translationandhybridityinscenesandframessemanticsijals.usb.ac.ir/article_2383_f7682973342194afac9bea56aa998e0d.pdf ·...

TranslationandHybridityinScenesandFramesSemantics

ParvizBirjandiProfessor,ScienceandResearchBranch,

[email protected]

FatemehParhamAssistantProfessor,AllamehTabataba’iUniversity

[email protected]

AbstractThepresentstudyisa theoreticalattempttoillustratehowFillmore’sScenesandFramesSemantics(SFS)couldbeemployedasa frameworktoportraytheprocessofunderstanding and translatinghybrid texts. It first reviews theoriginofSFS;then it maps SFS onto Nida’s linguisticmodel of translation process and theInterpretive Theory of Translation; it examines in the next section, within theframeworkofSFS,different formsofunderstanding and translatinghybrid andpure texts with reference to the selection of linguistic frames and moreimportantly the activation of scenes. The paper explains all four processes ofhybridization, dehybridization, rehybridization and hybridity preservation usingSFS. The study concludes that, although hybridity is a complex phenomenon,Fillmore’s scenes and frames semantics can adequately explain and justify itsdifferent aspects andmanifestations.Moreover, it revealed that understanding,seeninSFSmodel,hasanelementofindividualityandthisgivesrisetoa broaderperspective on translation where there can potentially be as many validtranslations as there are translators. This has significant implications for ourconception,analysisandassessmentoftranslation.Keywords: Scenes and Frames Semantics, Hybridity, Translation, Pure Texts,Scene,Frame,Cognitivism

Received:February2014; Accepted:December2014

IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol7,No1,2015

2

1. Introduction

Theconceptofmeaninghasalwaysbeena crucialissueintheacademicstudyof translationandvarious semanticmodelsaredeveloped toaccount forandtackle numerous problems pertinent to this concept.Nida (Nidaand Taber,1982), for instance, hasmuch concerned himself with the understanding ofmeaningandhasdevelopedanalyticallinguistictechniques–semanticstructureanalysis,componentialanalysisandhierarchicalstructuring–toserveasanaidto the translator inworking out themeaning of linguistic items; one of theremarkableinsightsofsucha viewtomeaningisthatwedonottranslatewords,but bundles of semantic components.However, one drawback to linguisticapproachestomeaning,includingNida’s,isthattheytakenoaccountofwhatgoesoninthemindoflanguageuser.Toovercomethis,translationstudies,forthe last two decades, has drawn on its link to cognitive science. (Kussmaul,2010).

Cognitive science emerged as a reaction to behavioural sciences whichwould focus on observable behaviour at the expense of mental processes.However, in cognitive science, humanmind is seen as a meaningmaker. Inotherwords,cognitivescience isconcernedwith theway inwhich thehumanmind thinks and learns (Slavin, 2006). In later developments of cognitivescience,threeparadigmscameintobeingthefirstofwhichwascomputational-representationalunderstandingofthemind;inreactiontothisthereemergedanother paradigm called parallel distributed processing or connectionism(Snell-Hornby, 2005). Connectionism was a movement hoping to explainhumanintellectualabilitiesusingartificialneuralnetworkswhicharesimplifiedmodelsofthebrain.Thisparadigmemphasizestheassociationsevokedinthehumanmindby familiar situationsand is thereforecloselyrelated toRosch’s

TranslationandHybridityinScenesandFrames...

3

prototype theory in psychology and Fillmore’s scenes and frames semantics(Kussmaul,2010).

