Gopo's Cognitive Model of Translation

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 6MB Size Report
Comment
~them"oh>g. Fig. 1: Overview of the Translation Task ... The "client", according to the Skopos theory, is the individual who contracts a translator to render an ... originator (or the translator's client) will essentially give the translator a brief, with.
Notes on Contributors Chabata Emmanuel African Languages Research Institute, University of Zimbabwe

lit

[email protected] Chivero Esther Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe

[email protected] Dhumukwa Annastacia Department of Linguistics University of Zimbabwe

[email protected] Dube Progress Languages Department, Lupane State University [email protected]

Ill

Gopo Loveson Department of African Languages and Literature, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] jakaza Ernest Department of English and Communication, Midlands State University

[email protected] Mabugu Patricia, Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] Makumbe Lloyd Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] Mamvura Zvinashe Department of African Languages and Literature, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] Mangeya Hugh Department of English and Communication, Midlands State University

[email protected] Mashiri Pedzisai Department ofAfrican Languages and Literature, University of Zimbabwe [email protected]

I

Matambirofa Francis Department of African Languages and Literature, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] Mugari Victor Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe '111

[email protected] Mukaro Laston Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe

[email protected]

·

Mushangwe Herbert Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] flt

Mutonga Lovemore Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe

[email protected]

vi

Vll

-'""""""3....,,. Trends in

Zimbabwean Linguistics

.:..a:iele Lickel Department of African Languages and Literature, University of

=--~&.ve [email protected] -c.::.rla Cathrine Department of Linguistics, University of Zimbabwe -- [email protected] ~ Pretty Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, University of ---c!Jwe pptao/[email protected] -~ Liveson Department of Curriculum and Arts Education, University of Zimbabwe [email protected] .ss& Marianna W Department of African languages, University of Stellenbosch

I~

5 ,_,___nsed are not positive in fighting against the stigma of the disease. Language :es:r used in such a way that it creates hope for the people who are infected with -..::>S. At present, the language used to denote the illness leaves people helpless :3.sillusioned. The chapter does not proffer alternative terms to denote HIV/ ~5 hut rather challenges society to discard terms, which are in present use. By :c;;;:i:izing society of the negative terms, it is hoped that new and friendly terms ~ be generated by the society. He takes cognizance of the fact that terms :=-"'rated by society itself are more likely to be acceptable and have a greater ~er: than those prescribed by the academics. angwe and Tahwa compare and contrast the loanwords from English, which ;'ound in Chinese and Shona languages. The two hypothesize that loanwords, in rwo languages should exhibit more similarities than differences since they ·sL1ate from the same source language. However, evidence opposes the hypothesis ·-=rause in these two languages, loanwords from English are very different. The - -~netic systems of these two languages, their word formation methods, ~ roaotactics. morphotactics, culture, among others, are the major factors that cause _Ctl\vords from English to be different in Shona and Chinese. The two scholars 7.Je that Shona speakers learning Chinese are likely to find it difficult to grasp ::ElWords from English and it therefore becomes necessary to explore further the zallenges that native speakers of Shona face when acquiring Chinese loanwords.

= -=

labugu, Sibanda and Chivero argue for a prescriptive family language policy that crks in the same way as national language policies. This chapter is a survey of the :'ce of English in family language policies of Zimbabwean homes, which showed :::::..O""'IEnglish has leaked significantly into the home domain of many Shona families. -.::e.ir findings reflect that the home domain is now a contested space in terms of z:iguage use with Shona significantly losing this space. The argument here is that ..::.:tguage policy matters should begin from the grassroot level, that is the family zad the communities ifwe are to maintain our indigenous languages. !icpo's chapter departs from most translation models and theories that focus on :::ie process or on the particular output in comparison to the source text by focusing ca the human being behind it. Named after the author, the Gopo's Cognitive Model =:'Translation (GCMT) is considered a practical descriptive model that illustrate the spectrum of activities and factors that take place and influence the process of :ranslation and interpreting- as they occur in the translator's mind which is argued zo be the centre of most translation activities. :he Current Trends in Zimbabwean Linguistics will be an invaluable and holistic :;mblication by (mostly) Zimbabwean scholars for the Zimbabwean community and oeyond. Students of language will generally be able to harness the diverse and resourceful contributions to linguistics that are anchored on different values that are not alien to the readers. Let me take this opportunity to thank the team of reviewers who took their time with the chapters in times even when they were busy with their own projects. We also salute the authors of the book chapters, as they have patiently collaborated amongst themselves and with the editors to effect :he suggested changes. May I, on behalf of the editors, thank all those who contributed in various ways to the consummation of this project.

