Fidelity in Translation studies - M.A course of English linguistics

1. FIDELITY
Translation Studies
Group 6
1

2. • Đặng HoàngThi
• LêThị PhươngThủy
1. An experiment in fidelity
• Trần Lê AnhThư
• Võ Lê AnhThư
2. Principles of fidelity
• TháiThị LệThu
3. Secondary information an obstacle and a help
FIDELITY

3. Introduction
3
■ Guralnik (1979), inWebster's English Dictionary, writes that
"faithfulness/fidelity" means "the quality of being accurate, reliable,
and exact."
■ The issue of fidelity is probably the most basic and widely discussed
component ofTranslation quality.
■ Fidelity in translation is passing of the message from one language
into another by producing the same effect in the other language,
(in sense and in form), in a way that the reader of the translation
would react exactly as the reader of the original text
Đặng HoàngThi

4. AN EXPERIMENT IN FIDELITY
The experiment reported below has been carried out more than 30 times over
more than 13 years,
in various countries and with many different languages.
Phase one: verbalizing a simple idea
Phase two: translating a simple utterance
4Đặng HoàngThi

5. AN EXPERIMENT IN FIDELITY
Phase one:Verbalizing a simple idea
Half of the students are asked to leave the room. A simple drawing
suggesting an elementary informational Message is presented to
the remaining participants.
5Đặng HoàngThi

6. The participants were told the following:
“You are sitting in the car next to the driver. At a certain point in time you see a
road sign ‘Paris 50 km’. Please write down exactly what you would say in your
mother tongue to the driver to tell him what the sign say.”
6
AN EXPERIMENT IN FIDELITY
Phase one:Verbalizing a simple idea
Đặng HoàngThi

7. Results:
1) Fifty kilometers to Paris.
2) Still fifty kilometers to go.
3) We'll be in Paris in fifty kilometers.
4) Fifty kilometers longer.
5) We'll be there in fifty kilometers.
6) Paris is fifty kilometers from here.
different sentences
due to differences in the way
the participants understood
the Message presented to
them, and the analysis of the
subject shown.
Đặng HoàngThi

8. 1) Fifty kilometers to Paris.
2) Still fifty kilometers to go.
3) We'll be in Paris in fifty kilometers.
4) Fifty kilometers longer.
5) We'll be there in fifty kilometers.
6) Paris is fifty kilometers from here.
 All sentences: “fifty kilometers” mentioned
 S 2, 3, 4, 5: the speaker moving to a place
located 50km from the present position
 S 2, 4, 5: Paris not mentioned
 S 3, 5: “We” >/= 1 person besides the
speaker is also moving towards the same
destination
 S 2, 4 : the speaker has already been for
some time.
S 2, 3, 5: reaching Paris is a future event
 S 1, 3, 6: Paris is mentioned
Đặng HoàngThi

9. 1) Fifty kilometers to Paris.
2) Still fifty kilometers to go.
3) We'll be in Paris in fifty kilometers.
4) Fifty kilometers longer.
5) We'll be there in fifty kilometers.
6) Paris is fifty kilometers from here.
the large differences between
these sentences
 Without a certain situational context
 The Message might not be fully conveyed in S 2, 4, 5.
 With a certain situational context
The Message is fully conveyed in all sentences
Đặng HoàngThi

10. 10
These differences may be divided into:
Information gains: Information given in one sentence which is not
found in another or in the picture.
Information losses: Information not given in the sentence under
consideration although it is present in a sentence, it is being
compared to or in the picture.
 The differences between sentences show thatThe same message,
expressed under identical conditions by different Senders, tends to be
expressed differently by each individual.
Đặng HoàngThi

11. Which information is added to the Message in the sentences?
Model: Sentence information = Message + (FI + LII + PI)
- Framing Information (FL), which is selected by the Sender for the purpose of
facilitating comprehension of the Message by the Receiver. (“Paris” and the
distance unit “km”)
- Linguistically Induced Information (LII), which is not selected by the Sender but
is made mandatory or induced by the rules of the language used. (the future
tense in sentence 3 and 5: We’ll be)
- Personal information (PI), which is neither selected by the Sender nor induced
by linguistic constraints, but it is associated with idiosyncratic characteristics of
the Sender. (a regional or foreign accent, certain errors in grammar, or certain
stylistic and lexical choices can carry personal information.)
11Đặng Hoàng Thi