2. ScenesandFramesSemantics

Prototype theory, in contrast to theories in structural semantics which aredefinition-based models, is a category-based model in cognitive semantics,developedbyRosch in1970s.This theory isbasedon the idea thatwhenwecomprehendorproduceanutterance,wedonothavea checklistofsemanticfeaturesinourmind;rather,wethinkinholisticcategoriesthataredeterminedby our experiences (Kussmaul, 2010). In other words, according to Rosch,whenpeoplecategorizeitems,theymatchthemagainsttheprototypeoridealexemplar which contains the most representative features of the category(Malmkjær,2010).Therefore,linguisticcategorieshavea coreandfuzzyedges.AccordingtoKussmaul(2010),Rosch’sprototypetheoryissimilartoPutnam’smodel, their difference being a matter of terminology; instead of prototype,Putnam uses the term stereotype and instead of core notions, he speaks ofobligatorynotions.Neitherprototypenorstereotypesemanticsisdirectlybasedonreality,butonpeople’snotionsaboutreality;furthermore,sincepeoplearepartofa culture, theirnotionsare tosomeextentdeterminedby thatculture(Kussmaul,2010).

Scenesandframessemanticsisbasedonprototypetheoryandgoesbackto1970s,whenFillmoredevelopedhisholistic theoryofmeaningasagainst thethenprevalent checklist theoryof generative grammar (Snell-Hornby, 2006).Scenes and frames semantics relies verymuchonpeople’s experienceof theworldaswellas theirexperienceof the text theyreadorhear.In thismodel,‘theprocessofusing a word in a novel situation involves comparing currentexperienceswithpastexperiencesandjudgingwhethertheyaresimilarenough


4

tocallforthesamelinguisticcoding’(Fillmore,1977,ascitedinSnell-Hornby1988).Thislinguisticcodingconstitutesthe‘frame’,a termFillmoretookfromhisownworkincasegrammar.A frameisthusa systemoflinguisticchoicesorgrammatical structures and as such triggers off a scene in themind (Snell-Hornby,2005).AccordingtoFillmore(1977ascited inSnell-Hornby1988),ascene,ina maximallygeneralsense,‘includesnotonlyvisualscenesbutfamiliarkinds of interpersonal transactions, standard scenarios, familiar layouts,institutional structures, enactive experiences, body image and in general anykindofcoherentsegment,largeorsmall,ofhumanbeliefs,actions,experiencesor imaginings’.AsSnell-Hornbyputs it,scene istheexperiencedorotherwisemeaningful situationor scenario that finds expression in linguistic form.Shefurtherexplainsthatscenesandframesconstantlyactivateeachother(frame-scene,scene-frame,scene-scene,frame-frame);theactivationprocedurereferstothesituationwherea peculiarlinguisticform,likea clauseina text,evokesassociationswhichthemselvesactivateotherlinguisticformsandevokefurtherassociations.Thiscauseseverylinguisticexpressionina texttobeconditionedbyanotherone;inthecourseofreadinga text,theseareallcombinedandformthe ‘scene behind the text’ (Malmkjær, 2010; Snell-Hornby, 1988; Snell-Hornby,2005;Snell-Hornby,2006).

3.TranslationandScenesandFramesSemantics

It was Vannerem who hit upon the innovative idea of applying Fillmore’sscenesandframessemanticstothepracticeoftranslationin1980s.Thepublicpresentationofherideainspiredfurtherworkonscenesandframessemantics(Snell-Hornby, 2005). In her joint workwithVannerem, Snell-Hornby thencontendsthattextproductionisanessentialcomponentoftranslationprocessandunder-theorized in translationstudies.Shethereforeconnects translation

Translation

process to Fillmore’stranslation.Tobuild tunderstanding, of relatingone’sownexperience’framessemantics(Snell

Translation, withindefinedasa complicatedthe author of the sourcetargettextauthor,andBelowisa schematicr

Figure1.

Asthediagramillustrates,source text and its linguisticproducedbyanauthor,scenes; in other words,resultingfromstrongInthenextstep,thefthetranslator,scenesthose of the ST author.translator’sworldviewsucha perfectmatche

STAuthorScenes

nslationandHybridityinScenesandFrames...

5

scenes and frames semantics to examine thisthe linkbetween the two,she focuseson ‘theating to situation and sociocultural background’ – a processessentialtobothtranslationandell-Hornby,1988).in the framework of scenes and frames semantiated‘actofcommunicationinvolvinginteractionurce text, the translator as both source text rd thenthereaderofthetargettext’ (Snell-Hornbyrepresentationofthisinteraction(Figure1).

