Nominalization in scientific discourse and the problems related to the translation of the nominal group from English into Vietnamese

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (7.56 MB, 13 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

NOMINALSATION IN SCIENTIFIC DISCO URSE AND

THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE TRANSLATION OF

THE NOMINAL GROUP FROM ENGLISH INTO VIETNAMESE

1. In trod u ction

T ranslating is a very complex
process. It is complex because it involves
many problem-solving and decision
m aking task s which seem to strike the
tra n sla to r’s mind sim ultaneously during
the tran slatin g process. Furtherm ore,
w hat seems to be more problematic for
the tra n sla to r is th a t w hen tra n sla tin g a
text, s/he will have to create in the
targ et language (TL) an equivalent
context which is foreign to the TL itself.
To p u t it more specifically, the problem
lies in the seemingly contradictory view
th a t in tra n sla tin g a text from English
into Vietnam ese, we have to create in
V ietnam ese a context th a t is foreign to
V ietnam ese w ith an aim th a t the
V ietnam ese reader will u n d erstan d the
m eaning th a t is sim ilar to the meaning
in the w riter’s original text. W ith regard
to th e tra n sla tio n of scientific texts,
w hat seem s to be a problem for the
tra n sla to r is th a t scientific discourse is a
kind of language for the expert not for
lay people, one which, according to

H alliday in H alliday & M artin (1993: 67)
m akes explicit th e tex tu al and logical
interconnections b u t leaves m any local
am biguities. H alliday (ibid.) points out 
th a t th e am biguities arise especially in
two places: (1) in strings of nouns (i.e.,
heavily loaded nom inal groups), leaving

n Assoc.Prof., School of Graduate Studies, VNU, Hanoi.

H oang Van V a n (,)

explicit th e sem antic relatio n s (namely
th e tra n sitiv ity relations) am ong them
an d (2) th e re la tio n a l verbs which are
often in d e te rm in a te an d m ay face both
ways. It is th e first of th ese issues th a t I
am concerned w ith in th is paper. As a
way of s ta rt, I will look briefly a t the
n a tu re of nom inalization in scientific
te x tu a l environm ent. T hen I will discuss
some length the m ain problem s related
to th e tra n s la tio n of th e nom inal group
from E nglish into V ietnam ese.

2. The N ature o f N om in alization

in

S c ie n tific

T extu al

E n v ir o n m e n t

As tra n sla to rs, w hen we tra n sla te a
scientific tex t from one language into
another, we te n d to th in k th a t the
problem s lie in th e tra n sla tio n of
technical term inology. T his tendency is
clearly reflected in N ew m ark’s

Approaches to T ranslation (1988a) and A 
Textbook o f T ranslation (1988b). For

N ew m ark, term inology is th e only
criterion th a t d istin g u ish es technical
tra n sla tio n from o th er forms of
tra n sla tio n . From our point of view, we
concede th a t technical term s are an
essen tial p a rt of scientific language
which m ay cause problem s to the
tra n s la to r an d th a t it would be
im possible to c reate a discourse of

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

12 Hoang Van Van

organised knowledge w ithout them.
However, technical term s are not the
whole story in scientific tran slatio n even
though they are the lexical resources
which are highly visible’ (Halliday &
M artin 1993: 7). W hat is equally, if not
more significant both for th e discourse

analyst and the tra n sla to r is not so
much the term s them selves as the
potential th a t lies behind them . Halliday
& M artin (1993) claim th a t th ere is
another aspect of scientific language
th a t is ju st as im portant as technical
terminology. He term s it “technical
gram m ar”. The scope of th is paper does
not perm it to discuss in detail w hat
technical gram m ar is. Therefore, w hat I
should do is to focus only on some of the
features which I think m ight be of
in terest to the translator.

‘According to H alliday & M artin
(1993), technical gram m ar possesses two
potentialities: (1) tu rn in g verbs and
adjectives into nouns, m aking them
become technical term s and (2)
expanding the scope of th e nominal
group - including the potential of
combining the two together. This process
of nominalization is referred to as
‘gram m atical metaphor* which is defined
as ‘the transform ation of one class of
word to another with the words (the
lexical items) rem aining th e sam e’ or
‘the substitution of one gram m atical
class, or one gram m atical stru ctu re, by
another* (Halliday & M artin 1993: 79).

N om inalization as a form of
gram m atical m etaphor can be traced
back to early scientific w riting. It has
been suggested th a t ancient Greek
scientists exploited the potential for

transform ing verbs and adjectives into
nouns. In th is way, they generated
ordered sets of technical term s, abstract
entities which had begun as the nam e of
process or properties or in some cases as
the nam es of relations between
processes. Then these scientists
developed th e modifying potential of the
Greek nom inal group, the resources of
extending th e nom inal group with
embedded clauses and prepositional
phrases. In th is way, they generated
complex specifications of bodies and
figures. This process of nominalization
was tak en over and fu rth er extended in
English and in other European
languages. I t has also been found in
Chinese and other Asian languages as
well (for a more detailed discussion, see
Halliday in Halliday & M artin 1993:
124-132).

