In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. ed by P. Krawutschke, Nashville, Tennessee: ATA. 1995. Klaudy Kinga Lexical Operations in Translation. Segmentation and Integration of Meaning Abstract: The paper describes the notion of "translational operations". Translating any sentence from one language into another, even the simplest one, translators carry out a number of operations. Some of these operations can be explained by the differences in the lexical and grammatical structure of the languages ‒ these operations are called "language-specific" operations. Others are explained by the differences of cultures, between generally shared knowledge of the members of different cultural communities ‒ these operations can be called "culture-specific operations". Other operations can be explained neither by structural differences between the languages nor by cultural differences but by the nature of the translation-process itself, that is by the necessity to express ideas in the target language which were originally conceived in the source language. These operations can be called "translation-specific" operations. Keywords: translational operations, mental transformations, semantic changes, typology of operations The paper explains the advantages and shortcomings of different classifications, and offers an explanation, aiming to avoid mixing the different principles. The classification of operations followed by the author is based exclusively upon the "operational" ‒ that is, "technical" ‒ properties of the operations (not on their reason, purpose etc.) By describing, classifying and explaining translational operations the author hopes to serve one of the main objects of translation studies, the discovery of rules governing the seemingly subjective decisions of translators. The paper will discuss two types of lexical operations characteristic of the process of translation from Hungarian into English, German, French and Russian and vice versa: segmentation and integration meaning in translation. In the course of the translation of even the simplest of sentences, translators perform a most complicated sequence of actions, which include the replacement of SL lexical units by TL lexical units, the restructuring of the sentence structure, the changing of the word order, the omission of certain elements and the addition of others etc. Due to the differences between SL 1 and TL lexical systems, even the seemingly simplest action - the replacement of SL lexical units by TL lexical units - can become a complicated task, involving a very complex decision making process to make the right choice from among the different possibilities offered by the TL. The above mentioned actions (omission, addition, replacement, narrowing and widening the meaning etc.) we call translational operations. 1. TRANSFER OF MEANING Investigating the operational part of translator's activity has become a rather neglected field in translation research, either left out altogether, or sometimes even accused of leading us into the wrong direction, and bringing translation research to a dead end. Some claim that investigation of the translation operations themselves, takes our attention off meaning. According to them, after having extracted the meaning from the source language form, the translator should immediately forget the SL form, and reformulate the message in his or her target language independently from the source language form. This would mean that the process of translation is nothing but an analysis of the source language followed by synthesis in the target language, or in other words decoding of the source text and encoding the target text, while there is no direct transcoding from the source language form to the target language form. In this interpretation the basis for the transfer is a semantic representation which is independent from languages involved, thus languages do not influence the process of translation at all (Ref. 1). Empirical studies of target texts translated from different source languages nevertheless reveal striking differences according to different source languages. Translated TL texts possess quantitatively measurable textual properties that differ from those of original TL texts, moreover these properties differ according to the source language of the translated texts (Ref.2) 2. TRANSFORMATION OF MEANING Hence my conviction that linguistic differences between the SL and the TL can not be overlooked in translation studies. The claim that translation is a meaning-based phenomenon, does not make the differences between languages irrelevant. Meaning is a language-specific phenomenon, and translation operations do consist of different transformations of and alterations to the source language meaning, which are introduced by translators consciously or automatically. The conscious or non-conscious character of these operations can be another interesting topic for further research, but this time we are not going to deal with the question of consciousness. Aversion against terms like "techniques of translation", "transformations in translation" "operations in translation", "solutions in translation" can be explained by the fact, that these terms suggest that transformations, operations, solutions made by