too euphemistic for us Poles, whose president is not Ronald Reagan? 3. The main idea behind cultural differences as regards register is that languages (seen ...
On Rendering Register Lukasz Bogucki 0. It is naturally an inappropriate oversimplification to define interlingual translation or interpretation as mere expression in one language of what has been expressed in another. The content is just one of a set of issues which the translator has to consider carefully in order to produce what is frequently, but imprecisely, referred to as “a good translation”. In interpreting, arguably, the idea of “getting the message across” is the central one, and it may thus be that an interpretation which just renders information in another language is considered acceptable. But even here discourse elements other than content play at least some role. In translation, it is believed, the question is not only whether a text is rendered into another language but — hardly less importantly — how it is rendered. The translator has to start by analysing the source text thoroughly, with respect not just to the content, but also, to simplify a little, to the form (seen as not merely the text’s general structure and arrangement, but as a factor contributing to its overall meaning). Our principal concern here will be register, one facet of form as such. One might come up with a very basic, superficial and imprecise statement that the register of a given text depends on the addressee of that text. To continue in the line of fairly obvious and unoriginal observations, when the text is translated, the recipient of the target text (as more or less equivalent to the addressee of the source text) has to be precisely determined. The quality of the target text depends largely on whether the translator has appropriately characterized its recipient, the audience to whom the text is directed, and consequently applied appropriate translation techniques (see e.g. Nord 1991). It must be noted here that for the purposes of this paper the “narrow” definition of register has been adopted, making the concept parallel to what traditional sociolinguistics used to label “style”; we perceive register as, roughly, the degree of formality (or directness, or politeness). This working definition would perhaps be of little value in an ambitious sociopragmatic discussion, but we hope that since translation is the key concept in this paper, this kind of imprecise wording of what register actually is will suffice. In this sense we might assume that a language has (at least) three basic registers, viz., formal, neutral and informal, exemplified in the case of English by “inebriated”, “drunk”, and “stoned”, and, ideally, this division should be respected in translation. However, this simple rule is hardly ever applicable.
On Rendering Register 1. First of all — is it really words that we translate? Is it not so that, as Weinrich says, “words are untranslatable, texts can always be translated” (in Newmark 1988: 79)? And when we move up to the level of text, is there anything like a formal or an informal text? Can a business letter not have a warm personal note at the end? In fact, one can frequently move freely between registers and still create perfectly felicitous sentences, e.g.: (1) Dad was pretty fatigued after the long trip. One might conclude that formality as such is rather subjective and boundaries between its particular levels are not fixed. The reason for this fuzziness is probably that formality is determined by conventions. There are, naturally, exceptions to this rule. In the following examples (2) We got some salt (3) We obtained some sodium chloride the difference between “got” and “obtained” is a matter of conventional agreement, whereas the distinction between “salt” and “sodium chloride” is more a question of necessity, as in certain contexts salt may refer to something other than sodium chloride. To simplify, a translator failing to respect the difference between “got” and “obtained” produces a translation whose stylistic meaning departs from that of the original, but should he or she neglect the distinction between “salt” and “sodium chloride”, the resulting translation might fail to correspond to the original in both its stylistic and propositional meaning. In simpler terms, sometimes by changing the register of a message a translation might also change its contents. 2. It is generally acknowledged that translation should not only convey a message to a target audience, but also be mindful of the characteristics of this audience, and, if need be, modify the form of the message. In Gutt’s words, [the] message can’t just be communicated to any audience regardless of their cognitive environment. (Gutt 1991: 97) This is a crucial point in our discussion. Preserving register in translation does not mean rendering something objectively formal (or direct, or polite) in the source language by something objectively formal (or direct, or polite) in the target language — this is why we can hardly speak of objectivity here, as was argued earlier. Cultural differences between source text readers and target text readers play a role, and the notion of acceptability is central to the issue. The American media may, for whatever reason, refer to Ronald Reagan when
178
