Résumés
Abstract
This paper contradicts the prevailing assumptions among the advocates of translation universals (TU’s) that explicitation, a translation behavior which consists of spelling things out rather than leaving them implicit in translation, is a potential TU, irrespective of the specific language pairs involved in the process of translation. Specifically, via a study employing a newly built 517,609-word parallel corpus, it is shown that implicitation and the subsequent TT contraction as well as explicitation and TT expansion entailed were both observed in translations involving Korean and English. The significance of the direction of language combinations in translations employing the same language pair was identified, together with the introduction and verification of the validity of the four measurement units devised for this study to capture diverse aspects of explicitation/implicitation which in turn entail TT expansion/contraction.
Keywords/Mots-clés:
- TT expansion factors,
- parallel corpus,
- ANOVA-tests,
- working language combination direction,
- readership relations
Résumé
Cet article contredit l’hypothèse qui a cours parmi les partisans des universels de traduction selon laquelle l’explicitation, procédé consistant à expliquer clairement les choses plutôt que de les laisser implicites dans le texte traduit, est un universel de traduction (UT) potentiel quelles que soient les deux langues présentes dans le processus de traduction. Au moyen de l’étude d’un nouveau corpus parallèle de 517 609 mots, on a notamment observé aussi bien l’implicitation et la contraction du texte d’arrivée qui l’accompagne que l’explicitation et l’expansion du texte traduit que cela implique dans des traductions entre le coréen et l’anglais. On a constaté que la direction des combinaisons linguistiques dans les traductions employant les mêmes langues est significative et on a introduit et vérifié la validité des quatre unités de mesure conçues pour que cette étude saisisse les différents aspects de l’explicitation/implicitation et de l’expansion/contraction du texte traduit qui en découlent.
초록
본 논문은 원문 텍스트에 암묵적으로 나타나있는 의미를 ’번역 과정에서 언어적으로 구현하여 의미의 명확성을 제고하는 번역 현상을 가리키는 ’외연화‘가번역언어에 상관없이 나타나는 ’번역보편소‘ 후보라는 ’번역보편소‘ 주창자들의 가설을 실증적 자료분석을 통해 반박한다. 구체적으로는 한국어와 영어 간의 번역 텍스트에서는 외연화와 그에 따른 번역텍스트 확장현상 이외에 원문텍스트에 명시적으로 구현되어 있는 의미를 암묵적 추론이 가능한 방식으로 구성하는 ’내포화‘와 그로 인한 번역텍스트 축소현상도 관찰되고 있음을 보고한다. 연구방법론으로 본 연구를 위해 새로 구성된 517,609 단어(토큰기준)의 병렬코퍼스를 다양한 통계기법을 사용, 분석한다. 이를 통해 동일 언어 쌍이 번역언어로 사용되는 경우에도 언어별 번역방향(한영및영한)이 연구대상인 번역현상에 중요한 차이를 가져온다는 사실을 보고하는 한편, 외연화/암묵화와 그로 인한 번역텍스트 확장/축소의 다양한 측면을 포착하기 위해 고안된 네 가지 측정단위의 타당성을 입증한다.
Parties annexes
References
- Baker, M. (1993): “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications”, Text and Technology: In honour of John Synclair (M. Bakeret al., eds.), Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 223-250.
- ——— (1996): Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges that Lie Ahead, H. Somer.
- Blum-Kulka, S. (1986): “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”, Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, eds.), Tübingen, Gunter Narr , p. 17-35.
- Bowker, L. and J. Pearson (2002): Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora, London and New York, Routledge.
- Cheong, H-J. (2004): Translated Text Expansion and Contraction Phenomena: A Corpus-based Study of Quantitative Target Text Changes as Reflective of Translator Mediation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea.
- Fillmore, C. (1982): “Frame semantics”, Linguistics in the Morning Calm (Linguistic Society of Korea, ed.), Seoul, Hanshin, p. 111-138.
- ——— (1985): “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding”, Quaderni di Semantica 6-2, p. 222-253.
- ——— (1992): “‘Corpus Linguistics' vs. 'Computer-aided Armchair Linguistics’”, Directions in Corpus Linguistics, Proceedings from 1992 Nobel symposium on corpus linguistics, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, p. 35-60.
- Frodesen, J. and J. Eyring (2000): Grammar Dimensions: Form, meaning and Use, Boston, Heinle & Heinle.
- Gutt, E-A. (1990): “A Theoretical Account of Translation-without a Translation Theory”, Target 2-2, p. 135-164.
- ——— (1992): Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation, New York, United Bible Societies.
- Hatim, B. (2001): Teaching and Researching Translation, Harlow and New York, Longman.
- Kang, B.-M. and H-G. Kim (2000): Hangukeoeui tekst jangreu mwunche yuhyeong: keompyuteowa tonggyejeok gibeopeui iyong [Text Genre, Style, Types in Korean Language: Application of Computer and Statistical Methods], Seoul, Taehaksa.
- Klaudy, K. (1998): “Explicitation”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (M. Baker and K. Malmkjǽr, eds.), London and New York, Routledge, p. 80-85.
- Laviosa, S. (1997): “How Comparable Can Comparable Corpus Be?”, Target 9-2, p. 289-319.
- Leppihalme, R. (1997): Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions, Clevedon and Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters.
- Munday, J. (1998): “A Computer-assisted Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts”, Meta 43-4, retrieved 2 Feb. 2003, <http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n4> .
- Nam, K.-S. and Y.-G. Ko ([1985] 1993): Pyo-jun-kuk-eo-mun-beop-ron [Standard Korean grammar], (revised edition), Seoul, Tap.
- Nida, E. (1964): Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible, Leiden, E.J. Brill.
- Nida, E. and C. Taber (1969): The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden, E.J. Brill.
- Nord, C. (1991): Text Analysis in Translation, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
- ——— (1996): “Revisiting the Classics: Text Type and Translation Method – An Objective Approach to Translation Criticism”, The Translator 2-1, p. 81-88.
- Olohan, M. (2002): “Comparable Corpora in Translation Research: Overview of Recent Analyses Using the Translational English Corpus”, LREC Language Resources in Translation Work and Research Workshop Proceedings, p. 5-9.
- Øverås , L. (1998): “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation”, Meta 43-4, <http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n4>.
- Sohn, H-M. and J. Haig (1997): Japanese/Korean Linguistics, John Haig Center for the Study of Language and Information.
- Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986): Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford, Blackwell.
- Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993a): Framing in Discourse, New York and Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press.
- ——— (1993b): “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations”, Framing in discourse (D. Tannen, ed.), New York and Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 14-56
- Toury, G. (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- Vanderauwera, R. (1985): Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a “Minority” Literature, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
- Vermeer, H. (1989): “Skopos and Commission in Translation Action”, Readings in Translation Theory (A. Chesterman, ed.), Helsinki, Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
10.7202/003680ar