Translation and Linguistic Hybridity Quotes

“Verbal transposition often takes the form of inverted word order, unusual noun-verb or adjective-noun collocations, epizeuxis (a common characteristic of West African languages; see e.g. Zabus 2007:140) or literally translated idiomatic expressions such as in the following example:”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“On the level of signified object, iconic hybridity constitutes a subcategory of English, whereas symbolic hybridity constitutes a separate category.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“it represents a variety that in the narrative is portrayed as nonstandard and therefore is marked as such in the text. Symbolic hybridity, on the other hand, represents another language, not a language variety—or, more precisely, it represents what in the narrative is portrayed as the standard variety of this other language.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“due to its iconic quality (i.e. the representing language and the represented language are identical) iconic hybridity (i) signifies a norm departure and (ii) highlights in-betweenness. Symbolic hybridity, on the other hand, (i) signifies a norm and (ii) highlights otherness. This is”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Semino suggests using the term “ideational point of view” to “capture those aspects of world views that are social, cultural, religious or political in origin, and which an individual is likely to share with others belonging to similar social, cultural, religious or political groups” (2002:97). The term “mind-style”, on the other hand, should be reserved to “capture those aspects of world views that are primarily personal and cognitive in origin, and which are either peculiar to a particular individual, or common to people who have the same cognitive characteristics” (2002:97).”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Hence, the TT reader’s construction of the TT’s world-view will depend ultimately also on the translator’s world-view and the extent to which this world-view clashes with the world-view the translator inferred from the ST and the extent to which this clash is reflected in the TT.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Above I made the assumption that the reader will construct a world-view for the implied author. This assumption is presumably even more valid if the reader is also the translator. As Boase-Beier puts it, “translators have to know what they think the writer meant” (2011:90; emphasis added). Her”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“The more accentuated this awareness of reading a TT—that is, a mediated version of the words of the ST author—the more likely it is that the TT reader maps both the ST and the TT author (or characteristics of each one of them) onto the TT narrator. Some textual strategies,”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“In other words, the mapping process will depend on the TT reader’s awareness of reading a TT and, therefore, on the TT reader’s awareness of the translator’s presence in the discourse-world. This”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“When reading a ST, the reader will map the ST author onto the narrator (and vice versa). In Munday’s model, the ST reader/translator assumes the position in the TT that is occupied by the author in the ST. However, from this it does not necessarily follow that the TT reader will map the TT narrator onto the translator and vice versa, in analogy with the mapping process that occurs in the ST.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“TT shifts in linguistic hybridity can erase the narrator’s alignment with this particular culture. If no discordancy markers are present, this alignment is concordant (i.e. the default assumption). When the alignment is concordant and the TT erases the ST’s alignment, it simultaneously also erases the narrator’s sympathetic allegiance with this culture. Erasing the narrator’s sympathetic allegiance, as we have seen in the previous section, can in turn prevent the TT reader from forming a sympathetic response towards this culture on the level of allegiance.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“aligned text units by definition combine a figural and a narratorial perspective, then onto which narrative level do readers actually project their origo in aligned text segments? This issue has been”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“In Cohn’s terminology, discordant narration refers to a narration in which the author signals to the reader that s/he “intends his or her work to be understood differently from the way the narrator understands it” (2000:307). The”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“first level, which he terms recognition, “concerns the way in which we individuate and reidentify characters—that is, perceive them as unique and distinct from other characters, and as continuous across the narrative” (2005:97). Alignment, the second level of engagement, “describes the way in which our access to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of characters is controlled and organized” (2005:97). The third and highest level of engagement, allegiance, “describes an emotional reaction that arises out of the moral structuring of the film, that is, the way the film invites us to respond with regard to characters morally” (2005:97). In other words, “[w]hile alignment denotes our knowledge of a character’s actions, feelings, and states of mind, allegiance refers to our evaluation of and emotional response to such actions, feelings, and states of mind” (2005:97). Our”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Drawing on Booth, Jeremy Munday (2008:14) argues that “[i]f the author’s judgment is always present, then in translation so is the translator’s”. However, unless this presence of the translator is clearly marked as a translatorial intervention such as translator footnotes and prefaces—in other words, unless “the presence of an enunciating subject other than the Narrator becomes discernible in the translated text itself” (Hermans 1996:33; emphasis original)—it is most likely to “be read in isolation and judged as the unmediated words of the ST author” (Munday 2008:14). As Theo Hermans puts it, “given the dominant conception of transparent translation in modern fiction, the reader’s awareness of reading a translation lies dormant” (1996:33).”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Thus, a TT that normalizes ST hybridity, but on the other hand does not introduce TT hybridity in text segments that originally featured narratorial perspective, might comply less with Western stereotypes than a TT that violates target-language rules and norms and thus only translates the author’s subversion of the colonial language but not the narrative function that the absence or presence of linguistic hybridity plays in the ST. This”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“when translating experimental, polylingual texts such as those of the Evolutionists/Experimenters, linguistic hybridity might be added to the TT in an attempt to compensate for nontranslated linguistic hybridity in other text segments and thus, to preserve the text type. In the”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Attempting to pin down in which ways the language of translations differs from that of nontranslated texts in the same target language is the focus of corpus-based descriptive studies such as Jarle Ebeling 1998, Sara Laviosa 1998 and Linn Øverås 1998.