Different Approaches to Translation - Research Paper Example

Discuss the implications of two or three different approaches to Translation. What are their advantages and disadvantages? Can the same principles ofone approach apply to the translation of all kinds of texts? 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition of Translation Translation is essentially a two part process involving a process of interpretation of a source text, which culminates in the translated text product in another language. In terms of the process stage, the central job of the translator is to interpret language in the source text and ascertain its meaning. The second part of the translation process focuses on the actual translated text produced by a translator. It is submitted the distinction between product and process and is highlighted by Shuttleworth and Cowie’s assertion that “translation” incorporates an “incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways…. one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover….. the term sometimes also includes interpreting” (Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997:181). Therefore, translation is an inherently complex process and the Shuttleworth and Cowie definition highlights this point by referring to “sub-types”, which includes varying types of work such as literary translations, technical translations and contemporary translation modes such as audiovisual translation for cinema, television and DVD (Hatim & Munday, 2004:4). Furthermore, the definition highlights the fact that the increasing use of translation software programmes and machine based translation has reshaped the debate on the definition of translation. Additionally, whilst the simple theoretical concept underlying translation relates to the interpretation of a source text into another language, the task of a translator is intrinsically influenced by the nature of the text and the interrelationship of complex factors such as tense, gender, grammar, idioms and culture. Indeed, Hatim and Munday assert that “the potential field and issues covered by translation are vast and complex” (Hatim & Munday, 2004: 4). Moreover, the potential problems facing translators are compounded by the fact that there can be variances within the same language and Hatim & Munday refer to the example of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter children’s books, which have been translated into “over 40 languages and have sold millions of copies worldwide. It is interesting that a separate edition is published in the USA with some alterations. The first book in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, appeared as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone in the USA….. as well as the title there were other lexical changes… The American edition makes a few alterations of grammar and syntax” (Hatim & Munday, 2004: 5). These inherent complexities in translation have fuelled polarised academic debate with regard to the appropriate approach for translation. Whilst most translation theorists concur on the fact that a translator’s first step should be to consider the source text comprehensively (Nord, 2005:1). The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the implications of different approaches to translation. It is submitted at the outset as a central proposition in this paper that ultimately the appropriate approach to translation will inherently be dictated by the nature of the source text and this is further supported by Nord’s assertion that “different purposes require different approaches” (Nord, 2005:1). To this end, contemporary translation theory has evolved as a category of various approaches, fuelling debate. 1.2. Leading Translation Theories, Historical Perspectives & Linguistics As highlighted above, the central factor of importance for any translator should be their approach to interpretation of the source text. Newmark observes that “translation is concerned with moral and factual truth. This truth can be effectively rendered only if it is grasped by the reader, and that is the purpose of translation” (Newmark, 1991: 1). It is further submitted that this argument is imperative regardless of which method of translation theory is applicable (Newmark, 1991:1). If we consider leading translation theory, in general terms, contemporary translation theory has been significantly shaped by Jakobson’s work in categorising this into the following: 1) Intralingual translation, which essentially rewords signs in one language with signs from the same language; 2) Interlingual translation, which interprets signs in one language with the signs from another language; and 3) Intersemiotic translation, which transfers the signs of one language to non-verbal sign systems (Jakobson, 1959). However, whilst Jakobson’s theorem is intrinsically intertwined and refers to the multifarious linguistic, literary and cultural aspects; the development of translation theory has continually evolved and will necessarily do so as “modern translation theory, like current literary theory, begins with structuralism and reflects the proliferation of the age” (Gentztler, 1993:1). This is further supported if we consider the historical development of translation theory and to this end; Bernardo comments that “in the course of the 20th Century the study of translation has undergone quite different kinds of focus. This is not new in translation history. In fact, the practice as well as the theory, of translation have from outset been intimately associated with other disciplines such as rhetoric, grammar, poetics, literature and hermeneutics” (Bernardo, 2007: 83). Additionally, Steiner refers to the “Hermeneutic Motion” as being imperative in ensuring appropriate interpretation and transfer of source text meaning into the translated text (Steiner, 1998:306). Moreover, it would appear that the latter part of the 20th Century has culminated in a change of discipline in translation theory, becoming “autonomous, institutionalised, discipline, characterised by a changing interdisciplinary approach” (Bernardo, 2007: 84). Bernardo’s discussion of the history of translation theory further highlights the positive development of translation theory away from a focus on linguistics, as “this give becomes particularly apparent when linguistics gives way to other research areas which succeeded in ruling the study of translation.” (Bernardo, 2007:84). In criticising the historical