Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse ...

Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse Translation

Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse Translation

Richard M. Mansell University of Sheffield / Universitat de les Illes Balears

1. Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) is a theoretical framework, currently most influential in the field of phonology; for a concise history of the theory, see Dols 2000.

The theory proposes a grammar in which constraints, and not rules, determine the wellformedness of an output.

Structure of Optimality-theoretic grammar

a. Gen (Ink)

{Out1, Out2, ... }

b. H-eval (Outi, 1i ) Outreal

(Prince and Smolensky 1993:4).

Based on an input, the Gen function (short for Generator) generates a number of candidate outputs between one and infinity. Then, the H-Eval function (short for Evaluator) evaluates the candidates by means of a notion that is central to OT; a parametric hierarchy of violable and universal constraints. A constraint can be violated, but only to avoid violating constraints at a higher-level in the hierarchy. The candidate with the fewest number of violations of the highest ranked constraint is judged to be the winner: the optimal output. So, the constraints are the same for all languages, but their position within the hierarchy, and thus the possibilities of violating them, differ according to each language.

2. Applying Optimality Theory to the analysis of verse translation

2.1. Precedents

1

Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse Translation

Verse translation is here considered to be a translation in syllabic, accentual or free verse, of a poem from a source language into a target language1. We believe that the concept of the translational process as an interaction of violable and universal constraints brings a new and innovative point of view to the analysis of verse translation.

Verse translation is unique with regards to the interaction of form and content, and there have been many proposals of how to approach this challenge. Oliva insists that "the translation of a literary work (above all a poem) is a process of creation identical to that of the creation of the original" (1995:90, my translation). About this creative process, he paraphrases Ransom (1941), saying that "the two qualities, sound and sense, are not directly related, and to create a poem is to choose between these two qualities" (Oliva 1995:90, my translation). We believe that the concept of choice ? choosing from amongst all possibilities ? is central to translation: there is no one way to translate, and it has been shown that if the same source text (ST) is given to twenty translators, they will produce twenty different target texts (TTs). James S. Holmes has also remarked that a verse translation "can never be more than a single interpretation out of many of the original whose image it darkly mirrors" (1968:30). Other options are available, and so there is more than one possible translation. We suggest however that the translator has chosen the optimal text in agreement with the situation: in a different situation, the result would be a different text.

Furthermore, the notion of choice interaction is not new:

Of course, solutions to translation problems are rarely a case of `right' versus `wrong' [...]. Translation problems are usually interrelated; they form networks or hierarchies in which the solution to one problem influences the way others are tackled.

(Nord 1997:74-75).

1 For now visual poetry and prose poetry will be put to one side; the latter does not make use of the conventions of line and stanza, and with the former "we must take into account not only linguistic factors [...] but also artistic factors, since visual poetry is a combination of literary expression --words-- and plastic expression --images" (Molas and Bou 2003:46, my translation). So, these genres would need different faith and markedness constraints to those presented here.

2

Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse Translation

This functionalist view of translation coincides with our own view from OT: every time a translator makes a choice new paths are opened up, but that is at the cost of others. One of the theory's objectives is to reveal how these choices interact, and if the relationships are systematic.

This article's hypothesis, that the situation in which a translation occurred can be explained by means of (and perhaps be reduced to) the interaction of universal and violable constraints, is conceptually similar to Umberto Eco's recent theoretical soundings: "many current concepts in translation studies (equivalence, adherence to the skopos, faithfulness or translator's initiative) can be placed under the heading of negotiation" (2003:17, his emphasis, my translation). His `negotiation', however, does not have a solid theoretical grounding; "this is not presented as a book on translation theory (it does not have the methodicalness)" (Eco 2003:15, his emphasis, my translation); instead it is based on his experiences as a translator and a translated author, and his work often offers advice to translators on what to do in particular situations, what is `right' and what is `wrong'. Furthermore, the present article proposes not only an analysis of the ST aspects that have been prioritized (or "negotiated", in Eco's terms), but also a look at the constraints that have been broken to achieve this ? the price of what has been done.

