semantic translation: According to the definition of semantic translation on website
Semantic translation is the process
of using semantic information to aid in the translation of data in one representation to
another representation. Semantic translation takes advantage of semantics that
associate meaning with individual data elements in one dictionary to create an
equivalent meaning in a second system. Actually, Semantic translation refers to that
type of translation which takes into account the aesthetic value of the source language
text.
e. Adaptation: This method refers to a type of translation which is used mainly for plays
and poems. The text is rewritten considering the source language culture which is
converted to the target language culture where the characters, themes, plots are usually
preserved.
f. Free translation: A free translation is a translation that reproduces the general meaning
of the original text. It may or may not closely follow the form or organization of the
original. According to P. Newmark, free translation reproduces the matter without the
manner, or the content without the form of the original.
g. Idiomatic translation: : It translates the message of the original text but tends to distort
the original meaning at times by preferring colloquialisms and idioms.
h. Communicative translation: This method displays the exact contextual meaning of the
original text in a manner where both content and language are easily acceptable and
comprehensible to the readers.
Among all above-mentioned translation methods, semantic and communicative

translation are the two most common ones which are often used in literary translation by
the translator. P. Newmark stated that a semantic translation is written at the author‘s
linguistic level and used for ―expressive‖ texts, a communicative translation at the
readership‘s and used for ―informative‖ and ―vocative‖ texts.


14

Translation procedures
Translation is a field of various procedures. In addition to word-for-word and sensefor-sense procedures, the translator may use a variety of procedures that differ in importance
according to the contextual factors of both the ST and the TT.
a.

Transliteration: This procedure refers to the conversion of foreign letters into the
letters of the TL. Actually, this operation usually concerns proper names that do not
have equivalents in the TLT.

b. Borrowing: It refers to a case whereby the translator uses a word or an expression from
the source text in the target text
c. Calque: It refers to the case where the translator imitates in his translation the structure
or manner of expressions of the ST. In other words, the translator translates the
elements of the expression word for word.
d. Transposition: This procedure reflects the grammatical change that occurs in
translation from SL to TL. It, in fact, offers a variety of possibilities to avoid
untranslatability. Due to this, the translator seems to be more in favor of using it.
e. Modulation: Modulation is a change in point of view that allows us to express the same
phenomenon in a different way. It is classified into two types: standard modulation
(usually used in bilingual dictionaries) and free modulation (more practical in cases
where the target language rejects literal translation).
f. Reduction: In reduction procedure, the translator is more likely to reduce in the

number of elements that form the SLT. This procedure should respect the principle of
relevance, that is, the translator should make sure that no crucial information is
dropped in translation.
g. Expansion: Expansion refers to the case where the translator exceeds the number of
words of the ST in translation. Moreover, expansion procedure also occurs when the
translator tries to move from the implicit into the explicit.
h. Adaptation: This procedure is used as an effective way to deal with culturally-bound
words/expressions, metaphors and images in translation. In other words, the translator
bases on to the characteristics of the target language to rewrite the ST.
i.

Paraphrase: It is a procedure whereby the translator replaces a word in the source text
by a group of words or an expression in the target text


15
j.

Compensation: In this procedure, the translator solves the problem of aspects of the
source text that cannot take the same form in the target language by replacing these
aspects with other elements or forms in the source text
In general, these procedures are used by translators to add information about a

culturally-bound word/expression, or a technical term that is related to a specific domain.

1.1.3. Translation equivalence
Obviously, translation is the process to transfer written or spoken source language texts
to equivalent written or spoken target language texts. In translation theory, therefore,
equivalence is regarded as a central concept. The domain of equivalents covers linguistic units
such as morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, idioms and proverbs. Hence, finding equivalents

is the most problematic stage of translation. However, it is not meant that the translator should
always find one-to-one categorically or structurally equivalent units in the two languages, that
is, sometimes two different linguistic units in different languages carry the same function. The
translator, after finding out the meaning of an source language linguistic form, should ask
himself / herself what the linguistic form is in another language—target language—for the
same meaning to be encoded by.
From Eugene Nida‘s view point, there are two typical equivalences, namely formal
equivalence and dynamic equivalence. The first one centers on the form and content of the
message of the ST while the later aims at complete naturalness of expression in the TT.
However, Nida is in more favour of the application of dynamic equivalence. This is perfectly
understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing
with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product
of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different
readers it is addressing.
The British translation theorist Peter Newmark, influenced by the work of Nida, feels
that the difference between the source language and the target language would always be a
major problem. He acknowledges that it is necessary to achieve equivalent effect to produce
the same effect on the readership of the translation as was obtained on the readership of the
original. Also, Peter Newmark replaces the terms ―formal equivalence‖ and ―dynamic
equivalence‖ with ―semantic translation‖ and ―communicative translation‖, and alters the
focus of the translation back to the ST with his support for a literal approach.


