You are on page 1of 57

Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Háta Komňacká

Chesterman vs. Newmark:


A Comparison of Two Concepts of
Translation Procedures
Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph. D.

2009
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..
Author’s signature
Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph.D. for her help and advice.
Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5
II. Theoretical Concepts
A. Role of Translation Strategies/Procedures in Teaching Translation ................ 7
1: Strategy or Procedure? ..................................................................... 9
B. Peter Newmark’s Translation Procedures ...................................................... 11
1: Classification of Translation Procedures ........................................ 11
C. Andrew Chesterman’s Translation Strategies ................................................ 13
1: Classification of Translation Strategies .......................................... 14
III. Example of Practical Application
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 16
B. Analysis and Demonstration of Microtextual Operations
1: Text One: 1956 ............................................................................... 17
2: Text Two: Round Table ................................................................. 30
C. Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 37
IV. Conclusion
A. Evaluation of Results ..................................................................................... 40
B. Recommendation ............................................................................................ 41
V. Bibliography
A. Works Cited ................................................................................................... 43
B. Works Consulted ............................................................................................ 43
C. Reference Sources .......................................................................................... 44
VI. Appendix
A. Source Text: 1956 .......................................................................................... 45
B. Target Text 1: 1956 ........................................................................................ 46
C. Target Text 2: 1956 ........................................................................................ 47
D. Source Text: Round Table ............................................................................. 48
E. Target Text: Kulatý stůl .................................................................................. 49
F. Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 50
1: Students’ Statements about Newmark’s and Chesterman’s Concept
53
2: Students’ Examples of Translation Procedures/Strategies ............. 54
I. Introduction

Many concepts of translation strategies/procedures have already been devised in

translation studies. One of their important roles is their use for translator training in

seminars and courses, and as a student I am naturally interested in the applicability of

translation strategies in this field. In order to be really useful for this purpose, the

concepts should fulfil several criteria, but most importantly, they should be apt,

comprehensible and not over-complicated. Overwhelmingly detailed linguistic analysis

of the translation process is something that students do not really need. For them,

translation strategies are mainly means of support and initial guidance; these strategies

should give students the opportunity to choose between various possibilities how to deal

with translation problems by providing advice, suggestions and recommendations.

This thesis concentrates on two different concepts of translation

strategies/procedures, Andrew Chesterman’s and Peter Newmark’s. In the first part of

the thesis, I am going to summarise the major characteristics of these concepts, and

point out similarities and differences between them. In the second part, I want to

demonstrate the applications of the respective strategies/procedures on a sample text in

English, its official Czech (i.e. already published) translation, and my own translated

version. The aim of this research is to find advantages as well as disadvantages of the

respective concepts from the translation trainee’s point of view.

By comparing the two concepts of translation strategies/procedures mentioned

above both theoretically (definitions, theoretical framework) and practically (application

on sample texts, questionnaire), I would like to answer these questions: Which of the

concepts is more suitable for a student’s analysis of a translation? Which of the

concepts is more useful and easier to work with for student translation practice? And,

5
perhaps, which of the concepts would I recommend for the use in translation classes,

based on my research and experience?

6
II. Theoretical Concepts

A. Role of Translation Strategies/Procedures in Teaching

Translation

Before proceeding to the analysis and comparison of Chesterman’s and

Newmark’s concepts of translation procedures/strategies, it should be clarified what the

first and foremost aim of any such concepts in translator training is. It is important to

bear in mind that I am going to look at this issue from the point of view of a student,

and I am fully aware of the fact that a linguist’s (or a teacher’s) opinion may well be

quite different.

For a translation trainee, two areas are of importance: analysis of source and

target texts, and suggested methods of dealing with problems in translation. The first

one because by studying examples (particularly from their own language) students gain

experience and can then use it to draw their own conclusions; the second one because

having some guidelines for tackling basic difficulties helps them deal with the more

serious ones. However, as Jean-Pierre Mailhac suggests in his article “Formulating

Strategies for the Translator,” linguists and translation theorists propose any translation

strategies only reluctantly, because

[t]he contention is usually that every problem/text/translation situation is


different, which means that generalizations, and therefore reusable
strategies, are out of the question. It is also argued that the concepts TS
relies upon are so complex, esoteric and remote from translation practice
that translators could not even begin to apply them to their tasks.
Mailhac does not agree that generalisations, i.e. strategies, are “out of the question,” and

he outlines his own concept of translation theory. He also provides his own account of

translation procedures, parameters and strategies, at which I am not going to look in

7
detail here. Mailhac says that translation procedures “are goal oriented and, being part

of the translational output, they are visible.” They are defined as “a means of translating

a particular element as part of a strategy,” and it is claimed that some of the procedures

“are limited in scope,” while “others can apply to wider units, including a whole text.”

It is concluded that “[a] procedure is thus a tool to be exploited in the broader context of

a strategy in order to solve a translation problem. In that sense, it is more akin to what

Chesterman labels a strategy.” Strategy is in Malihac’s concept characterised as

“method employed to translate a given element/unit (including a whole text) making use

of one or more procedures selected on the basis of relevant parameters,” which

“constitute decision-making tools based on choices and contribute to translation know-

how”. In Mailhac’s opinion, “applied [translation studies] seeks to provide translation

strategies to guide the translator in his/her task and offer a framework for quality

assessment and developing translation skills. Such strategies will be prescriptive in

nature rather than descriptive and explanatory as such.” Still another translation theorist,

Anthony Pym, writes about “Translation Techniques”. Even this brief excursion is

enough to show that, as far as terminology is concerned, there is considerable

disagreement, and that almost every single theorist would characterise the terms

translation procedure and translation strategy differently, sometimes also adding others

of his or her own. To solve this dilemma is, however, not the aim of this thesis, and

therefore I am going to use only the basic terms, procedure and strategy, according to

the context (see next section).

8
1. Strategy or Procedure?

One thing to notice is that Chesterman and Newmark differ in terminology: the

first speaks about translation strategies, while the second discusses procedures. This

detail might seem unimportant; however, it indicates different approaches. The term

procedure, on one hand, implies concentration on the process of translation itself, on

what actually happens between the source and the target text. Using a strategy, on the

other hand, is a conscious process; a strategy may for a translator be the best possible

way of dealing with the task of rendering a text from one language into another, and

what is stressed by Chesterman is the purposefulness of this process. In other words,

this term implies that the translator, having encountered a problem, determinedly

chooses between various options to avoid the potentially risky possibilities and find the

most suitable one, finally arriving at the optimal solution. In fact, Chesterman (in his

Memes of Translation) distinguishes between these two approaches:

Comprehension strategies have to do with the analysis of the source text


and the whole nature of the translation commission; they are inferencing
strategies, and they are temporally primary in the translation process.
Production strategies are in fact the results of various comprehension
strategies: they have to do with how the translator manipulates the
linguistic material in order to produce an appropriate target text. (92)
To sum up, it can be said that between Chesterman’s and Newmark’s concept, there is a

difference in the aspect of purposefulness: Chesterman, on one hand, stresses the fact

that working with translation strategies is a conscious and goal-oriented process.

Newmark, on the other hand, proposes a variety of procedures, and once translation

trainees acquire the knowledge of them, they are used more or less automatically. To

cover both strategies and procedures, i.e. mainly for practical reasons, I am going to use

the neutral and also more general term “microtextual operations.” A more detailed

9
discussion of this issue follows in the chapters concerned with the theoretical

framework of the respective concepts.

10
B. Peter Newmark’s Translation Procedures

Peter Newmark provides a complex account of his translating theory in A

Textbook of Translation. In Chapter 3, he describes the process of translating, beginning

with choosing one’s approach, and suggesting that the usually preferred method is to

“read the whole text two or three times [...] and start translating only when [one has]

taken [one’s] bearings” (21). Yet he notes that such a method “can be mechanical” and

that “a translational text analysis is useful as a point of reference, but it should not

inhibit the free play of [one’s] intuition” (21). In my opinion, for a student of translation

without practical experience, this method is better, since it is much more reliable than

trying to translate everything at once, however “mechanical” the method may be.

Newmark also claims that “translation theory broadly consists of, and can be defined as,

a large number of generalisations of translation problems” (21). He then comments on

the stages of the translating process, from translating on the textual, referential, cohesive

and natural level of a text to the translation of lexis (with special attention paid to the

translation of proper names), concluding with revision and arriving at the final version

of the target text.

1. Classification of Translation Procedures

Translation procedures as such are described in Chapter 8, and it is claimed that

they are “used for sentences and the smaller units of language,” and that their use

“always depends on a variety of contextual factors” (81). Here I provide an outline of

Newmark’s procedures; further discussion of examples and individual cases follows in

the section concerned with the analysis of sample translations.

According to Newmark, the most important of the procedures is literal

translation. The others are transference, naturalisation, cultural equivalent, functional

11
equivalent, descriptive equivalent, synonymy, through-translation, shifts/transpositions,

modulation, recognised translation, translation label, compensation, componential

analysis, reduction and expansion, paraphrase, notes, additions and glosses, and

deletion.