ST Author,TranslatorandTTReaderInteraction

ustrates,thestartingpointinthetranslationprocessinguistic components (i.e., frames). The sourceor,whointurnhasdrawnuponhis/herownrepertoireds, the source text is an interlocking chainandrecurrentinteractionsamongSLscenesaframesofthesourcetextevoke,beforethementalwhichunderidealcircumstanceswouldbeidentical

hor.However, since the activation of scenesw andpersonalexperiences,thereisanoutsideceverbefound.Ineffect,asSnell-Hornbyargues,

or’ss

ST FramesTranslator

Scenes

TT Frames Reader’s Scenes

is phase ofprocessof

und and toscenesand

mantics, isonbetweenreader andrnby, 2005).

on

ocessistheurce text isepertoireofof frames

andframes.entaleyeofenticalwithentails thechancethatues,itisthe

r’s

IranianJournal

mismatchbetweentheseresults in translationaltheformulationofa wknowledge of the sourcecommittingerrorwillfindspropertarget languagebytranslator’s mastery

If we square thislinguisticmodeloftranslationfollowingdiagram:

Figure2.Nida’s M

Intheanalysisstagewhicharetheresultofframes,certainscenesofscenesinthemindstageof transfer,whichtranslator. The translator

ANALYSISAnalysis

LinguisticF

urnalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol7,No1,2015

6

esetwosetsofscenes(translator’s andSTauthoralerrors, for theactivationofa divergent scenewrongframe.Thus,themoreprofoundistheurce language and culture, the slimmer thebe(Snell-Hornby,2005).Inthenextstep,thenguageframes;herethedegreeofsuccess isdy overtargetlanguageandculture.s cognitive frame-scene-frame mechanism wanslation process(NidaandTaber,1982),wearrive

Modelof TranslationProcessMappedontoFillmoreofScenesandFramesSemantic

geofNida,thetranslatordecodestheSTlinguisticf thementalscenesoftheSTauthor.Uponreadings areevoked inthemindofthetranslator;theofthetranslatorissimilartowhatNidadescribesch isa transitionphase takingplace in themslator deciphers the linguistic codes (i.e.,

YSISofSTFrames

TRANSFERactivationof

scenesinthemindoftranslator

RESTRUCTURINGProductionofTLLinguisticFrames

thor’s)thatne leads totranslator'schance of

e translatordetermined

with Nida’srriveatthe

ore’sModel

isticframesadingthosee evocationribesasthemindof theframes in


7

Fillmore’s scenes and frames semantics) to arrive at their underlyingrepresentationnamedkernels; itseemsthatwhat inNida’s linguisticmodelisdescribed as underlying representation, iswhatFillmore calls scenes from acognitive-socialperspective.

Besides scenes and frames semantics, the Paris School with prominentfigures like Seleskovich and Lederer, introduced the Theory of Sense orInterpretive Theory of Translation (ITT) which focuses on translation as acognitive process (Alves & Albir, 2010). The main tenet of ITT is thattranslating is an act of communication. This theory also highlights that itfocusesonlanguageinuse,notlanguageasa system.

Accordingtothismodel(Lederer,2010),a linguisticsign(writtenororal)hasa meaninganda sense.Linguisticmeaningisgiveninthetext,butnotthesense.Senseismadeupoflinguisticmeaningplustherelevantextra-linguisticknowledge suppliedbyheareror reader; that is, sense is a consciousmentalrepresentation and derives in part from the cognitive inputs of individualreadersandtherefore it istosomedegreean individualmatter.However,thesenses understood by different individuals overlap to a great extent whichmakescommunicationpossible;and,translatorsoperateinthisareaofoverlap.Assoonas there isunderstanding,deverbalization takesplaceand thewordsdisappear.Thearrivalatsensewhichimmediatelymovesthecommunicationtothedeverbalizationphaseisindeedtheevocationofscenesinthemindofthehearer. In the next stage, reformulation, theTT is constituted based on thedeverbalizedunderstandingofsense(Munday,2008);thatistosay,thescenesevokedinthemindofthetranslatoractivateTLframes,whichgiverisetotheformulationofthetargettext.

