Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 13:2 (2001) ► pp.265–288

Enriching translations, simplified language?

An alternative viewpoint to lexical simplification

 | Research Institute for the Languages of Finland
Intuitively, the suggestion that lexical simplification be a translation universal seems to run counter to the established idea of translation as enrichment. The present paper seeks to relate the two ideas, simplification and enrichment, while addressing the issue of testing hypotheses about universality in Translation Studies, especially in Corpus Translation Studies. The nature of the data used and its implications to the results are discussed. Finnish 19th century texts constitute a case in point on the problems that heterogeneous data may give rise to, and it is suggested that alternative ways of studying lexical phenomena are needed, in order to complement the findings in Corpus Translation Studies.
Keywords: translation history, simplification, enrichment, universals, lexical variation, corpus studies
Article outline
  • 1.Universality in translation studies
  • 2.Universality underdefined?
  • 3.The Finnish situation and its implications for CTS
  • 4.Translation: Enrichment or simplification?
    • 4.1Enrichment in paratexts and in theory
    • 4.2Implications of the ‘enrichment’ idea
    • 4.3Lexical variation in Finland during 1809–1850
    • 4.4Across categories: Translational language and dialects
    • 4.5Standardization and simplification: Some implications for CTS
  • 5.Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 June 2002
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.04pal
References (68)
References
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993. 233–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ed. 1998. Routledge ecyclopaedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Réexplorer la langue de la traduction: une approche par corpus”. Laviosa 1999 :480–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi, eds. 1999. Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Eddie A. Levenston. 1983. “Universals of lexical simplification”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in interlanguage communication.New York and London: Longman, 1983. 119–139.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne and Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson, eds. 1998. Unity in diversity?: Current trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Burke, Peter and Roy Porter, eds. 1987. The social history of language. Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burnley, J. David. 1989. “Late medieval English translation: Types and reflections”. Ellis 1989 :37–53.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “The Finnish tradition”. Baker 1998 :401–409.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rogered. 1989. The medieval translator. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Eronen, Riitta. 2000. “Sanat kuin perhoset” [Words like butterflies]. Kielikello 11/2000. 29–31.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem studies [special issue of Poetics today 11:1].Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua. 1997. In praise of the beloved language: A comparative view of positive ethnolinguistic consciousness. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 1994. “Vers une histoire sociale de la terminologie”. Snell-Hornby et al. 1994:255–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genette, Gérard. 1987. Seuils. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000. Translation and relevance, second edition. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Haarala, Risto. 1989. “Sanat tiedon ja taidon palveluksessa” [Words in the service of knowledge and skills]. Vesikansa 1989 :259–275.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1985. “Images of translation”. Hermans 1985a :103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ed. 1985a. The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1991. Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacquemond, Richard. 1992. “Translation and cultural hegemony: The case of French-Arabic translation”. Lawrence Venuti, ed. Rethinking translation. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 139–158.Google Scholar
Jussila, Raimo. 1988. “Agricolan sanasto ja nykysuomi” [Agricola’s lexicon and modern Finnish]. Esko Koivusalo, ed. Mikael Agricolan kieli [Mikael Agricola’s language]. Helsinki: SKS, 1988. 203–228.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 1998. “Corpora in Translation Studies”. Baker 1998 :50–53.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Lexical hide-and-seek: Looking for creativity in a parallel corpus”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000. 93–104.Google Scholar
Kiuru, Silva. 2000a. “‘Ilveillys kahdessa näytelmässä’: 1800-luvun teatteritermejä” [“A comedy in two acts”: Theatre terminology in the 19th century]. Kielikello 11/2000. 13–18.Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Näkökulmia 1800-luvun kirjasuomen variaatioon” [Paragraphs on variation in 19th century written Finnish]. Outi Paloposki and Henna Makkonen-Craig, eds. Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen kritiikki [Translated literature and translation criticism]. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 2000. 243–264.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Ensimmäisten suomenkielisten näytelmien kieli” [The language of the first Finnish plays]. Virittäjä 11/2001. 59–73.Google Scholar
Kohtamäki, Ilmari. 1956. Ankara puutarhuri: August Ahlqvist suomen kielen ja kirjallisuuden arvostelijana [The stern gardener: August Ahlqvist and his critique of the Finnish language and literature]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Korpel, Luc. 1993. ”Rhetoric and Dutch translation theory (1760–1820)”. Target 5:1. 55–70.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000. Beyond ambivalence. Tampere: University of Tampere. [Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 774.]Google Scholar