12
C. Andrew Chesterman’s Translation Strategies

Chapter 4 of Andrew Chesterman’s book Memes of Translation begins with the

discussion of strategies. First, he summarises the general characteristics of translation

strategies and provides some basic categories: there are language learning strategies,

and communication strategies, aimed at dealing with problems in communication, both

of which are relevant to translation, since translators have to solve communication

problems, and have to learn the language they work with well (87). Translation

strategies can also be divided into global, which come into operation on the more

general level (such as the level of the source text), and local, which are used on the

more specific level (such as the level of words, clauses, or sentences), and Chesterman

notes that his concern is with the local ones (90-91). In the second part of this chapter,

he proposes a classification of translation strategies, commenting on the difference

between comprehension and production strategies (as quoted earlier). Generally, his

focus is on change; he claims that the most basic, overall strategy is “[c]hange

something,” i.e. “if [one is] not satisfied with the target version that comes immediately

to mind [...] [he or she should] change something in it,” adding that “change as a

strategy begins to apply beyond the scope of [the] obvious change from one language

into another” (92). It is important to note that concerning literal or close translation, i.e.

“the target version that comes immediately to mind,” Chesterman’s approach

corresponds with Newmark’s. In A Textbook of Translation, Newmark claims that

“[accuracy in translation] represents the maximum degree of correspondence,

referentially and pragmatically, between, on the one hand, the text as a whole and its

various units of translation [...] and, on the other, the extralinguistic ‘reality,’ which may

be the world of reality or of the mind” (30). After the explanation of the basis of his

concept, Chesterman characterises his classification as one that “seems to work in

13
practice,” “seems to differentiate enough, but does not get bogged down in ‘unportable’

detail,” and “is flexible and open-ended” (93).

1. Classification of Translation Strategies

According to this classification, there are three basic groups of translation

strategies: syntactic or grammatical, semantic and pragmatic. Again, I am going to

provide only a brief outline of these strategies; I will focus on them in the section

discussing similarities and differences between Newmark’s and Chesterman’s concept,

and I want to look at specific examples more closely in the analysis of sample

translations.

The syntactic strategies involve “purely syntactic changes” and “primarily

manipulate form” (94). In other words, they are concerned with the organisation of units

of a text, not with their meanings. The main ones are literal translation, loan/calque,

transposition, unit shift, phrase structure change, clause structure change, sentence

structure change, cohesion change, level shift, and scheme change.

The semantic strategies are “kinds of changes which mainly have to do with

lexical semantics, but also include aspects of clause meaning,” and which “manipulate

meaning” (101) – here comes a shift from focusing on the form to focusing on the sense

of language units. These strategies are synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, converses,

abstraction change, distribution change, emphasis change, paraphrase, trope change, and

other kinds of modulation.

The pragmatic strategies are concerned “with the selection of information in the

[target text],” which “is governed by the translator’s knowledge of the prospective

readership of the translation.” They “tend to involve bigger changes from the [source

text],” “typically incorporate syntactic and/or semantic changes as well,” and

“manipulate the message itself” (107). It can be said that from the three basic

14
categories, pragmatic strategies are the most complex – and probably the most difficult

to classify, too. They are cultural filtering, explicitness change, information change,

interpersonal change, illocutionary change, coherence change, partial translation,

visibility change, transediting, and some other pragmatic changes.

15
III. Example of Practical Application

A. Introduction

In this section, I want to demonstrate how the concepts of translation procedures

and strategies can be used for an analysis of a sample translation. I attempt here to put

myself in the place of a student of translation who is acquainted with Newmark’s and

Chesterman’s theoretical concepts and who is supposed to translate a text with the help

of these concepts. To make this research more objective, I have devised a short

questionnaire to be filled in by a group of students of translation from the Department of

English and American Studies, and the results of this questionnaire are discussed in

section III.C. The text that I work here with is an excerpt from the book Art since 1900,

a publication concerned with the development of art and art theory in the course of the

twentieth century. It is divided into short chapters, each covering one year; there are

also other, specialised sections, discussing e.g. leading artists, art critics, or works of art.

As a source text (ST) for my analysis, I have chosen the introductory part of the chapter

“1956,” which focuses on the young generation of British postwar artists and on the

beginnings of pop-art. The book Art since 1900 has already been published in Czech

under the title Umění po roce 1900, and the first target text (TT1) has been obtained

from this version. My own translation of the sections in question is the second target

text (TT2). The analysis of this text focuses on demonstration of Newmark’s and

Chesterman’s translation procedures/strategies on typical examples from the excerpt, on

their characterisation, and on drawing basic parallels and showing differences between

these two concepts. The analysis of the second translation, “Round Table,” is more

concerned with the practical application of microtextual operations in the translation

16
process, and the procedures/strategies are not further examined in this section. Full

versions of all the excerpts can be found in the Appendix.

B. Analysis and Demonstration of Procedures/Strategies

1. Text One: 1956

The opening sentence of chapter “1956” summarises the key issues discussed on

the following pages; thus, its main aim is to introduce the reader to the topic, while

remaining brief and succinct. To preserve these characteristics in translation is not as

easy and straightforward as it may seem, mainly because of differences in word order

and information structure in Czech and English sentences; and microtextual operations

concerning sentence structure is what I want to begin with. In the following discussion,

I am going to consistently use the order ST – TT1 – TT2. The ST sentence is:

The exhibition ‘This is Tomorrow’ in London marks the culmination of


research into postwar relations between art, science, technology, product
design, and popular culture undertaken by the Independent Group,
forerunners of British Pop art (Art 385)
The TT1 version of this sentence is:

Výstava ‘This is Tomorrow’ v Londýně je vyvrcholením výzkumu


poválečných vztahů mezi uměním, vědou, technologií, designem a
populární kulturou, který uskutečnila Independent Group, předchůdkyně
britského pop artu (Umění 385)
The TT2 version is:

Zkoumání poválečných vztahů mezi uměním, vědou, technikou,


designem a masovou kulturou, kterému se věnovala Independent Group,
skupina předchůdců britského pop-artu, vrcholí v Londýně výstavou
‘This is Tomorrow.’
In the English sentence, the thematic part “the culmination [...] popular culture,” already

known to the reader and serving as a connection to the previous chapter, is framed by

17
two pieces of new information, two rhematic parts, a) about the exhibition, b) about the

group. This information structure is not as common in Czech as in English; Czech

sentences usually preserve the theme-rheme sequence, keeping the newest information

at the end. The TT1 version does not reflect this rule, preserving the word order of the

original; according to both Newmark’s and Chesterman’s theory, this sentence is an

example of literal translation. Not only that the individual words correspond one to one,

but they are also organised in the same way within the sentence. On the other hand, the

TT2 version has a different structure, where both rhematic elements have been shifted

towards the end. This can be identified, according to Chesterman, as the strategy of

sentence structure change. At this point, I want to note the first difference between

Newmark’s and Chesterman’s concept: Newmark does not include changes in word

order in his list, while Chesterman does. In my opinion, the notion of sentence (clause,

phrase) structure change is important for the English-Czech translation, and I would

therefore suggest that it is one of the advantages of Chesterman’s theory.

In both concepts, there appears a group of closely related microtextual

operations, all of which are concerned with the translation of recognised terms. They are

transference, through-translation and naturalisation (Newmark’s terms), and loan

translation – with the subcategory of loan-based neologisms – and calque (Chesterman’s

terms). Words and phrases such as “This is Tomorrow” and “Independent Group” have

become institutionalised within the field of art history, and therefore they are not

usually translated into Czech, perhaps only in non-specialised texts. Therefore, they can

serve as examples of transference or loan translation, together with all male names

which appear in the text in the first case.1 As has already been mentioned, Newmark

1
Female names are in Czech morphologically marked in all cases, and they are usually
“naturalised” as soon as they first appear in a Czech text. Concerning male names, these are
naturalised as well, but the naturalisation becomes visible only when they appear in other than
the first case.

18
establishes a separate category called naturalisation for the step succeeding the

borrowing of a word, unlike Chesterman, who calls the result of this process a loan-

based neologism. The phrase “pop art” can be regarded as an example of this

procedure/strategy, because it is already commonly known and has been fully

incorporated into morphological and grammatical structures of Czech. Examples of

through-translation or calque are the translations of institutional terms such as

“Nezávislá skupina,” “Institut současného umění,” and “Muzeum moderního umění.”2

On the basis of the preceding comparison, it can be concluded that both Chesterman’s

and Newmark’s concepts are in this area corresponding, save the minor difference in

categorisation.

Another parallel between Newmark’s and Chesterman’s theory is the concept of

neutralisation or cultural filtering. In this area, Newmark establishes three categories:

cultural equivalent and two subcategories of neutralisation, functional and descriptive

equivalent. Chesterman subsumes all these procedures under the heading of a strategy

called cultural filtering. Unfortunately, no example of these microtextual operations can

be found in the “1956” text. The main reason is probably that cultural filtering is

thought to be inappropriate for specialised texts and is therefore not used; the risk of

information loss and oversimplification is in this case considered greater than the risk of

“unreadability.” Although these microtextual operations do not appear in the analysed

text, they are nevertheless very useful in other kinds of translations, i.e. those with

expressive and/or vocative function.

