Volume 5, No. 3
July 2001
|
 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Translation & Language Varieties
by Magdy M. Zaky
|
 he concept of language varieties in general, and
language registers in particular, can be of great help
in translating as well as in evaluating translations.
|
Words are only minor elements in the total
linguistic discourse. The particular tone of the
passage, i.e, the style of the language, may have more
impact on the audience than the actual words.
|
It will be useful sometimes to refer to
considerations of register. Since the concept of a "whole
language" is so broad and therefore rather loose, it is
not altogether useful for many linguistic purposes,
whether descriptive or comparative. In other words,
the concept of language as a whole unit is
theoretically lacking in accuracy, and pragmatically
rather useless. Consequently, the need arises for a
scientific classification of sub-language or varieties
within the total range of one language.
These varieties, or sub-languages, may be classified
in more than one way. The suggested classes include idiolects,
dialects, registers, styles and modes, as varieties of
any living language. Another view is that of Pit Coder
(1973), who suggests dialects, idiolects, and
sociolects. Quirk (1972) proposes region,
education, subject matter, media and attitude as
possible bases of language variety classification of English in
particular. He recognizes dialects as varieties
distinguished according to geographical dispersion, and
standard and substandard English as varieties within
different ranges of education and social position.
Language registers are recognized as varieties classified
according to subject matter. We acknowledge varieties
distinguished according to attitude, which are called
"styles," and varieties due to
interference, which arise when a foreign speaker
imposes a grammatical usage of his native tongue upon
the language, which he is using. For example, a
Frenchman might say "I am here since Friday." This is
lexically English, but grammatically French. Another
way of classifying language varieties is according to
the user or the
use of language. Thus, in the first category,
we may list social dialects, geographical dialects,
and idiolects, whereas the second category includes
language registers.
The total range of a language may be described in
terms of its grammatical, phonological, and sometimes
even graphological systems. Similarly, the language
varieties of any given language have certain
linguistic features in common. These common features
of all the varieties of one language constitute the
common core of that language. Apart from this common
core of the language concerned, there are other lexical.
grammatical, and stylistic features of each individual
language variety, and so these could serve as formal
linguistic as well as stylistic markers of the
language variety in question. It may be worth noting
in this respect that these variety markers may exist
on any level: phonetical, syntactical,
stylistical and, above all, lexical levels.
Finally, according to Nida, (1964), one of the most
serious problems that face a translator is to properly
match the stylistic levels of two different languages.
For example, the Bible translator may not select a
level of language which is too high for making the
message accessible to the people to whom it is
addressed. At the same time, the level chosen should
not be socially low, becasue it would then debase the
content. In some parts of the Arab world, colloquial
forms of the language are quite unacceptable for the
translation of the Bible, although they might be better
and more widely understood by people than classical
Arabic. On the other hand, the translator has to
select not only the appropriate style for the Bible
in general, but for the particular biblical style he
is translating, since the Bible contains more than
just one style. Translating in fact involves
more than finding corresponding words between two
languages. Words are only minor elements in the total
linguistic discourse. The particular tone of the
passage, i.e, the style of the language, may have more
impact on the audience than the actual words. Indeed,
style and tone are of great,
almost fundamental, importance when we translate
literary texts rather than
scientific ones. If the aim of the source language
text is only to convey a piece of information or some
instructions to the reader or audience, the
referential meaning of words becomes quite
significant, and the effect of style and/or tone
diminishes. At the other extreme, when we deal with a
source language text that does not only aim at
conveying a message, but aspires to produce a certain
impact on the reader through the use of a particular
style, the translation of such a stylistic effect is
then an essential part of the very act of translating—
not just as an ornament that would bestow beauty upon the
translated version, but as an
indispensable aspect of it, without which the
translation ceases to be a translation in the full
sense of the word. This is the case with the
translation of the holy books in general, and the Holy
Koran in particular, since it is held by Muslims to be
a stylistic or literary miracle that defies the human
mind with its excellence and beautiful style.
|
|
|
