84 ~

Nevertheless, the hopes pinned on the use of wide-ranging deductive meth-

ods, hopes raised in an extreme form by Revzin/Rozencvejg (1964), remained
unfulfilled. This was because translati.on, like every form 9f performance,
is a semiotic phenomenon which cannot be fully described: in the form of
an abstract model and is therefore only partially accessibl~ to a deductiv,e The specific science of translation has the task of analyzing concrete events
approach. Formalized hypothesis formulation has no doubtibeen important in translation. It sees its justification in the investigation of modes of
for the development of the science of translation, because f?~maliZed models behavior in translating, thus empirically examining the models of the'
are a much sought-after status symbol of the dignity of '~ny science, but translation process developed by the general science of translation; its,
it seems that the science of translation has reached, if riot exceeded, a aim is'to bring about a successful crossover from a concept of the translation
theoretical saturation point. Apparently, at present the prer:~quisites for the process rooted in the science of communication'to one which takes a
development of more finely differentiated models of the translation process, linguistic approach.
/ which would capture the wealth of concrete phenomen'a in translation
Contrary to the general science of translation, it has the function of s~tting \
with some measure of completeness, are lacking. Because tif the difficulties
up language-pair-oriented paradigms of translation (Levenston 1965). It I
involved in ,formulating a comprehensive theoretical fram~work for trans-
achieves this complementary target by looking into the procedural and
lation, many a contribution to the discussion of translation theory has
textual factors and regularities operating in individual processes of trans-
done little' more than replace, the terminology of earli~r formulations,
lation.
without notably adding to what,is ,known of translation theory or further
developing explanations of the interlingual transf'er conbept. In a way, The specific science of translation has therefore derived a data-oriented,
translation theory has thus confirmed what Friedrich Withelm Nietzsche language-pair-specific program of research. This program is conducted with
said "namely, that we should distrust claims that profess to work out the aim of formulating methodological principles for the following three
a well-rounded whole by means of abstract reasoning". areas of research: '

The slowdown of the last few years in the formulation of hypotheses in Q the systematic description, classification, and explanation of lan~uage- ( ,
the science of translation has, of course, proved to be an advantage, since it pair-specific translation procedures. Within this context the language, r---./
has largely spared the science of translation a Darwinian struggle between pair-oriented science of translation is concerned primarily with those \ "
various models, but also has played a major role in seeing the science of syntactic, lexical, and sociocultural phenomena in a given language I IV')
translation recently turn its attention to the detailed description of ,concrete which do not have one-to-one correspondences in the system of another U
translation procedures, Such a description falls within the area covered by language and must therefore be translated by means of compensatory,
the language-pair-oriented descriptive science of translation. The problems non-literal transfer procedures;
of this field will be discussed in the following three chapters. 2. the development of a text-typology relevant to the science of trans--
lation. The two principal research areas here are, first, the defining I rl
of textual segments and structures on the microcontextual level (withi n \
the clause/sentence) and the macrocontextual level (going beyond Q
the clause/sentence rank) and, second, the testing of textually adequate
transfer strategies, while giving consideration to text-syntactic; textJ
semantic, and text-pragmatic factors; "
3. the development ,of objective - or at least intersubjective -' yardstick;l
for the assessment of the degree of TE with the specific goal of replacing I?
the predominantly intuitive judgement of translation quality by e~Plici~ a
textually based evaluations of TE. . i
All three areas of research are presently in statu nascendi, with 1. sPghtly
ahead of 2. and 3. slightly ahead of 3.
 86
Intensified empirical researc'h ~,asproved necess~ry for tW~ reasons: •
Thls.,rough·division between literal and non-literal translation procedures
1. -Extensiv~ corpor.a of v~rious types of texts ~ust b~ studied from the seems at first glance to be plausible, but a closer look reveals serious prob-
three POints of view set forth above, if we are to lellrn to what extent lems of definition and fluctuations in concept. This is especially evident
it is possible to develop more complex, semiotic translation process in the area of literal translation, where the lack of sufficient differentiation
[
models, going beyond stating merely the initial co'nditions of trans- within the field means that there is often not a c,lear enough conceptual
lating. ' ' distinction between literal translation (wortliche Obersetzung,' traduction
the applied .'science of translation is vitally dependent on the results litterale, traduction directe) and word-for-word/word-by-word translation
of t~e langUage-pair:,oriented descriptive science of translation (just as (Wort-fij;-Wort-Obersetzung, traduction mot a mot;. Thome 1975). Vinay/
foreign language pedagogy is dependent o:n the resL,Jlts of contrastive Darbelnet (11958), Govaert (1971 b), and Vachon-Spilka (1968), for ~xample,
[ linguistics) if it is to provide the necessary preconditions for more use the two concepts word-for-word translatidn and literal tr~nslation
efficient TT within the framework of university curricula designed synonymously. The idea that the two are one and the 'same concept is
for future translators. : presumably furthered by the fact that in the practice of translation the
borderline between word-for-word translation and literal translation - like

a
f the three above-mentioned areas of research, the linguistic description and
p the functional analysis of transfer phenomena, including the' tonditions the borderline between literal and non-literal translation
being crossed by the translator:
- is constantly
constraints, regulariti.es, ra~ific(ltions and ~he habitual el~ments of transfe;
o proced~res, must logically precede the other two. Transfer procedures may " ... the 'rough-draft' or 'word-for-word' method ... in fact rarely does prese~n
occur In any text to be translated ~nd they are always TE-interconnected. an actual word-for-word e~uivalence, but rather moves up and down the rank-scale,. 'V'
translating sometimes word, sometimes group, occasionally a mere morpheme or 0
Translation research has devoted considerable energy to the analysis of the a whole clause at time" (Ure et al. 1969, 73l. .
transition from an SL T to a TL T and how observable transfer procedures
Taking up the traditional distinction between literal and free translation,
c~n be organized in a plausible and lucid way; as a result, it has come up
Hockett and Chao have the following to say:
With a number of differerit classification systems which more or less ex-
haustively reflect the diversity of modes of behavior in translating, "The terms 'literal' and 'free' thus do not really form a clear binarY contrast. A word-
by-word rendering is literal as compared with a loose translation of a whole sentence.
The simplest distinction is the one made between lite~al and non-literal but free as compared with a morpheme-by-morpheme rendering. I·t may be proposed
translation procedures. It differs to some extent from the distinction that. for any given passage, there are as many degrees of literalness and freedom of
familiar to us from our study of the history of translatidn theory, betwee~ translation as there are levels of hierarchical structures in the passage" (19,54, 3131.
literal (true-to-the-word) translation and free translation; In the history of "A common distinction is often made between literal or word-for-word translation
translation, to translate literally or to translate freely amounts to a basic and idiomatic or free translation. Bu~ there are more than just two degrees on the
decision on the methodologY."of translation which com~its the translator scale of literalness and idiomaticity. If we go below the level of the word, there can
either to an SL-oriented, rejrospective, or to a TL-oriented, prospective also be morpheme-by-morpheme translation, while if one 'tries to translate proverb
by proverb, there is often no corresponding internal structure at all" (196~, 507 f,).
translation approach. No matter which approach he chooses, it is in any
case a decision which determines the translation profile bf the entire text. Vachon-Spilka finds that
The highly normative character of the two concepts literal translation and "Literal translation is the easiest and simplest form of translation, it occurs whenever
free translation explains why they have never really been able to gain a word-by-word replacement is possible without breaking rules in the target language;
foothold in the terminology of modern descriptive tr,anslation research this, however, Is quite rare unless the two languages are very closely related" (1968,
18 f.l.
where they have been replaced by the conceptual pair, literal translation
and non-literal translation. These terms designate contrete, linguistically Equating the concept of \f;v'ord-for-word translation with that of literal
analyzable transfer procedures working straight from $L surface to T L translation is an ill-chosen solution from the standpoint of methodology,
surface or c.hanging the SL surface stru.cture syntactic.al.ly ~nd/or semanti. primarily. because there is a difference between th¢ two translation proce- /
cally according to TL needs In a way which cal! be speclf'rd In each particu- dures which is essentially irresolvable: word-for-word translation, which (
lar case. I must also include the interlinear version familiar from the Middle Ages
, \I
"I (see chapter If I), follows the syntactic structures of the SL, while preserving