2
It should be noted here that as far as the last two examples are concerned, it is debatable
where they are translation labels, through-translations/calques or already recognised
translations. I would opt for the second possibility, because different art historians and
theorists work with these terms differently, and agreement about this issue has not been
reached.

19
Both Chesterman and Newmark establish the same category of microtextual

operations called synonymy, and they also characterise it similarly. This

procedure/strategy is used quite frequently in translating from English into Czech, and

abundant examples can be found in the target texts, such as in the following excerpts

(the examples of synonymy are underlined):

And its signal achievements – its ambitious series of lectures and


extraordinary run of exhibitions, the latter abetted by innovative
designers in the group like the Brutalist architects Alison Smithson
(1928-93) and Peter Smithson (1923-2003) – were discursive and
curatorial (Art 385)

Pozoruhodných úspěchů dosáhli na poli diskurzu a kurátorství –


uspořádali ambiciózní sérii přednášek a výjimečných výstav, které
podnítili průkopničtí designéři skupiny, například brutalističtí architekti
Alison Smithsonová (1928-1993) a Peter Smithson (1923-2003) (Umění
385)

Její mimořádné úspěchy se odehrály na poli umělecké teorie a


výstavnictví – například ambiciózní cyklus přednášek nebo ojedinělá
série výstav, na které se velkou měrou podílelo několik novátorských
designérů, zejména tvůrci brutalistní architektury Alison Smithsonová
(1928-93) a Peter Smithson (1923-2003).
Even in this short excerpt there are several instances of synonymy. The reason why

synonymy is so common in English-Czech translations is that the most straightforward

option often sounds unnatural or does not correspond with the original meaning, and it

is therefore better to replace it with its near equivalent, and furthermore, it is often

difficult to decide what the most stratightforward option is. Thus, this

procedure/strategy can be really helpful to Czech students of translation.

Translation procedures/strategies called shifts and transpositions (by Newmark)

or shifts and structure changes (by Chesterman) are also very well applicable in

20
translations from English into Czech. Particularly the phrase/clause/sentence structure

changes constitute an almost inextricable part of the English-Czech translation process,

mainly due to differences in syntax and word order, but because this has been discussed

earlier, I am not going to return to this issue here. However, there are other kinds of

shifts, basically the “minor” ones. Chesterman establishes for these a distinct category

of unit shifts, while Newmark subsumes them under the more general label

shifts/transpositions. In the following examples, the relevant parts are again underlined.

The exhibition ‘This is Tomorrow’ in London marks the culmination of


research into postwar relations between art, science, technology, product
design, and popular culture undertaken by the Independent Group,
forerunners of British Pop art (Art 385)

Výstava ‘This is Tomorrow’ v Londýně je vyvrcholením výzkumu


poválečných vztahů mezi uměním, vědou, technologií, designem a
populární kulturou, který uskutečnila Independent Group, předchůdkyně
britského pop artu (Umění 385)

Zkoumání poválečných vztahů mezi uměním, vědou, technikou,


designem a masovou kulturou, kterému se věnovala Independent Group,
skupina předchůdců britského pop-artu, vrcholí v Londýně výstavou
‘This is Tomorrow.’
In the Czech translation, relative pronouns have been added, because literal translation

(with past participle construction) sounds odd in this case.

The Independent Group was less a tight artistic movement than a


multifarious study group. Its leading members were artists (Art 385)

Spíš než pevné umělecké hnutí byla skupina Independent Group


(Nezávislá skupina) rozmanitou studijní skupinou. Mezi její vedoucí
představitele patřili umělci (Umění 385)

21
Independent Group (Nezávislá skupina) byla spíše než jednotným
uměleckým hnutím nesourodou studijní skupinou. Jejími čelnými
představiteli byli umělci
The shift/transposition in this case affects gender. In English, gender concerns mainly

personal pronouns and possessive adjectives, and the “Independent Group” is referred

to with the word “it”. In Czech, on the other hand, all words have gender, which has to

be reflected in the reference. Although the phrase “Independent Group” appears in the

text as a loan term, its through-translation suggests feminine gender, and appropriate

relative pronouns have been used.

The history of the Independent Group proper (1952-5) is bound up with


that of the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London, which it
served as an unruly research-and-development arm (Art 385)

Historie samotné Independent Group (1952-1955) je spojena s Institutem


současného umění (ICA) v Londýně, kterému sloužila jako neukázněná
prodloužená ruka výzkumu a vývoje (Umění 385)

Historie Independent Group jako takové (1952-5) je svázána s Institutem


současného umění (ICA) v Londýně, jemuž sloužila jako neukázněná
výzkumně-vývojová prodloužená ruka.
This example is similar to the previous one as it is also concerned with gender. English

uses the relative pronoun “which” whenever the reference is not to a person; but in

Czech, there are more kinds of relative pronouns, and gender has thus to be made

explicit in the reference. As I have suggested at the beginning of this chapter,

Newmark’s dealing of this whole issue is not sufficient as far as English-Czech

translations are concerned, and Chesterman’s concept is in this area more helpful.

Another area where there are prominent differences between Newmark’s and

Chesterman’s concept is the group of semantic changes. The microtextual operations

that have been discussed so far all manipulate primarily form, are relatively easy to

22
understand and use, and sometimes are even inevitable (particularly grammatical shifts).

The semantic changes, on the other hand, are usually complex and there are often more

options to choose from. In Newmark’s theory, almost all procedures of this kind are

subsumed under the category of modulation. In A Textbook of Translation, he notes that

“the general concept, since it is a super-ordinate term covering almost everything

beyond literal translation, is not useful as it stands” (88), and that the categorisation of

modulation by the translation theoreticians Vinay and Darbelnet seems to him

“unconvincing” (89). Despite that, he discusses Vinay and Darbelnet’s categories and

does not propose any of his own. In his opinion, some of these types of modulation are

themselves distinct translation procedures, or are “potentially available, but [one]

should only use [them] when the translation is not natural unless [one does] so” (88) –

in other words, the translator should always opt for literal translation first. Chesterman’s

opinion on this issue is not so rigid, and unlike Newmark, he does not call for preferring

literal translation whenever possible. Some of his categories of semantic strategies

correspond with some of Newmark’s (or more precisely those of Vinay and Darbelnet)

categories of modulation. They are antonymy/negated contrary, abstraction

change/abstract for concrete, converses/reversal of terms, and hyponymy/one part for

another. Unfortunately, none of these procedures has been used in the translation of

“1956”, and therefore I cannot demonstrate them on any example here. The reason is

probably that any semantic shifts are preferred to be avoided in informative texts.

However, this concept can prove useful in translating expressive and vocative texts,

because it can help to achieve the desired effect. To sum up, Newmark discusses the

procedure of modulation only briefly, while Chesterman divides the semantic changes

into clearly defined categories, which are much easier to work with. In my opinion,

23
since literal translation is often not applicable, it is better to classify the other

possibilities than to pretend they can be avoided.

Reduction and expansion/distribution change are one of the few semantic

changes, where a parallel between Newmark’s and Chesterman’s concept can be drawn.

Newmark’s reduction and expansion correspond with Chesterman’s subcategories of

distribution changes, compression and expansion. Reduction/compression can be

illustrated by the following sentence (the relevant phrases are underlined), where the ST

version is “The ICA was set up in 1946 [...] in order to champion modernism” (Art

385), and the TT1 version is “ICA byl založen v roce 1946 na podporu modernismu”

(Umění 385). In this translation, the same semantic components have been distributed

over fewer units, whereas in TT2 there is no reduction: “ICA byl založen roku 1946 [...]

s cílem propagace modernismu.” Two other sample sentences illustrate expansion. The

first ST example is “But its prime movers were critics” (Art 385). In TT1, no expansion

has been applied, unlike in TT2: “Ale jejími hlavními hybateli byli kritici” (Umění 385)

vs. “avšak těmi, kdo určovali její směřování, byli kritici.” The second ST example is

“And its signal achievements [...] were discursive and curatorial” (Art 385). In both

translations not only expansion, but also modulation has been used; however, since

modulation has already been discussed, I want to focus only on the expanded parts. The

TT1 version is “Pozoruhodných úspěchů dosáhli na poli diskurzu a kurátorství” (Umění

385), and the TT2 version is “Její mimořádné úspěchy se odehrály na poli umělecké

teorie a výstavnictví.” In this case, the distribution change cannot be avoided, because

literal translation does not work; literal translations of the respective words simply do

not collocate with each other. Since this is not an uncommon situation, and particularly

due to nominal tendencies and condensation, which are typical of English, but can be

24
rarely reproduced in Czech, I would suggest that the notion of distribution change is

important for an English-Czech translator.

