Reviews

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 18 February 2009Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

REVIEWSVladimir Khairoulline a

a Bashkir State University, Ufa, Russia

Online Publication Date: 09 September 2005

To cite this Article Khairoulline, Vladimir(2005)'REVIEWS',Perspectives,13:1,64 — 65

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09076760508668967

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668967

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668967

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

REVIEWS

The reviews are ordered alphabetically according to the names of authors or editors.

Alcaraz Varo, Enrique & Brian Hughes. 2002. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome. 204 pp. ISBN 1-900650-46-0 (pb). Price: £ 15; $ 26.

The aim of this book is to identify “the common problems faced by translators of English legal texts” (3), as well to assist future interpreters in their production of translations of the ‘domesticating’ kind, so that they sound as natural as possible (3). The book is organised as follows: Chapter 1: Some Pointers to the Linguistics of Legal English (1-22); Chapter 2: Equivalence and Interpretation (23-46); Chapter 3: Some Pointers to the English Legal System (47-76); Chapter 4: Civil and Criminal Proceedings. Administrative Tribunals (77-100); Chapter 5: Genres in the Translation of Legal English (I) (101-124); Chapter 6: Genres in the Translation of Legal English (II) (125-152); Chapter 7: Practical Problems in Translation Explained (I) (53-177); Chapter 8: Practical Problems in Translation Explained (II) (178-194); references (195-196); and, finally, an index (197-204).

Although the editor of ‘Translation Practices Explained’, Anthony Pym, insists that the books in the series are designed to help “particularly self-learners” of translation, I would say that Enrique Alcaraz Varo and Brian Hughes’ coursebook provides fairly advanced insights and information that is far from elementary knowledge. The book is wri�en by professionals who convey to readers their familiarity with practical translation, Translation Studies. Their legal and linguistic background knowledge is definitely impressive.

Because the book is about legal translation, it is no surprise that its introduction to the English legal system is quite substantial. Fi�y-three pages (47-100) are dedicated to jurisdiction and cover such items as the sources of English law, the branches of English law, English criminal courts, civil and criminal proceedings, administrative tribunals, as well as other relevant topics. As a reader, you are pleased when, amongst otherwise purely legal narrative, you encounter Translation Studies problems that appear apt and perfectly integrated in the context. For example, it is essential for translators to know common terms in litigation, such as, argument, cause, injury, lawsuit, submission, etc. (63-66); to read about terms used in favourable judicial decisions, for example, accept, affirm, award, grant, succeed, warrant, etc. (67-71); and to be familiar with terms used in unfavourable judicial decisions, such as, annul, avoid, repeal, and reverse. (71-76). However, I must stress that these terms are not unambiguously favourable-unfavourable, since every litigation is a dual, dialectical procedure comprising at least two parties: a defendant and a plaintiff. This means that every court decision is simultaneously favourable and unfavourable, depending on which party you support.

The authors really keep future translators in mind when they address important Translation Studies problems, one of which is translation transformations, such as “transposition” (the substitution of one grammatical category for another, on the basis that both may be said to possess the same semantic weight or equivalent semic density (181), and expansion (which equals periphrasis (183-184)). The authors choose not to define the transformation of “modulation”, but prefer to give the following example: “If we translate the English sentence ‘The new law has prompted thousands of citizens to demonstrate’ into Spanish, as La nueva ley ha volcado a la calle a miles de ciudadanos (‘has brought them to the street’), we have introduced a modulation of the part (la calle) for the whole (‘demonstrate’)” (185). I do not believe that this is correct, but am inclined to think that this is an example of another kind of translational transformation, namely “generalisation”, in which a source-language unit with narrower semantics is transmi�ed into a target-language unit with broader semantics, since ‘has brought them to the street’ can be understood not only as ‘demonstrating’ but also as ‘losing employment’. “Modulation” is a bit different. The other term for this transformation is “semantic development”, in which a source language-unit is exchanged for a target-language unit that logically follows the semantics of the source-language unit. Witness the sentence ‘I don’t blame them’, which is a translation of the literal back translation of the Russian sentence: ‘I understand them’. Here we have a cause-and-effect relationship: ‘I do not blame them because I understand them’ (Komissarov 1990: 177).

From the perspective of professional translators, Enrique Alcaraz Varo and Brian Hughes’ provision of a few basic linguistic notions, such as, ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’

58

Downloaded At: 23:49 18 February 2009

(32-35), ‘polysemy’ (35-37), ‘homonymy’ (37-38), ‘synonymy’, and ‘hyperonymy’ and ‘hyponymy’ (38-39), is an excellent idea. The last in the list o�en leads to the stylistic device of ‘tautology’, as in the authors’ examples of “final and conclusive”, “false and untrue”, “null and void”, etc. (39). The authors then enumerate the rules of judicial construction of unclear terms (28-29) and even offer the golden rule for translating, which goes as follows: “to proceed with caution and never to lose sight of the context” (141). The advice “to trust nothing, to suspect everything, to check all terms … and to develop a close familiarity with the language of the law by constant and careful reading in both languages” is highly relevant (43).

Many aspects of this book deserve high praise. Even so, Chapter 6, which covers in detail the translation genres, towers above the others. It is full of extremely valuable information for translators doing translations of contracts, insurance policies, wills and testaments, power of a�orneys, and scholarly articles on legal topics (125-149). Crime stories also call for the authors’ a�ention (149-152), since detective fiction translation refers to the same informative type of translation as does, for example, contracts translation.

The work is good course material for future translators and most informative for experienced professionals who also need unambiguous and clearly wri�en refresher ‘courses’ such as this book.

Work cited:Komissarov, Vilen N. 1990. Teoria perevoda [= A Theory of Translation]. Moscow: Vysshaja Shkola.

Vladimir Khairoulline,Bashkir State UniversityUfa, Russia

**********

Beeby, Allison & Doris Ensinger & Marisa Presas (eds.). 2000. Investigating Translation. 1998. (Benjamins Translation Library 32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 296 p. ISBN 90 272 1637 1 (Europe); 1-55619-791-8 (US). Price: € 110; US $ 132.

This is a selection of contributions from the 4th International Congress on Translation, which took place in Barcelona in 1998. In the introduction, the editors illustrate how, in spite of the inevitable differences in the approaches presented, all contributors share a concern for investigating translation - be it in order to improve the existing paradigms or to suggest new ones.

The contributions are divided into four sections that roughly distinguish between articles that 1) focus on the development of the paradigms themselves, 2) investigate the translation process via cognitive models supplemented with discourse analysis and Descriptive Translation Studies, 3) explore the ideology behind the use of particular translation strategies, and 4) address translation acceptability by conducting consistent research concerning target-text recipients, and, more generally, translation reception. Needless to say, many contributions combine several of these concerns.

Eugene A. Nida and Albrecht Neubert pay particular a�ention to the development of paradigms in the investigation of translation. Nida draws a�ention to the fact that “language is layered not only in structures of words, grammar and discourse, but in levels of relevant contexts that provide the framework for understanding texts,” (5) thus pleading for a shi� of emphasis from strictly linguistic contexts to broader sociolinguistic and cultural ones. Neubert highlights the importance of the textual paradigm that has come to replace, in time, the narrow framework provided by contrastive linguistics. At this point, I would like to add, however, that there is still much that remains to be done in contrastive text-linguistics, since text-types and genres are culturally determined, and the distinctions between them need to be investigated in a more detailed and systematic manner. Zinaida Lvóvskaya proposes a communicative paradigm that draws on the communicative equivalence of two texts and which is, in her view, broad enough to describe, explain, and predict translation processes, irrespective of specific translation problems and language pairs. The systematisation of translation knowledge within a communicative theory of translation makes it possible for her to refer to a Science of Translation in spite of the complexity of factors that this process comprises. Pilar Godayol Nogué develops the paradigm offered by gender studies by means of a radical, deconstructionist stance, claiming that translating ‘as’ (or ‘like’) a

Reviews 59


2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 1

woman implies constant “questioning and problematising one’s own identity”, rather than simply opposing “the immobilised subjectivity of patriarchal discourses”. (42) In her discussion of the translation paradigms that dictated the 4th-5th century Chinese translations of Buddhist texts, Chu Chi Yu elaborates on the distinction between “simple” and “sophisticated” translations and on how theoretical principles were linked to actual practice. She also shows how, in spite of occasionally different - and sometimes misleading - terminology, many of the ancient theorists’ concerns with language, culture, text type, and readers anticipate those of today’s translation scholars. Helena Tanqueiro enriches the literary translational discourse by examining “self-translation” in which authors translate their own work into another language. Her conclusion is that in this double role, it is the translator that prevails, as the author-as-translator is conditioned by the pre-existing source text. Nevertheless, the self-translator’s freedom is greater than an “ordinary” translator’s because of the writer’s authority over the source text. As highlighted by Tanqueiro herself, such research is valuable in that it sheds more light on the traditional issues of fidelity, loyalty, and freedom in translation. In addition, studies along these lines could also back up research into ‘authority’, ‘power’ and ‘status’. Isabel García Izquierdo and Josep Marco Borillo draw on translations of two English texts into Spanish and Catalan in order to explore the grammatical complexity of literary texts by means of the functional-systemic paradigm as well as of Descriptive Translation Studies. The authors’ methods enable them to uncover both grammatical (quantitative) and stylistic (qualitative) aspects. Their conclusion is similar to Baker and other scholars and confirms the translators’ tendency to simplify target texts by reducing the grammatical complexity of the source texts and explaining implicatures.