!
 88
semantic TE between the SL and TL ~egmel1ts; literal' trans;ation, on the in other words, he has internalized the SPO sentence-building concept to
other hand, follows the system of syntactic rules' '(on the level of system such an extent - that he automatically transfers this model into foreign-
and norm) found in the Tl, while again preserving semantic TE between language communication, thus producing a syntactic interference from
Sl and TL textual segments (Thome 1981). Rendering the English sentence his own language in speaking German: the native-tongue syntactic structure
(1) I have read the book. is superimposed onto the foreign-language syntactic structure_
(2) Ich habe das Such gelesen.
Now it is interesting to see, that a German native speaker, in hearirg an
is a literal translation, since the translator, while retaining the Sl clause utterance such as (3), perfectly understands this clause despite its deviation
construction, has changed the sequence of the individual Jwords of the from German syntactic rules. It follows from this that utterance under-
sentence in accordance with the TL syntactic rules. The translation standing is not so much dependent on grammati~al' correctness but on
(3) "Ich habe gelesendas Buch, other features. What features are here being referred to can be made clear
by presenting another couple of sentences introduced by Chomsky: who
on the other hand, would be a word-for-word translation,! each word in has set himself the task of finding out the linguistic factors controlling
the Tl being the exaxt replica of the corresponding word in;the SLclause. sentence production and sentence perception:
The following remarks by Catford should also be seen in this light:
(4) Colorless green ideas sleep furiOUSly.
"The popu!ar terms free, literal, ana wqrd-for'word ,translation, though loosely used, (5) Healthy young babies sleep soundly.
partly correlate with the distinctio'ns dealt with here. A free tran*lation is always
unbounded. - equivalences shunt up and down the rank-scale, but tend to be at the Both sentences are orgaflized along the same syntactic principle, each
higher rank - sometimes between larger units than the sentence: Word-far-word sentence containing a subject phrase, a predicate phrase and an adverbial
translation generally means· what it says: I.e. [sic! J is essentially rank'bound at word-
phrase. Yet, against the background of our language competence and our
rank (but may include some morpheme-morpheme equivalences). Literal translation
lies between these extremes; it may start, as it were, from a word-for-word trans-
experience in producing and receiving sentences, it is obvious that only
lation, but make changes in conformity with TL grammar ... ; this may make it a (5) makes sense, whereas one would probably hesitate to recognize (4)
group-group or clause-clause translation" (1965, 25), i as a semantically acce'ptable sentence, because one does not see how one
The structural difference .between th~ English sentence (1) a$d the German can sensibly combine "colorless" and "grElen", "colorless" and "green"
sentence (2) can be illustrated in the following way: I on the one side and "ideas" on the other, and "sleep" and "furiously".
This is so because the semantic relations between the individual words in
S i (4) are logically not coherent or plausible. The situation regarding (5) is
entirely different. Here the language user is, metaphorically speaking, on
home ground. This is a clause. which is in line with his experience, which
makes sense, because he knows from his world knowledge that young
babies normally do sleep soundly. Exceptions confirm the rule., Thus,
although both sentences are syntactically acceptable, (4) is rejected for
its lack of semantic verifiabil ity.

I have read the book. Both sentences could be translated literally into German:
Ich habe gelesen das Buch. (6) Farblose grune Ideen schlafen wild.
! (7) Gesunde kleine Kinder schlafen tief.
S = sentence, Aux = auxiliary verb, NP = noun phrase, P2 = 2nd participle. VP = verb
phrase, Art = article. of,. logically speaking, it is the same situation here: (6) for a German native
speaker sounds just as strange as t~e English equivalent for the English
Incidentally, (3) is an utterance representing a syhtactic sttucture which
native speaker; on the other hand, a German native speaker has no diffi-
German native speakers can often hear, when an English native speaker ex.
culty identifying the meaning of (7) and to accept it as a sentence which
presses himself in German. The English native speaker is so us'ed to building
may occur any time in every-day communication. The result of translating
the sentences on the subject-predicate-object (SPO) model (see chapter III) _
(4) and (5) into (6) and (7) respectively shows that the English and the
 ""
German nativ~speaker sf/ate· :~ertain ·se,mantic corcepts while rejecting The comparison of.the&e t~o.c1auses makes clear that the English. language
others,'a fact which,is very important in the argument about translatability in its inventory of grammatical rules differs from that of;German. In order
a~d untranslatability and settling this" argument, at' least in.!principle, in to produce a grammatically acceptable sentence in English, the German
favor of interlingu.altranslatability. . ,\ ' translator must know the grammatical system of English. If he knows these
rules, he 'will probably come for~ard with translations listed un~er (15)
Occasionally, literal translation and word~for-word t~a,nslation kre identical:
or (16): "
'('8) Where is he? .'Wo ister?
, .. ( 9) He is he~e,,· Er ist hier. J, •
(5) Yesterday the man stole a booki~th~ library.
(10) He'will probably come: Er wird wahrscheinlic~ kommen, (16) The man stole a. book in the library yesterday.
(11) His atJitude is disgusting. " , " Sail) Verhalten 1st wid\lrlich. What has been said just now becomes even c1eare~ if one looks at the
(12) They were agreeably surprised, "', ' '" Sie wa'ren~ngenehrn uierrascht.
following exa~pl~s '(Wilss 1973):, "
In languages which'a;ewid;ly div~rgent typ~;'ogiC~II~:'for ~x~mple Indo- (17) Oer Konig zog in'die reich mit'bunten Fahnen geschmu~kte Stadt elin.
· Ge:ma~ic .Ianguag~s and. Ame~i,can Indian languages;,' word-f?~-word trans- (18) *Theking entered the richly with colorful flags decorated town.
lation ,'S vlrt~ally Im~sslb~~: .... to 'e~press :t-le
has a vit~ite j~cketon', the (19)
(20)
The ""king entered the town (whiSh vilas) richly decorated
Oer Konig zag in die' Stadt ein, die mit buntenFahnen'
with colorful
reich geschmuckt
flags.
war.
Qagak. says literally he with Jacket, with-white: or 'he Jacke~y whitey' ••
(Whitney 1870, 338). -' . " . i' (17)' represents a frequent German syntactic pattern which cannot be
Even in languages which,are closely related typologically, word-for-wor,d reproduced in English on th'e basis of a literal translation.
translation, as a rule, is',an'inad,e9uate transl.ation ~procedur~ w,ith regard A version probably acceptable t.0 an English native spe,aker is listed under
to the T L. ..', , . l (19). This sentence in its.turn can be re-translated literally into German.
This permits the conclusion thatifl the realm of ce~tain syntqctic con-
"The most Hte,ral type oftransla~ion, an inter'line~r cine; cali scarceiy b~ called a trans-
,'.ationin the usual sense ?f·the term.~However"some·productior\s'initendlld a~ fully figurations, German is more flexible than English (just,~s English is more
· aCcfedited, translations ,are alrnost a.~ absurdly Iite.ra I as arlint,erlineari riln.?ering ... flexible in others). ThiS is important for the English'German translator,
, Moreover, they have attemptedto.match gr<lmmatical forms.and even'to employ the because in order to render' (19) into German, ,he has the choice between
· same word order, if, at all possible., The r~sults arelam'entable, for ihe attempt' to at least two alternatives (f7)' and (20); the English-German translation'
be' literal in the form of the message has'resu)ted'in'grievous distortions bf the message
itself" (Nida 1964, 23). ", _ ,; here reaches the dimensionQf a ~'decision process" (Levy 1967).