At the moment, only a few translation procedures and strategies remain where at

least some correspondences between Newmark’s and Chesterman’s concept can be

discerned. They are all tightly context-bound and situation-specific, and translators have

the possibility to opt for them only in some kinds of texts, which is the main reason why

they cannot be illustrated by any examples from the analysed excerpt. Therefore, I am

going to briefly comment on them in this paragraph. First of these microtextual

operations is paraphrase, and both authors agree, that this very loose and free kind of

rendering is on the very margin of what can be called “translation.” Also deletion or

omission (being a subcategory of Chesterman’s information change) is to be used only

rarely, usually only in non-authoritative texts and when there is some serious reason to

do that, because like paraphrase it is sometimes considered an encroachment upon the

writer’s work. Finally, Newmark’s category of notes, additions and glosses corresponds

with Chesterman’s information change (or more precisely addition) and visibility

change. These microtextual operations, if used, have to be “admitted” – in other words,

the added stretches of text tend to be highlighted or otherwise indicated. As has already

been mentioned, no examples of these microtextual operations appear in “1956,”

particularly because this text is so concise, but also very informative, that the translator

does not need to add or omit anything.

Now I have arrived at the point where I can no more discuss Newmark’s and

Chesterman’s concepts in parallel, yet there still remain microtextual operations that

have not been talked about so far. One of them is compensation, which is regarded by

Newmark as a distinct translation procedure, while Chesterman claims that it can be

only motivation for application of some strategy. It is used mostly in translation of

25
expressive and vocative texts, where the loss of pragmatic or other effect constitutes a

problem and has therefore to be compensated for in another place in the target text.

Another category established by Newmark, but not discussed by Chesterman, is

componential analysis. This procedure may be very helpful not only in the case of

literary translation, but also when translating some newly coined term, which happens

in the field of art theory relatively often. However, the analysed text concerns an era

that has been discussed by art historians for quite a long time, and therefore the

terminology is relatively extensive and stable, and no neologisms or “untranslatable”

words appear in the text. Hence, there has been no need to use componential analysis to

render such expressions into Czech.

So far I have gone through all translation procedures listed and characterised by

Newmark; now I want to focus on the rest of Chesterman’s translation strategies. The

most obvious difference between Newmark and Chesterman is that Chesterman’s

categorisation is much more detailed. However, when one looks on the classifications

and compares them more closely, it can be said that it is not as “simple” as that:

Chesterman does not establish more narrowly defined categories, he creates a whole

distinct group of translation strategies – pragmatic changes. But before I move on to

these, I want to briefly look on some not yet examined syntactic and semantic changes.

The first of them is cohesion change, of which there is no example in the analysed text.

Although there are several re-formulations, in fact all of them have been of the kind of

phrase/clause/sentence structure changes, and have not affected the intra-textual

reference. The second is level shift; this strategy is probably more typical of free

translation. In informative texts, level shift is usually optional and can be avoided by

using other strategies. The third is emphasis change, which can also be considered part

of free translation, and is thus also avoided in informative texts. Finally, there are two

26
kinds of strategies that apply almost exclusively to translation of literary texts,

particularly poetry – scheme and trope changes. These can prove helpful when

translating rhetorical schemes and tropes, respectively, but I am not going to discuss

them further here.

Now I want to return to the above-mentioned pragmatic changes. The only

parallels between this concept of Chesterman’s and Newmark’s theory are cultural

filtering (basically Newmark’s cultural, descriptive and functional equivalent) and

information change (reduction and expansion), which have been examined earlier.

Except these two, no other changes of message are discussed by Newmark; the reasons

are in my opinion two. First, he always prefers literal translation, and any pragmatic

changes are far from close rendering of the original; second, if such changes are

acceptable, it is only in very specific contexts, and an account of them would be

redundant in a textbook aimed at beginning translators. Even Chesterman himself

admits that pragmatic changes are in some way specific: since they “tend to involve

bigger changes from the ST, and typically incorporate syntactic and/or semantic

changes as well” (Memes 107), it can be said they work at a different, higher level than

the other two types. Nevertheless, I want to provide a complete account of

Chesterman’s concept, and therefore have to – at least briefly – consider them.

Apart from cultural filtering, explicitness change is one of the most commonly

used translation strategies, and also one of the pragmatic changes that manipulate

message only slightly (of course only if used sparsely). Its two subcategories are

explicitation and implicitation, where particularly explicitation is often used by

translators who want to clarify the text for readers and make it more understandable –

similarly when they decide to opt for paraphrase or information change. Both these

strategies have already been discussed, therefore I want to move on to another

27
translation strategy, which is interpersonal change. This strategy is used in other than

vocative texts only rarely, because the relationship between text and reader is very

important particularly in this type of texts and less in the other. In fact, it is so important

that the form of the target text often has to be changed to make the translation affect the

audience in the desired way. With the next strategy, illocutionary change, one comes to

the most radical alterations of the source text. Change of speech act, similarly as

coherence change, is tightly context-bound, and if used much too often and/or without

good reason, the translation can almost cease to be a translation.3 If I characterise

illocutionary and coherence change as radical alterations, then the last two pragmatic

changes, partial translation and transediting, may not even be called translation

strategies. Partial translation, e.g. summarising a source text, can serve as a preliminary

stage of translating or as a supplement to it; but as such it is so big an alteration that the

result cannot, in my opinion, be called translation proper. And finally, transediting can

be considered the most “extreme” translation strategy. It is certainly a question why

should anyone translate a badly written original text, but apart from that, my personal

belief is that “drastic re-ordering [and] rewriting at a more general level than the kinds

of changes covered by the strategies so far mentioned” (Chesterman 112) is not

translating. However, I am aware of the fact that this issue is rather debatable and that

not everyone would agree with my opinion. To conclude, in this account of

Chesterman’s pragmatic changes I have proceeded from the basic and relatively

common ones to the most radical ones. It is certainly important to mention strategies

such as partial translation or transediting, but otherwise I think that translation trainees

are not experienced enough to decide when it is feasible to use them. Yet I would

3
I am well aware of the fact that is a matter of opinion, and that no two translators would
probably agree on the difference between a translation and a “rema ke” of a source text. Still I
do not think that everything depends on the context, and that some guidelines have to be set,
however debatable.

28
definitely not dismiss the whole concept of pragmatic changes; rather suggest, that if

Chesterman’s complex concept of translation strategies is to be worked with in

translation courses, pragmatic changes should be discussed last, when students have

mastered the more basic strategies, and that special attention should be paid to them to

make sure that the students understand them and their use properly. It can be also said

that the complexity of Chesterman’s concept, i.e. its quantity of categories and their

stratification, is probably its biggest disadvantage, and the reason why Newmark’s

concept is preferred for classroom use.

29
2. Text Two: Round Table

In the previous section, I have attempted to demonstrate Newmark’s and

Chesterman’s translation procedures/strategies on typical examples from source and

target texts, examine them and their use more closely and discuss the most striking

similarities and differences between them. In this section, I want to focus on the

practical application of translation procedures/stategies on another excerpt from Art

since 1900/Umění pro roce 1900. This text, an excerpt from the section called “Round

Table,” is a transcribed discussion of the four authors of the book, which is concerned

with the development of modern art in the first half of the 20th century. I mention this,

because it naturally affects the form of the text. While the text remains informative, it

acquires a vocative aspect; in other words, the reader is “drawn into” the discussion, and

this characteristic has been preserved in translation as well.

In the following analysis, I am not going to be concerned with the most “basic”

microtextual operations, such as literal translation, grammatical shifts and phrase/clause

structure changes, since literal translation is relatively straightforward and has been in

my opinion sufficiently examined earlier, and grammatical shifts together with changes

in word order are applied almost automatically and continuously. Therefore, I want to

concentrate on problematic or debatable parts. In the following discussion, I am no

longer going to work with two TT versions, only with the official translation (TT1). The

reason is that the aim of the following analysis is different from the aim of the previous

one (see above), and I deem one TT version sufficient for this purpose.

