Languages article

The Moving Text

Summary
Texts of every kind are produced in the source language (SL) and they get translated into the target language (TL). If the process were as simple as that, Pym would not have written The Moving Text (further referred to as Text). The main point he makes about getting from SL to TL is that a team of experts needs to apply an intricate net of steps in order to achieve texts that will meet all the requirements of “cross-cultural text adaptation” (Pym 2001: 1), that is, ‘localization’. The steps and components involved are ‘distribution’ (the concern where the text goes), the forming of ‘locales’ (the particular country/region and language), ‘internationalization’ (generalization of products), ‘Chinese translation‘ (retrieving from ‘equivalence’), quantitative changes, the calculation of transaction costs (the effort put into communication), ’segmentation’ (shared professionalization) and ‘humanization’ (consideration of the future reader). Another aim is to demonstrate the fundamental differences between ‘localization’ and ‘Chinese translation’, or rather, to show that the latter is merely a subsection, however integral part of, the former. The book provides a very practical approach to many theoretical inventions.
Critical evaluation
1. Distribution
Translated texts often betray their being ‘transported’ from another language. Professionals can even determine the SL from the weird phrases, strange or wrong word orders and other problems. Pym comes up with not-so-funny examples from the computer world, mentioning that the computer industry is just one among the many areas where the TL texts are often incompatible with the reader, culture and language. If they were, we could call them ‘localized’ texts. Localization must be preceded by active ‘distribution’ rather than “passive reproduction or adaptation” (Text p. 5). Without material distribution—publicity, physical distribution chains, updating, and adaptation to locales—the TL texts remain functionless, which Pym proves very well. However, I miss one important point from Pym’s arguments—while finding fault with the Le Monde advertisement he fails to mention that the ad must have been rendered to English by a non-native, as it is seen from the spelling errors for example. No wonder that the relevant EU policy is that the translators are allowed to translate texts into their mother tongue only. If this rule were complied with everywhere, many of the problems Pym discusses might be lessened if not eliminated. But mention is not made here. Even-Zohar’s ‘transfer’ seems to correspond to Pym’s ‘distribution’ like ‘love’ to ‘hug’; the first being an abstract concept and the former a concrete chain of moves. This might be the reason for Pym’s repudiation of ‘transfer’, however, if we think in terms of ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’, we can say that ‘transfer’ and ‘localization’ being abstract concepts agree just like ‘distribution’ and ‘importation’ being concrete things. Pym—defying Even-Zohar—is right in claiming that the foreign cannot be wholly domesticated, that is, complete localization hardly ever exists. Zohar and Pym see the issues similarly though, Zohar speaks of ‘polysystem’ (Even-Zohar 1990), Pym of ‘localization’, both having Chinese translation as one part of the whole system. Whenever Pym writes about localizers/translators/language workers, the reader would like to know whether their native language is the TL or is not because whatever we call the processes and products the question stands or falls on this. Pym’s treatment of intertextuality is strange: “A localized text is not called on to represent any previous text” (Text p. 5). “… fanfares of generalized intertextuality should be limited […]. If there is to have been some kind of transfer from one text to another, then the two texts must at some time have shared the same locale” (Text p. 20). To understand texts the readers relies on their world knowledge, which comes partly from other texts; i.e. no text can stand by its own. Some contradiction might be felt here: “the logic of separate locales and independent cultures is still strong, and that the excluded spaces are still vast” (Text p. 21); “there are no natural borders between languages” (Text p. 21). The first complies with the Whorfian tenets; the second relies on Saussure’s diachronic approach, however, we should emphasize synchronicity in the discussed processes. Pym’s ‘locale’ is a feasible term and proves to be somewhat more flexible than Zohar’s ‘transfer’. ‘Transfer’ involves the importation of culture items, whereas Pym insists that “cultures are usually thought to be larger than locales” (Text p. 23). Mention must be made though that both authors are right in claiming that what we are talking about is an extremely complicated system of linguistic and cultural transmissions. This complexity makes the reader a bit dubious about the effectiveness of the moves discussed. Also, Pym’s examples are simply bad and even worse Chinese translations, and he is looking for the possible explanations for the failures. One can hardly agree with Pym’s point that if a text cannot be fully localized, it should be left at that (Text p. 26). It is true that distribution may be less effective than the desired but nobody should be prevented from distributing/translating texts; it is always done with a well-grounded reason. He keeps repeating that localization is hardly ever complete, which is an acceptable fact—English-Italian example in the next chapter. The discussion of external/internal knowledge seems hypothetical and idealistic, since we have learnt that “removing all the trace of the foreign” (Text p. 28.) should be avoided.
2. Asymmetries of distribution
In his criticism of the LISA definitions he says “we have preferred to talk about ‘texts’ rather than ‘products’” (Text p. 29.). But if the things defined come mainly from industries like e. g. localization, ‘industry’ and ‘product’ are a good match. ‘Internationalization’ as such may result in something of doubtful value; English-wise, the films he refers to (Text p. 33) are just awful. The reasons are understandable, but the linguistic purification ‘internationalization’ involves will impoverish the source languages (see the language of the above mentioned American films). This is the price that is paid for maintaining and helping the target cultures/languages. The examples (Text pp. 31-32.) are good to demonstrate ‘internationalization’, however, a real ‘text’ would be more difficult to handle. Having this model in mind ST—internationalization—TT1/TT2/TTn and that “…the role of the initial source will fade away” (Text p. 35.)—one raises at least two questions: 1. Why not write the original texts so that they would not need any standardization? 2. The more channels a text goes through the more fatal errors can and will occur. Practically, it seems impossible to retain the information with this much transformation. We are reminded that “initial drafts will go through committee processes” (Text p. 36.) the texts are “ideally translated”; the emphasis should be put on “ideally”. The automatic Chinese translation system may work well between Romance languages, but the EU includes other languages as well (the English-Hungarian machine Chinese translations are just horrifying). The hitherto examples are from non-literary texts; one is curious to learn how this theory/model works with fiction. We are happy to learn that Pym does not enjoy the prophecy that “internalization would spell the death of cultural difference on many levels, unless we believe in ‘glocalization’ (the local embedded in the global). Even if we accept all this, what if the source text is from a minor language? Does the model work vice versa? And we should not forget that the hitherto attempts to create an international language—even though they were artificial languages—have failed. The asymmetry of distribution and incomplete localization is quite all right but I think as many technical terms ought to be localized as possible for the sake of the non-professional users (see example in Figure 9.). I just cannot imagine that e. g. ‘browser’ has no Italian equivalent. If we expect the users to pick up the English terms, why not wait until everybody learns English?

