Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach

,


TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES AS TOOL FOR ANALYSIS: THE EXISTING CONFUSIONS
The categories used to analyze translations allow us to study the way translation works. These categories are related to text, context and process. Textual categories describe mechanisms of coherence, cohesion and thematic progression. Contextual categories introduce all the extra-textual elements related to the context of source text and translation production. Process categories are designed to answer two basic questions. Which option has the translator chosen to carry out the translation project, i.e., which method has been chosen? How has the translator solved the problems that have emerged during the translation process, i.e., which strategies have been chosen? However, research (or teaching) requirements may make it important to consider textual micro-units as well, that is to say, how the result of the translation functions in relation to the corresponding unit in the source text. To do this we need translation techniques. We were made aware of this need in a study of the treatment of cultural elements in Arabic translations of A Hundred Years of Solitude 1 . Textual and contextual categories were not sufficient to identify, classify and name the options chosen by the translators for each unit studied. We needed the category of translation techniques that allowed us to describe the actual steps taken by the translators in each textual micro-unit and obtain clear data about the general methodological option chosen. However, there is some disagreement amongst translation scholars about translation techniques. This disagreement is not only terminological but also conceptual. There is even a lack of consensus as to what name to give to call the categories, different labels are used (procedures, techniques, strategies) and sometimes they are confused with other concepts. Furthermore, different classifications have been proposed and the terms often overlap. This article presents the definition and classification of translation techniques that we used in our study of the treatment of cultural elements in Arabic translations of A Hundred Years of Solitude. We also present a critical review of earlier definitions and classifications of translation techniques.

Translation Technical Procedures in the Compared Stylistics.
Vinay and Darbelnet's pioneer work Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais (SCFA) (1958) was the first classification of translation techniques that had a clear methodological purpose. The term they used was 'procédés techniques de la traduction.' They defined seven basic procedures operating on three levels of style: lexis, distribution (morphology and syntax) and message. The procedures were classified as direct (or literal) or oblique, to coincide with their distinction between direct (or literal) and oblique translation. Literal translation occurs when there is an exact structural, lexical, even morphological equivalence between two languages. According to the authors, this is only possible when the two languages are very close to each other. The literal translation procedures are: • Borrowing. A word taken directly from another language, e.g., the English word bulldozer has been incorporated directly into other languages. • Calque. A foreign word or phrase translated and incorporated into another language, e.g., fin de semaine from the English weekend. These seven basic procedures are complemented by other procedures. Except for the procedures of compensation and inversion, they are all classified as opposing pairs. • Compensation. An item of information, or a stylistic effect from the ST that cannot be reproduced in the same place in the TT is introduced elsewhere in the TT, e.g., the Explicitation vs. Implicitation. Explicitation is to introduce information from the ST that is implicit from the context or the situation, e.g., to make explicit the patient's sex when translating his patient into French. Implicitation is to allow the situation to indicate information that is explicit in the ST, e.g., the meaning of sortez as go out or come out depends on the situation. • Generalization vs. Particularization. Generalization is to translate a term for a more general one, whereas, particularization is the opposite, e.g., the English translation of guichet, fenêtre or devanture by window is a generalization. • Inversion. This is to move a word or a phrase to another place in a sentence or a paragraph so that it reads naturally in the target language, e.g., Pack separately … for convenient inspection and Pour faciliter la visite de la douane mettre à part ….

The Bible translators
From their study of biblical translation, Nida, Taber and Margot concentrate on questions related to cultural transfer. They propose several categories to be used when no equivalence exists in the target language: adjustment techniques, essential distinction, explicative paraphrasing, redundancy and naturalization. Nida (1964) proposes three types: additions, subtractions and alterations. They are used: 1) to adjust the form of the message to the characteristics of the structure of the target language; 2) to produce semantically equivalent structures; 3) to generate appropriate stylistic equivalences; 4) to produce an equivalent communicative effect.

Techniques of adjustment
• Additions. Several of the SCFA procedures are included in this category. Nida lists different circumstances that might oblige a translator to make an addition: to clarify an elliptic expression, to avoid ambiguity in the target language, to change a grammatical category (this corresponds to SCFA's transposition), to amplify implicit elements (this corresponds to SCFA's explicitation), to add connectors (this corresponds to SCFA's articulation required by characteristics of the TL, etc. Subtractions. Nida lists four situations where the translator should use this procedure, in addition to when it is required by the TL: unnecessary repetition, specified references, conjunctions and adverbs. For example, the name of God appears thirty-two times in the thirty-one verses of Genesis. Nida suggests using pronouns or omitting God.