The first paragraph serves as an introduction, where one of the authors, Hal

Foster, outlines the itinerary of the discussion. The ST version is:

First, let’s address a few of the important narratives of prewar art that
emerge in the postwar period, and clarify our historical differences from
them. Second, we might take up the problem of antimodernism, and why

30
this was long a difficult topic to discuss adequately. And third, we should
grapple with the question of World War II as a caesura, and how
different stories of twentieth-century art negotiate this break, either
marking it as definitive, denying it in the interest of continuity, or
bridging it in the name of reconstruction. No doubt we will stray from
this itinerary – but let’s begin with the account of prewar modernism
developed by Alfred H. Barr, Jr., the first director of the Museum of
Modern Art (Art 319)
The TT version is:

Pojďme nejprve uvažovat o několika důležitých problémech


předválečného umění, které se vynořily v poválečném období, a
objasněme na nich rozdíly v historických postojích. Dále bychom se
mohli zabývat otázkou antimodernismu – a proč byl dlouho příliš
složitým problémem, než aby mohl bát adekvátně uchopen. A zatřetí
bychom se měli vypořádat s otázkou druhé světové války jako cézury a
se způsobem, jak různé historie umění 20. století uchopily toto přerušení:
buď je označily za rozhodující, nebo je popřely v zájmu kontinuity, či je
přemostily ve jménu obnovy. Není pochyb, že se od tohoto itineráře
odkloníme – ale začněme popisem předválečného modernismu, jak jej
podal Alfred H. Barr ml., první ředitel Muzea moderního umění (MoMA)
(Umění 319)
The first interesting point to notice is that a cohesion change has occurred here: the

numerals “first,” “second” and “third” have been translated as “nejprve,” “dále” and

“zatřetí,” where only the last can be considered a literal translation. The English version

appears to be more carefully planned than the Czech one, but on the other hand, the

chosen equivalents sound more natural and evoke spoken discourse better. Other

changes that have probably been made chiefly for the sake of naturalness are two minor

changes of punctuation – the comma in “problem of antimodernism, and why...”

replaced by a dash, and the comma in “negotiate this break, either marking...” replaced

by a colon. Both these changed punctuation marks in the ST precede condensed phrases

31
which have been in the TT rendered as clauses. Without replacing the commas with

better noticeable punctuation marks, the sentences would seem disordered. Next, there

is an example of explicitation, expansion and paraphrase in the following sentence:

Second, we might take up the problem of antimodernism, and why this


was long a difficult topic to discuss adequately.
Dále bychom se mohli zabývat otázkou antimodernismu – a proč byl
dlouho příliš složitým problémem, než aby mohl bát adekvátně uchopen.
The implicit information that the topic was too difficult, and was therefore discussed

only inadequately, is made explicit in the translation; the condensed phrase is expanded

into a clause; and the whole second part of the sentence is reformulated to make it

sound more natural. Paraphrase has been used also in the following clause:

First, let’s address a few of the important narratives of prewar art that
emerge in the postwar period, and clarify our historical differences from
them.

Pojďme nejprve uvažovat o několika důležitých problémech


předválečného umění, které se vynořily v poválečném období, a
objasněme na nich rozdíly v historických postojích.
Here, the paraphrase has led to a shift of meaning: in the ST, the “differences” discussed

are between “us,” i.e. “our era,” and “them,” i.e. “the important narratives of prewar art

that emerge in the postwar period,” but the TT version suggests that the attitudes of

prewar and postwar art were different – which is true, too, but the translation of this

sentence is, I think, incorrect. Information has been changed, or more precisely added,

also in the phrase “Alfred H. Barr, Jr., the first director of the Museum of Modern Art.”

In the Czech version, “Alfred H. Barr ml., první ředitel Muzea moderního umění

(MoMA),” the abbreviation has been supplemented, because it is used repeatedly in the

following discussion (for the sake of brevity), and the Czech reader might not know

what it stands for. I am going to finish the analysis of the first paragraph with further

32
three noticeable points, concerning unit shift, synonymy and recognised translation. The

strategy of unit shift has been used in the clause “[n]o doubt we will stray from this

itinerary,” which has been translated as “[n]ení pochyb, že se od tohoto itineráře

odkloníme” – the underlined phrase has become a clause. In this case, the choice is only

a matter of opinion, since this version is as stylistically suitable as other possible options

such as “bezpochyby” or “nepochybně”. Synonymy is used relatively frequently, for

example in “address” – “uvažovat,” “narratives” – “problémech,” and “negotiate” –

“uchopily,” because exact equivalents of the words exist, but are inappropriate in this

context. And finally, the word “antimodernismus” is the recognised translation of the

English term “antimodernism.” I think that this is a typical example of the situation

when a transferred expression is naturalised and later becomes a recognised term.

The following response of Yve-Alain Bois to Hal Foster’s introduction

constitutes the second paragraph:

One thing that strikes us now is the difference between Barr’s


enthusiastic encounter with the Russian avant-garde on his trip to the
Soviet Union in 1927-8 and the way Russian Constructivism was later
melted down at MoMA to a production of abstract paintings and
sculptures. Even if Barr was specifically searching for painters and
sculptors on his visit (“I must find more painters,” he noted in his diary
after a visit to Rodchenko, who told him he had stopped painting in
1922), he was impressed by all the work done by Constructivist artists in
what we could call the realm of propaganda or the “ideological front”
(theater design, film sets, typography, exhibition design, etc.). Even if he
was critical of the antiart concept of “factography” in the end, he spent a
considerable amount of time with its theoretician, the writer Sergei
Tretyakov, trying to understand it. Barr admired the “brilliant”
Konstantin Umansky, who “at the age of 19” had written the book Neue
Kunst in Russland (it long remained the only synthetic study of Soviet
art), and he was particularly struck by Umansky’s comment that “a

33
proletarian style was emerging from the wall newspaper with its
combined text, poster, and photomontage”: “an interesting and acute
suggestion,” Barr noted. In short, he was extremely curious about the
transformations made in the aesthetic realm by the Soviet avant-garde,
trying to gauge their consequences for the future. But then he seems to
have “forgotten” all this almost as soon as he left Russia: he couldn’t take
it into consideration in the history of modern art he was constructing (Art
319)
The TT version is:

Jedna věc, která nás teď zaráží, je rozdíl mezi Barrovým nadšeným
setkáním s ruskou avantgardou při jeho návštěvě v Sovětském svazu
v letech 1927-1928 a způsobem, jak byl ruský konstruktivismus později
v MoMA roztaven na produkci abstraktních obrazů a soch. I když Barr
na své cestě cíleně hledal malíře a sochaře („Musím najít víc malířů,“
Poznamenal si do svého deníku po návštěvě Rodčenka, který mu řekl, že
přestal malovat v roce 1922), byl zaujat veškerou prací
konstruktivistických umělců v oblasti, řekněme, propagandy nebo
„ideologické fronty“ (divadelní návrhy, filmová výprava, typografie,
design výstav atd.). Přestože byl nakonec kritický vůči antiuměleckému
konceptu „faktografie,“ strávil hodně času s jeho teoretikem,
spisovatelem Sergejem Treťjakovem, ve snaze mu porozumět. Barr
obdivoval „brilantního“ Konstantina Umanského, který „v devatenácti
letech“ napsal knihu Neue Kunst in Russland (jež dlouho zůstala jedinou
syntetickou studií sovětského umění), a byl zvlášť zaujat Umanského
komentářem, že „proletářský styl se svou kombinací textu, plakátu a
fotomontáže vynořil z nástěnných novin“: „zajímavý a přesný postřeh“,
poznamenal Barr. Krátce řečeno, velice jej zajímala transformace
estetiky podnícená sovětskou avantgardou a snažil se odhadnout její
následky pro budoucnost. Ale pak jako by to všechno ve chvíli, kdy
opustil Rusko, „zapomněl“: nedokázal to vzít v úvahu v historii
moderního umění, kterou vytvářel (Umění 319)
This paragraph contains more terms and factographical information than the previous

one, and also a few citations – which means specific kind of problems. As far as

34
terminology is concerned, the translator is supposed to use the recognised renderings,

such as “ideologické fronty,” “antiuměleckému,” or “faktografie,” to fulfil the criteria of

a specialised text from the field of art history. Further, there are a few transferred

personal names, but in this case not from English, but from Russian: “Rodčenka,”

“Sergejem Treťjakovem” and “Konstantina Umanského.” The translator correctly used

the Czech transcription, not – as is becoming more and more common nowadays – the

English one. Concerning the book called Neue Kunst in Russland, the original title has

been used as a loan from German, because the work has never been translated into

Czech. The strategy of sentence structure change has been applied to the sentence “a

proletarian style was emerging from the wall newspaper with its combined text, poster,

and photomontage,” which has been rendered as “proletářský styl se svou kombinací

textu, plakátu a fotomontáže vynořil z nástěnných novin,” where the reformulated

Czech version sounds more natural than close literal translation. In this sentence, the

word “fotomontáž” is another good example of naturalisation or loan-based neologism.

Also the strategy called distribution change, or more precisely reduction, has been used

by the translator, namely in the phrase “transformations [...] in the aesthetic realm”. It

has been translated as “transformace estetiky,” chiefly for the sake of brevity and

naturalness, because versions such as “transformace říše estetiky” or similar sound too

pathetic.The last issue I want to mention is the translation of “the way Russian

Constructivism was later melted down at MoMA to a production of abstract paintings

and sculptures” as “způsobem, jak byl ruský konstruktivismus později v MoMA

roztaven na produkci abstraktních obrazů a soch.” I think that the literal translation of

“melted down,” “roztaven,” is rather inappropriate here, because the reader might not be

sure what the sentence means: “Russian Constructivist art was simplified, so that it

35
seemed that the only works were abstract paintings and sculptures.” I would suggest

words like “zjednodušen” or “okleštěn” to better preserve the original meaning.

In my opinion, this demonstration is enough to show that translation procedures

and strategies are useful not only when translating, but also when the results are

examined. Translation analysis like this one, together with the discussion of the

translator’s choices, helps translation trainees get acquainted with the options from

which they may choose. Therefore, I believe that exercises of this kind are one of the

most important parts of education of future translators.