The second section focuses on rigorous ways of describing the translation process. Daniel Gile draws a�ention to the relative scarcity of conference interpreting research. He discusses the reasons for this state of affairs, suggests areas of investigation, and stresses the need for sound methodological bases. Wilhelm Neunzig explores the potential for using computers for conducting experiments that accurately record the translation process and may serve as alternatives to – or support the results from – think-aloud protocols. A research group at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (PACTE), Spain, reports on an ambitious research project, the purpose of which is to describe how, using data from experimental psychology and highlighting difficulties confronting empirical research, it is possible to teach students components and subcomponents of translation competence. Working along similar empirical-experimental lines, another research group at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain) has conducted a series of experiments that prove that systematic training in translation problems, strategies and solutions leads to an increase in the quality of the products of Spanish trainee translators. However, the group makes no mention of the concrete strategies that the students learn.

The concepts of strategy - technique - method - solution are crucial for the description of the translation process and in translator training, so it is no wonder that they are approached rigorously in two other contributions. Patrick Zabalbeascoa reviews the confused ways in which they are defined and makes a case for terminological consistency. He suggests that a single list of (constraining) strategies should be replaced with several lists of solution-types that might provide translators with more flexibility than those anticipated in the classroom. Ricardo Muñoz Martín’s pedagogical proposal is based on an analysis of source texts. The analysis is used in order to identify translation problems, to develop potentially optimal solutions, and to establish a hierarchal order between these elements. Martín does so by se�ing up a binary decision tree in which the choice of strategies and the ensuing solutions depend on the type of translation problems identified in the source text.

In the third section, which deals with the links between ideology and translation, the target cultures are Catalan, Spanish, and Brazilian, but many of the authors’ conclusions may be relevant in other cultures. Joaquim Mallafrè examines the extent to which literary canons and linguistic models had an impact on translations of works of literature into Catalan in the 1980s, drawing on two collections of literary translation and on his own experience as a respected professional translator. Natàlia Izard analyses the dubbing of a French sitcom series that was shown on Catalan television 1994-1996. She detects an overall orientation towards acceptability through strategies of adaptation, which she explains in terms of a general need for credibility. This orientation may also have much to do with the necessity for reinforcing Catalan language and culture in the confrontation with other cultural and linguistic models. Víctor M. González Ruiz examines self-censorship in the translation of film titles during Franco’s dictatorship in Spain. Again we see translation ‘strategies’ are affected by socio-historical and cultural contexts and

60


the underlying ideology. Ruiz stresses the close links that existed at the time between the Roman Catholic Church and the political regime, both of which discouraged everything that was found offensive to Christian morality. Self-censorship was thus practised as a result of the translators’ (inner) religious convictions and was, at the same time, in perfect harmony with the (external) censorship exercised by the state. John Milton’s main interest is in the translation of fiction for the masses, as opposed to “highbrow” literature. He examines the Clube do Livro, a book club that was very active during the military dictatorship in Brazil (1964-89) and which published “factory translations” from high-status foreign cultures. Milton shows how commercial considerations - abridged forms, emphasis on emotions, many illustrations, etc. - were combined with ideological ones, which required the elimination of sexual and scatological passages, as well as offensive references to the Roman Catholic Church and downright le�-wing stances. All this led to low-quality translations, which, nevertheless, enhanced the taste for reading among uneducated people and popularised world-famous texts. Ana Maria Clark Peres discusses forty translations of Li�le Red Riding Hood published in Brazil since 1953; she denounces the general tendency among translators for their oversimplification, excessive sentimentality, and idealisation of the universe of the child. Besides questioning the adequacy of the translations in relation to the stories in French (Charles Perrault) or German (Grimm Brothers), Clark Peres wonders whether such an overprotective a�itude towards children is in keeping with the needs of present-day generations of young readers, who still enjoy reading fairy tales but are equally exposed to the computer world, to technological development and problems of globalisation.

Section four, Investigating Translation, focuses, in an explicit and systematic manner, on the audience of translations. From a functionalist stance, Christiane Nord distinguishes between receiver and addressee, the la�er being “the type - or prototype - of person to whom [a text] is addressed”. (196) This categorisation enables us to set up a methodologically useful addressee profile, according to which we can establish such aspects as the amount and structure of (cultural) information as well as stylistic devices to be used in translation. Nord’s considerations are based on examples of literary and non-literary texts, which illustrate the different expectations of addressees belonging to different target cultures. Rosemary Mackenzie approaches the issue of quality in translator training from the perspective of the POSI project (practical orientation of studies in translation and interpreting). Her concluding guidelines for improved curricula in translation and interpreting are based on questionnaires completed by both trainers and users of translation and interpreting services. The necessity of exposing trainee translators and interpreters to the disciplines that are in demand on the market, to information and terminology management, to advanced computer-assisted tools as well as the trainees’ participation in real (or well-simulated) translation projects are only some of the salient features of such updated curricula. In order to provide guidelines on how to translate communicatively successful advertisements for industry, Beverly Adab turns to good account the socio-cultural perspective within the Descriptive Translation Studies framework, Toury’s and Chesterman’s work on norms, as well as Nord’s functionalist perspective. Organised as two sets of do’s and don’ts, Adab’s recommendations draw on her careful examination of a corpus of English-French advertisements and they also stress the importance of working with well-trained translators and providing clear translation briefs. Adrián Fuentes Luque and Dorothy Kelly focus on translators’ role as cultural mediators in international advertising. This type of mediation involves an awareness of cultural stereotypes and a determined a�empt to change some of them if advertisements (in this case translation of Spanish ones) are to a�ain their purpose on foreign markets. Joan Parra discusses the specific conditions for translation in so�ware localisation. In view of the importance of localisation in today’s world, this kind of translation must be introduced in training curricula. At the same time, it also calls for close cooperation between academics, professionals in the field, and clients. The last two articles deal with terminology and phraseology from a pragmatic stance. Carlos Garrido offers solutions for adequate lexical translations of English common names for animals in popular science in Spanish. Maribel Tercedor-Sánchez examines biomedical phraseology in oncology. She concludes that interdisciplinary studies of terminology in authentic contexts is extremely helpful for phraseologists’ professional translation of texts for special purposes.

What makes Investigating Translation stand out from other collective volumes is the authors’ shared concern with providing rigour and objectivity to their research. Irrespective of the specific topic they discuss, the contributors’ work on corpora of texts, questionnaires, etc., allows them to present their conclusions in a confident manner and makes their research more readily useful to other scholars in the field. This common

Reviews 61



feature of the contributions proves that a truly ‘scientific’ era is drawing near for the discipline, and that this dream and ambition of both theorists and practitioners is likely to come true with the help of the refined tools of investigation of the 21st century.

Rodica Dimitriu,“Al. I. Cuza” University of Iaşi,Romania

********

Chan, Leo Tak-hung. (ed.). 2003. One into Many: Translation and the Dissemination of Classical Chinese Literature. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi (Approaches to Translation Studies 18). 339 pp. ISBN: 90-420-0815-6 (pb). Price: € 70.00; $ 80.00.

The diversity of classical Chinese literature hardly can be matched anywhere else in the world. It is therefore legitimate to examine how Chinese classics are perceived and received when they travel to other cultures and how traditional Chinese texts appear in translations in a multitude of languages over the centuries. What do the various a�er-lives of one and the same Chinese text reveal about the original?

Availing themselves of two comparatively recent approaches, reception theory and deconstruction, the contributors to this volume address these questions by investigating the reception of classical Chinese literature in a number of foreign languages and cul-tures, thus furnishing us with critical thinking about key issues in translation theory and shedding light on how to view translation in today’s increasingly globalised context.

There are three sections. In the section entitled “Beginnings”, three articles trace the origin of European translation and reading of Chinese literature. The first two articles focus on Haoqiu zhuan, the first Chinese novel translated into a European language, and the third article highlights the 1592 Spanish translation of Precious Mirror for Enlightening the Mind, the first translation of any Chinese text into a Western language. In this article, Hing-ho Chan not only charts the movement of Precious Mirror into Spanish by Juan Cobo, a Dominican priest, but also a�empts to conduct a preliminary analysis of the suc-cessful transliteration of the Southern Min dialect through careful comparison.