•
Alterations. These changes have to be made because of incompatibilities between the two languages. There are three main types. 1) Changes due to problems caused by transliteration when a new word is introduced from the source language, e.g., the transliteration of Messiah in the Loma language, means death's hand, so it was altered to Mezaya. 2) Changes due to structural differences between the two languages, e.g., changes in word order, grammatical categories, etc. (similar to SCFA's transposition). 3) Changes due to semantic misfits, especially with idiomatic expressions. One of the suggestions to solve this kind of problem is the use of a descriptive equivalent i.e., a satisfactory equivalent for objects, events or attributes that do not have a standard term in the TL. It is used for objects that are unknown in the target culture (e.g., in Maya the house where the law was read for Synagogue) and for actions that do not have a lexical equivalent (e.g., in Maya desire what another man has for covetousness, etc.) Nida includes footnotes as another adjustment technique and points out that they have two main functions: 1) To correct linguistic and cultural differences, e.g., to explain contradictory customs, to identify unknown geographical or physical items, to give equivalents for weights and measures, to explain word play, to add information about proper names, etc.; 2) To add additional information about the historical and cultural context of the text in question. Margot (1979) presents three criteria used to justify cultural adaptation. He refers to them as the essential differences. 1) Items that are unknown by the target culture. He suggests adding a classifier next to the word (as Nida does), e.g., the city of Jerusalem or, by using a cultural equivalent (similar to the SCFA procedure of adaptation), e.g., in Jesus' parable (Matthew 7:16) to change grapes / thorn bushes and figs / thistles for other plants that are more common in the target culture. However, he warns the reader that this procedure is not always possible. Taber y Nida (1974) list five factors that have to be taken into account when it is used: a) the symbolic and theological importance of the item in question, b) its fequency of use in the Bible, c) its semantic relationship with other words, d) similarities of function and form between the two items, e) the reader's emotional response.

The essential differences
2) The historical framework. Here Margot proposes a linguistic rather than a cultural translation, on the grounds that historical events cannot be modified. 3) Adaptation to the specific situation of the target audience. Margot maintains that the translator's task is to translate and that it is up to preachers, commentarists and Bible study groups to adapt the biblical text to the specific situation of the target audience. He includes footnotes as an aid to cultural adaptation.

The explicative paraphrase
Nida, Taber and Margot coincide in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate paraphrasing. The legitimate paraphrase is a lexical change that makes the TT longer than the ST but does not change the meaning (similar to the SCFA amplification / dissolution. The illegitimate paraphrase makes ST items explicit in the TT. Nida, Taber and Margot agree this is not the translator's job as it may introduce subjectivity.

The concept of redundancy
According to Margot (1979), redundancy tries to achieve symmetry between ST readers and TT readers. This is done either by adding information (grammatical, syntactic and stylistic elements, etc.) when differences between the two languages and cultures make a similar reception impossible for the TT readers, or by suppressing information when ST elements are redundant for the TT readers, e.g., the Hebrew expression, answering, said that is redundant in some other languages. This procedure is very close to SCFA's implicitation / explicitation.

The concept of naturalization
This concept was introduced by Nida (1964) after using the term natural to define dynamic equivalence (the closest natural equivalent to the source language message). Nida claims that naturalization can be achieved by taking into account: 1) the source language and culture understood as a whole; 2) the cultural context of the message; 3) the target audience. This procedure is very close to SCFA's adaptation.

Vázquez Ayora's technical procedures
Vázquez Ayora (1977) uses the term operative technical procedures, although he sometimes refers to them as the translation method. He combines the SCFA prescriptive approach with the Bible translators, descriptive approach and introduces some new procedures: • Omission. This is to omit redundancy and repetition that is characteristic of the SL, e.g., to translate The committee has failed to act by La comisión no actuó, omitting the verb to fail and avoiding over-translation: La comisión dejó de actuar. • Desplacement and Inversion. Displacement corresponds to SCFA's inversion, where two elements change position, e.g., The phone rang and Sonó el teléfono.

Omission
The committee has failed to act (E) ⇒ La comisión no actuó (Sp)

Inversion
The phone rang (E) fi Sonó el teléfono (Sp) Delisle (1993) introduces some variations to the SCFA procedures and maintains the term procedure for Vinay and Darbelnet's proposals. However, for some other categories of his own, he introduces a different terminology, e.g., translation strategies, translation errors, operations in the cognitive process of translating… He lists several of these categories as contrasting pairs. In his review of Vinay and Darbelnet, he proposes simplifying the SCFA dichotomies of reinforcement/condensation and amplification/economy and he reduces them to a single pair, reinforcement/economy. Reinforcement is to use more words in the TT than the ST to express the same idea. He distinguishes three types of reinforcement: 1) dissolution; 2) explicitation (these two correspond to their SCFA homonyms); and 3) periphrasis (this corresponds to SCFA's amplification). Economy is to use fewer words in the TT than the ST to express the same idea. He distinguishes three types of economy: 1) concentration; 2) implicitation (these two correspond to their SCFA homonyms and are in contrast to dissolution and explicitation); and concision (this corresponds to SCFA's economy and is in contrast to periphrasis).