translators always consciously, deliberately. They suggest that translators consciously apply some techniques, operations, solutions to transform the SL form into TL form. 2 The statement that in the course of translation the SL form is transformed into the TL form is so common in theoretic literature on translation, that we do not feel any longer its absurdity (Ref. 3). Transformation in this sense is nonsense, of course. The translator does not do anything to the SL form. The SL form, the SL text remains unchanged, intact etc. What really happens, could be best described as the birth of a new entity. The TL text is a new entity, but the circumstances of its birth do leave their mark. A translated TL text, or in other words, a text conceived in a foreign language and an original TL text, that is a text conceived on TL are two, rather different things. The road, leading from the mind to the linguistic form is never direct, never simple even when we formulate our ideas in our mother tongues. But if the thought takes its origin in an another language the road from the mind to the linguistic form is incomparably more complex. 3. MENTAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND LINGUISTIC OPERATIONS Transition from the mind to the linguistic form is a mental operation complex enough even within the same language, how much more complex this process becomes if there are two languages involved in it! If the transition from thought to linguistic form requires the working of a mental switch even within one language, the same process between two languages certainly takes a double-switch at least. Double-switch here means transformation, but not of the SL form or the SL text which of course remains unchanged, but rather various mental transformations, which finally result in a TL text based on the SL text. The existence of these mental transformations is undisputable, I think. The question is whether these mental transformations, mental operations include only SL-analysis and TL-synthesis, that is only the decoding of the SL text (transition from the SL-form to the thought) and the encoding of the TL text (transition from the thought to the TL form), or include at the same time a certain kind of transcoding as well, or in other words, if it is conceivable that there exist more or less direct roads as well, that lead from the SL form to the TL form. This is the most important question to ask, and using the terms "transformations", "operations" "techniques" we suggest that in some cases there is a direct road between two languages -but it leads through the translators mind. Making use of the terms "transformation of meaning", or particularly "segmentation and integration of meaning" which is the topic of my paper, I mean these mental operations, carried out routinely, systematically and reliably (though not necessarily consciously) by all professional translators, but only randomly and unreliably by beginners. 4. THE HISTORY The discussion of translation techniques can be traced from Vinay and Darbelnet (Ref. 4) through Eugene Nida (Ref. 5) to works of scholars from the former USSR Barkhudarov (Ref. 6) Komissarov (Ref. 7), Shveitser (Ref. 8) etc. 3 Vinay and Darbelnet made a list of seven main technical procedures ("les procédés techniques") in translation: emprunt, calque, traduction littérale, transposition, modulation, equivalence, and adaptation. In the glossary of technical terms at the beginning of their book we find several other procedures as well, for example; actualisation, amplification, articulation, compensation, explicitation, implicitation, généralisation, particularisation (Vinay-Darbelnet 1958: 4-16). Nida uses the term "techniques of adjustment". The main techniques of adjustment in his work are: additions, subtractions and alterations (Nida 1964: 227). Barkhudarov, the well-known Russian translatologist uses the term "transformatsiya". He differentiates four types of transformations in translation: "perestanovka" ('transposition'), "zamena" ('substitution'), "dobavleniye" ('addition'), "opushcheniye" ('omission'). According to him, the most important reason for additions in translation from English into Russian are the elliptic nominal structures in English, that is the omission of certain semantic components in English surface structure which were present in the deep structure. As ellipsis is not characteristic of Russian, the omitted semantic components are reconstructed in the Russian surface structure (pay claim → trebovaniye povysit' zarplatu 'demand to raise the pay'; gun license → udostovereniye na pravo nosheniya oruzhiya, 'license for right to carry weapon. A very detailed typology of lexical and grammatical transformations, including grammatical additions in Bulgarian-Russian and Russian-Bulgarian translation can be found in the work of the Bulgarian scholar Vaseva (Ref. 9). According to her additions are generated by the "linguistic asymmetry", that is by the necessity to express explicitly meanings in the target language that are contained implicitly in the source language. Cases of grammatical additions in Vaseva's work are explained by the so called "missing categories" and categories with different functions: Bulgarian has articles, while Russian has none; the