EUREKA: A JOURNAL OF
HUMANISTIC STUDIES
Vol. 3, June 1999.
DEPARTMENT OF EUROPEAN LANGUAGES,
UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS.
EUREKA:
A JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC STUDIES
VOLUMES, 1999
CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
ABTICLES……………………………………………………………………….
On Literature and Applied Literature..................................... M.A. Johnson
PAGE
1-10
La famille en milieux ruraux dans Mission terminée............. A. Aimiuwu
11-16
Langue et dialecte: perspective historique du débat............ Debe Osaji
17-24
The Terminology of State Language Functions in English
French and German: Local, Communal, National, Official
and Regional Languages……..
25-28
C. M. B. Brann
Le micro-ordinateur en classe de langue étranger. Evolution, applications et
prospective pourle Nigeria.................................................. V. B. Owhotu
29-39
On the Relationship of Translation to Linguistics and Stylistics..... E. N. Kwofie
40-50
The Problem of Style in Translation............................................... Tunde Ajiboye 51-57
Les problemes de la tonalite dans la traduction du Regard du roi par
James Kirkup...........................................................................
Victor Ariole
58-64
Reflexions sur les problemes linguistiques et culturels
de la traduction..........................................................................
65-69
A. M. llupeju
Culture poétique, théorie et formation de traducteurs:
comptes-rendus d'expérience........................................................ V. B. Owhotu 70-80
The Training of Translators: The Case of the University of
Lagos............................................................................................. M. A. Johnson 81-85
Documentation, terminologie et traduction.................................... E. N. Kwofie
86-94
Le Souvenir et le sentiment de la nature chez Fromentin............. Debe Osaji
95-103
REVIEWS
Noureïev Tidjani-Serpos: Bamikile, Paris, Presence africaine 1996,
164 pages..................................................................................... M. A. Johnson 104-106
E. N. Kwofie (1997): An Introduction to the Description of the Varieties of French in Africa,
Lagos University Press, 1997, xii+127 pages...................
A. M. llupeju 107
Notes on Contributors...............................................................................
108
THE PROBLEM OF STYLE IN TRANSLATION
Tunde Ajiboye
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary literature on translation abounds in issues such as the place of culture
in translation, the relation of world-view to appropriateness in translation^ The role of
linguistics in the translation task and in translation criticism, the mediating role of audience
vis a vis the finished product. Besides, scholars attempt to answer such questions as: What
do you really translate: meaning or message? What are the uses of translation in and
outside the classroom? Could we in fact talk of translation in absolute terms? What are the
features of an acceptable transjation? When is the translator not a traitor?
The question of style is such a permanent underlying feature of translation that early
theories on translation approach translation as basically a stylistic expression (cf. Stylistique
compares ... Vinay J.P. et Darbelnet J.). In spite of this fact, style in translation is rarely
considered a subject capable of distinct focus. This state of affairs could be justified on the
ground that style and translation are inseparable and that, for most practitioners, translation
is a "piege sans fin", and if.so, it is largely because the tenuous nature of style often
imposes on translators some critical or imaginative bewilderment.
In this paper, we would attempt to make abstraction of this bewilderment, suspend
our awareness of the enmeshed expressive values that are associated with discovering the
style of a work. This should allow us to examine the distinction between style and
translation, while at the same time emphasizing the rapprochement between both.
In discussing this topic, one is naturally tempted to want to define two basic
concepts: Style and Translation. The two concepts, as we shall see , have at least
something in common, something which, incidentally, the best definition of each may hide
from us: it is their complexity and fuzziness.
We should, however, abstract this complexity condition from our definition
meanwhile, hoping that by so doing, the dynamic relationship between the two will be better
appreciated.
I
Style
What is style? This is an old question, and there have been as many answers to it as
there are perspectives that fashioned them. While Jakobson (1958) views style as 'une
attente defue', Hervey and Higgins (1992:124) see it as a mark of "some previously
encountered social stereotype". Whereas GeonpJs Mounin (1974:308) defines it as an index
of 'traits linguistiques d'un texte', he at the same time, calls for caution as, in one particular
sense, not every text is written or produced with style. In the sense of Hatim and Mason
(1990:10) style is the result of motivated choices. On the basis of that definition, to the
extent that these choices are considered motivated, unconscious modes of communication
such as revealed by idiolect and sociolect over which the user has most probably no control,
are outside the province of style.
