Upload
anonymous-b48sgzwe0y
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
1/21
Constructing a Model for Shift Analysis in Translation
by
Dr. Mohammad Q. R. Al-Zoubi
Ph.D. In Linguistics and Translation
Department of English
Irbid National University
Jordan
Dr. Ali Rasheed Al-Hassnawi
Ph.D. In Linguistics and Translation
Department of English
Irbid National University
Jordan
Abstract
The occurrence of shifts in any translational activity is an unavoidable phenomenon.
Unfortunately, the bulk of research carried out in this regard has not perceived the
urgent need for a model to analyze or shown interest in identifying these shifts.
In this paper, the researchers attempt to construct a workable eclectic model for shift
analysis whose major aim is to provide a sound machinery to analyze various types of
shifts in translation at various levels of linguistic and paralinguistic description. Theconstruction of such a model benefits from a large number of grammatical, textual,
pragmatic, and stylistic theories and approaches that are neatly interwoven and
simultaneously operated in search for a comprehensive and objective machinery of
shift analysis which translation studies and practice are still lacking.
1.1. Introduction
In his attempt to transfer meaning from one language (SL) to another (TL) by means ofthe universally known practice of translation, the translator faces a plethora of linguistic,
stylistic and even cultural problems. In this regard, Popovi (1970: 79) confirms that "this
transfer is not performed directly and is not without its difficulties." This means that the act of
translation can be analyzed along a range of possibilities, which brings about a number of
shifts in the linguistic, aesthetic and intellectual values of the source text (ST).
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
2/21
In this paper, we will attempt to construct a workable model
for shift analysis in translation. We assume a straightforward
application of this model regardless of the type of text
involved in the analysis process. Moreover, we hold the view
that translation is a highly complex phenomenon, which
involves a large number of variables other than the linguisticones. In this regard, we define shifts as follows:
Shifts are all the mandatory actions of the translator (those dictated by the structural
discrepancies between the two language systems involved in this process) and the optional
ones (those dictated by the his personal and stylistic preferences) to which he resorts
consciously for the purpose of natural and communicative rendition of an SL text into another
language.
This process of rendition should be carried out in accordance with the norms and principles of
translation science in addition to those inherent to the language systems involved in this
process.
In accordance with the above statement, the model incorporates various linguistic approaches
and methodologies that may have some bearing on the process of translation.
1.2. The Model Constructed
The proposed model of shift analysis is illustrated by Diagram 1 to be followed by a full
description of its components:
1.2.1. A Horizontal Description Generally speaking, the model is product-oriented in the
sense that it applies to two texts involved in the translation. It is also obvious that the model
comprises two levels of analysis, i.e., micro and macro levels with two basic dimensions: the
semantic dimension, represented by the message shared by source (ST) and target (TT) texts,
which are supposed to conveyroughly speakingthe same message, and the syntactic
dimension, where each of the two texts is assigned a different syntactic description, since
these texts represent two different embodiments of the same message. This message
constitutes the core of the translation task as a whole.
Furthermore, the existence of this message, which is shared between the two texts, provides us
with a criterion to formulate the tertium comparationis required compare the two texts (cf.
'shift' should be
redefinedpositively as the
consequence of thetranslator's effort to
establish
translation
equivalence (TE)
between two
different language
systems.
http://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htm7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
3/21
James, 1980).
Another important point to raise here is the fact that this central position of the 'Message'
serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it provides the model with a good means to form aqualitative balance between the ST and the TT. On the other hand, this position represents the
maximum balance between form and content of the message, a case which rarely happens.
Based on the above discussion, and to account for the interrelationship between form and
content as two essential extremes in any translation act, the position of the 'Message' can be
slightly changed in four different ways. The first two are motivated by the orientation of
translation whereas the other two are motivated by the relationship between form and content
in both texts. The adoption of any of these four versions on the part of the translator will result
in certain types of shift which can only be explained by referring to the translator's priorities,
his style, purpose, the type of the text to be translated, and some other communicative and
stylistic norms. The operation of each level of the model is given below.
1.2.2. Micro-Level Analysis
At this level, the analysis is carried out within the morpho-syntactic component of the model
based on Systemic Grammar (SG) and Transformational Grammar (TG). A description of the
operation of this level is given below.
1.2.2.1 The Morpho-Syntactic Component: An Overview
This major component is considered a potential area of microstructural shifts, the analysis ofwhich is one of the main objectives of this model. This component comprises two parts. The
first represents some sort of a 'categorial grammar,' and builds on Halliday's (1961)
Categories of the Theory of Grammar.
The second part borrows much from TG, and it is intended to supplement the first part, which
is concerned with the surface structure (SS) analysis. Furthermore, this deep-level part is
operated to explore the underlying semantic and syntactic relations existing in each text. The
analysis of shifts is then done in the light of these relations which represent the starting point
for such an analysis.
Two further remarks need to be made concerning the scope and operation of this component.
First, the component is basically, but not necessarily exclusively, sentential in nature, i.e.,
operates at the level of the sentence and its lower constituents. Second, in addition to the
structural orientation of this component, it has a functional one as well. In other words, in
analyzing the structure of the ST and TT units, the following questions must guide the
analysis of each text: (a) What is that unit?, i.e., its grammatical membership, (b) What does
that unit do within the given text?, i.e., the function of that unit, and (c) Where does that unit
occur?, i.e., the location of the unit. Thus, it is obvious that we are interested in the
grammatical units of the two texts from two angles: the units as independent entities and the
units as members of other units in the same text.
As for the operation, we do not consider it a condition for the simultaneous operation of the
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
4/21
whole component that fragments of either text be analyzed. To put it differently, the, model
makes it possible to use any of its parameters found suitable for performing the task of shift
identification. Hence, one can select any sub-levelif found relevantas a starting point to
carry out this analysis.
Finally, one should not overlook the need to operate this component in both texts in the same
way, i.e., the sub-level chosen to analyze the ST should be the same as that chosen to analyze
the TT.
