Buletinul Ştiinţific al

Universităţii “Politehnica” din Timişoara

Tom 2 (2) Seria Limbi moderne 2003

Languages in Contest

Camelia PETRESCU

Rezumat

Pe lângă faptul de a face posibilă comunicarea imediată – un nivel la care limbile se găsesc în ipostaza lor vernaculară – traducerea poate implica şi transferul cultural, domeniu care implică ipostaza referenţială a limbilor în contact. Atunci când îndeplineşte această a doua funcţie, traducerea devine o operaţie de „reteritorializare”, de recentrare a identităţilor, în care o limbă sursă şi o limbă ţintă îşi dispută statutul referenţial.

Introduction

Some translation theorists (A. Berman, 1984; A. Brisset, 1990) suggest that languages

in translation may turn into languages in contest. Such theorists argue that translation, as a

dual act of communication which presupposes the existence of two distinct codes, the source

language and the target language, reflects the relation between these two codes, depending on

their respective linguistic and cultural identities.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate a particular instance of linguistic contest, i.e.

English versus Romanian, based on a sample of today’s translations in Romanian, with a view

to assessing the ethnocentric behaviour of the two languages in translation.

Vernacular language versus referential language

When discussing the character of a language, i.e. its linguistic and cultural identity, four

types of language subcodes as identified by Henry Gobard (1976: 34) should be taken into

consideration:

Lecturer, Department of Modern Languages, „Politehnica” University of Timişoara.

45

I. A vernacular language, which is local, spoken spontaneously, less appropriate

for communicating than for communing, and the only language that can be

considered to be the mother tongue (or native language).

II. A vehicular language, which is national or regional, learned out of necessity, to

be used for communication in the city.

III. A referential language, which is tied to cultural, oral, and written traditions and

ensures continuity in values by systematic reference to classic works of the past.

IV. A mythical language, which functions as the ultimate resource, verbal magic,

whose incomprehensibility is considered to be irrefutable proof of the sacred…”

(Annie Brisset’s translation in Lawrence Venuti (ed), original emphasis).

Throughout history, as Annie Brisset points out, translation has basically been oriented

to the mother tongue, the native language since its “goal is to supplant such foreign forms of

expression, which are viewed as alienating, literally dispossessing (…) to replace the

language of the other by a native language. Not surprisingly, the native language chosen is

usually the vernacular, «the linguistic birthright, the indelible mark of belonging». Translation

becomes an act of reclaiming, of recentering of the identity, a reterritorializing operation. It

does not create a new language, but it elevates a dialect to the status of a national and cultural

language.” (in Lawrence Venuti (ed), 2000: 345-6).

Two examples are given to illustrate this “elevation” from dialectal/vernacular language

to national/referential language: the translation of the Bible by Luther, which largely

contributed to the creation of the German language, and the replacement of Latin by French

after the edict of Villers-Cotterêts, in the sixteenth century which brought about a translation

movement meant to radically change the vernacular status French had at the time.

We can add one more example, that of the Romanian language replacing the Slavonic

language of the church and administration in the three Romanian provinces (the present

territory of Romania) as a result of a translation movement similar to that of France and

Germany which started off at about the same time, i.e. the sixteenth century.

If this ethnocentric behaviour of languages in contest had, in the sixteenth century, led

to the creation of referential/national languages and relevant cultures, two-three centuries later

it turned national languages such as English, French, Spanish, Russian, into somewhat

“supernational” or “imperialistic” languages which replaced local idioms spoken in colonized

or occupied territories. Empires fell eventually apart, most countries got their freedom,

emancipated themselves politically but they remained linguistically dominated since their

referential languages, the carriers of cultural values are still the “imperialistic” languages.

46

Today American English as the language of the most influential power in the world has

consistently assumed the leading part in the contest of languages. The New World “invented”

the consumer society, the hot dog, the spot advertisment, the blue jeans, the musical, the jazz,

etc. and the Old World imported the “inventions” and adopted their American names.

