1 Functional grammar (Spanish-German) for translators and/or interpreters: a project.
Karin Vilar Sánchez Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación c/Puentezuelas, 55 E-18002 Granada Tel.: 958-500261 Fax: 958-243474 e-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract Functional grammar (Spanish-German) for translators and/or interpreters: a project. In the present research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture we are working on the elaboration of a contrastive functional grammar (Spanish-German) for translators and/or interpreters on CD Rom which is considered a valuable working tool for this group. It is well-known that one does not translate words and structures but text or discourse. In order to do so, the translator/interpreter must understand the communicative intention of the original text or discourse and reproduce it in the target text. That means not only does he need a solid idiomatic knowledge
2 (knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, phonology, suprasegmental and extralinguistic elements) in both languages but also a good knowledge of the expressive aspect of all these linguistic resources (i.e. which resources are used to express which function in what kind of situation or text and with what effect). However, the existing grammar books do not help him in an effective way because none of them offer him easily accessible information about the resources (lexical, grammatical, phonological, orthographic, suprasegmental, extralinguistic) that exist in each language for the expression of specific functions (e.g. "make a request"), determined by the type of text or discourse and adding information about the frequency of use and the pragmatic connotations of each linguistic form.
Résumé Dans le présent projet de recherche scientifique fondé par le Ministère espagnol d'Education et Culture, nous travaillons sur l'élaboration d'une grammaire fonctionnelle contrastée (Espagnol-Allemand) pour traducteurs et interprètes sur CD Rom, ce qui est consideré un outil de travail de valeur pour ce groupe. Il est bien connu que l'on ne traduit pas des mots et des structures mais du textes ou du discours. Pour pouvoir ainsi le faire, le traducteur/interprète doit comprendre l'intention communicative du texte ou discours original et le reproduire dans le texte de la langue en question. Ce qui signifie qu'il a besoin non seulement de connaissances idiomatiques solides (connaissances de grammaire, vocabulaire,
3 phonologie, éléments suprasegmentals et extralinüistiques) dans les deux langues mais aussi de bonnesconnaissances sur l'aspect expressif de toutes ces ressources lingüistiques (c'est-à-dire quelles ressources sont utilisées pour exprimer quelle fonction dans quelle sorte de situation ou texte et avec quel effet). Cependant, les livres de grammaire qui existent ne l'aide pas dans un sens efficace parce que aucun d'eux offre une information d'accès facile en ce qui concerne les ressources (lexicales, grammaticales, phonologiques, orthographiques, suprasegmentals, extralingïstiques) qui existent dans chaque langue pur l'espression de fonctions spécifiques (ex. demander à quelqu'un de faire quelque chose), déterminées par le genre de texte ou discours et qui ajoutent information sur la fréquence d'usage et les connotations pragmatiques de chaque forme lingüistique.
4 1. The project In this paper I want to present a research project [PB 98-1336] which is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture from the year 2000 to 2002. The members of this project are six linguists from different universities of Andalusia (Spain), mainly of the Faculty of Translation and Interpretation of the University of Granada. As the title of this paper indicates, our aim is to produce within this project a contrastive grammar for German and Spanish. Those who are familiar with this language pair and with translation from one language to the other, will most probably immediately think of the excellent contrastive grammar of Cartagena and Gauger (1989) and ask themselves what there is to improve. Cartagena and Gauger's grammar is intended for all those, who starting out from a specific form in either language, are concerned with the formal correspondent in the other, for whatever purpose. In this respect, it is meant for a general public. But the fact that the grammar is written in German in quite a compact style, using a lot of linguistic terms, will probably make it very difficult to understand for nonnatives in German and also for non-specialists in linguistics. In contrast, the approach to the grammar we intend to create is meant as a tool for a very specific target group, namely that of translators and indirectly also that of interpreters. This occupational group generally no longer uses a grammar in order to learn a language. In most cases it will just be used by them from time to time to look up how a specific form or structure is formed and less often what it means. A good translator already knows these things. It is a fact that grammars are not really
5 working tools for translators, but dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, are. However, we think that a grammatical approach aimed at this specific occupational group would be of great use and improve the quality and effectiveness of their work in a decisive way.