16
An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker
(1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of
equivalence can be defined. She explores equivalence at different levels in relation to the
translation process such as grammatical, textual and pragmatic aspects. According to Baker,
equivalence can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one
language into another. In a bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the

first element to be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact, when the translator starts
analyzing the ST she/he looks at the words as single units in order to find a direct 'equivalent'
term in the TL. Concerning grammatical equivalence, Baker claims that different grammatical
structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or
message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator either to add or to omit
information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself.
With regard to textual equivalence, it refers to the equivalence between a SLT and a TLT in
terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it
provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the
translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the audience in a
specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties
as well as the coherence of the SLT. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors,
that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type. Unlike the two
above equivalence, pragmatic equivalence refers to implicatures and strategies of avoidance
during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is
implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in order to
get the ST message across.
More specifically, Werner Koller acknowledges that equivalence may be ―denotative‖,
―connotative‖, ―text-normative‖, ―pragmatic‖, and ―formal‖. These five factors are also the
five types of equivalence introduced by W. Koller. According to the scholar, there are five
factors which can be argued to play a relevant role in the specification of equivalence types.
Firstly, the extralinguistic content transmitted by a text determines denotative equivalence
kind. Secondly, the connotations factor transmitted by means of the word choice with respect
to level of style (register), the social and geographic dimension, frequency determines
connotative equivalence type. Thirdly, the text and language norms factor for given text-type
specifies the text-normative equivalence which is concerned with text-type specific features.


17
Fourthly, the receiver (reader) to whom the translation is directed in order to achieve an

intended effect determines pragmatic equivalence type (commonly termed as communicative
equivalence). Fifthly, the factor of formal-aesthetic features of the source text relates formal
equivalence type (which is referred by the literature the expressive equivalence or artisticaesthetic equivalence).
Another linguist who is also concerned with the notion of equivalence is Juliance
House. She emphasizes that equivalence is the conceptual basis not only of translation but also
of translation criticism where equivalence is the fundamental criterion of translation quality. In
the book Text Translation Computational Processing by Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop in
2001, Juliance House wrote that views of equivalence as simply based on formal, syntactic,
and lexical similarities alone are multiply ambiguous. Further, purely formal definitions of
equivalence have long been revealed as deficient in that they can not explain appropriate use
in communicative performance. This is why functional, pragmatic equivalence has been a
concept accepted in contrastive linguistics for a long time, and it is this type of equivalence
which is most relevant for translation. It is consequently used in the functional pragmatic
model where it is related to the preservation of ―meaning‖ across two different languages and
cultures.

1.1.4. Cultural factor in translation
In translation, especially literary translation, there is still a topic that manages to attract
a certain amount of attention from some of translation theory‘s leading scholars. It is the
cultural factor in translation.
With regard to the cultural factor in translation, the researcher attempts to clarify the
definition of culture first. Culture is a shared system for interpreting reality or system of
congruent beliefs, values, strategies and cognitive environments which guide the shared basis
of behaviour. What is particularly appropriate in this definition is the use of the word ‗shared‘,
since it is precisely the non-shared elements of language and culture that create the need for
transfer and translation. Culture can be defined as ―the entire setting of norms and conventions
an individual as a member of his society must know in order to be ‗like everybody‘ – or to be
different from everybody‖ . This definition points to the ―difference‖ which also marks the
need for transfer and translation.