Still, the distortion of a' text's content' criticized by'Nida is a factor which In contrast to word-for-word translation, literal translation, which is set
does 'not weigh as heavily in sorn(l types' of texts as ,'in others. It is clear, , up bidirectionally (not unidir~ctionally, as is the case with non-literal
for example, that word-for-word translations have no place in biblical translation) is a,translation procedure which, under certain circumstances,
translation, since for'T''a1 shortcomings 'could adversely'affect ther~ceiver's is totally a'cceptable stylistically. 'Assertions to the "contrary derive from
interest in the Bible's 'message. In LSP communication on the other hand confusing word-for-word translation with literal translation. Cermak, for
, t,he receiver's understanding ,Of. the.· content, W,OUld,n~,t· nece~sarily $uffe; example, is quite mistaken in his reading of the situation:
because of formal defects. ThiS led, MT to initially draw the conclusion "La traduction sous-interpn\tee, litterale est Ie genre de traduction dont on dit que son

r
, that a translation produced by means: of word-far-word MT procedures auteur n'a aucune idee du texte lorsqu'il Ie traduit. Naturellement, il y a dans une
is better than no translation at all. : traduction toujours un minimum d'interpretati.on. L'exemple exagere d'une traduction
sous-interpretee sera it la traduction servile, glosee, la traduction ou les elements lexicaux
If the minImum standard of quality is set on the basis of. such reasoning, 50nt implantes isolement" (1970,34 f.).
no 'objection can be made to using word-for-word translation as a make-
Every translator knows that 'there may be language contact situations
shift to expedite international communication among ~xperts. The same
where he must translate literally because no genuine alternative to a literal
is true when translation serves as a heur(stic methodological aid,'!-for example,
translation procedure exists. From this it follows that the traditional dis-
in clarifying interlingual structural differences: .
. , tinction between literal, SL-directed translation and idiomatic, TL-directed
(13LGestern hat der Mann in'der Bibliothek ein Buch gestohlen. translation cannot be upheld, at least in this undifferentiated form, and
(14) "Yesterday has the man in the library a book stolen. the dichotomy, going back to Nida, between "formal equivalence" (= SL-
 92
oriented translation) and ,"dynamic equivalence" (= TL-oriElOted trans- convincing, since he - obviously in order to support his own point of view
lation) takes on added importance. Nida characterizes a translation which in translation theory - raises the lack of interlingual lexical commensura-
aims at formal equivalence as follows: bility between SL and TL lexemes to the level of a general translation
difficulty (TO); he thereby overstates the case in a way which aoes not
" ... a formal equivalence (or F-E) translation is basic'ally source-ori~nted; that is
it is designed to reveal as much' ,aspossible.of the form and content of the original duly take into account the fact that interlingually the.meaning of many
message.In doing so, an F-E translation attempts to reproduce severalfo~mal elements, words, above all in the LSP field, is identical. Moreover, he ignores the
including: (1) grammatical units, '(2) consistency in word usage,and! (3) meanings fact that translation problems stemming from word meaning also occur
in terms of the 'source context. The reproduction of grammatical uni~s may consist in non-literal translation, let alone the realm of. paraphrase translation
in: (a) translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, etc.: (b) keeping all phrasesand
sentences intact ... ; and (c) preserving'all formal. indicators, e.g. marks of punctu-
(see below the discussion on Kade's term "new coding" (Neukodierung)).
ation ... " (1964,165). ' Catford shares the view that the translator working wlthin the framework
of literal translation procedures tends toward direct lexical 'TE:
Remarks made by Nida and Taber on ~his subject some years later were
much more pointed: "One notable point ... is that literal translation, like word-for-word. te~ds to remain
lexicallv word-for-word, i.e. to use the highest (unconditioned) probability lexical
" ... formaf correspondence [is thel quality of a translation in which the features equivalent for each lexical item. Lexical adaptation to TL collocational or 'idiomatic'
J of the form of the source text have'been mechanically reproduced in' the receptor requirements seemsto. be characteristic of free transiation" (1965, 25). '
,angUage. Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical, and stylistic
patterns of the receptor. language;and hence distorts the message',so as'to' causethe As in connection with Rabin's view, here, too, the lumping together of the
/ receptor to misunderstandor'to labor unduly hard' ... " (1969, .203). , syntactic and lexical aspects of literal translation causes one to question
Vinay, too, considers it necessary to distinguish between'traduction littf!rale his findings. Correct as Catford ,may be in considering literal translation
fautive and traduction litterale corrective (1968); equati ng, traduction a phenomenon of syntax, the general assumption of interdependence
litterale fautive with mot a mot translation procedures, however, does between syntactic literalness and lexical literalness on the one hand and
not do justice to the complex subject matter of literal translation. syntactic and lexical non-literalness on the other, appears problematic.
Whether or not syntactic literalness, as a rule, actually does entail lexical
According to Rabin, the real problems involved in literal translation have
literalness (and vice versa?), whether or not lexical adaptations cannot be
to do with semantics:
and are not also carried out in cases of syntactic literalness, and vice versa,
"The real problem lies in the fact that the individual semantic items .... are not com- and whether or not lexical substitutions also occur in, cases of syntactic
mensurate. The way around this which is open to the dictionary maker; of providing non-literalness - these are all questions which cannot be given quite so flat
several renderings or of adding circumlocutions or definitions, is not feasible in a
an answer. Catford seems to have fallen victim to the fascination of a
coherent translation, where, moreover, the words are often not used in their dic-
tionary senseat all, but in the metaphorical, ~nlarged, pregnant, and other off-senses "correlating hypothesis" of translation which does not stand up to empirical
which the system of oppositions and interplay of meaningswithin the system permits" testing or does so only to a very limited extent.
(1958,134 f.>'
In addition to its syntactic and semantic aspects, literal translation, like
The following pair of examples may serve as an illustration of semantic all translation procedures, also has a stylistic aspect. This is illustrated by
aspects of literal translation: an example from Guttinger's book "Zielsprache. Theorie und Technik des
(21) Nixon hasno intention to resign. Obersetzens" (Target Language: Theory and Technique of Translating)
(22) Nixon hat nicht die Absicht zu resignieren. (1963, 7 ff.). At issue is a warning sign observed by Guttinger at the main
railway station in Zurich, which bears the following inscriptions:
It is obvious that (22) is a case of a "faux amis"-translation (Wandruszka
1918). (23) Es ist verboten, die Gleisezu uberschreiten.
(24) It is forbidden to crossthe lines.
This translation is wrong, because what is meant here was,that Nixon
had no intention to withdraw from his office ("zuruckt:eten"ln German), The English formulation is a 'literal translation of the Germanorigi nal,
whereas the German translati.on implies that Nixon simply had ho intention i.e. the translator - in the fashion of an automatic reflex - has carried
to allow himself to be demoralized by perpetual public pre:ssure. Now, the pattern of syntax followed in the German sentence over into TL,
taking up Rabin's line of reasoning, one must say that it is rot entirely leaving all lexical correspondences unchanged. The result is a translation,
!
I
I
I I
I
which, it is true, correctly conveys' M of SL and would be completely
intelligible to a native speaker of English, but which ignores the natural
standards of adequacy in the TL - unintentionally, no doubt -.: and thus
gives the text a foreign stylistic ring. For, that reason, the translation is
adequate only in terms of syntax and semantics; stylistically, it is inade-
quate, since no heed was paid during the translation process to the TL
conditions of idiomaticity, and so the resulting TL formulation resembles
the work of a beginner. This must be judged all the more critically' in
that ~e are here dealing with interlingually conventionalized set phrases
which permit little or no deviation from the standard expressions once
established by a language community. Th~ translation could. only be re-
garded as idiomatic if the translator hild departed from the syntcictic struc-
ture of the SL sentence and produced one of the following TL versions:
(25) No crossing the lines (better: No crossing the tracks). "
(26) Do not crossthe lines (tracks)., .
(27) Only authorized personnel is allowed to crossthe lines (tracks). .
(28) Passengersare not allowed to' cross the lines (tracks).
This means that in the present caseian adequate version, allowirg for the
stylistic expectations of the English native speaker, is only p6ssibleon
the basis of a non-literal translation. : causes the relationship between the clauses to change, but hardly enough
In order to specify the problem of non-literal translation, it is, advisable
to take the following series of examples as a starting point for our discussion:
(29) Everybody is talking of reconstruction.
(30) Jeder spricht eben vom Wiederaufbau (printed version).
(31) Mle reden vom Wiederaufbau (translation proposed by author, using a familiar
slogan of German Rail: Aile reden vom Wetter, wir nicht: Everybody talks about
the weather, we don't).
The sentences (29) to (31) have a cqmpar~ble syntactic structur~, insofar
as the~ .contain :hree syntactic units, a subject ~hrase, ~.predi~te, a~d a
prepositional object; (30) and (31) are, accordingly, literal t~anslatlons
of (20) (for a different assessment concerning cases such as (3D),~ee Thome
1981). Their classification as Iiteral transfer procedures is una]fected by
the fact that synonyms were used in the predicate of (30) and (31) and by
the clearly unsuccessful addition of "eben", meant to make tibe English
expanded form explicit. On the other hand, (30) is undoubtedly "more
literal" than (31). This is because (31) changes the original construction,
written in the singular, to one written in the plural. ,Nonethel~ss. jf syn·
tactic isomorphy is held to be a criterion ,of litaral translatio'n Lthe type
and number of speech parts' must be the same in both senteric~s(Thome
1975, 1981) -, it cannot be said that the-above-mentioned.chJnge brings
with it a change from the category of literal translation to th~ category
of non-literal translation. ' , \ '
(32) It is impossible to solve the problem.
(33) Es ist unmbglich, das Problem zu losen.
(34) Das Problem ist unmoglich zu losen.
The translator in (34), having dropped "es" as a grammatical subject, had
to reorganize the sequence of speech parts. As a result, he producas a
version, clearly different from (33) in terms of surface structure. Therefore
(34) cannot really be called a literal translation. On the other hand, one
could speak of a non-literal version only if "es" were tebe interpreted as
a speech part in its own right. which, in view of its syntactic function as
a substitute, anticipating the meaningful subject phrase contained in the
infinitive clause, is unlikely.
Even more controversial with regard to their classification as literal trans·
lations are the following examples:
(35) He cannot come, for he is ill.
(36) Er kann nicht kommen, denn!lr ist krank.
(37) Er kann nicht kommen, weil er' krank ist.
Changing the SL parataxis of (36) to a hypotactic structure in (37) indeed
to move (37) into the category of non-literal translation, unless one insists,
like Thome (1981), that the transition from a sentence consisting of two
paratactically concatenated clauses to a sentence, consisting of a com-
bination of a superordinate and a subordinate clause implies a shift from
literal translation to non-literal translation.
The following examples are again a border-line case, this time because
contextually there may be a slight difference in semantic perspective in
(39) and (40):
(38) I was nearly run over by a bus.
(39) Ich bin fast van einem Bus iiberfahren worden.
(40) lch ware beinahe van einem Bus iiberfahren worden.
Apart from the fact that this distinction is rather speculative, as a test
with German native speakers has shown, it is by no means, at least in my
view, so evident as to justify the assignment of (40) to the category of
semantically motivated non-I iteral translation.
Taken together, these examples bear out the need for establishing a trans·
itional area between literal and non-literal translation or a hew specification
of the range of literal translation on'the basis of the examination of an
extensive corpus of pertinent cases of translation, A t~ntative approach
along the latter line has been made by Thome (19811.
 96
fA clear crossover from literal to· non-literal trans.laiionr cannot ~e. said to
have taken 'place until the translator - for whatever reasons -: divorces
language pairs, can be subsumed under seven main headings; the first three
fall into the category of literal translation (traduction directe) and the
I
himself so completely from the syntax or' se'mantics of the SL fo~mulation remaining four into the category of non-literal translatipn (traduction .
that the TL textual segment takes on its own unmistakable shape: . oblique):
"