So far, we have given an overall description of the morpho-syntactic component. A detailed
description of its parts is presented below.
1.2.2.1.1. The Categorial Part (Surface-level Analysis)
This part accounts for shifts happening at the SS level in terms of four theoretical categories,
namely unit,structure, class, andsystem, which provide the framework for the syntactic and
functional description of the data.
In addition to these categories, the categorial part of the syntactic component makes use of
some other language-specific categories called 'descriptive' categories. These are used "to talk
about the grammar of any particular language" (Halliday et al, 1964:31) and are considered to
be instances of the theoretical ones. Hence, the abstract theoretical category of 'unit' may
comprise in a particular language such instances as 'sentence,' 'clause,' 'group,' etc. The
description of these categories in one language should be made in terms specific to that
language and not in terms of any other universal construct. This is a very significantprocedural precaution, which the analyst must keep in mind. However, one might think of the
problem of comparison at a later stage while making such descriptions.
One solution to this problem comes from the fact that these categories are only components of
some other universal ones which can be used as the constant entity in the comparison.
Another equally powerful solution comes from the hypothesis of language universals: despite
their apparent differences, human languages exhibit some syntactic and semantic similarities
at various levels of abstraction.
The relations among the descriptive categories themselves and their relations with the data are
expressed by means of three interrelated scales, namely 'rank,' 'exponence,' and 'delicacy.'
From these, the first and the second scales are utilized in the present model. Interlingually, the
scale of rank accounts for shifts caused by substituting an SL unit in a particular position on
the rank scale by a TL unit in a lower or higher position, e.g., an SL group by a TL clause or
word. The scale of exponence, on the other hand, is the scale of realization. It refers to the
relation between systems and structures on one hand and to the relation between structures
and the formal items of grammar on the other. Hence, terms from systems are realized by
structures and the elements of these structures are realized by formal items. In translation,
some shifts occur in the realization of SL systems and structures in the TL, e.g., the realization
of an English interrogative in Arabic.
The following diagram serves as an illustration of overt rank and covert exponence shifts
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
5/21
taking place in the category of unit.
The following observations concerning the analysis of overt and covert micro interlingual unit
shifts are made with reference to Diagram 2.1. Vertically, overt micro shifts may occur either up or down the scale of rank, hence the
vertical arrow; upward shifts take place when an SL unit is substituted by a higher-in-
rank TL unit whereas downwards shifts take place when an SL unit is substituted by a
lower-in-rank TL unit. In English into Arabic translation, for example, upwards shifts
represent the markedtype as they seem less common due to the fact that the translator
usually does not need to go upwards the TL rank scale in search for a substitution for
an SL unit. On the other hand, downwards shifts represent the unmarkedtype; shifts in
this direction are more likely than those in the reverse direction. Usually, when
looking for the appropriate substitution, the translator moves, optionally or
obligatorily, down the TL rank scale until he reaches the lowest-in-rank unit. Only
when these lower-in-rank units fall short, will the translator look upwards.2. Unless dictated by any structural factor, the overt micro unit shifts must be considered
optional. In other words, the translator has to decidein the light of his own
translation standardseither to keep the same SL unit rank, or move up or down this
rank in the TL. When all factors are the same, translation to the same unit rank
provides the maximum degree of structural accuracy; otherwise, the translator has to
look for the TL unit nearest in rank to the SL one.
3. Overt micro unit shifts are by no means restricted to the sentence rank; they may occur
at any point on the scale, hence, the shadow square is given opposite each move
in Diagram 2.
4. Horizontally, Diag. 2 accounts for overt micro shifts motivated by different TL
realizations of an SL unit of the same rank. These shifts are more likely to be
obligatory rather than optional. This is a typical case in translating between English
and Arabic, as the internal systems of these languages are largely different.
Before going into the discussion of the microanalysis of shifts in other categories, it is
important to emphasize the functional nature of micro unit analysis of shifts. In addition to the
structural character of these units, their grammatical meaning, i.e., their functions should also
be taken into consideration when micro unit analysis of shifts is carried out.
1.2.2.1.2. Structure
The descriptive units of the grammar of any language are arranged into meaningful stretches
or patterns. One single instance of these patterns is called 'structure.' This abstract category
which applies to all units in the grammar of a language (except the one lowest in rank),
accounts for the various ways in which one unit may be realized by the unit next below it.
Sometimes, however, a unit may be realized by a unit above it. This phenomenon is known as
rank shifting.
Languages exhibit a considerable amount of differences both in the realization of similarstructures existing in these languages and in the type of structures existing in each language. It
http://accurapid.com/journal/17diag2.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag2.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag2.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htm7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
6/21
is worth mentioning here that the distinction between deep representation of linguistic
relations and their surface realizations constitutes an important phase for the analysis of
structural shifts.
It is essential to state that there are two ways for describing every single structure. The first
relates to the sequence of elements realizing it, i.e., their order. The second relates to the class
of these elements. These two methods can be adopted for the sake of a more delicate analysis
of microstructural shifts.
Furthermore, we need to distinguish between two types of choices implied in each element of
a structure. On the one hand, one is free to choose, for example, between singular nominal
group and plural nominal group in English to realize the function 'subject.' On the other hand,
such freedom is lacking in verbal groups with past and future tense forms. This distinction can
only be made by referring to the categories 'class' and 'system' (cf. below). This constitutes
another potential area of interlingual microstructural shifts.
Following Muir (1972:4), we need to distinguish between optional and obligatory elements
entering in the realization of a structure. In English, for example, the 'root' is an obligatory
element in the structure of any word while affixes are optional ones. When considered
interlingually, this distinction leads to another potential area of shifts. Arabic, for instance,
exhibits more variations than English with regard to optional and obligatory elements in the
structure of the unit 'sentence.' Indeed, interlingual micro structural shifts are likely to occur
within each unit that exhibits a structure, i.e., all units except the lowest in rank.