Below is an extract tak en from

Halliday in H alliday & M artin (1993) to
illu strate how the two potentialities of
technical gram m ar work in English.

I f the hum ours o f the eye by old age 
decay, so as by shrinking to make the 
cornea and coat o f the crystalline 
hum our grow f l a t t e r (1) than before, the 
light will not be r e fr a c te d (2) enough 
and for w ant o f a sufficient re fra c tio n 
(2*) w ill not converge to the bottom o f the 
eye but to some place beyond it, and by 
consequence p a in t in the bottom o f the 
eye a con fu sed (3) picture, and 
according to the in d is tin c tn e s s (39) of 
this picture the object w ill appear 
confused. This is the reason for the decay 
° f sight in old men, and shews why their 
sight is mended by spectacles. For some 
co n v e x (4) glasses supply the defer* o f

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

p lu m p n e s s ( l 9) in the eye i f the glass 
has a due degree o f c o n v e x ity (49). A n d 
the contrary happens in short-sighted 
men whose eyes are too plum p.

In the above extract, there are four
pair: (1) : (1’), (2) : (2’), (3) (3’), and (4)
(4’). In each of the pairs, a verb or an
adjective in the first expression has been

reworded in the second as a noun. This
process of nom inalization can be
represented as follows:

flatter ... ► plum pness

refracted ...► refraction
confused ... ► indistinctness
convex ... ► convexity

A close exam ination of th is process
reveals th a t in each case gram m atical
process has tak en place which enables a
piece of discourse th a t was previously
presented as New inform ation to be re
used as Given in th e course of the
succeeding argum ent. This is an
im portant feature of scientific discourse
th a t the tra n sla to r should be aw are of
when tra n sla tin g a scientific text.

According to technical gram m ar, the
process of tu rn in g verbs and adjectives
into nouns which is the first step in the
nom inalization process is term ed the
“process of objectification”. This process
consists of two in terd ep en d en t sub
process: (1) creating technical term s and
(2) nom inalizing the gram m ar. The
interdependency of these two features

can be explained as follows:

C reating a technical term is itself a
gram m atical process; and w hen the
argum ent is constructed by the gram m ar
in th is way, the words th a t are turned
□into nouns tend thereby to become

technicalised. (H alliday in H alliday &

M artin 1993: 8)

The second step is to nominalise not
only the process b u t also any
participants and circum stances th a t go
w ith it: th a t is, gram m atically expanding
the nom inal group still fu rth er to include
some or all the elem ents of the clause;
for example:

Over recent yearsy gram m ar has been 
restored from its temporary exile

... ► The restoration o f gram m ar from

its temporary exile over recent years

In the above example, there is a
complex process of nom inalization. The
process restored has become a noun

restoration; the goal in the process 
gram m ar has become its Possessor o f 
gram m ar functioning as Qualifier in the

nom inal group; and the two
circum stances from its exile and over

recent years have retain ed th eir original

forms, b u t function as its Qualifiers.
W hen wording are packaged in this
way, they tu rn th e clause into a nominal
group, enabling it to function in another
clause. This helps to construe the
phenomenon as if it were a thing
because nom inalization downgrades the
gram m atical sta tu s of m eaning so th a t
“w hat m ight be construed as a
combination of interdependent clauses in
the spoken mode is reconstrued as
edifice of words an d phrases in writing”
(Halliday & M a rtin 1993: 39). And in
this way, th e m eaning comes to function
a t the lower ra n k in the gram m ar - at
the ran k of group/phrase and word,
instead of a t th e ran k of clause. This
opens up a v a st potential for the

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

nom inalised form to function in the
clause: the nom inalised form can be
placed in the clause as T hem e or New; it
can be made both as T hem e an d New; it
can be exclusively identified as New or
Theme and so on; for exam ple:

Theme: The restoration o f gram m a r

from its tem porary exile over 
recent years h as attracted 
m uch attention fro m language 
teaching m ethodologists.

New: W hat has attracted m uch

attention from language

teaching m ethodologists is the 
restoration o f g ra m m a r from 
its tem porary exile over recent 
years.

Them e It is the restoration o f
& New: g ra m m a r from its temporary
exile over recent years th a t has 
attracted m uch attention from 
language teaching methodologists.

Theme: T hat the restoration o f
g ra m m a r from its temporary 
exile over recent years has 
attracted m uch attention from

language teaching

methodologists is a matter o f fact

Furtherm ore, th e nom inalised form
can be m ade to function as p a rtic ip a n t in
a v ast a rra y of relatio n al clause types
which can be developed to describe, to
classify, to exemplify, to decompose, to
order, to interface, to c o n tra st to prove,
to explain and so on. Below are some
examples to illu s tra te th is point:

(1) The restoration o f g ra m m a r from 
its temporary exile over recent years 
represents a new w ay o f looking at 
second I foreign language teaching.

