Constructing a Model for Shift Analysis in Translation.pdf

1.2.2.1.4. SystemBy a 'system' it is meant the closed number of elements among which a choice must be made,e.g., the system of number in English and Arabic. In fact, the terms available in each system inone language can show fundamental differences from the terms of the same system in anotherlanguage. This can be considered a major source of obligatory micro shifts at this level oflanguage description. It is worth noting here that the translator is compelled to be bound by theSL writer's choice; otherwise his performance is destined to be erroneous. In cases wherecompatible terms with the source system are taking place in the target system, the translator hasto bridge the gap by using some other means, e.g., the use of a lexical marker of number 'two' toexpress duality when translating from Arabic into English.The occurrence of shifts here can be accounted for by means of terms existing in the system ofindividual languages. What increases the possibility of such occurrence is the fact that all thedescriptive units required for the description of a language are systemic in nature; they arerealized by means of specific choices of the particular systems of that language. Actually, thesechoices are language-specific and their applicability is governed by three criteria. The first isspecified "in terms of rank of unit to which the system is applicable; the second is specified interms of the part the unit is playing in the structure of a higher unit"; the third is specified "interms of the other options which must be chosen before the options of the given system becomeavailable." (Berry, 1977:13)Now, we should emphasize the mutual integration of the individual categories. In this regard,two types of structural surface relations, namely paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, can bestated.Interlingually, different dependency relations are realized by different syntactic means. Oneimportant point to talk about is word order, as in the case of the unilateral dependency relationbetween the head and the adjective in English nominal groups. The order of these elements isAdjective + Head while the same relation is realized by the reverse order in Arabic, i.e., Head +9

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesAdjective. The same is true for unilateral dependency relation of possession in both languages,e.g.,EnglishArabicRobert'sbook/Robert//kitaabu/possessor possessed possessor possessedIn these structures, where one element is typically obligatory while other elements are optional,an agreement between the head and its modifiers is usually observed in some languages, e.g.,number and gender agreement between 'noun' and 'adjective' in the Arabic nominal group.However, languages vary so widely in the restrictions they assign to this agreement. In theEnglish nominal group, for instance, this agreement is observed between 'articles' and 'nouns' butoverlooked between 'nouns' and 'adjectives.' By contrast, Arabic seeks such agreement in bothcases. Again, this is another potential area of obligatory structural shifts in translation.As for bilateral dependent structures, the distribution of either constituent elements is differentfrom that of the structure as a whole as in the prepositional groups in English and Arabic.Following Brown and Miller (1980:255), the majority of the syntactic relations in all languagesare of this type. Furthermore, the variety of functional labels used to refer to these relationsreflects the variation of these relations in different languages.The importance of bilateral dependency relations to the analysis of structural shifts in translationcan be appreciated by examining the following sentences:-John beats the dog.-Fido is a dog.-John went home.Although one single string of elements could be assigned to the above sentences, namely NP + V10

+ NP, the relation of V with the NP following it in each sentence is different. In order to accountfor this difference, various functional labels are used, e.g., 'predicate,' 'complement,' 'object,' etc.Many bi-directional relations presume that one constituent element requires other constituents tobe in a particular case, e.g., in a prepositional group with a personal pronoun as a realization ofthe NP, the preposition requires an oblique case in English, and an accusative one in Arabic. Thisindicates that languages use different ways for implementing these relations, which adds to thelikelihood of structural shifts occurrences in this area. The degree of this likelihood increaseswith the fact that none of the constituent elements in these structures is optional.In the third type of dependency relations, i.e., co-ordinate dependency, neither constituentdepends syntactically on the other and the distribution of each constituent is the same as that ofthe structure as a whole. In terms of symbols, the description of these structures is:A A' (+) A' (+)...A n , where A is any co-ordinate dependent structure and A', A', A n areconstituent elements of the same distribution. Theoretically, no limit is assigned to the number ofthese elements in any given structure. Yet languages may exhibit certain restrictions on the orderof these elements. The order of adjectives in the English nominal group is a good example ofthese restrictions which are mostly language-specific. The optional (+) in the above formula ofthese structures is meant to emphasize the possibility of having a co-ordination marker such as'and,' 'or,' etc. for some structures. Up to this point, the need for such markers variesinterlingually. Hence, another area of shifts can be manifested.The last type of dependency relations is that of the exclusion relation which is useful for definingsome grammatical classes such as the verbs of state in English which do not agree withauxiliaries for the progressive aspect, and proper nouns which do not take the definite article'the.'However, it must be mentioned that "dependency relations cannot always be captured in astraightforward fashion in constituent grammar" (Brown and Miller, 1980:259). What we alsoneed to know is an interpretive machinery to interpret these relations. In the present case, such amachinery can be borrowed from TG which enters as a supplementary part in the syntactic11