1.2.2.1.3. Class
By a 'class' it is meant the grouping of the constituents of a unit according to the way they
operate in the structure of another unit next higher in rank. In other words, a class refers to
any set of items having the same possibilities of operation in the structure of a particular unit
(Halliday et al, 1964:29).
The need to refer to this category in the analysis of interlingual micro shifts comes from the
fact that languages differ in the restrictions they place on the occurrence of some units in the
structure of some other higher units. In English, for instance, not all the members of the unit
'phrase' can operate as 'predicate' in clause structure, and those which can do so cannot
operate in another place (Muir, 1972:3). The items of each unit are assigned a class name
according to their potential capability of operating in the structure of units next above the one
they refer to. Hence, the more delicate the class is, the wider are the differences between the
languages involved in the comparison and the greater the number of shifts will be.
1.2.2.1.4. System
By a 'system' it is meant the closed number of elements among which a choice must be made,
e.g., the system ofnumberin English and Arabic. In fact, the terms available in each system
in one language can show fundamental differences from the terms of the same system inanother language. This can be considered a major source of obligatory micro shifts at this
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
7/21
level of language description. It is worth noting here that the translator is compelled to be
bound by the SL writer's choice; otherwise his performance is destined to be erroneous. In
cases where compatible terms with the source system are taking place in the target system, the
translator has to bridge the gap by using some other means, e.g., the use of a lexical marker of
number 'two' to express duality when translating from Arabic into English.
The occurrence of shifts here can be accounted for by means of terms existing in the system of
individual languages. What increases the possibility of such occurrence is the fact that all the
descriptive units required for the description of a language are systemic in nature; they are
realized by means of specific choices of the particular systems of that language. Actually,
these choices are language-specific and their applicability is governed by three criteria. The
first is specified "in terms of rank of unit to which the system is applicable; the second is
specified in terms of the part the unit is playing in the structure of a higher unit"; the third is
specified "in terms of the other options which must be chosen before the options of the given
system become available." (Berry, 1977:13)
Now, we should emphasize the mutual integration of the individual categories. In this regard,
two types of structural surface relations, namely paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations can
be stated.
Interlingually, different dependency relations are realized by different syntactic means. One
important point to talk about is word order, as in the case of the unilateral dependency relation
between the head and the adjective in English nominal groups. The order of these elements is
Adjective + Head while the same relation is realized by the reverse order in Arabic, i.e., Head
+ Adjective. The same is true for unilateral dependency relation of possession in both
languages, e.g.,
English Arabic
Robert's
possessor
book
possessed
/Robert/
possessor
/kitaabu/
possessed
In these structures, where one element is typically obligatory while other elements are
optional, an agreement between the head and its modifiers is usually observed in some
languages, e.g., number and gender agreement between 'noun' and 'adjective' in the Arabic
nominal group. However, languages vary so widely in the restrictions they assign to thisagreement. In the English nominal group, for instance, this agreement is observed between
'articles' and 'nouns' but overlooked between 'nouns' and 'adjectives.' By contrast, Arabic seeks
such agreement in both cases. Again, this is another potential area of obligatory structural
shifts in translation.
As for bilateral dependent structures, the distribution of either constituent elements is different
from that of the structure as a whole as in the prepositional groups in English and Arabic.
Following Brown and Miller (1980:255), the majority of the syntactic relations in all
languages are of this type. Furthermore, the variety of functional labels used to refer to these
relations reflects the variation of these relations in different languages.
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
8/21
The importance of bilateral dependency relations to the analysis of structural shifts in
translation can be appreciated by examining the following sentences:
-John beats the dog.
-Fido is a dog.
-John went home.
Although one single string of elements could be assigned to the above sentences, namely NP
+ V + NP, the relation of V with the NP following it in each sentence is different. In order to
account for this difference, various functional labels are used, e.g., 'predicate,' 'complement,'
'object,' etc.
Many bi-directional relations presume that one constituent element requires other constituentsto be in a particular case, e.g., in a prepositional group with a personal pronoun as a
realization of the NP, the preposition requires an oblique case in English, and an accusative
one in Arabic. This indicates that languages use different ways for implementing these
relations, which adds to the likelihood of structural shifts occurrences in this area. The degree
of this likelihood increases with the fact that none of the constituent elements in these
structures is optional.
In the third type of dependency relations, i.e., co-ordinate dependency, neither constituent
depends syntactically on the other. The distribution of each constituent is the same as that of
the structure as a whole. In terms of symbols, the description of these structures is:
A A' (+) A' (+)...An, where A is any co-ordinate dependent structure and A', A', An are
constituent elements of the same distribution. Theoretically, no limit is assigned to the number
of these elements in any given structure. Yet languages may exhibit certain restrictions on the
order of these elements. The order of adjectives in the English nominal group is a good
example of these restrictions which are mostly language-specific. The optional (+) in the
above formula of these structures is meant to emphasize the possibility of having a co-
ordination marker such as 'and,' 'or,' etc. for some structures. Up to this point, the need for
such markers varies interlingually. Hence, another area of shifts can be manifested.
The last type of dependency relations is that of the exclusion relation which is useful fordefining some grammatical classes such as the verbs of state in English which do not agree
with auxiliaries for the progressive aspect, and proper nouns which do not take the definite
article 'the.'
However, it must be mentioned that "dependency relations cannot always be captured in a
straightforward fashion in constituent grammar" (Brown and Miller, 1980:259). What we also
need to know is an interpretive machinery to interpret these relations. In the present case, such
a machinery can be borrowed from TG which enters as a supplementary part in the syntactic
component of this model of analysis (see Diagram 1). The incorporation of this type of
grammar is accounted for in the following section.
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
9/21
1.2.2.1.5. Deep-level Analysis
The transformational sub-component is considered to bridge the gap in the categorial sub-component.
