Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals

Abstract

Several translation scholars have recognised translation as a form ofdiscourse mediation or discourse presentation (see, for example, Mossop 1998). In line with this, ‘universals’ of translation have also been re-framed in the larger context of discourse mediation, as mediation universals rather than something strictly translationspecific (Ulrych 2009). In the present article, this line of enquiry is developed by comparing some of the alleged universals of translation, namely standardization and explicitation, with insights from literary and narratological studies on the nature of discourse presentation. The notion of reportive or interpretative interference (Sternberg 1982) and Fludernik’s (1993) claim that all represented discourse is typical and schematic in nature seem to bear curious resemblance to the notion of standardization or normalization, posited as a possible universal of translation (Mauranen & Kujamäki 2004). Drawing on the results of my earlier research (Kuusi 2011), I present examples of free indirect discourse (FID) used in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment with their translations into Finnish. Analyzing the translations, I demonstrate how intranslations, the narratological and literary-theoretical notions of reportive interference and typification/schematization coincide with the translation-theoretical notions of explicitation and standardization.

Discourse Presentation as an Index of Style: A Comparative Corpus Stylistic Analysis of Self and Other Translators

“…Also, it results in a shift in "feel" of translations as boundaries between characters voice and that of narrator become more marked, giving dominance to narrator's voice in the most of the cases. Similarly, Kuusi (2016) in her research on Crime and Punishment with its Finnish translations shows that the addition of reporting clause and substitution of third person pronoun with a first person pronoun in translations of FID exemplifies the normalization and explicitation strategies of universals of translation. She examined that FID is converted into direct discourse, thus supporting the normalization universal of translation.…”

“…As a result, translators use more marked forms rather than presenting them in complex structures like FIS, where presence of dual voice of narrator and character poses difficulties for the readers. Moreover, most of the studies also show that FID is often converted into direct discourse or sometimes to indirect discourse in translated texts (Kuusi, 2016; as "all linguistic changes resulting in the weakening or loss of FID [are] qualified as manifestations of explicitation and normalization" (Kuusi, 2016, p. 13), the two universals of translation. Therefore, other and self-translators use more F(DS) and IS as compared to Pakistani writers.…”

“…Discourse presentation comprises of speech, thought and writing presentation and "focuses on segmental level" (Kuusi, 2016, p. 1). Numerous researches have been conducted on discourse presentation in order to determine the style of translators Kuusi, 2016;Winters, 2005), however, they just focus on one or two subtypes or categories of discourse presentation. A very few researches employ discourse presentation category as a whole.…”

Loss and Gain in Narimān al-Shamly’s Intralingual Translation of al-Maʻarrī’s Risālat al-Ghufrān [Epistle of Forgiveness]

“…In this classification, "explicitation" and reduction of repetition and "complex narrative voices" are listed under potential S-universals while simplification and conventionalisation are listed under potential T-universals (Chesterman, 2004, p. 40). Kuusi (2006) refers to three potential widespread features of translations which are "explicitation", "conventionalisation", and "simplification" (p. 101) and Laviosa (2009) discusses these three universals as the linguistic translation universals most notably studied in descriptive translation studies (p. 307). This section focuses on and briefly discusses these three universals.…”

“…Likewise, simplification and normalisation may overlap if the decisions which relate to lexical simplification and lexical normalisation occur at the same time (Kuusi, 2006, p. 93). Kuusi (2006) observes that the interest in studying universals in translation has been relatively recent and that its future cannot be predicted; however, Kuusi (2006) states that the study of universals boosts awareness of these tendencies and may help the translators to make conscious decisions regarding them (p. 109). In this study, the widespread tendencies which scholars propose to be universal features of translations can be part of a descriptive method of analysis of the strategies that al-Shamly employs in her intralingual translation of Risālat al-Ghufrān.…”