18
Julian House, in the book Text Translation Computational Processing by Erich Steiner
and Colin Yallop in 2001, also mentions the concept of a ―cultural filter‖ which is a means of
capturing socio-cultural differences in expectation norms and stylistic conventions between
source and target linguistic-cultural communities. According to the linguist, it is essential to
take into account whatever knowledge there is about cultural differences between target and
source communities when doing the comparative analysis of source and target texts.
In fact, it is not easy to translate from a source language to a target language without
any errors. Because language has been argued to be arbitrary. By arbitrariness it is meant that
there is no one-to-one correspondence between the form of the word and the shape of the
object to which the word refers (Yule, 1985,18). This is especially true in the case of the
abstract words such as advice, meaning, feeling, etc. This means that language is based on
conventions. Also, some theorists have realized that language is not just about structure – it is
also about the way language used in a given social context.
From all above consideration, it is easy to recognize that there is a close relationship
between culture and literary translation. Translation is regarded as a means of cultural
enrichment and so is literary translation. Literary works, rich in cultural elements, are
reflections and sublimation of society and life. Most people get an understanding other nations
through translated texts, of which literary translation has occupied a quite large proportion. It
can be said that, at the time when a nation witnesses a considerable importation of foreign
cultural elements, a vast number of translated texts serve as media, via which foreign ideas
and concepts are introduced into the culture of the recipient nation. Importation of this kind
implants heterogeneous elements into the target culture, enriches its development.
Furthermore, the target social and cultural system provides sources for the translator and has a
certain impact on the literary translation. Culture refers to all socially conditioned aspects of
human life. Translation, literary translation is no exception, is one part of culture and no
doubted affected and restrained by other factors of culture. As Lefevere remarks that any
culture and society is the environment of a literary system and all systems are open to and
interact with each other (Lefevere, 1992: 14). Moreover, because these systems are rooted

deeply in the target cultural context, the importance of the cultural context is made much
account of. Hence, a translated work is always made in a certain socio-cultural background
and the process of translating is a cultural bound activity. Literary translation is no exception,


19
which is influenced not only by the source culture at one end but also the target culture at the
other end.

1.1.5. Text types
In order to have a good translation, the translator is required to be a ware of text types.
With respect to the classification of text types, in Reiss‘s book (1977), the scholar
introduces the traditional three text types: Informative, Operative, and Expressive. In an
informative text it guarantees direct and full access to the conceptual content of the SL text. In
an operative text it produces a text-form which will directly elicit the desired response. In an
expressive text it transmits a direct impression of the artistic form of the conceptual content.
Based on cognitive properties, there are five idealized text types or modes (adopted by
Hatim and Mason 1990, Albrecht 1995, Biber 1989 -based on linguistic criteria):
-

description: differentiation and interrelation of perceptions in space

-

narration: differentiation and interrelation of perceptions in time

-

exposition: comprehension of general concepts through differentiation by analysis or
synthesis

-

argumentation: evaluation of relations between concepts through the extraction of
similarities, contrasts, and transformations

-

instruction: planning of future behaviour
o with option (advertisements, manuals, recipes)
o without option (legislation, contracts)
However, from J.House‘s point of view, texts can be divided into two broad functional

categories: interpersonal and ideational.
IDEATIONAL

Technical

Scientific Text

Non-technical

Commercial Text

Journalistic Article

Tourist Information
Booklet

INTERPERSONAL

20
Non-fictional

Religious Sermon

Fictional

Political Speech

Moral Anecdote

Comedy Dialogue

(Source: J.House, 1977: 66)
In general, basing on different linguistic scopes, the above linguists have given
different classifications of text types in translation. However, to some extent, their ideas of
the basic and typical types of text coincide with each other.

1.1.6. Two types of translation
House (1977) also discusses about the

concept of two translation types: overt

translation and covert translation.
SOURCE TEXTS

Source culture-specific texts

Texts which are not source-culture

having independent status

specific, and do not have
independent status

addressees are

addressees are

addressees are

addressees are

non-specific:

specified: text

non-specific:

specified: text

text is not linked to

is linked to a

text is not linked to

is linked to a

a specific historical

specific historical

a specific historical

specific historical

occasion; text is

occasion; text is

occasion; text is

occasion; text is

fictional

non-fictional

non-fictional

non-fictional

Moral Anecdote

Political Speech

Scientific Text

Commercial

Comedy Dialogue

Religious Sermon

Tourist Information

Text

Booklet Journalistic
Article

OVERT TRANSLATION

COVERT TRANSLATION


21
(= second level function in translation)

(= function intact in translation)