Contemporary European languages contain, therefore, a considerable amount of American

borrowings. The Romanian language makes no exception. It adopted English words such as,

e.g. hamburger, stress, management, fan, week-end, business, show, tabloid, rating, top,

thriller, design, etc (partially adapted them to the Romanian pronunciation and grammar

system) or borrowed only “meanings” and attached them to Romanian words. This type of

borrowing, called semantic calque/loan translation is generally associated with words having

similar forms in the two languages. Thus the Romanian verb a realiza enriched its semantic

content with the meaning of the English verb to realize, i.e. ‘to become aware of or accept sth

as a fact; to begin to understand sth’ (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2000).

Likewise the Romanian adjective formal added to its original meaning that of the English

adjective formal, i.e. ‘very correct and suitable for official or important occasions’ (Oxford

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2000). The Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian

Language (Dicţionarul Explicativ al Limbii Române, 1996) includes the meanings acquired

by the two words mentioned above which shows that they have been generally accepted by

the Romanian speakers and assimilated into the Romanian idiom. This also points to a not

very recent time of borrowing. Very recent borrowings - made in the last decade as a result of

the Romanian society’s “re-opening” to the Western World – of either English words or

English meanings are not acknowledged by dictionaries of the Romanian language.

Thus words like: rating, thriller, fashion, etc. or the English meanings of the Romanian

words curricular (in the collocation reformă curriculară i.e. reform of curriculum) or a

aplica (in the collocation a aplica pentru un post/job, a calque of the English apply for a job)

are not included in dictionaries. Although not accepted yet by linguists such borrowings are

very largely used particularly in the media, which is, by nature, the most cosmopolitan part of

any national culture.

Languages at risk

Language purists have always rejected borrowings. They have worried about their

capacity to jeopardize the national character of the adoptive language. The history of

languages proves that this has never happened however.

47

After two hundred years of exposure to the Norman French (subsequent to the Norman

Conquest in 1066 A.D.) - accounting for the fact that more than half of the words to be found

in a dictionary of English are of Romanic origin – the English language remained Germanic.

Likewise, after an even longer exposure to the Slavonic language, Romanian preserved its

Romanic character.

Although a source of frustration for the common speaker until they are fully assimilated

in his/her language, borrowings cannot affect the referential character of a language since they

do not replace the basic word stock of a language and do not change its lexical and

grammatical structures.

It’s not the borrowings but the source language oriented translations which can actually

put the languages at the risk of losing their structural identities or formae mentis. The

Romanian language of an English oriented translation is an alienated language, a mixture of

English lexical and grammatical patterns and Romanian words.

A sample of such language is given in the table below. It includes an original American

text, its Romanian published translation, and our (unpublished) translation which is meant to

highlight deviation from lexical and grammatical meaning and inadequacy of register. The

original text is taken from Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and

Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Yale University, 1999 and the published translation

Arend Lijphart, Modele ale democraţiei. Forme de guvernare şi funcţionare în treizeci şi şase

de tări, Polirom, 2000.

ORIGINAL TEXT PUBLISHED TRANSLATION OUR TRANSLATION Table of Contents Cuprins Cuprins

