The DTS Framework

The Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) framework is used to compare and describe the linguistic strategies and mechanisms used to translate the ST humour into the Afrikaans TT using the genre of children’s literature as a platform.

DTS arose from polysystems theory devised by Even-Zohar in the 1970s, which focuses on the relationships between systems. This was a key decision for the field of translation studies, because, up to that point, translated literature was mostly dismissed as a derivative and second-rate form. Wehrmeyer (2014) observes that DTS models do not follow a prescriptive approach.

Wehrmeyer (2014:375) explains that “the translation product is accepted as a de facto equivalent of the ST and the features of the translation are described and explained in terms of underlying principles or norms”. In DTS models, descriptive analysis is undertaken within the context of norms (Wehrmeyer 2014). This is achieved by identifying the differences between the ST and the TT, referred to as shifts (Toury 1980). The DTS model is the optimal choice for this research because it provides a descriptive analysis that exposes the shifts that have taken place during the translation process.

Translation shifts will be analysed in this study. Shifts are an important notion within the realm of translation studies since Catford’s coining of the term in A Linguistic Theory of Translation

(1965). Catford (2000:141) defines a translation shift as “departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the source language to the target language”.

Catford (2000:143) distinguishes between level shifts and categorical shifts which are subdivided into structural shifts, class shifts, unit or ranks shifts and intra-system shifts. A level shift is “expressed by grammar in one language and lexis in another” (Munday 2016:60) and categorical shifts outlined as structural (shifts in grammatical structure); class (shifts in parts of speech); unit/rank (units of sentence, clause, group, word and morpheme) and intra-system (“translation involves a non-corresponding term in the target language system”) (Catford 2000:146).

Other theorists who proposed a classification system for translation shifts are Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) who differ from Catford regarding their approach with their focus being on

‘procedure’. They devised two translation methods that can be compared to literal and free methods of translation. The two methods consist of seven procedures. Direct translation comprises borrowing i.e. the source language word is transferred to the target language directly; calque refers to the source language expression being transferred to the target language literally and literal translation is a “word-for-word translation” (Vinay & Darbelnet 1995:84). In situations where the literal translation is not feasible, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) propose oblique translation. This method comprises four steps: transposition (the transposition of parts of speech without changing the meaning); modulation (a change in the semantics and point of view of the source language); equivalence (same situation with structural change) and adaptation (changing the cultural references). Servitude and option are two important concepts in their work and refer to compulsory changes (servitude) and the translator’s choices (option).

Levý (1967/2000:122) believes that translators operate according to “selective instructions”

influenced by their motivation or external reasons and that this may limit them with regard to their translation choices and that this notion is based on “game theory in cognitive psychology rather than empirical data”. Levý (1967/2000:122) proposes that the minimax strategy is used instinctively which may lead to the “maximum effect with minimum effort” and that shifts can elucidate and generalise meaning which can lead to a change in the style of a text resulting in an “uninspiring description of things and actions”. Leuven-Swart (1990) draws on Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Levý’s categories for the descriptive analysis of a translation. Leuven-Swart uses small comprehensible textual units from selected passages called transemes in her analysis focused on microtextual shifts. The Architranseme, a tool for comparison of two texts

is then identified and a comparison established of each transeme with its Architranseme after which a correlation between the transemes is determined.

For the present study, Baker’s (1992) systemic approach to equivalence as part of the discourse and register analysis approaches provided an important tool in the analysis of shifts and strategies. Using Baker’s system, shifts are identified in terms of meaning (propositional, expressive, and evoked meaning). Propositional meaning arises from the relation between the segment or word and what it refers to or describes; expressive meaning relates to the speaker’s feelings or attitude; while evoked meaning refers to dialect and register (Baker 1992:13).

Dialect can either refer to geographical dialect (e.g. Afrikaans people use ‘liters’ and British people use pints or gallons), temporal dialect (e.g. language used by different age groups within a community or different periods in history) or social dialect (e.g. different social classes) (Baker 1992:15). Register refers to the field of discourse (language appropriate for specific social situations, e.g. office laguage) or tenor of discourse (language reflecting the relationships between people, e.g. doctor/patient) (Baker 1992:16). For the categorisation of shifts, Nida’s (1964) definition of formal and dynamic equivalence was also used where the message or segment resembles the ST segment closely regarding form and content (formal equivalence) or where the relationship between the receptor and message is substantially the same, but where creative changes may occur (dynamic equivalence).

Previous studies on humour translation have focussed on shift categories of additions, omissions or changes of semantic content, which is the main focus of DTS in terms of shifts (Wehrmeyer 2014). In a study on subtitle translation of humour, Seghers (2017) attempted an in-depth comparison of each humorous ST segment with its corresponding TT segment, using Asimakoulas’s (2004) model. In this model, humorous elements in the TT are categorised according to their omission, presence, changes or loss, combined with a pragmatic-intercultural analysis of humour to explain loss of humour. The model is based on principles of script theory developed by Attardo and Raskin (1991: 297) (cf. Attardo 2002; Raskin 1983), who recognise the following categories: “language, situation, narrative strategy, target, logical mechanism and script opposition”. Language refers to choices on the phonetic, phonological, morphophonemic, morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels, which determine the entire makeup of the joke (Attardo & Raskin 1991:297). Asimakoulas (2004:822) explains that script refers to an “organised chunk of information about something, a cognitive structure internalised by the speaker” as knowledge of how the world is organised.

Raskin and Attardo’s model is built on Fillmore’s (1985) framework theories which proposes

that we link certain linguistic forms e.g. words, patterns or phrases with cognitive structures or frames which facilitates our interpretation of these forms.

Srničková (2014) investigates nonsense as a literal device in terms of narrative voice in nine translations of Dahl’s work. She categorised four types of innovation: lexical, phonological, typographical, and semantic innovation which she then arranged into subcategories. Srničková (2014:55) explains that the focus was on the style as applied on lexical, semantic and phonological levels. The linguistic devices were manually collected and analysed in Excel tables to determine the translator’s choices. She finds that none of the translators transferred the device of nonsense with consistent equivalence or non-equivalence, and that the narrative voice is subdued and the creative style translated into regular language.

The TC as a crucial part of the analytical framework for this research is discussed in the following section.