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“[i]n those cases (especially in recent translations that owe a conceptual debt to Bakhtin and narratology) where editors and publishers have allowed translators to exercise more freedom, more true authority, voices within the translated novels have found more free play as well” (1994:5). Such”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Patrick Goethals and July De Wilde notice that “in comparison with the ST, in the TT the deictic center is more frequently anchored to the main narrated situation […], except when the narrating situation is explicitly referred to” (2009:791). They conclude that rather than showing a tendency towards anchoring the deictic centre to the level of narration, translators tend “to emphasize the most secure vantage point” (2009:792; emphasis original). Goethals and De Wilde are of the opinion that “the translational shifts are traces of the translator’s cognitive deictic center shift, i.e., the interpreter’s effort of adopting the vantage point of the […] voice(s) in the text” (2009:791). Whether the translator is oriented more towards the vantage point of a character or that of the narrator “is text-dependent” (2009:792). Hence,”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“translation can create linguistic hybridity in the form of source-language interference. This source-language interference might be deliberate (e.g. to convey the foreignness of the ST) or not (e.g. unconscious calquing). If the translator adds linguistic hybridity in the TT, a diegetic discourse-presentation category (i.e. ID or NRDA) or also narrative report (NR) might be transformed into a mimetic discourse-presentation category (i.e. MID, FID, DD, or FDD). This”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“not only that symbolic hybridity can signal perspective—both the language facet of perspective and, indirectly, the perception facet of perspective—but also that symbolic hybridity can only feature in specific discourse categories, namely those categories that can contain elements of the character’s discourse and thus have a mimetic quality. TT shifts in linguistic hybridity can therefore lead to TT shifts in discourse category and these discourse-category shifts in turn can trigger TT shifts in the language facet of perspective. The following discussion will illustrate this in more detail. For this, I will draw on Leech and Short’s (2007) as well as Brian McHale’s (1978) classification of speech and thought presentation. Leech and Short (2007:255ff.) distinguish the following five speech-presentation categories: Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA) Indirect Speech (IS) Free Indirect Speech (FIS) Direct Speech (DS) Free Direct Speech (FDS) For a detailed discussion of these five speech-presentation categories see Leech and Short 2007:255–270. McHale (1978:258–259) further subdivides indirect discourse into (i) “indirect content paraphrase” and (ii) “indirect discourse, mimetic to some degree”. Building on McHale, I will therefore distinguish between (i) indirect speech (IS) and (ii) mimetic indirect speech (MIS). Short (1996:293) refers to NRSA as “Narrative Representation of Speech Acts” rather than “Narrative Report of Speech Act” and adds another category, that of “Narrator’s Representation of Speech (NRS)”. NRS is the most minimalist form of speech presentation, as it “merely tells us that speech occurred” without “specify[ing] the speech act(s) involved”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“As the discussion in this chapter is predominantly concerned with TT shifts in representational hybridity, and as representational hybridity is linked to its speaker, that is, it is defined by its quality of representing the language of a character or—in the case of iconic hybridity—also an embodied narrator, it makes sense to postulate a separate language facet, as this is the facet where the absence or presence of linguistic hybridity can signal perspective, as long as we keep in mind (i) that the language facet does not necessarily belong to the same textual agent as the other facets of perspective and (ii) that TT shifts in the language facet can trigger TT shifts in other facets too. For”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“and what one reader might read as translational mimesis, another might read as the represented self-translation of an embodied textual agent or even as nonrepresentational hybridity and vice versa. In other words, the reading of an instance of linguistic hybridity on the level of text as nonrepresentational hybridity, symbolic hybridity or iconic hybridity is a cognitive construct based on the interaction of linguistic cues in the text on the one hand and our prior knowledge, assumptions and beliefs on the other hand. The”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Furthermore—and more importantly for the argument I develop here—in the case of this type of hybridity, we, as the readers, are expected to suspend our disbelief and imagine that these are the actual words spoken or thought by the character or the embodied narrator. Therefore, I”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Iconic hybridity, on the other hand, is the product of representing the self-translation performed by a character or an embodied narrator and therefore represents hybridity as object. The representation of this self-translation is immediate, or rather, it purports to be immediate. This verbatim reproduction is of course an illusion, as all speech and thought presentation is mediated by the narrator (see also Fludernik 2009:65). Furthermore,”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“refers to linguistic hybridity on the level of text that has no representational function within the narrative. In other words, it has no object: it is neither translational mimesis representing another language nor does it represent the self-translation of a character or an embodied narrator. It is characterized by the absence of a fictional translator. If,”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“Self-translation, therefore, can occur both on the level of story and on the level of narration. In both cases, the linguistic hybridity on the level of text represents translation as object. Example 2.1”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“translational mimesis always represents not only another language but also another’s speech or thought act. Therefore, translator and translatee cannot be the same textual agent. In other words, translational mimesis and represented self-translation are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, translator and translatee inhabit different narrative levels. Only a textual agent inhabiting a level of narration can present another textual agent’s speech or thought act. Hence, in the case of translational mimesis, the fictional translator has to be a narrator. This can be a heterodiegetic narrator, a homodiegetic narrator or—in the case of embedded narratives—an intradiegetic narrator. Heterodiegetic narrators”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View

“it is the character who performs the act of translation by switching from his native language, Igbo, to English. This self-translation occurs on the level of story and is represented on the level of text. Example 2.2, however, is a case of translational mimesis: it is the narrator who performs the translation of the character’s discourse and signals the event of this translation through the use of hybrid language. This act of translation occurs on the level of narration. What both cases have in common is the fact that (i) the translator is a textual agent and (ii) that the translation occurs not on the level of text, but on a deeper narrative level. We can therefore construct the notion of what I will call the fictional translator, for want of a better term. This fictional translator inhabits the story-world or the level of narration—both in the ST and, provided no TT shift occurs when the ST is translated into another language, also in the TT. In other words, the fictional translator can be either a narrator or a character.”
― Susanne Klinger, Translation and Linguistic Hybridity: Constructing World-View