The need for this injunction refers to the fact that in any translation task, the translator needs
to employ more or less four transformational syntactic processes,namely, deletion, insertion,
permutation, and/orsubstitution. Each of these processes is binary in nature, i.e., optional (its
adoption depends on the translator's own preference) or obligatory (the translator is compelled
to apply it in order to produce well-formed TL sentences). It goes without saying that
languages exhibit substantial differences in the application of TRs and allow different means
for the application of the optional ones. It is these qualitative and quantitative differences
which allow us to amplify obligatory and optional syntactic shifts in translation. In other
words, we would call the shifts motivated by the application of obligatory TRs as obligatorysyntactic shifts and those motivated by the application of the optional ones as optional
syntactic shifts.
Following Nida (1964:65), two practical advantages can be derived from the adoption of this
procedure. First, the equivalence of different formal (syntactic) structures possessing the same
meaningful relation can be seen even interlinguistically. Second, the equivalence of formally
similar structures possessing different meanings can also be readily seen. And in the same
way we would like to add a third one, namely, complex structures can be easily plotted by
reference to their kernel, i.e., deep, structures.
So far, the description of the micro level of the present model is complete. The rest of thepresent paper is dedicated to describe in detail the second major level of this model, i.e., the
macro level of analysis.
1.3. Macro-Level Analysis
At this level, the model is switched to analyze a considerable amount of obligatory and
optional shifts which take place at a level higher than the micro level. In order to account for
this requirement, the present model presupposes an independent broad level of analysis called
the macro-level of analysis.
The main difference between this level and the previous one, i.e., the micro level, comes from
the direction of analysis. On the one hand, the micro level moves within the domain of the
sentence as the maximum unit of the syntactic description. The macro level, on the other
hand, moves within the domain of the text. In this sense, the macro level accounts for all
variables of texture, culture, style and rhetoric, which contribute to the occurrence of shifts at
levels other than the syntactic level. Hence, it is broken down into a number of components,
each of which accounts for a particular variable of the above ones. Diagrams 3 and 4 are
presented to illustrate this difference between the micro and macro levels of analysis.
However, this difference should not be exaggerated. Instead, the two levels should beconsidered unitary since both would accept the traditional view that the sentence is the locus
http://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag1.htm7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
10/21
of structural and stylistic variation, "though with the proviso that it entails spans wider than
sentence" (Hendricks 1976:40-41).
What follows is a description of the individual components within the macro level of analysisalong with their scope of inclusion in relation to the possibility of shifts within each
component.
1.3.1. The Semantic Component
Meaning should be the main preoccupation of all translation. However, the amount of this
interest varies according to the type of meaning conveyed by the lexical items of a given text.
As far as translation is concerned, the translator has to do his best to transfer as much of the
original meaning as he can into the TL. But since we know that the process of meaning
transfer is not a straightforward process, the translator, therefore, is often called upon to makesome semantic adjustments in order to accomplish this task. In our case, such semantic
adjustments are analyzed as semantic shifts, which can be obligatory or optional. The former
are dictated by the unavoidable semantic gaps between the SL and TL. Such gaps are mainly
caused by some cultural and conceptual differences between the two languages. The latter in
turn arise when the translator attempts to maintain the gist of the original meaning while
practicing some means of semantic polishing.
The analysis of both types of shifts has to be carried out by extracting the semantic relations
within the lexical items of the ST then examining the possibility of conveying similar
relations into the TL by similar or different formal devices. It should be mentioned here that
meaning extraction should be made in the light of the immediate situation in which the STfunctions; otherwise, the analysis is destined to be vague. This relation is discussed below.
1.7.1.1. The Relation between Meaning and Situation
Language is performed in order to serve a variety of functions over its 'ideational' function (cf.
Halliday, 1976). In performing all these functions, language is determined situationally, i.e.,
the selection of linguistic elements to convey a particular meaning is determined by the
elements of the situation in which these elements are used. This same relation is described as
one of inclusion; the former includes or presupposes the latter.
As far as the present model is concerned, the relation of inclusion between meaning and
situation brings about significant implications, the first of which is the necessity of taking the
situational variables into account in defining the meaning of the ST. The second implication
goes as follows. In addition to the impact of situation on the realization of meaning, part of
this meaning is mapped by the linguistic organization of the language in which this meaning is
encoded. Hence, one can safely generalize that if the context of situation is changed "changes
will inevitably take place in the linguistic texture. Conversely, if a shift is carried out on the
linguistic level, this context of situation will also change." (Wilss, 1982:71).
The above generalization necessitates the adoption of a broader view of the concept of
meaning. Such an extended view of meaning applies to all text types in general and thosehaving figurative semantic relations in particular, i.e., literary texts. In this regard, Nida
http://accurapid.com/journal/17diag3.htmhttp://accurapid.com/journal/17diag4.htm7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
11/21
(1985:119) states:
We are no longer limited to the idea that meaning is centered in words or even
in grammatical situations. Everything in language from sound symbolism tocomplex rhetorical structures carries meaning...
In written communications, even the format carries meaning. Even the color of
binding is significant. For example, most people do not wish a Bible with a
yellow cover, but Bibles with gold cover are very popular.
Of course, our model does not go as far as Nida does. His words are cited to emphasize that
meaning in its widest sense would serve the purpose of the present paper. To put it differently,
the analysis of semantic shifts will be carried out in terms of the situation in which language is
used.
Hence, only the paradigmatic relations could be considered within the semantic component of
the macro level of analysis. This is so because such relations are semantics proper. The other
types of relations, due to their textual and stylistic values, will be accounted for within
independent components at the same level.