(41) If resources exist only in limited quantities, we say that resources'are scarce.
(42) Wenn Ressourcen nur in begrenztem Umfange vorhanden sind, SPrechenwir
C9 emprunt,
into the
i.e_ the carryover of SL lexemes or lexeme combinations
TL normally without formal or semantic modification (Wilss
von Ressourcenknappheit. .
1966). Direct borrowing English-German may entail capitalization:
Literal back-translation into English: (47) know-how containment poster
. r I •
native speaker
(43) If resourcesexist only in limited quantities,·live talk about resources' sc~rcity. brain-drain ~yline
brinkmanship showdown countdown
A syntactic comparison of (41) and (42) shows that an objective clause soundtrack joint mid life-crisis
introduced by "that" in the SL changes in the TL to the nominal compound jet-set gho~t-writer styling
teenager' containerization fixer
"Ressourcenknappheit". The result of the transfer procedure chosen by the
establishment workshop computer
translator is what Catford terms an "unbounded translation" (m65, 25), marketing pattern drill input
which leaves the semantic perspective of the o~iginal sentence u~touched. competitive coexistence penthouse output
roll-back paperback overdrive
Achange in semantic sentence profile occurs in the following exa~ples: talk show"
Rock and Roll
(44) The well-being of all nations· dependsi,; .~~ small measure on' th~ Igeneration overkill small talk
and distribution of energy. ~I
(45) Die Erzeugung und Verteilung von Energie'bestimmt in nicht geringe;mAusmaB As these words become naturalized, orthographic and phonetic adaptations
den Wohlstand alll~rNationen. '! in accordance with the TL pattern of writing and speaking give them the
status of "Germanized" loan words:
Literal back-translation into English:
(48) escalation Eskalation
(46) The production and' distribution of energy determines'in no small measurethe
well-being of all nations. I diversification
status symbo,l
Diversifikation
Statussymbol
Be~ause of the change in the predicate, the sentence undergoes not oniy performance' Performanz
domino theory Dominotheorie
a syntactic restructuring, but also a shift in semantic perspectivk from an
pilot study Pilptstudie
effect-cause relationship to a cause-effect relationship (if not enbugh elec· interdependence Interdependenz
tricity, then no well·being; only if enough electricity, then well-being). attractive attraktiv
The recourse to non-literal translation is 'not obligatory, but"'optional;
(0
moderation/ moderator Moderation/Moderator
more about this will be said below. calque, i.e. loan translation (linear substitution) of morphologically
The first systematic attempt to draw up a well-ordered set of propositions analyzable SL syntagms(primarily noun compounds .and adjective-
having to do With interlirigual transfer processes arid to devise,! compre- noun-collocations) which, after a ti me, are often accepted. or at least
hensive taxonomy of translation procedures encompassing both literal tolerated, by the TL community:
and non-literal translation was made by the representatives of stylistique (49) growth rate Wachstumrate
comparee (VinaylDarbelnet 11958; Malblanc 11961). Seizing upon the market research Marktforschung
distinction first 'made by Bally (1944) between stylistique interne and developing country Entwicklungsland
stylistique ex terne , they developed a framework for describing translation drug scene Drogenszene
family planning Familienplanung
procedures which proceeds from the premise that the translation process birth control Geburtenkontrolle
manifests itself as a series of linguistically. comprehensible procM~s techhi- summit conference Gipfelkonferenz
ques. On the basis of an extensive discussion of examples from the two interceptor fighter Abfangjager
language pairs English-French and German-French, stylistique comparee iron curtain Eiserner Vorhang
near accident Beinahe-Unfall
came to the conclusion that all translation procedures, at least in these two Teilzeitarbeit
part-time work
 population ll,xplosion ~,
~.
(60) ,Everyone was,talking abOut <, Das W~rt vomWettlaufzum
·paper tiger :' . , the r\lcll to the moon, , " Mond'war in alle~ Mund.
computer-assisted instruction
, reasonable price - (61) 'The aircraft made a smooth Das Flugzeug ist trotz Motor-

i
show business , landing ,despite its schadens glatt ge'landet. ' "
, engine trouble. , ,", '
fact-finding';
~ modulation, equiv:lence, adaPtat;~n, L~. shifts in semantic perspective
case study
library-system
Uwhich, while, prese~ving functional equivalence, entail shifts of meaning
park-and-ride of varying 'size between'SL and TL"textual segmen'ts. Modulation,
" radar"trap specifically, indicates, ~ change in the 'angle from which something
is seen (,Changem,ent ,d,e p?"int d,e vu,e). Squivalence 'fs th~ rePlacement, ",
of anSL situation by a Communicatively comparable TL situation. '
Adaptation 'amounts to textuaL'compensation for s~ciocultural dif-
fEirences betwl'le~the SL and the'r( Gommunities:' ,
;, ;.