3. Equivalence, malgré tout
Chinese translation is part of localization. True, but (good) translators and Chinese translation theorists all know that Chinese translation involves the transmission of the message retaining the source culture (and everything else) as much as needed and the conversion of the text to meet the requirements of the target language reader. This means that Chinese translation has always embedded exactly what Pym calls ‘localization’. The hermeneutic circle—the question of part and whole—is revisited. And we need not get out of the circle. Good translators keep cooperating with the professionals if the text is of technical nature, and they are fiction writers and poets in the case of literary works. Localization is not achieved when the translator, thinking (s)he is omniscient, works in isolation. Doubts can be raised about this: “Chinese translation theory […] in tune with text linguistics, discourse analysis” and “Chinese translation […] returned to the narrow linguistic exercise” (Text p. 52.). Text and discourse analysis came about for the very reason that the linguists realized the importance of linking social studies and language, which means the widening and definitely not the narrowing of ‘linguistic exercise’. Or this: “Chinese translation is not text adaptation” (Text p. 54.); it is. “Internationalization” remains on a theoretical level, along with the “paratext”; they imply rules operating in a few cases only. Pym calls equivalence as a constraint; the reason is that he has local rather than global equivalence in mind. Also, a text is equivalent with the original (input), therefore not only is localization the two-edged sword.

Comments are closed.