linguistic approach, Bernardo further argues that there has been “uneven evolution of the discipline which distracted attention from a diachronically philogenetic perspective” (Bernardo, 2007). In general terms, as highlighted in Section 1.1 above, the process of translation addresses an interpretation of complex interrelated semantics such as poetics, rhetoric, grammar, literature and hermeneutics. Accordingly, Bernardo posits that the “reason for this mixed treatment seems to reflect the subservient acknowledgment of translation as a utilitarian tool, geared towards other purposes, to disseminate religion, to improve the style of the vernacular, to take hold of foreign literary themes, motives and forms, to learn a foreign language, to exercise grammar, to interpret the biblical texts and so forth” (Bernardo, 2007). Therefore, in the first half of the 20th century, translation was ultimately viewed as the method of accessing texts; it is evident that the latter part of the 20th Century heralded a change in translation theory and the need to consider the philosophy of language what Bernardo refers to as the “inter-determinacy of translation” (Bernardo, 2007). To this end, Bernardo refers to the point that in the sixties “the use of the language and the function of expressions in a given context became the main focus of the debate. Therefore, one resorted to translation in order to explain the relationship between the language and the world through the concepts of truth and reference, as pragmatics presupposes an underlying semantics, which in turn is based on conditions of truth” (Bernardo, 2007). On this basis it is submitted that whilst an understanding of linguistics is undoubtedly useful in approaching translation, its inherent limitations fail to address the intrinsic complexities of translation that a translator must be aware of in contemporary translation theory. Therefore in considering the appropriate approach to translation theory, I shall critically evaluate the differing approaches to translation with a particular focus on the systematic approach and the variants of the equivalence approach; addressing the advantages and disadvantages in Sections 2 and 3 respectively; followed by a conclusion in Section 4. 2. Systematic/Descriptive Approach to Translation Whilst the systematic approach is arguably more linguistic based than the equivalence approach to translation in adopting a scientific mantra, there are undoubtedly benefits of this approach, particularly in literary criticism in ensuring that the translated text addresses the intention of the source text. For example, Munday refers to the following example of the use of the systematic approach: “Georges Mounin’s Les problemes theoriques de la traduction examined linguistic issues of translation” (1963)” (Munday, 2001: 9) It is further submitted that this in itself highlights the point that ultimately the appropriate method of translation will be dependent on the purpose of the translation and nature of the text. While some commentators argue that the systematic approach is merely an extension of the equivalence approach; it is posited that there are differences. For example leading proponent of the systematic approach Hermans refers to the descriptive and systematic approach as imperative to translation and posits that his central argument is “to explain the descriptive and systematic approach to the study of translation; to engage critically with some of the key ideas; and to suggest possible directions for further theoretical ….. reflection” (Hermans, 1999). He further refers in the preamble to the literary example of “Mann’s Fate” and argues that translation studies are fundamentally important in the literary world and highlighted the conundrum as to whether the appropriate method of translation should be word for word or address the overriding intention of the work (Hermans, 1999). To this end, it is submitted that in considering an appropriate approach to translation, it inherently requires acknowledgement of the fact various components to translation such as “descriptive” “empirical” and “target oriented,” which is further vital in defining people’s views on the subject and what form of translation is appropriate “without necessarily settling on a single destination”(Hermans, 1999). As such, this approach arguably enables increased flexibility in application, which is particularly necessary in the digital arena and multiple formats requiring translation. Additionally, Hermans’ argument reiterates the point that the nature and format of the text requiring translation arguably determines the appropriate approach and to this end, Hermann is a proponent of the more complex approach to translation and refers to Levey’s argument to support his assertion that “translating can be compared with a game like chess, where every move takes account of all previous moves” (Hermans, 1999). Moreover, Herman refers to the descriptive approach to translation by rejecting a rigid formulaic approach and to this end comments that an effective translation approach “seeks insight into the phenomenon and the impact of translation without immediately wanting to plough that insight back into some practical application to benefit translators, critics and teachers” (Hermans, 1999). On this basis, Hermans argues that a systematic approach encourages “a functional and target orientated approach to translation”. As such, the theory of systems refers to ways of looking at translation theory and separating the theory from actual literary texts, which is clearly beyond the confines of linguistics (Hermans, 1999). To this end, Hermans extrapolates various forms of “descriptive” translation systems such as “Polysystem’s Sources”, “System, Ideology and Poetics” and “Translation as a Social System”, allowing the target audience of the translation text to follow the different aspects of the source text (Hermans, 1999). Therefore, Hermans posits that both descriptive and systematic approaches to translation are imperative in relation to appropriate methods of translation: “They challenge and replenish both theoretical speculation and text based research. They can be the critical conscience of translation studies, urging historical awareness as well as theoretical reflection” (Hermans 1999). As such, this highlights the need to approach translation depending on the nature and format of the text. Moreover, it is arguable that the systematic approach is particularly more appropriate with regard to literary texts; which supports the proposition that it is unrealistic and dogmatic to apply the same translation principles to all kinds of texts, which leads us to consider the role of equivalence theory. 