2. Goals What then are the differences between a traditional grammar and one for translators? Which goals does a grammar for translators have to meet and how should it be structured to guarantee a quick and effective access to information? I want to start by referring to the second question, that of the goals. These will naturally be determined by the specific needs of translators. We all know that their task is to transfer texts and discourses from one language to the other. In order to do this, they first have to capture the intention of the source text and then reproduce it in the target language. As a consequence, a translator not only has to have a solid knowledge of formal aspects of the languages (grammar, vocabulary and phonology) but also of the expressive aspects (stylistic, pragmatic, cultural, social, emotional, local and temporal), i.e. he must know which linguistic means are used in both languages to express a particular function in a particular texttype or situation and he must also know which secondary effects or connotations are conveyed by the usage of each form. This includes their frequency of use. By linguistic means I naturally refer to vocabulary as well as to grammatical forms and structures. To sum up, grammars which claim to be useful to translators
6 should convey information about the functions expressed by forms and structures, and also about the connotations conveyed by them. Moreover, they must do it in such a way that the access to this information is direct, that means the user of this grammar must be able to start his search beginning not only from the particular form or structure but also from a specific function, depending on the translation phase that he is working on, that of text reception or that of text production, i.e. the approach must be semasiological as well as onomasiological. The existing grammars of German and Spanish and also the contrastive German-Spanish grammars perform these requirements only in part. In what follows I will make a very short analysis of some of these grammars, understandably only of those which favour or at least include a functional approach. The Gramática comunicativa del español (1992) of Francisco Matte Bon is a valuable addition to the traditional grammars of Spanish which explain language as a system of rules without systematically having in mind the communicative situation in which it is produced. However, Matte Bon analyzes the mechanisms which among various possibilities lead to the choice of a certain linguistic means for the expression of a specific function in a predetermined context. He also analyzes the possible connotations these means can convey, but unfortunately he confines himself to spoken language. However, it is especially the written text types which are of interest to the translator; and interpreters are mainly concerned with formal discourse. Nevertheless, Matte Bon's approach is
7 innovative and the information on the functions which are analyzed in his grammar are doubtless of great value. The Kommunikative Grammatik. Deutsch als Fremdsprache (1993) of Ulrich Engel and Rosemarie K. Tertel is not really a grammar but a textbook for the acquisition of the German language. The approach is onomasiological. The linguistic means are introduced in concrete texts and afterwards their function is analyzed. The number of the linguistic means discussed is relatively small because most of the texts analyzed are journalistic. In addition, the reader neither receives any information about the connotations conveyed nor about their frequency of use. Therefore this ‘grammar’ is not really of interest to a translator, but the information about the linguistic means which are analyzed is undoubtedly useful for our project. The Grammatik der deutschen Sprache (1997) which was recently published in the series Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache by Hans Werner Eroms, Gerhard Stickel and Gisela Zifonun in its analysis of the German language includes both approaches, the semasiological and the onomasiological. The information is full and detailed and rigorously documented. But it is just because of this complexity, which at times requires a lengthy searchtime, and also because of its compact style, that this grammar is not really an efficient tool either for translators or for non-natives. In the Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache (1993) of Harald Weinrich the reader finds a very exhaustive analysis of the pragmatic connotations of a lot
