Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Influenced by earlier work by the Russian theorist and translator Andrei Fedorov
(1953), as described by Mossop (2013) and Pym (2016), Vinay and Darbelnet
carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English. They looked at
texts in both languages, noting differences between the languages and identifying
different translation ‘strategies’ and ‘procedures’. These terms are sometimes
confused in writing about translation. As we saw in Chapter 1 (pp. 23–4), in the
technical sense a strategy is an overall orientation of the translator (e.g. towards
‘free’ or ‘literal’ translation, towards the TT or ST, towards domestication or
foreignization) whereas a procedure is a specific technique or method used by
the translator at a certain point in a text (e.g. the borrowing of a word from the SL,
the addition of an explanation or a footnote in the TT).
See the article by Gil Bardají (2009) on the ITS website for a further discus-
sion of terms.
which hark back to the ‘literal vs. free’ division discussed in Chapter 2. Indeed,
‘literal’ is given by the authors as a synonym for direct translation (1995: 31;
2004: 128). The two strategies comprise seven procedures, of which direct
translation covers three:
(1) Borrowing: The SL word is transferred directly to the TL. This category
(1995: 31–2; 2004: 129) covers words such as the Russian rouble, datcha,
the later glasnost and perestroika, that are used in English and other
languages to fill a semantic gap in the TL. Sometimes borrowings may be
employed to add local colour (sushi, kimono, Osho –gatsu . . . in a tourist
brochure about Japan, for instance). Of course, in some technical fields
there is much borrowing of terms (e.g. computer, internet, from English to
Malay). In languages with differing scripts, borrowing entails an additional
need for transcription, as in the borrowings of mathematical, scientific and
other terms from Arabic into Latin and, later, other languages (e.g. [al-
jabr] to algebra).
(2) Calque: This is ‘a special kind of borrowing’ (1995: 32–3; 2004: 129–30)
where the SL expression or structure is transferred in a literal translation.
For example, the French calque science-fiction for the English.
Vinay and Darbelnet note that both borrowings and calques often become
fully integrated into the TL, although sometimes with some semantic change,
which can turn them into false friends. An example is the German Handy for
a mobile (cell) phone.
(3) Literal translation (1995: 33–5; 2004: 130–2): This is ‘word-for-word’
translation, which Vinay and Darbelnet describe as being most common
between languages of the same family and culture. Their example is:
(4) Transposition: This is a change of one part of speech for another (e.g. noun
for verb) without changing the sense. Transposition can be:
Q obligatory: French dès son lever [‘upon her rising’] in a past context
would be translated by as soon as she got up; or
Q optional: in the reverse direction, the English as soon as she got up
could be translated into French literally as dès qu’elle s’est levée or as
a verb-to-noun transposition in dès son lever [‘upon her rising’].
Vinay and Darbelnet (1995: 94) see transposition as ‘probably the most
common structural change undertaken by translators’. They list at least ten
different categories, such as:
verb A noun: they have pioneered A they have been the first;
adverb A verb: He will soon be back A He will hurry to be back.
(5) Modulation: This changes the semantics and point of view of the SL. It
can be:
Q obligatory: e.g. the time when translates as le moment où [lit. ‘the
moment where’];
Q optional, though linked to preferred structures of the two languages:
e.g. the reversal of point of view in it is not difficult to show > il est facile
de démontrer [lit. ‘it is easy to show’].
part< >another part: He cleared his throat > He cleared his voice
reversal of terms: You can have it > I’ll give it to you
negation of opposite: It does not seem unusual > It is very normal
active< >passive: We are not allowed to access the internet > they
don’t allow us to access the internet
rethinking of intervals and limits in space and time: No parking
between signs > Limit of parking
change of symbol (including fixed and new metaphors): Fr. La
moutarde lui monta au nez [‘The mustard rose up to his nose’] > En. He
saw red [‘he became very angry’].
Read Vinay and Darbelnet’s own description of their model and try to find
examples of the seven main procedures from ST–TT pairs in your own
languages. Make a list of phenomena that are easy and difficult to catego-
rize using their model.
There are a large number of other techniques exemplified by Vinay and Darbelnet.
Among those that have maintained currency in translation theory are the following:
Q Generalization: The use of a more general word in the TT. Examples would
be ST computer > TT machine, or ST ecstatic > TT happy. Again, generaliza-
tion has been suggested as another characteristic of translation (see Toury’s
‘law of increasing standardization’, Chapter 7).
4.1.3 Levels of translation
The seven main translation procedures are described (1995: 27–30) as operating
on three levels. These three levels reflect the main structural elements of the book.
They are:
Two further terms are introduced which look above word level. These are:
(1) word order and thematic structure (1995: 211–31, called démarche in
the French original);
(2) connectors (ibid.: 231–46, called charnières in the original). These are
cohesive links (also, and, but, and parallel structures), discourse markers
(however, first . . .), deixis (pronouns and demonstrative pronouns such as
she, it, this, that) and punctuation marks.