3. Equivalence Theory, Diverging Forms and Leading Arguments 3.1. Overview It is often posited that the theory of equivalence is central to translation particularly in contemporary translation theory, which in turn has fuelled controversy and academic debate as well as variances of the equivalence theory. The central theorists in this field are Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House and Baker. The concept of what constitutes an appropriate approach to translation has fuelled multiple approaches leading to three central paradigms; namely linguistics, equivalence and the systematic branch. Moreover, Baker appears to adopt a compromise approach by commenting that equivalence is “used for the sake of convenience – because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status” (in Kenny, 1998:77). Alternatively, as highlighted above it is reiterated that solely applying a linguistics approach is inherently limited in failing to account for the fact that translation and the variances in texts is not solely a matter of linguistics. To this end, a clear advantage of the equivalence approach is the flexibility and ability to address the nature and format of the particular text. Additionally, it is arguable that the equivalence approach goes beyond the systematic approach in addressing the interrelationship of complex factors that must be taken into account when translating. 3.1. Vinay and Darbelnet’s Equivalence Paradigm Vinay and Darbelnet posit that equivalence-oriented translation “replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording” (1995, 342). To this end, the central justification for this theory is that equivalence enables the preservation of the source text in the final translated text, and therefore is the appropriate method to maintain the idiosyncrasies of the source text as regards use of proverbs, idioms, clichés, adjectives and other lexical devices such as onomatopoeia. Moreover, with regard to language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet posit that “full equivalents” should be utilised (1995, 255). Nevertheless, they acknowledge the need for flexibility in inserting the proviso that an idiomatic expression “can never be exhaustive” (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995: 256). Furthermore, the central basis for their support of the equivalence approach to translation is the assertion that “the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution” (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995: 255). It is argued that this assertion is vital and should be a crux of any translation approach. Indeed, they go as far as arguing that the semantic equivalent of an expression in the source text with reference to language dictionaries will not always be appropriate and can risk poor translation of the source text. They highlight this point with reference to the classic English expression “take one”, which would lose meaning in a literal translation into French, thereby reiterating the importance of context in the proper application of equivalence translation theory (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995: 256). 3.2. Jakobson’s Concept of Equivalence Leading translation theorist Jakobson reshaped the traditional theory of equivalence by proposing the concept of “equivalence in difference”, which is the semiological approach to interpreting language in translation. To this end, Jakobson asserts that “there is no signatum without signum” (1959: 232) and as a result proposes the following three methods of translation: “) Intralingual; 2) Interlingual; and 3) Intersemiotic - between sign systems”. With regard to intralingual translation, Jakobson argues that a common factor for a translator is the use of synonyms to convey the source text message. Therefore under the intralingual paradigm of equivalence there isn’t literal equivalence between the source text and translation text as “translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes” which arguably is an essential mantra in contemporary translation theory (Jakobson, 1959: 233). Moreover, Hervey et al are firm supporters of intralingual approach (Hervey, 1995:18). Furthermore, Jakobson acknowledges that grammatical differences are clearly expected yet do not prevent a translation equivalent and to this end posits that “whenever there is a deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan –transactions, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally by circumlocutions” (Jakobson, 1959:234). In supporting this proposition, Jakobson makes reference to English and Russian language structures and argues that where there is no literal equivalent to the source text word or phrase, the translator should then utilise the most suitable method to implement in the translation text (Jackobson, 1959). To this end, there are clearly parallels with Vinay and Darbelnet’s equivalence theory of translation as both support the proposition that if the linguistic approach utilised by a translator becomes inappropriate with regard to the particular source text, the translator should utilise other techniques such as loan-translations or newly coined word; thereby highlighting the flexibility of equivalence in referring to the meaning of equivalence in the result as embodied in the translation text. This further relates to the role of the translator and it is submitted that Jakobson’s semiotic approach to translation whereby translator should address the source text and meaning of the source text first and then convey the equivalent message in the source text highlights that essentially the source text is the paramount consideration dictating the eventual outcome in the translation text (Jakobson, 1999). 