Preface 1 Introduction 2 The Westminster Model of

Democracy 3 The Consensus Model of

Democracy 4 Thirty-Six Democracies

5 Party Systems: Two-Party

and Multiparty Patterns 6 Cabinets: Concentration

Versus Sharing of Executive Power

7 Executive-Legislative Relations: Patterns of Dominance and Balance of Power

8 Electoral Systems: Majority and Plurality Methods

Prefaţă 1 Introducere 2 Modelul Westminster al

democraţiei 3 Modelul consensualist al

democraţiei 4 Treizeci şi şase de

democraţii 5 Sisteme de partide

6 Cabinetele. Concentrarea puterii contra distribuţiei puterii executive

7 Relaţii executiv-legislativ. Modele ale dominanţei şi ale echilibrului puterii

8 Sisteme electorale. Metodele majoritară şi pluralitară contra repre-

Prefaţă 1 Introducere 2 Democraţia de tip

Westminster 3 Democraţia de tip consensual

4 Treizeci şi şase de democraţii 5 Sisteme politice: bipartidism şi

pluripartidism

6 Modele de guvernare. Guverne monocolore versus coaliţii guvernamentale

7 Relaţia dintre executiv şi legislativ: între dominaţie şi echilibru

8 Sisteme electorale: majo-ritarism sau reprezentare

48

Versus Proportional Representation

9 Interest Groups: Pluralism Versus Corporatism

10 Division of Power: The Federal-Unitary and Centralized-Decentralized Contrasts

11 Parliaments and Congresses: Concentration Versus Division of Legislative Power

12 Constitutions: Amendment Procedures and Judicial Review

13 Central Banks: Independence Versus Dependence

14 The Two-Dimensional Conceptual Map of Democracy

15 Macro-Economic Management and the Control of Violence: Does Consensus Democracy Make a Difference?

16 The Quality of Democracy and a "Kinder, Gentler" Democracy: Consensus Democracy Makes a Difference

17 Conclusions and Recommendations

App. A Two Dimensions and Ten Basic Variables, 1945-96 and 1971-96

App. B Alternative Measure of Multipartism, Cabinet Composition, and Disproportionality, 1945-96 and 1971-96

References Index

zentării proporţionale 9 Grupuri de interese.

Pluralism contra corporatism

10 Dispersarea puterii. Contrastele federal-unitar şi centralizat-descentralizat

11 Parlamente şi Congrese. Concentrare contra divizare a puterii legislative

12 Constituţii. Proceduri de amendare şi de control constituţional

13 Băncile centrale. Independenţă contra dependenţă

14 Harta conceptuală bidimensională a democraţiei. Cele două dimensiuni

15 Managementul macroeconomic şi controlul violenţei. Este diferită de-mocraţia consensualistă ?

16 Calitatea democraţiei şi o democraţie „mai gene-roasă mai tolerantă”. Democraţia consen-sualistă este diferită

17 Concluzii şi recomandări.

Apendi-cele A

Două dimensiuni şi zece variabile fundamentale, 1945-1996 şi 1971-1996

Apendi-cele B

Unităţi de măsură alternative ale multipartidismului, compoziţiei cabinetului şi disproporţionalităţii, 1945-1996 şi 1971-1996

Referinţe Indice

proporţională ? 9

Grupuri de interese: Pluralism vs corporatism

10 Separarea puterilor. Antinomiile federal-unitar şi centralizat-descentralizat

11 Tipuri de parlament şi de congres. Puterea legislativă: între concentrare şi dispersare

12 Tipuri de constituţie. Metode de revizuire şi modificare

13 Băncile centrale: între independenţă şi dependenţă

14 Harta bidimensională a democraţiei: o reprezentare conceptuală

15 Tipurile de guvernare şi controlul violenţei: Democraţia de tip consensual sub semnul întrebării

16 Calitatea democraţiei: democraţia consensualistă sau pentru o democraţie mai blândă, mai tolerantă

17 Concluzii şi recomandări.

Anexa A

Două dimensiuni, zece variabile fundamentale, 1945-96 şi 1971-96

Anexa B

O metodă de reprezentare cantitativă a pluriparti-dismului, compoziţiei cabinetului şi disproporţionalităţii, 1945-96 şi 1971-96

Bibliografie Index

Overwhelmed by English, the Romanian of this translation seems to have lost its

“intelligence”, its own means of expression and become an utterly vernacular idiom.

Romanian readers of this translation having no knowledge of English, will have the very

frustrating experience of meaning which cannot be grasped, meaning which keeps evading

apparently familiar, Romanian ‘sounding’ words.

49

50

Conclusion

One may conclude that while translation is a real instance of linguistic contest, an

instance which forces languages to face the ‘trial of the foreigner’ (l’épreuve de l’étranger as

A. Berman puts it), the degree to which the translating language admits the foreign text into

own structures is a matter of linguistic character or forma mentis but it is also a matter of

extralinguistic circumstances. And it’s generally the extralinguistic factors which actually

jeopardize the referential status of the translating language.

Bibliography

1. BERMAN, Antoine, L’épreuve de l’étranger, Paris: Gallimard, 1984. 2. GOBARD, Henri, L’aliénation linguistique, Paris: Flammarion, 1976. 3. IAROVICI, Edith, A History of the English Language, Bucureşti: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică, 1973. 4. ŢÂRA, Vasile, Munteanu Ştefan, Istoria limbii române literare, Bucureşti: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică,

1978. 5. VENUTI, Lawrence (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London: Rolutledge, 2000.