Hoang Van Van

(2) The restoration o f gram m ar from 
its temporary exile in recent years proves 
that gram m ar still has its p a rt in 
second I foreign language teaching.

(3) The restoration o f gram m ar from 
its temporary exile in recent years leads 
to the conclusion th a t gram m ar should 
not have been ignored.

(4) The restoration o f gram m ar from 
its temporary exile in recent years has

attracted much attention from

second I foreign language teaching

methodologists.

3. P roblem s related

to the

tra n sla tio n o f the N om inal

Group

from

E nglish

into

V ietn am ese

3.1. I n tr o d u c to r y R e m a rk s

In th is section, an attem pt is made to
answ er the question: “W hat are the
m ain problems related to the translation
of the nom inal group from English into
V ietnam ese?” Before answ ering, three
points should be mentioned in relation to

this question. First, as mentioned,
tran slatio n is a process full of problem
solving tasks (Levy, 1970). T ranslation
problems, therefore, have become a
common issue for both tran slatio n
theorists and translation practitioners.
However, they differ in how they look a t
tran slatio n problems. Newm ark (1988a,
1988b), for example, states th a t in
scientific and technical tran slatio n , the
problems arise mainly from th e new
terminology. A part from this, he
identifies some other related problems
such as the varieties of technical stvle,
the constraints of register, th e n atu re
and the degree of formality of th e text,

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

and the differences betw een the TL
readership and the original one. H atim
& Mason (1990), on the other hand, after
considering the aids th a t modern
technology may provide to facilitate the
tran slato r, conclude th a t aids to
tran slato rs are im proving all the time,
but th e basic problems faced by
tran slato rs and th eir work rem ain the
same. These problems are: (1)
comprehension of the source text (ST)
(parsing of text, access to specialized
knowledge, access to intended meaning),

(2) tran sfer of m eaning (relaying lexical
meaning, relaying gram m atical
meaning, relaying rhetorical meaning,
including implied and inferable
meaning, for potential readers); and (3)
assessm ent of ta rg e t tex t (TT)
(readability, conforming to generic and
discursive TL conventions, judging
adequacy of tran slatio n for specified
purpose). Secondly, from the theoretical
and practical points of view, we are fully
aw are of the fact th a t it would be totally
inadequate to discuss the problems in
tra n sla tin g the nom inal group w ithout
considering such factors as the context of
the ST, the context w here the TT is
placed, the text type, the intention of the
w riter, and so on. Space does not perm it
discussion of these factors. Hopefully,
some of the inadequacies m ay be
som ew hat circum vented by choosing a
text whose context is likely to be fam iliar
tò m ost teachers and students of
second/foreign languages. I shall discuss
the problems related to th e tran slatio n
of the nom inal group from English into
V ietnam ese by tak in g the text “ELT
and EL Teachers: M atters Arising” by
H.G. Widdowson which was printed in

th e ELT Jo u rn a l, Volume 43/4, 1992.
Then, I will select from th e tex t some
long, stru c tu ra lly complex and
syntactically am biguous nom inal groups
for identifying and discussing
tra n sla tio n problem s.

The approach I tak e im plies th a t
w hen we discuss th e problem s related to
the tra n sla tio n of th e nom inal group
from E nglish into V ietnam ese, we are a t
the sam e tim e considering all th e factors
m entioned above. And thirdly, it should
be pointed out th a t tra n sla tio n problems
differ from one tra n s la to r to another. In
tra n s la tin g a text, for an incom petent
tra n s la to r th e re m ay be a lot of
problem s, w hile for a com petent
tra n sla to r, th e re m ay be few or none.
For th is reason, it would be difficult to
ta lk about tra n s la tio n problem s w ithout
settin g a sta rtin g point. Shall we discuss
the tra n sla tio n problem s experienced by
all tra n s la to rs (tra n sla to rs a t all levels
of competence) or only those experienced
by incom petent tra n s la to rs or ju s t the
ones th a t are faced by com petent
tra n sla to rs? I sh all adopt th e th ird
position, ta k in g th e com petent tra n sla to r
as th e sta rtin g p o int for identifying and

discussing tra n s la tio n problems. A
sim ple reason for th is is th a t a certain
degree of com petence is an essential
condition for being a tran slato r; one
cannot be th o u g h t of as a tra n sla to r
w ithout th is basic equipm ent (for a more
detailed discussion of th e tra n sla to r’s
competence, see Bell 1991: 35-43). From
th is s ta rtin g point, I shall focus on two
m ain tra n sla tio n problem s which, I
believe, th e com petent English-
V ietnam ese tra n s la to r m ay experience

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

16 Hoang Van Van

when tran slatin g the nom inal group
from English into V ietnam ese. These
are: (1) stru ctu ral complexity and
syntactic am biguity and (2) th e problems
of word choice and ordering of elem ents
in the V ietnam ese tra n sla te d nominal
group. (1) is concerned w ith the
problems of comprehension and analysis
of the English nom inal group and (2) is
concerned w ith the problems of
establishing correspondences between
the lexical units in the English nom inal
group and those in the V ietnam ese
counterpart and the problems in
producing n atu raln ess in the

V ietnam ese tra n sla te d nom inal group.