3.3. Nida & Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Leading theorist Nida is to a degree a supporter of the scientific approach to translation underlying the systematic approach. However, Nida’s support of the scientific approach goes beyond this in submitting two forms of equivalence; which are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence (Nida, 1964). Nida proposes the formal equivalence model as “focusing attention on the message itself, both in form and context” in contrast to dynamic equivalence, which is rooted in “the principle of equivalent effect” (1964:159). Furthermore, in the 1982 edition of Nida and Taber’s work, they elucidate in providing a comprehensive discussion of both equivalence models. With regard to formal correspondence, this arguably requires the translated text to be the closest equivalent to the source text phrase or word however there are clearly not always formal equivalents in language pairs and Hermans highlights the point that formal equivalents can lose meaning of the source text in translation. Therefore, in the formal equivalents model, Nida and Taber argue that consideration should be given to ensuring formal equivalence. Nevertheless, Fawcett has proposed caution with the formal equivalence model as this could result in the translated text being misunderstood by the target audience of the original source text author (Fawcett, 1997). However, Nida and Taber further argue that “Typically formally correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message” (Nida and Taber, 1982: 201). In contrast, dynamic equivalence is defined as an approach whereby the translation text translates the meaning of the source text in a way that the translation text results in the same impact on the audience as the original source text audience. To this end, Nida and Taber posit that “frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful” (Nida and Taber, 1982: 200). Moreover, it would appear from the text that Nida and Taber appear to prefer the dynamic model of equivalence as the appropriate form of translation particularly for example in context of Nida’s translation of the Bible where it is inherently imperative that the translation text have the same impact on different readers. Nevertheless, Nida and Taber highlight the point that “dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information” (Nida & Taber, 1982: 25). As such, this arguably mirrors Hermans’ systematic approach in addressing the importance of the need to convey the central message of the source text and the semantic quality in the translated text. 3.4. Catford and Translation Shifts In contrast to other equivalence theorists, Catford adopts what has been viewed as a more linguistic approach to translation equivalence and relies on the arguments of leading theorists Firth and Halliday. Moreover, Catford’s work pertaining to translation theory focuses on the nature of shifts in translation and postulates the following methods of translation: 1) Extent of translation in terms of full or partial; 2) Grammatical priority in translation equivalence; and 3) The levels of language in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation) (Catford, 1965); The grammatical priority in translation is the essential approach to equivalence and the concept of translation shifts as extrapolated by Catford, which is rooted in the distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. For example, in Catford’s reference to “rank-bound translation;” he refers to equivalent translation in terms of each word and in “unbounded translation”, equivalences are not tied to a particular rank and Catford posits five ranks or levels depending on the actual language. Therefore Catford argues that formal correspondence exists between language pairs with the same configuration and gives refers to English and French as a prime example. Accordingly, whilst a useful tool in linguistics, it is submitted that the problem with Nida’s formal correspondence equivalence is that it can create problems in translation equivalence between the source text and translation text, which lends itself support to Catford’s proposition of “textual equivalence” where the translated text or portion of the text “is observed on a particular occasion…. to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text” (Catford, 1965:27). Furthermore, Catford proposes that there should be commutation where “a competent bilingual informant or translator is consulted on the translation of various sentences whose SL items are changed in order to observe what changes if any occur in the TL text as a consequence” (Catford, 1965: 28). Additionally, in addressing translation shifts, Catford argues that these “are departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL” (Catford, 1965: 73). Catford argues that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts where the source text is on one linguistic level such as the grammar and has a translation equivalent at a different level and alternatively, category shifts which he divides as follows: 1) Structure-shifts – between the structure of the source text and translation text 2) Class shifts between grammatical classes such as verb translated as a noun; 3) Unit shifts – changing rank; and 4) Intra-system shifts, which occur when “SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system” (Catford, 1965: 80). A prime example is the source text singular becoming plural in the final translated text (Catford, 1965). However, this theory focuses on linguistics and has been much criticised as being circular (Snell-Hornby, 1988) who further attacked Catford’s theory as “hopelessly inadequate” (Snell-Hornby, 1988: 19-20). On the one hand, Snell-Hornby’s arguments are arguably dogmatic in ignoring Catford’s referral to the need to understand language structures in applying equivalence of the source text message. On the other hand, Snell-Hornby’s criticism highlights the point made in Section 1 regarding the importance of constant evolution of translation theory to address contemporary translation requirements and as such, arguably Catford’s theory whilst meritorious in aspects should be contextually considered in its historical backdrop. 