(62) floating voter "unentschiedener Wahler

•(Wechsel wah ler)
J,.
(63) the logic of human cler sin'nvoll gelenkte Einsatz
~":fEr hat das,Geld si~h1en lassen I "
engineering " menschlictier Leistung
Ihm istdas Geld gestohlen worden),
(64) He has failed to recognize Er hat die Wirklichkeit
How many -fIsh have 'you 'Wieviele'Fische has~ du gefangeri?
F' " , reality, verkannt,
caught?, " ,
(55) , It grows on you, ":'Ian gewohnt sich daran.
(52) Four ministers and their." . V\er Minister und ihre Stellvertr~ter
deputies v.Jere arrested.' ,w~rden,verhaftet.· ", ,'I (66) Take onel Gratisprobe.';
(53) If he had been there: he Wenn er da (anwesend) gewesenware, (67) Heis barking up the Erist auf d~~ falschen
,
would have had to witness hatte e'r eine ziemlich haiWche Szene Wrong tree. , Spur.

o a rather ugly scene" mitansehen mussen.

transposition, i.e. the rende.r:ing of an SL elem~nt by,';yn:actico-syn-

tagmatic structures whl,ch have the same' meanmg but do not corre-
'" (68)

(69)
resounding succ:ess
He has learned it by
watching his neighbour
Bomi:lenerfolg
Er hat es seinem Nachbarn
abgeguckt.
doing it.
spond formally (because of 9hanges in the class of wordsusecj):
(70) This is a good example of
(54) There is absolutelyno SeineBeh'auptting ist at:lsolut I'
a self-fulfilling
truth in his ciai'm. unzutreffend. prophecy,
Superlatives accompany us Superlative begleitenuns auf
wherever we go, Schritt und Tritt.
Paco's face was red with Paco stand die Scham;ote im
shame. Gesichto
It,is accordance with' , I'm
SinM der ',Ion der,Regieru(1g;
the aim~ pursued by the '" '~erfolgten Ziele hat das:
government that Parliam~nt "' "Parl~'ment folgentie~'Progta~m f
has d'ecided on"the follow- ",-', bescl1lossen: " ,,' ,,- •
ing program, ' ,X·,' ,

Whenever the opportunitY':' Bei jedersich bietend'en

has occurred .'. , ' $',i:;e'legenheit ,:, .'
Aher leaving port the vessel, N~ch Verlassen des Hafens
unexpectediy turned, " - ,,' drehte(gingl das Schiff.
eastward, ' wider Erwarten au(Ostkurs,
 101
"
On the other hand, many questions remain unanswered, as is to be expected only modulation, equivalence, and adaptation belong to the true procedes
in a firstattempt of this sort. This is true of both literal and non-literal trans- techniques de traduction (or operations linguistiques, as he also calls them;
~ lation. Thei nclusion ofenifmJntiri the classification system ~Q~ld seem out of 1971, 608), because .these three relate to semantics., In his opinion, the
place, since a direct borrowing which has been lexically adapted to a TL, at three literal translation procedures are to be regarded as special cases of
least in terms of spelling and pronunciation, cannot be called a translation translation. His decision to exclude transposition,. the first of the four
procedure in the narrower sense of the word, even if more liberal standards non-literal translation procedures, from'consideration as well,' since it deals
are, applied; calque, likewise,'belongs in this system only if translation is only with formal shifts of expression, can be countered by pointing out
taken to include substitution processes' below the level of the sentence that transposition, like a'nytransfer procedure, requires semantic TE between
(Thome 1981). SLT and TL T.
'<: ,
Moreover, literal translation, as already indicated, would have to be seen "La traduction Iitterale a part, Ie procede.le plus employe est.la transposition que
in a mor~ differentiated way and defined more precisely. One cannot help nous dBfinissons ainsi: Ie transfert de la valeur semantique d'une partie du discours
dans la langue de, depart a une autre partiedu discours dans la langue d'arrivee" (Barth
but get the impression that the views of the representatives of stylistique 1962, 17).
comparee have been somewhat distorted by an ill-concealed prejudice
against literal translation. This aversion to the' phenomenon rof literal trans- In spite of this clear definition of transpositio';, many inconsistencies con-
, lation, which is at cross-purposes with the descriptive aim~ of stylistique tinued to exist, until K.-R. Bausch eliminated them in his attempt at a new
comparee, is reflected n<;>tonly in its rather ,brief treatment of the topic, classification (1968). The question of whether a clear distinction can be
,but also ioan empirically unjustifiable slighting 6fwhat literal translation made between traduction. litterale and transposition has not yet been
is capable of producing. The negative attitude toward literal translation . answered (see, however, Thome 1981). The problems involved are evident
is demonstrated by Darbelnet: in, for example
"La traduction Iitterale n'est, en effect, qu'un des sept passages proposes pour passer 1. the rendering of English participial constructions by means of a finite
d'une lilngue a I'autre, ... II faut montrer que .. , fa traduction litterale expose a des sentence in German (Wilss 1971, 1978b):
contresens, sans compter les deformations qU'elle fait subir a la langue d'arrivee ...
la traduction litterale, souvent peu idiomatique, constitue parfois Jri c~tresen~. En (71) Seeing a policeman coming Er sah einen Polizisten um
d'autres termes, il est possible de trahir la pensee en calquant la structure, .. Ainsi round the corner, he die Ecke biegen und verschvvand
donc, la traduction litterale·est trop rigide pour tenir compte de ce :qui se cache der· rapidly disappeared from blitzschnell van der Bildfliiche.
. riere les mots. Mais sqn principal defaut'est d'aller souvent a,l'encQntre de ce qu'on the scene .
appelle parfoisle genie de la langue" (1970,89 ff.).

It is clear from the preceding remarks that Darbelnet does 'not adequately (72) We anchored. Wir gingen vor Anker.
distinguish between grammatically and stylistically acceptable and un-
(73) Because you remarked Weil du uber seinen Hut eine Bemerkung
acceptable literal translation procedures. In any case, Iit~ral translation on his hat ... gemacht hast .
seems to be rather powerful, at least in certain sorts of texts, for example
(74) It grossed ... Es hat brutto eingebracht.
LSP texts (Wilss 1981d). In addition, it relativizes the c1~im of the irre-
(75) England is decimalized. England hat sich auf das Dezimalsystem
f• The protagonists
versibility of the translation process (Toury 1980a). 1

of stylistique comparee have devoted much: more attention

umgestellt .

3. the rendering of simple predicate adjectives by adjective-noun-syntagms:

to non:' iterai translation procedures than they, have to .the three categories
of literal translation procedures. Its concentration on the ar~a of traduction (76) Elsie's rejoinder to Elsies Erwiderungen auf die angedeutete
the implied moral moralische RUge war asthetischer
oblique is an inevitable consequence of the fact that dev\s~ng a system of rebuke was aesthetic. Natur.
classification for procedures in-the sphere of non-literal tra1slation presents
complicated problems of definition and subcategorizatioq, owing to the It also remains to be seen wheth'er or not the decision to divide shifts in
almost incomprehensible profusion of concrete translJiion procedure semantic expression into three types of translation pr~cedures (categories
phenomena. This explains why Clas, who critically examin,ed the typology 5.-7.) can be upheld. The use of the term equivalence to designate the
of translation procedures in stylistique comparee, conclucjes that actually sixth translation procedure in stylistique comparee's taxonomy of trans-
lation procedures appears problematic (see chapter V Ill. In principle,
 . "",' "'.';' , ~,:,t,': .' ',:{ f ::
every ,translation process is aimed<aC'equivalehce, :meant to"be
, ' :., " ,,' .1..
attained'
"j". " .