So,weseethatintheoreticalmodelsthatareconcernedwiththeanalysisofmeaningandunderstanding,whethercognitiveorlinguistic,a frameorformis


8

an elements that triggers off a scene or sensewhich is in turn laid down inanotherframeorform.

4.HybridityandScenesandFramesSemantics

In theworldof translation,wemayencounter two typesof texts:hybridandnon-hybrid (pure).Hybrid texts,according toSchäffnerandAdab (1997and2001),aretheproductsoftextproduction ina specificculturalspacewhichisoftenan intersectionofdifferentcultures;hybrid textscanalso result fromatranslationprocess.Textswhichdonotexhibitsignsofhybridnessaredeemednon-hybridorpure.A pure text,within the frameworkof scenesand framessemantics, canbe conceivedof as an integratednetworkof linguistic frameswhich conjures up scenes that belong to the same community and culture(Figure 3); that is, when reading a pure text, a coherent set of scenes, allbelongingtothesamecultureandsociety,isevokedinthemindofthereader.

Figure3.ScenesandFramesina PureText

Inactuality,however,aswesawinthediscussionof ‘sense’inInterpretiveTheoryofTranslation, itisnot justthe linguisticframesthatcreate images inthemindofthereader;thereader’sworldview,topicalknowledgeandpersonalexperiencesmake contribution to this imagemaking process.This results inmultiplereadingsofa singletextbydifferentreaders.Atthebeginningofthecentury,literarytheoristsbelievedthattherewasonlyonecorrectwaytoreadapiece of literature. Rosenblatt (Spack, 1985) reacted against this belief by

Frame1 Frame2 Frame3 Frame4 Frame5

Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 4Scene 3 Scene 5


9

assuming an interactive relationship between individual readers and literarytexts.But her ideaswere considered subjective andwere rejected.However,aboutthirtyyearslater,itwasunderstoodthatRosenblattwasrightanditwasaccepted that each individual’s response to a literary text is as valid as theinterpretation of authorities and there is not just a single correct response;rather,thereareasmanyresponsestoa pieceofliteratureastherearereaders.Ifwe thinkof theresponseofa readeras thesceneswhichareevoked inhismind,thenwecanimaginethefollowingdiagram:

Figure4.MultipleReadingsofa SequenceofFrames

The imagesevoked in themindofreadera mayormaynotbesimilar tothat of reader b. There is for certain some overlap between the two sets ofscenes and this is what renders communication and translation possible.However,themultiplereadingsofa textisnotthefocusofthisstudy.Whatweare concerned with is how the diagram changes when we are dealing withhybridtexts.

In addition to employing scenes and frames semantics as a model toinvestigate and expound the process of translation, Snell-Hornby (2001) has

Scene 1n Scene 2n Scene 4nScene 3n Scene 5n

Scene 4a Scene 5a

Scene 2b Scene 4bScene 3b Scene 5bScene 1b

Scene 1a Scene Scene 3aReader a

Reader b

Reader n

Frame3 Frame 4Frame 2Frame 1 Frame 5


10

suggested this model as the framework best suited for the analysis of thelanguageandreadingexperienceofhybridtexts.

I. As discussed above, a hybrid (original) text is made up of linguisticframes thatevoke in themind, sceneswhichbelong todifferentculturesandcommunities.Asthediagrambelowdisplays(Figure5),thescenesconjuredupinthemindofthereaderarenothomogeneous;theybelongtodistinctworlds.Thisisschematicallyrepresentedthroughtheuseofdistinctgeometricshapes(ovals and lozenges).Hence, what gives a text a hybrid quality is that thecombinationof scenesevokedby linguistic signs forma 'hybrid scenebehindthetext’.

Figure5.ScenesandFramesina HybridText– A

II. Sometimes the linguistic frames the author has selected make acontribution to thehybridnessof the text too.This canbeobserved in caseswherethechosenframesbelongtotwoormoredifferinglanguages.

