Multidimensional Translation : Semantics turned Semiotics

This paper seeks to expand the notion of translation in order to accommodate not only polysemiotic text types, e.g. film and TV, but also nonverbal types of communication. Without denying the importance of the spoken or written word, our aim is to promote a wider, ’multidimensional’ understanding of translation. As a means to that end, conceptual tools are provided for dealing systematically with any type of translation encountered today, by establishing a semiotically-based taxonomy of translation. In addition to the strictly semiotic distinctions between various types of translation, a main distinction is found between inspirational translation (e.g. audio description) and conventionalized translation (subtitling and dubbing, for instance), yielding a total of 30 types of translation. 1 Translation: more than just words Reflecting the ever-increasing communicational output – from cellphone text messages to live multi-media presentations – is the growing need for translation. Mass-media products as well as acts of communication with more limited audiences are being translated in unprecedented numbers, and recent decades have also witnessed a growing scholarly interest in the field of translation. New media require new methods of translation, and audiovisual media, in particular, represent challenges to the translator not known before the invention of sound film back in 1927. But still, what we translate – whether we work as literary translators, interpret at conferences, localize computer software, or subtitle films for DVD – is, basically, words. A primary aim of this paper is to expand the notion of translation in order to accommodate not only the nonverbal channels present in much modern communication, but also the types of communication not involving language in a traditional sense. Although much has been written on translation in recent decades, very few titles (e.g. Poyatos (ed.) 1997; Gambier and Gottlieb (eds) 2001) have been concerned with nonverbal factors in (verbal) translation, let alone nonverbal translation as such. However, it is not my intention to diminish the importance of the spoken or written word, neither in original texts nor in translations. All I wish to accomplish is to contribute to a wider MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Henrik Gottlieb 2 understanding – through a multidimensional approach – of the field of translation, so that the various features of (interlingual) translation so often discussed in Translation Studies will stand out more clearly against a background of translation in its totality. As a means to that end, and taking as our point of departure the complex (polysemiotic) textual nature of film and television, this paper intends to provide conceptual tools for dealing systematically with any type of translation encountered in today’s media landscape by establishing a semiotically based taxonomy of translation. 2 Textures of translation Any kind of translation is a multi-faceted entity, and even the word ’translation’ covers at least two dimensions: (1) time, including the semantics and temporal progression of the translational process and (2) space, including the semiotics and texture, or composition, of the translational product. The process of translation involves a chain of disparate and consecutive entities, ranging from the conceiver(s) of the original text, via the text itself to the receivers of the translated version of it. Even the translational product is a complex notion. As a simultaneously presented synthesis of signs constituting either a monoor polysemiotic text, the translated text encompasses much more than the rephrasing of original verbal utterances. Even in the case of ’words-only’ – i.e. monosemiotic – texts, other factors than verbal semantics form part of translational products. Below we shall have a close look at those parameters that constitute texts (in a wide sense of that word) as well as those that shape the profile of finished translations. Of special interest here is the semiotic composition of source vs. target texts, and the effect of non-verbal factors on the verbal rephrasing of polysemiotic texts – of which films and TV productions are among the most well-researched, yet not the only types deserving scholarly attention. Traditional translation studies have almost exclusively dealt with texts that are seen as ‘verbal only’, whether written – e.g. literary or technical texts – or spoken, i.e. oral discourse to be interpreted Although such texts communicate through one semiotic channel only, and thus deserve the label ‘monosemiotic’, they are not abstract verbalizations of a message just waiting for someone to read them, hear them, or translate them. As Patrick Zabalbeascoa, having studied the workings of dubbing, aptly puts it, “no text can be made entirely of verbal signs because such signs always need some sort of physical support.” (Zabalbeascoa 1997:338). Naturally, this ‘physical support’ gains semantic momentum in genuinely polysemiotic texts. The most prominent polysemiotic text type is the audiovisual text, defined by Frederic Chaume as “a semiotic construct comprising several signifying codes that operate simultaneously in the production of meaning.” (Chaume 2004:16). 2.1 Translation in the web of semiotics: Distinctions and definitions As semiotics implies semantics – signs, by definition, make sense – any channel of expression in any act of communication carries meaning. For this reason, even exclusively non-verbal communication deserves the label ‘text’, thus accommodating phenomena as music and graphics, as well as sign language (for the deaf) and messages in Braille (for the blind). In a Translation Studies context, the two latter categories representing strictly conventionalized communication may very well be considered along with verbal-only (monosemiotic) and 1 cf. also Jorge Diaz Cintas’, Heidrun Geryzmisch-Arbogast’s and Minako O’Hagan 2007 MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Henrik Gottlieb 3 multi-channel (polysemiotic) texts. As opposed to what is true of music and graphics, relatively simple algorithms exist that would transform messages in Braille or in one of the world’s many sign languages into a vocal language – either written or spoken. As a case in point, the intersemiotic process of translating from the tactile to the visual mode (or vice versa, cf. Mathias Wagner 2007) – e.g. when a text in Braille is translated into a ‘the same’ text using alphanumeric characters – is certainly simpler and more rule-governed than the process of translating a printed text from one verbal language into another. Both, however, remain conventionalized, as opposed to, say, commentating a baseball match for radio listeners. 