3.5 House & the Overt/Covert Translation Paradigm In contrast, House adopts a practical equivalence approach to translation and posits that the source text and translation text should be equivalent in function and recognises that “a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function” (House, 1977: 49). An underlying basis for House’s theory of translation is rooted in the distinction between overt and covert translations. With regard to overt translation, the translated text audience is not directly addressed by the source text and therefore the overt translation must “overtly be a translation” (House, 1977:189). Conversely, the covert translation is “not specifically addressed to a TC audience” and therefore should be functionally equivalent (House, 1977: 194). For example, House posits an academic article should have the same arguments as if it originated in the translated text and a political speech is addressed to a particular culture and the translation will report what is being said and in latter case of overt translation cannot maintain functional equivalence (House, 1977: 203). As such, House’s theory of equivalence is more flexible as it sets out forms of source texts that would be applied to the covert/overt categories with the resulting translation text conveying the overriding function and purpose of the source text. 3.6. Baker and Translation equivalence Baker’s notion of translation equivalence considers the translation process, including the various aspects of translation. As such, Baker distinguishes between equivalence at word level and grammatical equivalence (Baker, 1992). With regard to word level equivalence Baker argues that the first approach of a translator should be to evaluate the words first and then consider the equivalents (Baker, 1992). Secondly, Baker argues that diverse grammatical categories and grammar rules are inherently different in different languages and therefore failure to address these variances can undermine the overall purpose of equivalence translation and result in source text and translation text being dramatically different (Baker, 1992). Accordingly, Baker highlights the point that ultimately the nature of the source text and its purpose should be the overriding influential factor in any approach to achieving equivalence in translation. Failure to do so could result in omission of important points with common errors involving the narrative voice, gender and verbs. Baker also makes a distinction with textual equivalence arguing that textual equivalence should refer to equivalence in sense of comprehension and analysis of the source text and consideration of context, target of audience, objective of translation and text type (Baker, 1992). Directly correlated to this is Baker’s pragmatic equivalence model, which acknowledges the need to adopt a pragmatic approach to equivalence in addressing implied meanings in the source text to recreate the author’s intention. 4. Conclusion The above analysis highlights the inherent complexities and problems facing translators particularly in the contemporary multi-format environment. In turn, this has fuelled numerous theories with regard to the appropriate approach to translation theory in practice. Whilst the systematic approach clearly has parallels with the equivalence approach in considering the science of language, it remains flexible. However, its central limitation is the influence of linguistics and it is submitted that whilst elements of linguistics are undoubtedly useful; overall, translation theory should be distinct from linguistic theory due to the need to consider the interrelationship of various factors such as text, culture and situational aspects when addressing equivalence in the translated text. Therefore, this highlights the limitation of using linguistics in translation as it involves different cultures and different situations On the other hand, the equivalence theoretical approach remains controversial and problematic and the diverging propositions under the umbrella of “equivalence;” arguably highlights the need to consider a possible theoretical framework for creating an applicable translation paradigm going forward. Nevertheless, elements of the equivalence approach have distinct advantages in recognising the need to address the source text objectives, variances of technique within a language and acknowledgement of considering implied meaning in the source text. However, it is submitted that the numerous variances in equivalence theory highlight how it is inappropriate to enforce one theory as being applicable to all types of translation, particularly in light of contemporary formats reshaping translation needs and requirements. This is further supported by the argument of Venuti that “a shared interesting a topic, however…. is no guarantee that what is acceptable as a theory in one field or approach will satisfy the conceptual requirements of a theory in others” (Venuti, 2004: 4). Accordingly, it is submitted that the appropriate approach to translation is intrinsically dependent on the context and nature of the text and ultimately should focus on ensuring that the translated text conveys the express and implied objectives of the source text. Bibliography Baker, Mona (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge Bernardo, A (2007). 20th Century Approaches to Translation – A Hsitoriographical Survey. Translation Studies, pp.83-99. Catford, John C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press Fawcett, Peter. (1997). Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Gentztler, Edwin (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories. Routledge. Hatim, Basil & Jeremy Munday (2004). Translation: an advanced resource book. Routledge. Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systematic Approaches Explained. United Kingdom: Jerome. Hervey, S., Higgins, I. and Haywood, L. M. (1992) Thinking Translation. London: Routledge. House, Julianne. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Kenny, Dorothy (1998). “Equivalence” in the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, London and New York: Routledge, 77-80. Jakobson, Roman (1959). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” in R.A. Brower (ed) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.232-239. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: theories and applications. Routledge. Newmark, P. (1991) About Translation: Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nida, Eugene A, and C. R. Taber (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill Nord, Christiane. (2005) Text analysis in translation: theory, methodology, and didactic application. Rodopi. Shuttleworth, M & M. Cowie (1997). Dictionary of Translation. Manchester: St Jerome Publications Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Steiner, G. (1998) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Venuti, L. (2004). The Translation Studies Reader, London: Routledge Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a methodology for Translation, translated by J. C. Sager and M. J. Hamel Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Read More