Figure6.ScenesandFramesina HybridText–BHybridtexts,eitherinformA orB,whengettranslated,undergoanentire

seriesofshiftswhichcanbeclassifiedintothreemaincategoriesandexaminedwithintheframeworkofscenesandframessemantics.

Frame1 Frame2 Frame3 Frame4 Frame5

Scene1 Scene2 Scene4 Scene5Scene 3

Frame 1 Frame2 Frame3 Frame4 Frame5

Scene1 Scene2 Scene 4 Scene5Scene3


11

Thelinguisticframestheauthorofa hybridSThasoptedforevokescenesthatareheterogeneouswithregardtothecultureandcommunitytheyreferto.Thishybridnetworkof scenesguides the translator to selectTL frames thatconjure up in themind of the reader, scenes that are as close to the scenesevoked in themind of the translator, as possible.However, the translator’sscenesandthoseofthereadermayhavedifferentdegreesofproximity.

III. If theTL frames homogenize the scenes evoked in themind of thereader,thedehybridizationprocess issaidtohavetakenplace.That istosay,theTLnetworkof scenes loses itshybridquality for all its scenes refer to asinglecommunityandculture(Figure7).

Figure7.ScenesandFramesinDehybridizationProcess

IV.IfthetranslatoroptsforthoselinguisticframesinTLthatformexactlythesamescenesinthemindofreaderaswasevokedinhis/herownmind,thentheSTpreservesitshybridnessinitsentirety(Figure8).

Source Text

Intranslator’s mind

Target Text

In reader’s mind

Scene 1

Frame1 Frame 2 Frame3 Frame4 Frame 5

Scene 2 Scene 4Scene 3 Scene 5

Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame5

Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 4 Scene 3 Scene 5


12

Figure8.ScenesandFramesinDehybridizationProcess

V.Sometimesthetranslationofa hybridsourcetextisa hybridtargettext,butthenatureoftheirhybriditydiffers;inthefirstplace,theSLframesbringtothetranslator'sminda heterogeneousstringofscenes;however,theTLframesthetranslatorselectshomogenizesomeofthescenesandheterogenizeothers.ThisisportrayedgraphicallyinFigure9.

Figure9.ScenesandFramesinRehybridizationProcess

The above discussion illustrated, within the framework of scenes andframessemantics,whatdifferingfatesthehybridelementsofa hybridtextcanhaveaftertheyarerenderedintoanotherlanguageandculture.

Scene 1

Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5

Scene 2 Scene 4 Scene 3 Scene 5


Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 4

Source Text

In translator’s mind

Target Text

In reader’s mind Scene 3 Scene 5

Scene 1


Scene 2 Scene 4 Scene 3 Scene 5


Scene 3 Scene 4

Source Text

In translator’s mind

Target Text

In reader’s mind Scene 5Scene 2Scene 1


13

5.DiscussionandConclusion

ThepresentstudywasanattempttoillustratehowFillmore’scognitivemodelof scenesand frames semantics couldbeemployed toportray theprocessofunderstanding,a.whenwearereadinga literarywork,b.whena puretextgetstranslated,c.whenwearereadinga hybridtextandd.whena hybridtextgetstranslated.Inthecaseofreadinga literarywork,sincetheevocationofscenesinthemindofthereaderdependsuponlinguisticframesofthetextaswellasthe reader’s knowledge and experience of the world, multiple validinterpretationscanbeexpected.Puretexts,incontrasttohybridtexts,conjureup in themind of the reader scenes that belong to a single community andculture; that is,pure texts evoke a homogenousnetworkof scenes; if such apure textgets translated, itmaypreserve the samenon-hybridquality, i.e., itmay evoke a homogenous set of scenes again or it may go through ahybridizationprocessandbeexpressedwithlinguisticframesthatevokescenesbelonging to different cultures.However, when the text under scrutiny is ahybrid original text, the author deliberately in most cases, and sometimesunintentionally,haschosenlinguisticframesthattogetherforma hybridscenebehind the text; that is to say, a hybrid text conjures up a heterogeneousnetworkof scenes in themindof the reader, takinghim/her to twoormorediffering culturesand communities.When sucha hybrid textgets translated,threedifferentfatesawait it;thetranslatormayoptforTLframesthatevokethe same scenes in the mind of the TT readers; that is, the TT forms aheterogeneoussetofscenesinthemindofthereaders;thisprocessisobservedinrarecasesthough.Thesecondfatea hybridtextcanfaceaftertranslationisdehybridization; it comes about when the linguistic frames in the TL areselectedandarranged ina fashion thathomogenizes theheterogeneityof thescenes evoked when reading the original text. Finally, a hybrid text, when


