Refining the Strategy Boxes

As mentioned, Baker has occasionally provided some recommendations for matching these two sets (our two columns) of problems and strategies. As an exceptional instance, in her first introduced strategy (i.e. translation by a more general word), she states the appropriateness of its application for ‘propositional meaning’ (notably, no problem has even been named as such in her list). However, she does not try to define or propose a clear relation between the two lists.

González Davies also maintains that it is not possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between problems and strategies, while she tries to build up a model of ad-hoc relations between the two sets of problems vs strategies. She claims that her adopted model ‘has always proved to be useful’ (2004, p. 192)¹, which refers to her experience in English-Spanish/Catalan set of languages.

As was seen, two tables resulting from Baker-Davies’ list of problem-strategies, considered 11 strategies for non-equivalence at word level and 15 strategies for above word level. Having considered the list of non-equivalence, to find the related strategies named by them in two opposite levels, at first glance, one may consider (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2) that the number of problems (or non-equivalences) ‘at word level’ and ‘above word level’ are as low as 11 and 10 respectively. However, when we attempt to consider how many sets of problem-strategies could be found at work in a general translation course, we will theoretically find a higher number, which could be derived from the multiplication of the two problem and strategy columns in the list, according to Table 3-3 (below).

1 Even in her second edition, Baker (2011) does not add new strategies, including those which have been mentioned by González Davies as the students’ additions.

74

Table 3-3: Number of problem strategy sets at word and above word level based on Baker-Davies model

Problems Number of

problems

Number of related

strategies Total

at word level 11 11 121

above word level 10 15 150

Total 21 22 271

In this table, the first two columns of numbers indicate the number of problems and the number of strategies in the said model. The last column shows the multiplication of the first two numbers. Even though some of the sets may not practically exist, the total number is still more than this calculation, because manifestations of each problem and strategy may vary.

Using English into Persian as an example, we may refer to the translation of a word like standard, which is not lexicalised in Persian; however, we cannot employ cultural substitution to find its equivalent. We can only use a more general word (superordinate: رایعم which literally means ‘special criterion’), a less expressive word (هطباض which stands for ‘law’), or even a loan word (درادناتسا = transliteration of the word standard in Persian) as three possible strategies. These are named and listed in the second column of the strategy box (Table 3-1, right column).

Therefore, Strategy No. 1, No. 2, No.4 etc. may match, however strategy No 3 (i.e. translation by cultural substitution) may not.

In our matrix of relations, an example of a non-existing set from the non-equivalence at word level is b3 (see Table 3-1). In this particular set, the problem the source language concept is not lexicalised in the target language in the first column, does not match translation by cultural substitution in the second column as strategy.

75

Figure 3-1 shows the relation of category ‘b’ with the opposite strategies in the upper part of the twin problem-strategy box by the said classification. The dotted arrow shows the impossibility or rareness of the relation.

Figure 3-1: A sample of P-S relation for category b

I will attempt to show the general relation of the first three problems which were mentioned in table 3-1, mainly for clarification of such a relation, and to verify the validity of the above calculation. Along the lines of this sample survey, I will also try to address some deficiencies within the words of Baker’s classifications.

Problem a: culture-specific concept.

This problem seems to be able to relate to all strategies in the right box.

Problem b: the source language concept is not lexicalised in the target language.

It seems that ‘b’ itself could be part of ‘a’ (culture-specific concepts). However, if we consider the cultural behaviour has not been the basis of these types of problems (non-equivalence), then we could conclude as follows about the relation of this problem with the right box:

 Lack of lexicalisation in TL could be resolved by  Employing a more general word (Strategy 1)

a. Culture-specific concepts

b. The source language concept is not lexicalised in the target language c. The source language word is semantically complex

d. The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning

1. Translation by a more general word (superordinate)

2. Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word

3. Translation by cultural substitution 4. Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation

5. …

76

 Lack of lexicalisation in TL could be resolved by  Using a more neutral/less expressive word (Strategy 2)

 Lack of lexicalisation in TL could NOT be resolved by  Cultural substitution (Strategy 3)

 Lack of lexicalisation in TL could be resolved by  Using a loan word or a loan word plus expression (Strategy 4).

 etc.

Problem c: the SL word is semantically complex.

Baker (1992, p. 22) claims that ‘this is a fairly common problem in translation’. However, she does not even bring an example of such a problem among the clusters of examples in her book.

Her examples, surprisingly, are strategy-based rather than problem-based. She seems to see no benefit in relating a strategy to its associated problem¹. This issue will be discussed and exemplified later. Problem c also seems to be a culture-specific concept rather than anything else, which could be included again in part ‘a’ of the said categorisation.

There is also an issue regarding its naming. Its name reflects the complexity of this category, whilst the only example provided shows that it relates to the markedness or oddness of meaning rather than its complexity. This semantic oddness is due to the socio-cultural specification of the target language. Complex words are those which have two, or more than two, meanings at the same time. These are also different from polysemous words, which have one meaning in each context.

The cases of the sets which are to be disregarded from our consideration may vary. As we will see in this study, the current list is not comprehensive and should be re-defined and expanded both at the ‘word’, and ‘above word’ levels for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the above calculation has not considered strategies to solve the other kinds of non-equivalences in Baker’s categorisation, i.e. grammatical, and pragmatic non-equivalences and their related strategies. If we take these cases into account, the total number of sets will be much higher.

1 She even ignores the problem when she used the strategy, which seems to be against what she has claimed earlier.

This will cause her course book to not follow the way of solving the problems she has herself mentioned in early chapter, and leave them, more or less, unsolved for the reader.

77

When we ask a translation teacher, ‘which sets of the strategies should be taught and when, and with what priority?’ they often refer to their own feelings and experiences, without any practical non-subjective answer (see Appendix 3). No references have been found to address the level of significance. Identifying the educational significance of the problem-strategy sets in an important missing part of designing translational course syllabuses as well as translation-related practical course books. Since teachers often develop their teaching methods through experience, it is important to offer a quantitative study of common mistakes and relevant problem-strategy sets in students’ work. This thesis tries to propose develop a methodological framework for such a study and test it for the English-Persian language pair.

3.4.1 Additional Observations on Some Strategies in the Current Strategy Boxes

Some observation could be made for the strategy boxes within the said tables. Firstly, omission and compensation have been mentioned as two separate categories of strategy in Table 3-2, i.e.

strategy box for non-equivalence above the word, which seems to be also appropriate for Table 3-1 to be included in non-equivalence at word level. Moreover, according to the canon of faithfulness, omission without compensation is not acceptable as a normal strategy. The researcher suggests that the two concepts should be combined and made into a broad category,

‘omission by compensation’.

As the second observation, the suggested strategy, which has been mentioned by González Davies in the students’ additions to Baker’s list, and should come under scrutiny, is using footnotes. Using footnotes as a method seems not to be a linguistic strategy. It could theoretically cover some of the strategies already mentioned. The strategy using parentheses as a translation could also have the similar implication and application. Employing these methods may sometimes depend on the direct strategies which have been used by the translator. For instance, the cases such as providing a calque, using a less expressive word, or using a loan word might logically occur while employing methods by using a footnote or parentheses for explanation.

78

3.5 How to Devise a Model (Strategies Based on Their Educational