Translation Universals.pdf - ymerleksi - home

70 Anna Mauranen
prevented errors was not always error-free.” Thus, unless we can show that we
have correctly predicted unusual occurrences of a given feature on the basis
of SL-TL comparison, we are not on very firm ground in claiming that the
pair-wise SL interference has been supported.
If the purpose is to show that bilingual interference provides more a
powerful explanation of the linguistically special character of translations than
more general, or ‘universal’ features of translation, which derive from the
nature of the process and although possibly including interference are not
limited to that, then fairly strong evidence is required to back it up.
First, we need to be able to correctly predict where interference occurs on
the basis of a SL and a TL, and, moreover, where it does not occur. Such a
prediction involves the systemic level of language; to maintain that interference
obtains between a source and a target text, an analysis of the source text prior
to seeing a target version of it should yield a text-specific prediction.
Second, we need to be able to test this on a parallel corpus. A parallel
corpus, that is, one with source texts and their translations, is required to
ascertain whether a particular target text feature, which we suspect of resulting
from interference, actually regularly follows from a given, predicted, ST feature,
and moreover, does not occur without this stimulus. If this is the case, we may
be satisfied that its occurrence is connected with its source text, because such a
finding indicates whether the feature is local – i.e. a consequence of the source
stimulus.
Third, we need to be able to show that the resulting usage is exceptional
with respect to the target language and translations from other source languages,
as already pointed out above. If these three conditions are satisfied, it is
warranted to say that the feature indeed occurs as a consequence of the ST stimulus,
either only as a response to that, or at least more frequently than could be
expected on the basis of normal TL practice alone, or even translated language
more generally. This may look demanding but it hardly makes sense to grant
the status of explanation on shakier grounds. Being able to successfully predict
interference either at the level of language systems or at the level of individual
texts would provide powerful evidence in favour of bilingual interference.
If, on the other hand, the purpose is not to show that bilingual interference
overrides any law-like or universal tendencies, but rather to explore the
plausibility of a general tendency towards transfer from a source to the target,
it is not necessary to predict where exactly interference might occur; in fact this
would be impossible, since the comparison would involve multiple source languages.
The claim in such a case would be weaker in specificity, but stronger
in generality; large-scale evidence which is compatible with interference as a