7 Ekim 2007 Pazar

On Popovic’s “Shift of Expression”

On Popovic’s “Shift of Expression”
“... Translation by its very nature entails certain shifts of intellectual and aesthetic values.”[1]
This sentence explains what translation really is: It is the reproduction of form and content in another language, and the target text can not be expected to bear the same intellectual and aesthetic values with those of the source text. Popovic makes an invaluable remark on the deep rooted prejudice against translation: “The differences in language are unavoidable and cannot be considered significant, as they are the result of disparity and asymmetry in the development of the two linguistic traditions.” Translation is apropos of two different languages, as well as two different cultures. It would not be advisable to say that a translator can be reduced to a mirror reflecting a certain text. Due to the different nature of languages, the translator needs to make decisions on which units of the source text to transfer. What about the units s/he has decided not to transfer, or those s/he has decided to transform? “All that appears as new with respect to the original, or fails to appear where it might have been expected, may be interpreted as a shift.” As Gideon Toury argues, the translator’s decision process is governed by norms. Owing to these restricting factors, certain units of the source text do not appear in the target text, and certain units become subject to modulation. At this point, it would be more than useful to state that shifts are not a result of the translator’s desire to change “the essence”, or “the semantic appeal” of the source text. In fact, it is exactly the opposite: As Popovic argues, in doing so, the translator “strives to preserve the ‘norm’ of the original.” Therefore the translator needs shifts for the sake of the “faithful” rendering of the source text in another language. What the target text addressee sees as a shift is in fact the preservation of the source text, or at least the endeavour to do so. In my opinion, the concept of shift of expression is parallel to that of faithfulness. What’s more, as long as the translator sees the source text as a point of departure, and on the other hand take into consideration the norms of the target culture, s/he will have acted in a responsible and faithful way towards the source text – and the target culture, to which the target text belongs. In fact, one could dare say that this is as faithful as a translator could get. Another kind of faithfulness as romantics argue, does not belong to the world we live in. We can by no means expect the product of two different languages belonging to two different realities, two different systems, two different cultures to be exact matches. Let’s see how Popovic explains this:
He [The translator] resorts to shifts precisely because he is endeavouring to convey the semantic substance of the original in spite of the differences separating the system of the original from that of the translation, in spite of the differences between the two languages and between the two methods of presenting the subject matter.

There are different layers then: Two different cultures, two different languages, and the last but not least – two different writers. Translation is proof that differences can be turned into harmony. As two different peoples can live in peace, two languages can come together, talk about similar things and celebrate their differences. Translation is not a clash of languages - it is the meeting of these differences, or in Akşit Göktürk’s terms, it is the language of languages. Different languages talk to one another via translation.
According to Vermeer, there are six rules of translation. We can summarize them as follows:
1- A target text is determined by its skopos
2- A target text is an offer of information in a target culture and target language concerning an offer of information in a source culture and source language
3- A target text does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way
4- A target text must be internally coherent
5- A target text must be coherent with the source text
6- The five rules above stand in hierarchical order

The target text to be produced will belong to the reality of the target language and culture, then it is important that its norms and conventions be taken into consideration. On the other hand, since the point of departure is the source text, we do these changes bearing the semantic substance of the source text in mind, in other words for the sake of faithfulness to the original. Therefore, a resemblance between the approaches of Popovic and Vermeer can be taken into consideration. The target text and the source text are offers of information; nevertheless, the target text is not an information which is clearly reversible. In the production of the target text, the translator takes advantage of shifts so as to make it internally coherent. What is less important -not to mean, not important- is the coherence between the target text and the source text. The hierarchical order is followed for the sake of the transfer of the semantic substance which is perceived by the translator; and because the target text is seen as a reality of the target culture, more importance is placed on it. Deducting from what Popovic says, we can think of his skopos of reproducing a target text on the basis of semantic and aesthetic features of the source text, in other words the function of the kind of translation is invariant. This can argued to be what he means by “functional faithfulness”.
Popovic’s approach can be described as descriptive and comparative. What he suggests is “the objective classification of differences between the translation and the original. The structural identification of each stylistic means in the two texts is an important step towards an evaluation of the nature of equivalence from the point of view of translation theory”. In addition to his approach’s being descriptive and comparative, it could be argued that it is also target-oriented, for he mentions “functional faithfulness”, in other words, an interpretation of semantic and aesthetic values set forth in the source text from the point of view of the target culture and language.
ALAZ PESEN

[1] Popovic, Anton “The Concept ‘Shift of Expression’ in Translation Analysis”, The Nature of Translation: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation, (ed.) James S. Holmes. Mouton: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1970. All quotations used in this response paper are excerpts from the article of Anton Popovic.

3 yorum:

Deniz Ipek dedi ki...

I think Alaz, in this paper, explains and justifies what Popovic argues as the reason for shifts of expression in a very clear manner. In terms of what constitutes the main motivation for employment of changes by the translator, I too agree with his conclusion that the concept of shift of expression bears a paralellnes to faithfulness. In addition, I find his references to Toury and Vermeer quite relevant. Especially, his singling out the coined term "functional faithfulness" and relating it to Skopos theory is to the point since I also found myself making the same comparison while reading Popovic's article. Finally, Alaz describes Popovic’s approach as descriptive, comparative and target-oriented, and rightfully so.

Unknown dedi ki...

Your comments as a whole appear are well-thought and formulated. However, your discourse seems a little confusing at times. Notice the following sentences:
" In fact, one could dare say that this is as faithful as a translator could get. Another kind of faithfulness as romantics argue, does not belong to the world we live in. We can by no means expect the product of two different languages belonging to two different realities, two different systems, two different cultures to be exact matches." What is this "other kind of faithfulness" you refer to?
How do you exactly link the idea of translation being a contact between languages creating harmony, which I quite like, and the concept of shift?
I am not sure I follow your arguments regarding a comparison between Popovic and Vermeer. I will be happy to bring this up further in the class - I have a feeling that this is my personal shortcoming since Deniz seems to agree with you on that point.
Thanks!

BUNGA dedi ki...

Hi, Do you still have the full article of Popovic?