8 of lingustic means and their uses in different contexts or text types. The approach is semasiological. By contrast, the approach of Buscha’s et al. excellent learner’s grammar Grammatik in Feldern (1998) is clearly functional. The authors explain the German language starting from ten general so called ‘content fields’. Grammatical forms and structures as well as lexical means are included in the admittedly quite exhaustive description. Unfortunately the number of functions described is limited and the systematization of the means with regard to the text type is very rudimentary (official vs. private-oral communication). But in balance/ on the whole/ all in all Buscha’s grammar provides valuable information for our project. The Gramática Funcional del Alemán (1999) of Berit Balzer is a newly published grammar of German for native speakers of Spanish, aimed at the solution of certain language problems of this specific group. The approach is semasiological and in spite of its title, the functions of the different forms and structures treated in this grammar are only occasionally commented on, and moreover, in a relatively sporadic way. There is no information about connotations or frequency of use. Finally, the Vergleichende Grammatik Spanisch-Deutsch (1989) of Nelson Cartagena and Hans-Martin Gauger is, as already mentioned, of the greatest interest to the project we are working on. Especially the second part, the onomasiological, which is considerably shorter than the first part, and comes close
9 to our concern. But unfortunately the linguistic means which are analyzed starting out from their function are hardly ever correllated with the context in which they are produced, i.e. neither the situational factors the oral texts are produced in, nor the text type of the written texts are taken into account in the analysis. In addition, the information on connotations conveyed by the different linguistic means which also depend on, and are interrelated with the context these means are produced in, is extremely scarce. Furthermore, the onomasiological part of this grammar does not contain any information on the frequency of use of the linguistic means treated, which is indispensable for any translator. This admittedly quite extensive information can only be found in the first part of the book, the semasiological one. Owing to all this, the grammar of Cartagena and Gauger does not constitute an effective working tool for translators. Nevertheless, most of the information contained in each of these grammars is relevant to our project. However, the information must be restructured in order to guarantee quick and easy access for translators. In addition, the number of functions to analyze must be considerably enlarged, the connotations conveyed by them must be analyzed meticulously and the frequency of use of the different means must be determined; either with regard to context (oral texts) or to text type (written texts).
3. Structure I propose the following steps in order to reach that goal:
10 1. Assessment of the functions that are expressed in texts actually translated from German to Spanish and vice versa (e.g. to ask for s.th.; to give s.th.; to refuse s.th.). In order to do so, firstly we would have to collect a corpus of authentic material large enough for an empirical study. This would make an extensive enquiry necessary among active specialists (translators and interpreters) in Germany and in Spain.1 On the one hand, they would be asked to inform us via questionnaires about the texts they had actually translated in recent years from German to Spanish or vice versa, and on the other hand, they would be asked to supply some of the necessary material for analysis, i.e. the source texts or at least give enough information so that we ourselves locate them. The oral corpus would be obtained via direct recording of discourses during conferences, congresses, sessions of parliament, official acts, etc. 2. Assessment of the linguistic means (vocabulary, grammatical forms and structures, suprasegmental elements), and extralinguistic means used in order to express the formerly determined functions; assessment of the connotations conveyed by them; determination of their frequency of use and classification with regard to text type or context. The user of this grammar would thus not only have at his disposal a tool that would allow him to produce the different communicative functions in the target language correctly, but it would also help him, and that really is the innovative aspect, to choose the appropriate linguistic means, with regard to the text type or context where they are used, their frequency of use and the connotations conveyed by each of them. All this would have to be done in
11 both languages. Ideally, all this information would be provided in the form of a CD Rom, so that the translator could have access to it in a matter of seconds during his translation work by means of simple mouse clicks: (a)
choice of the function: all the linguistic means that exist for the expression
of this function would appear on the screen; (b)
choice of the text type or context: the linguistic means appropriate for the
chosen text type or context would be selected out of the totality of means for the function shown previously. The information on frequency of use and connotations is given together with the different linguistic means and this information would influence the final choice.