possessive pronoun can be omitted in Russian, unlike in Bulgarian; the copula can be omitted in Russian but not in Bulgarian; the direct object can be - rarely - omitted in Russian, but never in Bulgarian etc. Besides the grammatical additions Vaseva shortly refers to the so called pragmatic additions as well, when concepts generally known for the source language audience may be unfamiliar for the target language audience and therefore they call for explanations in the translation. The different kinds of lexical and grammatical and even pragmatic transformations in the process of English-Russian, German-Russian, French-Russian, Spanish-Russian translation were very thoroughly described by the translation-specialists of the former USSR (Ref. 6,7,8,10,11). The question however was not raised by anybody, if these transformations have any psychological reality or not. They did not touch on another important question either: what forms the basis for the transfer itself; in other words: is semantic representation in the translator's mind independent from the languages involved in the process of translation or not? 5. LEXICAL OPERATIONS AND SEMANTIC CHANGES I think, both the question of the psychological reality of transformations and the question of the character of semantic representation is still open and I am afraid it will remain open in the near future. Nevertheless, this shouldn't prevent us from the study of semantic changes in translation. The next question to be answered is the following: what is the relationship between the concept of "semantic changes in translation" and the concept of "lexical operations or transformations in 4 translations". Many scholars who do not object the concept of "semantic changes", on the other hand reject the concept of "lexical operations or transformations" (Ref 12). 6. THE CONCEPT OF TRANSLATIONAL OPERATIONS In my paper I will use the term "translational operations" in the sense described above, that is as a complex mental operation, taking place when the road conducting from the mind to the linguistic form is not direct but leads through another language. The description of translational operations is in the centre of my book published recently under the title "The Theory and Practice of Translation" (Ref 13). It is an attempt to describe a system of operations taking place in the translation of English/German/French/Russian into Hungarian and vice versa. Though Hungarian is not a widely spoken language, looking at English/German/French/Russian from a Hungarian point of view, can provide interesting insights nevertheless. The Hungarian "looking glass" can reveal striking similarities between these otherwise rather different languages. Describing the translational behavior of Hungarian in the process of its translation into English/German/French/Russian, we in fact describe how a Finno-Ugric language works in the process of translation into the Indo-European languages and vice versa. 7. THE TYPOLOGY OF OPERATIONS Translating any sentence from one language into another, even the simplest one, translators carry out a number of mental operations. These operations can be classified on the basis of different principles, taking as starting-point the reason of the operation, the purpose of the operation, the level of the operation etc. Thus operations can be: obligatory, optional and facultative operation; automatic and non automatic-operations; word-level, phrase-level, sentence-level and text-level operations; lexical, grammatical, stylistic and pragmatic operations etc. Some of these operations can be explained by the differences in the lexical and grammatical structure of the languages - these operations are called "language-specific" operations. Others are explained by the differences of cultures, between generally shared knowledge of the members of different cultural communities - these operations can be called "culture-specific operations". Other operations can be explained neither by structural differences between the languages nor by cultural differences but by the nature of the translation-process itself, that is by the necessity to express ideas in the target language which were originally conceived in the source language. These operations can be called "translation-specific" operations. All classifications have their advantages and shortcomings. I would like to offer an explanation, which tries to avoid mixing the different principles. The classification of operations followed here is based exclusively upon the "operational" - that is, "technical" - properties of the operations (and not on their reason, purpose etc.). Lexical operations: 5 1. concretization (narrowing) of meaning 2. generalization (widening) of meaning 3. segmentation of meaning 4. integration of meaning 5. lexical omissions 6. lexical additions 7. transposition of meaning 8. substitution of meaning 9. antonymous translation 10. total transformation of meaning 11. compensation for losses in translation. Grammatical operations: 12. grammatical concretization and generalization 13. grammatical segmentation 14. grammatical integration 15. grammatical additions 16. grammatical omissions 17. grammatical transpositions 18. grammatical substitution The main types of lexical and grammatical operations, mentioned above, are divided into further subtypes, that is the total number of translational operations illustrated and explained in the book is approximately one hundred. The examples are taken from more than two hundred literary works and their translations, selected from the work of more than two hundred different translators. We are not going to describe unique, especially successful solutions of famous translators, but rather limit our research to the average. Paper will discuss two types of lexical operations characteristic of the process of translation from Hungarian into English, German, French and Russian and vice versa: segmentation and integration of meaning in translation. 