Chapter 17

Gopo's Cognitive Model of Translation Tapiwa Loveson Gopo

Introduction The translation Theory is a phenomenon that has been developed to significant lengths over a considerable period. The Theory ofTranslation, per se, is represented through various angles of approach, for example, the Linguistic Theory, the Skopos Theory, the Scan and Balance Theory, among others, and it attempts to explore the numerous and various processes and techniques that are and should be employed by translators in their endeavour to produce a credible and useful translation output. Various models have consequently been used to explain and represent these theories in simplified diagrammatic or schematic formats in order to inform and guide the processes and procedures of translation. Most of these models focus mainly on translation as a process itself or on the particular output (the translated text) in comparison to the source text. In the process, they neglect a very crucial element in the process of language mediation - the human being behind it. It is in light of this that we posit a more lucid and practical descriptive model, henceforth the Copo's Cognitive Model ofTranslation (GCMT) to illustrate the spectrum of activities and factors that take place and influence the process of translation - as they occur within the translator's mind which is, in reality, the centre of most translation activity. While the Model does not guide the translator on what specific steps to follow when translating, it does reveal a clear picture of what the translator is to grapple with - and does, therefore, enlighten especially the translation student who is in fact the translator in the making. Needless to argue, an effective translator in the present world should be a trained one. Thus, as part of the training prior to professional practice, this model lays an indispensable foundation for more procedure-oriented models to then outline a step-by-step method of carrying out the physical translation procedure - where the one we are presently propounding is more psychological in outlook. This chapter proffers a representation of the collective mental activity that takes place in the mind of a translator or interpreter during the process of translating a text, as affected by the various external feeds that emanate from different factors as outlined below. This is achieved through a simple model that depicts the main feeders of the translator's cognitive centre - namely the Source Language (SL} (Catford, 1965), the translator's intuitive knowledge (herein the Cognitive Realm), operational restrictive, disruptive or modifying factors (herein Warping), and the Target Language (TL) itself. What this means is that the translator already has competence in the TL as much as s/he has competence in the SL - where these

205

Current Trends in Zimbabwean Linguistics

206

labels are only relative to which language a text that needs to be translated is presented. In that regard, the translator's mind (including the unconscious and inert linguistic and memory hub) becomes the all-critical engine room where all activity takes place by analysing input data, synthesising it with that which is existing in the brain, comparing it with that in the intended output format in order to reach an optimal level of agreement. The major strength of this model is the fact that it places the translator at the centre of the activity- where most models focus on the SLT, the process, or the TLT, neglecting the real factory that synthesises all the stages.

Backqround of the Study This study is ushered in at the backdrop of a discipline that is endowed with a range of theories and models that seek to explain the role of a translator as well as explain the purpose and process(es) oflanguage mediation activities (i.e. translation - mainly, and interpretation). Chimhundu (1997) in Chabata (2007), for example, devises what he calls the Scan and Balance Theory, which displays the intricate interplay between the process of translation and culture - and articulates the importance of the various contexts within which translation (and interpreting) occurs. The likes of Nida (1964, 1969/1982) have also proposed theories that are mainly linguistic in nature, that focus on the relatedness of the TLT and the SLT, and how the translator is supposed to 'transfer' the meaning of the SL to the TL. Vermeer (1989) for instance, takes his focus from the text level to the purpose of the text where equivalence is not judged by the one to one or word for word relationship between the .SLT and the TLT, but on whether or not the TLT fulfils the mandate for which the translation has been undertaken in the first place. The present model does not seek to disqualify or refute any established theoretical approaches as much as it strives to expand the appreciation of the language mediator's role and reveal the extent of their cognitive involvement in the process of translation. The GCMT borrows significantly from the Cognitive Theory of Translation and Interpreting by Padilla, Bajo and Padilla (1999), who state that; From the point of view of the (language) mediator the task of mediating is far from what we could consider a "normal activity". It cannot be assumed that the cognitive processes of translation and interpreting ... are identical to the cognitive processes involved in the tasks of speaking, listening, reading or writing. In fact, although this may seem mere repetition, these processes of language mediation are extremely complex, since they are not only linguistic processes. These processes must also be understood within their social, cultural and above all psychological contexts (p 1 ).

In addition to this, Padilla et al. (1999: 14) go on to suggest that; The subject's prior knowledge, the situation in which comprehension occurs, etc., can lead to variations in the mental model which the recipient constructs for himself/herself and thus determine the representation that he/she makes of the text or discourse in (TL) (p14).

207

Gopo's Cognitive Model of Translation

In concurrence with these points of view, we present here a model that hinges on the cognitive dimension of translation. Whereas the given cognitive theories explain at length the technical psychological details and methodologies relied on in testing and confirming data and various related protocols, the Model simply breaks down findings and represents them in a basic and easy to understand manner. The purpose of a model is to simplify a theory and help a learner or practitioner to visualize clearly how certain procedures are undertaken from stage to stage. This, as such, is the preoccupation of the GCMT as it advances a cognitivist approach to language mediation in the same spirit as linguistic studies such as the one propounded by Langacker (1987). To try to explain the translation process, Larson (1998:4) posits a model that summarises the process.

SOURCE LANGUAGE Text to be translated

RECEPTOR LANGUAGE ~

"