2.1.1 Defining the notions of language, text and translation As not all languages are verbal, an all-encompassing definition of ‘language’ may read as follows: “animate communicative system working through the combination of sensory signs.” (Gottlieb 2003b:167). This implies that, in reverse, ‘text’ may be defined as “any combination of sensory signs carrying communicative intention”. Based on this communicative definition of ‘text’, an equally broad definition of ‘translation’ may be ventured, namely: “any process, or product hereof, in which a combination of sensory signs carrying communicative intention is replaced by another combination reflecting, or inspired by, the original entity.” The colossal range of translational phenomena encompassed by this multidimensional definition may be categorized according to the following four parameters: I) semiotic identity or non-identity between source and target texts, distinguishing intrasemiotic types of translation from inter semiotic types, II) possible changes in semiotic composition of the translation which may be (a) isosemiotic (using the same channel(s) of expression as the source text), (b) diasemiotic (using different channels), (c) supersemiotic (using more channels), or (d) hyposemiotic (using fewer channels than the original text), III) degrees of freedom for the translating agent, distinguishing inspirational from conventionalized types of translation, and IV) presence or absence of verbal material in source and/or target texts, creating a distinction between translations that (a) remain verbal, (b) introduce nonverbal elements, (c) introduce verbal elements, or (d) remain non-verbal Before discussing the vast array of translational types, the four central juxtapositions listed above will have to be defined: I) Intersemiotic vs. Intrasemiotic translation Ia) In intersemiotic translation, the one or more channels of communication used in the translated text differ(s) from the channel(s) used in the original text. In other words, the source and target text are semiotically non-equivalent. Ib) In intrasemiotic translation, the sign systems used in source and target text are identical; a case of semiotic equivalence. Whereas ‘intersemiotic translation’ is a notion directly borrowed from Roman Jakobson (1959), the term ‘intrasemiotic translation’ is used here as an umbrella term for Jakobson’s ‘interlingual’ and ‘intralingual’ types of translation. 2 For a definition of multidimensional translation cf. also Heidrun Geryzmisch-Arbogast 2007. MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Henrik Gottlieb 4 • interlingual refers to translation between two languages, while • intralingual covers the following subcategories: diachronic translation (between different historical stages of the same language) dialectal translation (between different geographical, social or generational variants of the same language), diamesic translation (implying a change in language mode; i.e. from speech to writing or vice versa), transliteration (which involves a change in alphabet). II) Isosemiotic vs. diasemiotic, supersemiotic and hyposemiotic translation IIa) The prototypical translation, sometimes termed ‘translation proper’, is not only intralingual (and thus, by definition, intrasemiotic), but also isosemiotic, i.e. communicating through exactly the same semiotic channels as the original. Naturally, this embraces all sorts of printed translations – from translated novels to localized software manuals reusing the original illustrations while adapting the verbal text to foreign-language markets. Isosemiotic translation encompasses both monosemiotic text types (oral discourse being interpreted for foreign-language speakers) and polysemiotic texts (the most conspicuous example being dubbing, in which the original semiotic composition is maintained in translation). IIb) Diasemiotic translation is characterized by its use of different channels, while the number of channels (one or more) is the same as in the original text. A monosemiotic example of diasemiotic translation is written music (with notes representing musical sounds), while subtitling exemplifies diasemiotic translation of a polysemiotic text (with letters representing speech sounds). IIc) In supersemiotic translation, the translated texts displays more semiotic channels than the original – as when a novel is semiotically unfolded into a film. IId) Lastly, the term hyposemiotic translation implies that the semiotic ‘bandwidth’ of the translation is narrower than that of the original. When considering the translated production, we see this when, for instance, a mime artist performs a dramatical piece originally including spoken lines. However, when we focus on translation reception, audio-described stage plays for the blind, as well as TV shows captioned for the deaf fall into this category as well. III) Conventionalized vs. Inspirational translation IIIa) Conventionalized translation – with both intrasemiotic and intersemiotic types represented – uses some degree of formulaic conversion of the source text en route to the target text. Representing anything from strict conversion algorithms (as when translating between writing and Braille) to methods more resting on norms and conventions (as when dictionaries and other works of reference are used as tools in interlingual, written translation), conventionalized translation stays transparent by establishing a direct link between source and target texts, and criteria for evaluation are easily established – although not always totally agreed upon. IIId) Inspirational translation covers situations where the existence – and reception, to be exact – of one text triggers the production of another based on the first one. The resulting text – no matter its semiotic composition – will relate to the original in a way 3 cf. also Jan Kunold forthcoming MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Henrik Gottlieb 5 which is more free and less predictable than what is found in conventionalized translation. Following from