Background Lectures

Introduction

Translation is defined by Catford as a transfer of meaning from a source text (ST) to a target text (TT). This definition is problematic. The problems include the following :

-- Transfer. Do we just carry out a transfer easily?
-- Meaning. So, meaning is that available for the transfer?
-- Circumstance. In what circumstances do we carry out a transfer of meaning?

At this introductory, we also need to know about 
-- the status of the ST
-- the consumption or use of the TT.  

This introduction tries to set clearly our goals and a direction. It also tries to redefine translation as an activity that is part of our lives.

Transfer of Meaning :

Actually, meaning that is crucial and central to translation. When we translate, we hope that we have been understood. But being understood is not that simple. The meaning includes how it is intended to be understood. There is something being done to someone through language. That is big problem.

So, the translator has a huge  task, and not just to transfer meaning. The meaning actually includes the pragmatic use of language and what is being done to someone through language.
linguistic
In addition, the transfer of meaning has to accommodate and include context of culture from which the expression comes and makes sense.

Overall, the meaning to be transferred has to include

-- linguistic meaning
-- pragmatic meaning
-- cultural and contextual meaning
-- ideological meaning.

In that case, we should not expect a simple transfer. It is complex and we must  consider many factors.

The Source Text

Translation is a process and we are moving from something to something, from somewhere to somewhere. In this case, that something, that somewhere, has to be clearly understood.

That is to say that "text" in ST is not only what has been written down but also its world. "Text" includes the shell in taking about the snail. There is no snail without its shell. That means that the main fidelity in translation should be to the original context of the work being translated. In translating the text, we should also be translating, or are translating, its context, making its context available to the other, even though its use may change.

The impression is that the ST is always monolingual and speaks one voice. This may not be so. The ST may have many languages inhabiting it already and many other visiting texts, intertextually speaking. The text may be multimodal. In other words, we expect its translation to reflect its plural nature.

That is not to say that the translator has to go all out to provide what the original text does not suggest. Some translators sometimes impose things because of ideological persuasion. But that is not fidelity. It is rather its opposite.

Now, let us consider the TT.

The Target Text (TT)

The TT is always already plural, its languages more than one. This means that a TT is between languages, its translator a bilingual. An incipient bilingual is a poor translator, given that knowledge in one of the languages is very low. That being the case, translators are required to make sure that their proficiency in the languages is high. A balanced bilingual would do better as a translator.

The production of the TT can also benefit from interviews and questionnaire responses. The idea is to be very faithful to source instead of assuming that a translator knows it all. There may be something very crucial that a TT fathered by interview of knowledgeable people may reveal.

Another thing is about the teaching of a TT. Given that such a text exists between two languages, it is wrong to teach it as if it has always been in that TT. An example is David Diop's *Coups de Pilons*, which was given an English version called *Hammer Blows*. It would be wrong for me to teach the rolecollection of poems as if it has always it been antake English text! A good knowledge of French would help me in my teaching.

**'

Catford is  not alone in holding that view that translation is a transfer of meaning. Many people indeed hold it. What we have tried to do is to say that it is not that straightforward as it may seem.

What is clearly significant in the definition in the role that meaning plays. It is meaning that is at stake in every translation. How could X be expressed in that other language?

One thing that we must have noticed is that there are factors in the process that could make a TT gain
or lose in meaning.

Factors that could make a TT lose or gain in meaning :

  -- ideological position
- - lack of adequate knowledge of any of the languages and their source contexts
-- individual preferences
-- the nature of the languages meeting

Concluding Remarks :
Translation is a process. It requires the possession of competence in more than one language. There are also many challenges in transferring meaning from ST to TT.