The Relation Between the Translator's First Language and ST Contex

Alexandria University

Faculty of Arts

Institute of Applied Linguistics and Translation

Translation Section

3rd Semester

THE EFFECT OF BEING A SOURCE LANGUAGE NATIVE

SPEAKER ON THE ABILITY TO RENDER THE CONTEXT OF

THE SOURCE TEXT

Prepared by

Hadeer Maher Mohamed Abdul Qauy

PEREFERANCE BETWEEN NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE 2

2014

Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................1

List Abbreviations...........................................2

1. Introduction:.............................................3

1.1. Research Problem:......................................4

1.2. Research Question:.....................................4

1.3. Research Objectives:...................................5

1.4. Scope of the Research:.................................5

1.5. Structure of the Research:.............................5

2. Review of the Literature..................................6

3. Discussion:...............................................7

3.1. Discourse Levels:......................................8

3.1.1. Van Dijk’s Model of Discourse Representation:........8

i. The Surface Code:.....................................8

Running

Head


ii. The Text Base:........................................8

iii......................................The Situational Mode:

8

3.2. Translation Representation Levels:.....................8

a. The Textual Level:....................................9

b. The Referential Level:................................9

c. The Cohesive Level:...................................9

d. The Level of Naturalness:.............................9

3.3. Dijk’s (2000) types of Memory and Representations:....10

I. Episodic Memories:...................................10

II. Sociocultural Knowledge:.............................10

III..............................................Common Ground:

10

IV. Opinions and Attitudes:..............................11

4. Findings and Conclusion:.................................12

4.1. Findings:.............................................12

4.2. Conclusion............................................12

Recommendations for Further Researches:.....................13


References..................................................14

List Abbreviations

SL: Source Language

ST: Source Text

TL: Target Language.

TT: Target Text.


1. Introduction:

The notion of translation studies has great to do with

linguistics (Malmkjær, 2009). One of the common notions between

translation and linguistics is “context” according to (Gutt,

1991/2000 as cited in Malmkjær 2009; Setton 2005). This paper

attempts to trace the notion of context to reach a conclusion


about whether it is better for a ST to be translated by a SL

native speaker or a TL native speaker in terms of getting the

context that is meant by the ST author. The Findings prove that

context is a cognitive feature that is associated with all the

discourse processes that are performed with each daily utterance;

moreover it has, somehow, modified to suit translation, the

context of the ST is built through the ST author’s “ types of

memory and representations” (Dijk, 2000, p. 11). These types of

memory and representations (cf. in section 3.) have parts that

seem to be considered shares between the members of each group

and each society. Thus, when a ST is translated by a SL native

speaker, the context of it seems to be reflected well through the

TT.

1.1. Research Problem:

This research mainly focuses on the relation between the ST

context, in terms of discourse and translation, and the ability

to reflect this context through the TT. This is to reach a

conclusion about, according to the researcher point of view and

the provided discussion, the preference of the translator who is

a native SL speaker. Thus, the hypothesis of the research is


whether the translator who is a native SL speaker is able to get

the ST context or the translator who is a non-native SL speaker.

1.2. Research Question:

This research attempts to answer the following

questions:

1- What is the cognitive nature of context?

2- What is the relation between discourse and

translation?

3- Is being a native speaker of the SL affects the

translator ability to render the context of the ST?

1.3. Research Objectives:

1- To high light the relation between discourse and

translation.

2- To determine the notion of context in its cognitive

nature.


3- To associate between the notion of context and the

translator ability to get it in terms of being a

native speaker of the SL.

1.4. Scope of the Research:

This research focuses on studying the contextual level as a

common ground between translation and discourse (cf. section 3.

the discussion). Moreover, it attempts to associate between this

notion and the translator ability to get the ST context through

Dijk’s (2000) types of memory and representations.

1.5. Structure of the Research:

Section one, the present section, introduces the research

problems and objectives. Section two tackles the review of the

previous literature done on the same issue. It tackles some

scholars’ discussions on the notion of context as a cognitive

notion. Section three is for the discussion where the researcher

associates between discourse and translation through the

contextual level. Then, he attempts at associating the cognitive

context with Dijk’s (2000) types of memory and representations.

This is to reach a conclusion that when the translator is a SL


native speaker; the context of the ST seems to be reflected in

the TT in the same manner that is presented in the ST. The last

chapter is for findings and conclusion where the researcher

introduces his findings and sums up his research.