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlescomponent of this model of analysis (see Diagram 1). The incorporation of this type of grammaris accounted for in the following section.1.2.2.1.5. Deep-level AnalysisThe transformational sub-component is considered to bridge the gap in the categorial subcomponent.The need for this injunction refers to the fact that in any translation task, the translator needs toemploy more or less four transformational syntactic processes, namely, deletion, insertion,permutation, and/or substitution. Each of these processes is binary in nature, i.e., optional (itsadoption depends on the translator's own preference) or obligatory (the translator is compelled toapply it in order to produce well-formed TL sentences). It goes without saying that languagesexhibit substantial differences in the application of TRs and allow different means for theapplication of the optional ones. It is these qualitative and quantitative differences which allowus to amplify obligatory and optional syntactic shifts in translation. In other words, we wouldcall the shifts motivated by the application of obligatory TRs as obligatory syntactic shifts andthose motivated by the application of the optional ones as optional syntactic shifts.Following Nida (1964:65), two practical advantages can be derived from the adoption of thisprocedure. First, the equivalence of different formal (syntactic) structures possessing the samemeaningful relation can be seen even interlinguistically. Second, the equivalence of formallysimilar structures possessing different meanings can also be readily seen. And in the same waywe would like to add a third one, namely, complex structures can be easily plotted by referenceto their kernel, i.e., deep, structures.So far, the description of the micro level of the present model is complete. The rest of the presentpaper is dedicated to describe in detail the second major level of this model, i.e., the macro levelof analysis.12

1.3. Macro-Level AnalysisAt this level, the model is switched to analyze a considerable amount of obligatory and optionalshifts which take place at a level higher than the micro level. In order to account for thisrequirement, the present model presupposes an independent broad level of analysis called themacro-level of analysis.The main difference between this level and the previous one, i.e., the micro level, comes fromthe direction of analysis. On the one hand, the micro level moves within the domain of thesentence as the maximum unit of the syntactic description. The macro level, on the other hand,moves within the domain of the text. In this sense, the macro level accounts for all variables oftexture, culture, style and rhetoric, which contribute to the occurrence of shifts at levels otherthan the syntactic level. Hence, it is broken down into a number of components, each of whichaccounts for a particular variable of the above ones. Diagrams 3 and 4 are presented to illustratethis difference between the micro and macro levels of analysis.However, this difference should not be exaggerated. Instead, the two levels should be consideredunitary since both would accept the traditional view that the sentence is the locus of structuraland stylistic variation, "though with the proviso that it entails spans wider than sentence"(Hendricks 1976:40-41).What follows is a description of the individual components within the macro level of analysisalong with their scope of inclusion in relation to the possibility of shifts within each component.1.3.1. The Semantic ComponentMeaning should be the main preoccupation of all translation. However, the amount of thisinterest varies according to the type of meaning conveyed by the lexical items of a given text. Asfar as translation is concerned, the translator has to do his best to transfer as much of the originalmeaning as he can into the TL. But since we know that the process of meaning transfer is not astraightforward process, the translator, therefore, is often called upon to make some semantic13

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesadjustments in order to accomplish this task. In our case, such semantic adjustments are analyzedas semantic shifts, which can be obligatory or optional. The former are dictated by theunavoidable semantic gaps between the SL and TL. Such gaps are mainly caused by somecultural and conceptual differences between the two languages. The latter in turn arise when thetranslator attempts to maintain the gist of the original meaning while practicing some means ofsemantic polishing.The analysis of both types of shifts has to be carried out by extracting the semantic relationswithin the lexical items of the ST then examining the possibility of conveying similar relationsinto the TL by similar or different formal devices. It should be mentioned here that meaningextraction should be made in the light of the immediate situation in which the ST functions;otherwise, the analysis is destined to be vague. This relation is discussed below.1.3.1.1. The Relation between Meaning and SituationLanguage is performed in order to serve a variety of functions over its 'ideational' function (cf.Halliday, 1976). In performing all these functions, language is determined situationally, i.e., theselection of linguistic elements to convey a particular meaning is determined by the elements ofthe situation in which these elements are used. This same relation is described as one ofinclusion; the former includes or presupposes the latter.As far as the present model is concerned, the relation of inclusion between meaning and situationbrings about significant implications, the first of which is the necessity of taking the situationalvariables into account in defining the meaning of the ST. The second implication goes asfollows. In addition to the impact of situation on the realization of meaning, part of this meaningis mapped by the linguistic organization of the language in which this meaning is encoded.Hence, one can safely generalize that if the context of situation is changed "changes willinevitably take place in the linguistic texture. Conversely, if a shift is carried out on the linguisticlevel, this context of situation will also change." (Wilss, 1982:71).The above generalization necessitates the adoption of a broader view of the concept of meaning.Such an extended view of meaning applies to all text types in general and those having figurative14

semantic relations in particular, i.e., literary texts. In this regard, Nida (1985:119) states:We are no longer limited to the idea that meaning is centered in words or even ingrammatical situations. Everything in language from sound symbolism to complexrhetorical structures carries meaning...In written communications, even the format carries meaning. Even the color ofbinding is significant. For example, most people do not wish a Bible with a yellowcover, but Bibles with gold cover are very popular.Of course, our model does not go as far as Nida does. His words are cited to emphasize thatmeaning in its widest sense would serve the purpose of the present paper. To put it differently,the analysis of semantic shifts will be carried out in terms of the situation in which language isused.Hence, only the paradigmatic relations could be considered within the semantic component ofthe macro level of analysis. This is so because such relations are semantics proper. The othertypes of relations, due to their textual and stylistic values, will be accounted for withinindependent components at the same level.1.3.1.2. Paradigmatic Relations: Synonymy and Semantic FieldsThe significance of synonymy as a paradigmatic semantic relation to translation is stated byBaldinger (1980:251) as follows: "Translation is nothing than a problem of synonymy." It isevident, then, that Baldinger perceives synonymy in its widest sense to mean, in translation, thesearch for equivalent meaning on all linguistic levels. However, translation, strictly speaking,cannot be perceived as a simple task of haphazard matching of SL lexical items with their TLcounterparts. Any individual can do this by relying on a bilingual dictionary. By contrast, thetranslator needs to analyze the meaning of the SL lexical items before attempting to find TLequivalents for these items. In his search for efficient lexical equivalents in the TL, the translatorhas to play the role of a competent proxy on behalf of his readers; he must identify the areas ofcultural overlap and linguistic interference between the two languages. His suffering starts at this15

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesstage: identical symbols in the two languages do not necessarily convey the same meaning.Much worse is the difference in people's experiences and the variation of conceptual boundariesfrom one language to another "in a way that defies principled explanation" (Leech, 1974:3).Knowing that lexical items are the vehicles by which people's experience is encoded and theirconcepts are expressed leads to the conclusion that shifts in interlingual synonymy are inevitablephenomena in translation.Apart from the problem of denotation in the study of synonymy, Nida (1964:89) captures thestructural specification of words as another source for semantic shifts in this area. In this regard,he states:The area of cultural specification, however, is likely to provide thegreatest difficulties for the translator. In translating a text whichrepresents an area of cultural specification in the source language but notin the receptor language, the translator must frequently construct all sortsof descriptive equivalents so as to make intelligible something, which isquite foreign to the receptor.In our opinion, this process of finding semantically equivalent lexical items is carried out byperforming a variety of shifts in the central and/or peripheral components of the ST lexicalitems. By means of careful contextual conditioning, the translator may remove or insert somecomponential values associated with the ST lexical items. According to Nida (1969:107), "inmany instances, shifts of components involve only a shift from a literal etymological meaning toone which is functionally more relevant." Nida's example for this case is the translation of theword 'devil' whose etymological meaning is 'Satan.' If translated, say, into Arabic, the wordwould mean nothing unless an etymological shift is used, i.e., the translator has to refer to itsetymological origin then transfer it into the TL. Another type of componential shift goes fromgeneric to specific meaning or vice versa.As for the relation between the lexical items and their referents, which is the core of theirreferential meaning, the translator is likely to face three situations. The first one is "the existence16

of a term (and its corresponding referent) in the receptor language, but with an equivalentfunction being performed by another referent" (ibid. 44). A good example for such a situationarises when translating from English into a language which has no word for 'snow.' Thetranslator has to replace the word 'snow' in the phrase 'as white as snow' by another word, whichrefers to a white-colored object.The second situation is "the existence of the referent in the receptor language, but with adifferent function from what it has in the source language."(ibid.). The English word 'owl' and itsArabic equivalent 'buum' represent a good example for such a problem. In English, it refers to aclass of birds with positive connotation, i.e., wisdom and good omen. Arabic has exactly theopposite connotation for the same referent, the fact which necessitates finding another wordreferring to an object with similar connotations.The third situation is "the non-existence of the referent in the receptor language and no otherreferent with a parallel function" (ibid.45). The translation of any lexical item denotingtechnological inventions from English into Arabic provides a good example for such a problem.Here, the translator is compelled to force foreign words into the TT or to use descriptive phrasesto explain the meaning of individual lexical items.In all the situations discussed above, the translator finds himself obliged to adopt some strategiesso as to bridge these semantic gaps. In this regard, Jacobson's (1959:234) words would serve toconclude the discussion:Wherever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplifiedby loan words or loan translations or semantic shifts and finally, bycircumlocutions.1.4. The Textual ComponentTo be described as such, a text should exhibit two kinds of structural and cohesive relations:local and global (Hendricks, 1976:41). The first can be accounted for by 'Sentence Grammar' on17

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articleswhich enough has already been said. The second kind includes the relations which cannot beaccounted for "without reference to inter-sentence features and to portions of the text beyond thesentence under consideration" (Enkvist, 1973:111). Consequently, the inclusion of such acomponent would inevitably presume reliance on text linguistics. As a matter of fact, theincorporation of this linguistic approach is an essential procedural condition for the macro levelof analysis. In other words, the analysis cannot be carried out on randomly chosen sentenceswithout taking into account that these sentences should exhibit the property of global cohesion inaddition to their local cohesion. This particular requirement is satisfied by inserting a textualcomponent within the macro level. The analysis within this component will focus on theelements within individual sentences which, in addition to playing a role in the structure of thesentence itself, also contribute to its integration into the textual whole, by making it dependent insome way on other sentences within the same text. These dependent sentences conveyinformation about one another, which makes them constitute a cohesive whole. There are twoother sources of this interdependence, namely, textual and discoursal. The former refers to thevariety of global and local cohesive markers within the portions of the text while the latter refersto the functional dependency among these portions. The latter dimension imposes the inclusionof another macro discipline of language description, namely, 'discourse analysis.' This meansthat the question to be asked about any linguistic unit is what the user hopes to achieve with thisparticular bit of language, i.e., its use, in addition to its form. This issue is accounted for by thepragmatic component within the macro level. The description of this component will be givenafter the description of the present component.By now, it is obvious that the textual component of shift analysis views the data in their broadscope. Hence, this analysis will be carried out in terms of the textual well-formedness whichentails such variables as collocation, reiteration, ellipsis, references, substitution and the like.1.5.The Pragmatic ComponentStalinker (1973:38) defines pragmatics as "the study of purposes for which sentences are used, ofthe real-world conditions under which a sentence may be appropriately used and alternate." In18

this sense the meaning of a single expression may vary in accordance with the purposes behind itand the conditions surrounding the communicative act.This view of meaning, which necessitates the inclusion of a pragmatic component in any propersemantic analysis, corresponds to what Widdowson (1973:69) refers to as "the communicativeuse of sentences in the performing of social actions." Leech (1974:141) uses the term'connotative meaning' to refer to the same type of meaning. To him, the connotation of anexpression is the "communicative value an expression has...over and above its purely conceptualmeaning."In contrast to the linguistic meaning, which can be extracted from the grammatical relationswithin a given text, pragmatic meaning can only be analyzed by referring to the cultural and/orlinguistic context of that text. Accordingly, the analysis of pragmatic shifts in translation canonly be carried out by attending to the immediate cultural context of situation of the ST andmatching it with that in the TL so as to put a finger on the possible areas of shifts when thetranslator tries to convey the same message into the TL. In this connection, reference is to bemade to speech acts theory as initiated by some pragmatists, e.g., Austin (1965 ). This means thatthe analysis should account for variables such as the intentions of the writer or speaker, hisexpectation, the time of utterance, the truth value of the propositions expressed, other speech actsbeing performed in the same situation, and so on. In other words, the analysis will take intoconsideration the major functions of language as a means of communication in a social setting.What is important here is that the realization of these functions varies greatly from one languageto another, which adds to the necessity of using a pragmatic component in the present model. Infact, this variation in the realization of the pragmatic functions of language goes is expressed intwo phases. First, languages employ different formal devices for realizing similar speech acts.These formal variations include all lexical and syntactic means allowed by the grammar of eachlanguage. Second, the contextual spectrum, which imposes the performing of particular acts,differs considerably from one culture to another. Furthermore, at a higher level of delicacy,"cultures may also differ in the rules for when certain speech acts can be appropriatelyperformed." (Benthalia and Davies, 1989:102). In this regard, one may refer to the considerabledifferences between English and Arabic in the kind of formulas commonly used to perform the19

the second:- Medicines can kill and therefore should be kept out of children's reach.- Medicines can kill; they should be kept out of children's reach.Kaplan (1972:ix) attributes this ability to the fact that this is how speakers of English organizetheir thought by means of culture-specific devices known as 'rhetorical devices.' The culturalrestrictedness of these devices implies the inevitable occurrence of shifts in this particular areafor which this particular component is dedicated. In his attempt to characterize the rhetoricalstructure of a number of languages, Kaplan (ibid. 61) views English as 'direct' whereas muchoriental writings are 'indirect' or 'circulocutionary.' According to him, the speakers of Semiticlanguages tend to transfer a complex series of parallel constructions to English. Therefore, thisgives evidence for the likelihood of shifts in this particular area.Languages may also exhibit many differences in other phases of rhetoric such as foregrounding,irony, allegory, metaphor, simile, metonym, etc., The reason behind these differences is selfevident:these phases are associated with people's conceptual experiences and ideologies. In thisregard, the variations between English and Arabic in the area of simile and metaphor represent agood example. In consequence, this particular component has been included so as to account forthe possible shifts that may arise with some major rhetorical devices, e.g., metaphor, idiomaticexpressions, foregrounding and metonym.1.7. The Stylistic ComponentStyle is the last area to be dealt with at the macro level of analysis. Hence, we shall considercertain overall features of style which contribute to the occurrence of shifts of various levels ofthe TL text. Furthermore, we do not intend to restrict the term 'stylistic' to its literary conception.Instead, following Fowler (1966:15), I hold the view that style is "a property of all texts,"without, however, going as far as to overlook the fact that literary texts exhibit some stylisticfeatures more clearly than non-literary ones. With this clear precaution in mind, we assume that21

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesevery language has its own stylistic conventions which may differ from those of other languages,which may cause stylistic shifts to arise when two languages are involved in terms of thefunction of these conventions and their formal carriers, i.e., their linguistic realizations. Whentwo or more TL expressions are available at the translator's disposal to express the same SLmeaning, stylistic shifts become possible. Obviously, the role of content here is to serve as thestarting point for shift analysis. The other issue relevant to the analysis of stylistic shifts is theproblem of style definition. The need for a satisfactory definition of the term 'style' would help usget rid of the complexities of literary criticism. In other words, we need to restrict this term so asto account for the measurement of stylistic shifts in the TT regardless of their type. This meansthat this term should be defined in purely linguistic terms rather than defining it as a literaryconcept.Here, it is necessary to emphasize the overwhelmingly optional nature of stylistic shifts. In otherwords, I perceive these shifts as TL structural alternative means of expressing a single SLmessage at various levels of language use.Interlingually, stylistic shifts can be explained with reference to the same distinction betweenobligatory and optional application of language rules. An obligatory rule in one language couldbe optional in another. Accordingly, the analyst's task is to analyze the original writer's typicalstrategies in utilizing optional transformations and his use of different kinds of transformationaloperations to compare them with those of the translator.The second important point presumed by Galperin's statement refers to the variety ofimplications conjoined with the term 'style.' The point can put more concretely as follows: thedefinition of style "implies that words [and other linguistic units] on a page might been different,or differently arranged, without a corresponding difference in substance" (Ohman, 1964:430).One significant implication of this statement is that a distinction should be made between theform of the message and its content. The following section is a discussion of this issue.1.7.1. Dichotomy of Form and Content:22

Nida and Taber's (1969:105-6) statement in favor of this dichotomy seems the best start ing pointfor this section. It reads as follows:In translating the message from one language to another, it is the contentwhich must be preserved at any level; the form, except in special cases,such as poetry, is largely secondary, since within each language the rulesfor relating content are highly complex, arbitrary and variable... Ofcourse if by coincidence, it is possible to convey the same content in thereceptor language in a form which resembles that of the source, so muchthe better, we preserve the form when we can, but more often it has to betransferred precisely in order to preserve the content. An excessive effortto preserve the form inevitably results in a serious loss or distortion of themessage.The implication of the above statement is evident: stylistic shifts are expected with thetranslator's effort to preserve the balance between form and content of the message on the onehand and his tendency to reflect his character on the other.Although some scholars tend to restrict the criterion of form to literary texts, our position here isthat "there is probably no absolute formal distinction between literature and non-literature:neither of these two categories is formally homogenous." (Fowler, 1966:16). However, thisgeneralization should not be misunderstood as to deny the existence of literature. Instead, it ismeant as being a working hypothesis necessary for the task of analyzing stylistic shifts within alinguistic framework. To put it more clearly, we assume that all examples of language useexhibit a linguistic form susceptible for empirical investigation (ibid.). Furthermore, it makes nodifference if the designation 'literature' is used for a certain class of constructions, sincemembers of this class exhibit formal differences among themselves as well as compared to othermembers outside this class. In short, "there is no constant, or a set of constants, whichdifferentiates all members of the class 'literature' from the members of the class ''non-literature.'"(ibid.11). Even when we agree on the importance of form to literature, this does not trivialize thefact that linguistic forms exist and should be taken as an essential area of investigation in all23

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesother examples of language use. The inseparability of form and content goes with the view thatform has a function and the translator has to discover and transfer it to the TL (cf. Crystal andDavy, 1969; Leech and Short, 1981; Hatim and Mason, 1990). In this sense, the translator's taskis not only to transfer the content of the message but also to transfer its form as far as possible.However, following Nida (1985:24) "languages clearly do not differ primarily in what they cancommunicate, but in how they do it." This is an overt reference to the occurrence of stylisticshifts in translation at two levels. On the one hand, there is the intrasentential level wherelanguages differ in their optional and obligatory rules of sentence formation. On the other hand,stylistic shifts are also likely to occur at the inter-sentential macro level where language mayexhibit substantial differences in the rules of text formation and message organization.Consequently, the analysis of these shifts will be carried out on both levels in parallel with theaxis of obligatory and optional shifts.Now the conclusion to be drawn is that 'stylistic shifts' is a cover term used to refer to the varietyof macro formal modifications of the ST when transferred into the TL. The occurrence of theseshifts, moreover, can only be predicted by referring to the rhetorical and stylistic conventions ofeach language in question in addition to the translator's preference, choice, and ability.Before moving to the framework of analyzing stylistic shifts, it should be mentioned here that thecontribution of form to the meaning of a text varies according to the text type. The amount ofstylistic shifts varies accordingly. In some genres, e.g., prose, poetry, religious texts, etc., formhas a cohesive and an aesthetic function which conveys "the creative will of the writer and lendthe text an outward shape" (Wilss, 1982:76).1.7.2. The Role of the TranslatorAmong all factors affecting the occurrence of stylistic shifts, the role of the translator stands asthe most recognizable factor. The majority of optional shifts taking place in translation can beattributed to the differences between the original writer and the translator as two text-producers.However, the impacts of these differences are usually suppressed by the literary norms of the TL24

and the norms of the translation activity itself. More important is the translator's relation to thetext given. This relation is neatly described by Popovic (1970:80) as follows:It is not the translator's only business to 'identify' himself with theoriginal; that would merely result in transparent translation. Thetranslator also has the right to differ organically, to be independent, aslong as independence is pursued for the sake of the original, a techniqueapplied in order to reproduce it as a living work... Thus shifts do not occurbecause the translator wishes to 'change' a work, but because he strives toreproduce it as faithfully as possible and to grasp it in its totality.Popovic's statement reminds us of many factors, which affect the translator's adoption of aparticular style in rendering a particular text into another language. One of these factors is theliterary norms that may differ in the SL and TL, the case which leaves the translator with threechoices: to imitate the original style, to rely on the TL stylistic norms, or to compromise the twoby practicing his own stylistic prejudice. The last two options would naturally result in a greatdeal of stylistic shifts.The other point is that some languages may have much more highly developed aesthetic andrhetorical patterns than other languages, which gives the translator more freedom to choose theway he likes in expressing the original message. Moreover, the range and refinement of someliterary genres could be more developed in one language than in another. Both cases are typicallyapplicable to the translation of elevated literature such as poems, epics, religious texts, etc.The third factor relevant to the role of the translator in stylistic shifts relates to the 'nationalfeatures' of the ST. In this regard Zora Jesenka (quoted by Popovic, 1970:81) has the followingto say:Both the translator and the reader are the children of their generation,which displays its own character in its manner of perception andexpression. And the older the work we translate and the more distant theculture which produced it, the more crucial culture is the question of how25

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesto preserve the temporal and national features of the original and to makethem accessible to the actual perception of the present reader.Thus, it is the aim of making such literary works accessible to the TL reader that encourages thetranslator to use stylistic shifts. Following Popovic (ibid.), such shifts are expected as a rule"because the identity and difference in relation to the original cannot be solved without someresidue." Up to this point, the translator's dilemma becomes evident: he would never strive topreserve all the singularities of the original but rather he would try to reflect his own identitywhile preserving the gist of the original message. Furthermore, he will try to make use ofcontemporary equivalents and comprehensible by his perceptive reader. Doing all these tasks, thetranslator will display much of his translation skill and literary taste. Skill and literary taste aretwo prerequisites to produce a 'natural' translation because the act of substituting the SL normsby TL ones is a highly subjective issue that demands creative intuition on the part of thetranslator. Again, this is so because direct transfer of specific stylistic features from the SL intothe TL is hindered by both the organic character of the ST components and the divergencebetween the two stylistic norms of both languages, on the other. This transfer becomes possible"only by means of an equivalent function, namely by appropriate shifts." (Popovic, ibid.83).To sum up, our perception of the role of the translator is that he is a performer of a dual task. Onthe one hand, he has to adhere as much as he can to the content of the message, including itsform (if it is part of this content); on the other hand, he tries to reflect his identity and tends toproduce a 'natural' text. This tendency, we believe, can best be achieved by means of a set ofstylistic shifts.ConclusionsThe first noteworthy conclusion of this paper is that the phenomenon of 'shift' should beredefined positively as the consequence of the translator's effort to establish translationequivalence (TE) between two different language-systems: that of the SL and that of the TL.26