3.2. S tru ctu ra l C om p lexity and
S y n ta c tic A m b igu ity

When com petent English-V ietnam ese
tran slato rs come across such nom inal
groups as (1) the first p a r t, (2) the new

language program m e, (3) these two 
radical differences and so on; th ere may

be no problems for them because the
lexical item s and the stru c tu re s of these
nom inal groups m ay already be in the
two stores located in th eir b rain s which
Bell (1991) calls “F req u en t Lexis Store”
(FLS) and “F req u en t S tru c tu re Store”
(FSS) (for a detailed discussion of FLS
and FSS, see Bell 1991: 45-53, 141-148).
When presented w ith a nom inal group
like (2), w hat the tra n sla to r h as CO do is
to m atch the V ietnam ese lexical item s
and their orders w ith those in the
English original. This m atching process
may be elaborated as follows: the P arser
in the tra n sla to r’s brain will tell him /her
th a t programme which functions as the 
Head of the English nom inal group
corresponds to chương trìn h which also

functions as the Head of the V ietnam ese
counterpart; language which functions 
as the Classifier and precedes th e Head
(programme) corresponds to học tiếng 
which has the sam e function b ut follows
the Head (chương trình) in the
V ietnam ese tra n sla te d nominal group;

new which functions as the E pithet and

precedes language programme

corresponds to m ới which h as the same 
function b u t follows chương trình học

tiếng; and the which functions as Deictic

in the English nom inal group and
precedes new language programm e is not 
tran slated because in V ietnam ese there
are no lexical item s which may
correspond to the definite article the in 
English. All these seemingly
sim ultaneous operations are based on
the tra n sla to r’s contrastive knowledge of
the stru ctu res of the English and
V ietnam ese nom inal groups. The
tran slatio n of th is nom inal group
presents no problems for him /her

because the order of the elem ents in the
nom inal groups of both languages are
unm arked

(Deictic AE p ith e tAC lassifierAThing in
English and T hingAC lassifierAE pithet in
Vietnamese). The resu lt of these
tran slatio n operations is th a t the
m eaning which is expressed through the
English nom inal group the new language

program m e is transform ed into

Vietnamese as chương trình học tiếng mới.
However, as has been pointed out
elsewhere (H. V. Van 1994, 2005),
scientific texts in English do not always
contain simple and unm arked nominal
groups like the ones we discussed above.
In an English scientific text, one may

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

come across m any long and complex
nominal groups w ith high lexical
density, or to use Bell’s (1991) term,
“high inform ativity”. These nominal
groups, according to H alliday in
Halliday & M artin (1993), often m ake it
difficult for the tra n sla to r (reader) to
process the m eaning, analyze the
stru ctu re and in te rp re t the logical

sem antic relations among the elem ents.
Below are two exam ples tak en from H.G.
Widdowson’s (1992) text: “ELT and EL
Teachers: M atters Arising” to illu strate
the point:

(1) These contents were originally
made a t the concluding session of the
ELT Jo u rn al 45th A nniversary
Symposium (October 1991) which was
entitled ‘T h e changing roles and n atu re
of ELT”.

(2) Here, then, are a num ber of
problem atic m atters arising from the
symposium concerning th e n atu re of
ELT an d the role of EL teachers.

At the central level (at the level of
the whole nom inal group), th e structures
of th ese nom inal groups look ra th e r
simple. If our analysis is appropriate,
the experiential and logical stru ctu res of
these nom inal groups may be
represented as follows:

(1) Deictic A Classifier A Thing A Qualifier

Y A B A a A B

(2) Deictic A T hing A Q ualifier

B A a A B

A close look, however, a t the in tern al
stru ctu re of these nom inal groups will
reveal th a t they are extrem ely complex.

This is because each of them consists of
different layers of modification which
will call for careful analysis and
in terp retatio n from th e tran slato r. When
presented w ith nom inal groups as such,
if the tran slato r does not in terp ret the
logical relationships among its elements
correctly, s/he will give wrong analysis,
and wrong analysis will certainly result
in wrong tran slatio n . In translation
practice, we som etim es h e a r translators
complain about the fact th a t when they
read an English sentence they
u n d erstan d every word in it, but they
cannot get its m eaning across. And once
they cannot get th e m eaning across, they
cannot tra n sla te th e sentence into the
ta rg e t language. This problem is partly
due to the tra n sla to r’s inability to
analyze the stru ctu re of th e sentence for
its m eaning an d p artly due to its
stru c tu ra l complexity which is often the

source of syntactic ambiguity. In a long
and complex nom inal group, syntactic
am biguity can be seen a t every layer of
modification. Let us consider the
nom inal group in exam ple (2) to see how
stru c tu ra l complexity creates syntactic
am biguity and how these two factors
cause problems to th e tran slato r.