14

rendered intoanother language,mayundergo theprocessofrehybridization;the translator, through his/her selection of TL frames, homogenizes somepreviouslyheterogeneous scenesand renders somepreviouslyheterogeneousoneshomogeneous.

Inallthesecases,understandingisarrivedatwhentherelevantscenesareevokedinthemindofthereader.Sincetheevocationofscenesistheresultofthe frames of the text aswell as the cognitive input each individual readerprovides into the task of understanding, wemay conclude that there is anelementofindividualitytotheprocessofunderstanding.Therefore,thereisnosingle,absoluteunderstandingofa text;understandingisrelative.Thisviewofunderstandinghasstrongimplicationsfortranslation.

An initial crucial phase of the translation process is reading andunderstandingandsincethereisanelementofindividualitytounderstanding,therecanbeasmanyvalidunderstandingsofa text(tobetranslated)astherearereaders(i.e., translators).Consequently, therecanbepotentiallyasmanyvalid translations of a text as there are translators. With such a broadperspective,expectinga singlecorrecttranslationofa textwillbeanuntenableargument. Furthermore, such a view to understanding and translation hasimportant implications for the analysis and assessment of translation. If thetranslationanalystorassessoradoptsanabsolutistviewofmeaning,s/herunstheriskofconductinga misguidedassessmentandpronouncinganinaccuratejudgment.


15

ReferencesAlves,F.,& Albir,A.H. (2010).Cognitive approaches. InY.Gambier& L.V.

Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1) (pp. 28-35).Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Kussmaul, P. (2010). Semanticmodels and translation. InY.Gambier& L.V.Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1) (pp. 309-313).Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Lederer, M. (2010). Interpretive approach. In Y. Gambier & L.V. Doorslaer(Eds.),Handbookof translation studies (Vol.1) (pp. 173-179).Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Malmkjaer,K. (2010).TheRoutledge linguistics encyclopedia (3rded.).London/NewYork:Routledge.

Munday,J.(2008).Introducingtranslationstudies:Theoryandpractice. London/NewYork:Routledge.

Nida,E.A.,& TaberC.R. (1982).The theory and practice of translation. TheNetherlands:Leiden.

Schäffner,C.,& Adab,B. (1997).Translation as intercultural communication –contact as conflict. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.), Translation as interculturalcommunication(pp.325-337).Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (2001). The Idea of Hybrid Text in TranslationRevisited.AcrossLanguagesandCultures, 2 (2),277-302.

Slavin,R.E. (2006).Educationalpsychology:Theory andpractice (5thed.).NewYork:PearsonEducationInc.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach.Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Snell-Hornby,M.(2001).Thespace“InBetween”:Whatisa hybridtext?.AcrossLanguagesandCultures,2 (2),207-216.


16

Snell-Hornby, M. (2005). Of catfish and blue bananas: Scenes-and-Framessemanticsasa contrastive“KnowledgeSystem”fortranslation.InH.V.Dam,J.Engberg& H.G.Arbogast(Eds.),Knowledgesystemsandtranslation. NewYork/Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). Turns in translation studies. Amsterdam: JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Spack,R.(1985).Literature,reading,writingandESL:BridgingtheGap.TESOLQuarterly, 19(4), 703-725.

translationandhybridityinscenesandframessemanticsijals.usb.ac.ir/article_2383_f7682973342194afac9bea56aa998e0d.pdf ·...

Documents