André Lévy opens the second section with a chronological account of the dissemina-tion in France of two influential Chinese masterpieces, Liaozhai zhiyi and Honglou meng, and he points out that the material calls for an in-depth discussion of the finer points of various French translations of the la�er work.

Laurence Wong focuses on English, French, German, and Italian translations of idiolects in Honglou meng. Specifically, Wong scrutinises the lexical, phonological, and grammatical aspects of idiolect translation in the hope of gaining a be�er understanding of the nature of translation of literary language.

Paula Varsano discusses Françoise Cheng’s significant contribution in the field of Chinese poetry translation, with special reference to Cheng’s L’ècriture poétique chinoise (1977), an acclaimed anthology of French translations of Chinese verse. Varsano claims that the hybrid nature of Cheng’s work is a direct result of the “crossing of poet and translator-scholar” (120). In his analysis of Cheng’s interpretive essay and translations, Varsano is mainly concerned with the intersection and divergence between the poet’s and the scholar’s vision and with areas where Chinese and French aesthetics overlap or deviate. In so doing, Varsano touches upon an issue in today’s Translation Studies: hybridisation.

In her analysis of seven translations and retranslations of Yingying zhuan, Birgit Linder seeks to show that translations, as well as the original, are signed, and that mean-ing is constructed on specific cultural signification. Linder, therefore, is interested in the cultural significance of a translation and how each translation contributes to meaning-construction, rather than the accuracy of a given translation. She argues that various interpretations of the original couched in the multiple translations and retranslations of Yingying zhuan constitute a hermeneutical circle.

“Traditions”, the third section, opens with Young Kyun Oh’s historical account of the translation of Chinese philosophical literature in Korea. Although classical Chinese literature has had an enormous influence in Korea for over five centuries, Oh’s article charts a decline in this tradition, and ascribes it to the rise of the vernacular in the twen-tieth century. Oh argues that a “next-generation” of Korean translations of Chinese clas-sics emerged, which differs from the preceding dogmatic translations, because of the “more thorough grammatical strategy and careful vernacularization” (192). Since this new paradigm is not yet firmly established, Oh suggests that it is high time for Korea to

62


vernacularise its past. Evangeline Almberg’s article documents the evolution of the reception of Chinese po-

etry in Sweden from 1894 to 1994. In the beginning, translators had to apologize for their pioneering efforts. But this “apologetic” (207) relay translation tradition is later replaced by direct translation from Chinese, and the once biased audience is now ready to recog-nise and even appreciate the Chinese “Other”.

W. L. Idema’s article highlights the importance of relay translation in the Dutch un-derstanding of China. Despite the long-standing cultural bond between China and the Netherlands, direct translations from Chinese were very rare indeed until the 1970s. Relay translations from other major European languages such as French, English, and German into Dutch dominated until the 1980s. Direct translation is the order of the day, except for in the field of “Oriental wisdom”, in which relay translations continue to dominate.

Focusing on the history of German translations and relay translations of Chinese works and the chronological development of German sinology, Birgit Linder seeks to explore the interrelationship between cultural predispositions, philosophical move-ments, and academic developments in the German quest for knowledge about China over a span of three centuries, and she discusses how these three factors come to bear on translation principles and practice of Chinese texts into German.

Sketching the history of the translation of Tang poetry into Bohemian and Slovak-ian, Marián Gálik points out that the driving force behind the endeavour was to acquaint Czech readers with the “fontes of classical Chinese literature” (286). Though it is a far cry from what happened in France, Germany, and England, hundreds of Tang poems and nearly twenty anthologies were introduced to Czech and Slovak readers and they provide spiritual encouragement and joy for these audiences.

In the same way, Irene Eber provides a critical survey of relay and direct translations from Chinese into Hebrew, highlighting the changing interests of Hebrew readers and the commercialisation of translating.

Covering several language-pairs in discussions of translation products and devot-ing a great deal of a�ention to the perception and reception of Chinese classics in a host of foreign languages, this volume not only embodies target-oriented Translation Stud-ies, but also provides interesting insights into many critical issues that are relev-ant to today’s Translation Studies’ community in this increasingly globalised world, such as direct translation vs. relay translation, full translation vs. abridged translation, transla-tion vs. rewriting, etc. This testifies to the fact that the study of the reception of classical Chinese literature overseas is by no means unknown in academic inquiries in Chinese scholarship. It has a�racted much academic a�ention in China since the 1980s. The main objective of the endeavour seems to measure the impact of Chinese culture on foreign cultures and to boost national pride in the splendid tradition of China’s past. However, Chan cautions that such an idea of transmi�ing China “invites charges of hegemonic pretensions” (341). It is for this very reason that Chan calls for reevaluation of how texts travel, and how cultures transmit literature from one country to another. This is also why Chan and other outstanding sinologists focus on how “one” is translated into “many” - into a multiplicity of foreign languages in which Chinese classics live many and varied a�erlives. This constitutes one of the many merits of this volume: it offers a multiplicity of angles through which translation scholars can be�er understand the reception of Chi-nese literature and culture in a multi-lingual and multi-cultural context.

At the same time that I was fascinated with the wide array of perspectives on and perceptions of classical Chinese literature, I could not help but noting that, in some cases, the reception history is reduced to a cut-and-dried chronological account, e.g., that of the Liaozhai zhiyi in French (83-90). This, I guess, is partly due to the difference between the historian’s and the linguist’s perspectives. While the historian is keen on fact-finding and documenting chronological development at the macro-level, the linguist pays more a�ention to in-depth comparative reading at the micro-level. Therefore, I believe that we would have been be�er served if we had been presented with a comparative reading of two or more French versions, than with the chronology of Liaozhai zhiyi’s movement into French.

Despite this minor drawback, this book will appeal to several audiences: translation scholars, sinologists, culturists, comparativists, and students of classical Chinese litera-ture, to name only a few.

Wang Shaoxiang,Foreign Languages Institute,Fujian Teachers University, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Reviews 63



**********

Chernov, Ghelly. 2004. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-Prediction Model. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 266 pp. ISBN 90 272 1663 0 (Europe) /1 58811 583 6 (US) (hb). Price: € 115; US $ 138.

This book, authored by the late Ghelly Vassilievich Chernov (1929-2000), is an ex-cellent illustration of the theoretical axioms of Russian Translation Studies research. It discusses its foundation, how it should be described, and the degree of consistency it is a�empting to a�ain. Chernov’s study aims to show that the basic mechanism that makes simultaneous interpreting possible is the probability anticipation of development of the message (91). This hypothesis is articulately announced in the very title of the mono-graph.

No research is conducted in isolation from other scholarly investigations. This is true in this case as well, and more than in most others. It is based on and intertwined with other fields, and thus is truly interdisciplinary. Underlying Chernov’s work are linguis-tics, psychology, and neurophysiology, and they are amply referred to in the book. This foundation provides the monograph with a solid and massive theoretical basis indeed: this is the impression I have always had whenever I have had the privilege of reading Chernov’s papers or listening to his lectures in courses on General Theory, History, and Critique, at the Translation Department of Moscow State Linguistic University, where he had the chair as professor. There was a feeling of scholarly solidness and logical thinking from the beginning, which, in this book, is found in the initial pages when the author defines translation as mediated bilingual communicative activity (2), and subsequently identifies “simultaneous interpretation as a complex type of bilingual verbal communi-cative activity, performed concurrently with audio perception of an oral discourse of-fered once only, under conditions imposing limits on available processing time and strict limits on the amount of information which can be processed, its object and product to be observed in the semantic (meaning and sense) structure of the verbal communication processed.” (6) The core of his theory is embedded in the “mechanism of verbal, syntac-tic and semantic probability anticipation of message development in the perception and comprehension of the source language discourse, and anticipatory synthesis in message reproduction in the target language (or generation of the target language message)” (10). To support this position, Chernov does not confine himself to the research of other well-known Russians and foreign theorists. Instead, he also provides highly pertinent empirical data based on analyses of samples of simultaneous interpreting for the United Nations, where he served for a number of years (e.g. 88-89, 109-113, and 223-239). One cannot help admiring the author’s diligence and meticulous analysis of material from a wide range of tongues: English, French, Russian, and Spanish, with an occasional refer-ence to one of his favourite examples, Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland (107).

