Résumés
Abstract
This work proposes a hypothesis that could stand as a basis for empirical investigation of translation process without losing sight of translation product. The proposed hypothesis can provide guidelines to investigate three possible concerns: First, the developmental nature of translators’ transitional constructions before settling on a “final” version. Second, the role of the non-native language in translating. Third, the type of language that is deployed in a translation.
Keywords/Mots-clés:
- interlingua,
- translanguage,
- translation process,
- translation product
Résumé
Cet article propose une hypothèse qui pourrait jeter les bases pour la recherche empirique du processus de traduction sans perdre de vue le produit de la traduction. L’hypothèse avancée fournit des principes pour trois enjeux possibles : d’abord, la nature développementale des constructions transitionnelles avant d’établir une version « finale », en deuxième lieu, le rôle de la langue étrangère dans la traduction, et enfin, le type de langue.
Parties annexes
References
- Al Khafaji, A. H. A. (1998): “Translanguage: A basis for empirical investigation of translation process and the salient features of its product,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to The College of Arts, Al Mustansiriya University, Baghdad.
- Benjamin, W. (1992): “The task of the translator,” in Shulte, R. and J. Beguenet (eds.), Theories of Translation, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, p. 71-82.
- Bühler, H. (1990): “Word processing and the translation process: the effect of the medium on the message,” Meta 35-1, p. 31-36.
- Catford, J. C. (1965): A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics, London, Oxford University Press.
- Corder, S. P. (1973): “The elicitation of interlanguage,” in Svartvik, J. (ed.), Errata: Papers in Error Analysis, Lund, Gleerup, p. 36-47.
- Corder, S.P. (1978): “Language-learner language,” in Richards, J. C. (ed.), Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches, Rowley, Mass., Newbury House, p.71-93.
- De Beaugrand, R. (1978): Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating, Van Gorcum, Assen.
- Duff, A. (1981): The Third Language, London, Pergamon.
- Firth, J. R. (1957): “Modes of meaning,” in Firth, J.R., Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 190-215.
- Fraser, J. (1996): “Mapping the process of translation,” Meta Vol. 41-1, p. 84-96.
- Gerloff, P. (1987): “Identifying the unit of analysis in translation, some uses of Think-aloud protocol data,” in Faerch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.), Introspection in Second Language Research, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, p.135-158.
- Gleason, J. B. and N. B. Ratner (1993) (eds.), Psycholinguistics, Florida, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1961): “Categories of the theory of grammar,” Word 17-3, p. 241-292.
- Harris, B. (1988): “Bi-text, a new concept in translation theory,” Language Monthly 54, p. 8-10.
- Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1990): Discourse and the Translator, London and New York, Longman.
- Jääskeläinen, R. (1996): “Hard work will bear beautiful fruit. A comparison of two think-aloud protocol studies,” Meta 41-1, p. 60-74.
- Jakobson, R. (1959): “On linguistic aspect of translation,” in Brower, R. (ed.), On Translation, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, p. 232-239.
- James, C. (1971): “The exculpation of contrastive linguistics,” in Nickel, G. (ed.), Papers in Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 53-68.
- James, C (1980): Contrastive Analysis, London, Longman.
- Krings, H.P. (1987): “The use of introspective data in translation,” in Faerch, C. and G. Kasper (eds), Introspection in Second LanguageResearch, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, p. 159-176.
- Lörscher, W. (1992): “Process-oriented research into translation and Implications for translation teaching,” Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 5-1, p. 145-161.
- Mel’čuk, I.A.(1963): “Machine translation and linguistics,” in Akhmanova, O.S, Mel’čuk, I.A., Frumkina, R.M. and E.V. Paducheva, Exact Methods in Linguistic Research, Berkeley, University of California, p. 44-79.
- Neubert, A. (1990): “The impact of translation on target language discourse text vs. system,” Meta 35-1, p. 96-101.
- Newmark, P. (1981): Approaches to Translation, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
- Newmark, P. (1983): “Introductory Survey,” in Picken, C., The Translator’s Handbook, London, Aslib, p. 1-11.
- Nida, E. A. (1964): Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden, E.J. Brill.
- Oller, Jr., J.W. (1979): Language Tests at Schools, London, Longman.
- Renský, M. (1972): “The frequency of word classes as a function of style and linguistic structure,” in Fried, Y. (ed.), The Prague School of Linguisticsand Language Teaching, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 224-233.
- Sager, J.C. (1983): “Quality and standards: the evaluation of translations,” in Picken, C., The Translator’s Handbook, London, Aslip, p.121-128.
- Séguinot, C. (1988): “Pragmatics and the explication hypothesis,” Acts of the First Congress of the Canadian Association of Translation Studies, University of Quebec, p. 106-113.
- Séguinot, C. (ed.) (1989): The Translation Process, Ontario, H. G. Publications.
- Selinker, L. (1969): “Language transfer,” General Linguistics 9-2, p. 67-92.
- Selinker, L. (1972): “Interlanguage,” IRAL 10-3, p. 209-231.
- Selinker, L. and J. Lamendella (1979): “The role of extrinsic feedback in interlanguage fossilization – a discussion of ‘role fossilization’: a tentative model,” Language Learning 29-2, p. 363-375.
- Strevens, P. (1977): New Orientations in the Teaching of English, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Tarone, E. (1980): “Communication strategies, foreign talk, and repair in interlanguage,” Language Learning 30, p. 417-431.
- Weaver, W. (1989): “The process of translation,” Biguenet, J. and R. Schulte (eds.): The Craft of Translation, University of Chicago, p.117-124.
- Wilss, W. (1982): The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods, Gunter Narr, Verlag Tübingen.