2. Review of the Literature

The idea of context as a cognitive act is firstly held by

(Dijk, 2000) . Dijk (2000) associates the mental ability of

discourse processing with the notion of context. He says “[t]he

notion of context defined here is a cognitive notion namely

defined as a mental model …is merely a subjective construct of

that social situation, and features all information that is

relevant for the interpretation of an ongoing discourse” (Dijk

2000, p.26). Thus, context here represents the individual

interpretation to any event in the light of all what is relevant

to this situation. This idea of making use of what is relevant to

a certain ongoing discourse is discussed on the light of

translation by (Gutt, 1991, 2000 as cited in Malmkjær, 2009;

Stton, 2005) . In his relevance theory, Gutt says that

translation oral or written should be processed through a general


cognitive theory of communication. This general cognitive theory

based upon Dijk’s (2000) discussion is context.

The point here is that there is a difference between context in

monolingual situations and bilingual ones especially translation

as it requires making use of two different linguistic systems

with two associative contexts (Setton, 2005). Thus, Setton (2005)

tackles the idea of cognitive context building his discussion

upon Gutt’s (1991, 2000) relevance theory1. He says that the act

of translation necessitates tolerating two different systems not

only linguistically, but contextually and referentially. That is

because the translator or the interpreter does not translate a

text linguistically but functionally. For a translator, one way

or another, it seems to be necessary to get the intended context

of the source text associating it to all what is relevant to it,

building and giving the same context in the target language.

Thus, the cognitive nature context makes the translator,

somehow, subjective as he gets the context according to his own

individual mental processor. Dijk (2000) sees that context is an

1 This theory necessitates the association between the text and the context.In other words the translator associates the linguistic level with the paralinguistic and the contextual levels.


individual mental representation of an ongoing discourse which is

agreed upon by (Gutt 1991/2000 as cited in Setton, 2005); thus,

in the act of translation, it seems to be two major contexts and

many minor ones. The first one is the context of the author who

produces the ST. While translating this ST, the translator builds

his own context and reformulates it in the TT. Finally, each of

the target readers has his own mental representation of this TT

context, the translator context, which formulates different

individual contexts. Thus, it seems necessary to make sure that

the intended ST context is gotten by the translator to

reformulate it through the TT.

To conclude, context is a linguistic notion adapted to suit

translation studies. Many scholars deal with it as (Dijk

1999 ,2000; Setton 2005; Malmkjær 2009) . It started as a

linguistic concept according to Dijk (1999, 2000), and is

tolerated to suit translation studies. This application seems to

neceesitate the need of a ST translator who is able to get this

context to avoid the TT reader faulty interpretation of this

context.


3. Discussion:

The discussion in this research is built upon three major

models: Dijk’s (Dijk, 1983 as cited in Grasser 1997) model of

discourse levels, Newmark’s (1988) model of translation

representation and Dijk’s (2000) types of memory and

representation.

3.1. Discourse Levels:

Many scholars who are interested in linguistics

provide several models of discourse representation levels. Most

of the psycholinguists adopt Van Dijk’s model (1983), according

to Graesser (1997), in which he shows the levels of discourse

representation.

3.1.1. Van Dijk’s Model of Discourse Representation:

There are three levels of discourse representation according to

(Dijk, 1983as cited in Graesser, 1997).

i. The Surface Code:


This level deals with the exact wording and

syntax of a clause.

ii. The Text Base:

This level contains explicit text proposition in

a deeper way than the surface code as it does not deal with the

exact wording and syntax of the text. The text base formulates

the coherence between the sentences of the text.

iii. The Situational Mode:

This level deals with the content of the text.

It deals with the whole genre of the text and the micro world of

it. In other words it deals with the contextual level of the

text.

From the above levels, it may be concluded that while

analyzing any text, the reader should care about three main

levels. These levels are the lexical, syntactical and contextual

levels. To complete the view of the relation between discourse

and translation, it seems necessary to tackle the translation

representation levels.

3.2. Translation Representation Levels:


There are four levels of translation representation

(Newmark: 1988).

a. The Textual Level:

At this level, the translator translates the ST syntactic

structure in to the corresponding ones in the TT.

b. The Referential Level:

At this level, the translator deals with the ST message

differentiating between the locutionary and the illocutionary

meaning of any word. In other words, he differentiates between

the lexical meaning and the contextual meaning of the ST words.

c. The Cohesive Level:

This level associates between the textual and the

referential level. The translator, in this level, puts the source

information in a target linguistic form using conjunctions,

repetition and deletion.

d. The Level of Naturalness:

This level is TT oriented. It focuses on the

construction of the TT. It depends on giving a natural TT.


By associating the discourse levels with the translation

representation levels, it is found that any text should be

tackled through three levels: lexical, syntactical and contextual

levels. This research focuses only on the contextual level

attempting to prove that for a translator it seems to be better

to translate from his/her native language to another target one

than the opposite case in order to achieve the best comprehension

of the ST context.