The book reaches far beyond the framework of pure Translation Studies, since it scrupulously tackles problems that are of central interest for specialists in cognition, sociolinguistics, and culture. The following topics are particularly relevant: the theme-rheme (or topic-comment) distinction (42-46), the semantic structure of discourse (46-55), implicitation (57-60), and pragmatic inference (71-72). Although, in my view, some of the author’s assumptions go too far back, such as when referring to P. K. Anokhin, he argues: “As life evolved on earth, [there appeared] an organ specialised for accelerated reaction to outside changes: the nervous system and human brain …” (92) It may be that such assumptions are relevant from the author’s point of view. As mentioned, the study comprises a number of disciplines, among others neurophysiology. Chernov emphasises that “the basic idea is that in the process of aural perception of speech, the simultaneous interpreter’s brain generates hypotheses in anticipation of certain verbal and semantic developments of the discourse.” (93) One of the key notions in the anticipation theory is ‘redundancy’, which appears to be very prevalent in coherent discourse. For example, in business correspondence texts, it is estimated to be 83.4-90.1% for Russian, 82.9-92.1% for English, and 83.9-90.4% for French (according to Yaglom and Yaglom (1973) as quoted in Chernov (94)). The author maintains that redundancy plays a prominent role in si-multaneous interpreting: “simultaneous interpretation of poetry is impossible because of the very low level of objective redundancy in poetic language. Even simultaneous in-terpretation of prose is barely possible if the style is literary. As for movies, it is common knowledge that simultaneous interpretation is generally only feasible a�er appropriate preparation by the interpreter.” (95) Chernov also provides a detailed consideration of the opposite notion, namely ‘compression’, which makes messages denser in terms of information. He terms it “a labour-saving device” for simultaneous interpreters (120).

64


Chernov convincingly argues that humans perceive information by means of its critical points (121), or what may otherwise be called semantic landmarks. This neurophysi-ological mechanism is active in simultaneous interpreting, since “the objective of the simultaneous interpreter is not to render the sense of the individual u�erance, but to carry over the semantic structure of the whole discourse from source language to target language.” (122)

The impressive theoretical foundation and the reliable empirical data allow Chernov to confidently state that the probability anticipation of the development of the message is a major mechanism in the complex bilingual verbal communication activity of simul-taneous interpreting. This mechanism operates according to a hierarchy of speech levels, and the operation is possible thanks to redundancy, as well as the inferencing ability of the simultaneous interpreter (173).

I have tried to convey how the book impresses me, indeed, all readers, favourably. There are minor cavils, of course, such as a straightforward comparison between human vision and the eye of a frog! (“Human vision is also primarily oriented to the perception of motion, while the eye of a frog does not perceive motionless objects at all.” (121)) It would also be preferable if the author had kept consistently to the ‘simultaneous inter-preting’, the very term used in the title, rather than ’simultaneous interpretation’, which is used extensively throughout the book. I share the view of the specialists who argue that “interpreting” means oral transfer activity, while “interpretation” refers to the in-tellectual comprehension of a message or text (Dollerup 2004: 2), or approach, or treat-ment, as in terms like ’interpretation of the law’. The moment the term “interpreting” is consistently used, we avoid much needless confusion. Another point is that I find some considerations a bit too long (e.g., 152-153).

But having noted this, it should be stressed that in sum, Ghelly V. Chernov’s study of simultaneous interpreting is a major contribution to Translation Studies internation-ally and to simultaneous interpreting in particular. He discusses many new aspects and formulates highly relevant scholarly issues that will no doubt serve as the starting points for new research as well as be taken into account in other investigations.

Work cited:Dollerup, Cay. 2002. Theory and Principles of Translation. A Course of Lectures. New York University. Session 3: Modes of Translation in the Modern World.

Vladimir Khairoulline,Bashkir State University,Ufa, Russia

**********

Eco, Umberto. 2003. Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London. 200 pp. ISBN 0 297 83001 5. € 12.03.

These essays conflate lectures given in Toronto in 19981 and Oxford in 2002, and for those who have read Alastair McEwen’s translation of Experiences in Translation (2001), much of the material will be a reprise. Presumably, Eco wrote or conflated this collection directly in English.

A�er some amusing experiments with ‘Babelfish’, the translation-machine program available free of charge on the Internet, Eco relies on back-translation as a control when he examines translations of his own work, his translations of Gerard de Nerval (Syl-vie) and Raymond Queneau (Exercices de style), and the Italian translation of Finnegans Wake.2

What is notable and reassuring about this new collection is its context: Eco begins by harmonising analytic philosophy and continental philosophy via structural semiot-ics. Thus, he states (and demonstrates by example) how Quine and Hjelmslev are in harmony with Sapir and Whorf. His examples show that common sense prevails. The logical impossibility of comprehensive accuracy in the translation of natural language A into natural language B and the incommensurability of language structures, not to mention the distinctive world views of each natural language, have never seriously in-terfered with translation. Throughout history, common sense has proved that translation performs surprisingly well, albeit with negotiation.

“Translation”, Eco states for the record, “is a process that takes place between two texts produced at a given historical moment in a given cultural milieu” (25-26).

His own experience as a novelist has helped him deal with translation. “Hypotypo-

Reviews 65



sis”, the rhetorical term for “rendering a visual scene”, is part of his own technique as a novelist. Thus, he looks at the picture created by its representation in another language. He proceeds then to “ekphrasis”, that is, when the visual scene rendered in words is in fact a painting, and this is how he ensures that his translators recognise this painting. Finally, as readers of his novels are well aware, he uses the technique of intertextuality in his fiction, which means that he must make sure that his translators recognise in his novels the other works of literature to which his text alludes. Throughout, we would interpolate that, like James Joyce, Umberto Eco has deliberately blurred cues in the text. This has meant that translators, including the peerless William Weaver, have had to ne-gotiate interlinguistically when extracting substance and, to an amazing degree, form out of Italian and embed it in other languages.

Eco’s loyalty to Peirce can be detected throughout the book. First, Eco is the interpre-tant of the substance or ma�er that is to be rendered by a verbal sign; subsequently, the translator must be the interpretant who deals not only with the verbal sign and whatever it is expressing but also with another linguistic sign system.

Eco concludes with a flourish: “Faithfulness . . . is the decision to believe that transla-tion is possible; it is our engagement in isolating what is for us the deep sense of a text, and it is the goodwill that prods us to negotiate the best solution for every line. Among the synonyms of faithfulness the word exactitude does not exist.” Let us interject that Eco demonstrates that negotiation can achieve equivalence: Eco’s final sentence runs: “Instead there is loyalty, devotion, allegiance, piety.” (192)

Notes1. A proofreader missed the error in the first line of the book stating that it was 1988.2. This last is quite disappointing. He was not current with Joyce scholarship in Experi-ences in Translation, and he did not qualify his remarks for this publication.

Marilyn Gaddis Rose,University of New York at Binghamton,USA.

**********

Hann, Michael. 2004. A Basis for Scientific and Engineering Translation: German-English-German. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. xxvii + 250 pp. ISBN 90 272 2609 1 (Europe);1 58811 484 8 (US) (pb). Price: € 65. US $ 77.95.

This handbook is primarily a practical translators guide. It introduces students to the most significant difficulties that face both L1 and L2 speakers of English when translating scientific and engineering texts from German into English and vice versa. It is accompanied by a CD-Rom.

The general structure of the book is very elaborate and includes an introduction, 24 units, and three appendices. The units are divided into three categories. Category 1 units address the central branches of engineering science and technology, such as mathematics, basic mechanics and electricity, material science, nucleonics, automotive, mechanical, chemical and computer engineering, electronics, and electrical and mechanical sciences. They provide an understanding of the fundamental terminology for each of these branches. Category 2 units touch on some theoretical (specifically grammatical and lexical) aspects of lexicography, such as technical grammar, polysemy, polyonymy, hyponymy, synonymy, homonymy of technical terminology, concept specification, use of collocations, translational equivalence, context, usage, etc. They are wri�en in a fluent and accessible language and introduce readers to the linguistic basics of technical translation. Category 3 units acquaint readers with three major dictionaries – “Technical Poleseme Dictionary”, “Technical Thesaurus”, and “Technical Collocation Dictionary” (units 10, 14 and 17 respectively). Unit 14 commands special interest, because it contains a set of descriptors used to indicate interrelationships among the technical terminologies and provides abundant information about various types of synonyms, homonyms, polysemes, and hyponyms in English technical language, as well as the semantic relation of contrast. The final unit, Translator Education, includes recommendations for the potential use of the handbook and the disk a�ached for developing individual translation skills. Another strong point of the book is its cross-reference system.

This brilliant book supplies a wide variety of reference material and illustrations, which are useful to professional translators, trainers, and students of technical translation. It is really “a didactic tool for promoting individual translation expertise”

66


(218). The accompanying E-book can be used as a self-teaching aid. Although the book is primarily aimed at German-speaking translators who work into English, it also has implications for other language combination of languages.

All in all, this is a down-to-earth book that can help professionals teach – and learn – technical language. It solves many terminological problems encountered in translating texts between English and German in the field of industrial technology and engineering. It provides valuable insight into the profession of technical translators and meets a very important and tangible need.