(Source: J.House, 1977:203)
In an overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is, therefore,
no need at all to attempt to recreate a second original text since an overt translation must
overtly be a translation. In overt translation, the work of the translator is important and visible.
Since it is the translator‘s task to give target culture members access to the original text and its
cultural impact on source culture members. Also, the translator puts target culture members in

a position to observe and judge this text from outside. Thus, the major difficulty in translating
overtly is finding linguistic cultural equivalents particularly along the dimension of Tenor and
its characterizations of the author‘s temporal, social and geographical provenance.
Covert translation, on the other hand, means the production of a text which is
functionally equivalent to the ST. In this type of translation, the translator have to attempt to
recreate an equivalent speech event. Consequently, the function of a covert translation is to
reproduce in the target text the function that the original has in its frame and discourse world.
It is the translator‘s expression task to betray the original and to hide behind the
transformation of the original. Thus, the work of translator is clearly less visible, if not totally
absent.
In short, covert translation is less complex and more deceptive than overt translation.
In evaluating a translation, it is thus essential that the fundamental differences between overt
and covert translation be taken into account. These two types of translation clearly make
different demands on translation criticism.

1.2. Literary Translation
Literary studies have always, explicitly or implicitly, presupposed a certain notion of
―literariness‖. This notion of ―literariness‖ is crucial for the theoretical thinking about literary
translation. In the following part, the researcher attempts to put forward some general
characteristics of literary language and typical problems of literary translation.

1.2.1. General characteristics of Literary Language
Literature is the use of well-chosen words to tell a story through narrative, involving
characters in conflict, or to express an emotion or idea through artfully arranged images. The
purpose of literature is to entertain and instruct (or to delight and enlighten) the reader through


22
the use of the imagination. Literature can also shock, amaze, or provide readers with an escape
from reality for a while.

As far as we know, literary language is a part of general linguistics. Thus, almost
linguistics features used in literary texts are taken from general linguistics. However, literary
language possesses some typical characteristics.
Literary language possesses all the features that help to realize the descriptive goal of
literary texts. As Peter Newmark (1995:13) states, there is ―an emphasis linking verbs,
adjectives, and adjectival nouns‖. Besides, literary texts consists of the linguistic
particularities relating to ―major topics as cohesion, manning patterns, modality and evaluation,
the structure of narratives, the recording of character speech and thought, clause possesses and
participants, the dynamics of dialogue, presupposition and textual revision‖ (Michael Toolan –
1998)
Literary texts, especially in poetry, also carry the metrical and para-metrical features of
language. This is an adaptation of the linguistic form which is called the prosodic
phonological form. A linguistic form which is also used in literary language is parallelism in
syntax, semantics, and lexis.
In the case of narrative, one of the aspects of narrative form which exists
independently of language is the macro-structure, or large-scale structure. As far as we know,
it seems generally agreed upon that the structure of stories cannot adequately be accounted for
in terms of their sentence structures alone. Notions such as plot, scheme, theme and plan have
been used, both in classical literary scholarship and in structural analysis of myths, folktales
and other simple stories, in order to denote more global narrative structures.
In addition, literary language is closely related to cultural elements. These cultural
elements marked out the patterns and threads in the narrative whereby the overall cultural gap
that has to be bridged can be gauged, and some consideration can also be given to the balance
of items to be domesticated and foreignised. Moreover, these elements provide insights to the
author and an understanding of the undercurrents in the novel. It is, thus, clear that cultural
elements are central to any translation. To support this idea Nord (1997:11) states that ―….a
translation theory cannot draw on a linguistic theory alone… What it needs is a theory of
culture to explain the specificity of communicative situations and the relationship between
verbalized and non-verbalized situational elements‖.

23
1.2.2. Problems of literary translation
On the way to create a good translation, the translator has to face with a lot of
challenges, especially in aspect of literary translation where still exists a lot of problems.
The traditional discussion of the problems of literary translation considers finding
equivalents not just for lexis, syntax or concepts, but also for features like style, genre,
figurative language, historical stylistic dimensions, polyvalence, connotations as well as
denotations, cultural items and culture-specific concepts and values. The choices made by the
translators like the decision whether to retain stylistic features of the source language text or
whether to retain the historical stylistic dimension of the original become all the more
important in the case of literary translation. In the case of translating poetry, it is vital for a
translator to decide whether the verse should be translated into verse, or into free verse or into
prose. In a poetic-aesthetic work of art the usual distinction between form and content (or
meaning) no longer holds. In poetry, the form of linguistic units can not be changed without a
corresponding change in semantic, pragmatic, textual meaning. Since the form can not be
detached from its meaning, this meaning can not be expressed in another ways such as
paraphrases explanations, borrowing of new words are not possible in a translation of a poeticaesthetic work of art.
There is still an argument on the best way to translate literary texts, especially poems
within their conceptual framework. Some questions relating to this problem has already raised
such as: Is the translation possible at all? Should translation be ―literal‘ or ―free‖? Should it
emphasize the content or the form? Can a faithful translation be beautiful? The answers to the
question range from one extreme to the other and usually end in some sort of a compromise.
The great writers and translators gave their well-known dictums about translations, which
reflected these traditional beliefs about it.
One of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the
differences between cultures. A translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing
that each language contains elements which are derived from its culture that every text is
anchored in a specific culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from
culture to culture. In deed, translation is as a form of intercultural communication which raises