The above are but an imperfect tribute to the long list of attempts at some definition
of style. However, whatever might be the amount of biases revealed by these attempts, it is
clear that style deals essentially with the exploitation of the nuances of the language and
that connotation, rather than denotation, use rather than usage, offers the best insights into
the style of a writer. Indeed, if a text is found to be different from another even when both
reveal thematic convergence, it is less likely to be due to the difference of words used than
to difference of language manipulation. And what bespeaks a man's style better than his use
of language? In fact, style however difficult to define, leaves the impression that only it can
show the inner meanderings of a text.
52
raises the problem of comparison (usually unconscious) of what has been said in a text with
how else it could have been said. This internal urge to compare is indispensable to
approaching reasonably the text with a view to ascertaining its worth.
Furthermore, the so-called style of a text seems to leave two meaning orientations:
the intended and the unintended. The intended meaning orientation is usually easy to agree
upon; it is the unintended but incidental that may be open to debate and conjectures. For
example, where it might be fairly easy to agree that a text deals with poverty, it may not be
all that easy to declare from the text the social affiliation, the accent, the class, the cultural
limitations and social aspirations of the author of the text. An attempt to discover, for
example, Emile Zola through a stylistic study of Germinal or L'Assommoir would be a good
test of this position. »
Should it not also be mentioned that contrary to what the foregoing might lead us to
think, style is not a property of literary texts only. It is true that literary texts are known to pay
considerable attention to how language could be put to the best effects through all sorts of
ingenious manipulation of the resources of language, resulting for example in the use of
imageries: metaphor, simile, synecdoche, litotes, asynedeton, etc. It is also the case that
creativity, impressionism, subjective appeal to emotions, attachment to fictional reality are
the usual cornerstones of literary translation, a fact that reveals more compellingly and
immediately the how of narration than the what of narration. However, it would be
misleading not to acknowledge that even technical i.e. non-literary texts are not bereft of
style. As we all know, register characterisation makes it fairly clear that just by sheer register,
i.e the body of language patterns that are discernible in a sample of language activity, we
can recognize a science text from a text on court proceedings, a religious text from a text on
politics, etc. If register differentiation is part of style variation, it is logical to expect that any
text characterizable by register affiliation should be pinned down to some form of stylistic
profile even when such a text presents traces of register fluctuations.
II
Translation
Having discussed briefly the potentials of style, in general terms, it is important to
discuss translation. What is translation? Perhaps, this is one of the most frequently asked
questions and perhaps the least satisfactorily answered. If answers seem to be
unsatisfactory, it is perhaps due to the fact that translation is not the same thing to
everybody. For some it is an art, for others it is a science (cf Cassandre 1954); for some it is
a gift, for others it is a given. Yet for some it is unrealistic to want to translate a thoughtprocess into another thought-process, the best you can do being, according to this view, just
to transpose (cf Jakobson 1958). For some others still, translation being an exercise in the
search for natural equivalents (cf Nida 1964) should present unsurmountable difficulties only
to those who want to do more.
For convenience, however, we would base our concept of translation on the four
laws of translation enunciated by E. Nida in his much-quoted book Towards a Science of
Translation with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures involved in Bible
Translation. These laws which are, in fact, to be interpreted as conditions, make good
translation hang on success in (i) making sense (ii) conveying the spirit and manner of the
original (iii) having a natural and easy form of expression and (iv) producing a similar
response as intended by the original. When these conditions are compared as Hatim and
Mason (1990) have done, with the three rules of translation earlier advanced by Tytler
(1907:9), one discovers a striking level of similarity, except for the inclusion of the quality of
receiver-response by Niua. But more importantly, we note that whichever option or
combination of options we may adopt in the attempt to 'define' translation, we find a
53
place for manner of discourse. This is significant because manner, after all, is reducible to
style. Besides, should we take translation as an exercise which is aimed at rendering a
source text (henceforth ST) in one language in a medium appropriate to the target audience,
it is crucial to read into 'appropriateness' the complex stylistic modulations which that
exercise imposes. Hervey and Higgins (1992:58) seem to point to these modulations when
they say:
a TT has normally to be constructed by putting
words into grammatical configurations according
to the conventions and structures of the TL,
and using the lexical items available in the TL.
