Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 33:1 (2020) ► pp.114–139

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Supresión y adición en textos literarios a la luz del corpus COVALT

 | Universitat Jaume I

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 21 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17053.guz
Resumen
La omisión y la adición son conceptos definidos en diversos trabajos. Sin embargo, estos estudios se han centrado en una pequeña serie de ejemplos, sin tener en cuenta el alcance del fenómeno. Este trabajo analiza la omisión o adición de segmentos textuales incluidos en un corpus, COVALT, formado por traducciones y originales de textos literarios, cuyo idioma de origen es el alemán y el idioma de destino es el catalán.
Los hallazgos del estudio muestran que todos los textos analizados omiten algún segmento, de modo que podríamos inferir que la omisión está mucho más generalizada de lo que se podría pensar. Además, aunque todos los textos tienen omisiones, no todos tienen adiciones. Así, también podemos concluir que la omisión es más usual que la adición. Del mismo modo, no parece haber correlación significativa entre omisiones y adiciones. Finalmente, nuestro análisis parece señalar que los criterios por los cuales los traductores usan estas técnicas son generalmente más justificables en el caso de la omisión que en el de la adición.
Abstract
Omissions and Additions in COVALT’s Literary texts
The omission and the addition are concepts defined in several works. However, previous studies have focused on a small series of examples, without taking into account the scope of the phenomenon. This paper analyzes the omission or addition of textual segments included in a corpus, COVALT, formed by translations and originals of literary texts, whose source language of is German and the target language is Catalan. Findings of the study shows that all the texts analyzed skip some segment, so that we could hypothesize that the omission is much more widespread than one might think. Besides, although all texts have omissions, not all have additions. Thus, we can also conclude that the omission is more generalized than the addition. Likewise, there seems to be no significant correlation between omissions and additions. Finally, our analysis seems to point out that the criteria by which translators use these techniques are generally more justifiable in the case of omission than that of addition.
Article outline
  • 1.Introducción
  • 2.Marco conceptual: Un breve repaso
  • 3.Metodología (material y métodos)
  • 4.Resultados y discusión
    • 4.1Omisiones
    • 4.2Adiciones
  • 5.Conclusiones
  • Referencias
References (31)
Referencias
Becher, V. (2010). Towards a More Rigorous Treatment of the Explicitation Hypothesis in Translation Studies. Trans-kom, 3(1), 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts (Tesis doctoral). Universidad de Hamburgo, Hamburgo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. En J. House y S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition (pp. 17–35). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 201, 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delisle, J. (1993). La traduction raisonnée. Manuel d’initiation à la traduction professionnelle de l’anglais vers le français. Ottawa: Press de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delisle, J. et al. (1999). Terminologie de la traduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimitriu, R. (2004). Omission in translation. Perspectives, 12(3), 163–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franco Aixelá, J. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. En R. Álvarez Rodríguez y M. C. Á. Vidal Claramonte (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion (pp. 52–78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guzman, J. R. (2015). La traducció del cant 6é de l’Odissea des de la lingüística de corpus. Caplletra, 581, 183–223.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Modalitat i traducció: partícules modals i traduccions al català de Das Fräulein von Scuderi. En Katalanisch in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge (pp. 169–186). Tübingen, Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). El corpus COVALT i l’eina d’aliniament de frases Alfra-COVALT. En Ll. Bracho (Ed.), El corpus COVALT: un observatori de fraseologia traduïda (pp. 49–60). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatim, B., y I. Mason. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ife, B., y Thacker, J. (Eds.). (2013). Cervantes: The Complete Exemplary Novels. Exeter: Short Run Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ingarden, R. (1975). Konkretisation und Rekonstruktion. En R. Warning (ed.). Rezeptionsästehetik (pp. 228–256). Munich: Fink, (Reproducido de Die Appellstruktur der Texte. Unbestimmtheit als Wirkungsbedingung literarischer Prosa, 1970).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iser, W. (1976). Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung. München: Fink.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidwai, A. R. (1987). Translating the untranslatable: A survey of English translations of the Quran. The Muslim World Book Review, 7(4), 66–71Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaudy, K. (2001). Explicitation. En M. Baker y G. Saldanha (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 80–85). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The asymmetry hypothesis in translation research. En R. Dimitriu y M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Translators and their readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida (pp. 283–303). Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padró, L. (2011). Analizadores Multilingües en FreeLing. Linguamática. 3(1), 13–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padró, L. y Stanilovsky, E. (2012). FreeLing 3.0: Towards Wider Multilinguality. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 2473–2479). Istanbul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ping, K. (1999). Cultural Presuppositions and Misreadings. Meta, 4411, 133–143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seruya, T., y Moniz, M. L. (Eds.). (2008). Translation and Censorship in Different Times and Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 44–49). Manchester: ACL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). HYPERLINK “[URL]” Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging with an Application to German. Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop (pp. 47–55). Dublin: ACL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez-Ayora, G. (1977). Introducción a la traductología. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vinay, J. P., y Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue