Page 16 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 16
rom the above presentations, one can aver, without fear of contradiction, that the quack translator constitutes the most important
fidelity erosion agent (FEA) in translation. Technically, a quack translator’s level of linguistic performance in either the SL or TL or
both of them, does not support his ability to “pass judgment on the grammaticality of sentences, on ambiguity, (on orthography), and
paraphrases” (Bussmann 1996:86).
4.2 “Les faux amis” as Agents of Fidelity Erosion
Les faux amis is a French expression, which literally means false friends. In translation theory, the expression is used to describe
words or even structures, which may appear to correspond semantically in both the source and target languages by virtue of their
etymology and form, but actually do not, due to their separate evolutions in each of the languages. As the name humorously implies,
they are indeed, false friends of the translator, because they are capable of confusing the translator, thereby resulting in fidelity erosion
in translation. Now, consider the following cases.
Example One
Source Language (English) Target Language (French)
I want to rest. Je veux rester. (wrong)
Je veux me reposer. (correct)
Example Two
Source Language (English) Target Language (French)
Il est en prison actuellement. He is actually in prison. (wrong)
He is presently in prison. (correct)
Example Three Target Language (French)
Source Language (English) Il me demande une question. (wrong)
He asks me a question.
Il me pose une question. (correct)
Comments :
In example one above, although rest and rester resemble visually, they do not mean the same thing contextually; hence they are
regarded as faux amis. Ordinarily, asks and demande seem to mean the same thing; but they differ contextually, hence they are also
regarded as faux amis in example three above.
4.3 Language Interference
In speaking or writing a second language such as English, some Igbo native speakers exhibit the subconscious linguistic attitude
of applying phonetic and phonological knowledge from their mother tongue in decoding words or phrases of a second language. For
instance, a typical Igbo native speaker from Idemili and Njikoka Local Government Areas of Anambra State of Nigeria subconsciously
uses the phonemes [l] and [ʀ] interchangeably. Let us consider the following examples:
Source Language (English) Target Language (Igbo)
i. John is praying. i. Jọn na-egwu egwu. (John is playing.)
ii. John is playing. ii. Jọn na-ekpe ekpere. (John is praying.)
Comments:
In the above examples, the Igbo translator, who is a victim of language interference, subconsciously decoded “praying” (na-ekpe
ekpere) as “playing” (na-egwu egwu) and vice versa, thereby contributing to fidelity erosion in the translation.
4.3 Local Dialects as Agents of Fidelity Erosion in Translation
Writing about speech-communities, Bloomfield (1973:15) asserts that every village has its own local dialect which usually differs
16 | Translation Journal - July 2015
fidelity erosion agent (FEA) in translation. Technically, a quack translator’s level of linguistic performance in either the SL or TL or
both of them, does not support his ability to “pass judgment on the grammaticality of sentences, on ambiguity, (on orthography), and
paraphrases” (Bussmann 1996:86).
4.2 “Les faux amis” as Agents of Fidelity Erosion
Les faux amis is a French expression, which literally means false friends. In translation theory, the expression is used to describe
words or even structures, which may appear to correspond semantically in both the source and target languages by virtue of their
etymology and form, but actually do not, due to their separate evolutions in each of the languages. As the name humorously implies,
they are indeed, false friends of the translator, because they are capable of confusing the translator, thereby resulting in fidelity erosion
in translation. Now, consider the following cases.
Example One
Source Language (English) Target Language (French)
I want to rest. Je veux rester. (wrong)
Je veux me reposer. (correct)
Example Two
Source Language (English) Target Language (French)
Il est en prison actuellement. He is actually in prison. (wrong)
He is presently in prison. (correct)
Example Three Target Language (French)
Source Language (English) Il me demande une question. (wrong)
He asks me a question.
Il me pose une question. (correct)
Comments :
In example one above, although rest and rester resemble visually, they do not mean the same thing contextually; hence they are
regarded as faux amis. Ordinarily, asks and demande seem to mean the same thing; but they differ contextually, hence they are also
regarded as faux amis in example three above.
4.3 Language Interference
In speaking or writing a second language such as English, some Igbo native speakers exhibit the subconscious linguistic attitude
of applying phonetic and phonological knowledge from their mother tongue in decoding words or phrases of a second language. For
instance, a typical Igbo native speaker from Idemili and Njikoka Local Government Areas of Anambra State of Nigeria subconsciously
uses the phonemes [l] and [ʀ] interchangeably. Let us consider the following examples:
Source Language (English) Target Language (Igbo)
i. John is praying. i. Jọn na-egwu egwu. (John is playing.)
ii. John is playing. ii. Jọn na-ekpe ekpere. (John is praying.)
Comments:
In the above examples, the Igbo translator, who is a victim of language interference, subconsciously decoded “praying” (na-ekpe
ekpere) as “playing” (na-egwu egwu) and vice versa, thereby contributing to fidelity erosion in the translation.
4.3 Local Dialects as Agents of Fidelity Erosion in Translation
Writing about speech-communities, Bloomfield (1973:15) asserts that every village has its own local dialect which usually differs
16 | Translation Journal - July 2015