by whatever translation 'strategyis selected, ," ;: ; h~conceptd:equivalence

a unevalidite, extrt3mement 'generale etil tend.~desrgner toute operation
de traduction:: (LadmiraI1978, 20f,). Simila~ reservations ~~nbe voiced
in regard to the term adaptatfoJ1"1~ls term, too, deriotes,a general state of
affairs guiding, every, non:'itera'liranslati:on process and estaplishing the
corresporloeQce,betWeenSb·:and Tl: according to ,the'given: conte><tual
and situational conditions ofcomniunicationineach case. ,"J , I'adapta-
tion n'est deja plus une traduction"'(Ladmiral 1979,20).
i:
Presumably" the best way to do~justice to shifts in~em~ntici:expressjon non.literal translation
, isto think ofmodulatibrras a rela.tively·uridifferentiated'generi~term which
. ',can'bebroken dOwn into ~ hljmber of subclassesortranslation'procedures .
. _"Support for 'th,e hierarchization 'of modulation, equival£jnce,{and adapta;
'don cal,be fOlmdin the following r~.marks: '. . .j
: ,,\"',,<, _,i-:J., fl''',,' t_ f:·'" :';'
"~appeloils que la modulation est,le .•ter'me que nousproposons. . 'pour designer
un 'certain nombre de variat,ions qui devIennent ne~essai"e_s;,!uand Ie pa~sage de LD a
LA [Iang'ue de depart, , I<ingue 'd'arriliee l ne "eut, se faire' directement. Nous avons loan word- literal
montre que ~es variati'ons tienn'ilnta unchl!ngement· de point de vue. Tandis que trans- . for- ..trans-
la transposition opere sur les especes grammaticales, la modulation ,s'¢~erce sur les word lation
categories de la pensee" (Vinay/Darbelriet 11958,66). . .'-.. , ' 'I,. '
lation
"'. • _ -tr - ~-, ~,' " ':,:$, ,~.;.
,.". ' (calque) .'
"La modulation se situe sur Ie plan data pefls~ei' la '~ranspo,siti~n<s~r! Ie: plan de la
langue, Pour,effectuer une modulation 'Iibre',no,n suggeree par Ie (.dictionnaire,il' '
faut .vraiment' se met1fe.a)a plal?~ de I'auteur dl.!,texte(LD at s'interro~~r sur sa vision
One of the reasonsfonhe intricacies 'in the il;westigationof transfer events
dumonde"{Vinay1968, 74,5). "". ~ . , ,. '~; >:'1. is ,the limited possibility of textually isolating translation proced~res,. due
When shifts of semantic· expression 'are involved: then modul'fItion, would to the frequent occurrence, of transfer overlaps',and transfer comb,natl~ns:
be the equivalent of transposition ,a case of translation proc~dures\"'hich
(77) The young people are living. Die 'jungen Leute engagieren
can· be subdivided into various tnlnsposition'al, subclasses. (Ik,-R. Bausch , sich fUr die Werte, die ihre
out expressed but unim-
1968). Jumpelt, for example, uses ;the modulation conc~Pl ;in this sense pie me nteg pare ntal yal ues, Eltern freilich mehr verbal aus-
(1961). Many Qftbe. difficulties '. of,
, '"
classifying
..,
translation,
.~
prbced6res
t-
can gedrUckt als praktisch verwirklicht
,probably be avoitled ,by staying:'a'way ,from the linear arrangement used haben,
in'the taxonomy ofstylistiquecomptm}eand choosing inste~a~hiera~chical On the other hand, 'it is only by projecting this classification model onto I
principle of arrangement which better illustrates the relat!onsh.ips ,between a representativ~ text corpus ttiat we will be able to deci~e. to ~hat ext~nt \1
categories (see diagram p. 103t ... , ',' ." J the approach of stylistique,comparee is capable of provldmg mfor~atlOn
t A rearrangement of transfer categories· would yield little"gajns in'terms on the method, technique, and critical review of translation. Its effectiveness
of methodology, however,' if. th~, em,pirical science ot" translation failed in this respect was described as'follows by Malblancin his foreword to
to ex~mine-'whether and to what:· extlint the' new 'classification scheme, Vinay /[)arbelnet (11958) andby..the lcittertwo authors :themselves:
, ' 1 ,

" ... la stylistique compareeoffre une technique n~uvelle pour aborder les problemes
exhaustiv'ely record, describe,' and assess the degree of TE 'achieved in de la traduotion, quelles 'que soient les lansues cO,nsiderees: il n;e s'agit pas e~ e:fet
concrete transl!ltion procedures. This i~ a subject-matter 'which is plainly d'une collection de recettes a appliquer automat,quemer)t, ma's bien de pr!nclpes
fondamentaux grace' auxquels peut etredressee la carte des cheminements qUI per-
'difficult to handle, It is waiting ,to be examined descriptively and 'appli- mettent de fake passer tous les elements d'un texte dans une·autre langue" (11958, 1).
catively by the language-pair-oriented science of translation. '(
 y, '. ~, .• 105
, ",' .~Ie ,passage d'une I~ri~t~~, a unr'~~~U~"Bi'pO~r: el<primer, ~~e me!me r~~lite x,
In 'contrast tQ system,bound' obligatory s~l1tactic '1md'lexical' shifts of
pas,sage que ,,"on de.nomm!l.ha~ltue"er:nent.traductio·n,' rehl~~Jd'une qis,cipline parti.
cUI~~re, de nature .c?mpa~atlve, dotiUe.bUt est d'en, ex,pliql!~r Ie, meca~isme etd'en ' expression, option,al shifts~. ofexpressi6n ,(transpositions/modulations
: faciliter.la reallsatlon par l!l mise en relief de loi~,valablElspour' les deux! tangues con- libres) (Vihay/Darbelnet 1"958Vare stylistically motivated. An option
f

siderees.' Nous ram,enons ,ainsi. la,traductidri'l1l un cas particulier,a unk application stylistique(Vinay/Darbelnet 11958) occurs when the translator can' choose
pratique de 'a styii,stique comparef'j1195S,' 20), "', ,; .
<, '''.i'.· from among several more or less equally acceptableTLversions ..The'trans-
a
o· - ~

An iniportllnt: asp~ct of, stylistlqa(t,c~mparee, i~ the; dist; n'ctio'hbetWeen ' lator's

obligat~ry anq opt~6nal translatio;'prote(t~'res,thu~ adding-a~' evaluative
, dimension to their c1assificationmo'del.(Vihay!Darbelnet 11958).' Obliga-
tory translation procedures are to be', fouhd 'on the syntactic-s~ntagmatic
.orlex,ical-morphematlClevel: They are motivated ';by surface structure'
divergences or semantico,sodiocultunil .differences', betvveen"SL and TL
, and 'belong ~y their very n~ture to the category of non:llteral'translation
procedures (see, h~wever, Thome ,1981 ).'Obligatory shifts i,!sYr'ltax, w~ich "
the representatives of $tylistiquec{Jmparee ~ubsume~:under the he~ding
of "servitude (grammaticale)" (Vinay/Darbel\let·11958,'31) " occur when,
for example, the translator, in rendering an SL, textual segment" (sentence,
subordinate clause, or lexical grouping), is forced to find new ways of
, expressinll it in the TL; these entail varying degrees of strJctural' deviation
from the. SL formulation and 'include deletion operations (~ne-to.zero
corresponden<:es) and/or insertion steps (2ero-to-one c6rrespj:>ndences).
Obligatory leXical-morphemic' restructurin,g '(modulations ~igees; Vinay/
Darbelnet 11958, 51), which, by analogy with the concept of servitude
[grammaticale],coLJld be subsumed under the heading 'of servitudeIex/cafe,
is necessary when, for example; a certain 'concept, a' certain lexeme com-
bination, ora derivational pattern is absent/from'the TL inventory, and
the only compensatory way out open to the translator is a lexital by-pass
strategy such as paraphrasing' or,explanatory' translation. '
~ ••..
, ! '
(78) He is an ardent believer 'in Er, ist ein ,begeisterter'fg,'dhender!
progress, Anhiinger (not possible in Germ~n:
Glaubigad des Fortschritts/'
;E r ill'aubt begeistert an den "
Fortschritt, .
ein Verbrecheil, bei dem au~er d;em
Tater selbst niemand tu Schaden
kommt-, ,. ~
(not possible in German:, ' Such caution' is not coincidental, but rather has its roots in the hypothetical
'opferloses Verbrechen)
ioss ofqne'; identity :(individuilli~y)
in soCiety
"-
at~emptHo make something <l new.
,~c!entific ~academic) aiscipline
, haphazara (uncohtroiledJ
activity in, rural areas'!,
housing space which is now (bel'1g)
used for other purposes, ,i
'_.,
singling out of ·;d:·"
specif.ic variant may depend on v~rious factors~
1. the type of text to be translated, ~ ,
2., the extent tO,which the SLTbearsstylistic markings,
3, the intended TL audience,' '(
4. the extent to which the tran'slator can comprehend the SLT and iden-
tify himself with it, ,!
5. the translator's stylisticprefererlces al)d his ability to recognize a!ld
handle stylistic registers.
In contrast to this classification riiodel, 'developed instylistique comparee
, on an empirical basis" Kad~ 'pre'sentsa theoretical' model of modes of
benavior in translation procedures.'He distinguishes 'three basic translating
operations; failing, however",to include a discussion of examples (1968b):
1. substitution (translation on the pasis of a sign-sign-,relationship),
2. interpretation (translation on the basis of significative meaning),
3. paraphra,se (translation: on the basis of denotative/referential meaning).
Substitution is a formal 'translation procedure presupposingsemaritic TE
of content ~f SLIT L signs' ahd sequences, of signs: "Where semantico-func-
tional equivalence exists, translation can be treated linguistically as inter-
lingual substitution" (Kade1968,'100l'. Kilde does not provide any further
explanation as' to when semantico-functional equivalence can be said to
;. !
exist, nor doe~ he 'say whether by this he means relationships ofstringent
syntactic and semantic identity, or whether less' exact relationships of
,convergence. can al~o' be accepted as conditions for substitution. In view
i of the difficulty' the 'science of 'transi at ion has in objectitying relationships
of interlingual TE, it ,is understandable, that Kade does not commit himself
in this respect anymore than necessary, Wishing to assure himself of a
certain discretional latitude in his methods of classifying transfer proce-
dures.
nature of Kade's line of reasoning; proof of this is to befo~nd in his lump-
ing together of thesyntactic~spects of speech parts, clause, sentence, and
! text in his description of substitution processes:
j .' ~ ... _. .. --e
'I "'n ',Substitu,tion;L2,
The translation
.u,n"its are 'matchea with ,L,,-units by using P,urely for,ri1al criter, ia.}
taKes place on the basis of- grammar; i.e. on the,basis of a linguistic
'"
Oi
bUilqiryg description of equivale.nce relationships' between L 1 ' and L2-formatives" (1968.'15),
,I
>1
! ~."
 , 106 107
'T~o points becom~ c;l~a~by,tne above quotation:'~
-f .' < I, ":,,
Whether- or not ..the attempt at. a clarification of Kad~'s 'concept of. trans-
formation vis-a-vis the two concepts back-transformation and multiple
1. Kade places substitution in"the'realrrl' of liferal translation, his concept
stage translation does justice to his line of reasoning is another matter.
of substitution thus differs clearly from that found in stylistique
comparee, which' uses' the term substitution ..:todenote certain. phenom- In any case, it can be said that this approach is one way of ilJustratin~ th?se
, ena in the category of transposition. .; functional cross-connections between transformation, and substitutIOn
which show the translation process to be a procedure for producing a TLT
2. Substitution is a restrictive transfer procedure which can be used only
on the basis of many interwoven layers of transfer.
to the extent that clearly discernible relationships. of co- and con-
. ,.textual.is.pmorphY·ex~s~ b~tween.two languages. ,I • VoegelinlVoegelin state the' fact that substitution has a legitimate. function,
if it has one at all, only in assodation with:intralingU{lI and interlingual
In order.to understand Kade's position, the following iemarks are important:
literal and non-literal transfer operations:, "Translation which goes directly
"Substitution ... can be connected with transformations (in the grammatical sphere) from a natural SL text to a natural, TL text is so loaded with non-equiva,
and modulations (In the lexical sphere), Transformations and modulations 'are neces,
lences as to make it inadvisable to generalize for any pair of SL and TL ... "
sary. f'irst. in' identifying L1 in order to transfer certain Ll'units into thll realm of
potential one"to-one correspondences between L1 and LZ, 'this being'a precondition (1967,2187).
for substitution, Transformational operations' also occur., secondly, in the synthesis Interpretation and paraphrase presen.t just as many problems of classifi-
of LZ, their purpose being to change the LZ' sequence of signs resulting from the
cation and definition' as, substitution. Kade defines these two transfer
subStitution 'process into an LZ tex:t Waiting the necessary surface ,structure, since the
tranSfer proper· takes place partly on' the I~velof" deep' structure" ,( 1968b,:13 fJ, procedures
. as follows:
. ,.