the problems that are not merely at the verbal level or at the linguistic level. The awareness
that one does not look for merely verbal equivalents but also for cultural equivalents, if there
are any, goes a long way in helping the translator to decide the strategies he or she has to use.


24
Translation then is no longer a problem of merely finding verbal equivalents but also of
interpreting a text encoded in one semiotic system with the help of another. A literary text
would implicate not only other verbal texts but also other modes of signification like food,
fashion, local medicinal systems, metaphysical systems, traditional and conventional
narratives like myths, literary texts, legends as well as literary conventions like genres, literary
devices, and other symbolic structures. The whole enterprise of finding cultural equivalents
raises awareness of the difference and similarities between the cultures. It also brings into
focus the important question of cultural identity. Clearly, literary translation exerts great
influence on the target culture, and at the same time, the target culture has never stopped
restraining the process of literary translation. It is held that ―there is always a context in which
the translation takes place, always a history from which a text emerges and into which a text is
transposed.‖ (Lefervere: 1990:11). As a matter of fact, literary translation has never escape
from the constraints of a certain target cultural context.

1.3. Views and models for translation quality assessment
The assessment of translations does not only have to take into account the ideal case of
integral communicative performance, in which the aim in the TL is equivalence as regards the
conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative function of a SL text. The practice of
translation is subject to a great many conditions which determine that such an integral
communicative performance can not, or even should not, be achieved. Theodore Savory
(Readings in translation theories,1957: 49) listed ten translation principles gleaned from the
literature, some of which are directly contradictory while others are mutually complementary.
They provide an impressive picture of the abundance of opinions about what a correct
translation should be like.

- A translation must give the words of the original.
- A translation must give the ideas of the original.
- A translation should read like an original work.
- A translation should read like a translation.
- A translation should reflect the style of the original.
- A translation should possess the style of the translation.
- A translation should read as a contemporary of the original.
- A translation should read as a contemporary of the translation.


25
- A translation may add to or omit from the original.
- A translation may never add to or omit from the original.
It is easy to see that none of these principles, taken alone, can be valid for all text
translations. On the other hand, they could never have arisen and been defended without some
support from translation practice.
Concerning the assessment of translations, Juliane House has already raised

a

question: ―How do we know when a translation is good?‖. Responding to this question, from
Forster‘s viewpoint (1958:6), a good translation is one which fulfills the same purpose in the
new language as the original did, or according to Zilahy (1963:258), a translation is
considered good when it arouses in us the same effect as did the original. However,
determining whether the translation is good or not should be based on a specific model of
quality translation assessment. In the following part, hence, the researcher introduces some
outstanding quality translation assessment models.
1.3.1. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach
Before Nida, most scholars writing about translation applied a particular linguistic
approach to the topic, taking translation to be a type of applied linguistics. But Nida‘s concern

centered on a systematic approach to translation. Three criteria suggested by Nida (1964: 182)
for assessing quality of a translation are programmatic and general: general efficiency of the
communication process; comprehension of intent; equivalence of response. The third and most
important criterion is, of course, closely to Nida‘s well-known basic principle of ―Dynamic (or
Functional) Equivalence of a translation‖; the manner in which receptors of the translation text
respond to the translation text must be equivalent to the manner in which the receptors of the
source text respond to the source text. Nida and Taber (1969:173) suggested three similar
criteria: the correctness with which the receptors understand the message of the original, the
ease of comprehension and the involvement a person experiences as a result of the adequacy
of the form of the translation. Again, these behavioral criteria need to be further explained and
put to the practical tests.
1.3.2. Koller’s text-based studies
Koller (1974) acknowledges the importance of a linguistic model of translation quality
assessment. Three steps for TQA has been introduced by the scholar. The first step is to