4. An example I shall exemplify this procedure by a short analysis of one specific function in one specific text type in German, namely ‘to ask s.b. to do s.th. in the context of correspondence between a citizen and the authorities’. As a matter of fact, this analysis cannot be representative because so far there is no empirical study to support it. Nevertheless, I shall try to make it as authentic as my experience in this field allows. When the user of the planned grammar chooses the function to ask s.b. to do s.th., the following linguistic means will appear on the screen:
12 Linguistic means for the function to ask s.b. to do s.th. (jemanden auffordern, etwas zu tun).
Grammatical means: Imperative: Stör mich nicht.2 Past participle: Aufgepasst! Infinitive: Aufpassen! Passive construction: Jetzt wird der Text gelesen. Modal infinitive: Das Betreten des Rasens ist zu unterlassen. Yes-no question: Spielst du mit mir? Ellipsis: Raus! 3rd person present tense indicative: Diejenigen, die kein Buch haben, setzen sich neben die, die ein Buch haben. 2nd person present tense indicative: Jetzt lässt du mich arbeiten! 1st person plural present tense indicative: Wir wollen uns Mühe geben. Future I: Ihr werdet jetzt diesen Text lesen. Subjunctive I: Mögest du mir treu sein und mich lieben. Subjunctive II Würdest du bitte aufpassen. Autonomous subordinate clauses depending on main clauses in their deep structure which expess a request overtly : Dass du mich arbeiten lässt! (deep structure: Ich befehle Dir, dass du mich arbeiten lässt.) Modal verbs: Du sollst mit mir spielen.
13
Lexical means:3 Verbs in the same semantic field as to request: bitten, befehlen, anweisen, auftragen, beauftragen, beordern, auffordern, ersuchen, einladen, nahelegen, bestimmen, heißen, verfügen, festlegen, etc. Ich befehle dir, dass du sofort den Raum verlässt. Wir bitten unsere Schüler, das Laufen auf den Fluren zu unterlassen.
Lexical means that express a request indirectly: Lange Wanderungen sind nach dieser Operation nicht zu empfehlen. Fahrradfahren kommt nicht in Betracht. Es ist ratsam, eine leichte Gymnastik zu machen und ein zu langes Verweilen in der gleichen Position zu vermeiden.
Text types or context: Next, our imaginary user would have to select the text type or context in which his chosen function appeared. This category does not contain all existing text types. Not only because such an inventory does not yet exist,4 but mainly because being a grammar for translators and interpreters only a limited group of text types is of interest. According to Schmitt (1998: 10) translators mainly work with the following text types:5
14 commercial correspondence instructions scientific texts contracts specifications descriptions of systems technical texts conferences advertising texts offers legal texts academic reports and documents business reports minutes official announcements norms patent specifications
Let us imagine now that our grammar user wanted to translate the correspondence of a citizen with the authorities. He would therefore choose this text type and the following options would appear on the screen: • letter from the office or authority to the citizen
15 • letter from the citizen to the office or authority Let us imagine then that he wanted to translate a letter from a citizen to his health insurance company and for this reason he chose the second option ‘letter from the citizen to the office or authority’. The following options would appear on the screen: you want the request to be
• very friendly • friendly • neutral • direct • very direct
If he wanted to be friendly he would obtain the following:
Grammatical means: Imperative of main verb + bitte, e.g. Schicken Sie mir bitte die Rechnung.
Lexical means: 1st person indicative present tense of bitten + zu + main verb, e.g. Ich bitte Sie, mir die Rechnung zu schicken. 1st person indicative present tense of ersuchen + zu + main verb, [+formal; +submissive] e.g. Ich ersuche Sie, mir die Rechnung zu schicken.
If he wanted to be very friendly he would find the following:
16
Grammatical means: 1st person indicative present tense of bitten + zu + main verb + adjective that expresses friendliness or submission in ‘elative’ form, e.g. freundlichst, e.g. Ich bitte Sie freundlichst, mir die Rechnung zu schicken. Subjunctive II of the modal verb können or of the auxiliary verb würden + bitte in interrogative clauses, e.g. Könnten Sie mir bitte die Rechnung schicken? Würden Sie mir bitte die Rechnung schicken?
Set phrases: Dürfte ich Sie bitten, mir die Rechnung zu schicken? Hätten Sie die Freundlichkeit, ...? Wären Sie so freundlich, ...? etc.
Indirect speech acts: Es wäre sehr freundlich, wenn Sie mir die Rechnung schicken könnten. Es wäre für mich eine große Hilfe, wenn Sie mir die Rechnung schicken könnten. etc.
