Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 10:2 (1998) ► pp.267–290

Compensation and the Brief in a Non-Literary Translation

Theoretical Implications and Pedagogical Applications

| School of Modern Languages and European Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich
Compensation as a device for dealing with loss in translation is often discussed with regard to literary translation where stylistic effects are assumed to be of greater importance than in non-literary modes. This paper builds on previous work firstly by exploring in detail the problem of author intention that appears to underlie the notion of effect. The discussion then extends into non-literary modes of translation where the translation specifications known as the Brief determine to a large extent the decisions taken by the translator. The author argues that the Brief introduces a crucial aspect into the decision-making process that not only allows for the possibility of compensation in non-literary texts but also influences the scope and type of compensation that would be deemed appropriate. Detailed examples are provided by a French source text featuring the frequent use of metaphor. Alternative translations are suggested in relation to two possible Briefs, which are presented as pedagogical devices in a translation 'role play'.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and Aims
  • 2.Compensation and Interpretation
  • 3.The Text
    • 3.1.The Title and a Dilemma
    • 3.2.Translating the Metaphors
  • 4.Stylistic Effects and the Brief
  • 5.Metaphor, Compensation and the Brief
  • 6.Ethical Concerns
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 January 1998
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.2.04har
References (21)
References
Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language Style as Audience Design”. Language in Society 131. 145–204.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crisafulli, Eduardo. 1996. “Dante’s Puns in English and the Question of Compensation”. The Translator 2:2. 259–276.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1990.I limiti dell’interpretazione. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977 (1969). “What is an Author?”. Donald F. Bouchard, ed. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, tr. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977. 113–138.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harvey, Keith. 1995. “A Descriptive Framework for Compensation”. The Translator 1:1. 65–86.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hervey, Sándor Ian Higgins. 1992. Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method, French to English. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hewson, Lance and Jacky Martin. 1991. Redefining Translation: The Variational Approach. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Königs, Frank G.. 1986. “Recherches en traductologie en République Fédérale d’Allemagne: tendances et perspectives”. Meta 32:2. 119–136.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1991. “Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions”. Target 3:1. 91–109.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-theorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1994. Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of Automation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Nacey, Susan & Siri Fürst Skogmo
2021. Learner translation of metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World 11:2 ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo
Scarpa, Federica
2020. Translating Specialised Texts. In Research and Professional Practice in Specialised Translation, ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
함수진
2014. Effectiveness Of Translator's Note In Top-Down Translation Teaching Approach — Qualitative Analysis Focused On In-Depth Interviews With Learners —. The Journal of Translation Studies 15:2 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
김진숙
2012. Translation Classroom Communication: An action-research based study on the relations between the translation briefs and translations of postgraduate students. The Journal of Translation Studies 13:2 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.