Valentin Shevchuk, Moscow State Linguistic University,Russia

**********

Herbrechter, Stefan (ed.). 2002. Cultural Studies: Interdisciplinarity and Translation. Am-sterdam & New York: Rodopi. 335 pp. ISBN: 90-420-0893-8 (hb). Price: € 80, US $ 100.

This is the twentieth publication in the ‘Critical Studies’ series. It is a collection of articles united by a common interest in the nature of “inter-” and “trans-” in cultural studies. The contributions illustrate a great variety of ways in which the field of cultural studies reinvents itself by means of interdisciplinarity and translation between disci-plines, cultures, mentalities, and methodologies.

The book is formally divided into five sections and a Postscript, each dealing with a core issue. Section A, “Cultural Studies and Interdisciplinarity-Redirections”, comprises articles that depart from theoretical analyses of interdisciplinarity and argue for changes in the practice of cultural studies. Michael Hayes proposes that the object of investiga-tion for cultural studies should be “the ground between stability and evolution, whose dynamic contains the roots of growth and decline” (19). He also suggests a methodology based on a linguistic model – a combination of Saussure’s structuralism that illustrates the relative positioning of all the cultural events that constitute a culture and Bakhtin’s dialogics, which uncover the dynamic processes that inform culture.

Karl Maton’s article examines the structuring of cultural studies as “knowledge for-mation” (34) and its present paradoxical position in the academy. Non-disciplinarity is regarded as the central theme of legitimisation in cultural studies, and in order to safe-guard its identity, the emphasis should be on people, not procedures. Mason terms this a “knower mode” of legitimisation.

Paul Bowman elaborates on the question of propriety of cultural studies from the deconstructive perspective of some central Derridean texts. In Bowman’s view, the interdisciplinarity of cultural studies threatens the academic establishment with a de-constructive interrogation. From an antipodal position, Simon O’Sullivan argues for the reinvention of cultural studies as a “strategic mapping of connections between different objects and practices, events and assemblages” (81). The project should not rely on disci-plinary notions of knowledge, but on experimentation and dynamism.

Michael Quinn is equally censorious of institutionalised forms of cultural studies. According to him, the methodologies of cultural studies confine academics’ freedom to define and redefine their discipline at will.

The contributions in section B, “Anti-Disciplinary Objects and Practices”, tackle non-disciplinary concepts, such as space, music, bibliography, and art, and their interaction or translation in cultural studies. Necdet Teymur charts the route of discipline formation in terms of inclusion and exclusion processes and the creation of territories. Andrew Carlin explores bibliographies, footnotes, and textbooks as disciplinary boundaries, that is, as texts encoding scholars’ interpretive practices.

Duncan Campbell argues in “Reading Phonography” that interdisciplinarity derives from pre-existing disciplines and occupies a borderline; therefore, interdisciplinary thought should work on gaps and spaces. The inscription of music produces such inter-disciplinarity as it rejects the established codes of musicology used to explain music within the academy.

Jen Webb’s contribution functions as a conclusion to the precedent articles organised around the advantages and disadvantages of interdisciplinary work. These are discussed in the divergence of cultural studies from aesthetics. He argues that “drawing on both cultural studies and aesthetics, with their shared antecedents we can critique and de-familiarise the art world while restoring the notion of pleasure and the sensate to the experience of art” (157).

Reviews 67



Whereas Sections A and B focus on interdisciplinarity, the following two sections ad-dress translation. It is argued that apart from interdisciplinarity, translation is a major challenge for cultural studies at present. Russel West’s article dissects the origins of cultural studies (and indeed other disciplines) in translation and in the transfer of ideas. He mentions the translative turn in cultural studies and proposes a further area of study, “inter/cultural studies”, which works on the assumption that “national cultures, in a postmodern and global era increasingly constitute each other in the process of recipro-cal if not symmetrical translation” (165). In West’s opinion, translation is an operation that provides continuity in a space of discontinuity and makes the heterogeneous intel-lectually productive. Furthermore, translation is always at work both in the hybridity of culture as process and in the identity of cultural studies thanks to reconfigurations of our ways of knowing.

David Katan’s article centres on translators and their role in shaping the ideas they communicate to society. He explores the perlocutionary effects that translators engender and proposes that they should take more responsibility for these effects by assuming a position in which they “disassociate from the dynamic of movement-to-movement crea-tion of meaning, between source text and reader, but watch the interaction with keen interest” (183).

Eduardo J Vior’s “Visions of the Americas and Policies of Translation” focuses on translation practices in the United States and Latin America, with special reference to technical and economic texts circulating between them.

Section D, “Translating Cultural Studies”, comprises articles presenting national re-ception and institutionalisation of cultural studies in different parts of the world. Stephen C. K. Chan uses the case of contemporary Hong Kong as an example of critical cultural studies. Sebastian Berg offers an account of three varieties of British cultural studies and their application in Germany. Lawrence Raw looks at the translation of cultural studies into the Turkish economic, social, and historical context in terms of the import and devel-opment of the discipline as such. Mandy Oakham’s article provides an amusing analysis of the ba�le between cultural studies and media-journalism departments in the Austral-ian academy and draws parallels between these and the ‘Star Wars’ films. Finally, Karima Laachir explores post-colonial France and the issue of tolerance to conclude that cultural studies, aiming at being “politically effective and intellectually useful for the analysis of social, political and economic tensions” (294), if translated into the French intellectual scene, might provide the openness needed for social solidarity and egalitarianism.

In Section E, Holger Rossow widens the role of cultural studies in the international translated form to include an investigation of contemporary international politics.

Zygmunt Bauman deals with cultural variety and cultural specifics in the postscript. He argues that it is time to abandon the term “culture” because the meanings it was coined to convey (a hierarchy of values and the agency to promote them) have disap-peared. Culture has become the carrier of political meanings.

In conclusion, this book offers a variety of perspectives on cultural studies and presents the most important modern challenges for the field - interdisciplinarity and translation. It therefore makes for fascinating insight into the problematic nature of crea-tion and reinvention of identity, which are found at the core of both cultural studies and translation.

Oana-Elena Andone,Universitatea “Al. I Cuza”, Iaşi,Romania.

**********

Kothari, Rita. 2003. Translating India. Manchester: St. Jerome. V + 138 pp. ISBN 1-900650-62-2. Price: £ 19.50.

India is a multilingual country in which translation has always played an important role. Compared with translation between Indian languages (intra-Indian), which has taken place since ancient times, English translation from Indian languages is a recent phenomenon. In her pioneering study, Translating India, Rita Kothari explores aspects of the la�er, such as production, reception, and marketability in India.

The book comprises six chapters and two appendices. The first chapter, ‘Recalling: English Translation in Colonial India’, addresses the earliest English translations in India, which date back to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It offers a thematic overview of English translations done by the East India officers and Western

68


Orientalists in the period, as well as the conflicting views of British translators and Indi-an scholars. Most British translations were carried out in order to familiarise Westerners with the mysterious Orient. But from the nineteenth century onwards, Indian intellectu-als intervened and questioned the colonisers’ version of India in their search for self-ex-pression. The second chapter, ‘Two World Theory’, maps a reconfigured relationship in post-independence India, between several Indian languages and English, identifying the context that accommodates translation. In this period, we see both a “strengthening of a regional literary and linguistic tradition” and “the rise of English as an Indian language” (32). ‘Within Academia’ and ‘Outside the Discipline Machine’ discuss the social-cultural viability of English translations in India. The first of these chapters examines a new area of inquiry, especially for teachers and academics, and explores various translation theo-ries inside and outside the Indian sphere. Although translation scholars stress the useful-ness of translation as a pedagogical tool, much work still needs to be done in this field to explore the problematic relationship between translation for foreign-language teaching purposes and for teaching translation proper. There are, furthermore, many questions specific to the Indian context, such as: “How are translation courses to be framed and taught in a multilingual classroom?” and “Do translations of Indian literatures in Eng-lish require more indigenous translation theory and would a more ‘liberal’ and ‘Indian’ (if you will) translation also enlarge Indian literature in English by including adaptations and transcreations?”(95) The la�er question explores interconnections between transla-tion activity and parallel developments in printed and visual media, and tries to identify the dynamics and prominence of English language production in the changing political economy of postcolonial India. The ‘Publishers’ Perspective’ examines the role of the publishing industry, its perception of translation activities, and the ways in which it influences the body of Indian Literature in English Translation. ‘The Case of Gujarati’ de-scribes Gujarati teachers and intellectuals, focusing on the shi�s from the general to the specifics, and it considers both processes in the exploration of the production of a specific ‘regional’ literature in English translation. The appendices contain (a) the questionnaire given to publishers before the actual interviews, and (b) full transcripts of the interviews with publishers such as Sahitya Akademi, Macmillan, Katha, Oxford University Press, and others. The book stresses the production of ‘Indian Literature in English Transla-tion’, and examines various aspects, such as consensus and interconnections.