36
III. C Questionnaire

To make the assessment of the two concepts of microtextual operations more

objective, I devised a short questionnaire for a group of 20 students of translation from

the Department of English and American Studies. They were divided into two smaller

groups – 7 people were supposed to work with Newmark’s translation procedures, the

other 13 with Chesterman’s translation strategies. First, all the students translated two

short sections from Art since 1900, which provided them with material to analyse.

Second, their task was to find examples of translation procedures or strategies in their

own translations. Third, they were asked to identify the microtextual operations used to

translate selected phrases from the ST. The major aim of the second and third task was

to show, whether – and to which extent – the students are able to work with the

translation procedures/strategies and understand them, and whether any of the

microtextual operations are more problematic than others. And finally, the students

were given a list of general characteristics of the respective concepts, and they were

supposed to choose from this list those characteristics which they believed to apply to

the concept they worked with, and comment on their choice. I devised this “opinion

poll” to compare my own experience and opinions with those of other students (for

further details, see the Appendix, sections F and G).

Since the whole questionnaire serves only as a supplement to the comparison

and evaluation of translation procedures and strategies, I am not going to analyse it here

in great detail. However, an examination of the student’s responses has introduced some

interesting points. For example, one student says that “[translation procedures are] good

for translation analysis, for contrasting various translations etc., but [they are] not very

practical for the translation process,” and another adds that “[u]sing these procedures is

more time-consuming than when you don’t concentrate on them.” These remarks in my

37
opinion suggest that the students are not quite sure how to work with the microtextual

operations. They understand the terms relatively well and without problems – their

answers in the second and third task have proven that – but in fact, many of them

believe that the microtextual operations are not of any particular use and do not help

them when they are translating. However, the solution to this may be hidden in the

following remark: “I admit that I use some of them, but not consciously.” In other

words, maybe that the students need only motivation: they need to understand the real

purpose of translation procedures/strategies, and it should be emphasized that

translation analysis is supposed to help them get acquainted with their “tools,” i.e.

microtextual operations, and provide them with a range of options. Another interesting

point is that although a few students admit that Chesterman’s concept is relatively

complex and difficult to work with, more of them also claim that it is very useful for

students of translation, and that it helped them solve some translation problems. On the

other hand, only one person claims that Newmark’s concept proved helpful, and no one

considers it useful for students of translation. This is quite surprising, since Newmark’s

A Textbook of Translation has been used in the Department for several years, and all the

students know it quite well, unlike Chesterman’s theory. It may suggest that the work

with Chesterman’s translation strategies is easier, in my opinion chiefly because the

classification is much more systematic. In fact, some people think that Newmark’s

concept is oversimplified, that the categories “often overlap,” and that “some of the

procedures cover very similar areas.” This supports my own impression that Newmark’s

classification is rather haphazard. The last point to mention is that people from both

groups note an identical problem: the examples in the accounts of translation procedures

and strategies are in languages few of them know (or at least not well), so that it is

sometimes difficult to see differences between the microtextual operations or

38
understand what the terms mean. The solution to this problem would be easy – only to

add examples from Czech texts. To sum up, I think that the questionnaire has been very

useful, since it introduces some issues that I have not noticed, and also confirms some

of my own conclusions.

39
IV. Conclusion

A. Evaluation of Results

The main aim of my thesis has been to decide, on the basis of analysis and

comparison of Peter Newmark’s and Andrew Chesterman’s concepts of translation

procedures and strategies, which of these concepts is more suitable for the use in

translation courses. First, I have briefly introduced both of the theoretical concepts.

Second, I have demonstrated the procedures and strategies on an analysis of a sample

translation, and I have noted the basic parallels and differences between Newmark’s and

Chesterman’s concept. Third, I have shown the use of some of the microtextual

operations on another sample translation, and I have pointed out potential problems.

And finally, for the sake of objectivity, I have devised a short questionnaire to be

answered by a group of students of translation from the Department of English and

American studies.

My research has proven that each of the respective concepts has its advantages

as well as disadvantages. As far as Peter Newmark’s concept is concerned, its major

merits are that it has a small number of categories and that it is not overloaded with

detailed information. However, the classification is relatively haphazard and the

categories often overlap. Another problem is that not enough attention is paid to some

aspects of English-Czech translation, chiefly to the constant grammatical shifts and

changes of word order. Generally, I would say that Newmark’s concepts is

oversimplified and is therefore suitable only for beginners. Concerning the concept of

Andrew Chesterman, the classification is on one hand exhaustive and relatively

complex, but on the other hand the categorisation is systematic and the strategies are

better applicable on English-Czech translation. Thus, Chesterman’s concept is more

40
suitable for advanced students of translation and is in my opinion better for the use in

translation seminars at the Department. Concerning the classroom use, I propose some

further suggestions in the following section.

B. Recommendation

There are some conditions which should be fulfilled if Chesterman’s concept of

translation strategies is to be successfully used in translation training courses. First,

examples illustrating the strategies should be provided in Czech. There is a list of

students’ examples from the questionnaire in the Appendix, and other examples are

provided in the analyses of sample translations. However, to make the list more diverse,

I suggest that a database of examples is established, the source of which can be the

translations students work on throughout a semester. A classroom project of this kind

would be a relatively easy way to help the students get acquainted with the theory.

Another possibility of utilisation of Chesterman’s concept in translation courses is to

provide the students with texts annotated with suggested strategies, which they would

be supposed to translate, or vice versa – students would annotate texts without

translating them. This method would help the students learn to use the strategies more

or less automatically and to concentrate not on the tools, but on the “material.” Second,

I suggest that the three groups of translation strategies are taught successively to avoid

overwhelming the students with theory. With fewer strategies to concentrate on, they

would be able to learn them more properly. Finally, and also most importantly, I think

that the purpose of translation analysis and strategies should be clearly explained to the

students. It should be emphasized that translation analysis helps them get acquainted

with the translation strategies. That these strategies are means of support and initial

guidance, that they give the students the opportunity to choose from a range of options

41
how to deal with translation problems, and that they can provide good advice,

suggestions and recommendations, is surely a strong motivation for learning them.

42
V. Bibliography

A. Works Cited

Chesterman, Andrew. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation

Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s, 1997. 94-112.

Foster, Hal et al. Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. London:

Thames & Hudson, 2004. 319, 385.

---. Umění po roce 1900: Modernismus, Antimodernismus, Postmodernismus. Praha

[Prague]: Slovart, 2007. 319, 385.

Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. London: Pearson Educ., 2003. 21, 30, 69-

76, 81-103.

Mailhac, Jean-Pierre. “Formulating Strategies for the Translator.” Translation

Directory.com. 29 Dec. 2008

<http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1340.php >.

Pym, Anthony. “Translation Techniques.” Intercultural Studies Group. U Rovira i

Virgili. 29 Dec. 2008

<http://isg.urv.es/publicity/masters/sample/techniques.html>.

B. Works Consulted

Baker, Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge,

1992.

Chesterman, Andrew. “Beyond the Particular.” Translation Universals. Ed. Anna

Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s, 2004. 33-47.

Davies, Maria González, Christopher Scott-Tennent, and Fernanda Rodríguez Torras.

“Training in the Application of Translation Strategies for Undergraduate

Scientific Translation Students.” Meta 46.4 (2001): 737-744.

43
Gile, Daniel. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.

Amsterdam: Benjamin’s, 1995.

Newmark, Peter. About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991.

---. Paragraphs on Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1993.

Nida, Eugene Albert. The Theory and Practice of Translation. London: Brill, 1982.

---. Language Structure and Translation. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1975.

Pym, Anthony. “Two Kinds of Macro-strategies.” Intercultural Studies Group. U

Rovira i Virgili. 29 Dec. 2008

<http://isg.urv.es/publicity/masters/sample/macrostrategies.html>.

Thunes, Martha. “Classifying Translational Correspondences.” Corpora and Cross-

linguistic Research. Ed. Stig Johansson and Signe Oksefjell. Amsterdam:

Rodopi, 1998. 25-50.

C. Reference Sources

“Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.” Cambridge Dictionaries Online. 2008.

Cambridge UP 25 Nov. 2008 <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/>.

Macmillan English Dictionary Online. 2007. Macmillan 25 Nov. 2008

<http://online.macmillandictionary.com/mc_au2/macmil.htm>.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster 25 Nov. 2008

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/>.

44
VI. Appendix

A. Source Text: 1956


The exhibition “This is Tomorrow” in London marks the culmination of
research into postwar relations between art, science, technology, product design, and
popular culture undertaken by the Independent Group, forerunners of British Pop art.
The Independent Group was less a tight artistic movement than a multifarious
study group. Its leading members were artists: Richard Hamilton (born 1922), Nigel
Henderson (1917-85), John McHale (1922-78), Eduardo Paolozzi (born 1924), and
William Turnbull (born 1922). But its prime movers were critics: architectural critic
Reyner Banham (1922-88), art critic Lawrence Alloway (1926-90), and cultural critic
Toni del Renzio (born 1915). And its signal achievements – its ambitious series of
lectures and extraordinary run of exhibitions, the latter abetted by innovative designers
in the group like the Brutalist architects Alison Smithson (1928-93) and Peter Smithson
(1923-2003) – were discursive and curatorial. The principal legacy of the Independent
Group might well be its “art” of discussion, design, and display.