1.3.1.1.Paradigmatic Relations: Synonymy and Semantic Fields
The significance of synonymy as a paradigmatic semantic relation to translation is stated by
Baldinger (1980:251) as follows: "Translation is nothing than a problem of synonymy." It is
evident, then, that Baldinger perceives synonymy in its widest sense to mean, in translation,
the search for equivalent meaning on all linguistic levels. However, translation, strictlyspeaking, cannot be perceived as a simple task of haphazard matching of SL lexical items
with their TL counterparts. Any individual can do this by relying on a bilingual dictionary. By
contrast, the translator needs to analyze the meaning of the SL lexical items before attempting
to find TL equivalents for these items. In his search for efficient lexical equivalents in the TL,
the translator has to play the role of a competent proxy on behalf of his readers; he must
identify the areas of cultural overlap and linguistic interference between the two languages.
His suffering starts at this stage: identical symbols in the two languages do not necessarily
convey the same meaning. Much worse is the difference in people's experiences and the
variation of conceptual boundaries from one language to another "in a way that defies
principled explanation" (Leech, 1974:3). Knowing that lexical items are the vehicles by which
people's experience is encoded and their concepts are expressed leads to the conclusion that
shifts in interlingual synonymy are inevitable phenomena in translation.
Apart from the problem of denotation in the study of synonymy, Nida (1964:89) captures the
structural specification of words as another source for semantic shifts in this area. In this
regard, he states:
The area of cultural specification, however, is likely to provide the
greatest difficulties for the translator. In translating a text which
represents an area of cultural specification in the source language but
not in the receptor language, the translator must frequently constructall sorts of descriptive equivalentsso as to make intelligible something,
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
12/21
which is quite foreign to the receptor.
In our opinion, this process of finding semantically equivalent lexical items is carried out by
performing a variety of shifts in the central and/orperipheral components of the ST lexicalitems. By means of careful contextual conditioning, the translator may remove or insert some
componential values associated with the ST lexical items. According to Nida (1969:107), "in
many instances, shifts of components involve only a shift from a literal etymological meaning
to one which is functionally more relevant." Nida's example for this case is the translation of
the word 'devil' whose etymological meaning is 'Satan.' If translated, say, into Arabic, the
word would mean nothing unless an etymological shift is used, i.e., the translator has to refer
to its etymological origin then transfer it into the TL. Another type of componential shift goes
from generic to specific meaning or vice versa.
As for the relation between the lexical items and their referents, which is the core of their
referential meaning, the translator is likely to face three situations. The first one is "theexistence of a term (and its corresponding referent) in the receptor language, but with an
equivalent function being performed by another referent" (ibid. 44). A good example for such
a situation arises when translating from English into a language which has no word for 'snow.'
The translator has to replace the word 'snow' in the phrase 'as white as snow' by another word,
which refers to a white-colored object.
The second situation is "the existence of the referent in the receptor language, but with a
different function from what it has in the source language."(ibid.). The English word 'owl' and
its Arabic equivalent 'buum' represent a good example for such a problem. In English, it refers
to a class of birds with positive connotation, i.e., wisdom and good omen. Arabic has exactly
the opposite connotation for the same referent, the fact which necessitates finding anotherword referring to an object with similar connotations.
The third situation is "the non-existence of the referent in the receptor language and no other
referent with a parallel function" (ibid.45). The translation of any lexical item denoting
technological inventions from English into Arabic provides a good example for such a
problem. Here, the translator is compelled to force foreign words into the TT or to use
descriptive phrases to explain the meaning of individual lexical items.
In all the situations discussed above, the translator finds himself obliged to adopt some
strategies so as to bridge these semantic gaps. In this regard, Jacobson's (1959:234) words
would serve to conclude the discussion:
Wherever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and
amplified by loan words or loan translations or semantic shifts and
finally, by circumlocutions.
1.4. The Textual Component
To be described as such, a text should exhibit two kinds of structural and cohesive relations:
local and global (Hendricks, 1976:41). The first can be accounted for by 'Sentence Grammar'on which enough has already been said. The second kind includes the relations which cannot
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
13/21
be accounted for "without reference to inter-sentence features and to portions of the text
beyond the sentence under consideration" (Enkvist, 1973:111). Consequently, the inclusion of
such a component would inevitably presume reliance on text linguistics. As a matter of fact,
the incorporation of this linguistic approach is an essential procedural condition for the macrolevel of analysis. In other words, the analysis cannot be carried out on randomly chosen
sentences without taking into account that these sentences should exhibit the property of
global cohesion in addition to their local cohesion. This particular requirement is satisfied by
inserting a textual component within the macro level. The analysis within this component will
focus on the elements within individual sentences which, in addition to playing a role in the
structure of the sentence itself, also contribute to its integration into the textual whole, by
making it dependent in some way on other sentences within the same text. These dependent
sentences convey information about one another, which makes them constitute a cohesive
whole. There are two other sources of this interdependence, namely, textual and discoursal.
The former refers to the variety of global and local cohesive markers within the portions of
the text while the latter refers to the functional dependency among these portions. The latterdimension imposes the inclusion of another macro discipline of language description, namely,
'discourse analysis.' This means that the question to be asked about any linguistic unit is what
the user hopes to achieve with this particular bit of language, i.e., its use,in addition to its
form. This issue is accounted for by the pragmatic component within the macro level. The
description of this component will be given after the description of the present component.
By now, it is obvious that the textual component of shift analysis views the data in their broad
scope. Hence, this analysis will be carried out in terms of the textual well-formedness which
entails such variables as collocation,reiteration, ellipsis, references, substitution and the
like.
1.5.The Pragmatic Component
Stalinker (1973:38) defines pragmatics as "the study of purposes for which sentences are used,
of the real-world conditions under which a sentence may be appropriately used and alternate."
In this sense the meaning of a single expression may vary in accordance with the purposes
behind it and the conditions surrounding the communicative act.
This view of meaning, which necessitates the inclusion of a pragmatic component in any
proper semantic analysis, corresponds to what Widdowson (1973:69) refers to as "the
communicative use of sentences in the performing of social actions." Leech (1974:141) uses
the term 'connotative meaning' to refer to the same type of meaning. To him, the connotation
of an expression is the "communicative value an expression has...over and above its purely
conceptual meaning."