Lukasz Bogucki undergoing minor surgery as being in a “non-decision-making form” (instead of merely “unconscious”; after Nord 1991: 114), but wouldn’t this sound much too euphemistic for us Poles, whose president is not Ronald Reagan? 3. The main idea behind cultural differences as regards register is that languages (seen as mirrors of cultures) vary inasmuch as certain idiolects seem more “formal” or “direct” than others. American English is prototypically much more direct than British English (and this has been the case for a very long time: on one memorable occasion when Queen Victoria was dissatisfied with her interlocutor’s behaviour, she uttered the famous statement — actually, understatement — “We are not amused”, a classic example of extreme indirectness). Japanese is well-known for its indirectness: Loveday remarks that “no” almost constitutes a term of abuse in Japanese, and equivocation, exiting, or even lying is preferred to its use. (Loveday 1982: 364) Vietnamese, in turn, seems rather direct. Larson cites the anecdote of an Englishman inviting a Vietnamese to have some tea with him; when he says “Would you like to drink tea?”, the Vietnamese, whose English is apparently not good enough to let him realize certain cultural differences, reacts with astonishment and with a feeling that he is being made fun of, because the Vietnamese polite formula used in such situations when translated into English would sound like “Take this tea and drink it” (Larson 1984: 237). 4. Needless to say, these cultural differences influence the way translators tackle texts, but observing them is not always possible. Apparently the most probable equivalent of “to make serious money” in French would be “gagner beaucoup d’argent”. The English phrase is rather informal, whereas its French equivalent is neutral, but there is no clash, as French is commonly said to be more formal than English in principle. A potential problem, however, may arise when the reverse situation occurs. The French informal word “ecolo” does not seem to have any appropriate English equivalent; “environmentalist” is too formal, and “eco-freak” or “green” are in fact quite informal, but derogatory (thus associative or connotative meaning would be changed by using these as equivalents of the French word). Sometimes conventional polite phrases typical of a given culture have no “real” meaning. In Burundi, we are told, whenever a group of men gathers to discuss something, the speakers are arranged in order of importance and age, and everyone but the first speaker has to start his speech with a conventional formula like this: “I agree with the previous speaker, he is older and more experienced than me, so I’ll just follow his point of view”. Then, in the course
179
On Rendering Register of their speeches, they may express opinions which not only depart from, but even contradict their predecessors’ views, but no offence is taken as the formula has lost its actual meaning, remaining just a polite opening (see Albert 1988: 84-85). This apparent inconsistency may pose a problem in translation. 5. Very often, of course, it is not the general characteristics of the very language (or culture) that matter but a particular context. Some years ago the major TV channel in Poland as part of the main news of the day, addressed to a mature and demanding audience, broadcast a report from Bosnia. Although voice-over is prototypically used in such reports (and was used then), a Serbian spokesman could be heard quite explicitly warning his nation’s opponents: (4) We will use very unparliamentary language — don’t fuck around. Probably because of the prospective audience the translator opted for a softer wording which would back-translate into English as “don’t mess around” (Polish: Przestańcie się wpieprzać.). 6. Not infrequently one comes across cases where the source text has a register which itself sounds bizarre to speakers of the source language. It is quite surprising how often one has to marvel at such oddities as “wood interdental stimulator” (toothpick) or “portable hand-held communication inscriber” (pencil). Lindsay, an ardent advocate of plain language, has a suggestion for all translators who wonder how to tackle these: [T]he author may be a damned idiot, but is that any reason why you (the translator) should be one as well? (Lindsay 1986: 100) We must remember, though, that since situational context plays so great a role in the issue in question here, generalizing may turn out to be dangerous. 7. Similarly, the phenomenon of so-called “politically correct” speech may bring about problems in translation. Let us look at a sample taken from a lecture delivered by an English professor defending Russian totalitarianism: While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant to transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. (after G. Orwell; in Hatim and Mason 1990: 36)
180
Lukasz Bogucki