this is the inability to reconstruct the original from the translated version, something which – to a certain extent – is possible with conventionalized translation. The terms ‘conventionalized’ and ‘inspirational’ have been employed partly in order to pinpoint the difference between the two conceptual counterparts, partly to make room for a wider interpretation of the notion of translation than what is seen whenever ‘real translation’ and adaptation are juxtaposed. In a French-speaking context, the term ‘tradaptation’ has been suggested as a lexical bridge across the gap between translation and adaptation (Gambier 2004:179-180). IV) Verbal vs. nonverbal translation IVa) Translations that retain their verbal channel include all intralingual and all interlingual translations, ranging from an American remake of a Japanese movie to the ’Maltese’ transliteration of Arabic words into Latin lettering. Here we deal with verbal translation. IVb) Translations that introduce nonverbal elements include genres as disparate as to poetry turned into songs and non-smoking pictograms in bars and restaurants. These are all examples of deverbalizing translation. IVc) Some translations introduce verbal elements, as when a signer is interpreted into vocal language, or a text in Morse code is decrypted These types are all examples of verbalizing translation. IIId) Finally, translations that remain nonverbal include both linguistic entities (such interpreting between two sign languages) and non-linguistic ones, e.g. the drawing of a sculpture. Here we talk about nonverbal translation. 2.2 Translation in a nutshell: Establishing a general taxonomy Following the four main distinctions (listed as points I-IV above), a taxonomy can now be established with the purpose of accommodating all existing and potential types of translation – categorized according to their semiotic qualities. Based on the broad definition of ‘text’ provided above, the taxonomy categorizes the various types of translation from the end user’s perspective, and in doing so, encompasses four kinds of cognitive decoding activity: 1) translations acting as text substitutes for an audience who, due to either (a) sensory or (b) linguistic impairment are expected not to be able to decode the original. In the former case, signed news on television resemble – monosemiotic as this genre is – radio news for hearing audiences. In the latter case, for instance when DVD audiences lack the command of the foreign language heard on screen and select a domestic-language soundtrack, the resulting viewing experience emulates that of watching a domestic production. 2) translations as text enhancers (e.g. when a PowerPoint presentation shows numerical relations turned into graphics), thus boosting the impact of the original figures, which on their own terms may not be cognitively fully comprehensible to the audience, 3) translation crossovers (audiobooks on CD, for instance) that are enjoyed by ‘impaired’ and ‘non-impaired’ audiences alike, and finally, 4) translations that are cognitively supplementary, as audiences have simultaneous access to, and understand, the original text. This phenomenon is mainly found in the audiovisual MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Henrik Gottlieb 6 media, as multilingual audiences read subtitles while listening to the original dialog. In this mode of reception, widespread in ‘hardcore’ subtitling countries, the viewer processes dialog and subtitles as ‘diamesic twins’, while oscillating between (I) using subtitles as an aid to understand the original dialog, and (II) using the original dialogue to evaluate, and criticize, the subtitles. Whereas reception modes 1 and 2 are intended by the translational agents (the translator, the publisher/broadcaster, etc.), mode 3 is a ‘free’ and unintended spin off from mode 1a; audiobooks, for example, are designed for visually impaired audiences, not for drivers. As far as mode 4 is concerned, this game of ‘spot-the-error’ has long become a national pastime in Scandinavia, the result being that in working from English, subtitlers – in constant fear of being accused of not giving the ‘precise’ translation of what is said – sometimes prefer unnatural-sounding constructions (Gottlieb 2001:216). Hopefully, when optional subtitles find their way from DVD to digital TV, reception mode 4 will fade out, leaving subtitlers with the degrees of freedom enjoyed by translators producing substitutional translations. All translations – and, indeed, all texts – have an audience in mind – be that well-defined or of a more general nature. For this reason, the typological classification presented in tables 1 and 2 is based on audience perception, i.e. how each type of translation is cognitively processed by the intended audience. This means that types belonging to category (1) above would be categorized differently if the point of departure was text composition, not audience perception. 3 Taxonomies of translation: Semiotics as perceived In the two tables below, one random example is given for each translation type (i.e. each cell). In the section following the tables, each type represented in the taxonomy will be discussed, and the examples will be explained. 3.1 The translational range explained through examples In the following sections, each of the 30 sub-categories (cells) of the taxonomy will be treated successively, the numbers are referring to the numbers used in the tables 1 and 2. Usually, only one example from each cell will be discussed, and while sometimes that example is one out of a limited number of types or genres in that particular cell, other cells may represent more types, or may have attracted more scholarly attention, or may seem more important to the reader. Still, I have tried to represent types from all thirty cells in a balanced way, since – judged from a semiotic point of view – all translational categories are equally interesting. It is my hope that with the aim and scope of the present paper, readers will share my point of view and readily join me in this exploration of the realm of translation. MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Henrik Gottlieb 7 INTERSEMIOTIC TYPES Inspirational translation Conventionalized translation TARGET TEXT SEMIOTICS Nonverbal Deverbalizing Verbalizing Nonverbal Deverbalizing Verbalizing Isosemiotic (same channels as original) [0. Not possible: contradiction in terms]