In contrast to the linguistic meaning, which can be extracted from the grammatical relations
within a given text, pragmatic meaning can only be analyzed by referring to the cultural
and/or linguistic context of that text. Accordingly, the analysis of pragmatic shifts in
translation can only be carried out by attending to the immediate cultural context of situation
of the ST and matching it with that in the TL so as to put a finger on the possible areas of
shifts when the translator tries to convey the same message into the TL. In this connection,reference is to be made to speech acts theory as initiated by some pragmatists, e.g., Austin
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
14/21
(1965 ). This means that the analysis should account for variables such as the intentions of the
writer or speaker, his expectation, the time of utterance, the truth value of the propositions
expressed, other speech acts being performed in the same situation, and so on. In other words,
the analysis will take into consideration the major functions of language as a means of
communication in a social setting. What is important here is that the realization of thesefunctions varies greatly from one language to another, which adds to the necessity of using a
pragmatic component in the present model. In fact, this variation in the realization of the
pragmatic functions of language goes is expressed in two phases. First, languages employ
different formal devices for realizing similar speech acts. These formal variations include all
lexical and syntactic means allowed by the grammar of each language. Second, the contextual
spectrum, which imposes the performing of particular acts, differs considerably from one
culture to another. Furthermore, at a higher level of delicacy, "cultures may also differ in the
rules for when certain speech acts can be appropriately performed." (Benthalia and Davies,
1989:102). In this regard, one may refer to the considerable differences between English and
Arabic in the kind of formulas commonly used to perform the acts of greeting, leave-taking,
thanking, apologizing and so on. The content of these formulas and the rules of their use
frequently reflect the particular values and beliefs of their....users. To take only one example
of these differences, Arab speakers frequently use formulas containing religious references for
greeting and thanking, e.g., / baraka Allahu fiik/ (lit. 'blessing of God upon you'); / Allah
ykhaliik/ (lit. 'may God preserve you'), etc., while functionally corresponding English
formulas do not contain such references. Similar differences between the two languages can
be recognized in the formal realization of 'imperatives.' There are many situations in which an
Arab speaker uses an imperative construction while intending to convey a polite request or
invitation. In such a case he may use some forms of invocation or good wish for the
addressee.
The above discussion entails that the categorization of speech acts into, greeting, thinking,
request, etc., is a universal phenomenon, the linguistic realization of these acts and the rules of
their performance in one language "do not necessarily have exact equivalents in another
language, and raise a lot of questions related to the theory of translation." (Enkvist, 1973:57).
The implication of this statement on the phenomenon of shifts is self-evident: one needs to
account for all these differences in order to point out the possible shifts within this particular
area. Another requirement for this analysis is to identify in each language which formal
devices are used for particular speech acts. Both formal realizations then will be compared so
as to point the obligatory and optional shifts between them.
The inclusion of the textual component in the present model entails the inclusion of anotherrelated, through distinct, component, namely the rhetorical on which a brief account is given
below.
1.6. The Rhetorical Component
The native speakers of any language are capable sometimes of maintaining the logical
relationship that exists between a group of linguistic units even with the absence of explicit
maker for this relation. An English native speaker, for example, can give the same
interpretation for the following sentences, where the first contains an overt linkage marker,
which is lacking in the second:
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
15/21
- Medicines can kill and therefore should be kept out of children's reach.
- Medicines can kill; they should be kept out of children's reach.
Kaplan (1972:ix) attributes this ability to the fact that this is how speakers of English organize
their thought by means of culture-specific devices known as 'rhetorical devices.' The cultural
restrictedness of these devices implies the inevitable occurrence of shifts in this particular area
for which this particular component is dedicated. In his attempt to characterize the rhetorical
structure of a number of languages, Kaplan (ibid. 61) views English as 'direct' whereas much
oriental writings are 'indirect' or 'circulocutionary.' According to him, the speakers of Semitic
languages tend to transfer a complex series of parallel constructions to English. Therefore, this
gives evidence for the likelihood of shifts in this particular area.
Languages may also exhibit many differences in other phases of rhetoric such as
foregrounding, irony, allegory, metaphor, simile, metonym, etc., The reason behind thesedifferences is self-evident: these phases are associated with people's conceptual experiences
and ideologies. In this regard, the variations between English and Arabic in the area of simile
and metaphor represent a good example. In consequence, this particular component has been
included so as to account for the possible shifts that may arise with some major rhetorical
devices, e.g., metaphor, idiomatic expressions, foregrounding and metonym.
1.7. The Stylistic Component
Style is the last area to be dealt with at the macro level of analysis. Hence, we shall consider
certain overall features of style which contribute to the occurrence of shifts of various levelsof the TL text. Furthermore, we do not intend to restrict the term 'stylistic' to its literary
conception. Instead, following Fowler (1966:15), I hold the view that style is "a property of all
texts," without, however, going as far as to overlook the fact that literary texts exhibit some
stylistic features more clearly than non-literary ones. With this clear precaution in mind, we
assume that every language has its own stylistic conventions which may differ from those of
other languages, which may cause stylistic shifts to arise when two languages are involved in
terms of the function of these conventions and their formal carriers, i.e., their linguistic
realizations. When two or more TL expressions are available at the translator's disposal to
express the same SL meaning, stylistic shifts become possible. Obviously, the role of content
here is to serve as the starting point for shift analysis. The other issue relevant to the analysis
of stylistic shifts is the problem of style definition. The need for a satisfactory definition of the
term 'style' would help us get rid of the complexities of literary criticism. In other words, we
need to restrict this term so as to account for the measurement of stylistic shifts in the TT
regardless of their type. This means that this term should be defined in purely linguistic terms
rather than defining it as a literary concept.
Here, it is necessary to emphasize the overwhelmingly optional nature of stylistic shifts. In
other words, I perceive these shifts as TL structural alternative means of expressing a single
SL message at various levels of language use.