12. AN EXPERIMENT IN FIDELITY
Phase two: translating a simple utterance
12
The drawing is removed from the blackboard or screen. The persons who have been waiting
outside are called back into the classroom, and all participants are asked to translate the
collected sentences into their native tongue or into the same common language.
1. Fifty kilometers to Paris.
2. Still fifty kilometers to go.
3. We’ll be in Paris in fifty kilometers.
4. Fifty kilometers longer.
5. We’ll be there in fifty kilometers.
6. Paris is fifty kilometers from here.
replaced by
LêThị PhươngThủy

13. 13
The results collected are very interesting
 Participants tend to translate each sentence separately in a more or less word-
for-word fashion.
 Of more than a thousand people (experiments between 1979 and 1993), fewer
than ten have given a single translation for all sentences.
 Some participants say the Messages in the sentences are the same, and others
consider they are not.
 Participants say the Messages are the same, but they translate the sentences
differently.
 There is a tendency to translate all the information, so as not to miss any
relevant components.
 Participants taking part in the phase one (they saw the drawing) translate each
sentence differently.
LêThị PhươngThủy

14. PRINCIPLES OF FELIDITY
 The Message (M)
 Framing Information (FI)
 Linguistically Induced Information (LII)
 Personal Information (PI)
14

15. Setting of communication
Source language text
The Sender formulates the
discourse as the carrier of a
Message for the purpose of
achieving an aim such as
informing, explaining, and/or
persuading.
Communication is successful if
this aim is achieved.
Target language text
TheTranslator “represents” the
Sender and the Sender’s interests;
and contributes to the success of the
Sender’s endeavor (or attempt).
Reformulate
Translating
all the
information
Trần Lê AnhThư

16. Follow the
same ‘route’ as
the Sender’s
Successful
communication
Fidelity
In translation,Translators cannot rewrite or reformulate the speech in a completely different way
which they believe will achieve the Sender’s objective more efficiently than the Sender’s words
Trần Lê AnhThư

17. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
The Message (M)
SLT
Primary Information
M
TLT
Secondary Information
M
The absolute fidelity rule:The Message or Primary Information should always be
re-expressed in the target-languageText
Reformulation
of information
Trần Lê AnhThư

18. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Framing Information (FI)
Ex: when translating an Australian text quoting prices in “dollars”
Trần Lê AnhThư

19. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Framing Information (FI)
Ex: when translating
an English text quoting a
unit of measure in “mile”
intoVietnamese.
Trần Lê AnhThư

20. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Personal Information (PI)
20
■ Personal information is associated with personal habits or
style of the sender.
■ It concerns a regional or foreign accent, certain errors in
grammar, or certain lexical and stylistic choices which carry
information about a speaker’s personal background.
■ When PI generates a negative image, some errors or regional
regions of the Senders, such information should not be
reconstructed in the target language.
Trần Lê AnhThư

21. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Framing Information (FI)
 FI is selected by the Sender for the purpose of facilitating the
reception of the Message by the Receiver.
 TL receivers may not have the same preexisting knowledges and
values as the SL receivers.
 Reformulating FI may defeat the aim of communication by making
the information too explicit or not explicit enough for the target
language Receiver.
Fidelity to Sender’s interests may require eliminating some of the original FI
and adding some FI for benefit of the target-language Receiver
Trần Lê AnhThư

22. It is not introduced by the Sender . It is induced by the linguistic
rules of the Source language and the target language.
Translator cannot always discriminate between the Message
and LII, tends to translate the latter in order to be sure not to
leave any part of the Message untranslated, or tend to be
more explicit in theTL text.
PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Linguistically Induced Information(LII)
Võ LêAnhThư

23. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Linguistically Induced Information(LII)
23
■ A source-language (SL)Text composed of:
SL text = M + FI + LII (of SL) + PI
■ A target –language (TL)Text composed of:
TL text = M + FI + LII (ofTL) + PI
■ But the target-languageText often composed of:
TL text = M + FI + LII (of SL) + LII (ofTL) + PI
The target text includes not only LII from the source
language, but also its own LII.
Võ LêAnhThư

24.  The Message should always be reformulated in the target language.
 Reformulation priority in Secondary Information is highest for Framing
Information; second highest for Personal Information and finally
Linguistically Induced Information.
PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Conclusion
Võ LêAnhThư

25. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Conclusion
1.The order of ideas identified as part of the Message in the source text must be
followed in the target text.
2. In translation, within a sentence, structural changes are generally accepted .
Ex: For effective communication, long sentences maybe segmented into shorter ones. In
interpretation, more extensive stylistic and informational changes may be acceptable.
3. If theTranslator feels that a particular choice of words or linguistic structures may
have been made deliberately for impact, this choice should be followed whenever
possible.
Võ LêAnhThư