It would appear' th'at Kade is t~ying to ,pla~e substitution in a generative- "In interpretation, L2-,units are 'matched with L1-units on the, basis of,semanti,co-
functional features determined by referring to the image association. The translatIon
transformational context. Since the function of transformation in GTG
takes place on the level of content, i.e. on the basis of empirically e,stablished.semant~co.
is the transfer from an abstract 'deep structure (the language of ~asic con- functional equivalence between L1- and L2-units', Since man. IS a conscIous be,lOg,
cepts and categories) to concrete surface structures (texts), the d,istinction linguistic signs trigger associations with images, and translation by human be~ngs
Kade makes between surface structure 'and deep structure translation takes place primarily, in the form of interpretation .(1968b, 15), In pa~aphrasrng.
procedures strikes one as 'being somewhat unclear. His comment that the L2-units are not matched with Ll-units. The. proc~ss, is no: one of rec?dlOg, but
rather one. o~ developing a new .code in L2; startlOg WIth the object. In certain types of
transfer pr,oper is taking place partly on, the level, of deep stru?ture. also texts (for: example, in Iyri~al,texts. plays on words. and texts' which cannot be re-
, seems to be more confusing than illuminating" since/carried to i~s I!atu~al duced t~ a single. meaning), ,paraphrase is the only possible form in which the trans,
conclusion, it lends the surface structure ,an air of unimportarce. Kade lation can be effected" (1968b, 16),
could not possibly have meant this, as is shown by his remarkthpt substitu- Both translation procedures, Kade says, are determined by content; they
tion does not as a ru,le appear in, isolation but rather in conn~dtion with exhibit differing semantic fe,!tures, however, in that interpretation is signi-
supplementary transformational and modulatory operations. 'W~i can thus . fication,oriented, whereas paraphrase is designation:oriented. The focus
conclude that Kade does not use the term transformation rigorously, in of interpretation is therefore of a semasiological nature (what does ~ word
the sense of a coherent system where substitution refers to a' generative- mean? L as opposed to the focus of paraphrase. which is of ,~n onomaslolog1c,
transformational phenomenon of. trans'IatI91i, but rather allows jhirriself to al nature (what shall I call an object?), In the first instance, the basis of
be guided'by considerations ieading in the directioD of. two co;ncepts de- the transfer effected during translation is the interpretation of a linguistic
veloped correlatively by Nida (1964) and Voegelin(1954), thos~ of "back- sign as a bilateral ~ntity having a form-content relationshi~ dependent
transformation" (see chapter Ixl and "multiple stage translation" (see on the context;, this is to all appearances determined more or less sub,
chapter X), Back-transformation and multiple stage translation ~re proce- jectively, In the second instance, the first act of thetran~lator iso?~iou,sly
dures in which the text is, transformed, through' paraphrase ~equences. a refEnential-semantic (denotative) decoding of the SLT, I.e. a clarification
Nida considers back-transformation a means of creating optimal conditions of the relationship betwee'n the text and extralinguistic, reality; this com-
,for .the transfer' b/ r~9ucin!J ,:th'esuXjiace~stru,cture of
the SLT \~osimple pleted, he proceeds to make use of the TL potential for expression to
. structures I~aving the clause/sentence m~al)ing essentially"u~djstorted produce the TL T. ,In paraphrasing. the translator clearly h.as muchgrea,ter
(1964). Vo~geljn sees m'ultiple stage translation as a procedure for arriving latitude in his selection of TL expressions than he would If he Were uSing
at an optimally completed translation by means of a' series of ' method- substitution or interpretation.
, ologically objectifiable steps of translation via translational approximation or
translational interim stages (1954). '
 108
Aside, from the fact that Kade, by faiJing, as indicated, to incl~de a dis-
cussion of examples, makes it unnecessarily difficult,to follow his arguments
and leaves himself open to the danger of misinterpretation, the ,following
can be said about his line of reasoning: . r'
As regards the efficiency of linguistic communication, be it m~nolingual
or bilingual in nature, we would be in .a sorry state if signification and
denotation -: or, if you will, 'lexical meaning and referential-semantic
(object-oriented) meaning - were '1ot largely interdependent dr at least
convergent and if each person using a language were allowed to freely con-
nect linguistic signs with ad libitum associations. It is precise)ly in the
'area of LSP texts, which holds special interest for Kade, in 'vi~w of his
preoccupation with the preservation -of SL!TL semantic inva~iance, that
the convergences be~ween Iin~uistic, arid textual meaning (Qrl between
Bedeutung and Bezelchnung, In Coseriu's terminology; 1981)[ becomes
l
speciallYrelevant. For that reason, LSP texts are not int!lrpreted h~rmenellti- '
~ally,in ind.ividual .me~talsteps cautiou~ly'-approaching the resP~.btive text;
Instead, their meaning IS comprehended and 'retraced cognitivelyl THe text-
,pragmatic sign dimension is thus least marked in C:SPtexts, whe~e it tends
toward zero value (Wilss 1979a),. ;" 'I
, ,."
The use of interpretation to denote a certain class oftrarislatiorl processes
is a rather infelicitous choice of words; the terminological r~servations
vpiced in regard to equivalence and, adaptation (see abdve) apply! here, too.
Aside from interlingual set phrases and semantically unambiguous, denotati-
vely marked texts, every translation procedure exhibits an interpretative
component. Jakobson is thus correct in speaking of translation (regardless
of whether it· is intralingual, interlingual, or intersemiotic in naturel as a
"recoding interpretation" (21966,236), :
Interpretation is especially importa~t as an integral component of the
translation process in the field of artistic translation. Hollander, for ex-
ample, considers "interpretative translation" a problem of "literary theory"
(1966, 215); Levy notes that
"because of the incongruence in lingutstic material, perfect agreement
between expressions in the translation and those in the original is not
and ... therefore interpretation [is] necessary" (1969, 47l.
Koller, similarly, calls translation, especi<llly tne translation of belles lettres
an "interpretation of the original text" (1972, 66), and Popovic sees th~
essence of literary translatioll as consi,sting of a stylistic interpretation
which he sees as an "analysis of the stylistic m~ans used in the text of a
translation in the light of the stylistic pro~erties of the original" (1971,
153).
Kade does not deal with the questions of where the transition between
interpretation ,and paraphrase takes place or what criteria of classification
are avaible to research on transfer procedures. He merely notes rather
laconically "that in the practice of human translation, 'i nterpretation'
and "paraphrase' rarely appear in their pure form but rather, as a rule,
overlap" (1968b, 17). This remark can be taken only one way: as saying,
namely, that at the present time the science of translation has very little
definitive knowledge about the possibility, of a precise differentiation
between "r~coding" and "new coding" (Umkodierung/Neukodierung in
Kade's terms); this is because the science has been unable thus far to define
exhaustively those conditions under which translation via paraphrase is
, a legitimate, necessary translation procedure, covering special needs of the
SL author, the translator or the TL 'recipient. The difficulties involved
in resolving this problem are compo"lirided by the fact that, in spite 9f all
the differences in translation', pro,cedures, the two forms of translation
, are similar, since re-coding an'd new 'coding,or translation in the narrower
,and translatio~ in the broader sense of the word, call for the ability. to
correctly inte'rpret the meaning oLi sentence or a senten~e sequence. '
' "In view of what, has been said, [textual) intuitions of a bilingual informant inVOlve)
I the same fundamental operations as dqes paraphrase, since both involve the, ability
to asso'ciate particular sentences with the underlying deep structure or, in othe'r words,
ability to interpret the meani~g of the sentenc,es" (Krzeszowski 1971, 47J.' ,
In addition, it should- be noted that paraphrasing is actually ~' monolingual
operation which is based on textual synonymity relations 'and thus, strictly
speaking, falls into the category of int'ralingual translation. Finally, deter-
mining what position paraphrase occupies in the arsenal of possible trans-
lation procedures is further complicated by the lack of agreement on the
scope of meani':lg of paraphrase translation; some of the definitions found
in the science of translation conflict with one another, Rabin, for example,
thinks that the function of paraphrase - as a counterpart to literal trans-
lation - is to serve as a collective term for all TL-directed (non-literal)
forms of translation.
of mean'ing "There are, of course, two distinct methods of translation: paraphrase and literal
possible .. ' translation .. , Naturally, the paraphrase does not work independently of all word-
' references in statement A. It picks out leading referents, such as nouns and verbs and
builds up a new context appropriate to the way in which the situation would be
normally analysed in language S" (1958, 131 f.J.
Nida and Taber, on ,the other hand, regard semantic equivalence between
SLT and TLT without lexical correspondences as an essential component
of a paraphrase translation (1969). Tancock, in his turn, sees a paraphrase
translation as one in which the TL T deviates in meaning from the SLT
(1958), Catford hands down a Salomon-like verdict:
 i
I