I am surprised with the rise of English translation in India, because English is a ‘new’ language in India. As a substantial and distinct body, the existence of ‘Indian Literature in English Translation’ is a recent phenomenon because it has long been subsumed under ‘Indian Writing in English’. Translating into English only goes back to the nineteenth century - and even then, there were only a small handful of translations. The status of English became controversial a�er India’s independence from the British in 1947. In 1965, the ‘Sahitya Akademi award’ was bestowed on P. K. Narayan, the first Indian gesture of patronage toward Creative Writing in English. Now there are several transla-tion awards in India, and courses on Translation Studies and Indian literature in English translation are taught at about twenty universities. Since this rise of English translation from marginality to dominance is most unexpected, it is a daunting challenge to explore this shi�.

I am impressed with the efforts of Indian translators to carry out resistant and assimi-lative dialogues with the West through translation even today. Since they find it impos-sible to stem the tide of English, they just try to resist or assimilate it and successfully make English one of India’s languages. As the English of India becomes Indo-English, it is more of a proper medium for the dissemination of Indian culture throughout the world. The translators’ approach demonstrates not only India’s independence from Brit-ain, but also a real awareness of India’s cultural identity. The translators are aware of the necessity of preserving their cultural and national identity in the era of globalisation, and of uniting the world by allowing for diversities, thus making our world more colourful.

Rita Kothari’s vigorous approach makes for sound scholarship. The contents and convincing arguments of her study are based not only on wri�en documents, but also on oral interviews. Kothari explores the themes in the book from Indian and international perspectives and tries to combine Indian translation theories (such as Sujit Mukherjee and G. N. Devy’s para-literary forces of translation theory) with theory from other countries (Jean Delisle and Judith Woodsworth’s historical approach and Itamar Zohar and Gideon Toury’s polysystem view of translation) and with Indian realities. She also addresses important themes using an interdisciplinary approach (involving historical, political, economic and sociological perspectives), which makes her findings carry con-viction.

Rita Kothari is well qualified for writing this book thanks to her background as a

Reviews 69



practitioner, a college teacher of English, a researcher at a Translation Studies centre, and her familiarity with the nature of translation. Her book is also telling evidence of equality between men and women, notably in Translation Studies.

In sum, covering a largely unknown field, this book is informative, indeed useful for translation scholars and practitioners, teachers and students, and those interested in translation or Translation Studies in general, by adding new facets to Translation Stud-ies. It is therefore a great contribution to international Translation Studies.

Xu Jianzhong,Tianjin University of Technology,Tianjin 300190, China

**********

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara & Marcel Thelen (eds.). 2002. Translation and Mean-ing. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht School of Translation and Interpretation. ISBN 90-801039-5-0 (pb). Price € 50.00.

This volume is the proceedings of the Łodz session of the Third International Masstricht-Łodz Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning” in 2000. The contribu-tions discuss ‘meaning’ in translation with a special emphasis on the theory of transla-tion: the problems of translating and interpreting meaning are seen from the perspectives of, for instance, the cognitive sciences, lexicology, and philosophy. The volume is divided into ten sections, such as, “se�ing the scene for translation research and practice”, “proc-ess and theory”, and “cognitive linguistics and translation”. The articles in the present volume are published in English, French, or German.

Surveying important developments in translation theory and discussing a number of terminological issues, Marcel Thelen focuses on terminology and specialised translation practices. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk touches upon recent developments in lan-guage studies and linguistics and their relevance to Translation Studies, notably in terms of cognitive linguistics and corpus studies, especially in terms of semantic prosody and frequencies of occurrence of lexical items and phrases. Gideon Toury highlights the dif-ferent interpretations of the notion “problem” and its counterpart “solution” in an expert discourse on translation. He locates “problem” in discussions of source-language texts and as prospective in nature. In a target text, problems only manifest themselves when a translation is compared to its assumed source text. Anna Bednarczyk proposes two mod-els of translation research, which she terms valuable and descriptive. She focuses on the associative units of translation, especially associative chains, and draws a�ention to the recreation of associative elements from the source in the target text and to the different planes of culture. Gaston Gross’s study illustrates that the concept of “aim” is more com-plex than suggested by the few dozen expressions usually listed in dictionaries: “aim” is rendered in French not only by the preposition “pour” but also by nouns designating various types of place (“but”), perception (“vue”), intellectual operations (“intention”), and feelings (“desir”, “peur”).

Teresa Jaroszewska illustrates the adoptive techniques characteristic of the Renais-sance, with examples from Jacques Amyot’s translation of Plutarchian Moralia from Greek. Krzysztof Jarosz advocates a “phantom translation” of a book and observes that this leads to considerations about the specific nature of the translation of cultural texts. Magdalena Kozanecka points out the importance for the translation process of multiple readings and previews of a text to be translated and draws a�ention to the transforma-tion and manipulation processes that take place in the course of reading. Nadia Rahab explores the reasons behind the extensive use of implicit information in Quranic texts, assesses the solutions proposed to solve this discourse problem, and draws some conclu-sions on how to deal with these complex problems in translation. Kanavillil Rajagopalan examines the consequences of recent theorising about translation with reference to text composition. Translation is viewed as an inherently interpretive task, and the translator actively participates in the production of the translation. Janusz Wroblewski discusses how translators should deal with mistakes in source texts, such as unintentional mis-takes, as well as deliberate mistakes that must be rendered in the translation.

John Ole Askedal concentrates on structural and textual language differences be-tween German and Norwegian, using examples from Norwegian translations of Ger-man texts, and, in the process, he also touches upon questions concerning the diachronic background of modern differences and normative stylistics. Jacqueline Guillemin-Flecher discusses differences in discourse structures and their relevance to translation.

70


Eugeniusz Hejno analyses contrasts between French, English, and Polish. Jacek Florczak scrutinises the development of second-language semantic competence at the intermedi-ate and advanced language-proficiency levels. Marie-Luce Honeste explores the cul-tural components in translation, particularly in the semantic structure of high frequency polysemic words, whereas Krzysztof Kosecki discusses the translation of labels for national stereotypes in Polish, English, German, and Italian. Problems of cross-cultural contacts, borrowing, and translation are examined in Teresa Tomaszkiewicz’s article. Monika Bogucka presents evidence that the process of metaphor translation consists of three stages: recognition, interpretation, and re-expression. Olga Burukina discusses various kinds of metaphors including graphic, phonetic, and morphological ones. The discussion of metaphor in translation is continued by Isao Higashimori in terms of the Theory of Relevance. Katarzyna Kwapisz examines the problem of translating grammat-ical constructions involving the subjunctive, while Bozena Pikala-Tokarz and Agnieszka Bedkowska-Kopczyk discuss different mental experiences underlying the conceptuali-sation of the world in Polish and Slovenian.

Dorota Sliwa focuses on the study of collocations in a conceptual domain. Anna Slon examines some grammatical constructions that have different discourse functions in Polish and English. Igor Burkhanov explores the correlation between language typology and contrastive lexicology and the implications for translation theory. Jozef Sypnicki and Jolanta Dyoniziak investigate the relationship between derivatives in French and Polish, with reference to Translation Studies. Malgorzata Szczecinska investigates translations of Soviet Russian lexis into several languages and Alicja Kacprzak underscores the role of eponyms and metaphors in medical language and translation. Valdimir Khairoulline investigates the problem of cultural markers in legal English, from a Russian perspec-tive. Joanna Jereczek discusses the question of meaning construction in journalistic discourse. Agnieszka Lukaszewicz explores the use of jargon in official texts. Kazimierz Michalewski exemplifies the use of functional equivalents in translations of advertise-ments, while Monika Okulska focuses on similar acts in intercultural communication. And Ty�i Suojanen deals with the utilisation of research results among Finnish technical communicators.

Miroslaw Trybisz emphasises the significance of familiarity with the relevant disci-plines in the translation of specialised texts. Zenon Weigt raises a similar issue by pro-posing that familiarity with a given register will facilitate the interpretation of source texts and lead to the selection of appropriate translation strategies. Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka also discusses specialised texts and describes certificates as a type of legal text. Aleksandra Czechowska-Blachiewicz discusses factors that affect the quality of consecu-tive and simultaneous interpreting from Polish into German, in particular, articulation and intonation mistakes. Malgorzata Tryuk analyses the function of aptitude tests that are used in the training of conference interpreters. Anna Krawczyk-Laskarzewska fo-cuses on the degree of “domesticating” a text, using the Polish translation of William Gibson’s cyberpunk works as an example. Anna Kucharska’s article deals with the translation of essayistic texts and John Milton’s article handles “foreignisation”. Adam Sumera analyses translation strategies of rendering literary allusions, whereas Dorota Urbanek looks at the phenomenon of “translation series”. Michael Oakes and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk present the extension of the Gale and Church algorithm to enable trilingual alignment of English, French, and Polish texts. Stella Tagnin underlines the importance of language corpora for beginning translators. Yasuhito Tanaka proposes how domain-specific databases can be incorporated in machine translation systems. The issue of interpreting strategies and parallel corpora is examined by Kim Wallmach. Jadwiga Izabela Gawlowska discusses methods for translator training that prepare the ground for working with a text. Magdalena Szeflinska-Karkowska, Lukasz Bogucki, and Mariusz Milczarek present the curricula of translation and interpreting programmes. Jolanta Kozak a�empts to develop an original theory of translation analysis and assess-ment that is equally applicable to literary and non-literary texts.