The fine art – popular art continuum


The history of the Independent Group proper (1952-5) is bound up with that of
the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London, which it served as an unruly
research-and-development arm. This testy relation is suggested by the successive
appellations of the Independent Group: first Young Group, then Young Independent
Group, and finally Independent Group. The ICA was set up in 1946 in emulation of the
Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York by established writers like Roland
Penrose (1900-84) and Herbert Read (1893-1968), its first president, in order to
champion modernism. But the ICA version of modernism, a watered-down mix of
Surrealism (represented by Penrose) and Constructivism (represented by Read), was
seen by a new guard of artists, architects, and critics as an academic holdover from the
prewar period (Banham dubbed it an “Abstract-Left-Freudian aesthetic”). And when a
new director, Dorothy Morland, took office in 1951, these young rebels began to
militate for a forum of their own.

45
B. Target Text 1: 1956
Výstava „This is Tomorrow“ v Londýně je vyvrcholením výzkumu poválečných
vztahů mezi uměním, vědou, technologií, designem a populární kulturou, který
uskutečnila Independent Group, předchůdkyně britského pop artu.
Spíš než pevné umělecké hnutí byla skupina Independent Group (Nezávislá
skupina) rozmanitou studijní skupinou. Mezi její vedoucí představitele patřili umělci:
Richard Hamilton (narozen 1922), Nigel Henderson (1917-1985), John McHale (1922-
1978), Eduardo Paolozzi (narozen 1924) a William Turnbull (narozen 1922). Ale jejími
hlavními hybateli byli kritici: kritik architektury Reyner Banham (1922-1988),
umělecký kritik Lawrence Alloway (1926-1990) a kulturní kritik Toni del Renzio
(narozen 1915). Pozoruhodných úspěchů dosáhli na poli diskurzu a kurátorství –
uspořádali ambiciózní sérii přednášek a výjimečných výstav, které podnítili průkopničtí
designéři skupiny, například brutalističtí architekti Alison Smithsonová (1928-1993) a
Peter Smithson (1923-2003). Nejdůležitějším odkazem Independent Group je zřejmě
jejich „umění“ diskuse, designu a vystavování.

Spojitost mezi výtvarným uměním a populárním uměním


Historie samotné Independent Group (1952-1955) je spojena s Institutem
současného umění (ICA) v Londýně, kterému sloužila jako neukázněná prodloužená
ruka výzkumu a vývoje. O povaze tohoto neklidného vztahu napovídají postupné změny
pojmenování Independent group: nejprve Young Group, později Young Independent
Group a konečně Independent Group. ICA byl založen v roce 1946 na podporu
modernismu po vzoru Muzea moderního umění (MoMA) v New Yorku uznávanými
spisovateli jako Rolandem Penrosem (1900-1984) a Herbertem Readem (1893-1968),
který byl také jeho prvním prezidentem. Ale verze modernismu, kterou prosazoval ICA,
zředěná směs surrealismu (propagovaná Penrosem) a konstruktivismu (reprezentovaná
Readem), byla novou gardou umělců, architektů a kritiků viděna jako akademický
přežitek z předválečného období (Banham ji nazval „abstraktně-levicově-freudovská
estetika“). A když se funkce v roce 1951 ujala nová ředitelka Dorothy Morlandová,
začali se mladí rebelové dožadovat svého vlastního fóra.

46
C. Target Text 2: 1956
Zkoumání poválečných vztahů mezi uměním, vědou, technikou, designem a
masovou kulturou, kterému se věnovala Independent Group, skupina předchůdců
britského pop-artu, vrcholí v Londýně výstavou „This is Tomorrow“.
Independent Group (Nezávislá skupina) byla spíše než jednotným uměleckým
hnutím nesourodou studijní skupinou. Jejími čelnými představiteli byli umělci: Richard
Hamilton (narozen 1922), Nigel Henderson (1917-85), John McHale (1922-78),
Eduardo Paolozzi (narozen 1924) a William Turnbull (narozen 1922); avšak těmi, kdo
určovali její směřování, byli kritici: kritik architektury Reyner Banham (1922-88),
umělecký kritik Lawrence Alloway (1926-90) a kulturní kritik Toni del Renzio (narozen
1915). Její mimořádné úspěchy se odehrály na poli umělecké teorie a výstavnictví –
například ambiciózní cyklus přednášek nebo ojedinělá série výstav, na které se velkou
měrou podílelo několik novátorských designérů, zejména tvůrci brutalistní architektury
Alison Smithsonová (1928-93) a Peter Smithson (1923-2003). Za hlavní odkaz
Independent Group by se dalo považovat „umění“ diskuse, designu a vystavování.

Souvislost mezi výtvarným a masovým uměním


Historie Independent Group jako takové (1952-5) je svázána s Institutem
současného umění (ICA) v Londýně, jemuž sloužila jako neukázněná výzkumně-
vývojová prodloužená ruka. Tento poněkud napjatý vztah se odráží v postupně se
proměňujícím označení skupiny: nejprve Young Group (Mladá skupina), poté Young
Independent Group (Mladá nezávislá skupina) a nakonec Independent Group. ICA byl
založen roku 1946 uznávanými spisovateli Rolandem Penrosem (1900-84) a Herbertem
Readem (1893-1968), který byl jeho prvním prezidentem, po vzoru Muzea moderního
umění (MoMA) v New Yorku s cílem propagace modernismu. Na verzi modernismu,
kterou ICA představoval – krotkou kombinaci surrealismu (reprezentovanou Penrosem)
a konstruktivismu (reprezentovanou Readem) – se však nová generace výtvarníků,
architektů a kritiků dívala jako na akademický přežitek z předválečného období
(Banham ji nazval „abstraktně-levicově-freudovskou estetikou“). A když se roku 1951
úřadu ujala nová ředitelka Dorothy Morlandová, mladí rebelové se začali domáhat
svého vlastního fóra.

47
D. Source Text: Round Table
HF: First, let’s address a few of the important narratives of prewar art that
emerge in the postwar period, and clarify our historical differences from them. Second,
we might take up the problem of antimodernism, and why this was long a difficult topic
to discuss adequately. And third, we should grapple with the question of World War II
as a caesura, and how different stories of twentieth-century art negotiate this break,
either marking it as definitive, denying it in the interest of continuity, or bridging it in
the name of reconstruction. No doubt we will stray from this itinerary – but let’s begin
with the account of prewar modernism developed by Alfred H. Barr, Jr., the first
director of the Museum of Modern Art.
YAB: One thing that strikes us now is the difference between Barr’s
enthusiastic encounter with the Russian avant-garde on his trip to the Soviet Union in
1927-8 and the way Russian Constructivism was later melted down at MoMA to a
production of abstract paintings and sculptures. Even if Barr was specifically searching
for painters and sculptors on his visit (“I must find more painters,” he noted in his diary
after a visit to Rodchenko, who told him he had stopped painting in 1922), he was
impressed by all the work done by Constructivist artists in what we could call the realm
of propaganda or the “ideological front” (theater design, film sets, typography,
exhibition design, etc.). Even if he was critical of the antiart concept of “factography” in
the end, he spent a considerable amount of time with its theoretician, the writer Sergei
Tretyakov, trying to understand it. Barr admired the “brilliant” Konstantin Umansky,
who “at the age of 19” had written the book Neue Kunst in Russland (it long remained
the only synthetic study of Soviet art), and he was particularly struck by Umansky’s
comment that “a proletarian style was emerging from the wall newspaper with its
combined text, poster, and photomontage”: “an interesting and acute suggestion,” Barr
noted. In short, he was extremely curious about the transformations made in the
aesthetic realm by the Soviet avant-garde, trying to gauge their consequences for the
future. But then he seems to have “forgotten” all this almost as soon as he left Russia:
he couldn’t take it into consideration in the history of modern art he was constructing.