3.3. Dijk’s (2000) types of Memory and Representations:

Dijk (2000) introduces a model of the types memory and

representations that manage people’s interpretation of any

action, text or social situation. These representations are in

people’s long term memory upon which they depend to interpret

anything in their working memory. This model is:

I. Episodic Memories:

These are the memories that are activated since each person’s

birth. People keep in it everything about their life. They are

about” individual people themselves” (Dijk, 2000, p.11); thus, it


plays an important role in highlighting the ‘self’ in case of

translation.

II. Sociocultural Knowledge:

This is the knowledge that people of the same group or society

share; moreover, it is constructed through the major events that

the whole society passes by. Thus, it forms the people’s, of the

same society, beliefs and conventions. This kind of knowledge is

the reason for finding the major number of the society members

agrees upon what is acceptable, what is unacceptable and what is

to be considered taboo. This type of knowledge is stored in what

so called ‘social memory’.

III. Common Ground:

Within the sociocultural knowledge, there are ideas and beliefs

that are used in every day discourse; moreover, they are taught

to children. All the society members agree on them. This kind of

beliefs is known as ‘common ground’. In other words, it is the

common ground between all the society/culture members.

IV. Opinions and Attitudes:


These kinds of knowledge have a kind of individuality as each

some groups within the same society have their own opinion

concerning some ideas such as the opinions around “immigration or

nuclear energy” (Dijk, 2002 p.14). These kinds of opinions and

attitudes are, somehow, individual; however, most of the groups,

within the same society, agree upon certain opinions concerning

the same ideas.

With respect to the above models, the translator of any text

has to be aware of the ST context that is meant by the ST author.

Moreover, according to Dijk’s (2000) model of memory and

representation the following table, table 1, seems to be correct.

This table represents the common memory types and representations

the author and the translator share in case of native and non-

native SL translators:

The ST author The translator when he

is a SL native speaker

The translator when he

is not a SL native

speaker

Episodic memories Different different

Sociocultural Knowledg The same different


Common Ground The same different

Opinions and attitudes May be the same/

different

Different

This table indicates that when the translator is a SL native

speaker, he shares larger number of memory types and mental

representations with the ST author than the non-native speaker

due to being from the same sociocultural background. As long as

the ST is written through the author’s mental discourse in the

light of the previously mentioned models (mentioned before in 3.1

and 3.3) , and according to the proposed table above, table 1,

when the translator is a native speaker of the ST, he is able to

get the intended context more than the non-native speaker,

translator.

4. Findings and Conclusion:

4.1. Findings:

Table1: the shared memory and representation between theST author and translator in case of native and non-native


Based upon the above discussion in both (section2. and 3.),

the process of translation seems to depend on the discourse

analysis of the ST. this process of analyzing the ST is for

getting the intended ST author’s context. As long as the native

SL speaker shares the same memory types and representations with

the ST author, it seems to be more preferable for a translator to

be a native SL speaker than a non-native SL speaker for the sake

of accurate reflection of the ST context through the TT.

4.2. Conclusion:

This research goes through four sections. Section one

introduces the research questions and objectives. Section two is

a brief review of the discussions on the notion of context as a

mental cognitive notion. Section three is the discussion where

the researcher introduces the models that he depends on to prove

that the translator who is a native SL speaker seems to be better

than the translator who is a non-native speaker of the SL in

terms of getting the context of the ST. The last section is for

the research findings and conclusion.


Recommendations for Further Researches:

1. This research may be useful as a theoretical base for an

empirical research covering the same topic.

2. This research may be useful for studying the same point of

native and non-native translator in relation to the

syntactical and lexical levels of the ST.

References:

Dijk,V.(1980). Macro Context. Online resource available on:http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Macro%20Contexts.pdf.


Dijk, V. (1999). Cognitive situation model in DiscourseProduction : The Expression of EthnicSituations in Prejudice Discourse. Online resource availableon: http://www.discourses.org/download/articles/.

Dijk,V. (2000). Ideology and Discourse. A MultidisciplinaryIntroduction, . Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. Onlineresource available on:

http://www.discourses.org/download/articles/.

Graesser, A. (1997). Discourse Comprehension. Annu.Rev

Psychol.1997,48:163-89.

Malmkjær, K. (2009). Translation and Linguistics. Perspectives:Studies in Translatology, 13:1, 5-20, DOI:10.1080/09076760508668960

http: // dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668960 .

Newmark, P.(1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York,London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo: Prentice Hall.

Setton, R. (2005). Context in Simultaneous Interpretation. Journal

of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 374-389 doi:

10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.003

The Relation Between the Translator's First Language and ST Contex

Documents

Transcript of The Relation Between the Translator's First Language and ST Contex