The analysis of the nom inal group in
example (2) shows th a t it consists of four
layers of modification. In th e first layer,

num ber functions as the Head of the

whole nom inal group, a functions as 
Deictic and o f problem atic ... teachers 
functions as Q ualifier. In th e second
layer, m atters functions as Thing,

problem atic functions as E pithet, arising 
from the sym posium functions as
Q ualifier 1 and concerning ... teachers

</div>
(8)<div class='page_container' data-page=8>

18 Hoang Van Van

functions as Qualifier 2. In the third
layer, Qualifier 1 contains th e nominal
group the sym posium which function as 
Deictic and Thing respectively and

Qualifier 2 consists of two P aratactical
nominal groups: (1) the nature o f E L T 
and (2) the role o f E L teachers. In (1) the 
functions as Deictic, nature as Thing and

o f E L T as Qualifier. In (2) the functions

as Deictic, role as Thing and o f E L

teachers as Qualifier. And in the fourth

layer, E L T functions as Thing (below 
nominal group 1) and E L teachers as 
Classifier and Thing respectively. The
problem here is th a t when faced w ith a
structurally complex nom inal group like
this, even the com petent tra n sla to r may
easily get confused in identifying the
layers of modification which are
inherently syntactically ambiguous.
When it comes to the tran slatio n of the
example we have analyzed, one of the
questions the tra n sla to r m ay ask is
‘W hich Head does concerning ... teaciiers 
modify, m atters or sym posium ?\

F urther, because arising is a non-finite 
verb in the clause arising from the

sym posium , we do not know exactly

w hether it is in the continuous tense or
the past continuous tense or the prei en t
perfect continuous tense. Sim ilarly, if

concerning ... teachers is in terp reted as

a non-finite embedded clause, we do not
know which tense it is in either. Alìó
lexically concerning is ambiguous. Even 
when concerning ... teachers is
identified as Post modifier of m atters, it 
is still not known w hether it is ...

m atters which were I have been

concerning the nature o f E L T a nd the 
role o f E L teachers or m atters which wer ? 
/have been concerned w ith the natufe ...

teachers or m atters w hich were I have 
been about the nature ... teachers or 
m atters which involved I have involved 
the nature o f E L T an d the role o f E L 
teachers. Can the whole nom inal group

be reworded as a num ber o f problematic

m atters which were I have been (arising 
from the sym posium ) a n d (concerned

w ith I concerning the nature o f E L T and 
the role o f E L teachers) or as a num ber of 
problematic m atters w hich were I have 
been (arising from the sym posium which

were I have been (concerned

w ith I concerning the nature o f E L T and 
the role o f E L teachers)? Of course, it

may be difficult to decide.

In the pre-modifying position of the
English nom inal group, syntactic
am biguity may also cause problems for
the tran slato r. Suppose th a t the
tra n sla to r is tra n sla tin g th e nominal
group in example (1) the concluding

session o f the E L T Jo u rn a l 45th 
Anniversary Sym posium (October 1991) 
which was entitled “The changing roles 
and nature o f E L T and a fte r tran slatin g 
the concluding session into V ietnam ese

as phiên b ế mạc, s/he now moves on to 
tra n sla te th e Qualifier in which s/he
comes across the nom inal group the E L T

Journal 45th Anniversary Sym posium . In

term s of th e num ber of words, this
nom inal group looks ra th e r simple. The
whole nom inal group consists of only six
elem ents w ith Sym p o siu m functioning 
as Head. B ut if we explore its m eaning
carefully, we may find th a t it contains a
great deal of w hat H alliday (1993) calls
“local am biguity”. W hat does the E L T

Journal 45th A nniversary Sym posium

mean? Does it m ean (1) th e symposium
which was about the 45th an n iv ersary or

</div>
(9)<div class='page_container' data-page=9>

(2) thie symposium which was held to
celebrrate the 45th anniversary of the
ELT JJournal or (3) the symposium which
was hield on the 45th anniversary of the
ELT Journal? ... Even w ith the E L T

Jourm al we still do not know w hether it

is thee journal for ELT or the journal
which I is named after ELT. Or else, it
may be also possible to in te rp re t the

E L T tfJournal as a specialized journal for

teacheers of English as a second/foreign

languiage. All these in terp retatio n s may
be plaiusible because the nom inal group,
exceptt the Deictic the, is made up of 
lexicail words, leaving inexplicit the
sem am tic relations among the elements.
This vwill certainly give rise to different
sem am tic interp retatio n s and may partly
explaiin why there are different versions
of tram slatio n of one source text.