26. PRINCIPLES OF FIDELITY
Conclusion
■ In reading a text or listening to a speech, Message and Secondary
Information should not be always identified.
■ In producing own targetText, Framing Information and Linguistically
Induced Information are often aware.
Võ LêAnhThư

27. SECONDARY INFORMATION:
AN OBSTACLE & A HELP
27
 The language-specificity of LII-generated problems
 Interpretation vs. translation from the Secondary Information
perspective
TháiThị LệThu

28. SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A
HELP
For example:
In a conference, a speaker may refer to someone as “Monsieur X” giving the
interpreter working into English LII relating to the gender of X but failing to
indicate whether he should be referred to as ‘Dr. X” “Pro. X”, etc
Question:
1.Whether to reformulate in the target languageText
information that might be detrimental to communication.
2.Whether to introduce new Secondary Information to
help communication become more effective
TháiThị LệThu

29. SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A
HELP
Eg: When translating from English into Japanese, the English
singular/plural LII is ignored because this linguistic feature doesn’t exist in
Japanese.Trying to convey it may make the JapaneseText clumsy.
Eg: When translating a speech made in English by a female speaker into
Hebrew, Interpreters will not hesitate to introduce the LII indicating the sex
of the speaker because in Herbew, forms of verbs in the present tense for
male are different from female.
Answers byTranslators :
+ It’s the Translator who decides whether it is necessary to introduce
Secondary Information in the target text or not.
TháiThị LệThu

30. SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A
HELP
 Serious problems arise when information required because of the
target-language rules is not known to the Translator and is not given
in the source language text.
TháiThị LệThu

31. SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A
HELP
+ Secondary Information is often much more valuable to the
Translator than to the receiver.To theTranslator, SI can provide
very useful informative elements.
Answers byTranslators :
+ It’s theTranslator who decides whether it is necessary to
introduce Secondary Information in the target text or not.
TháiThị LệThu

32. SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A HELP
The language-specificity of LII-generated problems
The most difficult problems with respect to fidelity and the
resolution of ambiguity arise when target-language rules
require information not provided by the source-languageText.
Experience shows that the frequency of such problems depends
largely on the specific language pair involved.
For instance, in translation texts and speeches between English
and Japanese such problems are few, but LII-generated problems
are numerous in translation between Japanese and Western
languages because of the following two differences:
TháiThị LệThu

33. SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A HELP
The language-specificity of LII-generated problems
 Western languages generally discriminate between singular and plural and
between various points in the past, present and future, whereas Japanese
does not necessarily do so. This does not cause difficulties generally when
Translating into Japanese, because such LII simply disappears in the
target-language product; but when translating from Japanese, problems
resulting from the lack of background information are sometimes difficult
to solve.
 Western languages tend to indicate explicitly the subject and object of
verbs, which is not the case in Japanese. When translating from Japanese
into a Western language, problems sometimes arise because the target
language requires information about the subject and/or object of the
verb, and none is available.
TháiThị LệThu

34. 34
INTERPRETATION TRANSLATION
- Speakers know more about
their target-language
listeners than authors do
about their target-language
readers
- Framing Information is
more suitable for target-
language listeners.
- Authors know less about
their target-language
readers than speakers do
about their target-
language listeners.
- Framing Information is
less suitable for target-
language readers.
SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A HELP
Interpretation vs. translation from the Secondary Information perspective
TháiThị LệThu

35. 35
SECONDARY INFORMATION: AN OBSTACLE & A HELP
Interpretation vs. translation from the Secondary Information perspective
- In extempore speeches, the
selection of Secondary
Information is not carefully
thought out and corrected.
-The interpreter has exploited a
certain degree of freedom and
made many changes in
Secondary Information.
-The selection of Secondary
Information is carefully
thought out and corrected.
INTERPRETATION TRANSLATION
TháiThị LệThu

36. 36
MAIN IDEAS
1. Given the same elementary informational Message in non-verbal form,
individuals tend to give it different verbal expression. Moreover, when asked to
reformulate the same Message after even a short time, they tend to give it a
different second verbal expression.
2.These differences are at least partially uncontrolled, that is, they do not
result from the Sender’s deliberate choices.
3. Differences in the wording of the Message also result in differences in the
information the statements carry. Besides the Message, the following types of
Secondary Information can be found:
- Framing Information;
- Linguistically Induced Information;
- Personal Information.
TL text = M + FI + LII ofTL + PI
TháiThị LệThu

37. 37