Delisle's contribution
The other categories Delisle introduces are: • Addition vs. Omission. He defines them as unjustified periphrasis and concision and considers them to be translation errors. Addition is to introduce unjustified stylistic elements and information that are not in the ST, omission is the unjustifiable suppression of elements in the ST. • Paraphrase. This is defined as excessive use of paraphrase that complicates the TT without stylistic or rhetorical justification. It is also classified as a translation error. Delisle's paraphrase and addition coincide with Margot's illegitimate paraphrase. • Discursive creation. This is an operation in the cognitive process of translating by which a non-lexical equivalence is established that only works in context, e.g., In the world of literature, ideas become cross-fertilized, the experience of others can be usefully employed to mutual benefit is translated into French as, Dans le domaine des lettres, le choc des idées se révèle fécond; il devient possible de profiter de l'expérience d'autrui. This concept is close to Nida's alterations caused by semantic incompatibilities and transliteration.  Newmark (1988) also uses the term procedures to classify the proposals made by the comparative linguists and by the Bible translators, as well as some of his own. These are:

Newmark's procedures
• Recognized translation. This is the the translation of a term that is already official or widely accepted, even though it may not be the most adequate, e.g., Gay-Lussac's Volumengesetz der Gase and Law of combining volumes. Newmark includes the option of solving a problem by combining two or more procedures (he called these solutions doubles, triples or quadruples). Newmark also adds synonymy as another category.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES
As we have seen, there is no general agreement about this instrument of analysis and there is confusion about terminology, concepts and classification. The most serious confusions are the following.

Terminological confusion and over-lapping terms
Terminological diversity and the overlapping of terms make it difficult to use these terms and to be understood. The same concept is expressed with different names and the classifications vary, covering different areas of problems. In one classification one term may over-lap another in a different system of classification. The category itself is given different names, for example, Delisle uses procedure, translation strategy, etc.

The confusion between translation process and translation result
This confusion was established by Vinay y Darbelnet's pioneer proposal, when they presented the procedures as a description of the ways open to the translator in the translation process. Nevertheless, the procedures, as they are presented in the SCFA do not refer to the process followed by the translator, but to the final result. The confusion has persisted and translation techniques have been confused with other translation categories: method and strategies. In some of the proposals there is a conceptual confusion between techniques and translation method. Vinay y Darbelnet introduced the confusion by dividing the procedures following the traditional methodological dichotomy between literal and free translation. As they worked with isolated units they did not distinguish between categories that affect the whole text and categories that refer to small units. Furthermore, the subtitle of their book, Méthode de traduction, caused even more confusion. In our opinion (see 4.1.), a distinction should bemade between translation method, that is part of the process, a global choice that affects the whole translation, and translation techniques that describe the result and affect smaller sections of the translation.
The SCFA use of the term procedures created confusion wirh another category related to the process: translation strategies. Procedures are related to the distinction between declarative knowledge (what you know) and procedural or operative knowledge (know-how) (Anderson 1983). Procedures are an important part of procedural knowledge, they are related to knowing how to do something, the ability to organise actions to reach a specific goal (Pozo, Gonzalo and Postigo 1993). Procedures include the use of simple techniques and skills, as well as expert use of strategies (Pozo y Postigo 1993). Strategies are an essential element in problem solving. Therefore, in relation to solving translation problems, we think a distinction should be made between techniques and strategies. Techniques describe the result obtained and can be used to classify different types of translation solutions. Strategies are related to the mechanisms used by translators throughout the the whole translation process to find a solution to the problems they find. The technical procedures (the name itself is ambiguous) affect the results and not the process, so they should be distinguished from strategies. We propose they should be called translation techniques.

The confusion between issues related to language pairs and text pairs
Vinay y Darbelnet's original proposal also led to a confusion between language problems and text problems. Their work was based on comparative linguistics and all the examples used to illustrate their procedures were decontextualized. In addition, because they gave a single translation for each linguistic item, the result was pairs of fixed equivalences. This led to a confusion between comparative linguistic phenomena (and the categories needed to analyse their similarities and differences) and phenomena related to translating texts (that need other categories).
The use of translation techniques following the SCFA approach is limited to the classification of differences between language systems, not the textual solutions needed for translation. For example, SCFA's borrowing, transposition and inversion, or, Vázquez Ayora's omission, should not be considered as translation techniques. They are not a textual option open to the translator, but an obligation imposed by the characteristics of the language pair.

A DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES
Our proposal is based on two premises: 1) the need to distinguish between method, strategy and technique; 2) the need for an dynamic and functional concept of translation techniques.

The need to distinguish between method, strategy and technique
We think that translation method, strategies and techniques are essentially different categories. (Hurtado 1996).