Interlingually, stylistic shifts can be explained with reference to the same distinction betweenobligatory and optional application of language rules. An obligatory rule in one language
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
16/21
could be optional in another. Accordingly, the analyst's task is to analyze the original writer's
typical strategies in utilizing optional transformations and his use of different kinds of
transformational operations to compare them with those of the translator.
The second important point presumed by Galperin's statement refers to the variety of
implications conjoined with the term 'style.' The point can put more concretely as follows: the
definition of style "implies that words [and other linguistic units] on a page might been
different, or differently arranged, without a corresponding difference in substance" (Ohman,
1964:430). One significant implication of this statement is that a distinction should be made
between the form of the message and its content. The following section is a discussion of this
issue.
1.7.1. Dichotomy of Form and Content:
Nida and Taber's (1969:105-6) statement in favor of this dichotomy seems the best start ing
point for this section. It reads as follows:
In translating the message from one language to another, it is the
content which must be preserved at any level; the form, except in
special cases, such as poetry, is largely secondary, since within each
language the rules for relating content are highly complex, arbitrary
and variable... Of course if by coincidence, it is possible to convey the
same content in the receptor language in a form which resembles that
of the source, so much the better, we preserve the form when we can,
but more often it has to be transferred precisely in order to preservethe content. An excessive effort to preserve the form inevitably results
in a serious loss or distortion of the message.
The implication of the above statement is evident: stylistic shifts are expected with the
translator's effort to preserve the balance between form and content of the message on the one
hand and his tendency to reflect his character on the other.
Although some scholars tend to restrict the criterion of form to literary texts, our position here
is that "there is probably no absolute formal distinction between literature and non-literature:
neither of these two categories is formally homogenous." (Fowler, 1966:16). However, this
generalization should not be misunderstood as to deny the existence of literature. Instead, it is
meant as being a working hypothesis necessary for the task of analyzing stylistic shifts within
a linguistic framework. To put it more clearly, we assume that all examples of language use
exhibit a linguistic form susceptible for empirical investigation (ibid.). Furthermore, it makes
no difference if the designation 'literature' is used for a certain class of constructions, since
members of this class exhibit formal differences among themselves as well as compared to
other members outside this class. In short, "there is no constant, or a set of constants, which
differentiates all members of the class 'literature' from the members of the class ''non-
literature.'" (ibid.11). Even when we agree on the importance of form to literature, this does
not trivialize the fact that linguistic forms exist and should be taken as an essential area of
investigation in all other examples of language use. The inseparability of form and contentgoes with the view that form has a function and the translator has to discover and transfer it to
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
17/21
the TL (cf. Crystal and Davy, 1969; Leech and Short, 1981; Hatim and Mason, 1990). In this
sense, the translator's task is not only to transfer the content of the message but also to transfer
its form as far as possible. However, following Nida (1985:24) "languages clearly do not
differ primarily in what they can communicate, but in how they do it." This is an overtreference to the occurrence of stylistic shifts in translation at two levels. On the one hand,
there is the intrasentential level where languages differ in their optional and obligatory rules
of sentence formation. On the other hand, stylistic shifts are also likely to occur at the inter-
sentential macro level where language may exhibit substantial differences in the rules of text
formation and message organization. Consequently, the analysis of these shifts will be carried
out on both levels in parallel with the axis of obligatory and optional shifts.
Now the conclusion to be drawn is that 'stylistic shifts' is a cover term used to refer to the
variety ofmacro formal modifications of the ST when transferred into the TL. The
occurrence of these shifts, moreover, can only be predicted by referring to the rhetorical and
stylistic conventions of each language in question in addition to the translator's preference,choice, and ability.
Before moving to the framework of analyzing stylistic shifts, it should be mentioned here that
the contribution of form to the meaning of a text varies according to the text type. The amount
of stylistic shifts varies accordingly. In some genres, e.g., prose, poetry, religious texts, etc.,
form has a cohesive and an aesthetic function which conveys "the creative will of the writer
and lend the text an outward shape" (Wilss, 1982:76).
1.7.2. The Role of the Translator
Among all factors affecting the occurrence of stylistic shifts, the role of the translator stands
as the most recognizable factor. The majority of optional shifts taking place in translation can
be attributed to the differences between the original writer and the translator as two text-
producers. However, the impacts of these differences are usually suppressed by the literary
norms of the TL and the norms of the translation activity itself. More important is the
translator's relation to the text given. This relation is neatly described by Popovi (1970:80) as
follows:
It is not the translator's only business to 'identify' himself with the
original; that would merely result in transparent translation. The
translator also has the right to differ organically, to be independent, as
long as independence is pursued for the sake of the original, a
technique applied in order to reproduce it as a living work... Thus
shifts do not occur because the translator wishes to 'change' a work,
but because he strives to reproduce it as faithfully as possible and to
grasp it in its totality.
Popovi's statement reminds us of many factors, which affect the translator's adoption of a
particular style in rendering a particular text into another language. One of these factors is the
literary norms that may differ in the SL and TL, the case which leaves the translator with three
choices: to imitate the original style, to rely on the TL stylistic norms, or to compromise thetwo by practicing his own stylistic prejudice. The last two options would naturally result in a
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
18/21
great deal of stylistic shifts.
The other point is that some languages may have much more highly developed aesthetic and
rhetorical patterns than other languages, which gives the translator more freedom to choosethe way he likes in expressing the original message. Moreover, the range and refinement of
some literary genres could be more developed in one language than in another. Both cases are
typically applicable to the translation of elevated literature such as poems, epics, religious
texts, etc.
The third factor relevant to the role of the translator in stylistic shifts relates to the 'national
features' of the ST. In this regard Zora Jesenka (quoted by Popovi, 1970:81) has the
following to say:
Both the translator and the reader are the children of their generation,
which displays its own character in its manner of perception andexpression. And the older the work we translate and the more distant
the culture which produced it, the more crucial culture is the question
of how to preserve the temporal and national features of the original
and to make them accessible to the actual perception of the present
reader.