8. SEGMENTATION OF MEANING Segmentation of meaning is a lexical operation whereby the meaning of a SL unit can only be rendered by two or more TL units. The main kinds of segmentation of meaning in Hungarian → Indo-European translation are the followings: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Segmentation of inchoative verbs in H→IE translation Segmentation of adverbs of manner in H→IE translation Segmentation of verbs of saying in H→IE translation Segmentation of semantically rich verbs in H→IE translation. Segmentation of kinship terms in both direction Ssegmantation of culture-specific words in both direction 6 We are not going to discuss all the types of segmentation, only four of them: segmentation of inchoative verbs in H→IE translation, segmentation of adverbs of manner in H→IE translation, segmentation of semantically rich verbs in H→IE translation, segmentation of kinship terms in both direction. Meaning-segmentation of nouns is motivated by the different segmentation of the world (colour terms, kinship terms etc.). Meaning-segmantation of verbs is motivated by the differences between Hungarian and Indo-European langauges in morphology and lexis. Morphology: Hungarian is a dominantly synhetic language while English, German, French and Russian are more or less analytic languages. Hungarian verb has a very complex conjugation, the personal pronoun, the possessive pronoun, the accusative ending and sometimes the auxiliary verb are all included into the Hungarian verb form, while they stand separatly in IE langauges. Lexis: thanks to a rich storehouse of prefixes and suffixes that can be appended to Hungarian verbs, they can carry meaning which English, German French and Russian need several words to express. 8.1. Segmentation of Inchoative Verbs The first type of segmentation to be discussed is the segmantation of inchoatíve verbs in translation. This occurs characteristically when translating from Hungarian into Indo-European. The complex meaning of Hungarian inchoative verbs (elpityeredett) is rendered by two separate verbs in IE languages: one for expressing the beginning of the action (start, beginnen) and another for expressing the action itself (snivelling, zu flennen). H→E Erre aztán Rozsákné is felkelt, felöltözött és elpityeredett. This was enough to make Mrs. Rozsák get up too, put on her clothes, and start snivelling. H→G Erre aztán Rozsákné is felkelt, felöltözött és elpityeredett. Da stand nun auch Frau Rozsák auf, zog sich an und begann zu flennen. 8.2. Segmentation of Adverbs of Manner The second type of segmentation to be discussed is the segmantation of adverbs of manner. This occurs characteristically when translating from Hungarian into Indo-European. The complex meaning of Hungarian verb including not only the action but also the way or method of doing it (berontott, belibbent, elcipelt, bevillamosozik) can only be rendered by two separate words in IE translation: one for expressing the manner, style or way (hurriedly, hereingetanzelt, de force, tramvayem), and one for expressing the action itself (return, kommen, traîner, doehat') H→E ... berontott az asszisztens. ... the assistant returned hurriedly. H→G Thalamus, az udvari borbély belibbent. Thalamus, der Hofbarbier, kam hereingetänzelt. 7 H→F Elcipelt egy budai kocsmába. Il m'entraîna de force dans un cabaret de Buda. H→R Az lesz a legokosabb, ha bevillamosozik a belvárosba. Luchshe vsego tramvayem doehat' do centra. 8.3. Segmentation of Semantically Rich Verbs The next type of meaning-segmentation is probably the most frequent one in H-IE translation. Semanticaly rich Hungarian verbs are very often rendered by an IE verb of general meaning (E: take, make, do G: machen, commen, tun F: faire, prendre, avoir, R: prinimat', proizvodit', vzyat') and one or two nouns of specific meaning. H→E Mikor a gróf felébredt, kikocsizott, ha ugyan Estella megengedte. When the count awoke he went out for a drive in his coach, if Estella allowed him to. H→G Ott az osztály végén parasztgyermekek tanyáztak. Hier, am Ende der Klasse, hatten die Bauernjungs ihr Lager aufgeschlagen. H→F Ők is cihelődtek. Elles aussi rassemblaient leurs affaires. H→R Nagy csöndben voltak, egyikük sem pisszent. Vsyo eto delaloc' v glubokom molchanii: nikto ne izdval ni zvuka. 