The need for a target text (henceforth TT) to represent the form and spirit of the ST
underlies the translator's interest in preserving the so-called stylistic parity (cf. Ukoyen
1993:32) dictated by the ST. For stylistic parity to be achieved, however, the translator has to
take into account the various layers of meaning available or discernible in the ST. These
include the referential meaning, the emotional undertones, the cultural complexes, the social
directions and the subjective i.e, personal focus, among others, of the text. It is important for
the translator to be able to work these considerations into the final draft of the TT, if the latter
is to be seen as an appropriate semiotic measure of the ST.
The foregoing comments would show that translation is, to say the least, a complex
task for which there is hardly a perfect master. This is all the more so that the exercise does
not depend on lexical or referential meanings alone but has to carry along the imperatives of
hidden intentions often associated with style. The question now is, how does the translator
cope with the connotative meaning structure of the ST? We would attempt to answer this
question in the remaining part of this essay.
Ill
Style in Translation
As we know stylistic appropriateness is as important as grammatical accuracy in
matters of translation. It is noteworthy therefore, that good translators take the problem of
stylistic adequacy very seriously. Unfortunately, there is not yet a common theory of how to
approach style in translation.
What is proposed here may well be seen as a preliminary spittle aimed at preparing
the ground for a common strategy for tackling the problem. Of course, the seriousness with
which the business of translation is taken is built upon the fact that whereas the reader of
the ST is free to make up his mind over the interpretation of its message, if there is any
message at all, it is only on the translator's reading and rendering of this text that his TT
reader depends. This means a source both of power and challenge. The power should
neither be abused nor the challenge left unexploited. Here lies the paradox of the
translator's calling, the 'enjeu' of the activity called translation.
There are, no doubt, steps that could be considered useful for keeping fairly intact
the stylistic flavour of the original text in the TT One of such steps is to ensure that there is
close attention to the general structural framework of the original.
For example, it is well-known that whereas the French language organises its
sentence along the SVO line, in German, the opposite is just as frequent, especially in the
subordinate structure. This is such an elementary comment, that it would be difficult for
anyone wishing to work on French and German texts for translation to hope to achieve any
success without constantly remembering that fact. How would he be able to appreciate,
54
for example:
Der Brief den Ich heute gewerfen
habe hatte naturiich die richtige Adresse
as being typically German in structural organisation? An attempt to keep this pattern in
French would lead not only to structural dislocation but also to stylistic loss.
It is also important to keep in mind the topic or domain of discourse of the ST to be.able to
meet the stylistic demands of the ST. It is in this regard for example, that a teaching text is
different from an advertisement text, a recipe text from a counselling text, a business text
from a science-fiction text, etc. Knowing the topic of interest covered by the ST provides the
double advantage of preparing the mind for a corresponding local colour in the TT and
getting the mind set for the stylistic provisions in the TT to match that local colour. For
example, a business text in French that carries 'Livraison a domicile1 certainly calls in
English for a local atmosphere in which the business organisation is .actively and directly
epitomised by a kind of business 'we'. It is thus expected that 'we deliver' will pass the test of
both substance and style, rather than 'Home Delivery!' Or take the example of insurance
texts where both in French and English, there is an attachment to legal language, but where
at the same time both languages differ in terms of the place of the assured.
In French, what is 'assurance maladie' is positively .styled 'health insurance' in English.
The above remark may well remind one of the crucial role of the register, an accompaniment
to style. The problem of register in translation is essentially how to reach for the lexical, tonal
and social equivalents in the TL. This is problematic because by their very nature, these
properties of register save for lexis, are themselves rather tenuous particularly when it has to
do with delimiting the frontiers of say, social register and employing the appropriate
resources of the TL to capture the ethos signalled by those frontiers. We all know that 'once
upon a time', recalls the register of evening social gathering and the ethos of folktales. It
therefore makes 'II eta it une fois'... a suitable equivalent in French. The problem becomes
more complex when for example, we need to establish in French the register of a peasant
but literate farmer telling a tale to a class of a middle-class children and who says 'Once
upon a very long time ....
The problem of register also brings to the fore the need for caution in checking out
for little but significant effects that the TT is out to achieve. Let us take, for example, the
address system in French. A usual opening formula in a formal gathering is 'Mesdames,
Messieurs' which ordinarily translates as 'ladies and gentlemen'. Sometimes, however, we
find a formula like 'Mesdames, Mesdemoiselles, Messieurs.' Obviously, there is an attempt
here by the user of that formula to create an effect. This effect must be matched in its
translated version. Yet, words alone may not be enough, articulatory gestures may just be the desirable accompaniment. In other words, we could have the usual English equivalent
still, but show, possibly by a nod towards a section of ladies (if in speech), that ladies are
especially recognised, or (if in writing) allow the following segment to illustrate just that.