Thus, it is the aim of making such literary works accessible to the TL reader that encourages
the translator to use stylistic shifts. Following Popovi (ibid.), such shifts are expected as a
rule "because the identity and difference in relation to the original cannot be solved without
some residue." Up to this point, the translator's dilemma becomes evident: he would never
strive to preserve all the singularities of the original but rather he would try to reflect his ownidentity while preserving the gist of the original message. Furthermore, he will try to make use
of contemporary equivalents and comprehensible by his perceptive reader. Doing all these
tasks, the translator will display much of his translation skill and literary taste. Skill and
literary taste are two prerequisites to produce a 'natural' translation because the act of
substituting the SL norms by TL ones is a highly subjective issue that demands creative
intuition on the part of the translator. Again, this is so because direct transfer of specific
stylistic features from the SL into the TL is hindered by both the organic character of the ST
components and the divergence between the two stylistic norms of both languages, on the
other. This transfer becomes possible "only by means of an equivalent function, namely by
appropriate shifts." (Popovi, ibid.83).
To sum up, our perception of the role of the translator is that he is a performer of a dual task.
On the one hand, he has to adhere as much as he can to the content of the message, including
its form (if it is part of this content); on the other hand, he tries to reflect his identity and tends
to produce a 'natural' text. This tendency, we believe, can best be achieved by means of a set
of stylistic shifts.
Conclusions
The first noteworthy conclusion of this paper is that the phenomenon of 'shift' should be
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
19/21
redefined positively as the consequence of the translator's effort to establish translation
equivalence (TE) between two different language-systems: that of the SL and that of the TL.
Psychologically, the occurrence of these shifts reflects the translator's awareness of the
linguistic and non-linguistic discrepancies between the SL and TL. In this sense, shifts can bedefined as problem-solving strategies adopted consciously to minimize the inevitable loss of
meaning when rendering a text from one language into another.
Second, since translation proper is concerned with the transfer of meaning, the analysis of
shifts in translation should take into account the non-linguistic factorsin addition to the
linguistic onesso as to achieve a comprehensive analysis of these shifts.
Third, shifts in translation constitute a counterclaim to language universals ; therefore, these
shifts can be better examined within the domain of 'difference' in translation. This conclusion
is based on the assumption that languages do not differ primarily in what they communicate
but in how they do so. Consequently, CA has been proved as a powerful diagnostic tool forshift analysis.
Fourth, the distinction between various types of shifts at various levels necessitates the
distinction between various types of equivalence in translation, e.g.,functional, pragmatic,
textual, collocational, rhetorical, etc.
Fifth, the distinction between micro-level and macro-level shifts is compatible with the
distinction between various types of translation, e.g., literal, free, etc. The same distinction is
also compatible with the distinction between various units of translation, e.g., word, sentence,
paragraph, etc.
Sixth, the postulation of the terms, 'optional' and 'obligatory' shifts satisfies the need to
account for linguistic and non-linguistic differences between the languages involved in this
process.
Finally, we assume for our model, as it is described above, a universal operation regardless of
the languages involved in this task.
References
Austin, J. L. (1965)How to Do Things with Words. New York: Macmilan.
Baldinger, K. (1980) Semantic Theory. New York: St.Martin's Press.
Benthahila, A. and Davies, E. (1989) 'Culture and Language Use: A Problem for Foreign
Language Teaching.'IRAL, Vol xxvii/2, 1989, p.102.
Berry, H. M. (1977)Introduction to Systemic Linguistics 2. and Links. Batsford and Sons.
Brown, E. K., and Miller, J. E. (1980) Syntax: A LevelsLinguistic Introduction to Sentence
Structure. London: Hutchinson & Co. (publishers) Ltd.
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969)Investigating English Style. Cambridge: Cambridge
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
20/21
University Press.
Enkvist, N. E. (1973)Linguistic Stylistics. Mouton, The Hague.
Fowler, R (1966)Linguistic Theory and the study of literature.' In N.G.Leech (ed.) Linguisticsand the Figures of Rhetoric. pp. 135-56.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961) 'Categories of the Theory of Grammar,' Word1961 17.3.241-92.
(Also in G. R. Kress (1976) (ed.) 52-72.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh and P. Strevens (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and
Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London, Longman.
Hatim, B., and Mason, I (1990).Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Hendricks, W. (1976) Grammars of Style and Styles of Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland
Publishing Company.
Jacobson, R. (1959) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.' In R. A. Brower (ed.) On
Translation Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 232-9.
James, C. (1980) Contrastive Analysis, London: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, F. (1972) -, London: Oxford University Press.
Leech, J. (1974) Semantics. London: Hazell Watson & Vinery Ltd.
Leech, G. N., and Short, M. H., (1981) Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English
Fictional Prose. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Muir, J. (1972)A Modern Approach to English Grammar. Batsford and Sons.
Nida, E, (1964). Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden, E. J. Brill.
_______, (1969). 'Science of Translation,'Language, Vol.45, No.3, 1969, pp. 495-497.
Nida, E., and Taber, C., (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E., (1985) ' Translating means Translating Meaning,' Publication of FIT, UNISCO, PP.
119-25.
Ohman, Richard (1964) 'Modes of order,' In Donald C. Freeman (ed.)Linguistics and
Literary Style. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1970, pp. 209-42.
Popovi, A (1970) "The concept 'shift of expression' in Translation," in Holmes, J. (ed.) The
7/28/2019 Constructiong a Model for Shift Analysis
21/21
Nature of Translation. Mouton: The Hague.
Stalinker, R. C. (1973) 'Pragmatics,' In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) Semantics of
Natural Languages.Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Widdowson, H. G. (1973)An Applied Linguistic Approach to Discourse Analysis.
Unpublished Ph. D thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Wills, W. (1982) The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tubingen: Gunter Narr
Verlag