8.4. Segmentation of Kinship Terms Meaning-segmentation of nouns can be motivated by the different segmentation of the world by different languages. Kinship terms may have more detailed description in one languge and a less detailed one in the other. Hungarian for instance has a generic term for brother and sister while English, German, French and Russian have not. The meaning of the Hungarian word testvérek can only be rendered by two words in IE languages: brother and sister, Brüder und Schwester, frčre et soeur, brat i sestra. H→E H→F 9. Azután elment, mert már jöttek a varázsló rokonai és testvérei, s azokkal _ nem volt ismer_s. Then she went away, because the brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and cousins of the magician were gathering, and she didn't know any of them. Testvéreim nincsenek. Rokonom csak egy van, egy gazdag gyáros... Je n'ai plus ni frčre, ni soeur. Mon seul parent est un riche fabricant ... INTEGRATION OF MEANING 8 Integration of meaning is a lexical operation whereby the meaning of two or more SL units can be rendered by one TL unit. Meaning-integration is also motivated by the different segmentation of the world and by the synthetic or analytic character of languages. The elements of analytic English verb forms can be integrated into one synthetic Hungarian verb. The main kinds of integration of meaning in Hungarian → Indo-European and Indo-European → Hungarian translation are the followings: (1) (2) (3) (4) Integration of inchoative verbs in IE→H translation Integration of adverbs of manner in IE→H translation Integration of semantically week verbs in IE→H translation Iintegration of kinship terms in both direction We are not going to discuss all types of integration here only two of them: the integration of inchoative verbs in Indo-European → Hungarian translation, the integration semantically weak verbs in Indo-European → Hungarian translation. 9.1. Integration of Inchoative Verbs The first type of integration to be discussed is the integration of inchoatíve verbs. This occurs characteristically when translating from Indo-European into Hungarian. Verbs expressing the beginning of action in IE languages (start, beginnen, commencer, stat') can be incorporated into the main verb (sipping, zu schluchzen, apparaître, dogadyvat'sya) resulting in a synthetic Hungarian verb (belekortyolt, felzokogott, feltüntek, megsejtette). E→H Billy started sipping his tea. Billy belekortyolt a teába. G→H ... im Nebenzimmer rechts begann die Schwester zu schluchzen. ... a jobb oldali szobában húga felzokogott. F→H ... et des étoiles aussi commençaient apparaître a l'horizon obscurci, ... ... és az elsötétedett látóhatáron már feltüntek a csillagok is ... R→H Po vidimomu s serediny zimy Dymov stal dogadyvat'sya shto ego obmanyvayut Úgy a tél dereka felé Dimov úgy látszik megsejtette, hogy felesége megcsalja. 9.2. Integration of Semantically Weak Verbs The next type of meaning-integration is probably the most frequent one in IE-H translation. IE verbs of general meaning (take, tun, prendre, pochustvovat') are amalgamated with nouns of specific meaning (sip, Blick, café, robost') resulting in a synthetic Hungarian verb form (kortyintott, bepillantsak, kávéztunk, megszeppent). E→H Franny nodded, and took a sip of her milk. Franny bólintott, és kortyintott a tejb_l. 9 G→H... da doch ein Sinn und ein Verlangen in mir wäre, auch ein Blick in dies und jenes zu tun, ... ... pedig bennem megvolna a vágy, hogy bepillantsak ebbe-abba F→H Il revint le soir ŕ la męme heure que la veille. Nous prenions notre café. Este megint csak abban az órában érkezett meg, mint el_z_ nap. Éppen kávéztunk. R→H Akakiy Akakievich uzhe zablagovremenno pochuvstvoval nadlezhashchuyu robost'. Akakij Akakijevics már el_re kell_képpen megszeppent. By describing, classifying and explaining translational operations we hope to serve one of the main objects of translation studies, the discovery of rules governing the seemingly subjective decisions of translators. REFERENCES 1. Seleskovitch, D. Language, langues et mémoire. Paris: Minard. 1975. 2. Vehmas-Lehto, I. Quasi-Correctness. A critical study of Finnish translations of Russian Journalistic texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliitto Instituutti. 1989. 3. Komissarov, V. N. Lingvistika perevoda. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 1980. 4. Vinay, J. P. - Darbelnet, J. Stilistique comparée du français et de l'anglais. Paris: Didier. 1958. 5. Nida, E. A. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill. 1964. 6. Barkhudarov L. S. Yazik i perevod. Moscow: Mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya. 1975. 7. Komissarov, V. N. Slovo o perevode. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 1973. 8. Shveitser, A. D. Perevod i lingvistika. Moscow: Voenizdat. 1973. 9. Vaseva, I. Teoriya i praktika perevoda. Sophia: Nauka i isskustvo. 1980. 10. Gak, V. G. Sravnitelnaya tipologiya frantsuzskovo i russkovo yazykov. Leningrad: Prosveshcheniye. 1977. 11. Lvovskaya, Z. D. Teoreticheskie problemy perevoda. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. 1985. 12. Englund Dimitrova, B. "Semantic change in Translation - A Cognitive Perspective". In: Y. Gambier and J. Tommola (eds.) Translation and Knowledge. Turku: University of Turku. 1993. 285-297. 10 13. Klaudy, K. A fordítás elmélete és gyakorlata. Angol, német, francia, orosz fordítástechnikai pédatárral.( The Theory and Practice of Translation. With illustrations in English, German, French, and Russian) Budapest: Scholastica. 1984. 11