I want to give an example of the semasiological approach. Imagine that our grammar user came across a grammatical form that did not make sense to him in a specific context, namely in a letter from an authority to a citizen, e.g. Die Rechnung ist unverzüglich zu begleichen. He would have to isolate the
17 grammatical form sein + zu + infinitive, introduce it and then obtain the following information: sein + zu + infinitive modal infinitive which expresses (a)
obligation, [+formal, +direct] e.g. Das Betreten des Rasens ist zu
unterlassen. (b)
possibility, mostly in negative sentences, e.g. Das ist nicht zu begreifen. (=
Das kann man nicht begreifen.)
As a consequence, the sentence Die Rechnung ist unverzüglich zu begleichen either expresses obligation or possibility. The context clearly hints at the first option: Die Rechnung muss unverzüglich beglichen werden. Additionally, the grammar user receives the information that the form sein + zu + infinitive is fairly formal but also quite direct, e.g. not very friendly. Although the writer of this sentence expresses himself in a formal way, he is not so much concerned with friendliness but rather with the demand for the money. The translator now has to reproduce all the information in the target language, and if necessary our grammar could help him to do so by applying the onomasiological approach (see example above).
What I have shown here is just a fraction of the whole model, and the results obtained in our exemplary application have not yet been validated. I have
18 just tried to show how the planned grammar would work. As I have already pointed out, it is our intention to work out the complete information of the model in an empirical study and within the framework of the aforementioned project.
19 References Balzer, Berit. 1999. Gramática Funcional del Alemán. Madrid: Ediciones de la Torre. 444 pp. Buscha, Joachim, Renate Freudenberg-Findeisen, Eike Forstreuter, Hermann Koch and Lutz Kuntzsch. 1998. Grammatik in Feldern. Ismaning: Verlag für Deutsch. 336 pp. Cartagena, Nelson and Hans-Martin Gauger. 1989. Vergleichende Grammatik Spanisch - Deutsch. Mannheim: Duden. 2 volumes, volume I: xxxiv+641 pp. volume II: xviii+705 pp. Engel, Ulrich and Rozemaria K. Tertel. 1993. Kommunikative Grammatik. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. München: Iudicum Verlag. 346 pp. Eroms, Hans-Werner, Gerhard Stickel and Gisela Zifonun (eds.). 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 3 volumes, volume I: xi+952 pp. volume II: ix+9531680 pp. volume III: ix+1681-2569 pp. Matte Bon, Francisco. 1992. Gramática comunicativa del español. Madrid: Difusión. 2 volumes, volume I: xiv+386 pp. volume II: xiv+369 pp. Schmitt, Peter A. 1998. "Marktsituation der Übersetzer". In Snell-Hornby, Mary, Hans G.Hönig, Paul Kußmaul and Peter A. Schmitt (eds.). 1998. Handbuch Translation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. 5-13. Vilar Sánchez, Karin. 1997. "Vermittlung verschiedener Formen der Modalität im Deutschunterricht für Fortgeschrittene: Formen der Aufforderung". In
20 Zielsprache Deutsch 28, 62-71. Weinrich, Harald. 1993. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Duden. 1111 pp.
21 Notes 1..Ideally also in other German and Spanish-speaking countries. But that would enlarge the scope of our project in a way that would be impossible within the budget we have applied for. 2..The examples are taken from my article "Vermittlung verschiedener Formen der Modalität im Deutschunterricht für Fortgeschrittene: Formen der Aufforderung", Zielsprache Deutsch, Hueber, 2/97, p. 62-71. 3..As a matter of fact, this field is vast and nearly impossible to grasp as a whole. Therefore only the most common forms are represented here. 4..The categorization of texttypes is such a complex undertaking that to date we do not have a generally accepted model at our disposal. 5..Schmitt's analysis of texttypes which are actually translated was realized in Germany. So far we do not have comparable dates for Spain at our disposition.