110, ". \1.

"It is clear ~'hat'these commonly used terms '~td-for.word', 'literal', anb 'free', infer (88) The method of ca.lculating Die'Methode, die Steuern zu be·
~ry largely t~ types of translation in Which .equivalences are set Up at d.ifferent ranks the levy, .. rechnen ...
In a grammatical hierarchy. Equivalences l"l1ay be setUp at ranks still higher than the Die Methode der Berechnung van
sentence - say the paragraph. When this occurs there.is some change of the 'free trans. . Steuern .. ,
lation' becoming more losely related to the source text, so that the result might more Die Methode der Steuerberechnung '.' .
properly be called a 'paraphrase' .• (1967, 1351.- ' .
3. non-habitualized translation procedures which force the translator
The normative implications of translation via paraphrase hinted at here by to muster up all his creative tesources and come up with his own formu·
Catford take on their full importa.nce, lations on the basis of cognitive psychology" (not associative psycho-
, from thE{socroc;:ultural
.
pciint of view:
" ,', . it is possible, to make a bad translation .•. by 'paraphrasing loosely Jnd distorting logy):
~he messag~ 'to conform to alien cultural patterns ... \his is the bad sense of the word (89) In these private theatricals Bei diesen LiebhabeNluffuhrungen
paraphrase. But ... a good translatlot:l focuses on the meaning or content as such It was.her own ·many-facetted .... spielte sie ihre eigene, schillernde
and aims to preserve that intact; and in the process it may quite radically restructure nature that she put on exhibit, Personlichkeit aus, und die Zuschauer
the form: this is.paraphrase in the proper sense" (Nida/Taber 1969, '173). \ . -and the audience .. , could· ... zollten sowohl ihrer Rol/enbe·
applaud both her skil/ herrschung wie ihrer Wandlungsfahig·
S611 demontrates yet another perspective ofparaphr~se translation with his
of projection and her 'keit Beifall.
reference t.oJhe function of..paraphrase'as related to a specific tYpe of text: i,ntri nsic vari ety. .
"Une theor~e stric~e",ent ,linguistique de la' trad~~iion d~it~oflsid~r~rl~ paraphrase Of course; this attempt; too, at classifying translation procedures .will very
comme ~qUlva.lente (Ia. paraph;ase e.st con~titutive de toutce qui concerm! ,Ie langage),
~a the~>rte de .'a traduction IItteral;e par ,contre,.ne ,peut la considerer';que comme quickly run into limits of pbjectification, a problem it will 'not be able
. ersa~z et de ce fait comme non equlvalente" (1971,29 f.). ." , : to overcome, since a classification 'of'translation procedures according
In view of the uncertainty surrounding the definition .and cl~ssification to degrees of habitualization might: end up varying from translator to
of the par~phrase concept, a strong case ·can be made for urgi ng the. science translator. This is partly because' translation, like any" act of linguistic
of translation to te~porarily put aside the aspect of paraphrase and to try communication, is a mental activity in which internalized transfer strategies
other means of solving the problems of classifying translation procedures. and non·internalized transfer strategies work together ina way controlled
largely by the 'translator himself (Wilss 1981 d). Richards, although some·
One conceivable approach is a psycnolinguistically oriented classification
what overstating the case, is tendentially correct in calling translation "very
system which divides translation proce.dures into three 9roups:
probably ... the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution
1. habitualized translation procedures (translation mechanisms based of the cosmos" (1953, 250), F6r'that reason, it is questionable whether
on the principle of association): research in the field of translation procedures will, in the foreseeable future,
(84) How could you take that Was haben Sie sich (was hast be able to come up with any exhaustive classification system giving sufficient
into your head? du dirt dabei eigentlich ge· consideration to all types of texts relevant to translation. .
dacht7/
Wie sind Sie (wie bist du)
nur auf diese (verruckte)
Idee gekommen? .
(85) He has killed two birds Er' hat' zwei Fliegen mit einer
with one stone. . Klappe geschlagen.
(86) He is.unlikely to came. Er kommt.wahrScheinlich nicht;

2. partlvhabitualized translati6~ procedures which can be re~alled semi·

internalized:
(87) Having finished his job he
.
. ,

E~ b8!l~dete seine Arbeit 'und .:'

went home, ging dann nach H'llUse/ . ; .,
Nachdem er seine Arbeit been'det
hatte, ging er nach Hause/ . i
Nach Beendigung seiner Arbeit '
ging er nach Hause. . ,