The volume thus examines numerous problems in the field of Translation Studies. It is, perhaps, a weakness that the number of binary pairs explored is - considering the number of articles - relatively small. On the other hand, the volume provides a wide va-riety of approaches and valid insights into a great number of problems and areas within the language pairs discussed. Further, it is a great advantage that this volume provides a wealth of examples for readers to consider and relate to studies between other language pairs. Readers thus can assess whether the findings are applicable to other language combinations and therefore may be investigated in yet more language pairs to assess whether they are generally applicable or limited to one or two specific binary language pairs.

Reviews 71



Adil Al-Kufaishi,University of Copenhagen,Denmark.

**********

Li Nanqiu. 2002. 中国口译 [The History of Interpreting in China]. Qingdao: Qingdao Publishing House (77 Xuzhou Road, Qingdao 266071, China). Vii + 466 pp. ISBN 7-5436-2592-X. Price: 21.00 RMB

The History of Interpreting in China is a chronological and systematic discussion of interpreting in China from ancient times to 1945 in fields as diverse as diplomacy, trade, military affairs, and education.

Literally tens of thousands of interpreters have contributed to the development of Chinese civilization. However, they are usually not credited for these efforts because of the inferior status of interpreters: In the Song Dynasty (960-1279), interpreters must not address the emperor because of their low status, so the interpreter’s words must be passed on to the emperor by an intermediate official, and vice versa. Nevertheless, this book sheds light on the great role interpreters have played in Chinese history and, being the first to handle the topic, it fills a gap.

The book is substantial and covers much ground. It consists of eleven chapters: diplomatic interpreting, commercial interpreting, military interpreting, scientific interpreting, literary interpreting, Buddhist sutra interpreting, teaching interpreting in foreign languages school, interpreters for Chinese overseas, interpreters for foreigners in China, interpreters in the development of the Chinese Communist Party, and schools for training interpreters. Its main focus is on interpreting between Chinese and foreign languages, so it pays li�le a�ention to interpreting between Chinese citizens that may speak minority languages or mutually unintelligible dialects.

The book discusses not only Chinese interpreters but also interpreters from other countries. Shi Zhe (1905-?) is the most important interpreter in the history of the Chinese Communist Party. The books Red Star Over China (1937, 1938) by the American journalist Edgar Parks Snow (1905-1972) were the first works to introduce the Chinese Communist party to the West; Snow used a brilliant interpreter, Wu Liangping (1908-?) for his interviews with the Chinese Communist leaders .

In China, it has been common practice to employ foreigners as interpreters in many historical periods. Among these interpreters, I shall just mention the Belgian Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), the Frenchman Nicolas Jaseph Raux (1754-1801), the British Samuel Halliday Macartney (1833-1906), the German O�o Franke (1862-1946), the Norwegian Frederick Schiøth (1846-1935), all of them in the diplomatic services. But there were also foreigners in commerce, in military, and in scientific affairs. Foreigners were o�en employed as interpreters because formerly the Chinese usually considered their country the most powerful in the world and that therefore there was no need for them to learn foreign languages.

Not all foreign interpreters served their Chinese employers equally well, so almost all Chinese rulers established interpreter and translator training schools in order to train Chinese interpreters and translators. The first formal school was 回回国子学, Huihui Interpreter and Translator School, which was established in 1289. Other famous language schools are 四夷馆, Foreign Languages School, established in 1407, and 同文馆, Tongwen Foreign Languages School, established in 1862. These schools employed not only Chinese but also foreign instructors such as the Englishman W. A. P. Martin (1864), the Frenchman A. E. Smorrenberg (1862), and the Russian N. A. Konvaloff (1898).

Interpreting was o�en based on a co-operation which involved a foreigner and a Chinese or two Chinese, so that one undertook the actual rendition into the target language while the other took notes. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the Chinese realized that they were not as sophisticated as the West and that they could benefit from learning advanced science and technology from foreign countries. In translation it was o�en foreigners who knew Chinese as well as Western science who would translate orally while Chinese scholars who took notes and then polished the linguistic output. Although this is only on margins of ‘interpreting’, it can be mentioned that the Italian missionary Mathieu Ricci (1552-1610) translated some western scientific works in cooperation with the Chinese scholar Xu Guangqi (1562-1633).

Towards the end of the book, it focuses more on the ‘Westener speaks-Chinese writes’ in the translation of works of literature, singling out for particular treatment the important figure of Li Shu (1852-1924). Li Shu is the only great translator in Chinese

72


translation history who did not know any foreign languages at all. However, thanks to interpreted renditions, he translated more than 180 works of literature during his life: Wei Yi was Li Shu’s most important partner for the translation of English novels, and Wang Ziren for translating French novels.

The author has exerted considerable efforts in compiling this history, but in his preface, he readily concedes that it may not be complete because he could not access all relevant material.

To sum up, the book under review is extremely useful. It may serves as a reference book for researchers, teachers, and professionals in Translation Studies.

Xu Jianzhong,Tianjin University of Technology,Tianjin 300191,China

**********

Oi�inen, Rii�a. 2000. Translating for Children. New York: Garland. 169 pp. ISBN 0-8153-3335-8 (hb). Price: £ 50.

In her book Translating for Children, Rii�a Oi�inen employs a translator-centred ap-proach to the study of translation. As an experienced translator and illustrator, she provides a refreshing alternative to older, more traditional approaches. Rii�a Oi�inen rejects the abstract structures of ‘equivalence’ and ‘fidelity’ in the sense of ‘sameness’, and concentrates instead on the real-life situation and purpose of translation.

Oi�inen’s point of departure is philosophical as well, as she is deeply influenced by the Russian philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin. Oi�inen applies his concept of ‘dialogics’ to the study of translation: “a reading experience is dialogic and consists not only of the text but also of the different writers, readers, and contexts, and the past, present, and future. The word is always born in a dialogue and forms a concept of the object in a dialogic way.”(29) In other words, for Oi�inen, the main principle of translation is a dialogic, collaborative process carried out in individual situations. Trans-lation does not ‘produce sameness’; instead it creates texts for different purposes, differ-ent situations, and different audiences.

The chapter “For Whom?” poses the question that takes precedence in every transla-tion situation, also when translating fiction for children. Oi�inen argues that the way translators see and address their target-language child audiences reflects their own ‘child image’. Oi�inen defines her ‘own’ child as a wise and competent child who de-serves respect, but she steers wide of generalisations: there are as many child images as there are cultures and human beings. Furthermore, Oi�inen avoids giving any explicit definitions of children’s literature. Instead she prefers to speak of ‘translating for chil-dren’, which, in her view, refers to translating for a certain audience with respect, hence the child image.

Oi�inen’s approach to translation is thus very personal and emotional. In the chapter “Translating Children’s Literature and Translating for Children”, she argues that the prevalent negative a�itude among adults to adaptations in children’s books is not only linked to the fact that translations have o�en been, and still are, a�ributed lower status than the original. According to Oi�inen, adults became emotionally a�ached to specific stories when they were children, and when they ‘meet’ them in abridged, adapted ver-sions while reading them aloud to their own children, they cannot accept them as ‘the real stories’.

Oi�inen uses her real-life experiences to address the performance (reading aloud) of children’s books and the importance of the successful relationship between the illustra-tions and the text. She sheds light on an area of study that deserves much more a�ention than it has been given by scholars so far. In my opinion, her discussion would have been more interesting if she had been more precise concerning the children’s ages; Oi�inen merely states that she reads aloud “to children of all ages” (102).

Oi�inen uses different Finnish translations of Tove Jansson’s Moomin stories and Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland for her discussion. The examples offer the reader an interesting insight into a long Finnish tradition for the translation of books, especially for children. (In 1997, approximately 80 percent of 1,099 titles published in Finland were translations mostly from English.) Finland has been exposed to other cultures through six hundred years of Swedish rule and one hundred years of Russian rule, and the translation of literature was the first step toward original literature wri�en in Finnish.

For a reader of my generation, the discussion of the Moomin stories is interesting be-

Reviews 73



cause I was exposed to them as a child, albeit in the form of cartoon films. Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is a classic, but in my view also somewhat dated, and the exploration of three different Finnish versions reflects first and foremost a Finnish view and experience. It seems to me that further exploration calls for more topical children’s books. In this context, Oi�inen’s book is most welcome in so far as it calls a�ention to a field that – in view of its popularity – deserves more international Translation Studies research.