Translation method and translation techniques
Translation method refers to the way a particular translation process is carried out in terms of the translator's objective, i.e., a global option that affects the whole text. There are several translation methods that may be chosen, depending on the aim of the translation: interpretative-communicative (translation of the sense), literal (linguistic transcodification), free (modification of semiotic and communicative categories) and philological (academic or critical translation) (see Hurtado Albir 1999: 32).
Each solution the translator chooses when translating a text responds to the global option that affects the whole text (the translation method) and depends on the aim of the translation. The translation method affects the way micro-units of the text are translated: the translation techniques. Thus, we should distinguish between the method chosen by the translator, e.g., literal or adaptation, that affects the whole text, and the translation techniques, e.g., literal translation or adaptation, that affect microunits of the text.
Logically, method and functions should function harmoniously in the text. For example, if the aim of a translation method is to produce a foreignising version, then borrowing will be one of the most frequently used translation techniques. (Cf. This has been shown in Molina (1998), where she analyses the three translations into Arabic of García Marquez's A Hundred Years of Solitude. Each translation had adopted a different translation method, and the techniques were studied in relation to the method chosen).

Translation strategy and translation techniques
Whatever method is chosen, the translator may encounter problems in the translation process, either because of a particularly difficult unit, or because there may be a gap in the translator's knowledge or skills. This is when translation strategies are activated. Strategies are the procedures (conscious or unconscious, verbal or nonverbal) used by the translator to solve problems that emerge when carrying out the translation process with a particular objective in mind (Hurtado Albir 1996, 1999. Translators use strategies for comprehension (e.g., distinguish main and secondary ideas, establish conceptual relationships, search for information) and for reformulation (e.g., paraphrase, retranslate, say out loud, avoid words that are close to the original). Because strategies play an essential role in problem solving, they are a central part of the subcompetencies that make up translation competence.
Strategies open the way to finding a suitable solution for a translation unit. The solution will be materialized by using a particular technique. Therefore, strategies and techniques occupy different places in problem solving: strategies are part of the process, techniques affect the result. However, some mechanisms may function both as strategies and as techniques. For example, paraphrasing can be used to solve problems in the process (this can be a reformulation strategy) and it can be an amplification technique used in a translated text (a cultural item paraphrased to make it intelligible to TT readers). This does not mean that paraphrasing as a strategy will necessarily lead to using an amplification technique. The result may be a discursive creation, an equivalent established expression, an adaptation, etc.

A dynamic and functional approach to translation techniques
In our opinion, most studies of translation techniques do not seem to fit in with the dynamic nature of translation equivalence. If we are to preserve the dynamic dimension of translation, a clear distinction should be made between the definition of a technique and its evaluation in context. A technique is the result of a choice made by a translator, its validity will depend on various questions related to the context, the purpose of the translation, audience expectations, etc.
If a technique is evaluated out of context as justified, unjustified or erroneous, this denies the functional and dynamic nature of translation. A technique can only be judged meaningfully when it is evaluated within a particular context. Therefore, we do not consider it makes sense to evaluate a technique by using different terminology, two opposing pairs (one correct and the other incorrect), e.g., Delisle's explicitation/implicitation and addition/omission. Translation techniques are not good or bad in themselves, they are used functionally and dynamically in terms of: 1) The genre of the text (letter of complaint, contract, tourist brochure, etc.) 2) The type of translation (technical, literary, etc.) 3) The mode of translation (written translation, sight translation, consecutive interpreting, etc.) 4) The purpose of the translation and the characteristics of the translation audience 5) The method chosen (interpretative-communicative, etc.)

Definition of translation techniques
In the light of the above, we define translation techniques as procedures to analyse and classify how translation equivalence works. They have five basic characteristics: 1) They affect the result of the translation 2) They are classified by comparison with the original 3) They affect micro-units of text 4) They are by nature discursive and contextual 5) They are functional Obviously, translation techniques are not the only categories available to analyse a translated text. Coherence, cohesion, thematic progression and contextual dimensions also intervene in the analysis.

A PROPOSAL TO CLASSIFY TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES
Our classification of translation techniques is based on the following criteria: 1) To isolate the concept of technique from other related notions (translation strategy, method and error). 2) To include only procedures that are characteristic of the translation of texts and not those related to the comparison of languages. 3) To maintain the notion that translation techniques are functional. Our definitions do not evaluate whether a technique is appropriate or correct, as this always depends on its situation in text and context and the translation method that has been chosen. 4) In relation to the terminology, to maintain the most commonly used terms. 5) To formulate new techniques to explain mechanisms that have not yet been described.
The following techniques are included in this proposal 2 : • Adaptation. To replace a ST cultural element with one from the target culture, e.g., to change baseball, for fútbol in a translation into Spanish. This corresponds to SCFA's adaptation and Margot's cultural equivalent.