3.3. TThe p rob lem s o f W ord C hoice 
anid O rdering o f E lem en ts in th e 
V ieetnam ese T ra n sla ted N om in al 
Grroup

Wiilss (1982b) introduces the concept
“transslator-specific aspects of translation
equivalence” to account in p a rt for the
fact tth a t different tra n sla to rs produce
differeBnt TL versions of one and the
sam e í SL text. According to Wilss, every
tran sliato r, like every hum an being,
stands? in a specific relation to reality.
S/He jpossesses a specific linguistic and
extra-llinguistic volume of experience
and a I range of tran slatio n al interests.
S/He belongs to a specific language
commiunity, and w ithin th is language
com m iunity s/he belongs to a specific
social group which determ ines his/her

value system, which in tu rn controls
his/heir tran slatio n al production. A gainst
this scocial and cultural background, this

m eans th a t tran slatio n is always subject
to interference from the subjectivity of
the translator. In discussing translation
problems we m ust adm it th a t
tran slato rs are not ab stract entities, but
hum an beings, and as such leave their
fingerprints on th eir finished translation
products. Since in practice no two
fingerprints are exactly alike, there are
“no completely identical TL versions of a
SL text which h as been tran slated by
various tran slato rs, even if the
tran slato rs possess a comparable degree
of tran slatio n competence and even if
the outw ard conditions for the
translation of th e p articu lar text are
identical” (Wilss 1982b: 9).

W ith regard to the tran slatio n of the
nominal group, the tra n sla to r’s
subjectivity can be seen in the choice of
words and the ordering of the elements
in the TL nom inal group. Below we shall
first consider some of th e nominal
groups in the three Vietnam ese
translations of an English sentence in

H.G. Widdowson’s tex t “ELT and EL
Teachers: M atters Arising” to see how
word choice m ay cause problems for the
translator.

English text:

These com m ents were originally
made a t the concluding session of the
ELT Jo u rn al 45th A nniversary
Symposium (October 1991) which was
entitled “The changing roles and nature
of ELT”.

Vietnam ese v ersion Is

(1) N hững lịi bình lu ận này được đưa
ra vào (2) phiên k ế t thúc của hội nghị
thảo luận kỷ niệm 45 năm th à n h lập Tạp
chí Dạy tiếng Anh với nhan đề “Những

</div>
(10)<div class='page_container' data-page=10>

20 Hoang Van Van

vai trò đang chuyển đổi và bản chất của
dạy tiếng Anh.

Vietnam ese version 2:

(1) Những vấn đề này lần đầu tiên
được đưa ra tại (2) kỳ họp b ế mạc của hội

thảo kỷ niệm 45 năm của Jo u rn al ELT
(tháng 10 năm 1991) m ang chủ đề “Thực
chất và vai trò đang th ay đổi của việc
dạy tiếng Anh.

Vietnam ese version 3:

(1) Những nhận xét này nguyên được
đưa ra tại (2) phiên b ế mạc Hội thảo kỷ
niệm lần thứ 45 ngày th à n h lập Tạp chí
ELT (tháng 10 năm 1991) n h an đề “Vai
trò đang thay đổi và bản ch ất của việc
dạy tiếng Anh.

It is clear from the three versions of
translation th a t different tra n sla to r’s
choose different words th a t they think
may correspond to the ones in the ST. In
nominal group (1), com ments is
tran slated into Vietnam ese as những lời
bỡnh luận (comments), những vấn đề 
(m atters/issues), những nhận xét

(remarks). In nom inal group (2), the

concluding session is tra n sla te d as phiên 
kết thúc, kỳ họp b ế mạc; Symposium: hội 
nghị thảo lu ậ n , hội thảo; en titled : với 
nhan đề (with title), m ang chủ đề (carry

topic/theme), nhan đề (entitle); E L T

Journal. Tạp chí dạy tiếng A n h , Journal 
E L T , Tạp chí E L T and so forth. W hat

needs comments here is th a t if we look
a t the three versions of tran slatio n of an
English word or word group, we can see
th a t these three words or word groups
are synonymous or sem antically related;
e.g. com m ents: (1) những lời bình lu ậ n ,
(2) những vấn đế, and (3) những nhận

xét. T herefore, to choose a w ord or an

expression which may most correspond
to th a t in the ST seems to be a problem
for the tra n sla to r because “words don’t
find th eir equivalences in the new
language, nor do cultural expressions
and the tran slato r will never approach a
text twice in the same way” (Biguenet &
Schulte 1989: Introduction). And since
there is no one-to-one correspondence
between a word in the SL text and th a t
in the TL text and since no two
tran slato rs ca n ever produce th e same
version of translation of a ST, the
problems of word choice still rem ain.