Nothing perhaps can be more tasking. Think again of what to make of 'Mon chou1 in its
affectionate reference.
One other area of communication in which the translator has to wrestle almost
hopelessly to attain what Catford (1965:20) refers to as 'full translation1 concerns genre
marking. Here, poetry ranks very high in the list of genres that constitute a huge challenge to
translation, to the extent that some scholars have even suggested that poetry is in fact not
translated and that, like the origin of language, it should simply be left alone. This view is not
without foundation, moreso when we consider how much finesse and patience has gone into
the making of the original, and what role inspiration and subjectivity have played in the
process. Following the view just highlighted, could the translator ever assume
55
the same level of personal engagement as the creator of the original text? All this is logical
and could lend weight to the belief that poetry translation is tasking and may be altogether
unrewarding.
The position of the paper, as far as genre translation is concerned, is not to uphold
the 'intranslatability view' but to agree that, indeed, genre translation, particularly poetrytranslation is tedious and that if it is so, it is in the main because of the style question. Not
even the theoretical recategorisation (cf. D. Jacquin 1990:48-9) of poetry into six -traductioninformation,
traduction-interpretation,
traduction-allusion,
traduction-approximation,
traduction-limitation, traduction-recreation-has succeeded in softening the demands on the
translator in terms of the sensibilities, temperament and creative skill discernible in the
original. A critical comparison of the Pierre de Ronsard's alexandrine 'Sonnet pour Helene 'a
classical example of a sonorous union between rhythm, rhyme and metric structure - with
the English translation wiH illustrate the point further.
If poetry is a good example of hqw a 'texte reflechi', to use Jacquin's (op cit) expression,'
could be a stylistic problem, it is also true that day-to-day texts could also claim long stylistic
attention, particularly on account of the structural .or collocative clashes that inattention
could bring about. By collocative clashes we mean the opposition that results when a pattern
of language use in one language is out of match with the pattern adopted for rendering it in
another language, and therefore does not carry the same message.
The two patterns look so close, yet unrelated in contextual sense. Suppose, for
example, we have to translate '14 juillet' in the context of the French national day
celebration, adopting '14th July' would result in collocative clash. In the same manner, 419
having acquired a special semiotic value in the Nigerian society, would it not be anomalous
to retain '419' in translation without explanatory comment? The same collocative clash would
result if, in translating 'Le conge du 1er Mai' into English, we fail to highlight the connotative
value attached to the date to cover The workers day'.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that each language erects in its own way
semiotic structures that take dynamic account of what the society makes of its environment
and resources, and that for translation to succeed, the stylistic underpinnings of those
semiotic structures should be carefully exploited. It is the same need for careful exploitation
of stylistic underpinnings that obliges translators to watch for the movement of words in
languages with apparently allied collocative structures. We know for example that English
and French are rather related structurally, but it does not prevent us from heeding the call
against mis-collocations that expressions such as the following might produce:
1
2
from left to right
1
2
coming and going
1
2
the former and the latter.
It is important to stress that those expressions take the opposite 'movement1 in French, i.e:
2
1
de droite a gauche
2
va
et
1
vient
56
2
1
celui-ci et celui-la.
The overall import of our submission is that in spite of the intricacies of style in
translation, it is still important to endeavour to render style for style, tediousness for
tediousness, rancour for rancour, gaiety for gaiety, etc. Where you may not bother to do this
is when the style is lower than the standard whereas the standard is what is expected, fn
that case, the lower style may be seen as simply incidental, and an abstraction of the
standard to which the speaker/writer is expected to aspire but whioh, for some reason, he
has not attained. A clear illustration of this is the eye-witness account recorded for
presentation in a law court. The translation of such a record has, ordinarily, nothing to lose, if
it ignores the sub-standard peculiarities of the record in preference to the bland version of
the original. However, where the use of the lower form is considered crucial not just to the
profile of the speaker/writer of the original but also to the information that the ST aims at
conveying, it is wise to retain the flavour of that lower form. In the Yoruba play 'Rere Run', for
instance, the characterization of Matiu would not be complete unless the character's
foreigner accent of Yoruba and the use of nasal stratches where oral ones would do, are
taken into consideration. Consequently, it would be expected that translation would keep the
form and flavour of the character's language.