26
consider the transferability of the original text. If the original text is transferable, we have the
most equivalent translation. If the original text is untransferable, we have no equivalence or no
translation is made. The source text should be remained the same. The second step is to retranslate the target text into the source language. A translation is acceptable if the target text is
similar in meaning with the source text after it is re-translated. And the third step is to have
the translation proof-read by native speakers of the target language. A translation must satisfy
readers as native speakers of the target language. It means they can interpret the translation
without difficulties.
In general, in spite of presenting stimulating ideas, Koller does not go beyond a very
general outline with no suggestions for operationalization. Criteria that the transferability of a
text based have not been mentioned in his model. Moreover, the approach does not provide us
with specific ways so that it can be applied to a real translation. Thus, it needs to be further
developed and made more concrete in order to form a workable model of TQA.

1.3.3. Peter Newmark’s comprehensive criticism approach
According to Newmark, translation criticism is an essential component in a translation
course. He gives three reasons explaining for this idea. Firstly, it painlessly improves your
competence as a translator. Secondly, it expands your knowledge and understanding of your
own and foreign language, as well as perhaps of the topic. Thirdly, it will help you to sort out
your ideas about translation. As an academic discipline, translation criticism ought to be the
keystone of any course in comparative literature, or literature in translation, and a component
of any professional translation course with the appropriate text-type (eg.: legal, engineering,
ect) as an exercise for criticism and discussion.
P. Newmark states that any comprehensive criticism should cover five topics to criticize a
text:
1. A brief analysis of the SL text stressing its intention and its functional aspects
2. The translator‘s interpretation of the SL text‘s purpose, his translation method and the
translation‘s likely readership
3. A selective but representative detailed comparison of the translation with the original
4. An evaluation of the translation: in the translation‘s terms and in the critic‘s terms


27
5. An assessment of the likely place of the translation in the target language culture or
discipline

1.3.4. Juliane House’s functional-pragmatic approach
Juliane House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues
that ST and TT should match one another in function. The scholar suggests that it is possible
to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. In
fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which
has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. If the ST and the TT
differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the
translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that a translation text should not

only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to
achieve that function.
Juliane House gives a model for TQA which is based on pragmatic theories of
language. This model attempts to avoid anecdotalism, reductionism, programmatic statements
and intuitively implausible one-sided considerations of the ST and TT alone. In this model,
there is an analysis of linguistic-situational particularities of the source and target texts, a
comparison of the two texts, and an assessment of their relative match. The basic requirement
for equivalence is that the translation should have a function (consisting of an ideational and
an interpersonal functional component) which is equivalent to that of the original, and should
also employ equivalent pragmatic means for achieving that function. An initial analysis of the
original according to a set of situational dimensions for which linguistic correlates are
established will be made. Then, there will be a comparison of both the original‘s and the
translation‘s textual profiles and functions. In this comparison, some mismatches will occur.
There are two kinds of mismatches: Dimensional mismatches (pragmatic errors that have to do
with language users and language use), and Non-dimensional mismatches (in the denotative
meanings of original and translation elements and breaches of the target language system at
various levels). The final qualitative judgment consists of a listing of both types of errors and
of a statement of the relative match of the two functional components


28
In short, when having a look at all the four above models, it is clear that the three first
models still contains some limitations. In Nida and Taber‘s model, all the tests and criteria
suggested by these two scholars seem unfruitful. This can be explained by the two limitations:
the limited goal of establishing ease of comprehension and degree of intelligibility; and the
lack of reference to the source text. Whereas Koller‘s model appeared to be more proper when
he points to the necessity of developing a comprehensive, linguistic model of translation
quality assessment. But Koller does not go beyond a very general outline with no suggestions
for operationalization. And criteria that the transferability of a text based have not been
mentioned in his model. Concerning P. Newmark‘s model, all five topics to criticized a text

are clear. However, all these five criteria rather lean towards the translator/interpreter‘s
experiences only. As a result, this model seems to be more proper for the
translators/interpreters who have a lot of experiences in translating/interpreting but less
knowledge in translation theory. For the last model – House‘s model, all criteria in translation
quality assessment are specific and adequate with eight situational dimensions. In fact, it is a
functional- pragmatic model relating to semantic aspect, pragmatic aspect and textual aspect.
Hence, from the researcher‘s point of view, House‘s model is suitable for linguistic
researchers in general, and for this project in particular.