In conclusion, Rii�a Oi�inen’s Translating for Children is a valuable re-evaluation of the field and it is geared toward anyone interested in translation or children – and without doubt, it would be useful reading for publishers of children’s books.

Susanne Mørup Hansen,University of Copenhagen,Denmark

**********

Pedersen, Viggo Hjørnager. 2005. Ugly Ducklings: Studies in the English Translations of Hans Christian Andersen’s Tales and Stories (Studies in Scandinavian Languages and Lit-eratures 64). Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. 389 pp. ISBN 87-7838-856-2. Price: DKK 300.

This book is the commercial edition of Pedersen’s dissertation presented to the Uni-versity of Southern Denmark and published in Odense, the emblematic city of Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875), where in 2005, the 200th anniversary of Anderson’s birth will be celebrated with festivities. Hjørnager Pedersen’s work concentrates on the Eng-lish translations and re-translations of Andersen’s artistic fairytales. Most children know the stories through the power of memory and via oral tradition. Adults read either the original Eventyr or the many versions translated into hundreds of tongues. We all know “The Tinder Box”, “The Li�le Mermaid”, “The Princess on the Pea”, and “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by heart, and live by or against their moral (and amoral) lessons. Fairy-tales, our home territory and domesticity, express doubts about the traditional boy and girl, about male and female. Andersen’s tales are not nursery tales: they reflect reality and claim a strong presence in the lives of children and adults.

Hjørnager Pedersen’s book focuses on the 19th Century English translations marked by Victorian times (there is also some reference to translations from the 20th Century). The book refers to the psycholinguistic a�itudes adopted by the translators in compos-ing the English translations and re-translations of the eternally popular Andersen. In the Preface (9-11), Hjørnager Pedersen announces that he will concentrate on translations made by “Howi�, Boner, and Peachy, all in 1846, the last being that by Brækstad in 1900” (9). He focuses on these translations in the beginning and at the end of his translational chronology. Other translations are explored as well, such as Robert Nisbet Bain’s 1893 art-deco version with illustrations by John Reinhard Weguelin in pre-Raphaelite wa-tercolour style and his scholarly commentary on the “previously faulty” translations (Nisbet Bain’s Introduction of The Mermaid and Other Stories. London: Lawrence and Bul-len (1893: xix-xxiii)). Nisbet Bain’s version is the first essay to offer to the reader a short comparative argument on several existing English translations, representing therefore a pioneering work at such an early date on this still embryonic aspect. This translation, the criticism, and the illustrations deserve further exploration. Surprisingly, Hjørnager Ped-ersen, himself a translator (11), states that he does not believe in a theoretical discussion on literary translation; in his view, one may have opinions on the translation of a single literary genre, such as the fairytales by Andersen (8-11).

Chapter 1 Introductory (13-75) describes the first translations, into German in 1839, which is followed by “a selective survey” (21) of English translations. Providing a gen-eral catalogue seems an impossible task, considering the world-wide popularity of trans-lations from the Danish into other languages. Hjørnager Pedersen introduces the general “translatology” (21-42) underlying Andersen’s translated tales. This brief pseudo-history of translation (as opposed to Hjørnager Pedersen’s own view) touches on the a�itudes adopted by translators such as Jerome, Dolet, Tytler, Luther, Mounin, Nida, Catford, and modern critics of translations. The chronological outline of general Translation Studies suggests that the intended readership of this book is not translators or translation-theo-reticians, but a different audience, one not familiar with the history of translation. This is unclear. Observations on the German origin of Andersen’s literature are missing. The stories by Andersen, who re-invented this literary genre, are second only to the folktales

74


by the Grimms. Folkish and creative fairytales stem from folk beliefs. An earlier book on the translation of the German popular tales, Cay Dollerup’s Tales and Translation: The Grimm Tales from Pan-Germanic Narratives to Shared International Fairytales (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (1999), discussed by this reviewer in 2000 in Perspectives 8: 67-69), has thrown a bright light on the historical development of the topic of translated fairytales (see the extensive discussion and lists in Dollerup’s book: 260-286). Surpris-ingly, the same topic is almost neglected or dismissed by Hjørnager Pedersen, for reasons unknown.

Chapter II Andersen’s Translations 1846-1907: Howi� to Brækstad (77-262) is a largely chronological account of the 19th century translators: Mary Howi� (79-89), Charles Boner (90-97), Caroline Peachy (98-115), Meta Taylor (116-118), Clara de Chatelain (122-138), and others, plus some 20th Century translators (263-295). Interpretation, including translation, is determined by its historical moment and reflects that all acts of translated discourse are acts of emotional and intellectual force. Culture signifies more than critical and rhetorical studies. Morphologically, the English translations are derived from the Danish “archetypal” tales, but they are considered a chain of variants. Three factors are prominent in Andersen’s translations and re-translations: (1) some translators had epis-tolary or personal contact with Andersen, others worked independently of him, (2) some earlier translators worked from German translations - ‘relay’ translations - , whereas later translators knew the Danish language and culture and did direct translations, us-ing previous English translations for the purpose of comparison, and (3) the problem of focus: the translations were intended as children’s literature and children-and-adult literature.

In the final Chapter, General Translation Problems: Pragmatics, Syntax, Vocabulary and Phraseology (297-350), Hjørnager Pedersen examines the general linguistic problems encountered by English translators. He summarises the problem outlined in the chrono-logical part of the investigation, leading to the Conclusion (351-357), and ending with a 1-page subchapter “Research Strategies of the Future” (356-357). What is missing is a homogeneous methodology that gives form to the pros and cons of the variants. It would be a mistake to deny an emphasis on method, as Hjørnager Pedersen does, in processing a text. In his surveys, he includes comparative variants, but does not provide a methodological outline. The comparative examples represent a “practical” analysis of a particular corpus, but hardly offer a more coherent picture with broader implications. This fla�ening of Translation Studies is the result of focusing on a single literary genre. “Translational stylistics” in a broader sense is found in Kirsten Malmkjær’s 2003 article on Henry William Dulcken’s English Andersen (‘What Happened to God and the Angels: An Exercise in Translational Stylistics’ (Target 15: 37-58)), which is a welcome addition to Hjørnager Pedersen‘s book. Malmkjær’s response to the “why-stage of stylistic analysis cannot be carried out without reference to extralinguistic factors” (2003: 38), such as genre constraints and cultural emphases governing Andersen and his translators.

The linguistic remarks remain on the surface level and depend on Hjørnager Peder-sen’s skill and interest, whereas the pa�ern roles of imaginary characters, and the func-tion of situations are based on social stereotypes familiar to Andersen himself. Andersen was seen as a slightly crazy, clumsy, and eccentric hero; or rather antihero, like Pinocchio caricatured by a long nose. He was a homosexual male and under the circumstances of the time, his emotional and social life was not happy (discussed in the recent biography by Jackie Wullschlager, Hans Christian Andersen: The Life of a Storyteller. London: Allen Lane (2000)). “The Ugly Duckling” used in the title of Hjørnager Pedersen’s book is in it-self an allegory of Hans Christian Andersen’s own life, where an ugly duckling becomes a real swan in the fantasy of the storyteller’s tale. Yet in Hjørnager Pedersen’s book, the implications of being “different” and an “outsider”, in the sense of same-sex relation-ships, remain unmentioned. What is discussed is Andersen’s picaresque character as part child, part adult, part poor, part rich, part fool, and part actor – all acted out in the imagery presented to children. Andersen’s wonderful stories and fairytales are not for the faint-hearted, and are hardly intended as children’s literature (which at the time was religious and moralistic), but instead are aimed at grown-ups. They are reflected in the human and animal characters and their psychological and social events; the hard facts of the Victorian destiny of a literary genius. The shadow of homo-erotic discipline influ-ences readers (including translators) and to a certain degree determines the translations and re-translations. Andersen’s tales and his trials are magic but real, so are the serious a�itudes of his assumed alter egos, the translators and re-translators. In his book, with references to older literature on Andersen and his works, Hjørnager Pedersen addresses “emotionally loaded adjectives” (321-323), puns and ambiguities (324-326), allusions (326-328), as well as taboo words expressing sex, crime, and violence (335-337). How-

Reviews 75



ever, we do not encounter a knowledge and understanding of the dramatic “tinderbox” of translating Andersen’s coded ways of denouncing his homosexual desire (49).

My final suggestion is the following. Most translations and re-translations are adorned with pictures in many styles, at times realistic, romantic, or set in Jugendstil. The illustrations represent a magical experience and have an effect on the folktales them-selves, and are worthy of study and analysis. Hjørnager Pedersen did not undertake this here. Perhaps he will later?

Dinda L. Gorlée,The Hague,The Netherlands

76


Reviews

Documents