Finally, it should be borne in mind that, if a translated text requires editing, it is not
usually because of the need not to miss the literal meaning of the text, but for fear that the
stylistic undertones may have been missed or displaced albeit partially. As a product, the TT
is therefore not complete without editing for stylistic synchrony. This is not a mean task as it
involves 'feeling' through the TT for effects that sheer interest in the concatenation of
structures would not reveal. In view of the tricky challenge that feeling for style in translation
represents, it is often recommended that a reviewer who may not necessarily be a bilingual
or a translator but a smooth speaker of the TL be consulted for help in reading through the
TT, since in any case, the finished product is meant for a unilingual audience. The reviewer's
duty is to ascertain that the text reads like a veritable text of a certain description in the TL
before its putative audience.
CONCLUSION
In the light of what we have discussed so far, it is difficult not to see that style is after
all, a matter of intention, and hence involves some measure of weighing, comparing,
gauging, confronting before its true identity and worth can be discovered. It is all the more
true when it is a question of carrying this style over to another language. In order to ensure a
tidy transfer of the ST to the TL, the important place of the dictionary is undeniable.
However, it would be a mistake, in the matter of style translation, to depend on the
dictionary. In fact, the dictionary usually proves to be an unwilling horse in these
circumstances, as it usually fails to capture the subjective nuances of the ST, thereby
occasioning stylistic and other losses.
It is perhaps needless to say that, to achieve appreciable success in translating a
text, its style must be successfully transferred. To do this, two preliminary conditions must be
fulfilled. First, the translator must, have an impeccable knowledge not just of the SL but of
the message of the TT and its audience Secondly, he must be confidently familiar with the
TL and its stylistic resources. It is on these preliminary conditions that all other
considerations seem to depend.
In this regard, what Hervey and Higgins (1992:130) say in respect of tonal registeras valid
for style in translation and therefore worth quoting here:
As with other language varieties, looking
for suitable renderings of tonal register
57
puts translators on their mettle, giving
ample scope for displaying knowledge
of the SL and its culture, knowledge of
the target culture, and above all, flair
and resourcefulness in the TL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ballard M. (ed) (1990),
La traduction plurielle Presses Universitaires de Lille. Lille.
Cassandre A. (1954),
The Ends of Translation International Linguistic Theory of
Translation.Oxford University Press, London.
Cressot M. (1976),
Le style et ses techniques (9th edition) Presses Universitaires
de France, Paris.
Delisle J. (1982),
L'analyse du discours comme methode de traduction. Presses
Universitaires d'Ottawa. Ottawa.
Introduction a la theorie de la traduction. Editions
Litterature/Langues Etrangeres. Moscou.
Fedorov A.V. (1958),
Hatim B & I. Mason
(1990),
Hervey S. & I. Higgins
(1992),
Discourse and the Translator. Longman UK Limited.
Thinking Translation (A Course in Translation Method: French
to English). Routledge.
Jakobson R. (1956),
On Lingusistic Aspects of Translation in Brower, R.A. (ed) On
Translation. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
Jacquin D. (1990),
Le texte reflechi: Quelques reflexions sur la traduction de la
poesie in Ballard, M. (ed) La traduction plurielle. Presses
Universitaires de Lille, Lille pp. 47-69.
Mounin G. (1963),
Les problemes theoriques de la fraductfon.Gallimard, Paris.
Mounin G. (1974),
Dictionnaire de la linguistique. P.U.F., Paris.
NewmarkP. (1981),
Approaches to Translation. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Nida E.
Towards a Science of Translation . Brill, Leiden.
(1964),
Okediji O. (1973),
Rere Run. Onibonoje Press Ibadan.
Oyeleye L. (1995),
Translation and the African Writer in English: A Sample Study
of Achebe's TFA and NLAE in Owolabi, Kola (ed) Language
in Nigeria pp. 364-379.
Savory Theo. H. (1957),
The Art of Translation. Jonathan Cape. London (2nd edition)
1968.
A Handbook of Translation for West Africa Evi-Coleman
Publications. Ibadan.
Ukoyen, J. (1993),
Van Hoof H. (1989),
Vinay J. P. &
Darbelnet J. (1958),
Traduire I'anglais: Theorie et pratique. Duculot. Paris.
Stylistique comparee du frangais et de I'anglais. Didier, Paris.