2.2. Procedure

Firstly, in analysing an ST-TT pair, the TT is considered to be optimal, having beaten all other possible candidates. Thus the analysis is a tool to conjecture the hierarchy in which the translation is considered optimal.

Dols and Sampol (in press) propose the following constraints, divided into two families; faith constraints and markedness constraints. The definitions of each constraint and all examples from Os Lus?adas are theirs2. In all examples, the ST is on the left and the TT on the right, and the underlined text is where the violation is incurred.

2.2.1. Faith constraints

2 The Catalan translation of Os Lus?adas is by Guillem Colom and Miquel Dol? (1964). The translations of the constraint definitions are mine.

3

Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse Translation

Faith constraints control the relationship between the input and output, which in translation are the ST and TT.

MAXST-TT: Do not elide ST material.

Mais do que prometia a for?a humana,

m?s del que prometia for?a humana, (From Os Lus?adas).

DEPST-TT: Do not add material that is not in the ST.

Em perigos e guerras esfor?ados,

en tants perills i guerres decidits, (From Os Lus?adas).

ORDER: Do not alter the order of ST elements.

E entre gente remota edificaram

i edificaren dins remotes gents (From Os Lus?adas).

IDENTITY: Do not change ST elements (This can be split into SEMANTIC IDENTITY

and LEXICAL IDENTITY).

Que, da Ocidental praia Lusitana,

Note that there are two violations here.

que, de l'extrema riba lusitana, (From Os Lus?adas).

ALIGN: Do not break the relationship between semantic chain and line break in the

ST.

Et je vois tour ? tour s'?taler sur ton teint La folie et l'horreur, froides et taciturnes.

y descubro en tu tez una veces locura y otras veces terror, taciturnos y fr?os.

(From "La muse malade" by Baudelaire).3

SYNTAX: Do not alter the ST syntactic structure.

Que n?o tenham enveja ?s de Hipocrene.

que ja no envegin m?s els d'Hipocrene. (D'Os Lus?adas).

Two examples are enough to demonstrate violations of the remaining faith constraints and the markedness constraints, and they will follow the presentation of the constraints. First, the faith constraints:

3 Spanish translation by Enrique L?pez Castell?n.

4

Optimality Theory Applied to the Analysis of Verse Translation

F/ACCENT1: Do not change the place of the primary ST accent. F/ACCENT2: Do not change the place of the secondary ST accent. F/METRE: Respect the ST metre. F/RHYME: Respect the ST rhyme structure.4

2.2.2. Markedness constraints

Markedness constraints ensure the well-formedness of the output with respect to its system.

ACCENT 1: The TT line must have a primary accent that is acceptable in the target culture. ACCENT 2: The TT line must have a secondary accent that is acceptable in the target culture. METRE: The TT metre must be acceptable in the target culture. RHYME: The TT rhyme structure must be acceptable in the target culture.

The examples are two French translations of the beginning of Hamlet's soliloquy (III.i.56-60), both by Voltaire (1761, in Hermans 1999:38-9). First is the more literal of the two.

To be, or not to be, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind, to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing them end them? To die, to sleep,

?tre ou n'?tre pas, c'est l? la question, S'il est plus noble dans l'esprit de souffrir Les piq?res et les fl?ches de l'affreuse fortune, Ou de prendre les armes contre une mer de trouble, Et en s'opposant ? eux, les finir? Mourir, dormir,

All TT verses apart from the fifth are decasyllables, the TT is in blank verse and the primary accents of the original are respected. That, however, violates the markedness constraints, because this form ? blank decasyllables ? was not acceptable in mideighteenth century French theatre. So, Voltaire proposed a second text:

4 Note that this constraint is not limited to the use of rhyme in the TT when it is used in the ST and viceversa: it also incorporates the type of rhyme used. For example, the use of half-rhyme in an English ST could be imitated in a Catalan TT. This faithfulness, however, would incur a violation of RHYME, because half-rhyme is not an acceptable device in Catalan poetry.

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download