Again, prescriptive statements will be avoided here; we will not usurp the right to claim that gibberish, to use a rather derogatory term, should be translated as gibberish, or that when working with similarly obscure and wordy texts the translator should restrict him- or herself to extracting the essence (that is, in the example given above, opt for something like “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so”). This kind of prescriptivity should be especially discouraged in cases where the full situational context remains obscure. 8. It is not infrequent to find translations where the issue of rendering register has been misunderstood. We hope that examples alone will suffice to illustrate the issue. The first of them is an announcement overheard at an airport: (5) Madame Odette, passagère à destination de Douala, est demandée au téléphone. (6) Madame Odette, passenger with destination Douala, is demanded on the telephone. (after Larson 1984: 15-16) The attempt to remain faithful to the original and render its register “automatically”, leads to the perfectly felicitous French sentence being mistranslated into English. Examples like these usually arouse laughter, but the issue they illustrate is fairly serious; unskilful attempts at rendering register may have ludicrous effects. A notice in an Austrian hotel for skiers, apparently a translation (unfortunately the source language is unknown to me), said: (7) Not to perambulate the corridor in the hour of repose in the boots of ascension. that is, in plain English: (8) Do not walk around in your ski-boots during rest hours. It is not our objective here to provide readers with errors they can poke fun at; we are trying to demonstrate how register is rendered in translation, and warn readers that this process is quite complex. The examples above are somewhat extreme, and (fortunately) one does not come across such blunders every day. But translation is a decision-making activity. Translators have to solve hundreds of problems every working day, and many of these problems concern the issue we are discussing here. A further example may illustrate the point:
181
On Rendering Register
(9) Quelle est la proportion de main d’oeuvre indirecte que vous appliquez à l’entretien du capital installé? (10) What is the proportion of indirect labour you apply to the maintenance of the fixed capital? (11) How many people do you employ to keep the place clean and maintain the equipment? It is up to the translator to decide whether to render a perfectly unmarked and acceptable text like (9) in a more or less literal fashion — (10) — respecting the register but perhaps disrespecting certain differences between languages (as we have said elsewhere, French tends to be more formal than English), or to simplify it slightly — (11) — perhaps making it somewhat more informative. 9. Since rendering a message into another language often means trying to achieve something in the other culture (for example selling a product, not necessarily a material one, promoting something, etc.), general rules of politeness have to be observed to avoid losing one’s audience, frequently one’s potential customers; an offended recipient will obviously not be of much use. In problematic cases adaptation is preferred over translation. In the British TV series Fawlty Towers there is a Spanish waiter, Manuel, who commits all sorts of faux pas and constantly excuses himself with the apparently self-explanatory statement “I am from Barcelona”. In the Spanish version of Fawlty Towers, for the sake of not hurting anybody’s national feelings, Manuel comes from Italy. 10. By way of a conclusion, it may not be too prescriptive to add the following: register has to be preserved in translation, but not automatically; it should be respected only if its rendition is acceptable in the target culture, and if the effect on the target reader remains the same as that on the source reader. To finish on a note of scepticism: this scarcely ever turns out to be straightforward and simple, and mistakes are costly. As the old rhyme goes: Many critics, no defenders, Translators have but two regrets. When they “hit”, no-one remembers, When they “miss”, no-one forgets. (after Newmark 1983: 15)
182
Lukasz Bogucki
References Albert, E.M. 1988 “Culture Patterning of Speech Behavior in Burundi”, in J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication, Oxford / New York: Basil Blackwell, pp.72-105. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage, London / New York / Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Catford, J.C. 1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fowler, Roger (Ed.) 1967 Essays on Style and Language. Linguistic and Critical Approaches to Literary Style, London: Routledge. Gutt, Ernst August 1991 Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context, Oxford / Cambridge MA: Basil Blackwell. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978 Language as Social Semiotic, London: Edward Arnold. Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason 1990 Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman. Hudson, R.A. 1980 Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Larson, Mildred 1984 Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence, Lanham NY / London: University Press of America. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983 Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loveday, L.J.
183
On Rendering Register 1982
“Conflicting Framing Patterns: the Sociosemiotics of One Component in Cross-cultural Communication”, Text 2:4, pp.359374.
Lindsay, Arthur 1986 “The Translator’s Duty to Use Plain English”, in K. Kummer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the ATA, Cleveland, Ohio, October 16-19 1986, Medford NJ: Learned Information, pp.95-101. McMenamin, G.R. (Ed.) 1993 Forensic Stylistics, special issue of Forensic International 58, Shannon (Ireland): Elsevier Science.
Science
Newmark, Peter 1983 “Introductory Survey”, in Catriona Picken (Ed.), Translator’s Handbook, London: Aslib, pp.1-17. 1988 (1987) A Textbook of Translation, New York: Prentice-Hall. Nord, Christiane 1991 Text Analysis in Translation, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
184
The