O ur la st issue in th is section
concerns the problems of ordering of
elem ents in t he tra nslated Vietnamese
nom inal group. It is generally accepted
in tran slatio n theory and practice th a t
one of the most im portant criteria for
judging the quality of tran slatio n is
readability. Readability, according to
Hohulin (1982), is dependent on the
n atu raln ess of language use. Readability
also implies th a t any tra n sla te d text
which includes too many gram m atical
structures which are closer to the SL
structures or use will not be n atu ral
because word order, sentence length,
ways of presenting inform ation, and so
on, are language-specific (see Wilss
1982b, Ne u b ert 1984, and H atim &
M ason 1990). It is clear from our
contrastive knowledge th a t the order of
elem ents in the English and V ietnam ese
nom inal groups are not similar.
Therefore, when tra n sla tin g an English
nom inal group, especially a long,
structurally complex and syntactically
ambiguous one into V ietnam ese, the
ordering of elem ents so as to assure
n atu raln ess in the tran slated

</div>
(11)<div class='page_container' data-page=11>

Vietnam ese nominal group may present

the tra nslator w ith so me pr oblems. To .
illu strate this point, let us consider two
nominal groups in a sentence tak en from
the ELT article ‘T each er T raining for Sri
Lanka: PRINCETT” by C harles P a r ish
and Raymond

w.

B rown which was
printed in the ELT Jo u rn al, Volume 42/1
Ja n u a ry 1988:

Because of (1) its carefully planned
integration of components, however, it is
seen as (2) an im p o rtan t im provem ent
over the traditional teacher-training
programme.

V ietnam ese idiom atic version of
translation:

Vì (1) sự tích hợp các th à n h phần
được hoạch định một cách chu đáo, cho
nên nó được xem như là (2) một bước cải
tiến quan trọng so vói chương trìn h đào
tạo giáo viên truyền thông.

Nom inal group (1)

sự tích hợp các

G.C1. integration plural m arker

thành p h ầ n

được

hoạch định

component passive m arker plan

một cách chu đáo

one way careful

N om inal group (2)

một bước cải tiến quan trọng

one step im provem ent im portant

so với chương trình đào tạo

compare w ith (to) program m e tra in

giáo viên theo truyền thôhg

teacher by trad itio n

T here are a t least two points th a t
need comm ent here. F irst, one may
notice th a t in nom inal group (1), o f 
which is the preposition in the

prepositional p hrase o f components and 
functions as p a rt of the Qualifier in the
nominal group is not tra n sla te d into

Vietnamese. This feature of tran slatio n
im m ediately affects the function of the
elem ent th a t corresponds to components 
in the V ietnam ese tran slated nom inal
group. We can see in the Vietnam ese
version th a t các thành p h ầ n which 
corresponds to components is now
functioning as Classifier. Although
syntactically th ere is nothing wrong if

integration o f components is tran slated

into V ietnam ese as sự tích hợp (của) các

thành p h ầ n , native speakers of
Vietnam ese may reject it for norm ative
and n atu raln ess reasons. There will be
“tran slatio n noise” (Wilss 1982b) in the
Vietnam ese version if the English
nominal group its carefully planned

integration o f components is tran slated

into Vietnam ese as sự tích hợp(của) các

thành p h ầ n được hoạch đ ịn h m ột cách 
chu đáo (của nó). In this instance, the

occurrence of two của in the Vietnam ese 
nom inal group will m ake it read as a

tran slatio n ra th e r th a n a n a tu ra l text.
Secondly, one m ay also notice th a t

carefully which is an adverb functioning

as Sub-modifier for th e Sub-head

planned corresponds to a prepositional

phrase một cách chu đáo (one way 
careful) in the V ietnam ese tran slated
nom inal group and planned - an 
adjective derived from the verb p la n - 
which functions as E pithet in the
English nom inal group now corresponds
to the V ietnam ese clause được hoạch

định. Sim ilarly, in nom inal group (2), 
improvement - a single word - which

functions as T hing in the English
nom inal group h a s its word group
correspondence bước cải tiến, the

</div>
(12)<div class='page_container' data-page=12>

22 Hoang Van Van

elem ents of which function as Generic
Classifier and T hing respectively in the
V ietnam ese co u n terp art; over which is 
th e preposition in th e prepositional

p h rase over the tra d itio n a l teacher-

training program m e is tra n s la te d into

V ietnam ese as a p h ra s a l verb so với 
(compare with) so th a t th e whole English
prepositional p h rase over the traditional

teacher-training program m e h a s its
clause correspondence so với chương

trìn h đào tạo giáo viên theo truyền thống.

Also in th e E nglish nom inal group the

traditional teacher-training prog ra m m e, 
traditional which functions as E p ith et

h as its V ietnam ese correspondence theo

truyền thống (by trad itio n ) which
functions as Qualifier.