Psychologically, the occurrence of these shifts reflects the translator's awareness of the linguisticand non-linguistic discrepancies between the SL and TL. In this sense, shifts can be defined asproblem-solving strategies adopted consciously to minimize the inevitable loss of meaning whenrendering a text from one language into another.Second, since translation proper is concerned with the transfer of meaning, the analysis of shiftsin translation should take into account the non-linguistic factors—in addition to the linguisticones—so as to achieve a comprehensive analysis of these shifts.Third, shifts in translation constitute a counterclaim to language universals ; therefore, theseshifts can be better examined within the domain of 'difference' in translation. This conclusion isbased on the assumption that languages do not differ primarily in what they communicate but inhow they do so. Consequently, CA has been proved as a powerful diagnostic tool for shiftanalysis.Fourth, the distinction between various types of shifts at various levels necessitates thedistinction between various types of equivalence in translation, e.g., functional, pragmatic,textual, collocational, rhetorical, etc.Fifth, the distinction between micro-level and macro-level shifts is compatible with thedistinction between various types of translation, e.g., literal, free, etc. The same distinction isalso compatible with the distinction between various units of translation, e.g., word, sentence,paragraph, etc.Sixth, the postulation of the terms, 'optional' and 'obligatory' shifts satisfies the need to accountfor linguistic and non-linguistic differences between the languages involved in this process.Finally, we assume for our model, as it is described above, a universal operation regardless of thelanguages involved in this task.References27

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesAustin, J. L. (1965) How to Do Things with Words. New York: Macmilan.Baldinger, K. (1980) Semantic Theory. New York: St.Martin's Press.Benthahila, A. and Davies, E. (1989) 'Culture and Language Use: A Problem for ForeignLanguage Teaching.' IRAL, Vol xxvii/2, 1989, p.102.Berry, H. M. (1977) Introduction to Systemic Linguistics 2. and Links. Batsford and Sons.Brown, E. K., and Miller, J. E. (1980) Syntax: A Levels Linguistic Introduction to SentenceStructure. London: Hutchinson & Co. (publishers) Ltd.Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969) Investigating English Style. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Enkvist, N. E. (1973) Linguistic Stylistics. Mouton, The Hague.Fowler, R (1966) Linguistic Theory and the study of literature.' In N.G.Leech (ed.) Linguisticsand the Figures of Rhetoric. pp. 135-56.Halliday, M. A. K. (1961) 'Categories of the Theory of Grammar,' Word 1961 17.3.241-92. (Alsoin G. R. Kress (1976) (ed.) 52-72.Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh and P. Strevens (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and LanguageTeaching. London: Longman.Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London, Longman.Hatim, B., and Mason, I (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Hendricks, W. (1976) Grammars of Style and Styles of Grammar. Amsterdam: North HollandPublishing Company.Jacobson, R. (1959) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.' In R. A. Brower (ed.) On Translation28

Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 232-9.James, C. (1980) Contrastive Analysis, London: Oxford University Press.Kaplan, F. (1972) -, London: Oxford University Press.Leech, J. (1974) Semantics. London: Hazell Watson & Vinery Ltd.Leech, G. N., and Short, M. H., (1981) Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to EnglishFictional Prose. New York: Longman Group Ltd.Muir, J. (1972) A Modern Approach to English Grammar. Batsford and Sons.Nida, E, (1964). Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden, E. J. Brill._______, (1969). 'Science of Translation,' Language, Vol.45, No.3, 1969, pp. 495-497.Nida, E., and Taber, C., (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Nida, E., (1985) ' Translating means Translating Meaning,' Publication of FIT, UNISCO, PP.119-25.Ohman, Richard (1964) 'Modes of order,' In Donald C. Freeman (ed.) Linguistics and LiteraryStyle. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1970, pp. 209-42.Popovic, A (1970) "The concept 'shift of expression' in Translation," in Holmes, J. (ed.) TheNature of Translation. Mouton: The Hague.Stalinker, R. C. (1973) 'Pragmatics,' In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) Semantics of NaturalLanguages.Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Widdowson, H. G. (1973) An Applied Linguistic Approach to Discourse Analysis. UnpublishedPh. D thesis, University of Edinburgh.Wills, W. (1982) The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tubingen: Gunter Narr29

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesVerlag.30