48
E. Target Text: Kulatý stůl
HF: Pojďme nejprve uvažovat o několika důležitých problémech předválečného
umění, které se vynořily v poválečném období, a objasněme na nich rozdíly v
historických postojích. Dále bychom se mohli zabývat otázkou antimodernismu – a proč
byl dlouho příliš složitým problémem, než aby mohl bát adekvátně uchopen. A zatřetí
bychom se měli vypořádat s otázkou druhé světové války jako cézury a se způsobem,
jak různé historie umění 20. století uchopily toto přerušení: buď je označily za
rozhodující, nebo je popřely v zájmu kontinuity, či je přemostily ve jménu obnovy.
Není pochyb, že se od tohoto itineráře odkloníme – ale začněme popisem předválečného
modernismu, jak jej podal Alfred H. Barr ml., první ředitel Muzea moderního umění
(MoMA).
YAB: Jedna věc, která nás teď zaráží, je rozdíl mezi Barrovým nadšeným
setkáním s ruskou avantgardou při jeho návštěvě v Sovětském svazu v letech 1927-1928
a způsobem, jak byl ruský konstruktivismus později v MoMA roztaven na produkci
abstraktních obrazů a soch. I když Barr na své cestě cíleně hledal malíře a sochaře
(„Musím najít víc malířů,“ Poznamenal si do svého deníku po návštěvě Rodčenka, který
mu řekl, že přestal malovat v roce 1922), byl zaujat veškerou prací konstruktivistických
umělců v oblasti, řekněme, propagandy nebo „ideologické fronty“ (divadelní návrhy,
filmová výprava, typografie, design výstav atd.). Přestože byl nakonec kritický vůči
antiuměleckému konceptu „faktografie,“ strávil hodně času s jeho teoretikem,
spisovatelem Sergejem Treťjakovem, ve snaze mu porozumět. Barr obdivoval
„brilantního“ Konstantina Umanského, který „v devatenácti letech“ napsal knihu Neue
Kunst in Russland (jež dlouho zůstala jedinou syntetickou studií sovětského umění), a
byl zvlášť zaujat Umanského komentářem, že „proletářský styl se svou kombinací textu,
plakátu a fotomontáže vynořil z nástěnných novin“: „zajímavý a přesný postřeh“,
poznamenal Barr. Krátce řečeno, velice jej zajímala transformace estetiky podnícená
sovětskou avantgardou a snažil se odhadnout její následky pro budoucnost. Ale pak jako
by to všechno ve chvíli, kdy opustil Rusko, „zapomněl“: nedokázal to vzít v úvahu v
historii moderního umění, kterou vytvářel.

49
F. Questionnaire
Instructions
The following passages are from a book about art in the 20th century. The first one is
the beginning of a chapter about postwar art in Britain, an account of important artists,
artistic movements, institutions and key events. In the second one, art historians discuss
and explain some important issues in greater detail.
Translate the given passages and answer the following questions (follow the
instructions).

1) Read and translate these passages


A) The exhibition “This is Tomorrow” in London marks the culmination of research
into postwar relations between art, science, technology, product design, and popular
culture undertaken by the Independent Group, forerunners of British Pop art.
[...]
Its signal achievements – its ambitious series of lectures and extraordinary run of
exhibitions, the latter abetted by innovative designers in the group like the Brutalist
architects Alison Smithson (1928-93) and Peter Smithson (1923-2003) – were
discursive and curatorial.
[...]
The ICA was set up in 1946 in emulation of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in
New York by established writers like Roland Penrose (1900-84) and Herbert Read
(1893-1968), its first president, in order to champion modernism.
B) HF: First, let’s address a few of the important narratives of prewar art that emerge in
the postwar period, and clarify our historical differences from them. Second, we might
take up the problem of antimodernism, and why this was long a difficult topic to discuss
adequately. And third, we should grapple with the question of World War II as a
caesura, and how different stories of twentieth-century art negotiate this break, either
marking it as definitive, denying it in the interest of continuity, or bridging it in the
name of reconstruction. [...]
YAB: One thing that strikes us now is the difference between Barr’s enthusiastic
encounter with the Russian avant-garde on his trip to the Soviet Union in 1927-8 and
the way Russian Constructivism was later melted down at MoMA to a production of
abstract paintings and sculptures. Even if Barr was specifically searching for painters

50
and sculptors on his visit [...], he was impressed by all the work done by Constructivist
artists in what we could call the realm of propaganda or the “ideological front.”

2) Try to find at least one example of each procedure/strategy in the translation


Newmark
literal translation; transference (loan word, transcription); naturalisation; cultural
equivalent; functional equivalent; descriptive equivalent; synonymy; through-translation
(calque, loan translation); componential analysis; shifts/transpositions; modulation;
reduction; expansion; recognised/accepted translation; paraphrase; notes, additions,
glosses
Chesterman
literal translation; loan, calque; transposition; unit shift; level shift;
phrase/clause/structure change; cohesion change; scheme change; synonymy;
antonymy; hyponymy; converses; abstraction change; distribution change; emphasis
change; trope change; other semantic changes; paraphrase; cultural filtering;
explicitness change; information change; interpersonal change; illocutionary change;
coherence change; visibility change; partial translation; transediting

3) Try to identify the translation procedures/strategies that you used to translate


the underlined words/phrases/sentences

4) In the following list of characteristics, tick ✓ the statements that in your opinion
apply to the concept of procedures/strategies you worked with
 it is too complex
 it helped me solve at least some translation problems
 it is difficult to work with
 it overlooks some issues or possible translation problems
→ Which ones?
 it is very useful for students of translation
 it is easy to understand
 it did not help me very much
→ Why?
 it is oversimplified
 it is good for beginners (i.e. translation trainees without much experience)

51
 it is good for advanced students of translation
 I am going to use the procedures/strategies

52
1. Students’ Statements about Newmark’s and Chesterman’s
Concept
Table 1
Students’ Statements about Newmark’s Concept of Translation Procedures
Statement Agree
It is too complex 1
It helped me solve at least some translation problems 1
It is difficult to work with 4
It overlooks some issues or possible translation problems 0
It is very useful for students of translation 0
It is easy to understand 3
It did not help me very much 4
It is oversimplified 2
It is good for beginners 3
It is good for advanced students of translation 0
I am going to use the procedures 0

Table 2
Students’ Statements about Chesterman’s Concept of Translation Strategies
Statement Agree
It is too complex 4
It helped me solve at least some translation problems 5
It is difficult to work with 4
It overlooks some issues or possible translation problems 0
It is very useful for students of translation 5
It is easy to understand 2
It did not help me very much 3
It is oversimplified 0
It is good for beginners 1
It is good for advanced students of translation 6
I am going to use the strategies 3

53
2. Students’ Examples of Translation Procedures/Strategies
Newmark’s Translation Procedures
literal translation
forerunners of British Pop art – předchůdci britského pop-artu, ideological front –
ideologická fronta, exhibition – výstava, science – věda
transference
Independent Group, MoMA, This is Tomorrow
naturalisation
modernism – modernismus, Pop art – pop-art, design, caesura – cézura, designers –
designéři, Rodchenko – Rodčenko
cultural equivalent
Alfred H. Barr, Jr. – Alfred H. Barr mladší
descriptive equivalent
as a caesura – představující slyšitelnou odmlku v umělecké tvorbě, ICA – institut ICA
synonymy
melted down – zjednodušen, in emulation of – po vzoru
through-translation
This is Tomorow – Toto je zítřek, Independent Group – Nezávislá skupina
modulation
undertaken by – kterým se zabývala
reduction
extraordinary run of exhibitions – neobyčejné výstavy
recognised translation
Museum of Modern Art – Muzeum moderního umění
paraphrase
historical differences – změny, které se udály v rámci historického kontextu
notes, additions, glosses
Independent Group (Nezávislá skupina), Institut ICA (Institut současného umění)

54
Chesterman’s Translation Strategies
literal translation
the question of World War II as a caesura – otázka druhé světové války jako cézury,
forerunners of British Pop art – předchůdci britského pop-artu
loan, calque
popular culture – Independent Group, populární kultura, ideological front – ideologická
fronta, This is Tomorrow, MoMA, Independent Group, London – Londýn
transposition
he was impressed by – na něj udělali velký dojem, in London – londýnská, in New York
– newyorské, after a visit – poté, co navštívil, differences – lišit se
unit shift
The ICA was set up in 1946 in emulation of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in
New York by established writers like Roland Penrose (1900-1984) and Herbert Read
(1893-1968), its first president, in order to champion modernism. – ICA vznikl v roce
1946 jako obdoba newyorského Muzea moderního umění (MoMA) za účelem
prosazování modernismu. Mezi zakládající členy byli významní spisovatelé jako
například Roland Penrose (1900-1984) a Herbert Read (1893-1968), který se zároveň
stal jeho prvním prezidentem.
phrase/clause/sentence structure change
why this was long a difficult topic to discuss adequately – proč bylo po dlouhou dobu
složité vést o tomto tématu plnohodnotnou debatu, product design – design výrobků
cohesion change
first, second, third – nejprve, pak, nakonec
synonymy
reconstruction – obnova, in emulation of – jako obdoba, caesura – přelom, melted down
- zjednodušen
hyponymy
product design – design
converses
difficult topic to discuss adequately – o kterém se nedalo přiměřeně diskutovat
distribution change
strikes us – považujeme za důležitou
paraphrase
marks the culmination of research – je vyvrcholením snahy prozkoumat

55
cultural filtering
Herbert Read, its first president – první ředitel Herbert Read
explicitness change
discursive – uměnovědná diskuze, in 1946 – v roce 1946, in emulation of the Museum
of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York – jeho záměrem bylo vyrovnat se Muzeu
moderního umění (MoMA) v New Yorku
information change
Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) – Muzeum moderního umění (Museum of Modern
Art, dále jen MoMA), postwar – po druhé světové válce, he noted in his diary after a
visit to Rodchenko, who told him he had stopped painting in 1922 – poznamenal si
dosvého zápisníku po návštěvě Rodčenka, který s malováním přestal v roce 1922, the
Independent Group – nezávislá skupina uměnlců a intelektuálů zvaná Independent
Group

56