The point th a t should be m ade here
is th a t in order to achieve equivalence in
tra n sla tio n and n a tu ra ln e ss in th e TL
text, some elem ents m ay not be
tra n sla te d an d others m ay be subjected
to w hat C atford (1965: 73-82) calls
“tra n sla tio n sh ifts”. W hen a n elem ent in

th e SL tex t is not tra n s la te d into th e TT,
th e functions of th e elem en ts in th e TT
which correspond to those in th e source
tex t m ay be changed. Sim ilarly, w hen an
elem ent in th e SL is subjected to
tra n sla tio n shift, th e function of its
corresponding elem ent in th e TT may
also be changed. T ogether w ith the
differences in th e s tru c tu re of th e SL
an d th e TL, th ese tra n s la tio n facts may
add some ordering problem s to the
tra n sla to r. At th is point, it m ig h t be said
in sum m ary th a t th e problem s of
ordering of elem ents in th e V ietnam ese
tra n sla te d nom inal group m ay be caused
by not only th e differences betw een the
stru c tu re of th e E nglish an d V ietnam ese

nominal groups b u t also by the
tran slatio n facts which we have
discussed above.

4. C on clusion

In this paper, I have discussed briefly
the two potentialities of technical
gram m ar and the role and th e n atu re of
nom inalization in the environm ent of a
scientific text. It appears justified to
claim th a t nom inalization plays a

central role in creating scientific
discourse, whereby scientific discourse
becomes the language for th e experts not
for the lay people. W hen th e tran slato r
comes to work on a text the subject
m atter of which s/he is not fam iliarised
with, tran slatio n problems may arise.
A nother aspect th a t may cause more
problems for the tra n sla to r is th a t
scientific language is highly
metaphorical, in the sense of
gram m atical metaphor. W hen a process
is represented in the form of a clause,
the sem antic relations among the
components are made explicit by the
gram m ar. However, w hen there is
complex nom inalization involving not
only the process b ut also the
participants and the circum stances, real
problems in tran slatio n m ay occur. This
is because th e resu lt of th is complex
process creates lexical density w ithin the
nom inal group which leaves inexplicit
the sem antic relations among the
components, m aking it very h ard for the
tra n sla to r to process th e meaning.
Moving from theory to practice, I have
devoted a reasonable length to
discussing some of the m ain problems
related to th e translation of th e nominal

group from English into Vietnam ese. In
my discussion, I have identified two

</div>
(13)<div class='page_container' data-page=13>

main sources th a t may cause problems
for the translator: (1) stru ctu ral
complexity and syntactic am biguity of
the English nom inal group and (2) the
problems of word choice and ordering of
elem ents in the V ietnam ese translated
nominal group. At th is point, it is
strongly recommended th a t the
tran slato r study the features of the

scientific discourse an d explore how
technical g ra m m a r works. It is believed
th a t to have a good u n d erstan d in g of
scientific discourse an d a good command
of technical g ra m m a r will certainly help
tra n sla to rs to solve m any problem s th a t
m ay occur w hen s/he is tra n sla tin g a
scientific tex t from one language into
another.

REFERENCES

1. Bell R. T. (1991), Translation and Translating: theory and practice, London/New York: 
Longman.

2. Biguenet, J.&R. Strulte (eds.) (1989), The Craft o f Translation, Chicago: The 
University of Chicago Press.

3. Catford, J.c . (1965), A linguistic Theory o f Translation, Oxford: OUP.

4. Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin, (1993), Writing Science, London/Washington D. 
c.: The Falmer Press.

5. Hatim, B. and I. Mason. (1990), Discourse and the Translator, London/New York: 
Longman.

6. Hohulin, L. E. (1982), Text Grammar in Translation, (In) Ten Papers on Translation, 
N. B. Richard (ed.), SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 1982: 64-80.

7. Levy, J. (1970), The Art of Translation, (In) The Nature o f Translation, J. Holmes 
(Ed.), The Hague: Mouton.

8. Neubert, A. (1984), Translation Studies and Applied Linguistics, (In) A ILA Review, No. 
1. Pp. 4 6 -6 4 .

9. Newmark, p. (1988a), Approaches to Translation, London: Prentice Hall.
10. Newmark, p. (1988b), A Texbook o f Translation, London: Prentice Hall.

11. Vân, Hoàng Văn (1994), A Functional Perspective on Translating E L T Texts from

English into Vietnamese, Unpublished MA Thesis, D epartm ent of Linguistics,

Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

12. Vân, Hoàng Văn (2005), Nghiên cứu dịch thuật, Hà Nội: KHXH.

13. Wilss, w. (1982a), The Science o f Translation, Germany: G unter N arr Verlag

Tubingen.

14. Wilss, w . (1982b), Translation Equivalence. (In) Ten Papers on Translation, N. B. 
Richard (ed.), SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Pp. 1-14.

</div>