Laine, Tuija. 2000. Ylösherätys suruttomille: Englantilaisperäinen hartauskirjallisuus Suomessa Ruotsin vallan aikana [English devotional literature in Finland during the Swedish era]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Lambert, José. 1995. “Translation, systems and research: The contribution of Polysystem Studies to Translation Studies”. TTR VIII:1. 105–152.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, José and Hendrik van Gorp. 1985. “On describing translations”. Hermans 1985a :42–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara. 1996. The English comparable corpus (ECC): A resource and a methodology for the empirical study of translation. University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. [Unpublished PhD thesis.]Google Scholar
. 1998. “Universals of translation”. Baker 1998 :288–291.Google Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 1998. “The English comparable corpus: A resource and a methodology”. Bowker et al. 1998 :101–112.Google Scholar
ed. 1999. The corpus-based approach. [special issue of Meta 43:4].Google Scholar
. 1999a. “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose”. Laviosa 1999 :557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehikoinen, Laila and Silva Kiuru. 1989. Kirjasuomen kehitys [The development of written Finnish]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Lilius, Pirkko. 1994. Språkval och ordval i tillfällesdiktningen i Finland 1700–1749 [Choice of language and words in occasional poems in Finland 1700–1749]. Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland.Google Scholar
Machan, Tim William. 1989. “Chaucer as translator”. Ellis 1989 :55–67.Google Scholar
Norton, Glyn. 1987. “The politics of translation in early Renaissance France: Confrontations of policy and theory during the reign of Francis I”. Brigitte Schultze, ed. Die literarische Übersetzung I: Fallstudien zu ihrer Kulturgeschichte. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1987. 1–13.Google Scholar
Novalis. 1974. Werke und Briefe, herausgegeben von Alfred Kelletat. München: Winkler-Verlag.Google Scholar
Paloposki, Outi. 2001. “Originality and the defence of translation”. The translator 7:1. 71–89.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parvio, Martti. 1990. “Piispa Ericus Erici (Sorolainen) ja hänen Postillansa” [Bishop Ericus Erici and his Postilla]. Ericus Erici: Postilla II. (Facsimile of the 1625 edition). Helsinki: SKS, 1990. 989–1132.Google Scholar
Prasad, G.J.V. 1999. “Writing translation: The strange case of the Indian English novel”. Bassnett and Trivedi 1999 :41–57.Google Scholar
Pääkkönen, Irmeli. 1994. Suomalainen sydämestä [A Finn by his heart]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Rintala, Päivi. 1998. “Kielikäsitys ja kielenohjailu” [Conception of language and language planning]. Sananjalka 401. 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robyns, Clem. 1994. “Translation and discursive identity”. Clem Robyns, ed. Translation and the (re)production of culture: Selected papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1989–1991. Leuven: CERA, 1994. 57–81.Google Scholar
De Rynck, Patrick. 1994. Review of Luc Korpel. Over het nut en de wijze der vertalingen. Nederlandse vertaalreflectie (1750–1820) in een Westeuropees kader. Target 6:2. 261–264.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, Paula. 1989. “Vierassanat” [Foreign words]. Vesikansa 1989 :64–109.Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace. 1988. “Pragmatics and the explicitation hypothesis”. TTR 1:2. 106–113.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
St.-Pierre, Paul. 1998. “Theory and practice: Translation in India”. Bowker et al. 1998 :47–56.Google Scholar
Susam-Sarajeva, S¸ebnem. forthcoming. Translation and travelling theory: The role of translation in the migration of literary theories across culture and power differentials. London: University College London. [PhD thesis, to be submitted in 2002.]
Thomas, George. 1991. Linguistic purism. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. “Translating hybrid political texts”. Anna Trosborg, ed. Text typology and translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997. 145–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999a. “Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies”. Laviosa 1999 :652–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999b. Translation in a postcolonial context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria. 1985. Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a “minority” literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vesikansa, Joukoed. 1989. Nykysuomen sanavarat [The lexicon of modern Finnish]. Porvoo-Helsinki-Juva: WSOY.Google Scholar
Vieira, Else Ribeiro Pires. 1994. “A postmodern translation aesthetics in Brazil”. Snell-Hornby et al. 1994:65–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viswanatha, Vanamala and Sherry Simon. 1999. “Shifting grounds of exchange: B.M. Srikantalah and Kannada translation”. Bassnett and Trivedi 1999 :162–181.Google Scholar
Wollin, Lars. 1992. “Pådrivare eller vindflöjel?: Översättaren i stilhistorien” [Forerunner or weathercock?: The translator in the history of style]. Peter Cassirer and Sven-Göran Malmgren, eds. Stilsymposiet i Göteborg 21–23.5.1992, Symposiehandlingar [Style symposium in Gothenburg 21–23.5.1992, collected seminar papers], 1992. 71–91.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Wen, Ting-hui
2012. Using a Parallel Corpus to Study the Translation of Personal Pronouns. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 10:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Chunshen
2004. Repetition and signification. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 16:2 ► pp. 227 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.